Talk:List of United States local bus agencies

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 December 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 8 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from List of United States local bus agencies by ridership to List of United States local bus agencies. The result of the discussion was moved.

Old talk

Should AC Transit be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.117.136 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should. However, the source used for this article doesn't list weekday ridership for them and as is the case with the other ridership articles the person who created them has opted to omit agencies that don't report weekday ridership. It really might make sense to change all the transit articles to list monthly ridership which is reported by everyone WinstonKap (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)WinstonKap[reply]

I'll also note NJTransit's omission from the list for the same reason as AC Transit's omission, although NJTransit also operates statewide and is not limited to the Newark area as APTA's link suggests. There may be other transit agencies that would qualify for the top 25 based on ridership but don't meet APTA's criteria for the link (e.g. less than 1 million metropolitan population or fewer than 400 peak-hour buses).

Average weekday ridership is the most commonly used statistic for ranking urban transit agencies, but for the largest systems where vehicles operate 7 days/week normally using total ridership won't skew the rankings much.

Should Long Beach, CA be on this list? Tisoy (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just glancing at the source for this list, it does not give an accurate representation if it is to truly be a top 25 list. Las Vegas has daily ridership levels of 173,500, Fort Lauderdale has daily ridership levels of 122,500, Garden City (NY) has daily ridership levels of 105,900, and Long Beach has daily ridership levels of 98,300. That was just a quick glance, there may be more. Am I missing something? Tisoy (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, Austin, Long Beach, and St. Louis to the list. The list seems more accurate and complete this way. I left Garden City, NY off because it seemed to be a subsection of MTA, which is already listed.

Silos

I fixed the sorting on the ridership by moving the extra stuff to an unsortable "notes" column. Why, though, do we care if some systems have ETBs? Shouldn't we then also find out who has hybrids? Or straight battery? Or maybe some use bio-Diesel? Who cares?! But I left it there because someone would revert if I did. Really, the whole breakdown-by-mode thing is dumb. There are lists by ridership for different modes but there is no list of US public transit systems by ridership. Dumb. --plaws (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of United States commuter rail systems by ridership which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]