High density doesn't necessarily mean lack of sprawl

[Crawford]

So I can't figure it out through Census, at least not easily.

County-based transit commuting isn't listed the same as metro area (MSA or CSA commuting). I could add up all the counties, but I'll pass; too much work, and it isn't using APTA methodology.

Re. APTA unlinked trips, 4.3 billion in NY metro, 1.1 billion in LA + SF metros combined, so the question is what proportion of those trips are by Brooklyn residents. Certainly the vast majority of those 4.3 billion trips will be by NYC residents, and Brooklyn is 31% of NYC population, with somewhat higher transit share than NYC as a whole. I think it's probable, but far from definite, that Brooklyn has more unlinked trips.

Is it realistic to say 3.3 billion of those 4.3 billion trips are NYC trips, and 1.1 billion are from Brooklyn residents? I think that's a pretty conservative prediction, especially on the city vs regional number (that would essentially be saying that NYC suburbs have almost as many transit trips as entire LA and SF metros combined, which doesn't sound right).

[Capsule F]

Wow, truly amazing numbers. NYC can't even be touched, there is no comparison from west coast cities.

[fflint]

I can't find any breakdown of NYC transit trips by borough, so APTA won't help here. Looks like the best hard data we've got to work with is the latest ACS estimates on how people get to work by county:

380,548 persons commute to work by public transit in the Los Angeles CSA
353,095 persons commute to work by public transit in the Bay Area CSA

733,643 persons commute to work by public transit in the LA and Bay Area CSAs
657,112 persons commute to work by public transit in Brooklyn

733,643 > 657,112

Anyone who can provide different, and better, hard statistics showing "Brooklyn has more transit riders" than the combined CSA totals of LA and SF is invited to produce them. Absent that, there is no compelling argument providing us good reason to accept Crawford's as yet unsupported, and probably unsupportable, claim.

[miketoronto]

The number of trips is not that important. The point I was trying to make was that in today's world, there are many people even in places like Brooklyn that drive everywhere. Of course a lot don't. But there was even a study done about this a year or two ago that talked about the increasing share of Manahttan residents who drive everywhere, even down the block.

LA has the bones to make walking much more a part of people's lives. But outside influences and government policy have made it less of a mode choice at this time. Just like outside influences are making walking less of a choice for a certain number of NYC residents, despite living in great walking environments.

About suburbanites. The only difference in suburban NYC residents travel habits, is they will take a train into Manhattan for work or leisure. Outside of commuter train commutes into Manhattan, suburban NYC residents use transit at just as dismal rates as suburban LA residents. Local transit usage to travel to the mall, or for students to go to suburban college campus' is extremely low in suburban NYC, or mostly non-exisitant for the majority of the population. Usage studies of the suburban NYC bus systems show that they are used mostly by poor minority riders from the City of New York, traveling to jobs out in the suburbs. And by a handful of suburban residents who have no other way to travel. Transit is not a normal part of the life of most suburban New Yorkers. With the decline in residents working in Manhattan, transit is actually seeing even less of an influence on suburban New Yorkers. Transit mode shares in suburban New York went from something like 25% to 10% or lower for work trips, as most residents have stopped working in New York City.

The commuter rail ridership even shows this, as the ridership numbers for such a large suburban region are actually kinda low.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by lovemycity21

You realize the Hollywood Hills are basically one big ass park? Topanga Canyon, Runyon Canyon, Elysian Park, Ernest E Debbs Park...list goes on. Plus Baldwin Hills is one big park as well. The beaches are technically public parks as well. It's probably why you don't here people in LA complaining about park space.

Yes I do realize that, and I thought that was clear in my original statement. I totally agree with your last point as to why most people would not complain, but getting to that point didn't make much sense and ignored the point I was trying to make. That's akin to the following analogous conversation:

"This is the largest chicken sandwich I have ever seen, but it's only cooked on the outside edges, so I can only eat a little bit of it."

"Don't you see that it's the largest chicken sandwich?"

[dc_denizen]

Mike is right about transit use in Nassau/northern NJ etc.

As for parks, LA has more golf courses in central areas than parks. Why does LA need so many f_____ing golf courses?

look at this: link

or this:

link

or this:

link

or this:

link

or this: massive area in southern LA, only green spaces are golf courses.

link

Similarly: link

*shudder* I hate golf.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Mike is right about transit use in Nassau/northern NJ etc.

As for parks, LA has more golf courses in central areas than parks. Why does LA need so many f_____ing golf courses?

look at this: link

or this:

link

or this:

link

or this:

link

or this: massive area in southern LA, only green spaces are golf courses.

link

Similarly: link

*shudder* I hate golf.

George Carlin nailed this topic so fucking perfectly.

• Video Link

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Mike is right about transit use in Nassau/northern NJ etc.

Again, we have the transit data, and Mike is wrong.

Nassau and Northern NJ have some of the highest transit usage (possibly the highest) of any U.S. suburbs. Transit share compares favorably with many U.S. city centers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The number of trips is not that important. The point I was trying to make was that in today's world, there are many people even in places like Brooklyn that drive everywhere.

In other words, you think the data is not important; what matters are your personal anecdotes about people driving in Brooklyn?

Well I am confident that there are at least some people driving everywhere in Tokyo, and some people people taking transit everywhere in suburban Oklahoma City; therefore suburban Oklahoma City has better transit than Tokyo, because I say so...

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In other words, you think the data is not important; what matters are your personal anecdotes about people driving in Brooklyn?

Well I am confident that there are at least some people driving everywhere in Tokyo, and some people people taking transit everywhere in suburban Oklahoma City; therefore suburban Oklahoma City has better transit than Tokyo, because I say so...

No. The point I was making was that there are many factors going into how people get around. And in today's world, just because a place is walkable, does not mean people are living that lifestyle. Brooklyn may be a mecca for walkability, but there are many people choosing not to. Just like LA may not be seen as a walkable place, but it has the bones to become that way, and there will be a segment of the population that will walk and take transit if those options are better promoted and encouraged.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

No. The point I was making was that there are many factors going into how people get around. And in today's world, just because a place is walkable, does not mean people are living that lifestyle. Brooklyn may be a mecca for walkability, but there are many people choosing not to. Just like LA may not be seen as a walkable place, but it has the bones to become that way, and there will be a segment of the population that will walk and take transit if those options are better promoted and encouraged.

But the point is we have the data, and we don't have to deal in anecdotes, could-bes, and what ifs. If Uncle Charlie is driving everywhere in Brooklyn, that's fine, but it isn't really a rebuttal to actual academic research on transit usage.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, we have the transit data, and Mike is wrong.

Nassau and Northern NJ have some of the highest transit usage (possibly the highest) of any U.S. suburbs. Transit share compares favorably with many U.S. city centers.

Again you are confusing just commute trips to Manhattan in the overall make up of travel in these suburbs. Yes some have high transit mode shares. But overall, suburban NYC mode shares for transit are not that high anymore, as most people don't work in the city anymore. They have declined over the last 30 years as less suburbanites go into the city for work.

Also, taking the work commute to NYC out, and what we see is transit is not a common mode of transport in suburban New York, including for teens, etc.
The local bus ridership holds this up, as well as usage survey's which show the suburban bus systems are not well used by suburban residents.

It is great people are taking transit to Manhattan. But that is only one of a ton of trips done each day in these suburban regions.

And given the built form, suburban LA probably has a better chance of being able to provide viable suburban bus service than New York, where many of the suburbs are very low density with winding streets, etc.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Again you are confusing just commute trips to Manhattan in the overall make up of travel in these suburbs. Yes some have high transit mode shares. But overall, suburban NYC mode shares for transit are not that high anymore, as most people don't work in the city anymore. They have declined over the last 30 years as less suburbanites go into the city for work.

Transit usage in NYC suburbs has risen, not fallen, in recent years.

And the vast majority of suburban NYC transit trips are not Manhattan-bound, so I don't understand why this would make a difference. The biggest suburban transit agency is like 80% non-Manhattan bound trips.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

The local bus ridership holds this up, as well as usage survey's which show the suburban bus systems are not well used by suburban residents.

And when you say "not well used" you mean basically the highest usage of any suburban area in the U.S. Bus ridership is higher than many center cities in the U.S.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

And given the built form, suburban LA probably has a better chance of being able to provide viable suburban bus service than New York, where many of the suburbs are very low density with winding streets, etc.

Again, weighted density (where people live) is what matters. The suburban areas of NYC have highly localized population distribution, which is, in part, why transit usage is relatively high (for pathetic U.S. standards).

I have no idea why you think people in the LA area don't live in "winding streets" or has an infrastructure ready-made for transit. Take a visit to Irvine, CA (with higher density than 95% of outer NYC suburbs) and you tell me how to run transit or encourage walkability in a city like that. Good luck.

[miketoronto]

A little dated, but this shows what happened in suburban New York.


"The impact on transit commuting was unequivocal In 1980, around one out of four suburbanites rode buses and trains to there jobs, many of which were inManhattan by 1990 fewer than one of ten suburbanites commuted by transit, many opting instead to drive their cars to suburban office parks and other outlying work destinations"

[NorthernDancer]

As of 2012, 60.8% of Brooklynites commuted by transit.

[novawolverine]

Even though transit is an important aspect of this topic, it is not everything. Walking is another factor that was included. All this talk about NYC vs. LA is kind of side-stepping the more important point, which is that even though there are a lot of people in both places, there is a clear difference in the way communities are organized.

Even if some Brooklynites drive a lot and don't use transit, the ground-level "feel" of what constitutes as the community is different for the most part. Brooklyn, and most of NYC as a whole, is very neighborhood oriented. The neighborhoods are more compact and the developments are more "human-scaled". Neighborhood parks, schools, essential services, etc. are commonplace, even in some of the denser suburbs with low transit usage. In some of the less-dense suburbs, there's a community feel that is simply not as prevalent outside of the Northeast and Midwest.

I don't completely agree when miketoronto says

NYC's suburbs are just as or more so car dependent than LA. And that has to be tackled as well.

as if car-dependency is the the only factor here or even the most important one. Walkability matters. Consider the fact that while NYC's suburban nodes aren't typically as dense or large in land-area as LA's, there are more of them and more of the types that feel like "mini-downtown" with narrow streets rather than a "town-center".

I agree that LA has good bones for future development, but part of this is cultural and a product of the time in which these places matured.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

No. The point I was making was that there are many factors going into how people get around. And in today's world, just because a place is walkable, does not mean people are living that lifestyle. Brooklyn may be a mecca for walkability, but there are many people choosing not to. Just like LA may not be seen as a walkable place, but it has the bones to become that way, and there will be a segment of the population that will walk and take transit if those options are better promoted and encouraged.

True. Most of that would change if a fair $8-12 toll would be added to free East River Bridges to Manhattan Island.

Also it could be that the subway system hasn't expanded much since 1940. (like every else in the US, except Washington)

[Trae]

Originally Posted by DenseCityPlease

In comparing the ten or so sprawling post-war boom towns of the American sunbelt, Los Angeles is far and away the most urban of the group by simple virtue of the fact that it was already geographically larger and more populous than any of its sunbelt peer cities by WWII. In fact compared to Dallas or Houston or Atlanta at that time, it was an order of magnitude larger.

Within the 500 square mile City of Los Angeles, the cul-de-sac as a typology is non-existent. The city is characterized by a vast and unrelenting grid divided by four lane arterials, or in rare cases six lanes, dozens of which are lined with commercial and residential buildings that meet the sidewalk. Many of these commercial strips are over 10 miles long.

That most people drive is well known, but even those who live in single family homes are, almost without exception, never more then a 5-7 minutes walk from a commercial arterial with neighborhood shops. This is the reason L.A. will have more success than any other sunbelt city in reorganizing itself around rail transit. It's built from and urban character have far more in common with Queens, N.Y. then Houston or Atlanta.

I don't know about that. Houston (and Dallas) are built in large grids just like LA. Houston, in particular, is developing in an LA type way, especially points west and southwest. Atlanta is not built in a grid at all and instead has winding country roads.

[atlantaguy]

Originally Posted by Trae

I don't know about that. Houston (and Dallas) are built in large grids just like LA. Houston, in particular, is developing in an LA type way, especially points west and southwest. Outside of Downtown/Midtown and several core neighborhoods, Atlanta is not built in a grid at all and instead has winding farm to market and Native America trading paths that became roads.

Fixed that for you.

[memph]

I think Houston might arguably have the 5th most expansive street grid in North America. I would say the ranking is

1) New York (500-600 sq mi)
2) Chicago (~500 sq mi)
3) Los Angeles (400-500 sq mi)
4) Detroit (~350 sq mi)
5) Houston (~200 sq mi)