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, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Greater Boston
342 posts, read 465,861 times
Reputation: 61

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by the Instigator View Post
Seattle, Baltimore, and Portland over LA and ATL? okie dokie
You realize i'm not going off of total ridership here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-21-2012, 10:36 PM
 
Location: Greater Boston
342 posts, read 465,861 times
Reputation: 61
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Boston
4. DC
5. Philadelphia
6. San Francisco
7. Baltimore
8. Portland/Seattle/LA/ATL

after baltimore it's really a toss-up
EDIT: changed my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 11:03 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,749 posts, read 39,655,111 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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.
Transit user stats are given by number of rides taken, the numbers can't distinguish between repeat riders. 9 million riders does not mean 9 million separate people. A transit user usually makes 2, sometimes more trips. So, 9 million riders means at most 4.5 million individual users. Also, 22% (830,000) of NYC workers live outside the city limits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-21-2012, 11:36 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,482,183 times
Reputation: 742
Walk access to transit is preferable for several reasons. If somebody can walk to transit, they may be able to not have a car, or only have, say, one car for two adults. Walk access is better environmentally, most of the pollution cars generate is when they first start up. It also means that transit stations don't have to have these big moats of parking around them, and use up a bunch of land.

Ridership is a good metric, but service is even better. How much transit service did the transit agency make available? So here is annual transit vehicle miles per capita for the big urbanized areas (from the APTA fact book). It includes all systems serving the area. Each bus or train car counts as one vehicle.

Urbanized Area Vehicle Miles Per Capita
1. New York 51.9
2. San Francisco-Oakland 45.2 (does not include San Jose)
3. Washington 41.9
4. Honolulu 39.2
5. Seattle 38.8
6. Salt Lake City 35.9
7. Denver 28.7
8. Chicago 27.9
9. Portland 27.4
10 Boston 25.9
11. Minneapolis-St. Paul 23.6
12. Pittsburgh 22.8
12. San Antonio 22.8
14, Philadelphia 21.7
15. Los Angeles 21.5
16. Charlotte 21.1
17. Austin 20.9
18. Atlanta 20.8
(all UZAs with over 500,000 population and 20 vehicle miles per capita included)

Mostly, not a real surprising list. Salt Lake City, Denver, and Charlotte have all been developing/expanding light rail. I suspect that Philadelphia's relatively poor showing has to do with weak service levels in the suburbs. Atlanta is known for having a weak bus network connecting to its heavy rail, probably accounting for its relatively weak showing.

You could say that the top 10 cities on this list are the top 10 transit cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2012, 09:11 AM
 
3,453 posts, read 2,973,952 times
Reputation: 1644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Walk access to transit is preferable for several reasons. If somebody can walk to transit, they may be able to not have a car, or only have, say, one car for two adults. Walk access is better environmentally, most of the pollution cars generate is when they first start up. It also means that transit stations don't have to have these big moats of parking around them, and use up a bunch of land.

Ridership is a good metric, but service iso even better. How much transit service did the transit agency make available? So here is annual transit vehicle miles per capita for the big urbanized areas (from the APTA fact book). It includes all systems serving the area. Each bus or train car counts as one vehicle.

Urbanized Area Vehicle Miles Per Capita
1. New York 51.9
2. San Francisco-Oakland 45.2 (does not include San Jose)
3. Washington 41.9
4. Honolulu 39.2
5. Seattle 38.8
6. Salt Lake City 35.9
7. Denver 28.7
8. Chicago 27.9
9. Portland 27.4
10 Boston 25.9
11. Minneapolis-St. Paul 23.6
12. Pittsburgh 22.8
12. San Antonio 22.8
14, Philadelphia 21.7
15. Los Angeles 21.5
16. Charlotte 21.1
17. Austin 20.9
18. Atlanta 20.8
(all UZAs with over 500,000 population and 20 vehicle miles per capita included)

Mostly, not a real surprising list. Salt Lake City, Denver, and Charlotte have all been developing/expanding light rail. I suspect that Philadelphia's relatively poor showing has to do with weak service levels in the suburbs. Atlanta is known for having a weak bus network connecting to its heavy rail, probably accounting for its relatively weak showing.

You could say that the top 10 cities on this list are the top 10 transit cities.

Sir all the buses throughout the metro area connect to heavy rail in Atlanta. Including the grta express buses which is one reason why our ridership with heavy rail is over 250.000 riders a day. More people are using transit in Atlanta than half of that list u made.. whos in the top 10 for most used transit systems
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2012, 09:35 AM
 
Location: NYC/D.C.
363 posts, read 542,097 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Walk access to transit is preferable for several reasons. If somebody can walk to transit, they may be able to not have a car, or only have, say, one car for two adults. Walk access is better environmentally, most of the pollution cars generate is when they first start up. It also means that transit stations don't have to have these big moats of parking around them, and use up a bunch of land.

Ridership is a good metric, but service is even better. How much transit service did the transit agency make available? So here is annual transit vehicle miles per capita for the big urbanized areas (from the APTA fact book). It includes all systems serving the area. Each bus or train car counts as one vehicle.

Urbanized Area Vehicle Miles Per Capita
1. New York 51.9
2. San Francisco-Oakland 45.2 (does not include San Jose)
3. Washington 41.9
4. Honolulu 39.2
5. Seattle 38.8
6. Salt Lake City 35.9
7. Denver 28.7
8. Chicago 27.9
9. Portland 27.4
10 Boston 25.9
11. Minneapolis-St. Paul 23.6
12. Pittsburgh 22.8
12. San Antonio 22.8
14, Philadelphia 21.7
15. Los Angeles 21.5
16. Charlotte 21.1
17. Austin 20.9
18. Atlanta 20.8
(all UZAs with over 500,000 population and 20 vehicle miles per capita included)

Mostly, not a real surprising list. Salt Lake City, Denver, and Charlotte have all been developing/expanding light rail. I suspect that Philadelphia's relatively poor showing has to do with weak service levels in the suburbs. Atlanta is known for having a weak bus network connecting to its heavy rail, probably accounting for its relatively weak showing.

You could say that the top 10 cities on this list are the top 10 transit cities.
terrible methodology.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2012, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
27,614 posts, read 24,814,812 times
Reputation: 11185
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOK MA NO HANDS View Post
terrible methodology.......
You wouldn't rank Honolulu and SLC above Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2012, 10:39 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,482,183 times
Reputation: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by LOOK MA NO HANDS View Post
terrible methodology.......
What exactly is wrong with the methodology? What is a better one?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2012, 08:00 AM
 
Location: The City
21,946 posts, read 30,822,191 times
Reputation: 7489
I also like the maps

to me the top are

1 NYC


2 Chicago
2a DC

3 Boston
4 Philly
5 SF

6 LA

then a bunch in the running based on my experience



Image Detail for - SEPTA | Clickable Regional Rail & Rail Transit Map
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2012, 02:21 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,146 posts, read 21,752,589 times
Reputation: 10226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Walk access to transit is preferable for several reasons. If somebody can walk to transit, they may be able to not have a car, or only have, say, one car for two adults. Walk access is better environmentally, most of the pollution cars generate is when they first start up. It also means that transit stations don't have to have these big moats of parking around them, and use up a bunch of land.

Ridership is a good metric, but service is even better. How much transit service did the transit agency make available? So here is annual transit vehicle miles per capita for the big urbanized areas (from the APTA fact book). It includes all systems serving the area. Each bus or train car counts as one vehicle.

Urbanized Area Vehicle Miles Per Capita
1. New York 51.9
2. San Francisco-Oakland 45.2 (does not include San Jose)
3. Washington 41.9
4. Honolulu 39.2
5. Seattle 38.8
6. Salt Lake City 35.9
7. Denver 28.7
8. Chicago 27.9
9. Portland 27.4
10 Boston 25.9
11. Minneapolis-St. Paul 23.6
12. Pittsburgh 22.8
12. San Antonio 22.8
14, Philadelphia 21.7
15. Los Angeles 21.5
16. Charlotte 21.1
17. Austin 20.9
18. Atlanta 20.8
(all UZAs with over 500,000 population and 20 vehicle miles per capita included)

Mostly, not a real surprising list. Salt Lake City, Denver, and Charlotte have all been developing/expanding light rail. I suspect that Philadelphia's relatively poor showing has to do with weak service levels in the suburbs. Atlanta is known for having a weak bus network connecting to its heavy rail, probably accounting for its relatively weak showing.

You could say that the top 10 cities on this list are the top 10 transit cities.
Wow, that doesn't seem to jive vey well with personal experiences at all aside from NYC on top.
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