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, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,626 posts, read 24,839,810 times
Reputation: 11190

Advertisements

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.
I don't see why that matters at all. The overwhelming majority of people in every metro area in the world work outside of the area's primary CBD. Someone has to man the Best Buy, Forever 21 and Starbucks in suburban Jersey.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
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.
It gives you a good idea of how transit-oriented the metro is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
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.
That's not the same thing at all. Again, transit share tells us how transit-oriented a metro is. It tells us quite a bit about how a region functions as a whole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:36 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,780 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post


That's not the same thing at all. Again, transit share tells us how transit-oriented a metro is. It tells us quite a bit about how a region functions as a whole.
We will have to agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,626 posts, read 24,839,810 times
Reputation: 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
We will have to agree to disagree.
So if only 5 percent of a metro area rides transit, you don't think that's any indication whatsoever about how transit-oriented the region is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:39 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,780 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
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.
If you look at DC CSA it is not that much of a difference. All these stats can be finagled with to make any area look better.

Is the consensus on City Data that LA is denser than NYC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:42 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,780 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
So if only 5 percent of a metro area rides transit, you don't think that's any indication whatsoever about how transit-oriented the region is?
Perhaps we need to better define the region we are discussing. The title of the thread is Cities, while everyone seems to be talking CSA's, which is anything but "city" in my opinion. Sure we need to look beyond city limits, but that then goes back to my argument about who has access to the transit.

This is a very very extreme example, but if Aurora, Illinois (roughly 50 miles from Chicago) saw an increase of 1 million new born babies in 2013, has the Chicagoland region become less of a mass transit city?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,626 posts, read 24,839,810 times
Reputation: 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
Perhaps we need to better define the region we are discussing. The title of the thread is Cities, while everyone seems to be talking CSA's, which is anything but "city" in my opinion. Sure we need to look beyond city limits, but that then goes back to my argument about who has access to the transit.
If people are riding Metro, then they obviously have "access" to it. How can you ride a train if you don't have access to it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
This is a very very extreme example, but if Aurora, Illinois (roughly 50 miles from Chicago) saw an increase of 1 million new born babies in 2013, has the Chicagoland region become less of a mass transit city?
You're acting as if all metros don't have a significant number of people who really have no use for transit at all (or perhaps don't even have "access" to it the way you've defined it). Princeton is part of the NYC Metro (or CSA) and there are obviously quite a number of people in Mercer County that don't use transit. Loudoun County, Virginia has a lot of people who work in the Virginia burbs that don't use transit. Los Angeles has a lot of people that don't use transit. Tokyo even has people that don't use transit. That scenario is not unique to Chicagoland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,582,779 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
If you look at DC CSA it is not that much of a difference. All these stats can be finagled with to make any area look better.

Is the consensus on City Data that LA is denser than NYC?
No because most people on here adhere to more advanced statistics, which clearly show NYC as the denser metro area.

I get that potential riders in the city and inner suburbs should be weighted more heavily than potential suburban riders, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't count or think about them when figuring out what is the best mass transit city.

And again, I said CSA is not the right scale for this thread. MSA, UA are much better and relevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:50 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,780 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
If people are riding Metro, then they obviously have "access" to it. How can you ride a train if you don't have access to it?



You're acting as if all metros don't have a significant number of people who really have no use for transit at all. Princeton is part of the NYC Metro (or CSA) and there are obviously quite a number of people in Mercer County that don't use transit. Loudoun County, Virginia has a lot of people who work in the Virginia burbs that don't use transit. Los Angeles has a lot of people that don't use transit. Tokyo even has people that don't use transit. That scenario is not unique to Chicagoland.
Never said or implied that it was unique to Chicago. The point was that simply dividing total CSA Population by Total Number of Transit users doesn't really prove anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:53 AM
 
1,750 posts, read 2,805,780 times
Reputation: 764
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
No because most people on here adhere to more advanced statistics, which clearly show NYC as the denser metro area.
Thank you, now you are at least understanding my argument. Statistically LA is Denser than NYC if we go off of metro area (which we seem to be using for this thread), and while on paper that may be true, digging a little deeper into the stats will prove otherwise, by a very very long shot.
All I am saying (again) is that simply dividing population by transit riders will give you a number, though more info is needed to make any judgement off of that data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,626 posts, read 24,839,810 times
Reputation: 11190
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I get that potential riders in the city and inner suburbs should be weighted more heavily than potential suburban riders, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't count or think about them when figuring out what is the best mass transit city.
I don't see why that should be the case. The point of a transit system is to transport people from one place to another. What does it matter whether those people are in denser urban areas or less densely populated suburban areas.

It's often difficult to disaggregate urban and suburban riders anyway. NYC has 9 million daily subway riders but the city only has around 8.3 million people. That means that there are a lot of people commuting into the city and riding the subway.
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