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.
Alright, I used the numbers listed from pages 10-30 of the APTA report and recalculated the Average Weekday Ridership. New numbers in bolded red. I missed some data, but overall not a significant change in rankings or numbers. Again, I am only using the numbers for HR (Heavy Rail) + LR (Light Rail) + CR (Commuter Rail) + MB (Motor Bus). All the other modes of service they list, like DR (demand response), TB (trolley bus), VP (vanpool), FB (ferry boat), etc., I did not use.
Average Weekday Ridership (by MSA) - Heavy Rail + Light Rail + Commuter Rail + Bus
7. San Francisco - 917,400 945,600
Oh okay, well the real daily transit ridership in the SF MSA is about 1.5 million a day, just using buses, heavy rail, commuter rail, trolley buses and light rail.
People on this site love to refuse to recognize Atlanta's heavy rail system...it's still sadly one of the only rail systems in the nation that connects the airport to the city core. I don't even think NYC connects directly to the airport.
For a sunbelt city, it has better transit then the vast majority of cities and is almost an anomaly in it's own right. The reason why it doesn't work very well is because of the lack of density Atlanta has. There are plenty of cities that wish it had Atlanta's system right now.
I believe Boston, NY, Chi, Philly, SF, DC all have rail/BRT to at least one metro airport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
People on this site love to refuse to recognize Atlanta's heavy rail system...it's still sadly one of the only rail systems in the nation that connects the airport to the city core. I don't even think NYC connects directly to the airport.
For a sunbelt city, it has better transit then the vast majority of cities and is almost an anomaly in it's own right. The reason why it doesn't work very well is because of the lack of density Atlanta has. There are plenty of cities that wish it had Atlanta's system right now.
People on this site love to refuse to recognize Atlanta's heavy rail system...it's still sadly one of the only rail systems in the nation that connects the airport to the city core. I don't even think NYC connects directly to the airport.
For a sunbelt city, it has better transit then the vast majority of cities and is almost an anomaly in it's own right. The reason why it doesn't work very well is because of the lack of density Atlanta has. There are plenty of cities that wish it had Atlanta's system right now.
You guys could really use a commuter rail system for starters but I will agree that Atlanta is on that short list of cities with a legit subway system.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmykem
Alright, I used the numbers listed from pages 10-30 of the APTA report and recalculated the Average Weekday Ridership. New numbers in bolded red. I missed some data, but overall not a significant change in rankings or numbers. Again, I am only using the numbers for HR (Heavy Rail) + LR (Light Rail) + CR (Commuter Rail) + MB (Motor Bus). All the other modes of service they list, like DR (demand response), TB (trolley bus), VP (vanpool), FB (ferry boat), etc., I did not use.
Average Weekday Ridership (by MSA) - Heavy Rail + Light Rail + Commuter Rail + Bus
1. New York - 11,828,400 11,832,300
2. Chicago - 2,136,500 2,148,100
3. Los Angeles - 1,873,300 1,991,300
4. Washington D.C. - 1,312,400 1,462,200
5. Boston - 1,253,700 NO CHANGE
6. Philadelphia - 1,138,900 1,210,300
7. San Francisco - 917,400 945,600
8. Miami - 476,000 522,800
9. Seattle - 347,800 472,300
10. Atlanta - 405,100 NO CHANGE
11. Baltimore - 366,500 NO CHANGE
12. Portland - 312,600 314,000
13. San Diego - 272,400 312,200
14. Minneapolis 270,700 282,100
15. Houston - 275,500 278,000
16. Denver - 275,500 NO CHANGE
17. Dallas - 248,900 261,200
18. Phoenix - 189,200 224,600
19. Pittsburgh - 207,200 212,800
20. St. Louis - 148,700 157,700
21. Milwaukee - 148,000
22. San Antonio - 146,800 NO CHANGE
23. Salt Lake City - 145,300
24. San Jose - 142,700 NO CHANGE
25. Detroit - 106,800 123,500
26. Austin - 121,800
27. Buffalo - 102,500
28. Riverside - 99,500
One note for Atlanta: There are three suburban transit systems (Cobb and Gwinnett county transit and GRTA) that APTA does not track. With those three added, there is another 100k or so daily riders.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly
You guys could really use a commuter rail system for starters but I will agree that Atlanta is on that short list of cities with a legit subway system.
We most definitely do. Once we build out the streetcar network, the Beltline line inner loop and get a couple of commuter lines (the rails are there, we just need to break Norfolk Southern and fix the funding problem) we'll break the 1 million mark fairly easily.
One note for Atlanta: There are three suburban transit systems (Cobb and Gwinnett county transit and GRTA) that APTA does not track. With those three added, there is another 100k or so daily riders.
I think most large cities can say this as a lot of their suburban counties have separate systems.
I think most large cities can say this as a lot of their suburban counties have separate systems.
California might be unique in how many of them do, however. The state honey jar kicks kicks money back to local jurisdictions for existing. 50% of the funding is allocated based on ridership throughout the state and distributed evenly. The other 50% is based on population. So you've got a lot of places that have transit agencies solely so they can control that directly rather than being a small fish in a large pond.
Not sure, just and interesting tidbit. I think most places really try to encourage having regional transit agencies whereas California does the opposite.
Add Seattle to that list, although that's light rail.
Boston's connection is barely better than LA's, which require a transfer to a shuttle bus (Boston also has mixed-traffic "BRT" to Logan). The one advantage Boston has is the Blue Line goes right into downtown, while in LA you need to transfer to get to DTLA.
By 2020 LA will have a better-located LRT connection to an elevated people-mover - the station will provide fairly quick access for DTLA and Santa Monica via the Crenshaw and Expo Lines. It's not ideal but much better than what is there right now.
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.
