Public Transportation Access for 10 biggest metros (best, state, largest, population)

[HtownLove]

People are always arguing over PT and posting uninformed comments. Here is a list of access to PT for the major metros


Rank / Metro /Access (Percentage Coverage )
1. Los Angeles 99.1
2. New York 98.7
San Jose 98.2
San Francisco 98.1
3. Miami 97.2
4. DC 96.4
San Diego 95.9
5. Chicago 95.5
6. Philadelphia 95.4
7. Boston 93.1
8. Houston 73.4
9. DFW 71.2
10. Atlanta 68.5


Most of these have near 100% access for the central City.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...tion_tomer.pdf

ATL passes Dallas at the City Level. Dallas (at 90% access for the city) was the only top tenner having less than 97% access to PT at the City level

[dtownboogie]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

People are always arguing over PT and posting uninformed comments. Here is a list of access to PT for the major metros


Rank / Metro /Access (Percentage Coverage )
1. Los Angeles 99.1
2. New York 98.7
San Jose 98.2
San Francisco 98.1
3. Miami 97.2
4. DC 96.4
San Diego 95.9
5. Chicago 95.5
6. Philadelphia 95.4
7. Boston 93.1
8. Houston 73.4
9. DFW 71.2
10. Atlanta 68.5


Most of these have near 100% access for the central City.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...tion_tomer.pdf

ATL passes Dallas at the City Level. Dallas (at 90% access for the city) was the only top tenner having less than 97% access to PT at the City level

So what's the point of your last comment? Anyways these numbers don't mean squat if people have access but don't actually use PT.

[2Easy]

Dallas is probably hurt at the metro level by having Arlington in its metro. It's the largest city in the US without regular public transportation.

[18Montclair]

I believe it, In Oakland we have transit everywhere, even in steep narrow hillsides that look like rural mountain campgrounds you see a huge bus winding its way through seemingly impossible routes.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

Dallas is probably hurt at the metro level by having Arlington in its metro. It's the largest city in the US without regular public transportation.

Arlington will catch on as it ages, it just grew up very quickly so it isn't accustomed to its legs yet

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by HtownLove

People are always arguing over PT and posting uninformed comments. Here is a list of access to PT for the major metros


Rank / Metro /Access (Percentage Coverage )
1. Los Angeles 99.1
2. New York 98.7
San Jose 98.2
San Francisco 98.1
3. Miami 97.2
4. DC 96.4
San Diego 95.9
5. Chicago 95.5
6. Philadelphia 95.4
7. Boston 93.1
8. Houston 73.4
9. DFW 71.2
10. Atlanta 68.5


Most of these have near 100% access for the central City.


http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...tion_tomer.pdf

ATL passes Dallas at the City Level. Dallas (at 90% access for the city) was the only top tenner having less than 97% access to PT at the City level

You're statements are misleading. As that link shows, those percentages are for "zero-vehicle households."

What you fail to mention is that most of the cities you listed have a very small percentage of zero-vehicle households.

[HtownLove]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

You're statements are misleading. As that link shows, those percentages are for "zero-vehicle households."

It doesn't matter what percentage of the city has no car, it is access to PT that matters. LA has a higher percentage of homes with cars than NY and yet the percentage with Access to PT is higher. SF has a lower carless ercentage population than LA and yet has more access than LA.


LA has more cars and more of the population has access to PT than NY. But the percentage difference is negligible.

anyway coverage is coverage. When near 100% of the city has access to PT that means there is access for darn near everybody.

Its not like there is a rice mans bus or a poor mans bus. Or a no car city in the metro or something. People without cars are spread out evenly across the metro.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by dtownboogie

So what's the point of your last comment? Anyways these numbers don't mean squat if people have access but don't actually use PT.

Why do you always take so much offense when someone posts a fact about Dallas?

Originally Posted by HtownLove

Arlington will catch on as it ages, it just grew up very quickly so it isn't accustomed to its legs yet

Doubt it. The population of Arlington has that "middle-class I'm too good" mindset, even though the city now is hardly like that. People still don't want public transit in Arlington, even though it has good points of interests (Six Flags, Cowboys Stadium/Rangers Ballpark, Univ. of Texas at Arlington, South Arlington retail area). They will just deny, deny, deny. Plus, they would want connections into Fort Worth first over Dallas, I bet.

[Gateway Region]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

You're statements are misleading. As that link shows, those percentages are for "zero-vehicle households."

What you fail to mention is that most of the cities you listed have a very small percentage of zero-vehicle households.

I agree, this information is very misleading and quite useless when deciding on where to live without a car.

Anyone who believes Los Angeles has the best PT Transit access in this country is beyond delusional. This is sort of the equivalent of someone stating Jacksonville is the most urban city in Florida for having the highest population.

[Garfieldian]

Crappy information. This has nothing to do with the "quality" of transit... , which can be dramatic from city to city.
Several of those "systems" are a complete joke. I won't say which, as people will probably come in like rabid homers... But that isn't even close to a "good" list.