HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 11:54 PM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Mike, you have a fear of data. Data can be your friend!

Again, there is likely no more transit-oriented American suburban county.

Buses are a portion of the overall transit framework. Whether or not all buses are running on Sunday and whether or not wait times are acceptable to you has nothing to do with actual ridership stats, which are very impressive for suburban U.S. standards.
You want data??

According to Beeline, only 65% of residents are within walking distance of transit service. The ridership quoted is unlinked trips, so the actual ridership is even lower, and is very low considering the county has almost one million people.

Most of the trips are also taken in the more urban and poor part of the county, Yonkers.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 12:11 AM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
You want data??

According to Beeline, only 65% of residents are within walking distance of transit service. The ridership quoted is unlinked trips, so the actual ridership is even lower, and is very low considering the county has almost one million people.

Most of the trips are also taken in the more urban and poor part of the county, Yonkers.
First, that's not very low for American standards. Also note that all the "in-city" trips, which are a large portion of transit trips in general, are mostly taken by Metro North
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 2:02 AM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Above 15K you're right for Alameda County sans Berkeley and Oakland, above 10K though Alameda County has considerably more than Westchester County.

Berkeley and Oakland alone though have a larger area >15K ppsm than Westchester County.
Except your list doesn't have the amount of people living in each neighborhood.

Ran the numbers out. By people living in tracts above 20k/sq mile, Westchester comes out ahead, and even more so by %. But Westchester has a small % of its residents living at medium densities (5-15k per square mile). Here's the breakdown for Westchester County:

520,155 above density 5000
328,781 above density 10000
219,644 above density 15000
139,512 above density 20000
88,279 above density 25000
48,951 above density 30000
29,117 above density 40000
11,561 above density 50000

Alameda (which has about 1.5 million people while Westchester is just under 1 million):

1,160,046 above density 5000
629,764 above density 10000
260,961 above density 15000
132,248 above density 20000
64,820 above density 25000
32,704 above density 30000
8368 above density 40000
8368 above density 50000

I'd assume the low density tracts in Alameda County are east of the hills, on the hills themselves, are just drawn to include a bunch of non-residential land. Weighted density is similar for both counties, probably because weighted density gets easily affected by a few very dense tracts. Westchester 9,768 per square mile, Alameda is 10,108 per square mile. Interestingly, Staten Island has a higher weighted density than either of the two counties, but most of the population lives at densities between 9-20k/sq mile or so. Staten Island has roughly the same local bus ridership (94,000 / weekday) as Westchester despite having half the population. Some of the local bus ridership might be to the ferry, so might not be a perfect intra-county transit comparison.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 3:27 AM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except your list doesn't have the amount of people living in each neighborhood.

Ran the numbers out. By people living in tracts above 20k/sq mile, Westchester comes out ahead, and even more so by %. But Westchester has a small % of its residents living at medium densities (5-15k per square mile). Here's the breakdown for Westchester County:

520,155 above density 5000
328,781 above density 10000
219,644 above density 15000
139,512 above density 20000
88,279 above density 25000
48,951 above density 30000
29,117 above density 40000
11,561 above density 50000

Alameda (which has about 1.5 million people while Westchester is just under 1 million):

1,160,046 above density 5000
629,764 above density 10000
260,961 above density 15000
132,248 above density 20000
64,820 above density 25000
32,704 above density 30000
8368 above density 40000
8368 above density 50000

I'd assume the low density tracts in Alameda County are east of the hills, on the hills themselves, are just drawn to include a bunch of non-residential land. Weighted density is similar for both counties, probably because weighted density gets easily affected by a few very dense tracts. Westchester 9,768 per square mile, Alameda is 10,108 per square mile. Interestingly, Staten Island has a higher weighted density than either of the two counties, but most of the population lives at densities between 9-20k/sq mile or so. Staten Island has roughly the same local bus ridership (94,000 / weekday) as Westchester despite having half the population. Some of the local bus ridership might be to the ferry, so might not be a perfect intra-county transit comparison.
Brampton and Mississauga have a bit over 10k and a bit over 12k/sq mile weighted densities respectively, and local bus ridership a little ahead of Westchester on a per capita basis. York Region is maybe about the same depending on how you correct for linked vs unlinked trips, although it's a bit less dense (7k or so?). Probably all of them have a bit lower commuter rail use per capita though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 6:47 AM
Nineties Flava's Avatar
Nineties Flava Nineties Flava is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Francisco USA
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Except your list doesn't have the amount of people living in each neighborhood.

Ran the numbers out. By people living in tracts above 20k/sq mile, Westchester comes out ahead, and even more so by %. But Westchester has a small % of its residents living at medium densities (5-15k per square mile). Here's the breakdown for Westchester County:

520,155 above density 5000
328,781 above density 10000
219,644 above density 15000
139,512 above density 20000
88,279 above density 25000
48,951 above density 30000
29,117 above density 40000
11,561 above density 50000

Alameda (which has about 1.5 million people while Westchester is just under 1 million):

1,160,046 above density 5000
629,764 above density 10000
260,961 above density 15000
132,248 above density 20000
64,820 above density 25000
32,704 above density 30000
8368 above density 40000
8368 above density 50000

I'd assume the low density tracts in Alameda County are east of the hills, on the hills themselves, are just drawn to include a bunch of non-residential land. Weighted density is similar for both counties, probably because weighted density gets easily affected by a few very dense tracts. Westchester 9,768 per square mile, Alameda is 10,108 per square mile. Interestingly, Staten Island has a higher weighted density than either of the two counties, but most of the population lives at densities between 9-20k/sq mile or so. Staten Island has roughly the same local bus ridership (94,000 / weekday) as Westchester despite having half the population. Some of the local bus ridership might be to the ferry, so might not be a perfect intra-county transit comparison.

Where exactly are these >50,000 ppsm areas in either county? Serious question.
__________________
New Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88823378@N05/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 1:58 PM
memph memph is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Where exactly are these >50,000 ppsm areas in either county? Serious question.
There's one in Berkeley just south of campus and for Westchester there's two CTs in Yonkers. Yonkers also has several that come close (high 40,000s) and several in the 20-40k range, so it looks like it's denser than any part of East Bay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 2:46 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Where exactly are these >50,000 ppsm areas in either county? Serious question.
The New York Times has a great map of the 2010 Census data. Zoom in on a county and the data switches to census tracts, and there's an option to toggle to population density. With Yonkers, there's a pretty smooth density climb towards the south, as it blends seamlessly into the north edge of the Bronx.

There is a way to download a spreadsheet of census tract information for a county from the Census Bureau's Factfinder, but the way I have requires calculating the density on your own from the information it gives you.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Sep 10, 2014, 8:22 PM
Nineties Flava's Avatar
Nineties Flava Nineties Flava is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Francisco USA
Posts: 1,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox View Post
The New York Times has a great map of the 2010 Census data. Zoom in on a county and the data switches to census tracts, and there's an option to toggle to population density. With Yonkers, there's a pretty smooth density climb towards the south, as it blends seamlessly into the north edge of the Bronx.

There is a way to download a spreadsheet of census tract information for a county from the Census Bureau's Factfinder, but the way I have requires calculating the density on your own from the information it gives you.

Interesting, I never realized Yonkers literally shared a border with NYC.
__________________
New Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88823378@N05/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2014, 2:00 AM
sbarn sbarn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
Interesting, I never realized Yonkers literally shared a border with NYC.
I think at one point (1894) it almost became a borough of New York. They voted "no" to join the city, whereas The Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island voted "yes".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #70  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 8:55 AM
RaymondChandlerLives's Avatar
RaymondChandlerLives RaymondChandlerLives is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
People often tout the fact that LA is the densest metro in the country. However, this ignores the facts of life on the ground for the typical person living in LA versus the typical person living in SF or NYC. For the typical person, how dense is the neighborhood in which they live? This can't really be answered by traditional the traditional density measure.
Well, it's a metro/urbanized area comparison, not a core/city limit comparison. If it were just city limits there wouldn't be a discussion. NYC is incredibly dense, but its suburbs, for the most part, are anything but. That is why LA comes out ahead using standard density (6,999 ppsm for LA; 5,500 ppsm for NY). It's core density is more or less comparable to Chicago/Philadelphia, well below NYC, but it's suburbs stay uniformly dense throughout. Just look at Santa Ana.

The only misleading aspect of those numbers is the differences in population between the two metros. The NY urbanized area has a population of 18.5 million; LA "only" 12.2 million. Then again, demographia's version of the LA "Urban Area", which include portions of the Inland Empire, is still more dense than New York's (6,200 ppsm), and the population is pushing 16 million.

Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; Sep 23, 2014 at 9:09 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #71  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 12:03 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Well, it's a metro/urbanized area comparison, not a core/city limit comparison. If it were just city limits there wouldn't be a discussion. NYC is incredibly dense, but its suburbs, for the most part, are anything but. That is why LA comes out ahead using standard density (6,999 ppsm for LA; 5,500 ppsm for NY). It's core density is more or less comparable to Chicago/Philadelphia, well below NYC, but it's suburbs stay uniformly dense throughout. Just look at Santa Ana.
No one is arguing against the simple math used to calculate density; we are talking about the on-the-ground environment. Weighted density shows how people actually live.

And LA does not have comparable urban environment to Chicago or Philly, nor does Orange County have comparable suburban environment to older suburbs in the East.

Strict density calculation is just people per mile, and is not at all concerned with the built environment or the distribution of people within the environment, which is why Santa Ana, while dense, is still pretty sprawly and auto oriented. Just because you put more Mexicans in a suburban home doesn't mean you get urbanity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #72  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 12:50 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
But high-speed rail in the Central Valley is the "train to nowhere" or whatever other nonsense the Ayn Rand tea party Republicans want us to believe.
It is an indulgent, unnecessary boondoggle and a train to nowhere whose passage at the ballot box was based on LIES to voters and we'd be better off spending 68 billion transit dollars elsewhere.

Signed, a Democrat.
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #73  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 3:16 PM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
It is an indulgent, unnecessary boondoggle and a train to nowhere whose passage at the ballot box was based on LIES to voters and we'd be better off spending 68 billion transit dollars elsewhere.

Signed, a Democrat.
+1

Inner city/Urban rail would be a better investment in those dollars.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #74  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 5:07 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
It is an indulgent, unnecessary boondoggle and a train to nowhere whose passage at the ballot box was based on LIES to voters and we'd be better off spending 68 billion transit dollars elsewhere.

Signed, a Democrat.
A train line from SF to San Diego is a "train to nowhere"?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #75  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 6:54 PM
Leo the Dog Leo the Dog is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Lower-48
Posts: 4,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
A train line from SF to San Diego is a "train to nowhere"?

Train won't make it SD. Besides we already have the surfliner, a more direct route to LA than the proposed "bullet train".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #76  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 8:44 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog View Post
Besides we already have the surfliner, a more direct route to LA...
But it takes 3 hours one way to get there, and it's only about 100 miles.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #77  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 8:53 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is offline
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: all over
Posts: 2,301
SF to LA alone, including Fresno MSA (but not counting Sacramento and SD extensions) is 26 million plus people. Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves for typing such foolishness

I look forward to ya'll eating crow in about 15 years
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #78  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 10:44 PM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
But it takes 3 hours one way to get there, and it's only about 100 miles.
Kind of depends where you are going. Takes about 2 hours to go from Anaheim to DT-SD on the train. Often about the same as driving. But obviously the bullet train would be faster (LA-SD), even if indirect.

Personally I would much rather see a handful of new rail lines in each city than rail connecting SF-LA-SD. Others may disagree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #79  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 10:53 PM
spoonman's Avatar
spoonman spoonman is offline
SD/OC
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
People often tout the fact that LA is the densest metro in the country. However, this ignores the facts of life on the ground for the typical person living in LA versus the typical person living in SF or NYC. For the typical person, how dense is the neighborhood in which they live? This can't really be answered by traditional the traditional density measure.

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/...t-metros/3450/





Here are figures for the top metros (a more readable version is here http://seattletransitblog.com/2012/1...e-stacks-up/):

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 31,251.40
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 12,144.90
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,113.90
Honolulu, HI 11,548.20
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 8,613.40
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 8,417.70
Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 7,980.10
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 7,773.20
Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 7,395.30
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 6,920.50
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 6,527.20
Salinas, CA 6,402.30
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 6,388.10
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-Goleta, CA 6,242.80
Trenton-Ewing, NJ 5,864.60
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura, CA 5,542.20
Baltimore-Towson, MD 5,435.70
Laredo, TX 5,300.10
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 5,257.60
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT 5,122.40
Stockton, CA 4,889.10
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO 4,803.70
Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA 4,763.70
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 4,721.60
Here is a cleaned-up version of the top 10+ densest major metros
  1. New York
  2. San Francisco (should be lower with San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA)
  3. Los Angeles (should be lower with Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA)
  4. Honolulu
  5. Chicago
  6. Boston
  7. Philadelphia
  8. Miami
  9. San Diego
  10. Las Vegas

    11-20
  11. Washington DC
  12. Milwaukee
  13. Denver
  14. Seattle
  15. SLC
  16. Sacramento
  17. Phoenix
  18. Portland
  19. New Orleans
  20. Houston

    21+
  21. Dallas
  22. Cleveland
  23. Detroit

Last edited by spoonman; Sep 24, 2014 at 4:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #80  
Old Posted Sep 23, 2014, 11:52 PM
dimondpark's Avatar
dimondpark dimondpark is offline
Pay it Forward
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Piedmont, California
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eightball View Post
SF to LA alone, including Fresno MSA (but not counting Sacramento and SD extensions) is 26 million plus people. Ya'll should be ashamed of yourselves for typing such foolishness

I look forward to ya'll eating crow in about 15 years
We should be ashamed of ourselves for falling for the lies spewed to us during the 2008 vote.
CAHSR in its current incarnation is shaping up to be a bottomless pit and I regret ever supporting it. And by the way, most Californians no longer want this project built.

TXs HSR is apparently fully funded by private investment. Why the eff cant we do that?
__________________

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference."-Robert Frost
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.