Unlinked Passenger Trips Per Capita (2006)

This report from the Federal Transit Administration shows some interesting information which I’ll use in a coming blog entry.  With that in mind I’ve posted it here.  Portland is at #7 in this list, which amounts to TriMet basically.  The really shocking thing though, is the massive drop off after the top 5.  I also find it somewhat shocking how much lower San Francisco is than New York in trips per capita.  The last bit I’ll mention is how amazed I am that Honolulu, Hawaii is in the top 5!  I wasn’t aware they even had a notable transit system, but this could be because of other underlying facts, such as that it is an island.  The original Excel Spreadsheet can be downloaded by right clicking and selecting save as.

UZA NAME AREA (SQ MI) POPULATION 2006 TRANSIT
UNLINKED
PASSENGER TRIPS
(MILLIONS)
TRANSIT
UNLINKED
PASSENGER
TRIPS PER
CAPITA
New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 3,353 17,799,861 3,556.9 199.8
San Francisco-Oakland, CA 527 3,228,605 420.2 130.1
Washington, DC-VA-MD 1,157 3,933,920 461.0 117.2
Honolulu, HI 154 718,182 71.7 99.8
Boston, MA-NH-RI 1,736 4,032,484 386.7 95.9
Chicago, IL-IN 2,123 8,307,904 610.7 73.5
Portland, OR-WA 474 1,583,138 107.5 67.9
Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,800 5,149,079 342.0 66.4
Seattle, WA 954 2,712,205 168.6 62.2
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 1,668 11,789,487 700.4 59.4
Baltimore, MD 683 2,076,354 108.5 52.3
Las Vegas, NV 286 1,314,357 67.7 51.5
Denver-Aurora, CO 499 1,984,889 86.6 43.6
Salt Lake City, UT 231 887,650 38.6 43.5
Atlanta, GA 1,963 3,499,840 148.5 42.4
Pittsburgh, PA 852 1,753,136 71.7 40.9
Cleveland, OH 647 1,786,647 70.2 39.3
Austin, TX 318 901,920 35.4 39.2
Milwaukee, WI 487 1,308,913 50.7 38.7
Madison, WI 114 329,533 12.3 37.3
San Diego, CA 782 2,674,436 96.1 35.9
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN 894 2,388,593 85.2 35.7
Miami, FL 1,116 4,919,036 162.7 33.1
San Antonio, TX 408 1,327,554 42.7 32.1
San Juan, PR 892 2,216,616 71.1 32.1
Reno, NV 119 303,689 9.0 29.5
Charlotte, NC-SC 435 758,927 21.2 27.9
Spokane, WA-ID 143 334,858 9.1 27.1
Houston, TX 1,295 3,822,509 102.5 26.8
San Jose, CA 260 1,538,312 40.9 26.6
Syracuse, NY 180 402,267 10.5 26.1
St. Louis, MO-IL 829 2,077,662 52.3 25.2
Sacramento, CA 369 1,393,498 3
4.7
24.9
Tucson, AZ 291 720,425 17.8 24.7
Buffalo, NY 367 976,703 23.8 24.3
Albany, NY 284 558,947 12.9 23.0
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 799 2,907,049 64.3 22.1
Orlando, FL 453 1,157,431 25.3 21.9
Fresno, CA 139 554,923 11.9 21.5
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 1,407 4,145,659 86.0 20.7
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN 672 1,503,262 29.3 19.5
Hartford, CT 469 851,535 16.3 19.2
El Paso, TX-NM 219 674,801 12.4 18.4
Dayton, OH 324 703,444 12.9 18.3
Rochester, NY 295 694,396 12.6 18.2
Providence, RI-MA 504 1,174,548 21.2 18.0
Richmond, VA 437 818,836 14.3 17.5
Louisville, KY-IN 391 863,582 15.0 17.4
Springfield, MA-CT 309 573,610 9.9 17.3
Virginia Beach, VA 527 1,394,439 24.0 17.2
Bakersfield, CA 110 396,125 6.6 16.6
New Haven, CT 285 531,314 8.8 16.5
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 439 1,506,816 22.7 15.1
Stockton, CA 74 313,392 4.7 14.9
Albuquerque, NM 224 598,191 8.8 14.6
Flint, MI 231 365,096 5.3 14.6
Grand Rapids, MI 257 539,080 7.5 13.8
Columbus, OH 398 1,133,193 15.0 13.2
Jacksonville, FL 411 882,295 11.7 13.2
Detroit, MI 1,262 3,903,377 51.3 13.1
Toledo, OH-MI 202 503,008 6.2 12.4
Oxnard, CA 76 337,591 4.2 12.4
Akron, OH 308 570,215 7.0 12.3
Des Moines, IA 140 370,505 4.5 12.2
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL 802 2,062,339 24.9 12.1
Memphis, TN-MS-AR 400 972,091 11.7 12.1
Modesto, CA 86 310,945 3.7 12.0
Scranton, PA 159 385,237 4.6 11.8
Concord, CA 176 552,624 6.4 11.6
Bridgeport-Stamford, CT-NY 465 888,890 10.1 11.4
Kansas City, MO-KS 584 1,361,744 15.2 11.2
Raleigh, NC 320 541,527 5.9 10.9
New Orleans, LA 198 1,009,283 10.7 10.6
Nashville-Davidson, TN 431 749,935 7.9 10.5
Allentown-Bethlehem, PA-NJ 290 576,408 5.6 9.7
Baton Rouge, LA 281 479,019 4.6 9.6
Cape Coral, FL 192 329,757 3.1 9.3
Chattanooga, TN-GA 290 343,509 3.1 9.0
Indianapolis, IN 553 1,218,919 10.0 8.2
Knoxville, TN 339 419,830 3.4 8.2
Worcester, MA-CT 250 429,882 3.4 8.0
Colorado Springs, CO 197 466,122 3.5 7.5
Lancaster, PA 199 323,554 2.3 7.3
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL 270 559,229 3.9 6.9
Harrisburg, PA 208 362,782 2.5 6.8
Little Rock, AR 206 360,331 2.4 6.7
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 231 423,410 2.8 6.5
Omaha, NE-IA 226 626,623 3.9 6.3
Columbia, SC 269 420,537 2.5 6.1
Birmingham, AL 392 663,615 3.7 5.5
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, NY 265 351,982 1.9 5.5
Wichita, KS 179 422,301 2.3 5.5
Tulsa, OK 261 558,329 2.7 4.8
Youngstown, OH-PA 228 417,437 1.7 4.2
Oklahoma City, OK 322 747,003 2.9 3.9
Pensacola, FL-AL 219 323,783 1.2 3.8
Palm Bay-Melbourne, FL 220 393,289 1.5 3.8
Mobile, AL 211 317,605 0.9 3.0
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC 232 335,630 1.0 2.8
McAllen, TX 314 523,144 0.06 0.11
Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. I don’t know if you realize it, but TriMet cites that very document in their Dirty Words brochure, saying that "more people ride TriMet than any other transit system our size". But note that these might be metro areas–the "WA" may mean that Vancouver is included. And that could explain the difference between NYC and SF, if the former has relatively less suburban areas.

    Regarding Honolulu, they’ve won APTA’s "best transit system" award multiple times. Also, that island group its on is fairly small and far away from any mainland, so no one is traveling far away on land and prices are higher because of transportation costs. In addition, they may do a good job attracting tourists.

    Reply

  2. There are three reasons why cities rank high on this list:
    1. They are dense (SF)
    2. They have excellent transit systems (Portland)
    3. They are poor (Baltimore, Las Vegas)
    Many cities obviously hit multiple criteria.
    Ranking here here could mean a city is doing transit right — or it could not.

    Reply

  3. La$ Vega$, poor? Nooo… 🙂 Seriously, I know junkets to Las Vegas aren’t looking real good right now, and the casino workers might not get paid that great. And there at least was an extreme demand for housing.

    Reply

  4. If they’re free that, answers a demand question, pending too the average income level that really does answer a lot of questions.

    However as pointed out in the table, San Francisco and New York are higher than Hawaii, and they absolutely charge and cover a LOT more of their transit system at the fare box.

    Free, is by no means better, it is a mere myth that it will even increase usage all that much. Cost, since all passenger transportation is so highly subsidized in this country, is rarely a serious consideration when traveling.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s