Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If we are ranking them by individual neighborhoods in isolation, Baltimore handily walks away with this.
I know Walk Score isn’t perfect but it’s not coincidental that Baltimore has 24 neighborhoods that have a +90 score and another 34 with a +80 score where as the other cities well, don’t.
I agree and clearly there's an unfamiliarity with the city when it's such a close voting process.
Baltimore has a Subway system, Light Rail system and a Regional Rail system as well as Commuter Bus routes.
[quote=Joakim3;66386478]Baltimore's MSA is more than large/dense enough to justify a comprehensive RST network, but you don't need 7-8 lines to properly serve a city with the geographic footprint of Brooklyn, but the reason Baltimore & Atlanta don't have large/larger systems are vastly different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Despite Baltimore's MSA being half the size, central Baltimore is still denser than Atlanta (1.3 million vs. 1 million in a 10 mile radius centered on downtown), more uniformly urban and whose existing rail network is directly integrated with the NEC. State administration has habitually chopped Baltimore at the knees to funnel state/federal funding to Montgomery Co because it's the largest county by population, and votes matter.
Yes, Baltimore City is much denser and smaller than Atlanta, the city. Much, if not most, of Atlanta's in-city residential areas a comparable to typical American suburbs. A few dense areas have sprung up or densified in/around MARTA stations -- mainly along the Peachtree branches north of downtown. And in the case of Buckhead, the urbanized development is extreme.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Atlanta doesn't have a DC sized system, simply because DC has over twice the amount of people as Atlanta in that same 10 mile radius and it never had a dense core until after federal funding for transit dried up.
I can verify your stats, but I also won't contradict them... But MARTA lacks DC's Metro, in terms of size (and, of course ridership), for a host of reasons, the main one, at least as I see it, is DC being the seat of the very source funding it: the Federal Government, and with the pols themselves often needing and/or using it (if the pols don't ride, many, if not most, of their staffs do).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Nobody is saying Baltimore would have a DC Metro or SF BART-sized system, it wouldn't just on size alone. But saying it couldn't/wouldn't have a comprehensive (or at least better than what's there now) is not stretching any truths especially when there was more or less self sabotage at the state level.
You're seriously misquoting me. I never said Baltimore would have a DC/BART-sized system. I merely cited them as 2 rare exceptions to the rule because of their unique circumstances. I also never said Baltimore couldn't/wouldn't have a comprehensive rapid transit system. America has determined, not without some justification, that a solid LRT, with sufficient grade separation in part, can provide a strong enough alternative to full-blown, grade-separated HRT, which given America's aversion to elevated structures, can only exist 3 forms: subway (the most expensive), RR rights of way and freeway mediums, the latter 2 of which often do not pass through or promote TOD or walkable neighborhoods. It is why LA, despite being by far the 2nd most populous metro area, has only 2 HRT lines, but a half-dozen LRT lines, which are the workhorses of LA's rail transit network.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
71 miles is not a behemoth system in size, it's just absurdly expensive (in the US) to build.
Bingo! That is why, by American standards, a 71-mile heavy rail rapid transit (HRT) is a behemoth, esp for a compact city, and less sprawling suburban area (at least by American standards). in this country, only 2 non-mega core cities (ie New York and Chicago) have systems even over 60 miles: DC's Metro and BART. period.
By the way, Baltimore has something that Atlanta sorely lacks: commuter rail lines, including the electrified NEC line into DC. Metro Atlanta sorely needs commuter rail but the locals keep balking at it. While I'm not certain as to why commuter rail keeps getting stalled, it's quite obvious that race is a, if not THE, driving force behind suburbanites' continued rejection of expanded MARTA rail deeper into Atlanta's suburbs.
I can verify your stats, but I also won't contradict them... But MARTA lacks DC's Metro, in terms of size (and, of course ridership), for a host of reasons, the main one, at least as I see it, is DC being the seat of the very source funding it: the Federal Government, and with the pols themselves often needing and/or using it (if the pols don't ride, many, if not most, of their staffs do).
DC - 2.185 million
Baltimore - 1.297 million
Atlanta - 1.037 million
Central DC has the second largest influx of commuters in the nation outside of Manhattan so it's more a scale thing than industry specific. Baltimore & Atlanta both have roughly 1/3rd the inflow of commuters into the city proper for work, so the majority of the riders on their transit system tend to be city residents, not workers coming from the burbs. The DC metro was paid with 67% federal money and 33% local money so a substantial portion came from Maryland & Virginia and there was massive push back for it because the DC region was considered too suburban during the 60's to justify building a HRT system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
You're seriously misquoting me. I never said Baltimore would have a DC/BART-sized system. I merely cited them as 2 rare exceptions to the rule because of their unique circumstances. I also never said Baltimore couldn't/wouldn't have a comprehensive rapid transit system. America has determined, not without some justification, that a solid LRT, with sufficient grade separation in part, can provide a strong enough alternative to full-blown, grade-separated HRT, which given America's aversion to elevated structures, can only exist 3 forms: subway (the most expensive), RR rights of way and freeway mediums, the latter 2 of which often do not pass through or promote TOD or walkable neighborhoods. It is why LA, despite being by far the 2nd most populous metro area, has only 2 HRT lines, but a half-dozen LRT lines, which are the workhorses of LA's rail transit network.
Thank you for clarifying.
That being said, Baltimore is still aiming at HRT over LRT as either option requires extensive tunneling and using the pre-existing Green Line tunnel that runs under UMD, Downtown, Jonestown & Hopkins would allow the Red Line to use the same rolling stock as the Green.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
Bingo! That is why, by American standards, a 71-mile heavy rail rapid transit (HRT) is a behemoth, esp for a compact city, and less sprawling suburban area (at least by American standards). in this country, only 2 non-mega core cities (ie New York and Chicago) have systems even over 60 miles: DC's Metro and BART. period.
Baltimore's wouldn't be 71 miles and its UA/Metro is less compact than SD, LV, Denver or Portland. It's the central cities infrastructure linked with the NEC that allowed the whole HRT discussion to be taken serious.
The 2022 drafted plan would break down as followed (if built to HRT spec)
Yellow - 10.5 miles / 9 stations
Red - 19.1 miles / 25 stations (portion of route is BRT)
Green - 15.4 miles / 14 stations
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProf
By the way, Baltimore has something that Atlanta sorely lacks: commuter rail lines, including the electrified NEC line into DC. Metro Atlanta sorely needs commuter rail but the locals keep balking at it. While I'm not certain as to why commuter rail keeps getting stalled, it's quite obvious that race is a, if not THE, driving force behind suburbanites' continued rejection of expanded MARTA rail deeper into Atlanta's suburbs.
Different demographics. There are way more people in Metro Atlanta who oppose transit then their are in Metro Baltimore (not saying metro Baltimore doesn't have it's fair share of NIMBY)
Baltimore does have a lot of modes of service and that can be pretty good though need quite a bit of work. The combined ridership of these, and the regular bus service which is absolutely the backbone of its transit network, puts Baltimore about mid pack in this tier when it comes to transit ridership.
I think Baltimore should be towards the top of this list and has reasonable arguments for the top, but I do not think it handily walks away with this.
Different demographics. There are way more people in Metro Atlanta who oppose transit then their are in Metro Baltimore (not saying metro Baltimore doesn't have it's fair share of NIMBY)
The northern arc of Atlanta suburbs has a high proportion of White/Asian population who are more conservative (Gwinnett is the diverse county becoming more liberal), but these areas don't want Marta in their neighborhood. Gwinnett has the best chance of passing Marta but it failed the last time it was on the ballot (I think 2020).
By the way, Baltimore has something that Atlanta sorely lacks: commuter rail lines, including the electrified NEC line into DC. Metro Atlanta sorely needs commuter rail but the locals keep balking at it. While I'm not certain as to why commuter rail keeps getting stalled, it's quite obvious that race is a, if not THE, driving force behind suburbanites' continued rejection of expanded MARTA rail deeper into Atlanta's suburbs.
Especially with MARC, Baltimore is like an extension of the DC/WMATA plus VRE network.
Yeah, it would be nice if Atlanta had CRT and almost did in ClayCo, but the cancellation of that pretty much eliminated any chance of it ever happening. It's actually one of the very few large cities without commuter rail as cities like SLC, Orlando, Nashville, Austin, and even Albuquerque/Santa Fe have it.
Yes, there was a period, esp in the small Ford and 4-year Carter Administrations (even Nixon, under whose administration DC Metro was green-lighted, IIRC) where the Feds were much more freely funding new-start rapid transit systems. But let's be real: Baltimore was never realistically going to build a 7-8 line, 71+ mile all-heavy rail rapid transit network. Just because the city proposed it doesn't mean it was going to happen. Atlanta, whose metro area is nearly double Baltimore's, has only, to date, managed to build a heavy-rail network just over half that size.
Consider that, of the mega rapid-rail heavy rail systems born of that era, only DC Metro and SF's BART reached and exceeded their gaudy expectations... And both these 2 metro areas had unique circumstances. DC was both in the midst of a meteoric growth in population (both in terms of people and corporations) while, more importantly, being the nation's capital, whereby all the national pols funding WMATA and Metrorail lived there, used and/or benefited from the system.
Metro San Francisco is a huge, sprawling, and growing area. It is hosted by San Francisco which, itself, is the 2nd most densely populated city in America behind NYC whereby both the City and metropolitan area were faced with unique and challenging geographic hurdles: the bay, the mountainous hills, etc.
Baltimore, while being both historic, dense, and walkable, is absolutely worthy of substantial rapid transit -- certainly, more than it currently has was no way in line to build the 71+ mile behemoth proposed.
But BART is not on the same level as DC Metro - take it from someone who grew up in the Bay Area and rode it all the time. It's primarily suburban and has poor coverage in the denser urban parts of the metro area. More of a commuter rail/HRT hybrid. Ridership per vehicle revenue mile is abysmal. Areas as dense as SF and Oakland/Berkeley deserve a true urban subway system and that's not what they have.
But BART is not on the same level as DC Metro - take it from someone who grew up in the Bay Area and rode it all the time. It's primarily suburban and has poor coverage in the denser urban parts of the metro area. More of a commuter rail/HRT hybrid. Ridership per vehicle revenue mile is abysmal. Areas as dense as SF and Oakland/Berkeley deserve a true urban subway system and that's not what they have.
I think BART in San Francisco does essentially function as a rapid transit system since multiple services interline in SF proper, but it essentially has just the one line.
I think a simple thing BART can do is to run the Orange Line at roughly double the frequency that it currently does at all times.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,486 posts, read 15,004,545 times
Reputation: 7333
For Atlanta, there is a far larger area than Midtown you could live in car free. In fact, you can live car free pretty much anywhere ITP without much trouble (though your mileage may very how easy that is based on how close you work or live near a train station.)
Despite MARTA not extending far into the suburbs, it does serve the core of the city exceptionally well. There are 38 stops in the MARTA rail system, 100+ of bus lines, and one sad streetcar line (but more to come over the next several years). Every single major business district (Downtown, Midtown, Buckhead, Perimeter Center, the Airport) are served by multiple stations/lines as well as every University in the city (Georgia State, Georgia Tech, the AUC), every K-12 school, the airport, and every other place one would need to go. While you'll hear suburbanites and even people intown complain about coverage, it's the 7th most used system in the country so it's hardly slacking.
While that is all good, there are challenges to living car free in Atlanta that have nothing to do with transit coverage. The weather goes through wild swings in Atlanta and we get an ungodly amount of rain each year. Even when you live and work in close proximity to a rail station that element is challenging for even the most hearty of individuals and doesn't even include the 3 months of the year when Atlanta is located on the surface of the sun. Add in the hills, really poor urban planning in the mid-20th century, and the scars from Jim Crow still haunt us and throw up obstacles. Even the terrain is against us as Atlanta is a extremely hilly city, making cycling for long distances a challenge for anyone not in tip top shape.
While it's not without it's challenges, plenty of people live car free here either by choice or economic circumstance. I personally didn't own a car until i was in my early 30s...and the only reason I purchased one was because my spouse wanted to start taking road trips. Most of the time I'm either walking (I live in an urban neighborhood) or taking the train if I head to the office (which is rare these days since going fully remote during the pandemic.)
Disclaimer: This statement is purely about the City of Atlanta. It is an entirely different subject when you bring in the suburban counties. The only suburban county that you can live car free in her is Dekalb, and it's contiguous with the city of Atlanta for a good chunk of it and it's hard to tell that you aren't in Atlanta proper unless you were told or already knew.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
