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.
By percentage sure, but percent's don't mean much. It's like saying Raleigh has more educated workers than NYC, by "percentage"
Well, I think it's relevant in a thread about car independence. There are times where absolute numbers mean more than percentages and vice versa. In this instance, I think percentages are important because the issue boils down to what place lends itself to greater auto independence. If a greater percentage of a certain city is walkable, I don't see why that wouldn't be relevant. Seattle can't help the fact that it's not as big as LA. The inquiry here is which city provides greater to access to all of its destinations and amenties without having a car. A much larger city could very well have more transit, more ridership, and everything else in greater absolute numbers, but if it's not particularly efficient in getting people where they need or want to go, then it really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I guess I just don't see size being very relevant here because there are big cities that are easy to get around without a car and there are small cities that are tough to get around without a car. At the end of the day, it's all about how well you can access the things in that particular city.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-18-2013 at 03:04 PM..
Here are the ridership statistics (2010) from the American Public Transit Association Factbook. People in the Seattle urbanized area took 70 transit trips per capita. In the Los Angeles urbanized area, it was 57. So average ridership was about 20% higher in Seattle, but the two are actually relatively close. A few places, like the San Francisco UZA had much higher ridership, many (such as San Diego) had much lower ridership. It's almost a tie, or really an "it depends" on where specifically you live and work.
Well, I think it's relevant in a thread about car independence. There are times where absolute numbers mean more than percentages and vice versa. In this instance, I think percentages are important because the issue boils down to what place lends itself to greater auto independence. If a greater percentage of a certain city is walkable, I don't see why that wouldn't be relevant. Seattle can't help the fact that it's not as big as LA. The inquiry here is which city provides greater to access to all of its destinations and amenties without having a car. A much larger city could very well have more transit, more ridership, and everything else in greater absolute numbers, but if it's not particularly efficient in getting people where they need or want to go, then it really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I guess I just don't see size being very relevant here because there are big cities that are easy to get around without a car and there are small cities that are tough to get around without a car. At the end of the day, it's all about how well you can access the things in that particular city.
First off, I don't think that is what the question is asking.
Secondly, does Seattle really provide better access to all of its amenities and destinations? A bus is required for a lot of Seattle, just like Los Angeles (LA has much better rail coverage). I haven't heard many substantive arguments that Seattle has a better bus system than Los Angeles. Therefore the answer to your first question might in fact be Los Angeles, and probably is.
First off, I don't think that is what the question is asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
Which of these four cities do think has the better public transit system (bus, light rail, subway, commuter rail)? Which do find easier to live in without a car? Why?
Well, that's how I interpret it. The city's that's going to be easier for me to live in without a car is the city that allows the most access to what the city has to offer. If the New York Subway only ran in Brooklyn, I would not consider NYC a very easy place to live without a car because I also enjoy going to the UWS, Harlem, Washington Heights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Secondly, does Seattle really provide better access to all of its amenities and destinations? A bus is required for a lot of Seattle, just like Los Angeles (LA has much better rail coverage). I haven't heard many substantive arguments that Seattle has a better bus system than Los Angeles. Therefore the answer to your first question might in fact be Los Angeles, and probably is.
I didn't make a judgment one way or the other. My only point was that I thought percentages were relevant for the purposes of this thread.
But to answer your question, I think a bus can be a sufficient mode of transportation for a city. It depends on a number of things. Would it be a sufficient mode of transit for a city like New York or Chicago? No. But it could very well be a sufficient mode of transit in a smaller, compact city like Charleston. My personal feeling is that the longer the distance I need to travel, the more important rail access becomes. I probably wouldn't balk at the prospect of riding a bus from one end of Charleston to the other, but I certainly would balk at the prospect of riding a bus from the Bronx to Brooklyn or from Santa Monica to DTLA.
In Seattle's case, a factor I consider to be important is the continuity of walkable areas flowing out of its CBD.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 01-18-2013 at 04:06 PM..
Well, that's how I interpret it. The city's that's going to be easier for me to live in without a car is the city that allows the most access to what the city has to offer. If the New York Subway only ran in Brooklyn, I would not consider NYC a very easy place to live without a car because I also enjoy going to the UWS, Harlem, Washington Heights.
Okay fair enough. But keep in mind Los Angeles has much more than just the Red Line and Purple Line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
But to answer your question, I think a bus can be a sufficient mode of transportation for a city. It depends on a number of things. Would it be a sufficient mode of transit for a city like New York or Chicago? No. But it could very well be a sufficient mode of transit in a smaller, compact city like Charleston. My personal feeling is that the longer the distance I need to travel, the more important rail access becomes. I probably wouldn't balk at the prospect of riding a bus from one end of Charleston to the other, but I certainly would balk at the prospect of riding a bus from the Bronx to Brooklyn or from Santa Monica to DTLA.
Yeah I agree with that, which is why LA has undergone massive transit improvements in the last few decades. Santa Monica to DTLA is pretty rough on the bus, luckily the Expo line will make that connection in 2015 if it is finished on schedule.
Okay fair enough. But keep in mind Los Angeles has much more than just the Red Line and Purple Line.
I know. But remember when I said yesterday that a city's transit system needs to be commensurate with the size of the city? And that it needs to be tailored to the needs of the city? What good would several transit lines in Brooklyn do me if there were none in Manhattan and I'm a student at Columbia University? As far as I'm concerned, it would totally suck because it couldn't get me anywhere close to where I (and lots of others) need to go.
That's not to say that Seattle's system gets everyone to every place they need to go. I'm just saying that that's one of the ways I judge whether I would live in a city without a car.
I know. But remember when I said yesterday that a city's transit system needs to be commensurate with the size of the city? And that it needs to be tailored to the needs of the city? What good would several transit lines in Brooklyn do me if there were none in Manhattan and I'm a student at Columbia University? As far as I'm concerned, it would totally suck because it couldn't get me anywhere close to where I (and lots of others) need to go.
That's not to say that Seattle's system gets everyone to every place they need to go. I'm just saying that that's one of the ways I judge whether I would live in a city without a car.
Here's another analysis, from the Brookings Institution. They were rating transit access to work in the 100 biggest metro areas. They looked at coverage--what percentage of the population lived near transit, frequency, and job access--what percentage of jobs could be reached on transit. Their composite ratings:
Seattle--18th of 100
Los Angeles--24th of 100.
Los Angeles had better residential coverage and better rush hour frequency, but the Seattle system accessed more jobs within 90 minutes.
My conclusion--you'd be better off for transit in either Seattle or Los Angeles than in most other American cities.
Haha. I'll take a bus if it's a short distance (just long enough where I won't walk it) and there are NO connections. But once you start talking about transfers and looking up routes on my phone, it's a wrap. That's asking me to do entirely too much.
Haha. I'll take a bus if it's a short distance (just long enough where I won't walk it) and there are NO connections. But once you start talking about transfers and looking up routes on my phone, it's a wrap. That's asking me to do entirely too much.
Well I'll give you the part about the connections. But other than that. The Bus doesn't always get a fair shake, especially when you have light rail like Muni in SF that totally blows but everybody loves them because they are cute or something. lol
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.
