Friday, June 16, 2006

MapFriday: Public Transit Utilization

or view a PDF file of same.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure seeing this leads me to any conclusions other than 1) mass transit works best with denser populations (well, duh.); and 2) ridership increases along light rail lines.

Any possibility for doing an overlay of density, or maybe just one with the light rail lines?

Sunday, June 18, 2006 12:59:00 PM  
Blogger Amos_thePokerCat said...

What year was this for? 2000?

The subway/rail percentage was 0.2% in 1990, and 0.1% in 2000.

From under the "Bus Stop" entry: Thanks for the Pittsburgh Neighborhood Employment numbers, but as far as I could see it was just for one year. Kinda hard to see if there are less people working in the Golden Triangle, i.e. "dawn' tawn".

Doing the difference between 1990 with 1.02M workers (7.2% bus, 5.0% walk) and 2000 with 1.06M workers (6.0% bus, 3.6% walk), there are 23K less workers on the bus or walking.

Given Golden Triangle employment is 96K (out of 281K for the City of Pittsburgh), a change of 23K would be too much for 100% of the change to be from just there.

Still, I am curious what the change in downtown employeement was.

Sunday, June 18, 2006 11:19:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Monday, June 19, 2006 6:23:00 AM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

I will find a reference for past downtown employment, but I think 100K workers just in Golden Triangle has been a fair number for some time. For trends in City of Pittsburgh employment see page 4 of this: http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/briem/Sept%202004%20for%20web.pdf

also you would have to trust me but I have refs showing city employment (again by place of work) at just under 300K in 1960. I suspect a lot of the retail employment in much of city has drained away as people left, so much more of the city employment base (compared to 1960 at least) could be those downtown and oakland commuters.

and yes, this is 2000. I'll relabel if I get time. Note that most using the T in the south hills probably are being captured by "streetcar or trollycar" not "subway or elevated".

Monday, June 19, 2006 7:26:00 AM  
Blogger O said...

If I recall correctly, the correlation between income and public transite utilization is quite telling and informative should PAT decide to reallocate its resources in a more socially equitable manner.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger C. Briem said...

very true. highest public transit use in the county is in Rankin, followed by Braddock. Lowest in Sewickly Hills. But also, density and income are highly correlated as well.

forgot to mention for Mark: County Density map is here: http://www.briem.com/gis/CountyPopulationDensity2000.pdf

Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pardon my ham-handed attempt, but I tried mashing density and ridership maps together. You can find the results here: http://markstroup.com/DensityRidership.jpg

You can see where the brown stains show through that a CT is high density but low ridership. If the map is anything to go by, areas like Shaler and Ross have high density and low ridership.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006 11:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home