MapFriday: Public Transit Utilization
or view a PDF file of same.
Friday, June 16, 2006
or view a PDF file of same.
This work by Christopher Briem is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Your less than random .
That which was: Pittsblog 2.0
Null Space en español or Null Space на русском
From Briem.com:
Interactive Data:
New: Travel and Transit
Did you know the G20 came to Pittsburgh?
Pittsburgh Data+
Previous Posts
- Gambling in California
- Bolans
- Flemish Pittsburgh?
- the never ending story
- MapFriday
- Unbearable bee-ing
- Bus stops
- Is there an historian in the house?
- The Latent Ed Ott Fan Club
- Voter turnout
This work by Chris Briem is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
7 Comments:
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?
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
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".
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.
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
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home