Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2012, 07:44 PM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,952,197 times
Reputation: 1001

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by peninsular View Post
Another way to define "busy" is as the proportion of the population who use public transit.

According to that measure the list is:

New York NY 1.87 mil 54.6%
Washington DC 94,260 37.7%
San Francisco CA 124,738 32.7%
Boston MA 80,141 31.7%
Philadelphia PA 139,247 25.9%
Chicago IL 293,703 25.3%
Baltimore MD 48,252 18.9%
Seattle WA 51,259 17.0%
Oakland CA 27,114 16.5%
Portland OR 34,195 13.3%

New Yorkers are top transit users - Jun. 13, 2007
I don't think that really is a good measure. If DC added 100,000 residents but not any additional transit riders, has the system become less busy??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2012, 07:53 PM
 
Location: Chicago(Northside)
3,678 posts, read 7,218,274 times
Reputation: 1697
Now guys plz dont get into a agrument about what busy means i shouldve never brought it up.

Anyway here is my list in order from best to....
1. New york(of couse)
2.Chicago
3.D.C.
4. Boston
5. Philly
6.Seattle
7. Balitimore
8. Portland
9.Miami
10.Cleveland
11.St. Louis
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:02 PM
 
Location: surrounded by reality
538 posts, read 1,192,004 times
Reputation: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast View Post
I don't think that really is a good measure. If DC added 100,000 residents but not any additional transit riders, has the system become less busy??
Obviously this is not a perfect measure. But your argument, while clever, is not as clear-cut as it might seem. If DC added 100K residents, one can assume it put them somewhere and most likely added some infrastructure as well, which may include more public transportation. If none of the new 100K residents use public transport, indeed it has become less busy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:13 PM
 
37,888 posts, read 41,980,539 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast View Post
How else do you measure busy other than ridership? Chicago has a higher ridership.
DC has a higher ridership than Chicago:

List of United States rapid transit systems by ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:15 PM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,952,197 times
Reputation: 1001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
Ever hear of a bus? Chicagoans use the bus at a 2:1 ratio to the EL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:29 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,524,349 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by peninsular View Post
Another way to define "busy" is as the proportion of the population who use public transit.

According to that measure the list is:

New York NY 1.87 mil 54.6%
Washington DC 94,260 37.7%
San Francisco CA 124,738 32.7%
Boston MA 80,141 31.7%
Philadelphia PA 139,247 25.9%
Chicago IL 293,703 25.3%
Baltimore MD 48,252 18.9%
Seattle WA 51,259 17.0%
Oakland CA 27,114 16.5%
Portland OR 34,195 13.3%

New Yorkers are top transit users - Jun. 13, 2007
Or that could be the completely wrong way to look at ridership. Why not look at raw numbers... If people more people are on the ground or in their car, it still doesn't negate the sheer amount riding public transit and can also mean their other modes of transportation are inferior or inconvenient to use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:32 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,524,349 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77 View Post
That wikipedia link is wrong, The El system is 224 miles (only off by over 100...) and weekday el ridership is 788k. Which leads me to question the validity of all the other cities.
It lists NYC as having 232 miles of track, NYC has over 800 miles of track, off by over 600 miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:38 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,524,349 times
Reputation: 5884
Quote:
Originally Posted by peninsular View Post
Obviously this is not a perfect measure. But your argument, while clever, is not as clear-cut as it might seem. If DC added 100K residents, one can assume it put them somewhere and most likely added some infrastructure as well, which may include more public transportation. If none of the new 100K residents use public transport, indeed it has become less busy.
What? No... It is equally busy. On what planet does your logic work on? If DC added 5 million more people and all of them drove a Mercedes Benz their transit system would remain at the same level of business.

Honestly I don't give a crap which system is most busy, busy is sometimes a bad thing, having to wait for a 2nd or 3rd train to come because the first two are full at rush hour isn't fun. But seriously, you gotta get a grip on your critical thinking skills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 08:52 PM
 
Location: NY
778 posts, read 999,145 times
Reputation: 422
Chicago has higher ridership overall than DC, so Chicago is second.

The subway isnt the only form of mass transit, which appears to fall on deaf ears, or blind eyes.

Like FAReastcoast said, most people who use the CTA in Chicago use the bus by nearly 2:1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2012, 10:10 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,156 posts, read 39,430,503 times
Reputation: 21253
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
That wikipedia link is wrong, The El system is 224 miles (only off by over 100...) and weekday el ridership is 788k. Which leads me to question the validity of all the other cities.
It lists NYC as having 232 miles of track, NYC has over 800 miles of track, off by over 600 miles.
One possibility is that they're counting trackage differently--are they counting total miles in the system and putting double/triple/quadruple as part of that total mileage or each? Do they count interlined tracks twice for each service? Those things could radically change the stats.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:41 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top