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.
I understand your point that the scores would be different in certain areas (much like walkability). However, a major part of a transit system's effectiveness is its ability to provide good coverage over a large area -- regardless of whether it is still a large system.
Given that reasoning, would it be fair to say Portland has better PT then Chicago?
I understand your point that the scores would be different in certain areas (much like walkability). However, a major part of a transit system's effectiveness is its ability to provide good coverage over a large area -- regardless of the size of the system.
Right - in Chicago's score we get a more regional transit score, in Miami, Boston and SF's case we get only the transit score of the very core of a region. Chicago is penalized for having more mid-range suburbs within city limits (and counted in the Transit Score) while the other cities are benefited by having municipal boundaries that are tight around the core, with mid-range suburbs outside of city limits (and not counted in Transit Score).
I would much rather be transit dependent 5-10 miles outside Chicago's core than 5-10 miles outside of Boston's core, for instance.
Usually transit usage follows density, especially once density is above 10,000 ppsm. That is the point at which walkable and bikeable lifestyles become plausible to those who don't do it out of economic necessity. Here are density maps of Houston and the Twin Cities broken down by census tract. You will notice that Houston has a somewhat larger area of moderate density. Minneapolis has a larger area of contiguous dense tracts aroud the core which are hospitable to car free living.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,995,252 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I would much rather be transit dependent 5-10 miles outside Chicago's core than 5-10 miles outside of Boston's core, for instance.
I've lived in both and I don't see this as all. The subways from Boston (plus the buses) all go into the suburbs and the commuter lines go really far out (60-90 minute commute).
I've lived in both and I don't see this as all. The subways from Boston (plus the buses) all go into the suburbs and the commuter lines go really far out (60-90 minute commute).
I don't see this either. Most inner suburbs of Boston are quite urban. Places like Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, etc. are basically an extension of the city proper.
I don't see how Boston is less walkable/transit oriented than Chicago. If anything, it may be a tad more walkable/transit oriented.
So are you saying, taking the same sq miles from the cores out Minneapolis has higher PT riders?
That's arbitrary because the Houston area is much more populated than the Minneapolis area so it's not really anything to brag about if Houston they have higher ridership. With that being said, it still doesn't change the fact that Houston is one of the worst transit cities for a city of its size.
again we're not comparing pound for pound, you're going off percentages which in case will always favor the smaller city and metro.
Metro numbers are the closest you are going to get to an apples to apples comparison. If you want numbers for a 5 mile radius or a 10 mile radius, good luck, those numbers don't exist.
I don't see this either. Most inner suburbs of Boston are quite urban. Places like Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, etc. are basically an extension of the city proper.
I don't see how Boston is less walkable/transit oriented than Chicago. If anything, it may be a tad more walkable/transit oriented.
To me, the ranking makes general sense.
Yeah I know - I lived in Boston too. When I said suburbs, I meant actual suburbs, not Cambridge, Somerville which are basically just parts of the city. The El lines in Chicago almost all go out to 10 miles, in Boston they go out 5 miles (Except the D Line and Red Line to Braintree which do go out 10 miles). Way more Chicago-area residents are near the El than Boston-area residents are near the T.
You could make the point though that weird city limits like Boston's and LA's that have urban "suburbs" also puts their score at a disadvantage - Cambridge is more transit-oriented than say West Roxbury, and West Hollywood is more transit-oriented than Tujunga. But the former don't count in the Transit Score and the latter do.
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.
