WalkScore releases first ranking of of U.S. city transit systems

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by emathias

Portland's reputation for good transit doesn't really reflect the reality on the ground in most of the non-tourist neighborhoods. That said, when I was in high school, I could get from a suburb 20 miles west of Portland to a neighborhood 6 miles east of downtown relatively easily.

Chicago gets hurt for several reasons, some absolute, some relative.

A relative reason that hurts them is that it's city limits are far larger than San Francisco (at least five times bigger), and bigger than D.C. (by almost four times). Boston and Seattle are similarly comparing a much smaller slice of their metro areas relative to Chicago. The metro areas for SF and DC are still over half as big as Chicago, though, so those smaller limits on the central city make direct comparisons to the larger central city of Chicago fraught with error. Comparisons with Philly are appropriate, as are comparisons with New York.

If the transit-score was weighted, it would make the rankings a little more realistic as for how they impact actual users. As an extreme example, if 90% of the population of a city lived within a 2 minute walk of a train station, but only occupied 5% of the land area, that city might have a terrible transit score even though 90% of people would enjoy great service.

Another reason Chicago is "hurt" in the ranking is that we have either heavy rail or buses. Portland's streetcars get a 1.5 multiplier increase even though they are measurably slower than buses. Same with San Francisco's cable car's and Muni streetcars.

If you measured Chicago by a central half-million people along the lake-front in an area of size comparable to Washington, Boston or San Francisco, I think you'd end up in the mid-70s.

Two other things hurt Chicago's score somewhat - the large number of "L" stations in the middle of expressways, meaning you have to walk further to get to them (people keep telling me that doesn't matter, but here's empirical evidence it does), and the bus frequency service cuts that occurred a couple years ago, reducing the number of buses per week in their calculations.

That makes sense to me. It's amazing how often municipal boundaries skew data and evidence.

Those colored maps are fantastic!

[Jonboy1983]

Originally Posted by Dralcoffin

It's due to city proper populations, meaning Pittsburgh isn't on the list because the city proper is simply too small. The site gives Pittsburgh a transit score of 55, between Baltimore and Pittsburgh.

Ok that's what I thought. The score of 55 tho is rather surprising. I'm sure that won't be the case if those monsterous transit cuts go into effect in September.

I know they're planning on a Delaware riverfront line from South Philly all the way up Delaware Avenue/Columbus Blvd toward the Frankford neighborhood. I wonder how much that will impact the transit score...

[CityKid]

I thought the same about NYC being only 1 point ahead of SF (I've lived in both for a few years each) and then I realized that NYC includes both Queens and Staten Island.

[fflint]

I put in my address and got a 100% rating--"Rider's Paradise: 36 nearby routes: 21 bus, 15 rail, 0 other."

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Same here! 100 riders paradise. they even list the expo line which doesnt open till saturday

51, 47, 4, 0

[ltsmotorsport]

San Jose above Sacramento kinda surprised me. I've heard mixed things about VTA, but never experienced it personally.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

San Jose above Sacramento kinda surprised me. I've heard mixed things about VTA, but never experienced it personally.

I've only glanced over the criteria used so I can't speak for the listmakers, but I've lived in both cities and can take a stab at why. Both cities have comparable light rail systems, nominally focused on their downtowns, but San Jose's bus system carries twice as many riders and has better coverage and service hours--the busiest line runs 24/7, for example. Both cities have commuter railroads into downtown stations (and share Capitol Corridor service), but San Jose's three lines combined provide more frequency and longer service hours than Sacramento's two, especially due to Caltrain service. Sacramento has seen one of the steepest drops in ridership since the recession started, according to APTA stats, perhaps because of all the service cuts.

[J. Will]

My address has a 98 walk score, and a 100 transit score. If I take the measurement from a nearby intersection about a 3-minute walk from my apartment, I get 100 for both walk and transit score.

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by fflint

I've only glanced over the criteria used so I can't speak for the listmakers, but I've lived in both cities and can take a stab at why. Both cities have comparable light rail systems, nominally focused on their downtowns, but San Jose's bus system carries twice as many riders and has better coverage and service hours--the busiest line runs 24/7, for example. Both cities have commuter railroads into downtown stations (and share Capitol Corridor service), but San Jose's three lines combined provide more frequency and longer service hours than Sacramento's two, especially due to Caltrain service. Sacramento has seen one of the steepest drops in ridership since the recession started, according to APTA stats, perhaps because of all the service cuts.

Well, that all makes sense then. Didn't know about the bus service and somehow Caltrain slipped my mind when I posted.

And the service cuts to RT have definitely hurt. We did however just restore service until 11pm (not late, but something) and the starting spur of the Green Line is opening in the near future (although without a very real destination). Baby steps for the capitol city trying to come out of the recession.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Is Austin really that bad?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by J. Will

My address has a 98 walk score, and a 100 transit score. If I take the measurement from a nearby intersection about a 3-minute walk from my apartment, I get 100 for both walk and transit score.

The address I use, which is numbered 156 on my street, yields a 95 walking score and 100 transit score. But my building is actually addressed 156-158, using the same door for both addresses. If I put in 158, my walk score goes up to 97! Transitscore is 100 for either.

[novawolverine]

Originally Posted by CityKid

I thought the same about NYC being only 1 point ahead of SF (I've lived in both for a few years each) and then I realized that NYC includes both Queens and Staten Island.

I agree. SF being one point behind was a head scratcher.

Although, I have to say, as a person raised in Queens, the transit there is not nearly as bad as in Staten Island. A lot of places w/o the subway nearby have pretty decent bus service.

[pdxtex]

portland transit is service is excellent and widespread, too bad it usually freaks on wheels. maybe its a west coast thing, im not sure but we have the downright trashiest transit patrons ive ever seen, and ive ridden alot of transit around the country.....

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

portland transit is service is excellent and widespread, too bad it usually freaks on wheels. maybe its a west coast thing, im not sure but we have the downright trashiest transit patrons ive ever seen, and ive ridden alot of transit around the country.....

Do you think that will get better once the free rail zone ends?

Our Ride Free Area ends in September and I'm looking forward to it.

[pdxtex]

^^^ i hope so. and its already been proven that there are direct correlations between those who commit crime on transit and fare evasion. at least charging everybody and hopefully enforcing those rules with inspectors will cut down on some unruliness. but, thats the problem with open platforms and lax inspection. anybody can get on and probably get a free ride 80 percent of the time as it is right now.

[destroycreate]

When Seattle gets all of its U.C. new rail/streetcar lines completed, how comprehensive of a transit system do you think they'll have compared to the Bostons, San Franciscos, and NY's?

[seaskyfan]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

When Seattle gets all of its U.C. new rail/streetcar lines completed, how comprehensive of a transit system do you think they'll have compared to the Bostons, San Franciscos, and NY's?

We have a long ways to go in order to get close to any of those cities.

The light rail as approved by the voters in the latest ballot measure will go from Lynnwood in Snohomish County down to a location that's still to be determined in South King County and then from Downtown Seattle over the I-90 floating bridge to Bellevue then out to Redmond. My understanding is they will likely operate the light rail as two lines - one north-south and the other from the eastside through Downtown and probably to Northgate via the University of Washington - so everything from Northgate through Downtown will be served by both.

The commuter rail will open a southern expansion next year (to Lakewood in Pierce Co) and service frequency will be improving but the Tacoma/Lakewood and Everett Lines are the only commuter rail lines currently and there aren't current proposals for others.

In terms of the streetcars the only one that's paid for aside from the SLUT in South Lake Union is the First Hill Streetcar that just started construction (connecting Capitol Hill and First Hill to King St. Station and Pioneer Square via the International District and Little Saigon).

The big missing pieces in the City are connections across North Seattle and service to Ballard and West Seattle (the old monorail proposal). I think we really need to get that going to really have decent service inside the city with additional expansions in higher density suburban areas. Here's a link to a map from a group working on a Seattle Subway:

http://seattlesubway.org/vision/

I think completing this with additional streetcar service would start getting us closer to some of those older cities. Our density is significantly lower than all three at this point - so good old fashioned buses aren't a bad solution for right now.

There will likely be a new ballot measure for "Sound Transit 3" in the next few years.

[mhays]

Seattle's bus-focused system still beats a lot of rail-intensive systems in per-capita ridership. The fondest dream of LA, Denver, Portland, and some others is to have Seattle's commute transit share, not to mention commute pedestrian share.

That said, we're not doing well at all by world standards. Frankly just ok vs. our very limited competition.

[CyberEric]

That map of Seattle's proposed rail looks good. I'm happy they are making an effort.

I'm curious, what kind of speeds are they seeing on these lines? Those are some long distances to cover.

[mhays]

The current light rail line varies. The part in the Downtown Transit Tunnel has to be as slow as the tunnel buses, which are slow always, and much worse when a wheelchair comes along. (The buses will go away after one of the expansions, not sure which). The surface sections might be faster than that, with relatively few crossings vs. other surface systems. It gets up to freeway speeds on a stretch next to I-5. There are other elevated or tunnel stretches where it's pretty fast.