U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-20-2012, 10:40 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Shouldn't the fact that parts of the metro is less transit friendly (or doesn't even have access) count against the metro? City limits are useless.
I don't know what you mean by "city limits are useless" in regards to this thread. This isn't rocket science, it really only makes sense to look at the population that has access to the transit system currently in place, of those people who have access, what % of people are using it.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-20-2012, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,579,873 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
I don't know what you mean by "city limits are useless" in regards to this thread. This isn't rocket science, it really only makes sense to look at the population that has access to the transit system currently in place, of those people who have access, what % of people are using it.
That would be just as misleading. Seems like it would favor cities that have small transit systems that run through heavily populated areas.

City limits are useless to many cities - Los Angeles has strange, nonsensical city limit borders; some of the densest, most transit-oriented parts of the Boston Metro are not within city limits, same with NYC; Jacksonville seems like a huge city, when in fact it is a mid-size metro that is completely incorporated. These are reasons why city limits are useless and most urban scholars seem to stick with urban areas or something more encompassing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 10:50 AM
 
Location: The City
21,958 posts, read 30,839,883 times
Reputation: 7495
Public Transit System Rankings from Walk Score
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:24 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
That would be just as misleading. Seems like it would favor cities that have small transit systems that run through heavily populated areas.

City limits are useless to many cities - Los Angeles has strange, nonsensical city limit borders; some of the densest, most transit-oriented parts of the Boston Metro are not within city limits, same with NYC; Jacksonville seems like a huge city, when in fact it is a mid-size metro that is completely incorporated. These are reasons why city limits are useless and most urban scholars seem to stick with urban areas or something more encompassing.

You told me nothing I don't already know. None of that is relevant when comparing transit systems. City limits are neither useful or useless; while there isn't one particular metric that can determine the top transit system, my initial point was looking at metro population when comparing how much or little a transit system is used doesn't make sense.

This isn't a one size fits all measure, but looking at total usage in raw numbers + system size + % of usage by people with direct access to system should give a pretty good idea of the top systems.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,579,873 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
You told me nothing I don't already know. None of that is relevant when comparing transit systems. City limits are neither useful or useless; while there isn't one particular metric that can determine the top transit system, my initial point was looking at metro population when comparing how much or little a transit system is used doesn't make sense.

This isn't a one size fits all measure, but looking at total usage in raw numbers + system size + % of usage by people with direct access to system should give a pretty good idea of the top systems.
Well you asked why city limits are useless in this thread, and I told you. Sorry you asked a question you already knew the answer to?

If the transit options are lacking in the outer areas of the Chicago metro area, then IMO it should absolutely effect the ranking of "best mass transit cities". Especially considering most of the metro area does not live in Chicago (and every other city) but in the surrounding suburbs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:54 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Well you asked why city limits are useless in this thread, and I told you. Sorry you asked a question you already knew the answer to?

If the transit options are lacking in the outer areas of the Chicago metro area, then IMO it should absolutely effect the ranking of "best mass transit cities". Especially considering most of the metro area does not live in Chicago (and every other city) but in the surrounding suburbs.
You explained why, generally speaking, city limits are useless. I asked why they were useless in regards to this thread, considering MTA, CTA and others are virtually 100% exclusive to city limits.

Mass Transit leans very very heavily towards cities/urban areas as opposed to suburbs, so mass transit should be weighted accordingly to those areas and not suburbs. NYC has more train riders than every other city in the country combined, and virtually all of them are within the limits of New York City, Chicago leans heavily towards city limits as well.
If John Q. Suburb who lives 40 miles from Chicago (or NYC) doesn't use mass transit, it doesn't effect the efficiency/quality of either system.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,579,873 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
You explained why, generally speaking, city limits are useless. I asked why they were useless in regards to this thread, considering MTA, CTA and others are virtually 100% exclusive to city limits.

Mass Transit leans very very heavily towards cities/urban areas as opposed to suburbs, so mass transit should be weighted accordingly to those areas and not suburbs. NYC has more train riders than every other city in the country combined, and virtually all of them are within the limits of New York City, Chicago leans heavily towards city limits as well.
If John Q. Suburb who lives 40 miles from Chicago (or
Well, not all are geared toward exclusively the city limits. Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, they all serve many different secondary and suburban cities with their main transit systems - those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. And don't forget about commuter rail - which Chicago excels in.

You make a good point that it should be weighted towards the center city, but still you cannot completely disregard the suburbs either - people do use and oftentimes require transit in those areas as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,623 posts, read 24,832,767 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
A much more meaningful comparison would be comparing the population who has access to the transit system.
How do you determine who does and does not have access to the transit system?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 12:12 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Well, not all are geared toward exclusively the city limits. Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington DC, they all serve many different secondary and suburban cities with their main transit systems - those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head. And don't forget about commuter rail - which Chicago excels in.

You make a good point that it should be weighted towards the center city, but still you cannot completely disregard the suburbs either - people do use and oftentimes require transit in those areas as well.
with the exception of Los Angeles, all of those other cities have relatively small borders. I live in Bethesda Maryland, within walking distance of the DC Metro. Though I live in Maryland, if I was in Chicago or NYC, I would be close enough to still be in city limits. If you look at track mileage, Chicago EL has more than DC Metro even though Metro covers much more of the suburbs than DC.

I still believe the best way to measure top transit cities is looking at who has access and who uses it within that population.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-20-2012, 12:13 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,321 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
How do you determine who does and does not have access to the transit system?
I have no idea. We put a man on the moon, I am sure there is info out there with criteria/findings.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top