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.
Yet another idiotic post with a poor understanding of how a PT system works and what makes one better than another. Basically this thread was started from someone who has no idea what they're talking about. LA's transit system is a JOKE compared to NYC's, which is far and away the best in the country. Which is why everyone in LA owns a car.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Another way to look at this is by daily transit ridership trips for all forms of PT for these cities, or as I call it, the best metric for looking at how effective a transit system is and all others be damned.
1. New York City/Northern New Jersey - 12,203,000
2. Chicago - 2,042,900
3. Los Angeles - 1,426,900
4. Washington DC - 1,372,500
5. Philadelphia - 1,221,270
6. Boston - 1,220,200
7. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose - 1,166,200
8. Atlanta - 421,200
9. Miami - 347,200
10. San Diego -269,000
11. Houston - 270,700
12. Dallas - 188,000
Another way to look at this is by daily transit ridership trips for all forms of PT for these cities, or as I call it, the best metric for looking at how effective a transit system is and all others be damned.
1. New York City/Northern New Jersey - 12,203,000
2. Chicago - 2,042,900
3. Los Angeles - 1,426,900
4. Washington DC - 1,372,500
5. Philadelphia - 1,221,270
6. Boston - 1,220,200
7. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose - 1,166,200
8. Atlanta - 421,200
9. Miami - 347,200
10. San Diego -269,000
11. Houston - 270,700
12. Dallas - 188,000
Agree, or even this metric coupled with a ratio to the population (to me Boston is a little step above Philly for example, while ridership is the same the % or population using is higher in Boston etc.)
LA is shown to have 99% coverage or whatever yet only 10% use it etc.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Agree, or even this metric couple with a ratio to the population
LA is shown to have 99% coverage or whatever yet only 10% use it etc.
I wanted to do a comparison of the service area population measured against that metric, but I'm not certain of what that would be for each metro without some deep research. Maybe later.
With that said, I think it would probably look like this:
1. NYC
2. Washington DC
3. Chicago
4. Boston
5. Philadelphia
6. San Francisco
7. Atlanta
8. Miami
9. Los Angeles
10. San Diego
11. Houston
12. Dallas
Those are both opinions. I would never recommend some one move to LA, Atlanta, Miami, San Jose, etc w/o a car...unless of course you want to be a social pariah. Where as if somebody was moving to Manhattan, it would behoove them to NOT bring a car.
Agree or disagree?
Coverage is NOT coverage. That sounds like somebody arguing for walmart or something, "food is just food ya'll", "clothes are just clothes". It's also like saying people in the ghetto have "access to food" because there happens to be a corner store with cheetos, bread and milk there. Quality, Mode, Location matter just as much.
Furthermore, people with no car ownership, especially at a certain income threshold is a much better quantifier of how a city's public transportation is actually useful than the extremely vague "access" you are trying to posture.
Now if that is NOT what you are trying to posture, you have some serious explaining to do as to what point you are trying to make here. I think most posters on here would like to know what exactly your point is supposed to be, I'm assuming you DO have some point, albeit it might be delusional, given you took the time to create a new thread for it. So what is it?
It depends what part of LA, Miami, and Atlanta they move to.
Did anybody bother to read the actual study and see exactly what's being measured here and the methodology used? Brookings is known for very solid research backing their studies and I think people have the wrong idea about what the study is all about.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,990,056 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Did anybody bother to read the actual study and see exactly what's being measured here and the methodology used? Brookings is known for very solid research backing their studies and I think people have the wrong idea about what the study is all about.
You are quite right. In my haste I forgot to also point out that this study is for public transit access for households that do not own a car. It is not a study of public transit access for metropolitan areas as a whole. In that regard, it isn't surprising that Los Angeles has the highest percentage of coverage for households without a car given that in Los Angeles the chances of someone not owning a car outside the city of Los Angeles or Los Angeles county is pretty slim.
Did anybody bother to read the actual study and see exactly what's being measured here and the methodology used? Brookings is known for very solid research backing their studies and I think people have the wrong idea about what the study is all about.
Another way to look at this is by daily transit ridership trips for all forms of PT for these cities, or as I call it, the best metric for looking at how effective a transit system is and all others be damned.
1. New York City/Northern New Jersey - 12,203,000
2. Chicago - 2,042,900
3. Los Angeles - 1,426,900
4. Washington DC - 1,372,500
5. Philadelphia - 1,221,270
6. Boston - 1,220,200
7. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose - 1,166,200
8. Atlanta - 421,200
9. Miami - 347,200
10. San Diego -269,000
11. Houston - 270,700
12. Dallas - 188,000
Where did you get your transit numbers from? DCs doesn't include Montgomery counties ride on bus that has 90,000 in daily bus ridership. It also doesn't have PG, Alexandria, Arlington, or Fairfax Counties bus systems.
These are actuals reported by the transit systems themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
DCs doesn't include Montgomery counties ride on bus that has 90,000 in daily bus ridership. It also doesn't have PG, Alexandria, Arlington, or Fairfax Counties bus systems.
That was not added as it appears those systems do not report their numbers to APTA.
Also, were are you getting that 90,000 daily ridership figure from? Not saying it is wrong, but as far as I could tell Ride On does not report it's transit figures. The closest to that number I could find to that number was a press release from a few months ago that stated on May 7th they had over 100,000 trips, but they didn't say what a regular day was like.
Needless to say, adding in those numbers wouldn't change the outlook either way dramatically. Also, in that calculation it does not account for the myriad of transit systems available outside the main systems for most metros. Many of the smaller suburban transit systems do not keep adequate records of their ridership or at least do not publish them in an easily found way for the public.
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.
