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.
The freakonomic numbers make a lot more sense. Talking in small digit percentage or fractions thereof.
My point was not a disagreement. My point was the number listed was wrong by a factor greater than 3. And this article indicates that the LA number is wrong by a factor greater than 4.
That LA has some public transit is a given...but it is still a very small fraction.
Do you not understand the difference between the two stats?
One is the modal share for commuters, measuring a total percentage of commuters that use any means other than autos - in Los Angeles it is 15.7% (10th in the nation)
The other creates a ratio (aka market share) of freeway miles driven to transit miles ridden and in Los Angeles that ratio measures out to just under 2% (11th in the nation)
Both of those numbers sound accurate to me, and line up with numbers I have seen from just about any other source. I mean, these numbers are from the Census, pretty much your most accurate source available.
Do you not understand the difference between the two stats?
One is the modal share for commuters, measuring a total percentage of commuters that use any means other than autos - in Los Angeles it is 15.7% (10th in the nation)
The other creates a ratio (aka market share) of freeway miles driven to transit miles ridden and in Los Angeles that ratio measures out to just under 2% (11th in the nation)
Both of those numbers sound accurate to me, and line up with numbers I have seen from just about any other source. I mean, these numbers are from the Census, pretty much your most accurate source available.
You do not seem to understand the issue. I jumped on the Las Vegas numbers which understate the number of workers available to use mass transit by a factor of three.
You have some reason to believe that I don't know the Las Vegas numbers? The source is provided.
Deal with that one and then we can get to the other numbers.
You do not seem to understand the issue. I jumped on the Las Vegas numbers which understate the number of workers available to use mass transit by a factor of three.
You have some reason to believe that I don't know the Las Vegas numbers? The source is provided.
Deal with that one and then we can get to the other numbers.
Las Vegas has a population of 583k. According to the Census / Transport Politic article, it has a workforce of 246k. Whats wrong about that number?
Keep in mind this is for city only. Is the problem that you have a hard time believing those conducting the study were able to separate metro residents from actual center-city residents?
BTW I don't think it is that great a stat either, but I do think the numbers are accurate.
Las Vegas has a population of 583k. According to the Census / Transport Politic, it has a workforce of 246k.
Keep in mind this is for city only. Is the problem that you have a hard time believing those conducting the study were able to separate metro residents from actual center-city residents?
BTW I don't think it is that great a stat either, but I do think the numbers are accurate.
Damn. Some of you guys just can't think.
Do you really believe that the City of Las Vegas has its own transit system?
If you do I have a guaranteed strategy to win at Craps that I will be glad to sell you?
Keep in mind this is for city only. Is the problem that you have a hard time believing those conducting the study were able to separate metro residents from actual center-city residents?
Las Vegas city limits must be the strangest in the country. The Las Vegas Strip and casino areas are not actually in the city proper!
Las Vegas city limits must be the strangest in the country. The Las Vegas Strip and casino areas are not actually in the city proper!
Well yes and no. The real problem is that the municipalities overlay Clark County without the ability to absorb county land if resisted. The model is not rare but is unusually complex in Clark County...where Las Vegas city often surrounds areas of unincorporated Clark County.
The point however is the Transit system is in fact county wide involving the cities of Las Vegas, Henderson and North Las Vegas as well as unincorporated Clark County.
And yes...the strip is not in the City of Las Vegas...and never will be.
The Transit authority however runs a whole lot of busses through the strip.
Do you really believe that the City of Las Vegas has its own transit system?
If you do I have a guaranteed strategy to win at Craps that I will be glad to sell you?
The point I am making is: You seem to be of the mindset that Census Bureau was unable to specifically measure the percentage of people living within the city limits that use transit to commute. I believe in this study that is the case.
The point I am making is: You seem to be of the mindset that Census Bureau was unable to specifically measure the percentage of people living within the city limits that use transit to commute. I believe in this study that is the case.
I am sorry. I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.
One would think that folks interested in Urban Planning would understand basic population statistics.
Apparently that is not the case. We are dealing here with the basic concepts of usage of the transit system.
What one does is take the people who ride it and divide by the people who could and get the percent utilized.
Apparently this concept is to vast for the participants.
There is a single transit system in Clark County that serves just under 2 million people with abut 850,000 workers. You start from there.
This is not hard. Just follow the well published numbers...with the cited statistic failed to do. It was therefore in gross error. And of a sort all here should recognize.
Why would one frequent urban planning if you don' t understand basic population statistics?
I am sorry. I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about.
One would think that folks interested in Urban Planning would understand basic population statistics.
Apparently that is not the case. We are dealing here with the basic concepts of usage of the transit system.
What one does is take the people who ride it and divide by the people who could and get the percent utilized.
Apparently this concept is to vast for the participants.
There is a single transit system in Clark County that serves just under 2 million people with abut 850,000 workers. You start from there.
This is not hard. Just follow the well published numbers...with the cited statistic failed to do. It was therefore in gross error. And of a sort all here should recognize.
Why would one frequent urban planning if you don' t understand basic population statistics?
Well here's where those numbers came from in that blog post:
I doubt it was nay conspiracy by GM as mnay cities have street cars still. They are thoght most restricted to small numbers as they can make a profit because of tourist. They basically went the way of many priavte sector bue lines;broke.
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.
