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.
That list is false if NY isn't Number 1 then something is wrong. LA should be Number 6 , San Jose should be 15# , Miami should be 10# , Houston that is laughable , Atlanta is above Dallas , Boston is ahead of Philly , DC and SF are tied.
Um. . . you're extremely off topic. Lol this isn't about ridership.
Okay Htown good post but you did post/type/say it wrong in some of your post. Or maybe people just misconstrued the info. Regardless this is for Metro Areas people. It's not NYC specifically but the ENTIRE metro.
L.A doesn't have more coverage/access to PT over NYC in general but as a metro it does, according to the stats.
Lastly though according to the link, Honolulu is actually 1st.
Bostonians have easy access to the PT system in Boston proper, even those in RI and NH have access to PT into the city for employment/commuting purposes. New York, Chicago, Bay Area, and D.C all seem to have extensive systems whether bus or rail for commuting convenience.
Um. . . you're extremely off topic. Lol this isn't about ridership.
Okay Htown good post but you did post/type/say it wrong in some of your post. Or maybe people just misconstrued the info. Regardless this is for Metro Areas people. It's not NYC specifically but the ENTIRE metro.
L.A doesn't have more coverage/access to PT over NYC in general but as a metro it does, according to the stats.
Lastly though according to the link, Honolulu is actually 1st.
I think people will always try to make it what it isn't.
And yes, Honolulu is first but I only picked the really large metros.
It is funny when people say things that the list is false if NY is not number one though.
It is laughable because they don't care what it is and don't care to take the time to find out what it is. They just have it in their minds that it must be flawed if NY is not number one.
Bostonians have easy access to the PT system in Boston proper, even those in RI and NH have access to PT into the city for employment/commuting purposes. New York, Chicago, Bay Area, and D.C all seem to have extensive systems whether bus or rail for commuting convenience.
yes, but again the data does not go into ease of access. It does not take into consideration the mode or method of transportation at all. It looks as access by those without a car, not ease of access.
I think people will always try to make it what it isn't.
And yes, Honolulu is first but I only picked the really large metros.
It is funny when people say things that the list is false if NY is not number one though.
It is laughable because they don't care what it is and don't care to take the time to find out what it is. They just have it in their minds that it must be flawed if NY is not number one.
LMAO
I admit I saw the first post and was like
Then I clicked the link and read for a few and understood.
It just seemed like you were saying L.A has better access to PT. Period. But I understand the post now. Lol
So I dug this one up - the thread got derailed by a bunch of banned posters.
This study is not bunk at all, if those jerks had actually read the study (By the Brookings Institute, which is highly respected) they would see that it doesn't say LA has a better system than NY. Not by a long shot.
Some of the stuff that stood out to me as I read it:
1.) I find it interesting that LA, Chicago and Philly are so close to each other in terms of percentage of carless homes in the metro:
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 2,093,861 28.0%
Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 399,927 5.3%
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 358,705 4.8%
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 310,583 4.1%
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 223,207 3.0%
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 195,997 2.6%
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 193,558 2.6%
2.) It would be interesting to see how much of a percentage of that is in each metro's city proper (I'm not sure it would change much).
"61.7 percent of all zero-vehicle households live in
the 132 primary cities of the 100 largest metropolitan areas."
2.) It would also be interesting to see the income levels of these carless households (I think Chicago would separate itself there).
"Throughout the 100 metropolitan areas, 59.8 percent of zero-vehicle households have incomes below 80 percent of the median income for their metro area. The share is essentially the same across cities (59.8 percent) and suburbs (59.7 percent)."
3.) It was mentioned before in this thread (I think by KidPhilly) that job access by public transportation is important as well.
This is not what I expected to see when I looked up to info. LA is right there with the other two.
One thing to note is that cities that are certainly car-dependent and do not have good systems are atop the list of job access... Fresno?
The weird qualifier is that this study is for zero-vehicle households. I think there might be a study by Brookings that is similar but for all homes (I think the results are actually fairly similar).
One major factor that is really the elephant in the room is the culture of a region in regards to public transportation and the perception of the system. There are many cities that have low numbers of ridership with extensive systems because of the perception of the system. That is the elephant in the room. Transit doesn't matter if people are scared to ride it.
One major factor that is really the elephant in the room is the culture of a region in regards to public transportation and the perception of the system. There are many cities that have low numbers of ridership with extensive systems because of the perception of the system. That is the elephant in the room. Transit doesn't matter if people are scared to ride it.
True, popularity can affect quality if there are rate hikes, cancelled or lowered service, etc. That being said I don't think a system's popularity is the best judge of its quality.
True, popularity can affect quality if there are rate hikes, cancelled or lowered service, etc. That being said I don't think a system's popularity is the best judge of its quality.
Well, lack of popularity leads to low ridership. Low ridership leads to budget shortfalls and low revenue. Low revenue leads to smaller budgets. Smaller budgets leads to fare increases and service cuts. You can't separate popularity from the equation. Its the most important factor needed to run a successful system. D.C. and NYC have the highest fare box recoveries for rail and they also have the highest ridership in the nation. They go hand in hand.
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.
LA is right there with the other two. 
