Transit/walk/bike commute modal shares for selected Metros/Cities - 2011

[J. Will]

Metro areas by transit share:




Metro areas by combined walk/bike share:




Metro areas by combined transit/walk/bike share:





City proper numbers to follow shortly.

[Jonboy1983]

Interesting that Pittsburgh just misses the top 10 list among US metro areas in the walk/bike share stats. It's right around 10th place in terms of transit use and transit/walking/biking tho...

It's obvious that the largest/most densely populated cities will have the highest numbers overall. (Chicago, New York, Washington, San Francisco, and Philadelphia are all significantly higher than those of Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta or Miami; all are large metros, but the densities vary).

[J. Will]

I just noticed that I forgot to add all the numbers to get the transit/walk/bike share for Vancouver. It should be 27.8%, not 24.6%. I'm not too familiar with using Excel, so I'm having to remember to add all the numbers manually.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Interesting that Pittsburgh just misses the top 10 list among US metro areas in the walk/bike share stats. It's right around 10th place in terms of transit use and transit/walking/biking tho...

These aren't the top metros. They're just selected metros that I chose to use.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Interesting that Pittsburgh just misses the top 10 list among US metro areas in the walk/bike share stats. It's right around 10th place in terms of transit use and transit/walking/biking tho...

It's obvious that the largest/most densely populated cities will have the highest numbers overall. (Chicago, New York, Washington, San Francisco, and Philadelphia are all significantly higher than those of Phoenix, Dallas, Atlanta or Miami; all are large metros, but the densities vary).

Bay Area's funny, because if you just look at San Francisco it looks so walk/bike/transit friendly, but then when you look at San Jose you realize that things aren't all that they seem.

[ardecila]

Isn't that the case for most US cities? Suburban transit sucks and/or suburbanites refuse to ride the bus, leaving only a handful of core-oriented commuter services that drive a low transit mode share. Canadian cities didn't have white flight or core-city disinvestment the same way we had them in the US, so Canadian downtowns still contain a huge percentage of regional jobs. They also seem to have a lower rail bias.

[J. Will]

I believe "rail bias" is a myth. People care primarily about speed and service frequency (especially for commuting, where hours of operation are less of a concern for most). If people aren't using bus routes in a city that are slow and/or infrequent, it's likely they aren't using them BECAUSE they are slow and/or infrequent (of course the worse combination is slow AND infrequent), not because they are buses.

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by J. Will

These aren't the top metros. They're just selected metros that I chose to use.

Yeah, I know that. I was referring to the top metro areas on your list...

Originally Posted by emathias

Bay Area's funny, because if you just look at San Francisco it looks so walk/bike/transit friendly, but then when you look at San Jose you realize that things aren't all that they seem.

It doesn't surprise me that San Fran proper would look more bike/ped/transit-friendly. San Francisco is smaller that Pittsburgh in terms of its geographical area (46 sq mi to 56 or 57 sq mi respectively), but San Fran contains about 2.5 times the population that Pittsburgh has. That's pretty intense!!

I've never been to California, but I've seen satellite imagery of San Francisco. The (residential)buildings might not be supremely tall, but they are pretty much right on top of each other from what I could tell...

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

...
It doesn't surprise me that San Fran proper would look more bike/ped/transit-friendly. San Francisco is smaller that Pittsburgh in terms of its geographical area (46 sq mi to 56 or 57 sq mi respectively), but San Fran contains about 2.5 times the population that Pittsburgh has. That's pretty intense!!
...

Relevant if we were talking about cities, but we're talking about metro areas. What other metros get to carve out a huge chunk of their suburbs into a separate metro area?

Originally Posted by ardecila

Isn't that the case for most US cities? Suburban transit sucks and/or suburbanites refuse to ride the bus, leaving only a handful of core-oriented commuter services that drive a low transit mode share. ...

Yes, but most aren't in areas that are split so nicely into urban/surburban areas. How different would Philly or Chicago or D.C. or even Seattle or Denver numbers look if you could so conveniently slice out an enormous chunk of their suburbs into a separate metro area?

[ssiguy]

I've always found it funny that despite Portland's touchy-feelly, enviro, granola eating reputation, it's transit ridership levels are very low and it's walk/bike share isn't anything to write home about either.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I've always found it funny that despite Portland's touchy-feelly, enviro, granola eating reputation, it's transit ridership levels are very low and it's walk/bike share isn't anything to write home about either.

Portland, like Apple, is mostly about good marketing.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I've always found it funny that despite Portland's touchy-feelly, enviro, granola eating reputation, it's transit ridership levels are very low and it's walk/bike share isn't anything to write home about either.

Yeah, its transit ridership is lower than Seattle's, lol. So much for that "rail bias".

[simms3_redux]

I'm still impressed by Portland - it's leagues better than every other city under 4 million people (yet Portland is only 2 million people), and also leagues better than metros several times its size (Atlanta, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Detroit, Los Angeles etc). Overall, I'd say that western cities (even San Jose when you compare to American cities in general, and LA despite its sprawly nature and reputation) do very well. NYC, Philadelphia, Boston and Baltimore have had extensive transit now for over a century of continuous operation, yet new 20th century western cities large and small are exceeding some of these East Coast cities in transit ridership as well as walk/bike use. It's quite interesting, really.

Impressive (especially for size and age of systems) - Portland, Denver and Salt Lake City

Surprised - San Jose

Has room to grow and plays into the stereotype, but not bad for a 20th century "America city" - Los Angeles

Frankly I've spent most of my life in transit-hostile areas, where transit systems are left to rot and mismanaged (or dirty and unsafe if they exist at all), or where the people are so anti-transit that there hardly is any transit (and yet they complain about traffic). So to see Denver, SLC, Portland, and of course the larger western/west coast cities investing so heavily in transit and complete streets for bikes/peds is refreshing. I just wish SF would ramp it up...Muni Metro needs to be beefed up and Caltrains needs to find the funding to extend into the city. Would be great to have HSR between SF and LA too.

[BnaBreaker]

Not that it really makes much of a difference, but Memphis's transit/walk/bike percentage should be 2.9%

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm a bit shocked at how high Halifax is in terms of transit share. It's ahead of some pretty major cities. Walk/bike share, sure. We're not that big, so it's easier for people to walk to destinations that in really major cities. But we have no subway, LRT, or commuter rail, and our bus service isn't terribly frequent (most routes are every 1/2 hr) so transit share is very surprising.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by emathias

Relevant if we were talking about cities, but we're talking about metro areas. What other metros get to carve out a huge chunk of their suburbs into a separate metro area?

Get to? Are you serious? The seemingly arbitrary split of what was for decades roundly considered a single metropolitan area was imposed by the OMB and Census Bureau in 2000. Forumers have repeatedly contested the idea that the Bay Area is composed of two discrete metropolitan areas, and you know that. And in answer to your ludicrious question, Angelenos "get to" chop off the entire Inland Empire as if it were some unrelated, unattached metropolitan area. Not that they "get to" have any say in that...

Yes, but most aren't in areas that are split so nicely into urban/surburban areas. How different would Philly or Chicago or D.C. or even Seattle or Denver numbers look if you could so conveniently slice out an enormous chunk of their suburbs into a separate metro area?

If things were different, they would be different.

[ltsmotorsport]

Where are Sacramento's numbers? I know it would rank on these lists.

[nei]

Originally Posted by fflint

Get to? Are you serious? The seemingly arbitrary split of what was for decades roundly considered a single metropolitan area was imposed by the OMB and Census Bureau in 2000. Forumers have repeatedly contested the idea that the Bay Area is composed of two discrete metropolitan areas, and you know that. And in answer to your ludicrious question, Angelenos "get to" chop off the entire Inland Empire as if it were some unrelated, unattached metropolitan area. Not that they "get to" have any say in that...

It goes by commute share. If less than 25% of a county's residents don't work in the "central counties". Silicon Valley seems to be a bit of a separate center from San Francisco, it's not really a suburb of San Francisco the way the northern peninsula or inner East Bay seems to be.

[Eightball]

Crazy that Atlanta's transit share is so low, especially since they have a halfway decent heavy rail system. Miami has a higher transit share and they have a one line rail system with some spurs (and the people mover i guess, but still).

[Eightball]

Portland's numbers in every category are impressive to me, esp considering the context of its development.

I would like to see NOLA added.