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.
Surprised how the low median household income of Fort Greene/Clinton Hill. More pre-gentrification residents than I assumed.
That zip code is a lot of park space, Pratt, and the Navy Yard. Of the rest that is residential, a good deal of it are housing projects. Of the remaining residential outside of that, the northwestern bit of that zipcode has very poor satmar hasidim and the area surrounding Pratt has a lot of students who aren't going to be rolling in money. There is definitely a very bougie part of that zipcode, but it doesn't compose all that much percentage of that zipcode's area.
Transit Score should look like this:
1. New York City - 81
2. San Francisco - 80
3. Boston - 75
4. Washington DC - 70
5. Philadelphia - 67
6. Chicago - 65 Minneapolis - 65 7. Minneapolis-St. Paul - 61
8. Seattle - 57
9. Baltimore - 57 St. Paul - 56
10. Los Angeles - 50
Hi everyone, I'm an great big idiot and I mixed up the Walk Score and Transit Score values for the Twin Cities lmao. I was just looking back at this and wondering how on earth Minneapolis could have the same Transit Score as Chicago.
So DISREGARD THAT, this is what it should look like IRL:
Transit Score
1. New York City - 81
2. San Francisco - 80
3. Boston - 75
4. Washington DC - 70
5. Philadelphia - 67
6. Chicago - 65 Minneapolis - 58
7. Seattle - 57
8. Baltimore - 57 9. Minneapolis-St. Paul - 53
10. Los Angeles - 50
for some areas the walk versu transit may come into to play, especially for smaller cores (none NYC)
Places like Back Bay or West CC with walk share of 32 and 44% as an example - no need for transit as are so close
even my home nabe of Bella Vista - slightly further yet a short walk has a combined walk/bike share of 30% its a 5 minute bike ride and 15 minute walk to the CBD as an example and nearly as fast as PT to the core - imagine mot car commuters are leaving the city from this area as drive time and parking would make walking or biking easier to the core in most cases from there
When you focus on just the areas in Central Philadelphia, the transit share doesn't budge that much. When I say "Central Philadelphia," I'm talking about CC, all of South Philadelphia, U. City/Mantua, Spruce Hill, Fairmount, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Port Richmond, etc. The transit share for these areas is 30.7%.
The size of this area is 30.2 sq. miles with a population of 559,814 (18,536 ppsm).
You don't think the regional connector might help in making light rail more convenient?
Not really for Central LA residents. I guess it adds a couple new stations near job centers and that might help. But RC is more a game changer for outer areas like NELA, East LA and South LA.
And yes, there are quite a few car commuters in DTLA that drive to the Westside. It's probably not a ton, but for a highly urban area it is a lot.
Now that I think of it, the DtLA to Santa Monica extension of the Expo line will probably increase the number of transit riders in Central LA.
When you focus on just the areas in Central Philadelphia, the transit share doesn't budge that much. When I say "Central Philadelphia," I'm talking about CC, all of South Philadelphia, U. City/Mantua, Spruce Hill, Fairmount, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Port Richmond, etc. The transit share for these areas is 30.7%.
The size of this area is 30.2 sq. miles with a population of 559,814 (18,536 ppsm).
Not to drag this too far off topic...I sorta got on a roll when someone brought up the expansive city limits thing.
At 47.5 square miles, I get a total population of 926,499 for Philadelphia (19,505 ppsm). This includes all of the aforementioned areas plus most of North Philly, West Philly (excluding Wynnefield and the Park), Germantown and a bit of the Lower Northeast. I'll have to double check this, but does this sound right? I remember there was a thread on cities' densest 47 sq. miles before.
Density-wise, you don't always realize how far DC is behind the rest of the pack.
This makes sense to me; would seem Boston and Philly have pretty similar cores. When I did for Philly I got a very similar result, but as a bigger city was able to stay in the limits, reagrdless both have always seemed remarkably similar in many ways
Philly at 47 sq miles was 1,028,826 and 21,726 ppsm over the area. These two places really have a lot of similar characteristics including density and both are denser in the core or what would be the city limits when compared to SF
Philly and Boston are almost twins seperated at birth; just one may have had a slightly higher income growing up and a little bit better school district
Not really for Central LA residents. I guess it adds a couple new stations near job centers and that might help. But RC is more a game changer for outer areas like NELA, East LA and South LA.
I wanted to see how Central Los Angeles would look compared to other cities. For the most part, I adhered to the boundaries in this L.A. Times article. However, I excluded Hollywood Hills and Hollywood Hills West because those are large areas that are sparsely populated. That removes 11.87 square miles from the 57.87 square mile L.A. Times definition (for a total land area of 46 sq. miles).
Population - 831,350 (18,072 ppsm)
Transit Riders - 77,447 (18.39%)
SOV commuters - 249,033 (59.15%)
Walk to work - 19,682 (4.67%)
Bike, cab, other - 11,380 (2.70%)
No vehicle households - 73,074 (21.20%)
I think we already knew this, but if Central L.A. were its own city, it would be the third densest large city in America, literally nipping at SF's heels.
Excellent work.
Much of Central LA is functionally walkable and dense with amenities, people, and jobs, but it lacks the pedestrian friendliness and strong transit network CHI/SF/PHI/BOS/DC do, and your numbers reflect that. I'm happy with the strides the city continues to make, but there's lots of work to do. The MSA is mostly fine the way it is, but Central LA should stick out more prominently than it does. It would lead to a more sustainable metro for sure.
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.
