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.
Well it does show the ridership is highest for New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Fran and DC, in that order. Other than that, I'm not following with the percentages. If you live in a town of 10 single adults and all 10 take the bus to work, does that make them busier than New York?
The guy doesn't understand statistics or logic. Don't worry about it. Several posters have tried explaining to him why it's a useless endeavor yet he still believes it is.
Chicago has more people riding thier total public transportation system (bus and rail) across their metro area, but they have a way lower percentage of their population who uses public transportation than the DC metro area. It's staggering DC has a higher rail ridership than Chicago with about half the population.
Chicago definetly has a higher bus ridership than DC does. DC is more of a white collar rail city. Chicago doesn't really have the same stigma for riding the bus.
American Public Transportation Report For Rail
Q2 2012 Subway Ridership
D.C. Metro Ridership = 1,027,600 daily riders
Chicago EL' Ridership = 737,900 daily riders
Q2 2012 Commuter Rail Ridership
DC MARC Ridership = 36,100 daily riders
DC VRE Ridership = 19,200 daily riders (Q4 2011)
Chicago Metra Ridership = 303,800 daily riders
Total City Rail Ridership
#1 DC Total Rail Ridership =1,082,900 daily riders **(metro area population = 5,703,948)**
#2 Chicago Total Rail Ridership = 1,041,700 daily riders **(metro area population = 9,461,105)**
Chicago has more people riding thier total public transportation system (bus and rail) across their metro area, but they have a way lower percentage of their population who uses public transportation than the DC metro area. It's staggering DC has a higher rail ridership than Chicago with about half the population.
Chicago definetly has a higher bus ridership than DC does. DC is more of a white collar rail city. Chicago doesn't really have the same stigma for riding the bus.
American Public Transportation Report For Rail
Q2 2012 Subway Ridership
D.C. Metro Ridership = 1,027,600 daily riders
Chicago EL' Ridership = 737,900 daily riders
Q2 2012 Commuter Rail Ridership
DC MARC Ridership = 36,100 daily riders
DC VRE Ridership = 19,200 daily riders (Q4 2011)
Chicago Metra Ridership = 303,800 daily riders
Total City Rail Ridership
#1 DC Total Rail Ridership =1,082,900 daily riders **(metro area population = 5,703,948)**
#2 Chicago Total Rail Ridership = 1,041,700 daily riders **(metro area population = 9,461,105)**
Funny you use MSA population to skew your numbers here, while in other posts the DC boosters always go with the CSA numbers to inflate their GDP and importance. Whatever makes you feel better No worries, I'll just be sure to use your MSA for wealth/importance arguments in the future. That only keeps it fair right? Of course I'm sure those SF numbers posted certainly include the wealth producing combined CSA of San Jose/Silicon Valley in the "percents" right because all those high wage earners love to take public transit?? Oh they don't ??
Funny you use MSA population to skew your numbers here, while in other posts the DC boosters always go with the CSA numbers to inflate their GDP and importance. Whatever makes you feel better
Sorry, I don't participate in worthless debates like that. Why people on this site talk about GDP which has nothing to do with the feel of our daily life, I will never understand. Now rail ridership and urban feel, yes, that matter's in a cities quality of life or living preference discussion. I talk about urban development and urban infrastructure projects which actually matter. Everything else on this site is pretty much a waste of time.
On a side note, DC is about to put a wide gap on everybody behind them with the 23 mile Silver Metro Line opening in less than a year now. Metro ridership is about to grow by a pretty wide margin. With the TOD projects everywhere around the system, metro ridership is expected to approach 1,500,000 million over the next 10 years.
Sorry, I don't participate in worthless debates like that. Why people on this site talk about GDP which has nothing to do with the feel of our daily life, I will never understand. Now rail ridership and urban feel, yes, that matter's in a cities quality of life or living preference discussion. I talk about urban development and urban infrastructure projects which actually matter. Everything else on this site is pretty much a waste of time.
On a side note, DC is about to put a wide gap on everybody behind them with the 23 mile Silver Metro Line opening in less than a year now. Metro ridership is about to grow by a pretty wide margin. With the TOD projects everywhere around the system, metro ridership is expected to approach 1,500,000 million over the next 10 years.
Understandable, but you have to compare apples to apples. That is why percentages aren't a good measure.
A better comparison in your case would be Cook county 5.2 million compared to the Washington Metro area, 5.7 million... or something like that if we want to judge popularity of using public transit, which is the only thing percentage could possibly hope to do. Otherwise there are too many factors and we need to look at raw numbers.
Track length in a square mile area, usage in a square mile area, transfers per station, population in that defined area, delays on certain lines, frequency of service, etc.
I agree with most of that list except I definitely would put Boston ahead of both Philly and SF with the latter two duking it out for 4 and 5.
Quote:
If we're talking about the entire transit system, that being light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail, bus and boat, Boston is ahead of both Philly and San Francisco.
Yeah I was a little unsure of where to put those three (and Los Angeles too, actually). Here's what I got for total weekday ridership of the three:
Boston:
Rapid Transit: 538k
Light Rail: 248k
Commuter Rail: 133k
Trolleys: 12.5k (what counts as trolleys? The E Line?)
Buses: 394k Total ~ 1,325,500
Los Angeles:
Rapid Transit: 155k
Light Rail: 184k
Commuter Rail: 43.7k
Buses: 1,141k Total ~ 1,324,400
So technically, Los Angeles has the fourth most-used system in the country. Though most people on this site weight rapid transit and rail transit higher than bus transit, so I can see why LA would be considered lower (even by me) than the numbers show. When you add in the various municipal transit agencies that are not counted in my numbers above (Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver City Transit, Long Beach Transit, etc.) as well as the DASH lines that are run by the city of LA (I would imagine they have pretty low ridership - though for 50 cents a ride you really cannot beat that) that is where you usually see the Los Angeles area vaulted to the number three busiest system in the country.
But yes, Oy and Bam88 you are right, Boston is more busy than Philly and SF - I guess it just didn't feel as busy as SF's and I kinda just assumed Philly would be busier - guess not
Understandable, but you have to compare apples to apples. That is why percentages aren't a good measure.
A better comparison in your case would be Cook county 5.2 million compared to the Washington Metro area, 5.2 million.
DC's metro area transit ridership population share is at 19.4% according to the most recent American community survey results just released by the census.
This is a good list for rapid transit only (I would assume for LA you are including the LRT). Although I'm not sure Atlanta's system is busier than Los Angeles'. Boston's T is always really busy, particularly the Green Line - but to compare it with LA, the other system I am familiar with, the buses get nowhere near as busy. Including the bus systems is where LA really catches up to the pack (and where Chicago puts itself in the lead).
Here is my list, which includes all forms of PT, including buses.
1.) Chicago
2.) Washington
3.) San Francisco
4.) Philadelphia (interchangeable with 5)
5.) Boston (interchangeable with 4)
6.) Los Angeles
7.) Portland
8.) Seattle
9.) Miami
10.) Cleveland? San Jose? San Diego? Dallas? Houston? No idea.
I think you should put Boston ahead of Philly. they have a really good system their in Boston. For number 10 it should be cleveland.
I think you should put Boston ahead of Philly. they have a really good system their in Boston. For number 10 it should be cleveland.
A lot of people forget that Septa is not the only transit system in the Philly area. The Philly area does have more people using mass transit when just going by population. However the Boston does have a higher percentage of people using mass transit than the Philadelphia area. So I guess that would make the Boston area more busier.
Last edited by gwillyfromphilly; 11-12-2012 at 02:03 PM..
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.
No worries, I'll just be sure to use your MSA for wealth/importance arguments in the future. That only keeps it fair right? Of course I'm sure those SF numbers posted certainly include the wealth producing combined CSA of San Jose/Silicon Valley in the "percents" right because all those high wage earners love to take public transit?? Oh they don't ?? 
