HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2014, 5:14 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo the Dog View Post
Most polls I've seen have 50-55% of Californians against it. What they voted for and what is being built are two entirely different things. LA to SD is now called "phase II". Meaning it's not funded anymore and won't ever happen in our lifetimes.

The cost has ballooned to $68B in 2011 dollars. Voters approved something like $8-9 billion in bonds. This is why the whole idea has soured. I'd like to see $70 billion spent on urban rail in the big 3 of CA.
Show me your polls and your proof! You're making a lot of assumptions and offering no proof to support your "cause".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2014, 9:41 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 creamcityleo79 View Post
Show me your polls and your proof! You're making a lot of assumptions and offering no proof to support your "cause".
First off, I don't have a "cause" or an agenda. I'd just like to see limited transportation dollars go to inner-city rail projects that'll move more people and ease congestion.

Here are just a few excerpts I found:

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/artic...-s-5246249.php

Quote:
Polls turn sour
Environmental advocates and Brown argue that a high-speed rail line linking the Bay Area and Los Angeles would put California transportation on par with Europe and Japan, while taking thousands of cars off the road and creating thousands of jobs.

But public polling has long shown that the rail plan is "not a popular project" among Republican or Democratic voters, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the statewide Field Poll.

A 2011 Field Poll showed that two-thirds of Californians would overwhelmingly support another vote on the project, DiCamillo said.

A USC/Los Angeles Times poll taken late last year showed that a majority of voters now want the project scrapped.

LA Times Poll: 52% want bullet train stopped
Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep...-rail-20130928


Quote:
Public Opinion
By March 2013, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll, only 43 percent of likely voters supported the project, a decline of 10 percent from when the measure passed in 2008.
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calif...Public_Opinion


Support has dropped significantly as cost estimates climb, service areas are reduced and travel time estimates between LA and SF are now near 4 hours. Not all of the track will be HSR. Ridership projections were dropped. Average ticket prices now up from $50 to $80-$120.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2014, 10:41 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
This thread is not about CAHSR, it's about different ways to measure metropolitan population densities. Let's get back on topic.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Sep 5, 2014, 11:28 AM
Austinlee's Avatar
Austinlee Austinlee is offline
Chillin' in The Burgh
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spring Hill, Pittsburgh
Posts: 13,094
Why is Pittsburgh not on the list?
__________________
Check out the latest developments in Pittsburgh:
Pittsburgh Rundown III
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2014, 1:50 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
This is mostly wrong. The lower density suburbs in areas surrounding NYC have much higher transit usage than someplace like Orange County, CA despite generally having much lower density.

A main reason is because the density in someplace like Westchester is heavily concentrated around transit nodes, while in Orange County it's more evenly distributed.
Transit use is higher in Westchester because people are commuting to Manhattan for work.
With the decline in Manhattan as a work destination for more and more suburbanites, transit use in suburban NYC as a percentage of trips has declined in line with the decline of suburban workers in Manhattan.

Taking density out of the equation, transit use is going to be low in both places, because the transit service sucks.

If you look at lower density places like rural towns and hamlets in Swizerland, the density of the area does not cause low transit usage. But instead the high quality transit service means that rural hamlets in Switzerland have higher transit mode shares than large cities in the USA.

Density is not the be all and end all. Providing a viable transit service is more important.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2014, 2:08 PM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Austinlee View Post
Why is Pittsburgh not on the list?
Why should it be? Its weighted density is too low to make the list
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 7, 2014, 5:34 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
Transit use is higher in Westchester because people are commuting to Manhattan for work.
No. Transit use is higher because Westchester is built in a more transit-oriented format. Most Westchester commuters are not headed to Manhattan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
With the decline in Manhattan as a work destination for more and more suburbanites, transit use in suburban NYC as a percentage of trips has declined in line with the decline of suburban workers in Manhattan.
No. Employment in Manhattan is at a historic high.

Are you claiming that suburbanites are no longer accessing jobs in Manhattan, and the jobs are all going to city dwellers? That sounds highly unlikely, given that the suburban transit ridership into Manhattan has grown, not declined, over time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2014, 4:20 AM
miketoronto miketoronto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
No. Transit use is higher because Westchester is built in a more transit-oriented format. Most Westchester commuters are not headed to Manhattan.
The ones taking transit are. If you think non-Manhattan bound Westchester commuters are taking transit, then we can sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

Westchester can be as transit friendly as it can get, but people are not taking buses within the county. If they were, the buses would run more often than once an hour.
__________________
Miketoronto

Last edited by miketoronto; Sep 8, 2014 at 4:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 8, 2014, 10:50 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,489
As an extension, I've calculated the weighted population density of each state at this thread, using census tracts.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 2:54 AM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
The ones taking transit are. If you think non-Manhattan bound Westchester commuters are taking transit, then we can sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

Westchester can be as transit friendly as it can get, but people are not taking buses within the county. If they were, the buses would run more often than once an hour.
I doubt most bus riders are going much outside the county, the local bus system is mainly internal. Anyone going to Manhattan is using the train. The county bus system gets 110,000 riders per weekday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee-Line_Bus_System

High for American suburban standards. A lot of the ridership is coming from areas that are more like old cities than suburbs (Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, maybe White Plains and New Rochelle). But still, the majority of transit commuters are going to Manhattan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 2:58 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
The ones taking transit are. If you think non-Manhattan bound Westchester commuters are taking transit, then we can sell you the Brooklyn bridge.
Wrong. Westchester has some of the highest suburban bus ridership in the U.S., none of which is directly Manhattan-bound.

For U.S. standards, there probably isn't a more transit-oriented truly suburban county.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 1:54 PM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Wrong. Westchester has some of the highest suburban bus ridership in the U.S., none of which is directly Manhattan-bound.

For U.S. standards, there probably isn't a more transit-oriented truly suburban county.
AC Transit (Alameda County) has higher ridership but it has Oakland and Berkeley. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Westchester has as many high density tracts as Alameda County. Weighted density would be lower as the outer suburbs are much less dense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:16 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 nei View Post
AC Transit (Alameda County) has higher ridership but it has Oakland and Berkeley. Though I wouldn't be surprised if Westchester has as many high density tracts as Alameda County. Weighted density would be lower as the outer suburbs are much less dense.
A lot of Yonkers isn't exactly suburban either. I doubt that Westchester has as many high density tracts as Alameda County though, there's quite a few in Alameda County outside of Oakland and Berkeley whereas I doubt there's all that many outside of Yonkers and Mt. Vernon.
__________________
New Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88823378@N05/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 3:36 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Yeah, I wasn't counting Alameda County because of Oakland (nor would I count the urbanized counties of Northern NJ).

Westchester is a lot different than an Alameda County (or Essex, Hudson, Union counties in NJ) in that it's mostly low density sprawl, though there's very strong urbanity along a few transit corridors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 4:30 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
Wrong. Westchester has some of the highest suburban bus ridership in the U.S., none of which is directly Manhattan-bound.

For U.S. standards, there probably isn't a more transit-oriented truly suburban county.
When most of your bus routes don't run on weekends / Sunday's, and the normal wait for a bus is 60 minute, you are not transit oriented.
__________________
Miketoronto
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 4:35 PM
Nineties Flava's Avatar
Nineties Flava Nineties Flava is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: San Francisco USA
Posts: 1,201
San Mateo County is worth bringing up and in some ways is more comparable to Westchester County, it has some urban-esque small cities but doesn't have a true city center within the county. The transit access is also comparable.
__________________
New Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88823378@N05/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 5:20 PM
nei nei is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava View Post
A lot of Yonkers isn't exactly suburban either. I doubt that Westchester has as many high density tracts as Alameda County though, there's quite a few in Alameda County outside of Oakland and Berkeley whereas I doubt there's all that many outside of Yonkers and Mt. Vernon.
Skimming a population density map, Westchester looks like it may have more very high density tracts (say, above 25 or 30k / sq mile) while Alameda has more with a lower thershold. It looks like there's few tracts above 15k/sq mile outside of Oakland and Berkeley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
When most of your bus routes don't run on weekends / Sunday's, and the normal wait for a bus is 60 minute, you are not transit oriented.
Most of the ridership is on routes that get decent frequencies.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 5:35 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
The ones taking transit are. If you think non-Manhattan bound Westchester commuters are taking transit, then we can sell you the Brooklyn bridge.

Westchester can be as transit friendly as it can get, but people are not taking buses within the county. If they were, the buses would run more often than once an hour.
I think it's a lot more common than you realize. I have friends and a relative who commuted intra-county in Westchester before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 6:10 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 nei View Post
Skimming a population density map, Westchester looks like it may have more very high density tracts (say, above 25 or 30k / sq mile) while Alameda has more with a lower thershold. It looks like there's few tracts above 15k/sq mile outside of Oakland and Berkeley.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by City Data
Yonkers

Nodine Hill: 33,727 ppsm
Ludlow: 22,842 ppsm
Getty Square: 18,420 ppsm
Southwest yonkers: 22,071 ppsm


Mount Vernon: 15,578 ppsm

Peekskill

Downtown: 15,579 ppsm
Fort Hill: 15,422 ppsm
Artist District: 16,460 ppsm


White Plains

Battle Hill: 20,403 ppsm
Carhart: 19,298 ppsm
Fisher Hill: 15,405 ppsm
Fulton Street: 15,650 ppsm
Old Mamroneck Road: 18,349 ppsm

versus


Quote:
Originally Posted by City Data
Oakland

Adams Point: 25,535 ppsm
Allendale: 19,578 ppsm
Arroyo Viejo: 16,169 ppsm
Bartlett: 25,344 ppsm
Bella Vista: 17,041 ppsm
Bushrod: 16,265 ppsm
Chinatown: 22,991 ppsm
Civic Center: 16,274 ppsm
Cleveland Heights: 15,966 ppsm
Clinton: 23,747 ppsm
Coliseum: 15,102 ppsm
Cox: 20,679 ppsm
Eastmont: 16,463 ppsm
Fairfax: 18,398 ppsm
Fairview Park: 16,914 ppsm
Fremont: 18,754 ppsm
Gold Coast: 17,281 ppsm
Grand Lake: 20,964 ppsm
Harrington: 22,480 ppsm
Harrison Street: 17,327 ppsm
Havenscourt: 15,268 ppsm
Hawthorne: 15,689 ppsm
Hegenberger: 18,482 ppsm
Highland Terrace: 17,582 ppsm
Iveywood: 18,980 ppsm
Ivy Hill: 29,238 ppsm
Jefferson: 17,343 ppsm
Lakeshore: 15,157 ppsm
Meadow Brook: 20,372 ppsm
Merritt: 24,413 ppsm
Oak Tree: 36,348 ppsm
Patten: 15,795 ppsm
Piedmont Ave: 16,315 ppsm
Rancho San Antonio: 19,151 ppsm
School Street: 15,497 ppsm
Seminary: 19,142 ppsm
St. Elizabeth: 20,802 ppsm
Tuxedo: 18,140 ppsm
Upper Peralta Creek: 19,870 ppsm
Waverly: 17,439 ppsm
Webster: 19,460 ppsm

Berkeley

College Avenue: 21,213 ppsm
Downtown: 16,747 ppsm
Gourmet Ghetto: 22,146 ppsm
North: 20,148 ppsm
South: 15,299 ppsm
South Berkeley: 16,242 ppsm
Southside: 23,029 ppsm
Telegraph Ave: 37,690 ppsm

The flatlands of Berkeley and Oakland are for all intents and purposes the extent of urban living in the East Bay, they're nearly a combined 60ish square miles though so that's not a small area. The Alameda County suburbs (Hayward, San Leandro, Albany, etc.) have much higher peak density than the Westchester burbs (Bronxville, Eastchester, etc). They don't compare well to NY small cities like Yonkers but that's somewhat of a false comparison anyway.
__________________
New Flickr Page
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88823378@N05/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 9, 2014, 6:25 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by miketoronto View Post
When most of your bus routes don't run on weekends / Sunday's, and the normal wait for a bus is 60 minute, you are not transit oriented.
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.
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 8:55 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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