I saw a "best cities for public transit" list recently that had Reno, NV up near the top. Which was obviously baffling, and sent me to find out why. I eventuall

I saw a "best cities for public transit" list recently that had Reno, NV up near the top. Which was obviously baffling, and sent me to find out why. I eventually found that one of the major factors was "miles of transit line per capita and another was something like "annual mileage per transit vehicle" (possibly per-capita?). The goal was to evaluate density of coverage and frequency of arrivals. But that completely neglected population density, so it ended up rewarding cities for urban sprawl. This feels like the same type of mistake, where per-capita count neglects both population density and total coverage. There's a massive difference between every shop having its own camera (even if police access them) and something like London's Ring of Steel, where the camera layout and even streets have been designed to maximize coverage and identification rate in the most populous areas.