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.
I think that outside of SanFran/Bay Area Atlanta has better rapid transit than any of the transit systems on the West Coast. This is based on Atlanta's MARTA systems ability to get you to important Atlanta destinations in a hurry and the fact that it has heavier ridership than any transit rail line outside the East Coast or Chicago except for the Bay Area.
What's your opinion. Check these out for starters.
Here are some more images of Atlanta's MARTA system. The most heavily ridden rail system outside the East Coast and Chicago or Bay Area.
Quick correction: MARTA is the most heavily ridden HEAVY RAIL system outside of the East Coast, Chicago, or Bay Area.
The Los Angeles Metro carries a few thousand more on its heavy rail and light rail system, however Los Angeles' heavy rail carries less than Atlanta's. A separate agency operating commuter rail in Los Angeles adds a few more thousand if we are talking ALL forms of rail.
I think your intention was to focus just on heavy rail though.
I do not get this thread... For one, why ATL and SEA are being compared, two, why you have a totally one sided homerific post, then expect us to pick. I went with Seattle just for that.
I voted for Seattle! Why???? Pretty impressive that Seattle manages to have higher public transportation ridership than Atlanta and is doesn't even have heavy rail. They are doing something right there for that to happen and the people embrace public transport there more.
Yes, why compare a city with an established heavy rail system to a city that just started limited light rail, unless you were just trying to call attention to ATL? IMO, this thread doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Yes, why compare a city with an established heavy rail system to a city that just started limited light rail, unless you were just trying to call attention to ATL? IMO, this thread doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
I have to agree and I live in Atlanta. There really should be equal time given to the two cities. A more direct comparison however, might be to compare Seattle with Charlotte NC, as both of them have new light rail systems that are about the same age and size.
Atlanta's heavy rail was considered to be quite extensive in the early 1980s when I moved here considering the size of the city, but in recent years expansion has lagged a good bit, while the Atlanta metro nearly doubled in size from 2 million in 1984 to 5.2 million now (and we still don't have commuter rail at all). Even with the economy going bust, Atlanta is still adding about 25,000 people per year the last couple of years to the metro area (as opposed to up to 150,000 a year previously).
It would probably be more equal to compare Atlanta's rail system to those that are vaguely the same age and type, notely that in Miami (http://www.miamidade.gov/transit/metrorailstations.asp - broken link) (of which Atlanta's is better), and DC's Metro (which has much more coverage than Atlantas). I personally don't judge a system on how many people ride it - I judge it on how many places it can take me without having to transfer to buses or use a cab from a rail station.
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.
