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)
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Cardboard box
1,909 posts, read 3,287,850 times
Reputation: 1326

Advertisements

The reason there is no ridership is because the transit is terrible. Bart is a glorified train that runs for the most part along freeway paths. Muni is basically a bus system. Cal Trian serves for commuters between sf and sj with no connection to the east bay.

New Yorks transit, phillies transit, and chicago's transit blow SF out of the water, literally.

Compare the sophistication of chicago's L train to bart. Simply Laughable. And I don't even want to get the Metra trains of chicagoland involved because than it is a slam dunk.

Part of the myth involving Sf is that it is a good city not to own a car. Not true. Might be a good biking city and a so-so walking city, but not good for public transit. The fact that the city is only like 49 square miles really hides the fact of how inefficiant their transit is.

But hey zero carbon emissions right...yay....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,259 posts, read 54,960,967 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo View Post
The reason there is no ridership is because the transit is terrible. Bart is a glorified train that runs for the most part along freeway paths. Muni is basically a bus system. Cal Trian serves for commuters between sf and sj with no connection to the east bay.

New Yorks transit, phillies transit, and chicago's transit blow SF out of the water, literally.

Compare the sophistication of chicago's L train to bart. Simply Laughable. And I don't even want to get the Metra trains of chicagoland involved because than it is a slam dunk.

Part of the myth involving Sf is that it is a good city not to own a car. Not true. Might be a good biking city and a so-so walking city, but not good for public transit. The fact that the city is only like 49 square miles really hides the fact of how inefficiant their transit is.

But hey zero carbon emissions right...yay....
I will repeat my last post...

Actually when we compare ridership to actual population, the ratio of riders to residents in SF is 1 to 1. Not so in Chicago or Philly.

And that SF number doesnt take BART into account, only MUNI. Many SFcans use BART too.

Plus, MUNI only covers the city proper. Not suburbs. Dunno if DC and Boston's numbers are only for 'within city limits'. If so, kudos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Mission Viejo, CA
2,498 posts, read 10,270,579 times
Reputation: 1597
Yet San Francisco still ranks #4 in percentage of its population that actually rides mass transit. 32.64% of San Francisco residents were found to commute using mass transit.

Only cities comparable in the percentage using public transport:
Philadelphia: 25.92% (less than SF)
Chicago: 26.71% (less than SF)
Boston: 33.07% (barely more than SF)
Washington DC: 34.47% (barely more than SF)
New York: 54.35%

http://www.bikesatwork.com/carfree/c...25&first_row=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Cardboard box
1,909 posts, read 3,287,850 times
Reputation: 1326
I think your ratio is largley scewed, if it is really even a fact. You have to take into account the massive number of tourists(san fransisco's main industry like key west...impressive...LoL) who have the unfortunate experience of having to take public transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:32 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,259 posts, read 54,960,967 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhome View Post
Yet San Francisco still ranks #4 in percentage of its population that actually rides mass transit. 32.64% of San Francisco residents were found to commute using mass transit.

Only cities comparable in the percentage using public transport:
Philadelphia: 25.92%
Chicago: 26.71%
Boston: 33.07%
Washington DC: 34.47%
New York: 54.35%
Thank You.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:34 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,259 posts, read 54,960,967 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo View Post
I think your ratio is largley scewed, if it is really even a fact.
Yes, SFs population to rideship is basically 1 to 1. Actually the number of daily riders is bigger than the population. Chicago can not say the same of its transit system.

Quote:
You have to take into account the massive number of tourists(san fransisco's main industry like key west...impressive...LoL) who have the unfortunate experience of having to take public transit.
Chicago receives far more annual visitors than SF does. Does that mean they skew transit numbers as well?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:35 PM
rah
 
Location: Oakland
3,315 posts, read 8,099,201 times
Reputation: 2508
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
^^ @ 18montclair saying "I have higher standards for an urban area": So do I. I agree that almost none of those other cities should be considered "urban"

SF's transit system is pretty good, but it should be better for a city of it's size and style. It's not nearly as good as NYC's Subway (obviously, NYC rules the US), but it's ridership is also overwhelmingly lower than Chicago, Boston, Philly and DC.

Here's the numbers of Ave Weekday Ridership (Heavy, Light, Commuter, Bus):

San Fran: 848,800 a day
San Francisco has around 700,000 boardings a day on Muni (buses, light-rail, cable cars). In addition to that, there are 400,000 boardings a day on BART (heavy rail), and 30,000 boardings a day on CalTrain (commuter rail) in the Bay Area.

SF isn't "overwhelmingly lower" in terms of ridership, compared to any of those cities. A quick list of city transit ridership, taken off of wikipedia:

1. New York, New York - 54.24%
2. Jersey City, New Jersey - 46.62%
3. Washington, D.C. - 38.97%
4. Boston, Massachusetts - 31.6%
5. San Francisco, California - 30.29%
6. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - 26.43%
7. Arlington, Virginia - 26.28%
8. Yonkers, New York - 25.47%
9. Chicago, Illinois - 25.38%
10. Newark, New Jersey - 24.04%
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Cardboard box
1,909 posts, read 3,287,850 times
Reputation: 1326
Exactly my point more people ride your transit than actual residents. Chicago can't say the same because we actually have you know, a relevant economy. Our city doesn't revolve around being a freak show to attract tourists.

Wow so people in SF ride Muni, big deal, a bus system. That's all you have in a small town of less than 800,000 people. All though I give muni some credit, with out it, Sf would be like LA minus all the stuff that makes california and LA cool of course.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 07:47 PM
 
Location: Boston Metrowest (via the Philly area)
4,430 posts, read 7,490,605 times
Reputation: 4302
Quote:
Originally Posted by missionhome View Post
Yet San Francisco still ranks #4 in percentage of its population that actually rides mass transit. 32.64% of San Francisco residents were found to commute using mass transit.

Only cities comparable in the percentage using public transport:
Philadelphia: 25.92% (less than SF)
Chicago: 26.71% (less than SF)
Boston: 33.07% (barely more than SF)
Washington DC: 34.47% (barely more than SF)
New York: 54.35%

Carfree Database Results
Not to nitpick, but these figures are 9 years old. I'm more than positive, for example, that Philadelphia's population share of public transportation usage has increased in that span of time, perhaps approaching 30%.

Moreover, gas prices are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than they were in 2000, which has only spurred more mass transit ridership across the country. That alone, I believe, would make these figures obsolete.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2009, 08:26 PM
 
177 posts, read 427,798 times
Reputation: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually I just tallied numbers provided by Chicago60614.
Your SF numbers were incorrect though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
San Francisco doesnt need to pump up numbers. Its just really dense at its densest areas.
My point was that 3 of SFs 4 most dense census tracts are only 0.26 sq miles, 0.65 sq miles, and 0.67 sq miles respectively. And even still at 40-50k/sq mile for those tracts, its not even that dense. A comparable 0.26 sq miles in the gold coast in Chicago would yield even higher numbers, for example. You also did pump up SFs numbers originally, they have since been corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
But SF is more dense than all of the above mentioned cities. Whether or not its 'insane' is really subjective.
Overall, you are comparing a city of 49 sq miles to ones of 130-220 sq miles (Chicagos includes huge swaths of industrial land in the south and southwest and Ohare and part of Midway airports). We have already proven that Chicago is far denser than SF over a comparable 49 square mile area, or at its densest 23 sq miles. We also know Chi carries that density over a larger area than SF. Therefore SFs density is not really that remarkable. Yes, its dense and a great city at that, (I totally disagree with LakeShoreSox), but its not that dense for people who live in the aforementioned cities.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:13 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top