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.
No it doesn't, not even remotely close to that. It only carries about 4K riders a day, Tri-Rail on the other hand carries about 14K per day. Perhaps you meant 4th busiest Amtrak corridor.
I must have been drunk when I posted that: all those typos!
Let me clarify: Of the Amtrak commuter lines, the Sacramento-Bay Area line in the 4th busiest. And Sacramento has 7th busiest Amtrak station in the nation. Pretty busy since Sacramento is only the 27th largest metro area in the nation.
A quote from the website:
"It is the fourth busiest Amtrak route by ridership, surpassed only by the Northeast Regional, Acela Express, and Pacific Surfliner.[8] As of 2013 Sacramento is the busiest station on the route and the seventh busiest in the Amtrak system.[1]"
Could you explain this? Out of the 3 cities Miami has a 25 mile "heavy rail" system, a Commuter rail system (Tri-Rail), a "Automated guideway system" in it's downtown (people mover).
Phoenix or Sac has neither.
From what I have heard from friends from Miami, the Tri-Rail is better known as the "Tri-Fail." No stats to back that claim up, but that's the perception I've been given. The main reason I ranked Phoenix higher is because of its freeway system, which trumps both Miami and Sacramento. Miami does have the better public transit system, but the criterion was called "Transportation", so I looked at both public and private transit. All 3 metros are generally more geared toward an autocentric lifestyle, so Phoenix came out ahead.
From what I have heard from friends from Miami, the Tri-Rail is better known as the "Tri-Fail." No stats to back that claim up, but that's the perception I've been given. The main reason I ranked Phoenix higher is because of its freeway system, which trumps both Miami and Sacramento. Miami does have the better public transit system, but the criterion was called "Transportation", so I looked at both public and private transit. All 3 metros are generally more geared toward an autocentric lifestyle, so Phoenix came out ahead.
Even with Tri-Rails flaws, there's Dade-County's Metrorail and Downtown People mover.
The Phoenix metro has over twice has many people than Sacramento; if mostly locales are voting that could give Phoenix twice as many as votes -- and it's not twice as many votes.
Also, Sacramento is not know nationally simply by the fact that it has very few large private companies and those larger companies tend to promote their cities.
Sacramento's largest employers are the various State of California departments and agencies and those entities are not in the business of promoting the city of their headquarters as General Electric does for NYC or AT&T does for San Antonio, or Qualcomm does for San Diego, or American Airlines does for Dallas, or Chevron does for San Francisco, and so on. So, Sacramento remains rather "unknown" nationally.
The Phoenix metro has over twice has many people than Sacramento; if mostly locales are voting that could give Phoenix twice as many as votes -- and it's not twice as many votes.
Also, Sacramento is not know nationally simply by the fact that it has very few large private companies and those larger companies tend to promote their cities.
Sacramento's largest employers are the various State of California departments and agencies and those entities are not in the business of promoting the city of their headquarters as General Electric does for NYC or AT&T does for San Antonio, or Qualcomm does for San Diego, or American Airlines does for Dallas, or Chevron does for San Francisco, and so on. So, Sacramento remains rather "unknown" nationally.
Just realized I didn't even list examples for Phoenix and Atlanta.
....as Coca-Cola does for Atlanta, and U.S. Airways or Honeywell does for Phoenix.
It's actually quite a testament to Sacramento that it has above national median education and income levels and a cost of living right at the national average without having a single Fortune 500 headquarters, nor any federal military dollars pouring in the economy.
Sacramento sends out more federal tax support than it receives.
If Sacramento had just one Fortune 500 company; it would interesting how much more attention it would get, and how much higher the median income would rise.
Sacramento as some big players like Intel's Research & Development in Folsom, CA, but Intel's headquarters are in Silicon Valley.
Just realized I didn't even list examples for Phoenix and Atlanta.
....as Coca-Cola does for Atlanta, and U.S. Airways or Honeywell does for Phoenix.
It's actually quite a testament to Sacramento that it has above national median education and income levels and a cost of living right at the national average without having a single Fortune 500 headquarters, nor any federal military dollars pouring in the economy.
If Sacramento had just one Fortune 500 company; it would interesting how much more attention it would get, and how much higher the median income would rise.
Sacramento as some big players like Intel's Research & Development in Folsom, CA, but Intel's headquarters are in Silicon Valley.
I really don't think any of that would make much of a difference at all. Some cities with Fortune 500 companies get little attention (Toledo, Richmond, Greensboro, etc..) and others with few Fortune 500 companies get a lot of attention (San Diego, Portland, Austin, New Orleans, etc.) Only on City-Data does anyone even care where Fortune 500 companies are located, especially as far as popularity is concerned.
No guarantee incomes would rise either as some cities with Fortune 500 companies have lower incomes, some cities with very few to no F500 companies have higher incomes.
Quote:
Sacramento sends out more federal tax support than it receives.
You mean California as a whole sends out more than it receives? Where has it ever been broken down by city or metro area? Also Sac's economy is reliant on government employees so...
Sacramento doesn't get attention because it's not a bigger metro area that offers a lot nor is it a popular tourist destination. It has nothing to do with F500 companies. Such such a bizarre C-D line of thought there lol.
I really don't think any of that would make much of a difference at all. Some cities with Fortune 500 companies get little attention (Toledo, Richmond, Greensboro, etc..) and others with few Fortune 500 companies get a lot of attention (San Diego, Portland, Austin, New Orleans, etc.) Only on City-Data does anyone even care where Fortune 500 companies are located, especially as far as popularity is concerned.
No guarantee incomes would rise either as some cities with Fortune 500 companies have lower incomes, some cities with very few to no F500 companies have higher incomes.
You mean California as a whole sends out more than it receives? Where has it ever been broken down by city or metro area? Also Sac's economy is reliant on government employees so...
Sacramento doesn't get attention because it's not a bigger metro area that offers a lot nor is it a popular tourist destination. It has nothing to do with F500 companies. Such such a bizarre C-D line of thought there lol.
I think it's bizarre that you can't see the logic and plain common sense of how medium to large private companies bring attention to an area.
There's nothing bizarre about it, for example, business travel on a large scale basis is usually generated by large private companies which can give a place prominence or popularity.
The examples you give are extreme as in SD and New Orleans which are large tourist destinations with a steady stream of newcomers brought in by the military as in SD's case in particular.
The smaller cities you mention would simply be "unknown" if it were not for their large private companies.
Portland and Austin are full of smaller to medium size PRIVATE national or international companies.
Over 1/3 of Sacramento's smaller to medium-size and some cases large "companies" are the departments and agencies of the State of California which in most cases are the "headquarters" of those entities , yet OUT of State travel by those entities is severely limited which limits Sacramento's exposure on a national level.
I think it's bizarre that you can't see the logic and plain common sense of how medium to large private companies bring attention to an area.
There's nothing bizarre about it, for example, business travel on a large scale basis is usually generated by large private companies which can give a place prominence or popularity.
The examples you give are extreme as in SD and New Orleans which are large tourist destinations with a steady stream of newcomers brought in by the military as in SD's case in particular.
The smaller cities you mention would simply be "unknown" if it were not for their large private companies.
Portland and Austin are full of smaller to medium size PRIVATE national or international companies.
Over 1/3 of Sacramento's smaller to medium-size and some cases large "companies" are the departments and agencies of the State of California which in most cases are the "headquarters" of those entities , yet OUT of State travel by those entities is severely limited which limits Sacramento's exposure on a national level.
You really think the average person knows where most companies are headquartered? Or better you yet, you really think they care? Unless the name is stuck on a professional sports venue I really don't think anyone notices what companies are located where and even then it doesn't necessarily mean that company is hq'ed in that city. Yeah I'm really sure most people associate Home Depot with Miami lol.
Yeah they're large tourist destinations because they are interesting cities, Sacramento is not and that was my point. Having a couple of F500 companies wouldn't change that.
The smaller cities are mostly unknown and that was point, when do you ever hear anyone mention them? Can you even name what F500 are hq'ed there off the top of your head?
Portland and Austin are interesting cities that get national attention for being that, not for their private companies located there. Sure maybe Nike a little but rarely do you hear about the companies located there.
Sacramento is simply an average city which is why it doesn't get much attention and having F500 companies won't change that at all.
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.
