Urbanized Areas ranked by transit ridership per capita

Cirrus · #1 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:49 PM**

Code:

RANK	NAME		TRANSIT UNLINKED PASSENGER TRIPS PER CAPITA
1	New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT	199.8
2	San Francisco-Oakland, CA	130.1
3	Washington, DC-VA-MD		117.2
4	Honolulu, HI			99.8
5	Boston, MA-NH-RI		95.9
6	Chicago, IL-IN			73.5
7	Portland, OR-WA			67.9
8	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	66.4
9	Seattle, WA			62.2
10	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA	59.4
11	Baltimore, MD			52.3
12	Las Vegas, NV			51.5
13	Denver-Aurora, CO		43.6
14	Salt Lake City, UT		43.5
15	Atlanta, GA			42.4
16	Pittsburgh, PA			40.9
17	Cleveland, OH			39.3
18	Austin, TX			39.2
19	Milwaukee, WI			38.7
20	Madison, WI			37.3
21	San Diego, CA			35.9
22	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN	35.7
23	Miami, FL			33.1
24	San Antonio, TX			32.1
25	San Juan, PR			32.1
26	Reno, NV			29.5
27	Charlotte, NC-SC		27.9
28	Spokane, WA-ID			27.1
29	Houston, TX			26.8
30	San Jose, CA			26.6
31	Syracuse, NY			26.1
32	St. Louis, MO-IL		25.2
33	Sacramento, CA			24.9
34	Tucson, AZ			24.7
35	Buffalo, NY			24.3
36	Albany, NY			23.0
37	Phoenix-Mesa, AZ		22.1
38	Orlando, FL			21.9
39	Fresno, CA			21.5
40	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX	20.7
41	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN		19.5
42	Hartford, CT			19.2
43	El Paso, TX-NM			18.4
44	Dayton, OH			18.3
45	Rochester, NY			18.2
46	Providence, RI-MA		18.0
47	Richmond, VA			17.5
48	Louisville, KY-IN		17.4
49	Springfield, MA-CT		17.3
50	Virginia Beach, VA		17.2
51	Bakersfield, CA			16.6
52	New Haven, CT			16.5
53	Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	15.1
54	Stockton, CA			14.9
55	Albuquerque, NM			14.6
56	Flint, MI			14.6
57	Grand Rapids, MI		13.8
58	Columbus, OH			13.2
59	Jacksonville, FL		13.2
60	Detroit, MI			13.1
61	Toledo, OH-MI			12.4
62	Oxnard, CA			12.4
63	Akron, OH			12.3
64	Des Moines, IA			12.2
65	Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	12.1
66	Memphis, TN-MS-AR		12.1
67	Modesto, CA			12.0
68	Scranton, PA			11.8
69	Concord, CA			11.6
70	Bridgeport-Stamford, CT-NY	11.4
71	Kansas City, MO-KS		11.2
72	Raleigh, NC			10.9
73	New Orleans, LA			10.6
74	Nashville-Davidson, TN		10.5
75	Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ	9.7
76	Baton Rouge, LA			9.6
77	Cape Coral, FL			9.3
78	Chattanooga, TN-GA		9.0
79	Indianapolis, IN		8.2
80	Knoxville, TN			8.2
81	Worcester, MA-CT		8.0
82	Colorado Springs, CO		7.5
83	Lancaster, PA			7.3
84	Sarasota-Bradenton, FL		6.9
85	Harrisburg, PA			6.8
86	Little Rock, AR			6.7
87	Charleston-North Charleston, SC	6.5
88	Omaha, NE-IA			6.3
89	Columbia, SC			6.1
90	Birmingham, AL			5.5
91	Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY	5.5
92	Wichita, KS			5.5
93	Tulsa, OK			4.8
94	Youngstown, OH-PA		4.2
95	Oklahoma City, OK		3.9
96	Pensacola, FL-AL		3.8
97	Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL		3.8
98	Mobile, AL			3.0
99	Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC	2.8
100	McAllen, TX			0.11

Cirrus · #2 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 6:53 PM**

Surprised to see Honolulu, Portland and La Vegas so high, and San Juan, New Orleans and Detroit so low.

And surprised to see Houston higher than Dallas.

JackStraw · #3 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:00 PM**

^I don't see why you're so suprised by Portland. Arnt' they are a bunch of "save the earth, ride transit, and bike" hippies.

I can see Vegas being up there with the tourist who may ride public transportation that fly there. I bet if they did a who rides it to work, it would change.

Cirrus · #4 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:10 PM**

I'm not surprised Portland is high; I'm surprised it's higher than Philadelphia.

JackStraw · #5 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:15 PM**

Is Indianapolis and Kansas City really that bad? They are the largest Major metros over 1.5 Million ranked so low.

Cirrus · #6 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:20 PM**

Kansas City has the most highway miles per capita of any major American city. Can't say it's really a surprise.

VivaLFuego · #7 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 7:57 PM**

Would it be possible to show trips per capita within the transit service area?

ardecila · #8 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 8:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Kansas City has the most highway miles per capita of any major American city. Can't say it's really a surprise.

I've heard that Chicago has the lowest highway lane-miles per capita of major cities (of course, "major cities" is the keyword). However, it doesn't seem to be helping our regional transit ridership. Instead, all the trips are just shifted onto local roads, many of which are currently at capacity.

JackStraw · #9 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 8:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Would it be possible to show trips per capita within the transit service area?

I didn't think it would be hard. I know PAT (Pittsburgh's Port Authority) here takes always has numbers on their ridership. It could be from bus passes they sell, quarters in the machines, and divided out with the money they make.

Also, everytime I got on a bus in Denver, Pittsburgh, Philly, or any other town, the driver always pushed a button that beeps as each person walked on. I think that is for ridership numbers. It probably isnt exact, but give good aproximate numbers.

Echo Park · #10 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 8:28 PM**

i thought maybe LA would be higher than seattle, and chicago a bit higher. otherwise that list looks as i thought it would be. LA could probably jump to #7 if the purple gets extended to SaMo.

cabasse · #11 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 9:47 PM**

la's is so high from bus ridership, right?

Nutterbug · #12 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Surprised to see Honolulu, Portland and La Vegas so high, and San Juan, New Orleans and Detroit so low.

Honolulu and Vegas probably get a lot of young backpackers on a budget who are too cheap to rent a car.

unusualfire · #13 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:04 PM**

^Maybe they wanted to take a bus instead of renting a car.

WilliamTheArtist · #14 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:06 PM**

What does "transit Unlinked" mean?

miketoronto · #15 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:09 PM**

Those numbers are wrong. The numbers quoted in that report are "unlinked" trips. You have to use "linked" trips, because unlinked trips inflate the figures.

urbanactivist · #16 Posted **Apr 23, 2008, 10:13 PM**

Not that anything in Texas is monumental, but...

I thought that D/FW would for sure be higher than any other Texas metro, especially Houston. With the DART rail so far ahead and TRE commuter between the cities, why is D/FW so low??

Good to see that the light rail has been a rousing success in Houston... we just need to tell the NIMBYS to shut up, so we can build more.

Gordo · #17 Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 1:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Those numbers are wrong. The numbers quoted in that report are "unlinked" trips. You have to use "linked" trips, because unlinked trips inflate the figures.

If every place is using unlinked trips, inflation should be showing up across the board relatively equally. It only matters if some places are not using linked and some are using unlinked for a "ranking" such as this.

Major AWACS · #18 Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 1:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

Not that anything in Texas is monumental, but...

I thought that D/FW would for sure be higher than any other Texas metro, especially Houston. With the DART rail so far ahead and TRE commuter between the cities, why is D/FW so low??

Good to see that the light rail has been a rousing success in Houston... we just need to tell the NIMBYS to shut up, so we can build more.

This includes buses, which some tend to forget is also mass transit.
Houston has a huge park and ride system and HOV transit system for them. Even before light rail (which is doing better than planned in Houston) Houston transit had good numbers for bus ridership.

Ciao,
AWACS

TexasBoi · #19 Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 1:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX

Not that anything in Texas is monumental, but...

I thought that D/FW would for sure be higher than any other Texas metro, especially Houston. With the DART rail so far ahead and TRE commuter between the cities, why is D/FW so low??

Good to see that the light rail has been a rousing success in Houston... we just need to tell the NIMBYS to shut up, so we can build more.

I want to say Houston plopped their stations in already established pretty dense areas inside the loop and Dallas simply did not. What you see is what you get and I'm not surprised at all that Houston is higher. Not to mention the one Houston line runs straight through the TMC which attracts riders. Dallas put there stations in areas surrounded by nothing thus TOD's are planned or being built around these stations now. Expect Dallas to rise when they connect to the DFW airport and Love Field. Though I could be wrong or a little off.

rsbear · #20 Posted **Apr 24, 2008, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackStraw

^I don't see why you're so suprised by Portland. Arnt' they are a bunch of "save the earth, ride transit, and bike" hippies.

Eat our hydro-powered, emissions-free light-rail exhaust!

Portland trips per capita would be higher if it weren't for Vancouver, WA being part of the metro area - they don't fund, design or utilize transit as well as the Oregon side of the metro area.

And it's not hippies anymore, it's hipsters.