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.
Total Transit Ridership in San Francisco Area (All Muni Modes, BART, AC Transit, SamTrans, GGT): 1,388,300
Total Transit Ridership in Philadelphia Area (All SEPTA Modes, All South Jersey NJT): 1,301,158
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for San Francisco: 27.6%
Transit Ridership as a Percentage of MSA Population for Philadelphia: 21.6%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in San Francisco: 50.2%
Percentage of Central-City Residents Commuting by Transit (or Walking) in Philadelphia: 50.0%
So they're close but I'd definitely say the edge goes to SF
It's also important to make a distinction between ridership and coverage. I suspect that in the multi-nodal Bay Area that there are several areas of very heavy ridership (i.e., SF, Oakland and San Jose), but the coverage--taking into account land area--would not necessarily be as much of a strong point compared to the more compact Philly area.
In other words, public transit may be more utilized in SF, but I think people in the Philly area are more likely to live near some sort of mode of public transit, despite not always using it (especially as many city residents have to commute to the suburbs, which SEPTA definitely was not designed for). A strange paradox, but I think there's some truth to it.
They're daily numbers. All the ridership data is from the APTA Ridership Report, which is published quarterly and includes data for just about all major transit agencies in the country, broken down by mode. (Here's the link to the most recent report: http://www.apta.com/resources/statis...rship-APTA.pdf)
Philly does initially appear to have a major lead in bus ridership (526,400 for SEPTA vs. 298,800 for MUNI). However, the report counts electric trolleybuses, which are used on all the major routes in SF and thus far more prevalent than in Philly, separately. Add those numbers in and you've got 548,000 for SEPTA and 475,100 for MUNI).
Then, other agencies: SF has AC Transit, which serves the East Bay and has a daily ridership of 184,400. Two more suburban bus agencies, SamTrans in San Mateo County and Golden Gate Transit in Marin County, add another 72,000 (thoes figures come straight from the agency websited). As for Philly, the main other agency to add is NJT, which has a South Jersey bus ridership of about 82,000 (statistics from this awesome NJT ridership report: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/NJ...hip_1Q2013.pdf). Then you can add DART New Castle (about 21,000 according to this: http://www.wilmapco.org/WilmTransitF...2014-02-24.pdf)
For a grand Bus Ridership total of:
San Francisco: 731,500
Philadelphia: 651,000
New York in a league of its own of course. Very easy to get around without a car and most people do
The second tier is clearly the other five "transit legacy cities". I think the point could be debated over without ever having a conclusive ranking but personally I'd rank them DC, Chicago, Boston, SF, Philly. In these cities it's relatively easy to get around without a car, most people take public transit often, but many also still have cars and drive.
Third tier for me would be LA, Seattle, and Baltimore in that order. In these cities it's possible to live without a car in central areas but not many people do. There's decent but often inconcenient public transit with relatively high ridership
Fourth tier of Atlanta, Miami, and Portland in no particular order. These cities have semi-decent and relatively well-used transit systems but are still extremely car-centric
It's also important to make a distinction between ridership and coverage. I suspect that in the multi-nodal Bay Area that there are several areas of very heavy ridership (i.e., SF, Oakland and San Jose), but the coverage--taking into account land area--would not necessarily be as much of a strong point compared to the more compact Philly area.
In other words, public transit may be more utilized in SF, but I think people in the Philly area are more likely to live near some sort of mode of public transit, despite not always using it (especially as many city residents have to commute to the suburbs, which SEPTA definitely was not designed for). A strange paradox, but I think there's some truth to it.
Just to clarify, the statistics I posted do not include San Jose ridership
I agree there is some truth to this, but it is at least partially negated by the fact that Philly is a much bigger area than SF proper. Yes, the Bay Area is more multi-nodal than Philly but the East Bay is just as dense and urban as many outer areas of Philly (and significanly more urban than the NE and NW) and is thus very well seved as well, both by BART and AC Transit.
Bay Area transit isn't just concentrated in SF, and when you expand out to a roughly Philly-sized area (roughly SF, Daly City, Oakland, Berkeley) you've got relatively equal ridership and coverage in both those areas. Those two areas also correspond relatively nicely with the areas at urban densities (10K+ imo) leaving only suburbs, with not much ridership anyway, beyond. People often forget to include the East Bay as part of the core of the Urban Bay Area, but doing so shows that things really aren't terribly concentrated just in Northeastern SF or something like that
Is there a chance that LA could move into the 2nd tier? I believe LA has the 2nd highest bus ridership in the country and we all know what's going on with rail expansion in the city.
It's also important to make a distinction between ridership and coverage. I suspect that in the multi-nodal Bay Area that there are several areas of very heavy ridership (i.e., SF, Oakland and San Jose), but the coverage--taking into account land area--would not necessarily be as much of a strong point compared to the more compact Philly area.
In other words, public transit may be more utilized in SF, but I think people in the Philly area are more likely to live near some sort of mode of public transit, despite not always using it (especially as many city residents have to commute to the suburbs, which SEPTA definitely was not designed for). A strange paradox, but I think there's some truth to it.
Excellent point, coverage and availability trump sheer ridership numbers. In some cities, people just don't realize or appreciate how good they have it, and often ignore transit... In many cases, the affect transit has on roads is highly positive, with trains actually freeing up space on the roads -- which, in turn, causes some people to drive and thus drops ridership numbers...
Also note that Philly has a very underdeveloped freeway system -- there are only 3 radial freeways from downtown/Center City I-95 North, I-95 south and the Schuylkill Expressway. This for a metro area of over 5 million people. Why? Great transit is a large part of it, with 13 commuter rail branches, 5 rapid transit branches (and throw in 5 more subway surface lines) and the 4 suburban rapid transit lines... With a great system like this, who needs more freeways!!!!!!
Is there a chance that LA could move into the 2nd tier? I believe LA has the 2nd highest bus ridership in the country and we all know what's going on with rail expansion in the city.
There's definitely a chance LA could move up in the not-too-distant future but it's certainly not quite there now. LA does indeed have the second highest bus ridership in the country (1.35 million ish) and there's obviously investment in rail. The rail system remains woefully underused however and on a per capita basis LA trails far behind the second tier cities, not to mention of course the built form being less conducive to transit
I believe LA and the Bay Area have roughly equal ridership when factoring all systems (this includes, for instance, the ferries in San Francisco). Numbers were 1.7-1.8 million people, and as a reminder, APTA tracks un-linked trips. So a person using 2 bus routes to get to work and then back home later could be up to 4 "riders" for that system depending on how transfers are handled.
I want to say Philly has better overall coverage than the Bay Area due to its commuter rail lines. Those make a league of difference. Also, the Bay Area in general is just more crowded. That means the main/predominant commuter rail line, Caltrains, is rush-hour subway crowded all the time, which is a huge departure from other cities' commuter lines, which are typically not crowded and allow for seating for all or most.
The BART/MUNI rush in San Francisco is more hectic and crowded than the SEPTA rush in CC Philly.
For the month of June 2015, there were 432K avg weekday riders on BART. 144K entries at the 4 stations serving downtown and 146K exits, per day, on average. 4 stations being Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, and Civic Center. The bulk (over 93K) between Embarcadero and Montgomery stations alone.
That's for BART only. All 6 MUNI Metro lines converge on the trunk at these 4 stations, as well, and MUNI only serving as a way to get outer SF residents downtown, most MUNI metro passengers are entering and exiting through these 4 stations, which would easily add 100-150K+ more people a day to these 4.
I can't find similar data for SEPTA except that a few years ago an estimated 57K people went through City Hall station, the region's busiest.
In terms of bus routes, *huge* difference between Philly buses and Bay Area buses, the latter generally are far more crowded and cumbersome (read: slow). So this is my personal biggest gripe with the Bay Area, which is ready for more serious underground rail.
Old data for Bay Area, but just astounding the amount of people some of those MUNI lines, and even AC Transit and VTA (San Jose) lines carry. Just shames most light rail SYSTEMS in this country. What it means is that no matter the frequency, these buses are hyper-overcrowded for much of the day. And they stop at each block, uphill and downhill. MUNI is not a favorable system, its underground metro is no better.
One has to consider density/urban intensity along with ridership. SF's ridership is super high because it's a very dense, very intense city, and its downtown is on one side, not central. But in all actuality, for as dense as SF is, ridership should be even higher. These days more and more people use Lyft, Uber, Sidecar, etc, hence why all these companies were created in the city and are based there. There is definitely a demand for an improved rail system, just no money to get one built ($2Bn/mile...pretty ridiculous).
Pros: Undisputed best transit city in America. Excellent all on all merits.
Cons: Very dirty transit system
#2 Chicago
Pros: Great subway system, commuter rail system, inter-city rail, and bus service, All around great transit that is second only to NYC.
Cons: Poor light rail service
#3 Philadelphia
Pros: Great commuter rail service, intercity service, light rail, and bus service. Best 24/7 transit outside of NYC. Does the most with less despite serious underfunding compared to other major cities.
Pros: Great subway service, inter-city rail, and bus service. Great ridership. Cleanest transit system in the Northeast Corridor Cons: Mediocre commuter rail service; poor light rail service
#5 Boston
Pros: Great commuter rail service. Good subway service, light rail, and inter-city service. Good ridership
Cons: Transit system feels old and run down compared to other major cities; mediocre bus service; poor late night service.
#6 San Francisco
Pros: Great light rail and bus service. Good inter-city rail service.
New York. Cleanliness is a problem (in fact, based on that NYC would be below cities like Dallas, Atlanta, and Miami), but you can't beat the New York City Subway, SIR, PATH, MNR, LIRR, and NJT (commuter rail + HBLR) for public transportation in this country.
After that is Washington, then Chicago and Philadelphia. All have very extensive transit systems, moreso than any other city in the country not named NYC.
- skbl17
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.
