HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #61  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2017, 9:49 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 475
And for cities over 200,000. I guess by this stage the figures are getting less meaningful, the small cities are often self-contained but these places often have huge amounts of suburbia beyond the city limits which aren't included here and would bring the average down. I looked for wider figures for whole built-up areas or MSAs but didn't find any....

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #62  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2017, 11:05 PM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 15,316
Incidentally, I had an interesting discussion with one of my roommates this morning. I share my pied-à-terre in downtown Sherbrooke with him, he alternates between Sherbrooke and Montreal.

He is carless, and he says Sherbrooke is a lot more walkable than Montreal.

At first sight, I was surprised, but he's correct: due to the fact our downtown isn't as urban as Montreal's, we have all of the following within a couple blocks: three supermarkets, several chain drugstores, tons of restaurants, tea salons and coffee shops, a movie theater, a public library, two medical clinics, one kinda-hospital (public health network), parks, and plenty of independent shops such as a tattoo parlor, an art supplies store, a record store, etc.

In no neighborhood of Montreal can you find a concentration of retail and services that covers all possible needs like this over a mere few blocks square.

He says in Sherbrooke he can do absolutely everything on foot very easily, while at his Montreal place (in a neighborhood way more dense than anything in Sherbrooke) he has to use the subway or the bus occasionally because not everything is always available within a few blocks.

I found that amusing, but he's actually correct...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #63  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 2:41 AM
kgbnsf kgbnsf is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Alameda, CA
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
2 things:

1. any list of this sort for US cities that doesn't have NYC as #1 should probably be immediately tossed into a trash can.

all that said, the usual suspects are all at the top of the list, so whatever, it's probably not far off, but NYC not being #1 is a serious head-scratcher.
The biking factor hurt NYC. For those that say NYC should be above all else- Should biking be a factor in a list like this? If so, should it have less importance in weight to the other attributes?

NYC is not a renowned 'biking city' compared to others. I think most of us would agree on that point. Strip out the biking weight and NYC would be #1. But, I feel that biking is a factor that deserves equal weight to the others. It is an alternate transport method that meets the same goals.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #64  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 3:34 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 13,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgbnsf View Post
But, I feel that biking is a factor that deserves equal weight to the others. It is an alternate transport method that meets the same goals.
I don't understand this logic. Why would biking receive the same weight when you have like 50x more people taking transit? You are basically saying that a single bike rider is equal to 50 transit riders.

NYC would rank higher if it just had a few thousand more bike riders, yet millions fewer transit riders. If you shut down half the subway system, this would probably benefit NYC's ranking. Why not count all non-car trips equally?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #65  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 5:07 AM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 15,711
Of COURSE biking shouldn't count as much. I say that as a bicyclist.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #66  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 10:57 AM
Ant131531 Ant131531 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 1,173
Yeah, clearly having a few bike lanes equals having the one of the world's most extensive metro systems :thinking:.

That list doesn't have people who take transit to work. Only people who walk from their homes to work or bike from their homes to work. Already a flawed study.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #67  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 4:46 PM
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
San Luis Obispo County
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Arroyo Grande, California
Posts: 5,557
I've never been overly impressed with transit in San Francisco. It's certainly not ranked #2 imo although it's better than a lot of cities. San Francisco is easy to navigate though because the city proper is so geographical small and compact. Everything is just a short and cheap cab ride unless you're crossing the bridges north, east or heading south on the peninsula.
__________________
Olim: Sacramento, Karlsruhe, San Antonio, Chicago, Arroyo Grande
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #68  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 7:09 PM
Jonesy55 Jonesy55 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531 View Post
That list doesn't have people who take transit to work. Only people who walk from their homes to work or bike from their homes to work. Already a flawed study.
It's not flawed for that reason if I was trying to show places with most people walking/cycling to work, which I was.

If I had used the same lists to show how many people were using transit then yeah, major fail, so it's good that I wasn't doing that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #69  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2017, 8:05 PM
Lipani Lipani is offline
It could be worse!
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonesy55 View Post
And for cities over 200,000. I guess by this stage the figures are getting less meaningful, the small cities are often self-contained but these places often have huge amounts of suburbia beyond the city limits which aren't included here and would bring the average down. I looked for wider figures for whole built-up areas or MSAs but didn't find any....
I wonder if the cycling numbers would be higher for some of the cities if the cycling infrastructure was decent. I never rode a bike when I lived in Honolulu for that very reason. Fortunately my work commute was a 25 minute walk, but I know a lot of people with longer commutes who would have preferred cycling over the bus or driving. In a few parts, South Beretania Street has more one-way lanes than the freeway (and no bike lanes).
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 9:56 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.