How America Killed Transit

[10023]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They aren't "small differences" in income, and you see the same thing in Europe and elsewhere. Vehicle ownership is heavily correlated with household wealth/income.

Vehicle purchases, for most people, are their largest expense outside of housing. Obviously income/wealth plays a significant role in such a major expense. It isn't the biggest issue, but it's an issue. If the average postwar household in Country A has 50% more disposable income than Country B, then, all things equal, they'll be more likely to own/use vehicles.

I find it disappointing that you, of all people, are conflating ability to afford a vehicle, or even vehicle ownership, with desire to live in a place where it is the primary (if not only viable) mode of transportation. I owned a car when I lived in Manhattan. I didn’t drive it to work.

Like NYC, just about everyone who lives in the parts of London or Paris or Berlin that are best served by transit can afford a car. The people who might not be able to afford a car live farther out, where transit isn’t as good.

When the most affluent people in Europe are the most likely to live in areas served by transit, your whole argument breaks down. Yes, London’s oligarchs are being driven around rather than taking the tube. But when the average person on my tube train during my morning commute earns multiples of the US median income (I’m sure of it), the idea that higher transit share is due to lower incomes is absolutely nonsense.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Rideshare will never be major a way of moving around. Maybe for wealthy American folks who can afford to spend $15-20 bucks per ride, but it's way too expensive for the average citizen to use on a daily basis. Same with Hyperloop where a single ride will be super expensive, and the long wait times will not make it an attractive way of getting around for commute (think of how many people will want to use a Hyperloop doing LA-San Francisco in 20 minutes). Unless you plan on having 35 hyperloop tunnels in LA, that might be the case in 200 years.

In the 1920s, only the upper crust elite could afford a car because it was an expensive luxury.
In the 1950s only the well-off could afford a TV set.
In the late 1980s, only the elite owned a cell/car phone.
In the mid 1990s internet usage was reserved for those that could afford the hourly rate of AOL.

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I find it funny that you think pursuing better living conditions and personal space is deeply engrained in American culture... I guess people in Canada and folks in Europe really don't want good living conditions

1] Canada is part of North America, no?
2] It's not that they [Europeans] don't want better living conditions it's that, historically, it has been much more difficult for them due to a variety of reasons and at times impossible to easily achieve that goal. As an American, we have always been able to move about freely. This wasn't always the case in Europe as recently as the 1980s. We can move 3,000 miles away and still expect the same services, standards, culture, language, money.
3] America was founded by and largely settled by Europeans seeking better living conditions than what exists back home.
4] This continues to this day. Our population is growing because of migrants leaving behind their homeland, seeking a better American way of life.
5] New York continues to export New Yorkers, seeking the same thing. It might be suburban Long Island, or it might be Florida, or it might be California, but they are not moving into a New York style neighborhood and lifestyle, they purposefully sought out a different way of life.

I bet that if you grew up with a high-frequency transit line near your house, your speech would be different.

I did and I didn't own my first car until I was in my 20s.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

Sun Belt is not an urbanite, he doesn’t like cities, and he prefers to live in a sprawl burb. Such people exist.

That's interesting insight. I'm being a realist as to why public transit is the way it is here and you respond with: "Sun Belt doesn't like cities."

The problem in America is that those people have lots of choice in where to live, but people who do prefer an urban environment do not.

What are you talking about? Good grief. Americans have many a plethora of urban living alternatives. Seattle to Miami, New York to San Francisco, Chicago to Denver. Maybe if we had 2 thousand years of one dominating capital city to rule over the relatively small kingdom then it would be different and everybody would huddle together in that one alpha city.

If there was a decent urban center in Atlanta or Houston or Phoenix, then it would be the most expensive and desirable part of these metros as well. The option just doesn’t exist.

Instead, the only good urban neighborhoods that exist in America are the same ones that existed over 100 years ago. There are no new urban neighborhoods (if you are thinking of one, particularly some awful “new urbanist” development in the Sun Belt, let me preemptively assure you that you are wrong, and that this place is not a good urban neighborhood).

This is your opinion and it's all subjective and appears to be the minority opinion based off of our domestic [and international] migration patterns.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Better bus service, in my opinion, would greatly encourage more people to take the bus. Even if a bus seats 50 people, that's potentially 50 cars off the road, because most Americans drive alone to work and back, right? And, many people don't immediately go home after work; they run errands, go to restaurants, go shopping, meet up with friends, etc.---adding to the traffic when they drive alone. This is why I don't think ridesharing services would be a good thing for commuting either; aside from the cost (imagine having to take Uber all the time?), it just makes traffic bad.

People say buses just sit in traffic along with the rest of the cars on the road, but if plenty of buses ran regularly and more often, then in theory, there would be fewer cars on the road, right? Because more people would be on buses?




Human nature, I guess. But it's also how you choose to react to things. Yeah, it sucks to have a bike seat stolen, but you just have to suck it up, move on and get a new one. Somebody must've needed it more than you did.

I ride public transit when I want to go into downtown LA on the weekends, or to other parts of LA. I can tell the people who don't ride it often from the people who do by their body language; the people who don't ride it often always seem unnecessarily scared and suspicious, and are looking around a lot. Like 'oooh, the big bad city.' Haha! If someone smells (and it doesn't even have to be a homeless person, it can just be a "normal" sweaty fat person or something), just change seats, or change cars at the next stop.

safety on transit is a real issue, especially for women
https://www.presstelegram.com/2017/0...st-commentary/

According to a Metro survey, nearly 30 percent of past riders left because they did not feel safe. This perception of a lack of safety ranked higher as a deterrent to riding Metro than speed, accessibility and reliability of the trains. While this issue is important to L.A. County’s transit system as a whole, the issue of safety is of particular importance to the Blue Line as it connects two of Southern California’s largest downtown areas and has higher ridership than any other Metro line

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

What are you talking about? Good grief. Americans have many a plethora of urban living alternatives. Seattle to Miami, New York to San Francisco, Chicago to Denver. Maybe if we had 2 thousand years of one dominating capital city to rule over the relatively small kingdom then it would be different and everybody would huddle together in that one alpha city.

New York, Chicago, San Francisco... yes.

The other two, not really. And even in San Francisco, a relatively tiny portion of the metro area consists of desirable urban neighborhoods. The eastern part of SF city proper, basically. That’s it.

You can add parts of Boston, DC and Philly. Not much else in America. Which in what is, as you mentioned, a country of 320 million people, very little choice.

There are probably more square miles of truly urban neighborhoods in France than in the United States.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

What are you talking about? Good grief. Americans have many a plethora of urban living alternatives. Seattle to Miami, New York to San Francisco, Chicago to Denver. Maybe if we had 2 thousand years of one dominating capital city to rule over the relatively small kingdom then it would be different and everybody would huddle together in that one alpha city.

This is your opinion and it's all subjective and appears to be the minority opinion based off of our domestic [and international] migration patterns.

In basically every metro in the country there is a "walkability premium." That is to say, a walkable neighborhood, when compared to peer neighborhoods otherwise similar in demographics, has more valuable real estate (and higher rents) than a non-walkable neighborhood. Indeed, the limited number of areas in the country which are walkable with low crime and "good school districts" are invariably expensive.

If walkable neighborhoods are priced at a premium compared to not walkable neighborhoods, that means that demand is not meeting supply. If demand met supply, there would be zero price differential.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

What are you talking about? Good grief. Americans have many a plethora of urban living alternatives.

Not like in other countries.

Outside of NYC, there isn't one metro where even 100k people live in extremely high densities. You're basically limited to NYC if you want a "normal urban" lifestyle, and after that there are like 5 cities that offer it in tiny doses.

A Spanish city of 50k has far better urbanity than anywhere in the U.S. outside these few cities.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

New York, Chicago, San Francisco... yes.

The other two, not really. And even in San Francisco, a relatively tiny portion of the metro area consists of desirable urban neighborhoods. The eastern part of SF city proper, basically. That’s it.

I was using those cities to describe the massively huge land mass that is America, unlike a tiny European nation with one Alpha city that you keep comparing us to.

A New Yorker can move 3,000 miles away, still be in the U.S. and live in an urban neighborhood with rail access and 15 minute bus service.

A Londoner cannot do this and still be within their homeland country.

You can add parts of Boston, DC and Philly. Not much else in America. Which in what is, as you mentioned, a country of 320 million people, very little choice.

There are probably more square miles of truly urban neighborhoods in France than in the United States.

That's great, good for France, this was never in question. Great for London as well. You are agreeing with my prior posts. There is no need in America for 10-15 minute bus service, therefore we don't have it. We don't have it because for the most part, Americans have chosen not to live that lifestyle due to our deeply engrained culture and history of leaving those conditions behind to seek out more space and a better lifestyle.

There are some Americans [New York for example] that do live your subjectively preferred/approved lifestyle and as a result they have the longest average commute in the nation. Those same New Yorkers continue to leave New York though to live a non-New York lifestyle.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I was using those cities to describe the massively huge land mass that is America, unlike a tiny European nation with one Alpha city that you keep comparing us to.

A New Yorker can move 3,000 miles away, still be in the U.S. and live in an urban neighborhood with rail access and 15 minute bus service.

A Londoner cannot do this and still be within their homeland country.



That's great, good for France, this was never in question. Great for London as well. You are agreeing with my prior posts. There is no need in America for 10-15 minute bus service, therefore we don't have it. We don't have it because for the most part, Americans have chosen not to live that lifestyle due to our deeply engrained culture and history of leaving those conditions behind to seek out more space and a better lifestyle.

There are some Americans [New York for example] that do live your subjectively preferred/approved lifestyle and as a result they have the longest average commute in the nation. Those same New Yorkers continue to leave New York though to live a non-New York lifestyle.

Actually, Londoners can move to a much wider variety of places within Europe than New Yorkers can within the US, and live in a more urban neighborhood with better transit than anywhere in the US outside of New York. And the only place New Yorkers can move that’s 3000 miles away with good transit is the eastern half of the city of San Francisco.

You keep mentioning “15 minute bus service” as if that constitutes good public transit. If a bus only comes every 15 minutes, then of course no one with the option is going to take it. That’s an infrequent service.

And no, you are lying. The people in New York who live in the neighborhoods with the best transit do NOT have the longest average commutes in the nation. The people who live in distant parts of the NY metro with poor transit have long commutes. And they have long commutes because New York is enormous, not because of transit.

[10023]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In basically every metro in the country there is a "walkability premium." That is to say, a walkable neighborhood, when compared to peer neighborhoods otherwise similar in demographics, has more valuable real estate (and higher rents) than a non-walkable neighborhood. Indeed, the limited number of areas in the country which are walkable with low crime and "good school districts" are invariably expensive.

If walkable neighborhoods are priced at a premium compared to not walkable neighborhoods, that means that demand is not meeting supply. If demand met supply, there would be zero price differential.

I don’t see why this concept is proving so difficult for people like Sun Belt and BrownTown to understand.

People move to the exurbs because you can buy a 3,000 square foot house for the price of a 1,000 square foot condo in a walkable neighborhood. Great, fine, people like space and have limited money.

But why does housing in the walkable neighborhood command 3x the price per square foot? Certainly not because it’s not what people want.

Build more 3,000 square foot rowhouses in walkable neighborhoods, and people will buy them. The additional supply might even be able to meet demand and bring the cost down somewhat (though these will still command a premium to exurbia, because the land is more valuable).

To say that Americans want exurban subdivisions and not walkable rowhouse neighborhoods because the former are home to more people, is like saying Americans want Toyota Camrys and not Bentleys, because more people own Toyotas. People buy what they can afford. Except in the case of housing, it’s largely based on supply constraints and, again, a lack of public investment in the sort of transportation infrastructure required to allow density in urban cities.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

There is no need in America for 10-15 minute bus service, therefore we don't have it. We don't have it because for the most part, Americans have chosen not to live that lifestyle due to our deeply engrained culture and history of leaving those conditions behind to seek out more space and a better lifestyle.

There is a need in TONS of places but influent people have decided there isn't, so there are no alternatives which forces people to believe they're making the right (and only) choice.

Do you believe Houston would look the same if it had a light rail network the size of Portland?

Do you believe Atlanta would be 4th most congested city in the U.S. (despite having the 9th largest metro) if it had the rapid transit network of DC?

According to the same article, do you believe Philly ranks 18th for congestion despite being the 8th largest metro if it doesn't have SEPTA Rapid Transit and Regional Rail?

Of course, I'm not saying transit is the ultimate solution to congestion. Or else, SF and NYC wouldn't be top 5 for the most congested cities. But can you imagine if these cities didn't have their transit networks? On the flip side, can you imagine if MARTA had double of it's rapid transit ridership? That's 100,000 cars off the roads for daily commute.

I might be writing for nothing here, but saying people choose not to use transit because it's part of their culture is completely false. America's oldest cities were built by transit and it's deeply engrained in their culture.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/50...KITER#image=34

[dubu]

you made me think and made me picture portland without light rail or buses. worst traffic in the world?

[lrt's friend]

Toronto's traffic is amongst the worst in North America. It is not because of the lack of highway infrastructure. It is because all roads in Ontario seem to point 'to' Toronto. All traffic moving in every direction is forced through a funnel in the Toronto area. This explains the urgency of building more transit in the Greater Toronto Area. It is simply not possible to continue to build new highways.


As I said before, the day of wreckening is coming to every city in North America, when roads can no longer be easily expanded. This explains why LA, the city that expressways built, is now building subways, commuter lines and light rail. The limit is approaching, when the freedom of car travel becomes commuter hell.


A read with a degree of amusement how Nashville residents don't want transit and voted against it, but a rapidly growing city will eventually outstrip its ability to build more roads and keep up with growing congestion. It is unfortunate that Nashville residents don't see this on the horizon and prepare now to provide an alternative that will be needed.

[dc_denizen]

Nowhere in Germany or Scandinavia do you have the concentrated urbanity of Paris or Athens, either.

And the difference between say, Reims and Madison Wisconsin is more about the location and integration of commercial retail than the residential built environment

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Is getting robbed on public transport really much more likely than getting carjacked?

I don't have the answer. I am just speaking to human nature. People feel safe in their locked cars. Walking means you are 100% open to hostility.

The numbers could show you are 100% more likely to die by car jacking, but people will still feel safer, since they feel like they have some control. Its like flying, I know I am safer flying than driving...but I always say a little prayer before flying because if we do crash, I have zero control. At least driving I can practice defensive driving.

None of this is suppose to make sense....lol im just a human.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Where is this data, then? When was the last time someone was murdered on a Detroit bus? Has that ever happened in modern history?

I think it's perception (and perception counts, so it's "real"). But there is no way that riding a bus is more lethal than driving a car. But buses in U.S. are (generally) full of black and poor people, so won't be considered by 90% of the population.

Exactly. I have zero data, just perception. We all have em, even if we dont want to admit it.

I had it about the bus here in Norfolk. Then I took it. Sure, theres some weirdos from time to time. But 90% of the people I've interacted with are just average people going to work or a store. So my perception has been changed by experience but most people will never do that, because...why? Bus is slow and scary. Why even try it when you can drive relatively cheaply.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Wow, this thread lasted longer than I thought it would, and I thought most people would agree with the article, and few people would post, and then move on. I really thought this thread would be pushed down with few responses. I'm amazed that there are people here who are defending the use of cars. Sure, many Americans drive, but it doesn't have to be that way.

Better bus service, in my opinion, would greatly encourage more people to take the bus. Even if a bus seats 50 people, that's potentially 50 cars off the road, because most Americans drive alone to work and back, right? And, many people don't immediately go home after work; they run errands, go to restaurants, go shopping, meet up with friends, etc.---adding to the traffic when they drive alone. This is why I don't think ridesharing services would be a good thing for commuting either; aside from the cost (imagine having to take Uber all the time?), it just makes traffic bad.

People say buses just sit in traffic along with the rest of the cars on the road, but if plenty of buses ran regularly and more often, then in theory, there would be fewer cars on the road, right? Because more people would be on buses?

Higher ridership actually slows down buses because they have to stop more frequently to let people on and off, and also stop longer at each stop because of the crowds. However the shorter waiting times from the higher frequency of buses can make up for this. When the ridership of the route gets too high, then introducing an express branch of the route would also speed up travel times. An all-door boarding scheme can also speed up boarding of passengers and reduce the amount of time spent at each stop. Of course, priority measures can be made for buses such signal priority, bus lanes, or queue-jump lanes.

Buses usually are not the backbone of a system anyways. So I'm not sure bus speed is such a big problem. Even in a bus-only system, speed only becomes a serious factor for transit when the distances are very long. If the distances are too long for transit to be competitive with the car, that is the problem of the built environment, not of transit. Conversely, if distances are very short, then transit becomes uncompetitive to cycling and walking, and you can see in smaller cities progressively lower transit ridership for this very reason.

The Montreal area has similar transit ridership to Vancouver and Toronto (~200 boardings per capita). Calgary has similar ridership to Ottawa and Edmonton (~120 boardings per capita). Quebec City has similar ridership to Winnipeg (~100 boardings per capita). Victoria has similar ridership to Halifax and London (~80 boardings per capita). Brandon has similar ridership to Timmins and Stratford (~20 boardings per capita). On the broader scale, there is little affecting transit ridership in Canada other than city size, which determines the distances of trips. Since all cities in Canada are equally willing to provide the service, distance becomes the main factor for transit ridership, not speed.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 10023

Actually, Londoners can move to a much wider variety of places within Europe than New Yorkers can within the US, and live in a more urban neighborhood with better transit than anywhere in the US outside of New York. And the only place New Yorkers can move that’s 3000 miles away with good transit is the eastern half of the city of San Francisco.

That's great that Londoners can experience what you describe in a different country than their own. That's really great, I'm happy for them.

To your other point: New Yorkers aren't moving away from New York to experience a New York lifestyle elsewhere.

Originally Posted by 10023

You keep mentioning “15 minute bus service” as if that constitutes good public transit. If a bus only comes every 15 minutes, then of course no one with the option is going to take it. That’s an infrequent service.

I keep mentioning 15 minute bus service because that's what the OP's article said was more optimal than the maps it provided that were showing 30 minute service 7/days a week in select cities.

Originally Posted by OP's article

Below is a set of maps that show the present-day network rail and bus lines operating at least every 30 minutes, all day to midnight, seven days a week, for five urban areas in the U.S. and one in Canada for comparison. That could be considered the bare-minimum service level required for people to be able to live adequately car free. In fact, research says that frequencies of 15 minutes or better—good enough for people to turn up and go without consulting a schedule—are where the biggest jumps in ridership happen. But that is so far off from service levels in most American cities that a 30-minute standard is more appropriate.

Originally Posted by 10023

And no, you are lying. The people in New York who live in the neighborhoods with the best transit do NOT have the longest average commutes in the nation.

And no I'm not "lying". Since when do we measure New York or any other city by their arbitrary city limits? I guess only when you want to make a point?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's great that Londoners can experience what you describe in a different country than their own. That's really great, I'm happy for them.

To your other point: New Yorkers aren't moving away from New York to experience a New York lifestyle elsewhere.

I keep mentioning 15 minute bus service because that's what the OP's article said was more optimal than the maps it provided that were showing 30 minute service 7/days a week in select cities.

And no I'm not "lying". Since when do we measure New York or any other city by their arbitrary city limits? I guess only when you want to make a point?

Your point about whether, say, Paris is a different country is irrelevant to anything. So what? And the UK is a smaller country.

Also, that’s not strictly correct. Cities like Edinburgh and Manchester are more urban and walkable than all but a small handful of American cities.

No, New Yorkers aren’t leaving NY for an NY lifestyle elsewhere in the US, because they can’t get it elsewhere in the US. If a New Yorker wants a similar lifestyle in a different place, then they have to leave the country.

And yeah, 15 minute bus service doesn’t work. 30 minute gaps aren’t even a bus service (that’s appropriate for intercity rail). You might as well not even run buses.

You are “lying” because you are being intentionally disingenuous. The fact that NY metro average commutes are long has nothing to do with transit and density, which is the argument you are trying to make, but with a metro of over 20+ million, problematic geography (lots of water and islands), and suburbs stretching 50 miles into places like Suffolk and Fairfield and Dutchess counties. It’s the postwar sprawl that makes for long commutes, not the city. Any issues with commutes for people in the urban part of NYC are down to lack of investment in transit, creating problems like the damn L train shutdown. If a city like Phoenix, with its transit options, had NY’s geography and 20+ million people, you’d have significantly longer commutes. It would be like Dkaha or somewhere that people travel 3 hours each way to work.

Mention “NY has the longest commutes in the nation” again, intentionally confusing correlation and causation in a disingenuous attempt to make the same incorrect argument, and I’m just going to put you on ignore like BrownTown. I haven’t so far because unlike him, you’ve had something to add in other threads.

[Doady]

Transit and walking/cycling mode share of Canadian metropolitan areas in 2011:

Metro Area  Population  %Transit  %Active
Toronto      5,584,064     23.28     5.72
Montreal     3,934,078     22.24     7.09
Vancouver    2,313,328     19.71     8.08
Ottawa       1,236,324     20.10     8.55
Calgary      1,214,839     15.87     6.04
Edmonton     1,159,869     11.32     5.16
Quebec         767,310     11.34     7.46
Winnipeg       730,018     13.41     7.14
Hamilton       721,053      9.27     5.28
Kitchener      496,383      5.43     5.46
London         474,786      6.89     5.39
St. Catharines 392,184      2.94     6.00
Halifax        390,328     12.47     8.52
Oshawa         356,177      8.45     3.63
Victoria       344,177     11.08    15.89
Saskatoon      262,215      4.45     7.09
Regina         211,519      4.77     5.90
Sherbrooke     202,261      4.19     7.38
St. John's     196,954      2.98     5.66
Kingston       159,561      5.06    10.69
Guelph         141,097      6.24     6.63
Moncton        139,287      3.25     6.73
Saint John     129,057      4.72     5.30
Thunder Bay    121,596      3.58     6.27
Peterborough   118,975      3.48     8.63
Sarnia          97,131      2.10     5.38
North Bay       72,241      4.21    10.11
Charlottetown   65,523      1.98     6.56
Brandon         58,003      3.01     9.35
Timmins         41,788      5.26     7.55
Stratford       30,903      2.33    14.36
Whitehorse      26,028      4.86     9.52
Yellowknife     19,028      1.21    26.61

Transit and walking/cycling mode share of US metropolitan areas in 2011:

Metro Area    Population  %Transit  %Active
New York      19,015,900     31.11     6.76
Los Angeles   12,944,801      6.23     3.60
Chicago        9,504,753     11.69     3.74
Dallas         6,526,548      1.44     1.26
Houston        6,086,536      2.34     1.62
Philadelphia   5,992,414      9.28     4.27
Washington     5,703,948     14.79     3.77
Miami          5,670,125      3.81     2.18
Atlanta        5,268,860      3.08     1.74
Boston         4,552,402     11.62     6.11
San Francisco  4,391,037     14.58     6.13
Riverside      4,304,994      1.59     1.78
Detroit        4,285,832      1.63     1.54
Phoenix        4,263,236      2.16     2.66
Seattle        3,500,026      8.13     4.61
Minneapolis    3,318,486      4.69     2.87
San Diego      3,140,069      3.03     3.47
Tampa          2,824,724      1.24     2.25
St. Louis      2,817,355      2.40     2.01
Baltimore      2,729,110      6.12     2.85
Pittsburgh     2,359,746      5.55     3.63
Portland       2,262,605      6.33     5.63
San Antonio    2,194,927      2.14     2.16
Sacramento     2,176,235      2.73     4.00
Orlando        2,171,360      2.51     1.79
Cincinnati     2,138,038      2.05     2.20
Cleveland      2,068,283      3.22     2.44
Kansas City    2,052,676      1.20     1.40
Las Vegas      1,969,975      3.91     2.07
San Jose       1,865,450      3.37     4.06
Columbus       1,858,464      1.75     2.54
Charlotte      1,795,472      2.33     1.64
Austin         1,783,519      2.47     2.98
Indianapolis   1,778,568      1.18     2.01
Nashville      1,617,142      1.40     1.61
Providence     1,600,224      2.79     3.20
Milwaukee      1,562,216      4.00     3.31
Memphis        1,325,605      1.56     1.31
Louisville     1,294,849      1.92     1.98
Oklahoma City  1,278,053      0.49     2.08
Richmond       1,269,380      1.64     1.76
Hartford       1,213,255      3.74     3.12
New Orleans    1,191,089      2.74     3.90
Raleigh        1,163,515      1.09     1.58
Salt Lake City 1,145,905      3.59     2.63
Buffalo        1,134,039      3.68     3.27
Birmingham     1,132,264      0.67     1.25
Rochester      1,055,278      1.85     3.67
Honolulu         964,607      7.57     6.26
Tulsa            946,962      0.47     1.47
Omaha            877,110      0.91     2.03
New Haven        861,113      3.94     4.31
Grand Rapids     779,604      1.61     1.82
Columbia         777,116      0.66     3.92
Little Rock      709,901      0.56     1.33
Knoxville        704,500      0.44     1.15
Springfield      693,204      2.74     3.75
Des Moines       580,255      0.95     1.60
Scranton         563,223      1.37     3.60
Asheville        429,017      0.44     2.37
Anchorage        387,516      1.93     3.74
Savannah         355,576      2.02     2.31
Ann Arbor        347,962      6.54     8.22
Sioux Falls      232,433      0.93     3.00
Fargo            212,171      0.56     5.60
Saginaw          199,088      0.43     2.38
Athens           193,317      2.97     5.95
Eau Claire       161,151      0.73     4.28
Billings         160,097      1.47     4.15
Bangor           153,786      0.62     5.27
Ithaca           101,723      5.02    16.28

The numbers confirm that differences in transit usage in Canada are based heavily on the metropolitan area size. Therefore, metropolitan areas should only be compared their peers of similar size.









People in Canada are approximately 3 or 4 times more likely to use transit compared to people in similar sized metropolitan areas in the US. Canadians are also approximately 2 times more likely to walk or bicycle which suggests differences in the built environment. The graphs show some positive correlation between transit usage and walking/cycling. So getting people onto transit might not just be about providing more service but it might also require encouraging people to be more active as well.