HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 6:13 AM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Transit/walk/bike commute modal shares for selected Metros/Cities - 2011

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.

Last edited by J. Will; Jul 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 9:39 PM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,717
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).
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 9:50 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 9:52 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 9:53 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 10:09 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 14,180
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2013, 10:30 PM
J. Will J. Will is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,882
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 12:29 AM
Jonboy1983's Avatar
Jonboy1983 Jonboy1983 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The absolute western-most point of the Philadelphia urbanized area. :)
Posts: 1,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Will View Post
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
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...
__________________
Transportation planning, building better communities of tomorrow through superior connections between them today...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 2:51 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonboy1983 View Post
...
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 2:57 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 7,735
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 2:59 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 3:00 AM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
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".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 4:40 AM
simms3_redux's Avatar
simms3_redux simms3_redux is offline
She needs her space
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,450
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 5:01 AM
BnaBreaker's Avatar
BnaBreaker BnaBreaker is online now
Future God
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chicago/Nashville
Posts: 17,110
Not that it really makes much of a difference, but Memphis's transit/walk/bike percentage should be 2.9%
__________________
"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds."

-Bob Marley
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 5:07 AM
Nouvellecosse's Avatar
Nouvellecosse Nouvellecosse is online now
Volatile Pacivist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 6,300
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 5:59 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
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...

Quote:
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.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 6:32 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,063
Where are Sacramento's numbers? I know it would rank on these lists.
__________________
Big things in 2020
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 1:28 PM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by fflint View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 2:04 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,273
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 9, 2013, 2:11 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,273
Portland's numbers in every category are impressive to me, esp considering the context of its development.

I would like to see NOLA added.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.