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.
MARTA looks good on paper, but thats it. Let's be real, nobody who isn't impoverished is taking MARTA (unless for sports, airport, or to the malls). The way the system is laid out is impratical for everyday use. Most of the stations are dead zones with miles of surface parking. I live in Atlanta any nobody I know takes MARTA as an everyday thing.
Your pick of LA is the same, if not worse. Pre-pandemic the LA Metro was already losing riders that had an income (median household income, not individual, was <$20,000) and since the pandemic anyone with any other option has abandoned LA metro. I've been a huge LA Metro booster and a daily rider for years. I now tell people to avoid it because it is unsafe and unsanitary with seemingly no rules still enforced and people openly taking drugs and smoking meth on trains. It's become a safe space for drug addicts.
LA is a better system than Atlanta's now--bigger and growing faster.
Los Angeles has a decently rapid expansion happening with their rail system. And the future plans for expansion of the system, look incredible.
Athough not as popular as it should be, the future expansions--if all is constructed--will result in the system being the 3rd best in the country, after NYC and Chicago.
Atlanta will hopefully expand soon too--which is long, long overdue.
LA is a better system than Atlanta's now--bigger and growing faster.
Los Angeles has a decently rapid expansion happening with their rail system. And the future plans for expansion of the system, look incredible.
Athough not as popular as it should be, the future expansions--if all is constructed--will result in the system being the 3rd best in the country, after NYC and Chicago.
Atlanta will hopefully expand soon too--which is long, long overdue.
DC will be in the mix somewhere. I think that's the number 2 system now, not chicago.
DC's metro has more miles, riders, and is faster. I think that the best argument that Chicago is better is Metra commuter rail. They're pretty close and I agree that WMATA is poor at maintenance and oversight, but I think that DC is slightly ahead in my personal opinion. I can appreciate why others might think differently.
I would go with the DC Metro, even though I love Chicago's CTA. OK, so Metro has had a few growing pains, such as a few fires... that's not an everyday occurrence and Metro has addressed these. Also, I suppose the previous poster wasn't around in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when Chicagoland had 3 horrific accidents: the 1972 Metra Electric commuter rail crash killing 45; the 1977 Loop L crash, when 1 train bumped another off the L structure killing 11 (including 1 pedestrian crushed on the ground, and the South Shore commuter rail crash on a gauntlet (single track) bridge: killing 7. Nobody talked about avoiding Chicago's great rail network because of these horrible accidents.
Also, the DC is more modern and faster than the L, but more importantly, the Chicago and DC rail networks are roughly equal in rail mileage (Chicago has more commuter rail mileage, but the difference isn't huge), but DC's metro area is around half the size of Chicago's, with the DC central city being an even smaller fraction of Chicago's massive size.
DC's metro has more miles, riders, and is faster. I think that the best argument that Chicago is better is Metra commuter rail. They're pretty close and I agree that WMATA is poor at maintenance and oversight, but I think that DC is slightly ahead in my personal opinion. I can appreciate why others might think differently.
That ain't beanbag.
That "poor maintenance and oversight" has cost lives. WMATA Metrorail has had more fatality mishaps and crashes in the 45 years since its first segment opened than any of the four big legacy systems that preceded it (New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, listed in order of the year their first rapid transit line of any kind opened) have had since they opened more than a century ago, I believe (I don't have the exact figures handy).
The Washington Times ran a huge exposé of WMATA's slacker safety culture and CYA management style in 2010, after the horrific Takoma Red Line crash that revealed that the track detector circuits that keep trains safely apart hadn't been maintained properly. I know WMATA played a good game of catch-up after that, but the problems plaguing the 7000-series Kawasaki railcars, revealed in a thankfully non-fatal derailment near Roslyn station, suggest that the agency hasn't really made the deep reforms needed to keep riders as safe as they can be.
Washington does have the second-busiest metro system in the country, behind only New York. But how safe it is remains a more open question than it should be.
I would go with the DC Metro, even though I love Chicago's CTA. OK, so Metro has had a few growing pains, such as a few fires... that's not an everyday occurrence and Metro has addressed these. Also, I suppose the previous poster wasn't around in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when Chicagoland had 3 horrific accidents: the 1972 Metra Electric commuter rail crash killing 45; the 1977 Loop L crash, when 1 train bumped another off the L structure killing 11 (including 1 pedestrian crushed on the ground, and the South Shore commuter rail crash on a gauntlet (single track) bridge: killing 7. Nobody talked about avoiding Chicago's great rail network because of these horrible accidents.
Also, the DC is more modern and faster than the L, but more importantly, the Chicago and DC rail networks are roughly equal in rail mileage (Chicago has more commuter rail mileage, but the difference isn't huge), but DC's metro area is around half the size of Chicago's, with the DC central city being an even smaller fraction of Chicago's massive size.
Fair enough: I had forgotten about the period in the 1980s and 1990s when the CTA system was in worse shape than Washington's. ISTR reading about a Blue Line train that had derailed in the tunnel under Milwaukee Avenue while standing still because the tracks had spread out from under the wheels; I also STR that at that time, slow orders were the rule rather than the exception over the entire 'L' network.
That "poor maintenance and oversight" has cost lives. WMATA Metrorail has had more fatality mishaps and crashes in the 45 years since its first segment opened than any of the four big legacy systems that preceded it (New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, listed in order of the year their first rapid transit line of any kind opened) have had since they opened more than a century ago, I believe (I don't have the exact figures handy).
The Washington Times ran a huge exposé of WMATA's slacker safety culture and CYA management style in 2010, after the horrific Takoma Red Line crash that revealed that the track detector circuits that keep trains safely apart hadn't been maintained properly. I know WMATA played a good game of catch-up after that, but the problems plaguing the 7000-series Kawasaki railcars, revealed in a thankfully non-fatal derailment near Roslyn station, suggest that the agency hasn't really made the deep reforms needed to keep riders as safe as they can be.
Washington does have the second-busiest metro system in the country, behind only New York. But how safe it is remains a more open question than it should be.
I agree with all of that. LACMTA and I think a few others have the same train communication system as WMATA. When DC Metro had the crash a few years ago that was caused by faulty communications and they had to shut down to inspect everything they found issues. LACMTA did the same without shutting down and found no similar issues and iirc the entire issue only impacted WMATA and was attributed to poor maintenance. The problem with the 7000 series cars also appears to be self-inflicted by them spec'ing the wrong wheel tolerance that the manufacturer even questioned.
And all of this with a relatively new system and newer equipment. If they don't straighten things out, it's going to get even worse. It seems to be a cultural problem. The recent issue where a train went the wrong way down the tracks was partially attributed to a supervisor streaming TV and not paying attention.
LA is a better system than Atlanta's now--bigger and growing faster.
Los Angeles has a decently rapid expansion happening with their rail system. And the future plans for expansion of the system, look incredible.
Athough not as popular as it should be, the future expansions--if all is constructed--will result in the system being the 3rd best in the country, after NYC and Chicago.
Atlanta will hopefully expand soon too--which is long, long overdue.
Yeah. No way will LA metro come close to WMATA’s DC metro. Maybe if their system was heavy rail like the Red & Purple Line and was mostly underground.
Comparing light rail trains that have to wait on red lights at vehicle intersections and seemingly travel much slower than heavy rail is a Choice. It’s a shame LA couldn’t do mostly heavy rail.
I personally think DC Metro is better than the L and the transfers between the lines and I think DC metro has incredible TOD. Seemingly every station (in Virginia, DC & Montgomery County MD) is like a walkable downtown with there being a quite a few “major” downtowns such as Bethesda, etc. PG County could’ve done better with TOD.
I chose Denver for this poll. LA is my 2nd choice and MARTA 3
Last edited by Charlotte485; 01-02-2022 at 06:02 PM..
I would go with the DC Metro, even though I love Chicago's CTA. OK, so Metro has had a few growing pains, such as a few fires... that's not an everyday occurrence and Metro has addressed these. Also, I suppose the previous poster wasn't around in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s when Chicagoland had 3 horrific accidents: the 1972 Metra Electric commuter rail crash killing 45; the 1977 Loop L crash, when 1 train bumped another off the L structure killing 11 (including 1 pedestrian crushed on the ground, and the South Shore commuter rail crash on a gauntlet (single track) bridge: killing 7. Nobody talked about avoiding Chicago's great rail network because of these horrible accidents.
Also, the DC is more modern and faster than the L, but more importantly, the Chicago and DC rail networks are roughly equal in rail mileage (Chicago has more commuter rail mileage, but the difference isn't huge), but DC's metro area is around half the size of Chicago's, with the DC central city being an even smaller fraction of Chicago's massive size.
Just did a quick search on this - Chicago has 75% more miles of commuter rail than DC.:
MARC: 187 mi.
VRE: 90 mi. Combined: 277 mi.
Metra: 488 mi.
However I agree that WMATA is more modern and faster (and probably a more pleasant experience all around).
As regards the thread topic, I'd go with LA Metro.
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.
