[Yankee]

Only in a handful of large American cities can one live comfortably car-free right now. IMHO those are NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly and DC. Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and maybe Miami are cities where I would say it's possible to live well car-free if you're in the right neighborhood, but they're not quite there yet. That's my assessment, maybe yours is different. If so, please share it :)

Question is, which do you think will be the next major American city which in the near future - I'm talking in 20-30, maybe 40 years, will have the density and adequate transit to make car-free life comfortable and desirable.

It seems in the US the "walkable" density is reached at about 10,000-12,000 people per square mile. With the exception of NYC and SF all the other walkable cities on my list (again yours might be different, please share it here) - Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC have a density of 10,000 to 12,000 or slightly above or below. Of course density is only one factor, but it's an important one. A city must also have adequate transit and things need to be close and mixed. Pleasant public areas and parks also help. But the latter 2 seem to naturally develop once the density is there, so to me density is the most important factor.

So, personally I nominate LA - of the sunbelt cities it has the highest density, and what's unique for LA is that the city density is basically the same as the density of the entire LA area and they seem to be rising at roughly the same rate. Right now the density of LA is about 8,000 people per sq mile and the city has a very ambitious transit plan. Throw in the California HSR which will hopefully be operational in 10 years or so and you might just begin seeing a pretty significant transformation from a city that's notoriously known for auto-centrism and crazy traffic to a more balanced pedestrian-friendly city. It already is in many areas, walkability just needs to spread to the areas in between and I think that will happen once density reaches 12,000-13,000/sq mi. It won't happen for many years, but I think there's a pretty good chance it will happen before 2050. I mean I think that before the next decade is out LA's density might surpass DC's and that should tell you something.

That's all hypothetical of course, and I'm not from LA, so I'm pretty much talking out of my *** here, but I think it's nevertheless a good topic of discussion. I think another city that currently has the potential of becoming a truly walking city is Denver (halfway there already IMO) - again a very ambitious transit plan and an increasing population. Also, I think New Orleans is worth mentioning - it's historic, mixed, pedestrian scale-planned, things are close, blocks are small, etc. so it has great potential - if transit was dramatically improved and rebuilding efforts continued and were intensified, population returned and exceeded pre-Katrina levels and something was done about the crime it can be a truly walking city again and I think it's already on its way.

You see all the sunbelt cities very slowly starting to open light rail lines, their populations are booming so density is increasing, and planning practices are starting to change, but I don't think comfortable car-free life will be possible there in the near future. In a 100 years maybe, but in a 100 years we all may be teleporting, so... :D

Which cities do you nominate? Oh, and what's your current list?

[Jasonhouse]

LA and Dallas sound like good candidates... maybe Houston, maybe ATL.

[urbanactivistTX]

Only in a handful of large American cities can one live comfortably car-free right now. IMHO those are NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly and DC. Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and maybe Miami are cities where I would say it's possible to live well car-free if you're in the right neighborhood, but they're not quite there yet. That's my assessment, maybe yours is different. If so, please share it :)

Question is, which do you think will be the next major American city which in the near future - I'm talking in 20-30, maybe 40 years, will have the density and adequate transit to make car-free life comfortable and desirable.

It seems in the US the "walkable" density is reached at about 10,000-12,000 people per square mile. With the exception of NYC and SF all the other walkable cities on my list (again yours might be different, please share it here) - Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC have a density of 10,000 to 12,000 or slightly above or below. Of course density is only one factor, but it's an important one. A city must also have adequate transit and things need to be close and mixed. Pleasant public areas and parks also help. But the latter 2 seem to naturally develop once the density is there, so to me density is the most important factor.

So, personally I nominate LA - of the sunbelt cities it has the highest density, and what's unique for LA is that the city density is basically the same as the density of the entire LA area and they seem to be rising at roughly the same rate. Right now the density of LA is about 8,000 people per sq mile and the city has a very ambitious transit plan. Throw in the California HSR which will hopefully be operational in 10 years or so and you might just begin seeing a pretty significant transformation from a city that's notoriously known for auto-centrism and crazy traffic to a more balanced pedestrian-friendly city. It already is in many areas, walkability just needs to spread to the areas in between and I think that will happen once density reaches 12,000-13,000/sq mi. It won't happen for many years, but I think there's a pretty good chance it will happen before 2050. I mean I think that before the next decade is out LA's density might surpass DC's and that should tell you something.

That's all hypothetical of course, and I'm not from LA, so I'm pretty much talking out of my *** here, but I think it's nevertheless a good topic of discussion. I think another city that currently has the potential of becoming a truly walking city is Denver (halfway there already IMO) - again a very ambitious transit plan and an increasing population. Also, I think New Orleans is worth mentioning - it's historic, mixed, pedestrian scale-planned, things are close, blocks are small, etc. so it has great potential - if transit was dramatically improved and rebuilding efforts continued and were intensified, population returned and exceeded pre-Katrina levels and something was done about the crime it can be a truly walking city again and I think it's already on its way.

You see all the sunbelt cities very slowly starting to open light rail lines, their populations are booming so density is increasing, and planning practices are starting to change, but I don't think comfortable car-free life will be possible there in the near future. In a 100 years maybe, but in a 100 years we all may be teleporting, so... :D

Which cities do you nominate? Oh, and what's your current list?

Density is a stat... and I don't think it's going to be the sole factor in determining the next round of "walkable cities" (though it's obviously very important). As is already occurring, some people are making their voices heard by expecting and demanding better transit options throughout the sunbelt. Areas that are transit friendly and walkable are being achieved at much lower densities in the early 21st century. BTW to your list above I would go ahead and add New Orleans (which has a much lower density than any of the other examples), eventhough it's transit situation still has much room for improvement.

That being said, the next city to be predictably walkable is LA. They've been going through massive transit extensions, and the built form is starting to reach a turning point to where there's not enough available land to build in a suburban style. Dallas and Houston are both making phenomenal strides, but they have a much farther way to go before they reach uniform sections of walkability. What's interesting about the Texas cities is that they're achieving similar results by approaching the issues from different ends. Dallas took the lead in developing the transit infrastructure and generally has nicer swaths of retail and walkable development, but Houston has centralized the city's major attractions (sports arenas, arts venues etc.) to such a point that they are really drawing more residents to move back into the city. Both cities have worked hard to control crime and are in the midst of massive infrastructure improvements to encourage walkable areas.

I don't have much knowledge about Miami and Atlanta, but I would guess they'd be about even with Dallas and Houston on this front.

[dave8721]

Miami already has the density at 12,000/sq mile (which is what makes it wildly different from cities like Dallas, Houston and Atlanta) but it lacks in the most important factor it making convenient to live in a City car-free: mass transit. The downtown area is well covered by mass transit but outside of that its just busses for the most part. Miami would need a massive rail upgrade to become walkable on the grand scale that you see in NYC, Chicago, DC...etc.

[llamaorama]

Wouldn't something as simple as street connectivity and sidewalks also count? Miami's got too many superblocks, and Atlanta doesn't have much of a grid beyond its center, where it does exist not all the neighborhoods are in good shape.

I can see Houston and Dallas and LA all having a strong chance though. Already I think if you were poor and had no other option, the buses in these cities do function at some basic level.

[L41A]

Atlanta is so often ignored when it comes to mass transit or being car-free. People see Sunbelt cities starting light rail systems today in the 2000s and seem to forget that Atlanta’s heavy rail system, MARTA, has been running since 1979. MARTA started service started long before heavy rail systems in LA (1993) or even Miami (1984) or Baltimore (1983). To this day, MARTA still carries almost twice as many weekday passenger as LA’s system and more than 4 times as many as Miami’s or Baltimore’s. The only rail systems that carry more weekday passengers are in NY, DC, Chi, Philly, SF, and Boston.

Plus, the foundations are being made to establish a light-rail system (Beltline) which will add connectivity to several intown neighborhoods. In addition, the population within the city of Atlanta is growing faster than most of its suburbs.

On a personal level, I lived in Atlanta without a car in the late 1980s / early 1990s. I lived in Midtown within walking distance of two MARTA stations. I worked in Downtown, took classes in the northwest suburbs, shopped in Buckhead/Midtown, partied in Midtown and Downtown, traveled to airport, visited friends in the east suburbs, walked to restaurants/bars/clubs, etc…and all without a car.

[texcolo]

Fort Worth is a possibility, when the T starts a commuter rail line to DFW airport. Downtown Fort Worth is really active as well.

[Bootstrap Bill]

LA and Dallas sound like good candidates... maybe Houston, maybe ATL.

Parts of LA are there today. They have buses that run 24/7. I think it will be at least a few decades until all of LA qualifies.

[tredici]

IMO, it's already possible in New Orleans. As dangerous as it is, in most of the city you can live without a car.

[mhays]

Seattle has about $20 billion of voter-approved transit upgrades coming, including additions to bus service, the tail end of our 1996 rail program (which built a light rail line that still has two extensions underway now), two commuter lines, a streetcar in Tacoma, and a lot of express buses), and the $17 billion "Sound Transit II" package passed in 2008 that will primarily add more light rail in three directions and add another streetcar line.

In the past 23 years within city limits, we've gone from 5,800/sm to 7,100/sm this year, with half the city (upper central basically) around 8,000 if I recall. The growth trend is expected to continue. Much of our growth will continue to be focused on "urban villages", which are generally nodes of midrise density. Therefore, much of our growth will be in places easy to serve by transit.

I need to check on Miami, but Seattle's transit and pedestrian commute mode shares are already dramatically higher than Denver's or Portland's, both city and metro. They both have more rail, but Seattle is substantially denser than either, and draws a decent number of commuters with buses.

Miami is obviously denser than Seattle, particularly in its "gold coast" type areas. But Seattle also has fairly large areas of walkable (and walking oriented) denser areas, with sizeable neighborhoods at densities like nothing in Denver or Portland.

[mhays]

Following are commute mode shares by city residents (regardless of where they work) from the Census' ACS 2008. I used central cities because the're reasonably parallel in this case. In %:

Seattle: 9.3 walk, 17.7 transit

Portland: 5.3 walk, 12.6 transit

Denver: 4.3 walk, 9.1 transit

Miami: 3.9 walk, 12.3 transit

In fact, Seattle's walk share was higher than Philly's 8.6, and substantially higher than Chicago's 5.8. They're both bigger and denser and probably more walkable overall. Seattle does have a lot of its densest bohemian/college/young-adult neighborhoods within walking distance of Downtown and other job centers though...

[Steely Dan]

the problem with the question this thread is based upon is that you can't even get people to agree upon which cities are already considered "car-free lifestyle friendly". the real hardcore will claim that NYC alone is the only US city in such a category. another group of lesser hardliners will allow boston, philly, DC, chicago and SF into the mix, but that's it. and still others will cast the net wider to include the seattles, portlands, miamis, etc. of the country as well.

so as to which city will be the next comfortable car-free city, that really depends on how stringently you adhere to car-free dogma.

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe the question should be not so inconvenient to have a car.

[M II A II R II K]

And even then perhaps with the exception of NYC the car free part would probably only apply to the downtown and midtown denser areas of the city.

Not necessarily the suburbs even within the city limits. That would apply to Toronto, and probably most of the US cities listed here.

[JordanL]

Fort Worth is a possibility, when the T starts a commuter rail line to DFW airport. Downtown Fort Worth is really active as well.

I would also say it'll be Fort Worth. They're really putting in a lot of effort into creating livable spaces without cars.

Not necessarily the suburbs even within the city limits. That would apply to Toronto, and probably most of the US cities listed here.

Don't know about the rest of the cities on the list in the OP, but Portland has a fairly extensive transit system in the suburbs with a few exceptions, such as Lake Oswego, which is basically full of rich people that continue to block transit because they feel they don't need it.

[bobdreamz]

It is posible to live without a car in Miami but it really depends what part of the metro you are in. Of course this is anecdotal but perhaps it will give some perspective. As a kid we moved from northeastern NJ where we never owned a car and moved to northern Miami Beach where we also didn't have a car either. We walked to school which was a few blocks, stores were in walking distance as well as other amenities including the beach! My father took a bus to his job near south beach. Whenever we needed to go to the mainland we took a bus. We lived in other inner ring suburbs of Miami such as Hialeah & North Miami without a car. Most of the inner ring suburbs are fully walkable. Stores & schools were within walking distance in most instances. Of course anything of a considerable distance requires mass transit or a car and Miami has a very decent bus system.
After seeing mhays ratings Miami scores low on walkability it's not because you can't walk everywhere but it is so damn hot & muggy that a car is preferrable. It can be done in Miami but standing at a bus stop around noon in the middle of August is not a pleasant experience.

[ColDayMan]

Give Cincinnati, Pittsburgh (more), and Columbus rail and we'll be your future damnit! GIVE US THE RAIL!!!

[ardecila]

Also, I think New Orleans is worth mentioning - it's historic, mixed, pedestrian scale-planned, things are close, blocks are small, etc. so it has great potential - if transit was dramatically improved and rebuilding efforts continued and were intensified, population returned and exceeded pre-Katrina levels and something was done about the crime it can be a truly walking city again and I think it's already on its way.

"Rebuilding" responds to economic demand, and I don't see too many people flocking here. Katrina scattered evacuees all over the country and lots of them found that they actually liked it there. I keep hearing this argument that there's not enough housing for everybody who's trying to return, but I seriously doubt that a lack of housing is keeping people away. The people who wanted to come back are already here. The others are staying put.

Also, the music, food, history and architecture are great here, but I'm not seeing the jobs. Pretend Katrina didn't happen, and you still have a city that's heavily reliant on tourism, which creates a lot of low-income jobs but not much else. The oil industry spurred quite a bit of growth in the city in the 1970s, but they really took a hard hit in the 80s, and since then, there has been no serious growth in any particular sector, especially not sectors that employ the young professionals who have driven urban revitalization in ALL the car-free-friendly cities you list.

Cost of living in the city, however, is far above what one would expect for a place with low growth rates and a sluggish economy, so New Orleans can't even sell itself on a low-cost-of-living model.

Yes, things are improving, but only if your baseline is September 2005. I don't see the city becoming substantially better off than it was before the storm without a serious change in leadership and a whole lot of luck in attracting businesses who employ white-collar workers. We also have to get our shit together on hurricane protection and wetland restoration, and then make sure that the same media outlets that ran horror stories about sinking levees and eroding shorelines are now praising our successes in reversing those trends.

Cincinnati and St. Louis are both very old by American standards, and nobody would consider those to be top-tier cities. In fact, they might even be better off than New Orleans on a regional level, because they still have serious and intense suburban growth.

I love it here, but my perspective is that of a college student. When I look for jobs, my criteria will be totally different, and I'm not sure I want to get paid less to live in an expensive city that has a lot of awesome places and traditions, but keeps squandering them and making bone-headed decisions. If New Orleans doesn't have enough going for it to keep me here (and I love older, gritty cities) then I'm not sure what chance it has attracting legions of other young professionals to catalyze growth into the walkable, dense city that you're imagining.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Los Angeles seems like a good candidate. It already seems to have a lot, but continual push for transit with wind it up with Chicago, Philly, and San Fran.

I could also see cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh getting stunning, expansive transit systems not unlike Portland or Denver today.

Others I'd nominate just for the amount they're putting in or the potential they have...Houston, Miami, Atlanta, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis.

[SuburbanNation]

Much of the central corridor of St. Louis is conveniently livable without a car, especially now that light rail goes to our "second downtown" Clayton in addition to the airport and we still have a "real" downtown department store, even if its not the most fashionable...you can buy some underwear. We have urban street front grocery stores around the city of ALL sizes.

The only city I have lived car free in was.................................drumroll..............................


Kansas City.

Not on any-ones list...but, because of the somewhat unique tall and thin layout of the urban core, it wouldn't take much to bring up to speed. One bus line takes you almost everywhere urban and worth going, huge asset. Was it comfortable, not entirely, but it wasn't really uncomfortable either, and downtown wasn't in as good of shape as it is now. Its kind of ridiculous really how close KC is to being really walkable, yet doesn't realize it.

[TarHeelJ]

Only in a handful of large American cities can one live comfortably car-free right now. IMHO those are NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly and DC. Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and maybe Miami are cities where I would say it's possible to live well car-free if you're in the right neighborhood, but they're not quite there yet. That's my assessment, maybe yours is different. If so, please share it :)


You see all the sunbelt cities very slowly starting to open light rail lines, their populations are booming so density is increasing, and planning practices are starting to change, but I don't think comfortable car-free life will be possible there in the near future. In a 100 years maybe, but in a 100 years we all may be teleporting, so... :D

Which cities do you nominate? Oh, and what's your current list?


Atlanta is way ahead of the other cities in the South...as someone already mentioned, MARTA opened in 1979 and has since expanded to 4 lines, 48 miles of track, and 38 stations that cover the airport, Downtown, Midtown, the east and west sides of the city, and suburbs like Decatur, Dunwoody, Stone Mountain, Sandy Springs, Doraville, and Chamblee. MARTA is much more extensive and it's ridership (250,000/day) is much higher than systems in Baltimore, Portland, Seattle, Denver and Miami.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/MARTA_Rail_Map.svg/438px-MARTA_Rail_Map.svg.png


The future of Atlanta rail transit is coming in the form of the Beltline, an LRT system that will circle the city and connect with MARTA at four stations.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3016/3509936416_e87a35b7e9_o.jpg

[Westsidelife]

LA is in a good position to make the polar transition from auto-centricity to transit/pedestrian-friendliness. I would say that our bus system has served its purpose and that it's about time we upgrade/expand our options. That said, my only criticism with LA's transit efforts is that it's too regional-centric, which is what you get when you have a county this large and expansive. There's little focus (as of right now) on creating a dense, crosstown network. Noticeably absent from Metro's LRTP are lines down Pico/Venice, Santa Monica (Silver Line does not go down the length of Santa Monica because it's not compatible with the Pink Line HRT), Beverly (could use at least a BRT), Ventura, etc. All of those projects would make LA's system more relevant as far as generating not only car-free trips, but car-free lifestyles as well. The system that's currently underway serves more of a park and ride function. I guess that's where our bus system comes in and fills the void.

Another thing I'm concerned about is that Metrolink, our regional rail system, is not keeping up with Metro Rail's improvements; progress is considerably slower. We need to accelerate our plans to add double/triple tracks and sidings, which in turn will allow us to increase train frequency, develop express service, and add more infill stations. If we can do all of that in a timely manner, then we'll have a very efficient Metrolink system.

Then there are other pieces of the puzzle like bicycle improvements (currently under study), taxicabs (can be found in all the major tourist spots), and land use patterns (will correct itself over time). So, it's all starting to come together, albeit slowly. We just need to make sure that we have the right people in office (at the state and federal levels as well) and that we continue pushing for sustainable growth and land use patterns. We'll probably see noticeable improvements 10 years from now, but it won't be until at least 2030 that we fully embrace a new lifestyle.

[mhays]

TarHeelJ, Atlanta has a good train system, but it still had relatively low walking and transit usage for commuting in 2008. It had 4.2% walking vs. Seattle's 9.3%, and 13.8% transit compared to Seattle's 17.7%. Both are for "city of".

[mhays]

Urbanized Area, 2008 Census ACS, % of commuters (urban area might be most parallel?):

Atlanta (3,126,000): 1.5 walk, 4.3 transit.

Denver (1,611,000): 2.4 walk, 5.3 transit.

Miami (4,199,000): 1.7 walk, 3.8 transit.

Portland (1,389,000): 3.2 walk, 7.2 transit.

Seattle (2,311,000): 3.6 walk, 8.5 transit.

Frankly, even Seattle's numbers are pathetic. But easily the best of a bad lot. Combine our growth management (less sprawl, more density) and $20 billion of upcoming transit improvements and the Seattle area's numbers should rise significantly in the coming years.

[TarHeelJ]

TarHeelJ, Atlanta has a good train system, but it still had relatively low walking and transit usage for commuting in 2008. It had 4.2% walking vs. Seattle's 9.3%, and 13.8% transit compared to Seattle's 17.7%. Both are for "city of".

I'm not sure where the percentages come from, but daily rail ridership on MARTA is 250,000...while on Sound Transit it is 19,000.

[mhays]

Well there's your problem!

Sound Transit is one of several transit agencies, and a small fraction of the ridership of our biggest, Metro Transit.

I'm guessing your numbers are seriously out of date too. They might be just ST's express buses and commuter rail, and not the light rail line that just opened this year. Or maybe they're just light rail. Or whatever. I'll look it up.

I said where my numbers come from. Census Dept's ACS.

PS, my "urban area" numbers were from 2006-2008, not solely 2008.

[Strange Meat]

altus, ok.

[mhays]

That was easy. Sound Transit reported 56,000 daily boardings for Q2 2009. That was before light rail opened. Light rail is a much smaller number than that, but ramping up as they reroute buses to act as feeders (mostly showing up in Q4 reports) and add on more segment to get the starter line to Sea-Tac Airport. http://www.soundtransit.org/News-and-Events/Service-News/Quarterly-Ridership.xml

This shows King County Metro Transit having 110,000,000 boardings (King County) in 2007. It also shows Sounder commuter rail (before its recent service additions), ST Express Buses, and Snohomish County's Community Transit: http://www.kingcounty.gov/exec/strategy/PerformMgmt/BenchmarkProgram/Transportation/TR42_TransitRidership/TransitRidershipChart/TransitRidershipDT.aspx

This shows 395,000 daily (weekday) boardings on Metro Transit alone: http://transit.metrokc.gov/up/archives/2008/ridershipgrowth.html

Not shown are walk-on ferry riders (mostly Washington State Ferries), Pierce County's Pierce Transit (pop 800,000) or various other small systems.

[geoking66]

I'm surprised Providence hasn't been mentioned. There is an obvious lack of public transport, but the city centre is incredibly walkable. It does admittently sprawl out with Cranston, Warwick, East Greenwich, et al, but the addition of many new condo and office towers in the downtown area is certainly a plus.

NYC suburbs, especially in New Jersey, tend to be quite walkable as well. There are a few in particular which are incredibly good, even if a car is necessary from time to time: Summit, Morristown, Madison, Millburn, Maplewood, and South Orange. The obvious reason is that they were built due to rail and before cars, but the downtowns haven't succumbed to decay by any means.

[Westsidelife]

Building on mhays' data compilation, this time using metropolitan areas (CSA/MSA)...


New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 10,636,879 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 5,746,498 ... 54.0%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 804,740 ... 7.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 2,852,534 ... 26.8%
Walked ... 614,225 ... 5.8%
Other means ... 209,314 ... 2.0%
Worked at home ... 409,568 ... 3.9%

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 8,108,522 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 5,989,352 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 975,359 ... 12.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 414,596 ... 5.1%
Walked ... 201,787 ... 2.5%
Other means ... 162,064 ... 2.0%
Worked at home ... 365,364 ... 4.5%

Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 4,730,507 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 3,365,457 ... 71.1%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 432,672 ... 9.1%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 525,841 ... 11.1%
Walked ... 136,862 ... 2.9%
Other means ... 76,736 ... 1.6%
Worked at home ... 192,939 ... 4.1%

Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 4,385,515 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 3,052,975 ... 69.6%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 473,385 ... 10.8%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 481,505 ... 11.0%
Walked ... 131,167 ... 3.0%
Other means ... 64,124 ... 1.5%
Worked at home ... 182,359 ... 4.2%

Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 3,859,787 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,853,451 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 327,639 ... 8.5%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 303,284 ... 7.9%
Walked ... 158,314 ... 4.1%
Other means ... 63,466 ... 1.6%
Worked at home ... 153,633 ... 4.0%

San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 3,642,628 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,471,277 ... 67.8%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 380,936 ... 10.5%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 357,822 ... 9.8%
Walked ... 129,170 ... 3.5%
Other means ... 115,359 ... 3.2%
Worked at home ... 188,064 ... 5.2%

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 3,267,579 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,593,730 ... 79.4%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 392,803 ... 12.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 52,519 ... 1.6%
Walked ... 41,583 ... 1.3%
Other means ... 52,889 ... 1.6%
Worked at home ... 134,055 ... 4.1%

Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 3,059,491 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,262,492 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 274,923 ... 9.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 262,958 ... 8.6%
Walked ... 112,295 ... 3.7%
Other means ... 41,914 ... 1.4%
Worked at home ... 104,909 ... 3.4%

Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 2,799,666 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,188,599 ... 78.2%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,188,599 ... 12.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 72,528 ... 2.6%
Walked ... 40,665 ... 1.5%
Other means ... 46,537 ... 1.7%
Worked at home ... 97,193 ... 3.5%

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 2,795,012 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 2,140,681 ... 76.6%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 322,963 ... 11.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 95,059 ... 3.4%
Walked ... 34,518 ... 1.2%
Other means ... 46,845 ... 1.7%
Worked at home ... 154,946 ... 5.5%

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 2,506,619 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,969,989 ... 78.6%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 248,805 ... 9.9%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 93,654 ... 3.7%
Walked ... 38,712 ... 1.5%
Other means ... 47,802 ... 1.9%
Worked at home ... 107,657 ... 4.3%

Detroit-Warren-Flint, MI Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 2,367,208 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,969,603 ... 83.2%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 210,838 ... 8.9%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 43,965 ... 1.9%
Walked ... 40,798 ... 1.7%
Other means ... 26,470 ... 1.1%
Worked at home ... 75,534 ... 3.2%

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,980,966 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,492,917 ... 75.4%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 262,505 ... 13.3%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 51,057 ... 2.6%
Walked ... 29,766 ... 1.5%
Other means ... 46,791 ... 2.4%
Worked at home ... 97,930 ... 4.9%

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 2,093,240 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,455,369 ... 69.5%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 256,560 ... 12.3%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 152,594 ... 7.3%
Walked ... 76,231 ... 3.6%
Other means ... 47,198 ... 2.3%
Worked at home ... 105,288 ... 5.0%

Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,933,912 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,513,254 ... 78.2%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 166,161 ... 8.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 85,058 ... 4.4%
Walked ... 47,012 ... 2.4%
Other means ... 31,955 ... 1.7%
Worked at home ... 90,472 ... 4.7%

Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,605,454 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,186,844 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 170,193 ... 10.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 73,826 ... 4.6%
Walked ... 36,813 ... 2.3%
Other means ... 38,945 ... 2.4%
Worked at home ... 98,833 ... 6.2%

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,422,322 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,057,103 ... 74.3%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 160,175 ... 11.3%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 48,572 ... 3.4%
Walked ... 46,403 ... 3.3%
Other means ... 26,992 ... 1.9%
Worked at home ... 83,077 ... 5.8%

Cleveland-Akron-Elyria, OH Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,383,359 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,139,985 ... 82.4%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 111,349 ... 8.0%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 44,619 ... 3.2%
Walked ... 30,557 ... 2.2%
Other means ... 14,378 ... 1.0%
Worked at home ... 42,471 ... 3.1%

St. Louis-St. Charles-Farmington, MO-IL Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,406,315 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,144,647 ... 81.4%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 132,340 ... 9.4%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 37,714 ... 2.7%
Walked ... 23,293 ... 2.7%
Other means ... 15,877 ... 1.1%
Worked at home ... 52,444 ... 3.7%

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,238,253 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 989,213 ... 79.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 122,946 ... 9.9%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 17,013 ... 1.4%
Walked ... 20,639 ... 1.7%
Other means ... 27,024 ... 2.2%
Worked at home ... 61,418 ... 5.0%


I'll do some more tomorrow. I must say, though, that over 1/3rd of metropolitan New Yorkers commuting to work by public transportation, walking, biking, or taxicab is damn impressive.

[Jasonhouse]

Lol... Look at Tampa's pathetic transit and walking numbers. We're even worse than Detroit!

[Jasonhouse]

One thing though... WTF is up with Dallas on that list? It's daily transit ridership is listed at a paltry 52k... That's waaay off. It's over 4x that.

http://www.dart.org/about/aboutdart.asp

[M II A II R II K]

Lol... Look at Tampa's pathetic transit and walking numbers. We're even worse than Detroit!

I remember taking someone around who is from Tampa and it turned out that crossing streets with lights was almost a foreign concept, as well as the urban lifestyle such as walking around and stopping at places downtown.

Then there was this talk of the necessity for at least one designated driver when going to parties.

[emathias]

One thing though... WTF is up with Dallas on that list? It's daily transit ridership is listed at a paltry 52k... That's waaay off. It's over 4x that.

http://www.dart.org/about/aboutdart.asp

First off, the list measured people who commuted by transit, not transit trips.

Second, even if 100% of transit riders were commuters, a commute counts as two trips - the number in the list counts people, not trips.

Third, not 100% of transit riders are commuters.

[blockski]

First off, the list measured people who commuted by transit, not transit trips.

Second, even if 100% of transit riders were commuters, a commute counts as two trips - the number in the list counts people, not trips.

Third, not 100% of transit riders are commuters.

In addition to all of those good points, the discussion here is about living in a city car-free.

In any city, making the commute trip is probably the easiest to do without a car. Lesser transit systems still orient themselves towards the park n ride, commuting mentality.

The hallmark of living car-free is using transit, walking, or biking for all of your trips. Unfortunately, the Census doesn't have clear data on that subject.

[urbanactivistTX]

One thing though... WTF is up with Dallas on that list? It's daily transit ridership is listed at a paltry 52k... That's waaay off. It's over 4x that.

http://www.dart.org/about/aboutdart.asp

Yeah, I'd love to know how they came up with these numbers.

According to Houston METRO's factcard (http://www.ridemetro.org/AboutUs/pdfs/METROFact_Figures_Card-2008.pdf), FY08 saw

-9,286,145 Park-n-Ride Boardings (the workday bus service here)
-2,505,653 Star Vanpools (using METRO's vehicles)

They show the average weekday ridership as 447,811 for the whole system.

[mhays]

I'm surprised at how close Seattle is to Boston, SF, and Philly.

One reason: Despite the middling bus service in-town (jammed and too infrequent), new KC Metro bus service is mandated to go to the suburbs. So our suburbs have better bus service than most.

[Strange Meat]

i'm curious as to why denvers numbers are so low. most of the city is VERY walkable.

could it be the large employment centers up in broomfield, down in DTC, etc. it would seem to me that while the city is very walkable, employment areas are quite spread out.

[glowrock]

i'm curious as to why denvers numbers are so low. most of the city is VERY walkable.

could it be the large employment centers up in broomfield, down in DTC, etc. it would seem to me that while the city is very walkable, employment areas are quite spread out.

Quite possibly, given that this is a percentage for commuters vs. simply what mode of transit do people use for their trips...

Of course, Downtown is still the largest overall employment center, unless you take the Tech Center to include Greenwood Plaza, Inverness, and Meridian as well.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[mhays]

Denver is doing all the right things, sort of like Portland minus most of the sprawl restrictions. However, like Portland, it's starting from a basis of fairly low density, and, less like Portland, is only now developing a widespread transit culture.

Denver has a lot of office space downtown, and the Auraria college campus helps too (the list is about work commutes, but people travel from school to work, and often live near school). But CU is on the periphery, even if it's in a transit-friendly part of it. Meanwhile, Denver has been moving hospitals to the suburbs en masse. The airport too. Airports and hospitals are big generators of transit commuters (lots of service jobs) but generally much less so when they're not central.

Further, while Denver has some rail, that's only one element of a good transit system. Seattle shows that a bus-focused system can draw large numbers of commuters, even if it's harder for casual users to figure out and less fun to ride.

[iheartthed]

To answer the original question... Of cities that we consider car-oriented, the most likely candidates to become car "unoriented" are probably those that didn't grow around the car. Therefore, my vote goes to the cities in the industrial northeast/midwest that haven't yet made the switch back. Unlike the Sun Belt cities, the majority of those cities (Detroit, Cleveland, STL, Pittsburgh, Baltimore) weren't built around the car. The street grids in these cities are already built to support walkable environments. The only thing missing is the transit.

Of those cities in my list, I'm mixed on which will get there first. I think Baltimore or Pittsburgh are closer to it now. But since Detroit is a natural hub between American and Canadian ground transit -- as well as being one of the largest air transit hubs in the country -- I think the biggest impact would occur there. So more resources might be poured into making that happen in the near future. I hope.

[SkokieSwift]

Detroit wasn't built around the car? What are you smoking? Outside of a small sliver of downtown, Detroit is the most car-centric, pedestrian-unfriendly major city in the midwest.

[iheartthed]

Detroit wasn't built around the car? What are you smoking? Outside of a small sliver of downtown, Detroit is the most car-centric, pedestrian-unfriendly major city in the midwest.

It wasn't. It was built around a street car system.

[cabasse]

so was atlanta and its semiurban streetcar suburbs (click here (http://jolomo.net/atlanta/pics/gpmap.jpg)) as well as many, many other cities in the US.

[Jasonhouse]

Detroit wasn't built around the car? What are you smoking? Outside of a small sliver of downtown, Detroit is the most car-centric, pedestrian-unfriendly major city in the midwest.
Statistically, it fights with the Tampa Bay area for the national title.

btw, Tampa was also built around streetcars early on.

[iheartthed]

so was atlanta and its semiurban streetcar suburbs (click here (http://jolomo.net/atlanta/pics/gpmap.jpg)) as well as many, many other cities in the US.

I know that many cities were built around street car systems... Originally. But most never existed as large cities that were not car dependent. When Detroit was twice the size that it is now, it was a city where you could live without a car. It was (originally) designed to be a large city where you did not need a car. Almost no cities outside of the industrial north have that background. They almost all became large cities after the onset of the automobile era, and were thus primarily built around cars.

[SnyderBock]

Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO Combined Statistical Area
Workers 16 years and over ... 1,605,454 ... 100.0%
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone ... 1,186,844 ... 73.9%
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled ... 170,193 ... 10.6%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) ... 73,826 ... 4.6%
Walked ... 36,813 ... 2.3%
Other means ... 38,945 ... 2.4%
Worked at home ... 98,833 ... 6.2%

i'm curious as to why denvers numbers are so low. most of the city is VERY walkable.

could it be the large employment centers up in broomfield, down in DTC, etc. it would seem to me that while the city is very walkable, employment areas are quite spread out.

Quite possibly, given that this is a percentage for commuters vs. simply what mode of transit do people use for their trips...

Of course, Downtown is still the largest overall employment center, unless you take the Tech Center to include Greenwood Plaza, Inverness, and Meridian as well.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Denver is doing all the right things, sort of like Portland minus most of the sprawl restrictions. However, like Portland, it's starting from a basis of fairly low density, and, less like Portland, is only now developing a widespread transit culture.

Denver has a lot of office space downtown, and the Auraria college campus helps too (the list is about work commutes, but people travel from school to work, and often live near school). But CU is on the periphery, even if it's in a transit-friendly part of it. Meanwhile, Denver has been moving hospitals to the suburbs en masse. The airport too. Airports and hospitals are big generators of transit commuters (lots of service jobs) but generally much less so when they're not central.

Further, while Denver has some rail, that's only one element of a good transit system. Seattle shows that a bus-focused system can draw large numbers of commuters, even if it's harder for casual users to figure out and less fun to ride.


It is worth noting that the data being reviewed is from the year 2007, where transit ridership was at 4.6% for Denver. In 2008, Denver transit ridership grew to almost 6%. The latest report for Denver transit ridership thus far in 2009 is now over 9%. This is an incredible increase in the last two years and it is ahead of the opening of any FasTracks rail lines being built.

In 2012, the 12.1 mile light rail line from downtown Union Station to Lakewood & Golden will open, as will the massive downtown Union Station redevelopment. In 2015, the 22.4 mile Union Station to Denver International Airport, Electric Commuter Rail line will open (which will have massive transit ridership pull). In 2016 the 11.2 mile Union Station to Arvada Electric Commuter Rail line will open. Then there is the 18 mile North Metro DMU line due to open in 2016. The 41 mile, Denver Union Station to Boulder DMU line also scheduled for 2016. The 18 mile Union Station-Broomfield-Boulder BRT line scheduled to open in 2017. The Aurora (~300,000 people) LRT line to a transfer station on the airport EMU line due to open in 2017. Extensions of the existing SE and SW LRT lines scheduled for 2017 completion.

Again, Denver area transit usage has grown from 4.6% in 2007, to 9% in 2009 (thus far). In the year 2020 (after all these new transit lines are complete), a 15-20% transit usage is not unrealistic. It most certainly will at least grow from its current 9% up to at least 15% and considering all the miles of transit that will have come online between now and then, plus all the population growth into Transit Oriented Developments (TOD's) and the continued urban Denver residential boom, I think a transit usage growth from 9% to 15% is conservative--20% is really within reach for Denver by 2025.


This being said, I do think Seattle is one up on Denver in both transit and density. Portland (with it's streetcar system, has better inner-core transit). Denver has excellent bus service in it's inner-core, but will ultimately need a Portland-like streetcar system, to connect and serve it's dense urban neighborhoods which surround downtown Denver on nearly all sides. But I think these three cities will all become quality auto-less cities by 2030 (and other cities may as well, but these are my top 3):

-LA
-Seattle
-Denver

[L41A]

Well there's your problem!

Sound Transit is one of several transit agencies, and a small fraction of the ridership of our biggest, Metro Transit.

I'm guessing your numbers are seriously out of date too. They might be just ST's express buses and commuter rail, and not the light rail line that just opened this year. Or maybe they're just light rail. Or whatever. I'll look it up.

I said where my numbers come from. Census Dept's ACS.

PS, my "urban area" numbers were from 2006-2008, not solely 2008.

Since you started the Seattle versus Atlanta transit discussion, I will add some tidbit from the rail perspective.

According to American Public Transit Association (APTA) Second Quarter 2009, Seattle has the following rail average passengers per weekday:
King County Dept of Transportation (Metro Transit) Light Rail...1,400
Sound Transit Commuter Rail ..............................................9,300
Sound Transit Light Rail.....................................................3,200.
Seattle Total Weekday Average Rail Passengers.............13,900.

Atlanta has the following rail average passengers per weekday:
MARTA (Heavy Rail).......................................................250,900.
Atlanta Total Weekday Average Rail Passengers...........250,900

When you put buses into the equation, Seattle's Metro Transit has 304,100 passengers per weekday and Sound Transit has 43,600. Atlanta's MARTA buses carry 235,400 passengers per weekday.

[Drewcifer]

I live car free in Minneapolis and it is comfortable to me. It seems pretty common amongst younger people. The inner neighborhoods of the city have a pacing that is very conducive to bike transit and the bus system is very good in the older neighborhoods, as is probably the case for most urban neighborhoods built as streetcar suburbs.

A lot depends on what you consider comfortable and how far you are willing to walk/bike for groceries and things like that.

[TarHeelJ]

I know that many cities were built around street car systems... Originally. But most never existed as large cities that were not car dependent. When Detroit was twice the size that it is now, it was a city where you could live without a car. It was (originally) designed to be a large city where you did not need a car. Almost no cities outside of the industrial north have that background. They almost all became large cities after the onset of the automobile era, and were thus primarily built around cars.

Atlanta was fairly large when it's electric streetcar system was at it's height. The city had over 200 miles of streetcar tracks...http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=110435

I think you may be stereotyping cities simply by their region.

[TarHeelJ]

Well there's your problem!

Sound Transit is one of several transit agencies, and a small fraction of the ridership of our biggest, Metro Transit.

I'm guessing your numbers are seriously out of date too. They might be just ST's express buses and commuter rail, and not the light rail line that just opened this year. Or maybe they're just light rail. Or whatever. I'll look it up.

I said where my numbers come from. Census Dept's ACS.

PS, my "urban area" numbers were from 2006-2008, not solely 2008.

Those were the most recent daily ridership numbers available for all rail transit in the Seattle area. I have no idea what you're talking about...your numbers are seriously inflated.

[TarHeelJ]

One thing though... WTF is up with Dallas on that list? It's daily transit ridership is listed at a paltry 52k... That's waaay off. It's over 4x that.

http://www.dart.org/about/aboutdart.asp

DART's daily rail ridership is 63,600.

[TarHeelJ]

I know that many cities were built around street car systems... Originally. But most never existed as large cities that were not car dependent. When Detroit was twice the size that it is now, it was a city where you could live without a car. It was (originally) designed to be a large city where you did not need a car. Almost no cities outside of the industrial north have that background. They almost all became large cities after the onset of the automobile era, and were thus primarily built around cars.


Did you click on the map of Atlanta's streetcar network above? It was very extensive...

[iheartthed]

Did you click on the map of Atlanta's streetcar network above? It was very extensive...

I clicked on it... But it still doesn't negate my point. The city of Atlanta is currently the largest it has ever been, and a significant portion of that growth occurred after the car era began. Even today, at it's largest point, Atlanta is not much more than half of what cities like STL and Cleveland peaked at when they had large proportions of residents who lived without needing cars (and ATL's population is only a fraction of where Detroit's peaked). Atlanta never existed as a large city that was not majority car dependent. Nor has almost any other new Sun Belt city.

[SnyderBock]

Atlanta was fairly large when it's electric streetcar system was at it's height. The city had over 200 miles of streetcar tracks...http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=110435

I think you may be stereotyping cities simply by their region.

Denver was also built around an extensive streetcar system. At it's height in 1922, Denver had just over 300 miles of operating streetcar lines. Only San Fransisco had more miles of operating streetcar (350 miles) west of the Mississippi at that time.A revival of that streetcar system will ultimately be what it takes to make Denver a top car-less city. The combination of high capacity heavy and light rail lines being built now, along with a nice urban streetcar grid will make it possible to live just about anywhere and go just about anywhere in Denver, without a car and without using a bus or taxi (foot & rail only). If you include buses, its pretty much possible to live in most major cities today, without a car--it's just not as easy or convenient.

[mhays]

Those were the most recent daily ridership numbers available for all rail transit in the Seattle area. I have no idea what you're talking about...your numbers are seriously inflated.

Read harder.

[mhays]

Since you started the Seattle versus Atlanta transit discussion, I will add some tidbit from the rail perspective.

According to American Public Transit Association (APTA) Second Quarter 2009, Seattle has the following rail average passengers per weekday:
King County Dept of Transportation (Metro Transit) Light Rail...1,400
Sound Transit Commuter Rail ..............................................9,300
Sound Transit Light Rail.....................................................3,200.
Seattle Total Weekday Average Rail Passengers.............13,900.

Atlanta has the following rail average passengers per weekday:
MARTA (Heavy Rail).......................................................250,900.
Atlanta Total Weekday Average Rail Passengers...........250,900

When you put buses into the equation, Seattle's Metro Transit has 304,100 passengers per weekday and Sound Transit has 43,600. Atlanta's MARTA buses carry 235,400 passengers per weekday.

Sound Transit's "Link" light rail didn't open until July. By "light rail" this was be referring to Tacoma's streetcar.

King County's "light rail" was a one-mile streetcar in Seattle that opened in 2008 I think.

You're still not counting several other transit agencies.

[L41A]

I clicked on it... But it still doesn't negate my point. The city of Atlanta is currently the largest it has ever been, and a significant portion of that growth occurred after the car era began. Even today, at it's largest point, Atlanta is not much more than half of what cities like STL and Cleveland peaked at when they had large proportions of residents who lived without needing cars (and ATL's population is only a fraction of where Detroit's peaked). Atlanta never existed as a large city that was not majority car dependent. Nor has almost any other new Sun Belt city.

That's debatable - Atlanta the largest it has ever been. Atlanta's current population may be greater than what it was in the 1950-60's. But if it is, it's not by much. The population of the city of Atlanta lost population throughout the 70s, 80s and maybe even part of the 60s and 90s. In area, the city of Atlanta has not grown since 1950s - still around 130 square miles.

So I think it does negate your point especially the part that "a significant portion of that growth (of Atlanta) occurred after the car era began". When do you think the your so called car era began? One may say that during the so called 'car era' the city of Atlanta didn't grow seeing that its population actually may have declined and it hasn't increased in area (no major annexations since the 1950s).

People often try to pigeon-hole things even when fact say otherwise.

[L41A]

Sound Transit's "Link" light rail didn't open until July. By "light rail" this was be referring to Tacoma's streetcar.

King County's "light rail" was a one-mile streetcar in Seattle that opened in 2008 I think.

You're still not counting several other transit agencies.

Neither did I count the other agencies in Atlanta.

I only counted what APTA showed as the agencies that served the primary city of Seattle and Atlanta . According to APTA, it lists two agencies serving the primary city of Seattle - Metro Transit and Sound Transit. It showed MARTA as the only agency that served the primary city of Atlanta although there are several other agencies providing public transit in Atlanta. Metro Transit does have trolley buses which Atlanta does not and according to APTA it carries 74,900 weekday passengers. I didn't list the trolley bus numbers previously.

The major agencies according to APTA for both cities were listed.

[jtk1519]

I think the issue of "walkable" cities is less about the city and more about people's willingness to abandon the car for day to day activities. For example, I walk most everywhere for day to do day reasons. I have two supermarkets within a couple of blocks of me in either direction. I live on a bus route which gets me to a train station in just minutes and then to downtown or the Telcom Corridor if I worked there (I work from home). There are bike lanes and I often bike to church 8 miles away. And I live a stone's throw from suburban Plano and better than 15 miles from downtown Dallas in what would many would call sprawl and yet it's perfectly walkable to me and I could easily live my day to day life without a car. I think it's just a matter of mindsets and people's willingness to try something different.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not equating my neighborhood with NYC's Upper West Side or anything. I'm just pointing out that often what is "walkable" is determined less by how a city is built and more by people's willingness to walk.

[mhays]

Fair enough L41A.

In any case, the Census numbers are pretty clear about commute trends.

[SuburbanNation]

Denver was also built around an extensive streetcar system. At it's height in 1922, Denver had just over 300 miles of operating streetcar lines. Only San Fransisco had more miles of operating streetcar (350 miles) west of the Mississippi at that time.

I don't know what you are counting west of the Mississippi but by some accounts St. Louis laid over 700 miles of streetcar track (this of course doesnt include the Illinois industrial satellites which were all laced together by streetcars), and I'm sure the mileage of track laid in Minneapolis was "ginormous." I'd also be very surprised if Denver had more miles of streetcar than KC, which was a fair bit larger than Denver in 1920, and KC also had cable cars.

http://www.kplr11.com/news/kplr-trolley-track-st-louis-101609,0,2211063.story

[mhays]

I think the issue of "walkable" cities is less about the city and more about people's willingness to abandon the car for day to day activities. For example, I walk most everywhere for day to do day reasons. I have two supermarkets within a couple of blocks of me in either direction. I live on a bus route which gets me to a train station in just minutes and then to downtown or the Telcom Corridor if I worked there (I work from home). There are bike lanes and I often bike to church 8 miles away. And I live a stone's throw from suburban Plano and better than 15 miles from downtown Dallas in what would many would call sprawl and yet it's perfectly walkable to me and I could easily live my day to day life without a car. I think it's just a matter of mindsets and people's willingness to try something different.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not equating my neighborhood with NYC's Upper West Side or anything. I'm just pointing out that often what is "walkable" is determined less by how a city is built and more by people's willingness to walk.

It's definitely both, but having all that stuff nearby seems like an important ingredient for most people.

[iheartthed]

That's debatable - Atlanta the largest it has ever been. Atlanta's current population may be greater than what it was in the 1950-60's. But if it is, it's not by much. The population of the city of Atlanta lost population throughout the 70s, 80s and maybe even part of the 60s and 90s. In area, the city of Atlanta has not grown since 1950s - still around 130 square miles.


.........But Atlanta is still the largest that it has ever been, no? And I'm pretty sure that the development to support Atlanta's current population was not built around it hypothetically becoming some walkable utopia in the future. I mean, I'm no Atlanta expert, but I think I'm making a pretty safe conjecture.

So I think it does negate your point especially the part that "a significant portion of that growth (of Atlanta) occurred after the car era began". When do you think the your so called car era began? One may say that during the so called 'car era' the city of Atlanta didn't grow seeing that its population actually may have declined and it hasn't increased in area (no major annexations since the 1950s).

People often try to pigeon-hole things even when fact say otherwise.

My "so called car era" began at the same time as everyone elses! Do you not know anything about American history? Pre-war versus post war development? White flight? Dawn of the suburban age?

The 1950 census was the last census taken before the suburbanization era -- "so called car era" -- took full effect. In that census, the 10 largest cities were (in order of size):

New York
Chicago
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Detroit
Baltimore
Cleveland
St. Louis
Washington, D.C.
and Boston

The smallest city was Boston at a population of a roughly 801,444. Los Angeles is the only city on this list that is significantly west of the Mississippi River, or significantly south of the Mason Dixon line. (And L.A. in 1950 had a very low population density compared to every other city on the list.) At the time this census was taken, these were large, densely populated cities that were not car oriented.

By comparison, Atlanta in 1950 had 331,314 residents, thus it was not even half the size of the smallest city on this list before the "so called car era". Today's Atlanta is almost twice the size of it's 1950 self. It never existed as a large car-independent city. Key word here is large. It may have been a car-independent city at one point, but heck I'm sure you could have lived in Kalamazoo, MI without a car too at some point in history. If you draw the line of "large city" at 800,000, which is reasonable for the pre-1950 era IMO, then no Sun Belt city outside of California has ever existed as a large, car-independent city.

So these cities like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, etc., that have crept up the list of largest cities in recent decades, were primarily developed for a population that largely owned their own cars. Northern industrial cities did not develop that way.

[Kingofthehill]

Noticeably absent from Metro's LRTP are lines down Pico/Venice, Santa Monica (Silver Line does not go down the length of Santa Monica because it's not compatible with the Pink Line HRT), Beverly (could use at least a BRT), Ventura, etc. All of those projects would make LA's system more relevant as far as generating not only car-free trips, but car-free lifestyles as well. The system that's currently underway serves more of a park and ride function. I guess that's where our bus system comes in and fills the void.

I fail to see how Beverly deserves a BRT when it doesn't even have non-rush hour Rapid bus service. (True) BRT makes much more sense when employed on streets with high bus ridership, such as Van Nuys, Sepulveda, Western and Sunset.

[jtk1519]

It's definitely both, but having all that stuff nearby seems like an important ingredient for most people.

Absolutely. Sidewalks, good crosswalks, public transit and concentrations of businesses and services are important and I think you can find that in most cities and even most suburbs now days, many with nearby city parks, dedicated bike lanes/trails, etc.

[electricron]

Absolutely. Sidewalks, good crosswalks, public transit and concentrations of businesses and services are important and I think you can find that in most cities and even most suburbs now days, many with nearby city parks, dedicated bike lanes/trails, etc.

The best way, imho, to determine if a neighborhood in a city was built to be walkable is to look for sidewalks. No sidewalks means that neighborhood was designed and built for cars.....

[L41A]

.........The 1950 census was the last census taken before the suburbanization era -- "so called car era" -- took full effect. In that census, the 10 largest cities were (in order of size):

New York
Chicago
Philadelphia
Los Angeles
Detroit
Baltimore
Cleveland
St. Louis
Washington, D.C.
and Boston

The smallest city was Boston at a population of a roughly 801,444. Los Angeles is the only city on this list that is significantly west of the Mississippi River, or significantly south of the Mason Dixon line. (And L.A. in 1950 had a very low population density compared to every other city on the list.) At the time this census was taken, these were large, densely populated cities that were not car oriented.

By comparison, Atlanta in 1950 had 331,314 residents, thus it was not even half the size of the smallest city on this list before the "so called car era". Today's Atlanta is almost twice the size of it's 1950 self. It never existed as a large car-independent city. Key word here is large. It may have been a car-independent city at one point, but heck I'm sure you could have lived in Kalamazoo, MI without a car too at some point in history. If you draw the line of "large city" at 800,000, which is reasonable for the pre-1950 era IMO, then no Sun Belt city outside of California has ever existed as a large, car-independent city.

So these cities like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, San Antonio, etc., that have crept up the list of largest cities in recent decades, were primarily developed for a population that largely owned their own cars. Northern industrial cities did not develop that way.

Nor In 1950 was the area of the city of Atlanta at its current size (130 sq mi). So let's compare apples to apples. The last major annexation into Atlanta occurred after the 1950 census (1952) and increased the population by more 100,000 and the area to its current relative size. Calculation then will show Atlanta's population was in the 450,000 range in the early 1950s.

The population did increase some until the 1960s into the 500,000 range but then decreased for more than two decades. The population of the city of Atlanta has mostly declined since "so called car era" (with same 1952 area ) until its late 1990s to its current increases. Even the 2000 census shows the population less than 500,000 in the city of Atlanta although today's estimates (not census) shows it well over 500,000.

My contention with your position is that Atlanta grew significantly post "so called car era" and that it ‘grew around the car’ and built thusly. The city of Atlanta did not grow significantly after "so called car era". In addition, Atlanta like most cities (big or small) was not built around the car.

Furthermore, I'm not even addressing the size of Atlanta in relation to other cities. I realize that is something that many on skyscraperpage like to do. You can draw the line of “large city” anywhere to prove your point - Why not 1 million or 2 million?

It really doesn’t concern me whether you or anyone considers Atlanta or any city walkable, large enough, etc but I do respect fact.

[Evergrey]

Detroit wasn't built around the car? What are you smoking? Outside of a small sliver of downtown, Detroit is the most car-centric, pedestrian-unfriendly major city in the midwest.

Agreed... just visit and it's quite obvious. Sure... there was a city before the car... but the automobile transportation monoculture transformed the built environment of Detroit into one scaled exclusively for the requirements of the automobile. It truly personified the dream of "car culture". The commercial corridors are extremely wide, multi-lane highways lined with barren sidewalks and suburban-scaled retail entities. There is a segregation of uses and a lack of amenities throughout the neighborhoods. This will be one of the greatest challenges to any type of "urban revitalization" in the future. The likelihood of Detroit becoming a hub of "car-free living" (as a choice, not due to economic circumstances denying car ownership) is as slim as any city in the country.

I know that many cities were built around street car systems... Originally. But most never existed as large cities that were not car dependent. When Detroit was twice the size that it is now, it was a city where you could live without a car. It was (originally) designed to be a large city where you did not need a car. Almost no cities outside of the industrial north have that background. They almost all became large cities after the onset of the automobile era, and were thus primarily built around cars.

It matters less what Detroit started out as... compared to what it became after its signature industry took off. While a sizable city in the decades preceding the automobile industry... Detroit experienced its primary period of growth as a result of its automobile dominance... and its built environment came to reflect its product moreso than any other traditional northern city.

[Evergrey]

Top 10 major cities for smallest percentage of commuters driving alone to work... these are just cities, not metros... which I think actually works pretty well when evaluating "car-free cities"... since very few suburbs in this country are places that would foster "car-free cultures"

1. New York 23.3% drove alone
2. Washington 37.2%
3. San Francisco 38.4%
4. Boston 41.1%
5. Chicago 50.5%
6. Philadelphia 50.7%
7. Pittsburgh 52.8%
8. Seattle 52.9%
9. Baltimore 57.9%
10. Oakland 58.1%

bottom 10 are generally cities with bloated boundaries like Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, Toledo, Wichita, Oklahoma City, Virginia Beach, etc... not that any of these are known for car-free living anyways

[urbanactivistTX]

Agreed... just visit and it's quite obvious. Sure... there was a city before the car... but the automobile transportation monoculture transformed the built environment of Detroit into one scaled exclusively for the requirements of the automobile. It truly personified the dream of "car culture". The commercial corridors are extremely wide, multi-lane highways lined with barren sidewalks and suburban-scaled retail entities. There is a segregation of uses and a lack of amenities throughout the neighborhoods. This will be one of the greatest challenges to any type of "urban revitalization" in the future. The likelihood of Detroit becoming a hub of "car-free living" (as a choice, not due to economic circumstances denying car ownership) is as slim as any city in the country.



It matters less what Detroit started out as... compared to what it became after its signature industry took off. While a sizable city in the decades preceding the automobile industry... Detroit experienced its primary period of growth as a result of its automobile dominance... and its built environment came to reflect its product moreso than any other traditional northern city.

Being built up before WWII is an important factor, but it's less important than the will of the people during those times too. If the people in a smaller city like Atlanta had chosen not destroy neighborhoods in favor of freeways and sprawl, then their city would have likely continued to grow in a dense fashion. These were conscious choices that the people of places like NYC and San Francisco made through popular votes and the values of elected officials. We can't go back and change history in the Sunbelt, but we can make decisions that will create more walkable areas for future generations.

[LosAngelesBeauty]

Denver was also built around an extensive streetcar system. At it's height in 1922, Denver had just over 300 miles of operating streetcar lines. Only San Fransisco had more miles of operating streetcar (350 miles) west of the Mississippi at that time.


Only SF? Are you serious? What about LA?

"At its greatest extent, around 1925, the system interconnected cities in Los Angeles and Orange Counties and also connected to Riverside County and San Bernardino County in the Inland Empire...At this time the Pacific Electric became the largest operator of interurban electric railway passenger service in the world with over 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of track." - Wiki

Let's see, that made it almost 3 times larger than SF. :haha:

[mwadswor]

Agreed... just visit and it's quite obvious. Sure... there was a city before the car... but the automobile transportation monoculture transformed the built environment of Detroit into one scaled exclusively for the requirements of the automobile. It truly personified the dream of "car culture". The commercial corridors are extremely wide, multi-lane highways lined with barren sidewalks and suburban-scaled retail entities. There is a segregation of uses and a lack of amenities throughout the neighborhoods. This will be one of the greatest challenges to any type of "urban revitalization" in the future. The likelihood of Detroit becoming a hub of "car-free living" (as a choice, not due to economic circumstances denying car ownership) is as slim as any city in the country.



It matters less what Detroit started out as... compared to what it became after its signature industry took off. While a sizable city in the decades preceding the automobile industry... Detroit experienced its primary period of growth as a result of its automobile dominance... and its built environment came to reflect its product moreso than any other traditional northern city.

I've never been to Detroit, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but logically it seems like another huge roadblock to creating any sort of car-free culture there would be the automakers. Logically, the big 3 have a significant interest in people and places being as car dependant as possible, and Detroit is where there influence is going to be the greatest.

[iheartthed]

Nor In 1950 was the area of the city of Atlanta at its current size (130 sq mi). So let's compare apples to apples. The last major annexation into Atlanta occurred after the 1950 census (1952) and increased the population by more 100,000 and the area to its current relative size. Calculation then will show Atlanta's population was in the 450,000 range in the early 1950s.

The population did increase some until the 1960s into the 500,000 range but then decreased for more than two decades. The population of the city of Atlanta has mostly declined since "so called car era" (with same 1952 area ) until its late 1990s to its current increases. Even the 2000 census shows the population less than 500,000 in the city of Atlanta although today's estimates (not census) shows it well over 500,000.

My contention with your position is that Atlanta grew significantly post "so called car era" and that it ‘grew around the car’ and built thusly. The city of Atlanta did not grow significantly after "so called car era". In addition, Atlanta like most cities (big or small) was not built around the car.

Furthermore, I'm not even addressing the size of Atlanta in relation to other cities. I realize that is something that many on skyscraperpage like to do. You can draw the line of “large city” anywhere to prove your point - Why not 1 million or 2 million?

It really doesn’t concern me whether you or anyone considers Atlanta or any city walkable, large enough, etc but I do respect fact.

I addressed the size of Atlanta because it is relevant to the discussion. The cities that I cited, in my opinion above, were once large population centers that were centered on a car independent city. Atlanta has never been that. For it to try to become that would be tackling an animal that it has never before wrestled. It ain't impossible, but it also ain't gonna be a natural transition back to something that it was before (as would be the case for an older industrial city).

Like I'm sure there is a dense walkable neighborhood somewhere in Houston, but the Houston that exists today has never operated in a car independent society. A Detroit or a Cleveland -- as it physically exists today -- has done this before. I would even argue that Detroit, Cleveland and places like them deteriorated so badly in part because they were pedestrian oriented cities in a car culture era.

[iheartthed]

Agreed... just visit and it's quite obvious. Sure... there was a city before the car... but the automobile transportation monoculture transformed the built environment of Detroit into one scaled exclusively for the requirements of the automobile. It truly personified the dream of "car culture". The commercial corridors are extremely wide, multi-lane highways lined with barren sidewalks and suburban-scaled retail entities. There is a segregation of uses and a lack of amenities throughout the neighborhoods. This will be one of the greatest challenges to any type of "urban revitalization" in the future. The likelihood of Detroit becoming a hub of "car-free living" (as a choice, not due to economic circumstances denying car ownership) is as slim as any city in the country.



It matters less what Detroit started out as... compared to what it became after its signature industry took off. While a sizable city in the decades preceding the automobile industry... Detroit experienced its primary period of growth as a result of its automobile dominance... and its built environment came to reflect its product moreso than any other traditional northern city.

Who is talking about where Detroit started? I'm talking about Detroit at its historical peak. Detroit at its historical peak was a city where you did not need to own a car to live. By comparison, Atlanta, which is currently at its historical peak, is a city where most people do indeed need a car to live. Detroit was the industrial capital, but it's population peaked before the implementation of the urban renewal projects that tried (and failed) to convert it into a city of cars.

So... yeah. As I was saying, the cities that I listed have done it before. The others haven't.

[iheartthed]

I've never been to Detroit, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but logically it seems like another huge roadblock to creating any sort of car-free culture there would be the automakers. Logically, the big 3 have a significant interest in people and places being as car dependant as possible, and Detroit is where there influence is going to be the greatest.

The Big 3's influence is waning significantly. The bickering among local politicians on how to implement a transit system is the biggest roadblock for anything to occur there.

[L41A]

I addressed the size of Atlanta because it is relevant to the discussion. The cities that I cited, in my opinion above, were once large population centers that were centered on a car independent city. Atlanta has never been that. For it to try to become that would be tackling an animal that it has never before wrestled. It ain't impossible, but it also ain't gonna be a natural transition back to something that it was before (as would be the case for an older industrial city).

Like I'm sure there is a dense walkable neighborhood somewhere in Houston, but the Houston that exists today has never operated in a car independent society. A Detroit or a Cleveland -- as it physically exists today -- has done this before. I would even argue that Detroit, Cleveland and places like them deteriorated so badly in part because they were pedestrian oriented cities in a car culture era.

In the 1950s, Atlanta was as much of a "car independent city" as any city. And it had an extensive street car system that someone has already pointed out. The Interstate Highway System in all of America was just getting started in the mid 1950's and freeways were non-existent. Furthermore, Atlanta's size in population and in area hasn't changed significantly since the 1950s. It was approximately 130 square miles in 1952 and its the same size now. The population was around 500,000 then and the census stated it was less than 500,000 in Year 2000. I am only contending your position that Atlanta was built for the car and that its growth (which hasn't happened particular in size) was due to the dependence of the car.

[VivaLFuego]

Different way of looking at it:

Median Earnings of transit users and walkers, and how those earnings compare to the area-wide median. The idea here is to gauge whether a city's transit (or sidewalk) is attractive as an option to people who could otherwise afford to be drivers.

This is for Urbanized Area. Someone feel free to do the same for MSA, Core City, whatever you want. I personally like UA because MSA and CSA are too big and always include near-independent sprawlburbs, while just using core city is fraught with distortions for the many obvious reasons of relatively arbitrary municipal boundaries.

The numbers are median earnings per year (in $) for all commuters and transit/walk commuters, respectively, with cities ranked by the ratio.

Table for transit:

All Transit Ratio
Chicago 36,551 36,347 0.99
Boston 41,550 40,035 0.96
Wash, DC 48,354 45,536 0.94
New York 39,975 36,844 0.92
SF-Oak 43,678 40,014 0.92
Seattle 40,326 35,386 0.88
MSP 39,741 31,739 0.80
Philadelphia 38,748 30,481 0.79
Portland 34,610 25,361 0.73
Denver 35,694 25,562 0.72
Baltimore 40,035 27,361 0.68
DFW 32,286 22,044 0.68
Houston 32,231 21,401 0.66
St. Louis 34,039 20,445 0.60
Atlanta 36,261 21,574 0.59
Miami 30,964 15,721 0.51
LA 31,717 16,089 0.51

All Walk Ratio
SF-Oak 43,678 28,492 0.65
New York 39,975 26,055 0.65
Wash, DC 48,354 31,037 0.64
Boston 41,550 24,848 0.60
Denver 35,694 21,125 0.59
Seattle 40,326 22,902 0.57
Portland 34,610 18,617 0.54
Miami 30,964 16,218 0.52
Houston 32,231 16,576 0.51
Atlanta 36,261 18,384 0.51
Chicago 36,551 18,494 0.51
DFW 32,286 15,959 0.49
LA 31,717 15,419 0.49
MSP 39,741 18,059 0.45
Philadelphia 38,748 17,521 0.45
St. Louis 34,039 15,140 0.44
Baltimore 40,035 17,393 0.43


By these measures (i.e. attractiveness of transit and walking to people with a choice), I'd say the clear up-and-comer is Seattle, nipping at the heels of the "top-tier" cities in both categories. Denver, Portland, and MSP are the honorable mentions.

[L41A]

Who is talking about where Detroit started? I'm talking about Detroit at its historical peak. Detroit at its historical peak was a city where you did not need to own a car to live. By comparison, Atlanta, which is currently at its historical peak, is a city where most people do indeed need a car to live. Detroit was the industrial capital, but it's population peaked before the implementation of the urban renewal projects that tried (and failed) to convert it into a city of cars.

So... yeah. As I was saying, the cities that I listed have done it before. The others haven't.

Most people do not need a car to live in Atlanta. I lived in Atlanta for several years without a car in the late 1980s to mid 1990s. I took the MARTA heavy rail to work, to party, to shop, etc (from Buckhead to Downtown to Airport to Decatur to Midtown among other points). I walked to the restaurants, bars, stores in my Midtown neighborhood. I even on a regular basis took public transit to the northwest suburbs (20 miles away from my Midtown apartment).

[TarHeelJ]

I clicked on it... But it still doesn't negate my point. The city of Atlanta is currently the largest it has ever been, and a significant portion of that growth occurred after the car era began. Even today, at it's largest point, Atlanta is not much more than half of what cities like STL and Cleveland peaked at when they had large proportions of residents who lived without needing cars (and ATL's population is only a fraction of where Detroit's peaked). Atlanta never existed as a large city that was not majority car dependent. Nor has almost any other new Sun Belt city.

Atlanta's population was 340,000 in 1940...and 394,000 in 1990. I would say the city's most significant era of growth was prior to the automobile.

Your "idea" of sunbelt cities seems to be blinding you to the facts. Atlanta was a large city prior to the advent of the automobile - admittedly not as large as SOME cities - but that doesn't mean it wasn't large. 340,000 was a large city for 1940.

[TarHeelJ]

Most people do not need a car to live in Atlanta. I lived in Atlanta for several years without a car in the late 1980s to mid 1990s. I took the MARTA heavy rail to work, to party, to shop, etc (from Buckhead to Downtown to Airport to Decatur to Midtown among other points). I walked to the restaurants, bars, stores in my Midtown neighborhood. I even on a regular basis took public transit to the northwest suburbs (20 miles away from my Midtown apartment).

MANY people in Atlanta live just fine without a car...but you're not going to convince someone of that who has read some of the media stories about the city and it's poor mass transit system. Why should anyone take the word of RESIDENTS? :haha:

I think he is confusing the growth of Atlanta's suburbs with the growth of the city of Atlanta. The city was large before 1950...but the suburbs weren't. Suburbanization swept the U.S. from the 50s on, and METRO Atlanta grew huge. The city didn't grow much, and even declined in population, until recently.

[Evergrey]

an Atlanta-Detroit pissing match is certainly... unexpected... though they do share the same iconic cylindrical tower

[novawolverine]

It's all relative IMO. I don't think I could do Detroit or Atlanta w/o a car. Whether it's possible is besides the point. It's whether or not it's comfortable. Having relatively frequent and widespread transit options is a big part of the equation. Having a well-scaled environment for walking and biking is important as well. In both of these cities, things are a bit too spread out and the transportation options aren't quite robust enough at this point.

Detroit is way behind Atlanta though in this area though. I'd take the Detroit Metro over Atlanta's Metro from a pedestrian-friendliness and urban aspect but it's almost depressing how auto-dependent Detroit is.

[cabasse]

an Atlanta-Detroit pissing match is certainly... unexpected... though they do share the same iconic cylindrical tower

my avatar circa 2004 - lol (before i even lived up there...)
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/5315/portmanedcab.gif

[VivaLFuego]

MANY people in Atlanta live just fine without a car...but you're not going to convince someone of that who has read some of the media stories about the city and it's poor mass transit system. Why should anyone take the word of RESIDENTS? :haha:

I think he is confusing the growth of Atlanta's suburbs with the growth of the city of Atlanta. The city was large before 1950...but the suburbs weren't. Suburbanization swept the U.S. from the 50s on, and METRO Atlanta grew huge. The city didn't grow much, and even declined in population, until recently.

Maybe it's possible, but the people who do without by choice are the statistical outliers. Clearly, being car-free and taking transit or walking are not desirable in Atlanta for whatever reason, and I'm not sure what is to be gained by pretending like transit in Atlanta isn't more oriented towards serving the poor and transit-dependent than many other cities. That's ok, it's not a judgment of the city, but it's the reality based on actual data of who rides transit and how they compare to non-riders.

[TarHeelJ]

Maybe it's possible, but the people who do without by choice are the statistical outliers. Clearly, being car-free and taking transit or walking are not desirable in Atlanta for whatever reason, and I'm not sure what is to be gained by pretending like transit in Atlanta isn't more oriented towards serving the poor and transit-dependent than many other cities. That's ok, it's not a judgment of the city, but it's the reality based on actual data of who rides transit and how they compare to non-riders.

What data are you talking about? Commuters riding transit? I don't know of any data that breaks down the numbers of poor transit riders versus the number of affluent transit riders. :rolleyes:

I realize it isn't a judgment of the city...I'm not defending the city, I'm defending reality.

[TarHeelJ]

an Atlanta-Detroit pissing match is certainly... unexpected... though they do share the same iconic cylindrical tower

Is that what this is? I didn't realize that Detroit and Atlanta were being compared...although public transit in Detroit is a far cry from public transit in Atlanta.

[L41A]

Maybe it's possible, but the people who do without by choice are the statistical outliers. Clearly, being car-free and taking transit or walking are not desirable in Atlanta for whatever reason, and I'm not sure what is to be gained by pretending like transit in Atlanta isn't more oriented towards serving the poor and transit-dependent than many other cities. That's ok, it's not a judgment of the city, but it's the reality based on actual data of who rides transit and how they compare to non-riders.

I stated what my contention was and I will state it again. My contention is that Atlanta grew significantly post "so called car era" and that it ‘grew around the car’ and was built thusly.

I am not pretending anything nor am I looking to gain anything from anyone on here. I could care less whether anyone (whether on skyscraperpage are on the street) like Atlanta - think its walkable, big, dense, etc. Furthermore, who has stated anything about the socio-economic condition of the people who take transit in Atlanta? That's a whole new subject.

Atlanta, like any place, is not for everyone's complete liking. I'm not trying to convince or persuade, etc. Nothing that I have posted was with that intent. However, I do not like clumping, grouping and narrowly comparing things without fact.

[L41A]

Is that what this is? I didn't realize that Detroit and Atlanta were being compared...although public transit in Detroit is a far cry from public transit in Atlanta.

I didn't know they were being compared either. At least two people thought they were though.

[iheartthed]

Okay, let me put this another way. Manhattan, where I live, has a resident population of roughly 1.4 million. But five days per week, 5 million people squeeze on to this island, primarily via public transit, to go to work and school. So the infrastructure has to be able to handle not just the 1.4 million of us who live here, but in addition the other 3.5 million who come in for work or whatever.

Atlanta is now the center of a 5 millionish person region, but the city's public transit infrastructure has never had to bear the full brunt of being the primary mode of transportation for a region that large. Atlanta is not Washington, D.C., which is a similar sized city in a similar sized region, but does have the infrastructure necessary to move a significant portion of the region by public transit.

I say that the northern industrial major cities fare better at becoming pedestrian friendly over places like Atlanta because those cities have done it before. Let me be clear, this isn't a Detroit vs. Atlanta thread. I only use Detroit as a point of reference. The fact is that when Detroit was a 2 million person city, a significant amount of the residents lived car independent lifestyles. I do concede that Detroit wouldn't be able to pull this off tomorrow morning if it had to. But I think it would be easier for a Detroit or Cleveland or STL or who ever to revert back to its roots than for an Atlanta to try and support its current regional population while diminishing the role of the car.

[JDRCRASH]

Like Westsidelife said in another thread, when County Angelenos voted for Measure R last November, LA set the stage for a huge transportation-and perhaps cultural-shift that might be one of the biggest America has seen in generations.

Maybe i'm being a little too bullish, but this is a great time for LA.:)

[SnyderBock]

In Denver's case, it is a very small city--Denver International Airport accounts for roughly 1/3rd of the cities entire landmass. Most of Denver's 700,000 residents are located in the dense urban neighborhoods around downtown. These neighborhoods were built and supported by a massive streetcar system (300 miles of streetcars) (http://www.denverinfill.com/blog/2009/01/7-downtown-streetcars.html). Beyond the city limits of Denver are an inner ring of nice, pre-1950, dense, urban streetcar suburbs which continue to be very walkable neighborhoods and districts.

By 1950, Denver's last streetcar was converted to a bus route. To this day, all the inner streetcar neighborhoods and streetcar suburbs are served by one of the country's most extensive bus systems. In addition to this, the City/County of Denver maintains the country's largest bike path and park system [Reference] (http://www.denverbikesharing.org/). That's a feat for a city with as few square miles of land as Denver has. In Denver, you can get anywhere in the entire metro area by bike trail. With this, Denver also has one of the most successful bike-sharing programs (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-183750073.html) in the US (during the DNC, it was a massive success). In the Spring of 2010, there will be 40 bike-share stations around Denver (http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2009/05/denvers_bike-share_program_lau.php) go online. Visit Denverbikeshharing.org (http://www.denverbikesharing.org/) for great information about Denver as a car-free city.

With the re-introduction of rail mass transit and one of the countries most ambitious, funded mass transit build out plans, I seriously think some may be overlooking Denver's potential to become a top tier car-free lifestyle city over the next quarter century. Heck, even one of Denver's major suburbs, Boulder, Colorado is already considered a quality car-less city to live in. The outdoorsy culture, environmentalists culture and the progressive, technological, renewable energy cultures which define the Denver region are all influences which will help Denver become more and more favorable to those whom choose to live without a car.

Downtown Denver's most recent residential highrise built--the 525 Unit, 41-story Spire Denver (http://www.spiredenver.com/)--was built without any pre-sales, on pure speculation of demand for young professionals looking for a downtown, car-free lifestyle. They encourage new residents to not even own a car and instead will provide a car rental company in one of its ground floor retail fronts--there for the buildings residents, so they can rent a car in the event they need to travel somewhere transit won't take them conveniently enough. They will allow residents to rent these cars by the hour, instead of by the day. And of course, there will also be a bike-share station. I think that's a major step in the right dirrection right there.

[sogod]

Denver has 600k people and without the land area for DIA its density comes out to around 6000 people per square mile.

I think in most medium sized sunbelt cities you could carve out chunks that are that dense.

[edluva]

Los Angeles is the next big city to become pedestrian friendly. having said that, it will probably not occur until sometime mid-century at earliest. Not only because it takes time to build the transit, but also because it takes time beyond the opening of transit for the city's real estate and urban design to adapt to pedestrians. That part of the transition alone takes decades (rome wasn't built in a day, remember?)

just because a new subway line opens doesn't instantaneously make areas served by that line "pedestrian friendly". angeleno boosters should take note of that.

and i don't remember who said atlanta's system serves more than la's. la's LRT/subway serves just under 300k daily. i believe more than marta. a comparison which is embarrassing that it has to be made given how much bigger la is.

[tdawg]

My guess would be Dallas or Denver? Aren't both cities hugely expanding their LRT networks?

[BG918]

My guess would be Dallas or Denver? Aren't both cities hugely expanding their LRT networks?

LRT in Dallas and Denver though is mainly for commuters from suburbs and outlying parts of the city into downtown. A massive urban streetcar expansion would be more indicative of a growing car-free lifestyle.

[JDRCRASH]

Well edluva, if the mayor's 30/10 plan suceeds, it could come even sooner. It's plan that sets a goal for building Measure R's projects in 10-15 years instead of 30. And because $40 Billion in funding has already come out of LA County taxpayers, LA may have an advantage in obtaining large amounts of federal and private funds.

[Yankee]

I just saw (500) Days of Summer and besides all the other reasons why this movie was really good, I particularly liked the way it portrayed LA - rather unrealistically but in a very visionary way which could soon become a reality.

The movie is basically set in downtown LA but tries to portray all of the city in a very dense urban way - they walk everywhere, there are a lot of walking and park scenes, they hang out on rooftops, etc. The dense parts of the city and the old art deco architecture in the historic core are showed off - there's a whole scene dedicated to that actually, because one of the main characters Tom is a wanna be architect originally from NJ who admires LA's historic architecture and wants Angelinos to respect it more and care about it more - it's integrated in a romantic scene where him and Zooey Deschanel are sitting in a park overlooking the historic core and she makes him draw his vision for a denser downtown on her forearm. Pretty sweet. :D

This might be the first LA-based movie where no cars whatsoever are in the movie except in the background. For the first 20 minutes or so I couldn't even figure out where it was set, I was almost certain it was somewhere on the East coast until the narrator said "He lived in a great American city of 3.8 million people" or something like that and I was like - no way! Even then I figured, could they mean Chicago but accidentally got census information from 1950 ? :D :D There's even an emphasis on transit, they take Amtrak at one point in the movie, and it's portrayed very favorably. So is the city's public transit.

It's not very realistic, but I like that it's trying to change the perception people have of LA and trying to get people to care more about dense development and transit, as well as civic pride and virtues.

It tries to portray LA in a romantic NYC way and it does so beautifully. The movie is terrific too, I'm not usually a fan of romantic dramedies but this one is pretty awesome, plus you gotta love Zooey, she's great :D That was off-topic.

[Jasonhouse]

LRT in Dallas and Denver though is mainly for commuters from suburbs and outlying parts of the city into downtown. A massive urban streetcar expansion would be more indicative of a growing car-free lifestyle.
Dallas has a streetcar system, and it's expanding.

[urbanlife]

I just saw (500) Days of Summer and besides all the other reasons why this movie was really good, I particularly liked the way it portrayed LA - rather unrealistically but in a very visionary way which could soon become a reality.

The movie is basically set in downtown LA but tries to portray all of the city in a very dense urban way - they walk everywhere, there are a lot of walking and park scenes, they hang out on rooftops, etc. The dense parts of the city and the old art deco architecture in the historic core are showed off - there's a whole scene dedicated to that actually, because one of the main characters Tom is a wanna be architect originally from NJ who admires LA's historic architecture and wants Angelinos to respect it more and care about it more - it's integrated in a romantic scene where him and Zooey Deschanel are sitting in a park overlooking the historic core and she makes him draw his vision for a denser downtown on her forearm. Pretty sweet. :D

This might be the first LA-based movie where no cars whatsoever are in the movie except in the background. For the first 20 minutes or so I couldn't even figure out where it was set, I was almost certain it was somewhere on the East coast until the narrator said "He lived in a great American city of 3.8 million people" or something like that and I was like - no way! Even then I figured, could they mean Chicago but accidentally got census information from 1950 ? :D :D There's even an emphasis on transit, they take Amtrak at one point in the movie, and it's portrayed very favorably. So is the city's public transit.

It's not very realistic, but I like that it's trying to change the perception people have of LA and trying to get people to care more about dense development and transit, as well as civic pride and virtues.

It tries to portray LA in a romantic NYC way and it does so beautifully. The movie is terrific too, I'm not usually a fan of romantic dramedies but this one is pretty awesome, plus you gotta love Zooey, she's great :D That was off-topic.

haha, funny you say that about that movie because for the first part of it I was trying to figure out where they were suppose to be too and I noticed some of this hilliness to the city so that crossed out anything east coast that would be this dense...so my first thought was, is this San Francisco and they just havent done any of those typical city shots yet? Then I finally noticed LA's city hall building.