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.
Whatever happened to the so-called "lawyers' bus" that was an express on Wilshire from Santa Monica to downtown? I used to take it frequently in the eighties. No more?
Naperville, Illinois 174.1 54,543 +/- 2889 94,939 +/- 12959
Concord, California 139.2 39,041 +/- 2049 54,329 +/- 12043
Fremont, California 130.9 61,041 +/- 2007 79,888 +/- 11234
Evanston, Illinois 129.0 40,420 +/- 2249 52,144 +/- 9011
New Rochelle, New York 119.7 41,924 +/- 2623 50,171 +/- 6521
Oak Park, Illinois 117.5 53,795 +/- 1289 63,191 +/- 5310
Berkeley, California 114.9 40,602 +/- 2209 46,635 +/- 7323
Cambridge, Massachusetts 110.5 43,351 +/- 2269 47,896 +/- 3647
North Bethesda CDP, Maryland 108.7 63,955 +/- 4498 69,492 +/- 12262
Hoboken, New Jersey 107.5 72,166 +/- 2002 77,559 +/- 4501
West New York, New Jersey 107.5 27,394 +/- 1659 29,453 +/- 3420
Rockville, Maryland 107.1 54,985 +/- 2445 58,864 +/- 10519
Jersey City, New Jersey 106.4 40,576 +/- 703 43,179 +/- 2633
Alameda, California 105.7 47,696 +/- 2325 50,406 +/- 10891
Richmond, California 104.6 33,201 +/- 2306 34,722 +/- 6397
Somerville, Massachusetts 102.0 39,709 +/- 2037 40,513 +/- 1804
Arlington, Virginia 97.0 62,510 +/- 1693 60,640 +/- 3157
Bayonne, New Jersey 96.1 41,800 +/- 1838 40,159 +/- 5399
New York, New York 96.1 36,803 +/- 164 35,350 +/- 229
White Plains, New York 95.5 41,944 +/- 2649 40,068 +/- 14671
Quincy, Massachusetts 94.7 40,020 +/- 1780 37,896 +/- 2483
Malden, Massachusetts 94.3 31,664 +/- 1754 29,864 +/- 3887
Alexandria, Virginia 93.8 56,080 +/- 2860 52,592 +/- 9445
Oakland, California 93.5 35,807 +/- 920 33,483 +/- 2584
Sacramento, California 93.0 32,487 +/- 1042 30,227 +/- 5339
Chicago, Illinois 92.8 33,726 +/- 612 31,299 +/- 425
Stamford, Connecticut 92.3 41,565 +/- 2034 38,346 +/- 4930
Silver Spring CDP, Maryland 90.5 41,272 +/- 1957 37,354 +/- 5487
Bellevue, Washington 90.3 56,348 +/- 5245 50,905 +/- 9208
Revere, Massachusetts 90.0 32,948 +/- 3109 29,638 +/- 4125
Brookline, Massachusetts 89.8 57,406 +/- 3176 51,570 +/- 7787
Union, New Jersey 89.8 24,402 +/- 1711 21,920 +/- 2117
Washington, D.C. 88.9 51,469 +/- 663 45,771 +/- 1424
San Francisco, California 88.1 47,951 +/- 1149 42,230 +/- 1236
Providence, Rhode Island 88.1 25,419 +/- 1095 22,397 +/- 3404
Seattle, Washington 87.7 41,833 +/- 516 36,689 +/- 1177
Boston, Massachusetts 85.0 37,414 +/- 640 31,805 +/- 579
Hempstead, New York 83.6 26,976 +/- 1720 22,540 +/- 2602
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 83.5 31,565 +/- 322 26,348 +/- 621
Wheaton CDP, Maryland 80.9 29,851 +/- 3146 24,160 +/- 5344
Paterson, New Jersey 79.9 26,399 +/- 568 21,094 +/- 2438
Yonkers, New York 79.3 40,135 +/- 1703 31,843 +/- 2140
Chillum, Maryland 79.3 29,165 +/- 2945 23,139 +/- 4052
Portland, Oregon 79.2 32,432 +/- 574 25,693 +/- 1173
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 79.2 30,321 +/- 488 24,015 +/- 1141
Mount Vernon, New York 78.3 38,027 +/- 2273 29,775 +/- 3691
Newark, New Jersey 78.0 26,947 +/- 658 21,014 +/- 1024
East Orange, New Jersey 77.8 32,343 +/- 1929 25,154 +/- 2542
Bridgeport, Connecticut 76.6 28,214 +/- 1725 21,623 +/- 3246
Daly, California 74.5 37,283 +/- 1763 27,792 +/- 4638
East Los Angeles CDP, California 74.4 20,290 +/- 726 15,105 +/- 1227
Ann Arbor, Michigan 74.0 30,194 +/- 1250 22,340 +/- 5161
Elizabeth, New Jersey 73.7 25,381 +/- 876 18,712 +/- 1823
St. Paul, Minnesota 73.6 31,444 +/- 626 23,147 +/- 2802
Santa Ana, California 72.4 22,376 +/- 442 16,200 +/- 1249
New Haven, Connecticut 71.8 28,185 +/- 1984 20,239 +/- 3018
Baltimore, Maryland 70.5 33,255 +/- 765 23,442 +/- 1585
Hartford, Connecticut 70.4 24,877 +/- 1398 17,513 +/- 1512
Paradise CDP, Nevada 69.9 30,254 +/- 563 21,156 +/- 1318
Minneapolis, Minnesota 67.0 34,001 +/- 1086 22,782 +/- 1591
Dallas, Texas 66.8 29,179 +/- 553 19,499 +/- 1238
Madison, Wisconsin 66.3 31,260 +/- 563 20,718 +/- 1884
Salt Lake, Utah 65.7 27,053 +/- 778 17,768 +/- 3154
Honolulu CDP, Hawaii 65.6 33,625 +/- 1252 22,072 +/- 986
Las Vegas, Nevada 65.3 31,440 +/- 493 20,526 +/- 1353
Denver, Colorado 64.8 36,004 +/- 615 23,322 +/- 2176
Miami, Florida 64.5 22,281 +/- 626 14,380 +/- 848
Miami Beach, Florida 64.3 30,954 +/- 1648 19,890 +/- 2908
Cleveland, Ohio 62.2 25,345 +/- 506 15,771 +/- 1155
Charlotte, North Carolina 62.0 33,816 +/- 826 20,975 +/- 1690
Buffalo, New York 61.3 26,689 +/- 771 16,361 +/- 1853
Austin, Texas 60.4 32,064 +/- 354 19,372 +/- 1686
Memphis, Tennessee 59.8 27,672 +/- 693 16,549 +/- 1433
St. Louis, Missouri 59.2 29,730 +/- 701 17,615 +/- 1206
Nashville, Tennessee 58.8 31,009 +/- 431 18,225 +/- 4210
Rochester, New York 58.1 26,358 +/- 683 15,305 +/- 3215
Houston, Texas 57.8 29,053 +/- 492 16,795 +/- 804
Detroit, Michigan 57.6 23,071 +/- 736 13,293 +/- 1166
Columbus, Ohio 57.0 31,415 +/- 306 17,914 +/- 2818
San Antonio, Texas 56.2 28,078 +/- 560 15,766 +/- 1013
Albuquerque, New Mexico 56.0 31,917 +/- 425 17,866 +/- 4018
Anaheim, California 56.0 29,427 +/- 953 16,481 +/- 1851
Phoenix, Arizona 55.2 31,325 +/- 336 17,293 +/- 1335
Indianapolis, Indiana 54.8 30,349 +/- 357 16,643 +/- 1683
Los Angeles, California 54.7 27,952 +/- 347 15,281 +/- 241
Aurora, Colorado 54.6 31,383 +/- 588 17,126 +/- 4015
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 54.2 27,019 +/- 432 14,644 +/- 1068
Cincinnati, Ohio 54.0 29,008 +/- 1143 15,656 +/- 1650
Atlanta, Georgia 53.4 35,858 +/- 943 19,131 +/- 1320
Orlando, Florida 53.3 27,450 +/- 961 14,643 +/- 1657
San Jose, California 52.6 41,635 +/- 535 21,889 +/- 2248
Kansas City, Missouri 52.1 32,349 +/- 550 16,865 +/- 1509
New Orleans, Louisiana 50.7 31,017 +/- 548 15,711 +/- 1195
Long Beach, California 50.5 32,067 +/- 527 16,208 +/- 1003
Jacksonville, Florida 49.6 31,829 +/- 408 15,772 +/- 1590
San Diego, California 49.3 36,765 +/- 478 18,143 +/- 2372
El Paso, Texas 49.1 26,026 +/- 460 12,779 +/- 1245
Albany, New York 49.0 30,236 +/- 1610 14,804 +/- 4205
Tucson, Arizona 46.8 25,717 +/- 575 12,044 +/- 1118
Louisville, Kentucky 43.5 30,831 +/- 402 13,423 +/- 1701
The median income of San Francisco public transit users is $47,951. That doesn't seem to tell me that SF public transit is primarily middle class commuters.
Also, LA commuters seem to be more well off than riders in San Jose, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and San Diego.
Last edited by ExeterMedia; 03-03-2014 at 10:23 AM..
The median income of San Francisco public transit users is $47,951. That doesn't seem to tell me that SF public transit is primarily middle class commuters.
Also, LA commuters seem to be more well off than riders in San Jose, Cincinnati, Atlanta, and San Diego.
Well certainly more middle class than LA which was the whole point that was being argued here.
Wow, better off than SJ, Cincinnati, Atl, and SD huh? LOL Must be proud of that one, but at least you're better understanding LA's peers when it comes to public transit . Unfortunately when you take a closer look LA transit users really aren't more well off at all, it's just LA's overall median earnings for all commuters is low:
Well certainly more middle class than LA which was the whole point that was being argued here.
Wow, better off than SJ, Cincinnati, Atl, and SD huh? LOL Must be proud of that one, but at least you're better understanding LA's peers when it comes to public transit .
I'm not proud nor do I have any vested feelings in the matter, this isn't about "winning a game" for me. I don't even take public transit any more (since I moved from San Francisco), this is purely a statistical question for me.
Based on the median income percentages, LA riders tend to make closer to the median than San Jose, and San Diego, two cities which are considered large cities in California along with Los Angeles. The only large cities in California that do better are San Francisco and Oakland, both of which cover a much smaller population than LA transit is expected to cover.
Also the discussion was whether "only poor people take public transit in LA" and whether SF transit is full of "tons" of white collar professionals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04kL4nD
Ok, but only poor people use transit in LA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 04kL4nD
I beg to differ. You see tons of professionals in the Bay Area on BART and Muni.
Based on the statistics, that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there are more poor people in Los Angeles transit systems (which I would expect based on the sheer variety of neighborhoods and areas Los Angeles covers compared to SF), but there are also a lot of poor people on SF Public transit systems based on the statistics you posted.
Based on the statistics, that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there are more poor people in Los Angeles transit systems (which I would expect based on the sheer variety of neighborhoods and areas Los Angeles covers compared to SF), but there are also a lot of poor people on SF Public transit systems based on the statistics you posted.
BART isn't necessarily rolled up in the SF or Oakland stats, and does have a high average income per rider, due to the nature of the system.
Here is a nifty neighborhood by neighborhood view of commute type and income:
Places like SF, DC, and NYC tend to have more white collar workers than typical transit systems because the cost/benefit ratio is pretty good if you are traveling to the respective downtowns. And the downtown business districts have a high number of jobs. LA is much more spread out, with no single destination, so it is difficult to make transit the most efficient choice unless you luck out in the home and job department.
Based on the median income percentages, LA riders tend to make closer to the median than San Jose, and San Diego, two cities which are considered large cities in California along with Los Angeles. The only large city in California that does better is San Francisco and Oakland.
Yes they certainly do as LA is just a poorer city overall, so it would kind of make sense that despite having the lowest median earnings out of those cities it still closer to the median for all commuters.
Quote:
Also the discussion was whether "only poor people take public transit in LA" and whether SF transit is full of "tons" of white collar professionals.
Actually it wasn't an all or nothing discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExeterMedia
Do you have any reliable stats or sources for the claim that "only poor people" use transit in LA, or more so than the apparent middle-class ridership of DC, NYC, Chicago, etc?
Quote:
Based on the statistics, that doesn't seem to be the case. Yes, there are more poor people in Los Angeles transit systems (which I would expect based on the sheer variety of neighborhoods and areas Los Angeles covers compared to SF), but there are also a lot of poor people on SF Public transit systems based on the statistics you posted.
Well it's certainly the case that cities like SF, Chicago, NYC, etc..have more "choice riders" than LA.
I agree it wasn't an all or nothing discussion because the very premise of "only poor people" ride mass transit in LA is not even a logical point.
But the other hand, we had the discussion where a claim was made that SF had "tons" of white collar professionals amongst its middle-class ridership using MUNI/BART, that's simply not the case according to your statistics (thank you for posting). A lot of people considered poor in San Francisco ride public transit, and the stats proved it.
Quote:
Well it's certainly the case that cities like SF, Chicago, NYC, etc..have more "choice riders" than LA.
Just because someone makes more money, I'm not going to call them a "choice rider", public transportation gives limited income people a means to commute further distances so they can make a living. In L.A, there are a lot of very poor communities that live off public transit to survive. If you don't consider them a "choice rider" because they don't make a lot of money, that's your own opinion.
Places like SF, DC, and NYC tend to have more white collar workers than typical transit systems because the cost/benefit ratio is pretty good if you are traveling to the respective downtowns. And the downtown business districts have a high number of jobs. LA is much more spread out, with no single destination, so it is difficult to make transit the most efficient choice unless you luck out in the home and job department.
The same could be said for MetroLink in LA. A monthly pass from OC/Riverside/Lancaster can cost upward of $275 a month. That's not exactly cheap.
As for LA, yes job centers are not centralized in one city downtown like SF or NYC, but you will no longer find a large area of LA not served by public transit, and remember most of this has happened in the past 25 years. Considering the vast area that the system is expected to cover, that is impressive, and why the system is regularly ranked very high when compared to its peers in other big cities.
It's not New York, or San Francisco yet, but it's getting closer every year.
Like I said, compare the growth and improvements of LA Counties public transit with San Francisco and its feeder cities over the past 25 years. The difference is stark.
I agree it wasn't an all or nothing discussion because the very premise of "only poor people" ride mass transit in LA is not even a logical point.
But the other hand, we had the discussion where a claim was made that SF had "tons" of white collar professionals amongst its middle-class ridership using MUNI/BART, that's simply not the case according to your statistics (thank you for posting). A lot of people considered poor in San Francisco ride public transit, and the stats proved it.
You seem to be caught up in semantics and absolutes a little too much here. The general point that more middle and upper income groups use transit in SF as well as cities like NYC, Chicago, DC, etc..compared to LA has been verified with data.
Quote:
Just because someone makes more money, I'm not going to call them a "choice rider", public transportation gives limited income people a means to commute further distances so they can make a living. In L.A, there are a lot of very poor communities that live off public transit to survive. If you don't consider them a "choice rider" because they don't make a lot of money, that's your own opinion.
Actually that's part of the Transit Industry's definition of a "choice rider", not mine. It's an industry term, not a personal one.
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.
. Unfortunately when you take a closer look LA transit users really aren't more well off at all, it's just LA's overall median earnings for all commuters is low:
