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.
I have no idea. We put a man on the moon, I am sure there is info out there with criteria/findings.
I mean, why wouldn't we presume that most people in the metro "have access" to the transit system? They may not have access in the sense of being able to walk to a station or a bus stop, but they do have access as far as being able to drive to a park and ride.
I mean, why wouldn't we presume that most people in the metro "have access" to the transit system? They may not have access in the sense of being able to walk to a station or a bus stop, but they do have access as far as being able to drive to a park and ride.
Well you would have to define "access", but really,the point of most mass transit systems, is being able to walk to a station/stop. How many park and rides are there on the New York Subway? I can only think of 2 on the CTA EL.
Well you would have to define "access", but really,the point of most mass transit systems, is being able to walk to a station/stop. How many park and rides are there on the New York Subway? I can only think of 2 on the CTA EL.
The point of mass transit systems is to get people from Point A to B. What difference does it make if people walk to the station or park and ride?
Do you really not know what the difference would be if a person was able to walk to a station as opposed to drive?
Secondly, how many park and rides are there on the NYC subway?
I guess I'm lost on what your point is. Why does it matter to you whether someone walks to the station or drives to the station? A transit rider is a transit rider.
I guess I'm lost on what your point is. Why does it matter to you whether someone walks to the station or drives to the station? A transit rider is a transit rider.
Not really. Park and ride is more a function of commuter rail (Metra, LIRR). There is virtually zero park and ride on the CTA or Subway system.
The point is, somebody who is using the CTA or Subway, are probably not a park and ride rider. If they do not live within a reasonable walk / bike ride of a station, I think a reasonable person can conclude they do not have regular access to the system. I think it is fair to say somebody living in Milford Connecticut probably does not have easy access to the NYC Subway system, and probably should not be included as a potential rider.
Not really. Park and ride is more a function of commuter rail (Metra, LIRR). There is virtually zero park and ride on the CTA or Subway system.
The point is, somebody who is using the CTA or Subway, are probably not a park and ride rider. If they do not live within a reasonable walk / bike ride of a station, I think a reasonable person can conclude they do not have regular access to the system. I think it is fair to say somebody living in Milford Connecticut probably does not have easy access to the NYC Subway system, and probably should not be included as a potential rider.
I get what you're saying, but these people cannot be written off as potential writers because they are in fact real, actual riders.
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.
First as mentioned before, in the Boston metro some adjacent cities/towns to Boston have as high transit ridership as the city proper.
Where do you define access to transit? Transit quality usually decreases with distance from the center city but there's no hard boundary. Shouldn't a metro that has a larger amount access also count as a better mass transit city rather than one that just has very high usage in the small section of the metro that has good access.
Vancouver has a lower transit ridership than the city of Boston proper. But the city is a large % of the metro and its suburbs have higher transit usage, so the overall transit usage % by metro is higher than Boston by a large margin. I'd say Vancouver is more of a transit metro by in the core Boston is a bit more.
First as mentioned before, in the Boston metro some adjacent cities/towns to Boston have as high transit ridership as the city proper.
Where do you define access to transit? Transit quality usually decreases with distance from the center city but there's no hard boundary. Shouldn't a metro that has a larger amount access also count as a better mass transit city rather than one that just has very high usage in the small section of the metro that has good access.
Vancouver has a lower transit ridership than the city of Boston proper. But the city is a large % of the metro and its suburbs have higher transit usage, so the overall transit usage % by metro is higher than Boston by a large margin. I'd say Vancouver is more of a transit metro by in the core Boston is a bit more.
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?
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.
