3 ms·
I'm increasingly frustrated by transit-related articles like this that completely overplay the data they have. If you look at the US metro areas with the highe
by gok 8y ago
I'm increasingly frustrated by transit-related articles like this that completely overplay the data they have.
If you look at the US metro areas with the highest productivity (defined in this article as GDP/capita) [1], they are definitely not the ones with the best or even extant transit.
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/248112/per-capita-us-real-gross-domestic-product-gdp-by-metro-area/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/248112/per-capita-us-rea...
- closeparen 8y agoThe highest average commute times in the us are under 40 minutes in spite of that [0]. We have enough cars and car infrastructure that only a few % are stuck with buses; their poor performance has little impact on overall journey times. The average is about 25 minutes and it goes up by only a few minutes in especially congested places. (If a 5 minute traffic jam is existentially distressing, wait till you see what waiting for the train is like). https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/650061560/stuck-in-traffic-youre-not-alone-new-data-show-american-commute-times-are-longer https://www.npr.org/2018/09/20/650061560/stuck-in-traffic-yo...
- DontGiveTwoFlux 8y agoMost of the top areas actually have really good transit, with the exception of Midland (on the list from west Texas oil money) and maybe Des Moines (I’m unfamiliar with it so I’m making an assumption). San Jose and Sunnyvale have the cal train, linking a 50 mile long area into about an hours worth of travel. Bridgeport and Stamford have the metro north train, enabling commutes of 40 miles for tons of people to New York. Consider what would happen to the South Bay if the Cal Train closed, or to Connecticut if the Metro North shut down. Way fewer workers would be able to to live their, and the populations would shift.