Talk:Modal share

Urban studies and planning High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Transport

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Data sources measure totally different things

I came across this page because someone cited it on Reddit to compare the relative walkability of Philadelphia to NYC. But the source for NYC is for just the city and the source for Philadelphia is for the greater metropolitan area. In addition the NYC source measures modality for all trips while the Philadelphia measures just commuting. It's completely different statistics that in table form wildly misrepresent the relative difference between the two cities.

I haven't audited the other sources but if they're similarly different then the table is more misleading than useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.142.134 (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree they are quite inconsistent. Since the defining cutoff of the table is metropolitan areas over 1M in population, it would be good to begin to standardizing the data in the table to the metropolitan area. Although it's not a perfect measure, I believe metro area is a better measure than measuring the city-proper since it standardizes the cities to some vaguely similar definition to each other. Kristian.blais (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trust the numbers?

I have the feeling that many of the numbers mentioned here are very strange. Look at Osaka: the numbers stated here are from http://ltaacademy.lta.gov.sg/doc/JOURNEYS_Nov2011.pdf. However, the Wikipedia article about transport in Osaka http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Transport_in_Greater_Osaka has totally different number. What is correct? I believe the numbers stated here cannot be correct - cycling in Osaka must have a modal share of at least 10%, maybe even 20% or more.

Look at the numbers for Paris. The source which was used for Osaka (see above) states numbers for Paris which are totally different from those in the article. Maybe the numbers in the present article refer only to the very inner district of Paris. In any case: all the numbers mentioned here should be checked very carefully - there seem to be several errors! --110.33.215.212 (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data seriously needs rehab

The first thing that jumped out to me: There are many cities in the 1,000,000 inhabitants group that do not have nearly that many people. Seattle and Portland are two examples, but there are likely more. The metro areas might be over 1,000,000 people, but the mode share percentages quoted are for the cities alone. This is inaccurate. tfooq (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be in favour of scrapping the distinction. I don't think it really serves a very useful purpose, and is simply a way of confusing the situation given the inaccuracies already present that you have pointed out, and the problems of distinguishing the actual population of a city. Sourcing also needs to be better.Peregrine981 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall city size is relevant, as in smaller cities walking and cycling is more likely to cover most of the travel needs. When I set up the tables the data was based on mainly three sources (EU Urban Audit, US and Australian Census), and hence was more consistent, but since than many editors added more recent data from other sources. Perhaps there needs to be a column that specifies the reference area. --ELEKHH^T 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is relevant indeed, so if you want to take the time necessary to ensure a consistent usage then I won't object. My concern was more about sustainability than relevance. It should also be clear what the population count refers to, metropolitan region, or city in a more legal definition. It seems, at the moment to use a more legalistic definition. IMO that is less useful than a broader definition of metro region. Cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen may technically speaking have fewer than a million inhabitants, but their functional area clearly includes more than a million. However, we then have to be careful regarding where the modal share was recorded. It is a bit tricky. There should definitely be a clear indication of source, as these measurements should not necessarily be taken as being strictly comparable in a scientific way, and the source and measurement technique should be easy to find. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Modal share. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060603041834/http://vancouver.ca:80/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm to http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/plan/1997report/glossary.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Modal share. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cities over 250K

So, this is only non-US cities over 250K population, even though cities over 1M includes US cities. I'm sure this had to do with what data was available but an explanation in the article might be useful rather than mixing and matching data types without any explanation. 174.17.177.194 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What definition does "metropolitcan area" use?

Since the metro areas of cities like Frankfurt have a population of near six million people, I feel that most cities in the below 1 million "metropolitan area population" do not actually fit into said table. 79.228.93.241 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuala Lumpur's citation is literally decades outdated

This is not the first time I have seen another public facing website using the 1992 data from ResearchGate of all places as a source, which is already bad enough, but then to *mark it as 2019* is really disingenuous considering how significantly more car-centric has Kuala Lumpur been. I don't even know how is it marked 2019 seeing as if you actually visit the citation [1], it very explicitly says "January 1992".

The first metros were only introduced in the mid-to-late 1990s, before that minibuses reign supreme.

I have gone ahead and changed the date just to be sure, but I was not able to find a decently current data for the latest modal split in Kuala Lumpur specifically. Ngbeslhang (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I have looked a bit into the quoted percentage and managed to find the table the percentages were quoted from, and the percentage for "private motorised transport" relative to the percentage of respondents who actually replied back are the exact same.

There's a massive typo in this published paper that is apparently never fixed.

In fact, none of the quoted percentages are even right because they're just pulled directly from the number of respondents who actually responded the survey (92.6% of them, equivalent to 2374 respondents) instead of recalculating the actual percentages based on the number of respondents available, so I have gone ahead and redid the calculations as well.

Whoever calculated the percentage of private motorised transport literally just combined the percentage of the same column and just called it a day (the actual percentage is 1238 out of 2374 respondents, which should be about 52.1%, NOT 48.3% out of 92.6%).

So yes, it would really help if somebody else manages to find a more updated source on modal share in Kuala Lumpur specifically instead of this questionably reviewed paper, because this is not published by the ministry of transport who should be responsible for this. Ngbeslhang (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]