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 11-21-2012, 08:20 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,802,331 times
Reputation: 764

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I still don't see what "transit access" is all about. If one million people per day are riding Metro, then it's clear that it's "accessible." What difference does it make whether a station is a park and ride or an underground station in a dense neighborhood?

You are missing the point. You are looking at the people who are riding the transit, not the people who are not.

I will use Chicago as an example (as that is the city I am most familiar with), either in this thread or another thread, there was talk of why the CTA has only ~2M riders, when the metro area has ~9.5M residents.
Lets compare that to the DC WMATA which serves roughly ~1.5M riders in a metro of roughly 5.5M residents. On paper the DC area has a significantly higher percentage of residents using WMATA than Chicago does with CTA, and while that is indeed true no matter how you slice, my entire point is that it is pointless to look at the entire metro area as a whole to determine percentage of riders.

The CTA barely leaves the 227 sq miles of Chicago, so why are residents of Dupage County (~1M People), Lake County (~700K People), Will County (~500K People), Southern Wisconsin, and Northwest Indiana being counted when saying more people should be riding the CTA since the metro has 9.5M people., when nearly all of them live no where near a CTA stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2012, 08:21 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,802,331 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
First as mentioned before, in the Boston metro some adjacent cities/towns to Boston have as high transit ridership as the city proper.
Nobody is disputing that, your beating a dead horse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
You are missing the point. You are looking at the people who are riding the transit, not the people who are not.

I will use Chicago as an example (as that is the city I am most familiar with), either in this thread or another thread, there was talk of why the CTA has only ~2M riders, when the metro area has ~9.5M residents.
Lets compare that to the DC WMATA which serves roughly ~1.5M riders in a metro of roughly 5.5M residents. On paper the DC area has a significantly higher percentage of residents using WMATA than Chicago does with CTA, and while that is indeed true no matter how you slice, my entire point is that it is pointless to look at the entire metro area as a whole to determine percentage of riders.

The CTA barely leaves the 227 sq miles of Chicago, so why are residents of Dupage County (~1M People), Lake County (~700K People), Will County (~500K People), Southern Wisconsin, and Northwest Indiana being counted when saying more people should be riding the CTA since the metro has 9.5M people., when nearly all of them live no where near a CTA stop.
Yeah, but there's still Metra, which basically has the same function as Metro in Chicago's outer burbs. I don't see what's so complicated about looking at the entire number of people who ride transit on a metro basis. That seems straightforward to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 08:45 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,802,331 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Yeah, but there's still Metra, which basically has the same function as Metro in Chicago's outer burbs. I don't see what's so complicated about looking at the entire number of people who ride transit on a metro basis. That seems straightforward to me.
There is nothing complicated about it, but what does it prove? The confusion might be my entire point has been strictly CTA, not Metra.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,611 posts, read 24,787,463 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
There is nothing complicated about it, but what does it prove? The confusion might be my entire point has been strictly CTA, not Metra.
Well, I thought the thread was called "Top 10 Mass Transit Cities," which is a bit different from the other thread that was about transit systems. If we're talking about transit cities, then ridership and transit share are absolutely relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 08:53 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,111 posts, read 21,722,272 times
Reputation: 10216
So, like, how much better is the Boston subway system going to be once the blue and red lines have a connection?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 09:08 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,802,331 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Well, I thought the thread was called "Top 10 Mass Transit Cities," which is a bit different from the other thread that was about transit systems. If we're talking about transit cities, then ridership and transit share are absolutely relevant.
OK but then I'll take it one step further, in my opinion if you are looking at transit share, one should look at number of people taking commuter rail into "downtown" area vs. number of people who drive into downtown area. Again, if somebody lives in Hobart, Indiana and works in Gary, Indiana they are driving, because first off, it would be stupid not to, secondly there is no Transit (most likely) to get them there, yet they are counted towards overall percentage. Metra along with other commuter rail systems are only useful for white collar office workers who work in the "downtown" of their city, it is pretty much useless for every other demographic.

My only point is that while maybe there is some relevancy to taking the number of overall transit riders divided by the total number of people (of all ages) the census says is in your Combined Statistical Area, Im just not sure what that relevancy is.

That is no more useful than finding density by total population of a city divided by total area - sure you will get a number, but it really is useless and doesn't tell the whole story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,561,310 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
OK but then I'll take it one step further, in my opinion if you are looking at transit share, one should look at number of people taking commuter rail into "downtown" area vs. number of people who drive into downtown area. Again, if somebody lives in Hobart, Indiana and works in Gary, Indiana they are driving, because first off, it would be stupid not to, secondly there is no Transit (most likely) to get them there, yet they are counted towards overall percentage. Metra along with other commuter rail systems are only useful for white collar office workers who work in the "downtown" of their city, it is pretty much useless for every other demographic.

My only point is that while maybe there is some relevancy to taking the number of overall transit riders divided by the total number of people (of all ages) the census says is in your Combined Statistical Area, Im just not sure what that relevancy is.

That is no more useful than finding density by total population of a city divided by total area - sure you will get a number, but it really is useless and doesn't tell the whole story.

Then they use Gary, IN local bus service. For the purposes of this thread, everyone in a metro area should count, even if they do not have access - just means the transit is lacking there (didn't someone mention an entire system for Chicago's suburbs??). Although I'm not sure if you are talking about CSA, in that case then judging this thread should be measured by a smaller unit like UA or MSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 09:20 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,802,331 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Then they use Gary, IN local bus service. For the purposes of this thread, everyone in a metro area should count, even if they do not have access - just means the transit is lacking there (didn't someone mention an entire system for Chicago's suburbs??). Although I'm not sure if you are talking about CSA, in that case then judging this thread should be measured by a smaller unit like UA or MSA.
OK so if they count, what does that prove? Is this just an exercise to establish we all know how to do simple division? There are very few instances where taking the total number of something and dividing it by the total number of something else really tells anything, it certainly doesn't tell me what the top mass transit city is. in addition, I would wager people in this thread would use MSA over CSA since many people go back and forth with them depending on what makes their city look better, if we were talking GDP, you could bet people would use CSA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,561,310 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
OK so if they count, what does that prove? Is this just an exercise to establish we all know how to do simple division? There are very few instances where taking the total number of something and dividing it by the total number of something else really tells anything, it certainly doesn't tell me what the top mass transit city is. in addition, I would wager people in this thread would use MSA over CSA since many people go back and forth with them depending on what makes their city look better, if we were talking GDP, you could bet people would use CSA.
Well if we are measuring best mass transit cities, and two cities are very close (Chicago and DC) but one has better service / transit option in the suburbs, then that would be the deal-breaker.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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