Next US city where comfortable car-free life will be possible in the near future?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[cabasse]

so was atlanta and its semiurban streetcar suburbs (click here) as well as many, many other cities in the US.

[Jasonhouse]

Originally Posted by 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.

Statistically, it fights with the Tampa Bay area for the national title.

btw, Tampa was also built around streetcars early on.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by cabasse

so was atlanta and its semiurban streetcar suburbs (click here) 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%

Originally Posted by Snodrifter

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.

Originally Posted by glowrock

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)

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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_...storyid=110435

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

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

DART's daily rail ridership is 63,600.

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

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]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

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_...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]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

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]

Originally Posted by L41A

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]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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]

Originally Posted by mhays

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.