U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 02-03-2015, 09:26 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Yes. That's how transit share is determined. If you want to focus on all trips, then you'd probably need to consult the National Household Travel Survey.
Yeah, I was just asking for clarification. My point was that the actual number of riders is much higher than what that JTW data shows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-04-2015, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
Yeah, I was just asking for clarification. My point was that the actual number of riders is much higher than what that JTW data shows.
That's true for all of the other modes as well. The commuting data's useful because that's the most important daily trip for 99% of the adult population. It's also useful because it's giving you an actual count of people rather than a count of unlinked passenger rides.

According to the most recent NHTS Survey (that I could find), 327 billion total trips were taken by private vehicle in 2009, 4 billion involved walking and 752 million were taken by public transit (Pages 19-20).

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

So 83.4% of all trips were taken by private vehicle, 10.4% were taken by walking, 1.9% were taken by transit, and 4.2% were taken by some other means of transportation (bicycle, taxi, car pool, etc.).

The positive news for urbanists is that walking share has trended up since 1990 (nearly doubling since 1995). The number of transit trips has increased since 1990, but the percentage of transit trips of all total trips has basically remain unchanged (1.8% in 1990 vs 1.9% in 2009). The share of trips by private vehicle declined (87.7% vs 83.4%).

I wonder how much of the increase in walking share is attributable to the growth of the Hispanic population. In 1990, there were 22 million Hispanics in the U.S. and by 2009 the population had doubled to about 48 million. The increase in the percentage of walking trips between 1990 and 2009 (81%) is not too dissimilar from the percentage increase in the U.S. Hispanic population (118%).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716
From the 2009 NHTS Poverty Brief:

Quote:
Figure 1 shows that individuals in poverty take about three times as many transit trips as those in higher income groups. They also have the greatest rate of bike trips and take walk trips about 50% more than their higher income counterparts.
http://nhts.ornl.gov/briefs/PovertyBrief.pdf

No surprises here. A large influx of poor immigrants from Latin America would almost certainly bolster the total number of walking trips.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 01:06 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,520 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
That's true for all of the other modes as well. The commuting data's useful because that's the most important daily trip for 99% of the adult population. It's also useful because it's giving you an actual count of people rather than a count of unlinked passenger rides.

According to the most recent NHTS Survey (that I could find), 327 billion total trips were taken by private vehicle in 2009, 4 billion involved walking and 752 million were taken by public transit (Pages 19-20).

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

So 83.4% of all trips were taken by private vehicle, 10.4% were taken by walking, 1.9% were taken by transit, and 4.2% were taken by some other means of transportation (bicycle, taxi, car pool, etc.).

The positive news for urbanists is that walking share has trended up since 1990 (nearly doubling since 1995). The number of transit trips has increased since 1990, but the percentage of transit trips of all total trips has basically remain unchanged (1.8% in 1990 vs 1.9% in 2009). The share of trips by private vehicle declined (87.7% vs 83.4%).

I wonder how much of the increase in walking share is attributable to the growth of the Hispanic population. In 1990, there were 22 million Hispanics in the U.S. and by 2009 the population had doubled to about 48 million. The increase in the percentage of walking trips between 1990 and 2009 (81%) is not too dissimilar from the percentage increase in the U.S. Hispanic population (118%).
I doubt that the Hispanic population has much to do with it. Walking trips is closely correlated to transit ridership. If I moved from a car-centric neighborhood to a more urban one, then I would take the transit or walk to work instead of driving. So looking only at commutes, transit share would increase. If we're looking at all other trips, then I'm going to make many more of those walking...even more than my transit use. Trips to the store, the cleaners across the street, out to eat, etc. When you aggregate all of the trips, transit looks flat (because it's weighed down by all of those extra walking trips) but walking goes way up and private use car drops.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
I doubt that the Hispanic population has much to do with it. Walking trips is closely correlated to transit ridership. If I moved from a car-centric neighborhood to a more urban one, then I would take the transit or walk to work instead of driving. So looking only at commutes, transit share would increase. If we're looking at all other trips, then I'm going to make many more of those walking...even more than my transit use. Trips to the store, the cleaners across the street, out to eat, etc. When you aggregate all of the trips, transit looks flat (because it's weighed down by all of those extra walking trips) but walking goes way up and private use car drops.
I think immigration/poverty is likely a big factor albeit not the only one. In the United States as a whole, it is the impoverished, or those living very close to the poverty line, who are most likely to take walking and transit trips. I think we focus so much on walkability in hip urban enclaves that we forget about some inner ring suburbs and even exurbs that have large immigrant populations whose only means of transportation is by foot or bus. If you travel out to the more distant suburbs of Atlanta, Washington, DC or even Chicago, you will see plenty of immigrants living a completely car free existence, often out of necessity rather than choice.

All in all, I think the "back to the cities" exodus accounts for little of the increase since there were already millions of people walking around in the inner cities before the latest surge of gentrification.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 03:37 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
That's true for all of the other modes as well. The commuting data's useful because that's the most important daily trip for 99% of the adult population. It's also useful because it's giving you an actual count of people rather than a count of unlinked passenger rides.
99% of the adult population . . . who works. Which is ~63% of the total adult population. Or about 45% of the total population.

JTW represents about 25% of all trips and it covers 45% of the population. There's a whole lot of trips being missed there. A whole lot of trips are kids going to school, grocery shopping, going to the movies, visiting grandma, etc.

We use that data liberally because it's really all we got. It's easy info to collect and it's easy to interpret. The problem with it is that it doesn't accurately show us how people are getting around when they're not going to work or how many other trips they're taking depending or in spite of their mode to work.

If I drove to work do I walk to lunch? Because that's a trip. If I bike to work do I walk to lunch or bike? How many other trips am I chaining together on my bike and am I making more trips as a cyclist (because it might be more convenient) than I would have if I had driven to work? If I take the train to work does that mean that I don't drive for 95% of my other trips?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 03:48 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
We use that data liberally because it's really all we got.
Only it's not really all we've got. You lopped off the other part of my post that contained the information from the National Household Travel Survey. The NHTS gives a breakdown of all trips, not just work trips.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
So 83.4% of all trips were taken by private vehicle, 10.4% were taken by walking, 1.9% were taken by transit, and 4.2% were taken by some other means of transportation (bicycle, taxi, car pool, etc.).
The commute-share data is important because it tells us a lot--more indirectly than directly--about transit infrastructure and accessibility as well as employment concentration or dispersal.

The only reason I even brought that up was because a poster was doing a calculation incorrectly. The ACS is not saying that 55% of all ~8.4 million New Yorkers take transit. It's saying that 55% of workers in NYC over the age of 16 take transit to work. I was just making that clarification.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 02-04-2015 at 03:59 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 04:13 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 2,001,520 times
Reputation: 1579
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I think immigration/poverty is likely a big factor albeit not the only one. In the United States as a whole, it is the impoverished, or those living very close to the poverty line, who are most likely to take walking and transit trips. I think we focus so much on walkability in hip urban enclaves that we forget about some inner ring suburbs and even exurbs that have large immigrant populations whose only means of transportation is by foot or bus. If you travel out to the more distant suburbs of Atlanta, Washington, DC or even Chicago, you will see plenty of immigrants living a completely car free existence, often out of necessity rather than choice.

All in all, I think the "back to the cities" exodus accounts for little of the increase since there were already millions of people walking around in the inner cities before the latest surge of gentrification.
It's not Hispanics based upon census data. The bump in Hispanics as a percent of workforce has been met with an equivalent bump in the rate in which the group uses cars. The increase in one measure has basically offset the increase in the other.

They may live in the suburbs and walk now, but they were doing the same thing when they lived in the cities as well. The sprawl of working class households just makes them more noticeable/ubiquitous.

More than likely, we're seeing two things:
-old people don't drive as much. Especially old white people (car ownership was higher than other groups so going from something to zero represents a bigger change).

-the back to city people. They're affluent. Almost 100% previously drove solo alone. Now they live in areas where transit ridership is very easy (dense neighborhoods) and their employment locations are generally very transit friendly (where all the transit connections go: the CBD). Regarding non-commute trips: people with more money make more trips, whether by car or on foot. Why? Because money gives one avenues to do things. Working class people buy necessities, go to church, school etc. Younger affluent consume conspicuously. You can's be a good conspicuous consumer just using Amazon (although my wife might disagree).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,258 posts, read 26,226,229 times
Reputation: 11716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
It's not Hispanics based upon census data. The bump in Hispanics as a percent of workforce has been met with an equivalent bump in the rate in which the group uses cars. The increase in one measure has basically offset the increase in the other.
The NHTS is accounting for more than work trips. I don't think any of you guys actually opened the link I posted. It looks at all trips for any reason (work, social, errands, school, church, etc.) regardless of employment status. Since Hispanics are easily one of the fastest growing--if not the fastest growing--groups in the U.S., and also consitute a large percentage of those living in poverty (and we know poor people walk more according to the NHTS data), it's very conceivable that they account for a significant percentage of walking trips. The growth of the White, Millennial population in urban areas pales in comparison to the growth of the Hispanic population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
They may live in the suburbs and walk now, but they were doing the same thing when they lived in the cities as well. The sprawl of working class households just makes them more noticeable/ubiquitous.
They aren't coming from the cities. They are coming from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc. Good grief, man, where have you been? The Hispanic population in the U.S. is expected to triple by 2050.

U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050 - USATODAY.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2015, 05:36 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,913 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Only it's not really all we've got. You lopped off the other part of my post that contained the information from the National Household Travel Survey. The NHTS gives a breakdown of all trips, not just work trips.
I'm familiar with it but since the post I was initially replying to was about the data being used in that post (which wasn't from the NHTS) it wasn't really relevant. I also don't think the NHTS is as widely cited for a variety of reasons one of which is because it is not the same comprehensive sample as the census.

Quote:
The commute-share data is important because it tells us a lot--more indirectly than directly--about transit infrastructure and accessibility as well as employment concentration or dispersal.
and i think it tells us indirectly, as much as anything else, is which modes we've been funding and where.

Quote:
The only reason I even brought that up was because a poster was doing a calculation incorrectly. The ACS is not saying that 55% of all ~8.4 million New Yorkers take transit. It's saying that 55% of workers in NYC over the age of 16 take transit to work. I was just making that clarification.
I got it. My point was that transit ridership is a lot more than just "who is going to work". Most transit ridership growth in NYC over the last 20 years has been off-peak/weekend.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

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