The best cities for public transportation (Atlanta, Dallas: flat fee, how much, hotel)

[Mutiny77]

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best...transportation

To find cities with the best transit systems, SmartAsset looked at U.S. Census Bureau data on the use of public transportation in every U.S. city with a population of more than 175,000 people (136 cities total). We considered the following five metrics in particular:

--The average commute time for transit users.
--Percentage difference between average commute times of car commuters and transit users.
--Percentage of commuters who use public transit.
--Total number of commuters who use public transit.
--The difference between the citywide median income and the median income of transit users.

Unfortunately, Atlanta is nowhere on the list. This is a problem.

[fieldm]

List and study is garbage. Average commute times, population using transit and income difference for transit users should not be evaluated with regards to public transportation. It should be rated by heavy rail vs light rail vs no rail, number of stations, length of rail lines, time the rail system close, cost of tolls roads, average cost to take a round trip on rail, etc. When someone evaluates a possible move to a city they do not care about the income difference for transit users, population using transit, average commute time, etc they want to know if their job is near rail, if heavy rail/light rail will be near their home, does the system charge per station or is it a flat fee, how crowded the train will be, if its safe, etc. People continue to believe anything they read on the internet


- Houston is on the list and Dallas isnt. Dallas public transportation is better than Houston overall but Houston is ranked higher. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- NYC transportation is better than DC, San Fran, Boston and Chicago overall but those cities are ranked above NYC. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- Philly transit is better than Seattle and Pittsburgh but they are ranked above Philly.All that other stuff doesnt matter

[wasel]

Funny, we just returned from several days in DC. We found the system convenient, perhaps a bit $ on some routes. But based on our experience it seems people are more biased toward using Uber than taking rail. Every time we would ask people about taking the metro they would advise us to take Uber or taxi because "it would take too long to use the train." Even the hotel staff at the hotel which markets itself as close to Metro were pushing Uber.

I could definitely see myself using the train daily if I lived there, but the time walking and riding would make a difference in how much I got done in a day.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by fieldm

List and study is garbage. Average commute times, population using transit and income difference for transit users should not be evaluated with regards to public transportation. It should be rated by heavy rail vs light rail vs no rail, number of stations, length of rail lines, time the rail system close, cost of tolls roads, average cost to take a round trip on rail, etc. When someone evaluates a possible move to a city they do not care about the income difference for transit users, population using transit, average commute time, etc they want to know if their job is near rail, if heavy rail/light rail will be near their home, does the system charge per station or is it a flat fee, how crowded the train will be, if its safe, etc. People continue to believe anything they read on the internet


- Houston is on the list and Dallas isnt. Dallas public transportation is better than Houston overall but Houston is ranked higher. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- NYC transportation is better than DC, San Fran, Boston and Chicago overall but those cities are ranked above NYC. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- Philly transit is better than Seattle and Pittsburgh but they are ranked above Philly.All that other stuff doesnt matter

You are confused.

Transit <> Rail.

I don't know that these are particularly good criteria, but yours are really limited. There are European cities without rail that have really good transit.

[fieldm]

^^This study is about North America. Not Africa, Europe, Jupiter, etc

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by fieldm

List and study is garbage. Average commute times, population using transit and income difference for transit users should not be evaluated with regards to public transportation. It should be rated by heavy rail vs light rail vs no rail, number of stations, length of rail lines, time the rail system close, cost of tolls roads, average cost to take a round trip on rail, etc. When someone evaluates a possible move to a city they do not care about the income difference for transit users, population using transit, average commute time, etc they want to know if their job is near rail, if heavy rail/light rail will be near their home, does the system charge per station or is it a flat fee, how crowded the train will be, if its safe, etc. People continue to believe anything they read on the internet


- Houston is on the list and Dallas isnt. Dallas public transportation is better than Houston overall but Houston is ranked higher. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- NYC transportation is better than DC, San Fran, Boston and Chicago overall but those cities are ranked above NYC. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- Philly transit is better than Seattle and Pittsburgh but they are ranked above Philly.All that other stuff doesnt matter

LOL, the criteria you mentioned is actually reflected in the actual criteria used on the population level--which is how data should be analyzed for transit. It's not about individual preferences when it comes to transit but how the transit system performs overall.

I think you also make the mistake of thinking that more miles of rail automatically equals better transit overall when that's simply not the case.

[netdragon]

Having just returned from a visit to Dallas, I think it's a travesty that ANY Texas city is on that list. Texas is a complete joke when it comes to transit and walk-ability. Metro Dallas is a grid of highways in highways, and where cars aren't going fast enough, a new maze of flyovers. Streets lined with strip malls and you could not possibly survive without a car, even with DART.

In a state like Texas, I can't imagine Houston being much better, especially when it looks spread out on Google Maps in satellite mode and street view. Where's the rail that somehow makes MARTA look inferior? So I'm guessing Houston just has a ton of busses, eh?

[Atlwarrior]

Originally Posted by fieldm

List and study is garbage. Average commute times, population using transit and income difference for transit users should not be evaluated with regards to public transportation. It should be rated by heavy rail vs light rail vs no rail, number of stations, length of rail lines, time the rail system close, cost of tolls roads, average cost to take a round trip on rail, etc. When someone evaluates a possible move to a city they do not care about the income difference for transit users, population using transit, average commute time, etc they want to know if their job is near rail, if heavy rail/light rail will be near their home, does the system charge per station or is it a flat fee, how crowded the train will be, if its safe, etc. People continue to believe anything they read on the internet


- Houston is on the list and Dallas isnt. Dallas public transportation is better than Houston overall but Houston is ranked higher. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- NYC transportation is better than DC, San Fran, Boston and Chicago overall but those cities are ranked above NYC. All that other stuff doesnt matter

- Philly transit is better than Seattle and Pittsburgh but they are ranked above Philly.All that other stuff doesnt matter

Actually the correct way to present data without bias is through normalizing the data; moreover, population density to rail use plays a huge factor in providing the most accurate assessment.

[netdragon]

Originally Posted by Atlwarrior

population density to rail use plays a huge factor in providing the most accurate assessment.

Their choices were very arbitrary. We could probably have a 2-station track in Lenox or midtown and nothing more, and be at the top of the list.

They could have included things like miles of rail, amount of metro within .5 miles of rail, amount of metro within .5 miles of bus, % of seats filled on rail / bus, etc.

Houston's rail is a joke compared to MARTA..
METRORail

Plus, MARTA has pretty high density along it, so not sure about the density argument.



The study obviously penalizes for the part of MARTA south of I-20...

[ElleKaye]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

...Unfortunately, Atlanta is nowhere on the list. This is a problem..

What are you trying to discuss here? Is there some reason you thought Atlanta should have been on the list?