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

[nei]

Originally Posted by Doady

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

Seattle has more jobs downtown and is a bit denser. Portland doesn't do that badly, the only metros besides Seattle that have a higher transit and much denser, and generally older.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Jonboy1983

Y

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!!

It's the San Francisco Metro Area. That includes: San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Marin and Contra Costa Counties. About 4 million people and the included urban area is on average the densest in the US; about the same as LA but with a stronger downtown. AC Transit (buses in Alameda County) gets decent ridership

[nei]

Originally Posted by 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).

Probably because the rail only covers a small portion of the inner metro, and few people ride buses, which adds up to a lot % of ridership in many other metros (Seattle transitridership is almost all buses).

[nei]

Originally Posted by 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).

Every other American city. Plenty of smaller Canadian cities, even new ones, get high transit ridership.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

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

Thanks. I'll fix it when I do the updates.

[J. Will]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

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

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none

Type "B08301" in the "topic or table name" field, and then type the city or region in the other field.

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by Doady

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

Largely due to the huge rural & suburban areas that were annexed in the 1980s. The East Portland area is generally lacking in the quality of infrastructure the core of the city has, including paved roads & sidewalks, and has a very disconnected street grid. Transit, biking and walking are all much more difficult in that area, although there is talk about improving it. Unfortunately, our city is kind of broke now.

Originally Posted by 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).

Considering Portland's relatively low density, it is indeed impressive. Our lower density, however, is offset by the higher density around the central city and close-in neighborhoods. Densification is a slow process... check back in 10-20 years, and it should be much improved.

[nei]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Largely due to the huge rural & suburban areas that were annexed in the 1980s. The East Portland area is generally lacking in the quality of infrastructure the core of the city has, including paved roads & sidewalks, and has a very disconnected street grid. Transit, biking and walking are all much more difficult in that area, although there is talk about improving it. Unfortunately, our city is kind of broke now.

The statistics posted are metro wide statistics so annexation doesn't matter.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by nei

Every other American city. Plenty of smaller Canadian cities, even new ones, get high transit ridership.

Victoria is only a metro of 350 000, yet look how insanely high its bike / walk share is!

[mhays]

Portland's density is also a different type than Seattle's, as Portland has smaller typical house lots, but less multifamily. Seattle by contrast has more people in mixed-use nodes and along minor arterials. Our layout and bus emphasis means a lot more people have transit right outside their door.

Seattle's transit is under attack again. The legislature failed to pass a transportation bill that would have allowed King County voters to vote on a Metro Transit funding mechanism (would pass easily), while also paying for highway projects et al. Right now we might be facing a 17% drop in funding. Metro is the largest of our various local transit systems, focusing on local bus routes within King County. If the drop happens next year, service would cut the less-used routes the most, and some would be accommodated by crowding or using other transit systems, but I'd guess we'd see a drop of 5% or more in ridership.

[J. Will]

Seattle's already taken quite a hit. The metro area was at 8.7% transit share in 2009, 8.2% in 2010, and 8.1% in 2011.

Nearby Vancouver meanwhile, has seen transit ridership soar. They went from 16.5% in 2006, to 19.7% in 2011.

The city of Vancouver went from 25.1% in 2006 to 30.0% in 2011. That's a whopping increase of 4.9% in just 5 years!

[fflint]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Portland isn't well-respected among urban and transportation planners because it's always been in league with the nation's larger, denser cities with big legacy transit systems. Rather, Portland is notable because just 35 years ago, it was the very opposite--and yet has come close to that league today by prioritizing, funding and commiting to building over several decades significant rail transit and bike path systems from scratch, increasing density by limiting sprawl and directing growth inward to repurposed in-city districts, and even tearing down freeways for open space. The Portland of 30 years ago was more like Indianapolis than Boston--today, it's somewhere in the middle, and that's considerable progress, worthy of praise.

[simms3_redux]

Originally Posted by fflint

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Portland isn't well-respected among urban and transportation planners because it's always been in league with the nation's larger, denser cities with big legacy transit systems. Rather, Portland is notable because just 35 years ago, it was the very opposite--and yet has come close to that league today by prioritizing, funding and commiting to building over several decades significant rail transit and bike path systems from scratch, increasing density by limiting sprawl and directing growth inward to repurposed in-city districts, and even tearing down freeways for open space. The Portland of 30 years ago was more like Indianapolis than Boston--today, it's somewhere in the middle, and that's considerable progress, worthy of praise.

Yes, this is it. Portland is compared to the big leagues of US cities (since American = NA, maybe even SA too technically, in response to nei), but it is actually a real inspiration for most US cities and provides a roadmap on what it takes to undertake the transformation from 20th century sprawlville to 21st century new urbanist city.

[mhays]

(Explorer crashed as usual, but I'll retype....)

Portland does a lot of things really well, but density isn't one of them except for Downtown and some nearby areas like PSU and the Pearl. Where are the other neighborhoods and nodes that have thousands of apartments within an easy walking radius, after decades of focusing on infill? My limited understanding is that the zoning doesn't exist, and it's about single-family areas not wanting density. I'd guess the very cohesiveness and success of inner house neighborhoods is partially to blame. The result is very limited acreage of denser areas, and intensity of same.

[fflint]

Portland is unique for the West Coast. It was clearly laid out from the start as a city of houses and has remained so for decades, more akin to Indianapolis (and any number of other cities points east) than to the higher-density mixed single/multifamily setup in Seattle and most of the California cities.

I don't know for certain, but I think the reason Portland hasn't been significantly overhauled and upszoned into a denser, multifamily city is because the current layout seems to work so well for the people living there--dense enough to support a vibrant culture and good transit, walking and bicycling options, but not so dense that it's unpleasant, hard to negotiate or unaffordable. Physically, I think of Portland as a giant Berkeley rather than a small San Francisco.

[Crawford]

I guess while Portland would be the argument for massive investment in transit as a region-altering initiative, Dallas would be the cautionary tale.

They have massive rail investment, with impressive infrastructure (mostly running in exclusive rights of way, sometimes tunneled, significant track length), and yet their ridership is pathetic and has actually decreased since the era of all bus and no transit investment.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I guess while Portland would be the argument for massive investment in transit as a region-altering initiative, Dallas would be the cautionary tale.

They have massive rail investment, with impressive infrastructure (mostly running in exclusive rights of way, sometimes tunneled, significant track length), and yet their ridership is pathetic and has actually decreased since the era of all bus and no transit investment.

I would never suggest that over 100,000 daily light rail riders is pathetic.
Looking at the ridership data from the all bus time to today........

DART reported the following ridership numbers in the 4th quarter of 2012
Bus: 136,500 average weekday riders
Light rail: 103,100 average weekday riders
Trinity Railway Express: 7,300 average weekday riders
On-Call: 2,000 average weekday riders
Vanpool: 4,000 average weekday riders
TOTAL: 252,900

August 1986
Bus ridership peaks with an average of 199,000 weekday riders (51.74 Million weekday riders for the year)

June 1988
Bus ridership drops to 150,000 passenger trips per weekday (39 Million weekday riders for the year)


January 1995
DART implements its first fare increase in more than a decade. Despite the change, total passenger boardings (including charter) total 45.5 million in Fiscal Year 1995 -- only slightly lower than the previous year -- and passenger revenue increases by 9 percent to $25.9 million. (That's the equivalent of 175,000 daily riders - not weekday) Note: The increase of bus ridership from 1988 to 1995 can be attributed to increasing DART's active bus network to include many more suburban cites.

June 1996
The first 11.2 miles of DART's 20-mile light rail transit starter system open on time and within budget, with weekend festivities followed by a week of free rides. Revenue service begins June 24, coinciding with the opening of the CBD West Bus Transfer Center in downtown Dallas.

I believe 252,000 daily riders today systemwide is significantly more than the maximum of 199,000 daily riders seen in 1986, almost a full decade before DART ran its first train. What decrease?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by electricron

I believe 252,000 daily riders today systemwide is significantly more than the maximum of 199,000 daily riders seen in 1986, almost a full decade before DART ran its first train. What decrease?

What was the population in 1986 compared to today? Unless the area served by DART has grown no more than 27% in that 27 years, then there's your answer.

[fflint]

The latest APTA ridership report for Q1 2013 has Dallas light rail at 93,500 per workday. That said, the larger point is taken--that is still the sixth most-used light rail system in America. Yet it is also true that only 4.2% of commutes in the city of Dallas and 2.9% of commutes in Dallas County are by public transportation.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

What was the population in 1986 compared to today? Unless the area served by DART has grown no more than 27% in that 27 years, then there's your answer.

The fare in 1986 was 25 or 50 cents, today the local fare is $2.50. Bus fares were stagnate for a decade ('84 to '95), yet bus ridership fell 25%. DART has not implemented rail transit and at the same time kept fares stagnate. Every time DART has raised fares, there's been a corresponding drop in ridership.

Never-the-less, there's more transit ridership today than ever. The idea that the introduction of light rail trains has reduced bus ridership is true, but total ridership (both rail and bus) has risen.