
Great Divide in How Americans Commute to Work - jimmybot
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/01/commuting-to-work-data-car-public-transit-bike/580507/
======
bloomca
I don't think there is such a great divide. The greater divide is between
people who own a car (or cars) and who do not, however, seems for USA it is a
divide between New York City and the rest of the country.

Also, I can comment on one thing I personally enjoy a lot – walking. I lived
in many European cities, and recently moved to USA, so I can comment on it. To
be able to walk, you need to live close enough to your work / some places of
interest (like ~3–4 km is a threshold usually), the path should be interesting
and beautiful.

USA fails miserably at "interesting and beautiful" part. Grid system makes it
super boring, a lot of buildings are just a relatively small building and huge
parking space around. There are no parks in between, no yards – moreover, you
can bump into unsafe places!

Architecture (in downtowns) is straight up horrible (although it is
subjective). So, after couple of walks I have no desire altogether to walk
around anymore – it is dirty, ugly, in some places overcrowded (since
everybody works at the same spot in the downtown and time, essentially).

~~~
uxp100
You probably should specify the city you're talking about. Those seem like
pretty specific complaints. I think the main thing that can be generalized
across most of the US that you mentioned is the grid system, with parking lot
islands in second place, but they're not common in the center of many cities.
They are quite common on the edges.

For example, many readers here may be familiar with San Jose, and itis not a
good walking city, but it is not true that it has no yards or parks, and I
think the residential architecture is lovely. In portions it suffers very much
from parking lot islands, and the businesses are very centralized, not much
mix of housing and business.

But if you want to stroll nowhere in particular it ain't bad. On the near
north side you can look at the foothills from that park by the elementary
school on 22nd ish, then walk down Empire, stop at 13th street, grab a donut
and watch people play tennis, handball or volleyball in the park. Then you
couldstay there or head south to Naglee Park Garage for dinner (well, maybe
that place closed), southwest to downtown for a drink, or just over to 6th
street and get groceries or walk around in the little japantown.

~~~
chrisseaton
> grab a donut

Funny question, but in the US does 'grabbing' something not have a bad
connotation? When I hear 'grab a donut' my English mind sees you smashing your
fist through the glass of the counter, taking a doughnut, and running off.

~~~
taormina
'Snatch' might be more of a negative connotation? Grab feels pretty neutral.

~~~
yellowapple
It definitely depends on context, and possibly locality/dialect. I have heard
(and used) "snatch", "snag", "grab", and "steal" here quite often.

------
closeparen
Warning: speculation. Suppose that a city’s value and economy descend in large
part from connectivity.

A transit system is extremely useful at a few very specific points, but your
connectedness drops off sharply as you get even a few blocks away from it, due
to the extreme inefficiency of walking or (worse) waiting for a connecting
bus.

A road network’s utility is broad and diffuse, with gentle gradients of
utility from place to place, as an extra few miles means little. Two points
have to be very far apart indeed before they are noticeable different in terms
of access/connectedness.

So it makes complete sense to me that transit-oriented cities should be
higher-maximum-value, higher-variance, while car oriented cities should be
lower—maximum-value but much more equal. Exactly what the article finds.

~~~
bunderbunder
Related anecdote: I was recently looking at home prices in Chicago, and it
seems that people place an _enormous_ value on easy access to the train
system. Just eyeballing it, it looked like a house that's less than 1 mile
from the nearest train station commands about a $150-$200,000 premium over one
that's more than 2 miles from the L.

~~~
kevindong
Driving in downtown Chicago during rush hour is awful. I remember it taking
something like 15 minutes just to move a handful of city blocks due to how
backed up the on-ramp onto the highway was.

Also, are you controlling for the housing type? Condos in high rises (which
are much more expensive than detached single family detached) tend to be
concentrated near the trains.

~~~
paulie_a
I am going to generalize your statement: driving in Chicago is awful.

Ive consistently had it take an hour to move ten miles regardless of the day
of week to visit family in Milwaukee. At least a third of the drive I could
see the Sears tower in the rear view mirror. Amtrak/metra is far superior to
car ownership. Uber for local travel and is quite frankly cheaper with less
aggravation because I don't have to deal with it. apparently honking your horn
and not using a blinker is standard. Also just generally driving like a
complete asshole. And don't get me started on the taxis. That entire industry
in Chicago should go out of business. And cyclists seem to vary. Some are very
respectful and will quickly stop for a j walker and politely say they
shouldn't do that. Others run red lights and get pissed when you call them out
for riding on the sidewalk.

Some startup should come with a device that is required for Chicago drivers...
every time you honk your horn it costs 5-50 dollars. What are you fucking
honking for there is 25-100 cars ahead of you not moving.

~~~
bunderbunder
I don't know that that's where I was going.

These sorts of land desirability drop-offs happen very quickly in Chicago, but
that could just be a function of density. Commutes in Chicagoland aren't
necessarily any worse (in terms of commuting time) than they are in other
places I've been - you just end up with the pattern spreading over a much
wider geographic area because cars spread everything out so much.

For example, Milwaukee's rough equivalent of Chicago's West Rogers Park is
probably Menomonee Falls, which isn't even in the same county. But you've got
a similar pattern where it's kind of off the beaten path, transportation-wise,
which makes it relatively inexpensive compared to a more well-connected area
like Tosa or Whitefish Bay.

I've noticed similar patterns in North Carolina, too - plenty of people I know
in the Triangle have commutes that are well over an hour, and the communities
from which it's easy to get to the major employers command a premium.

If anything, I feel like this is more argument about Chicago needing a less
hub-and-spoke design to its rail transit. Out on the periphery, it's possible
to get _very_ far away from the rail lines. In a city this size, it's a major
failing that anyone ends up living more than 2 miles away from rapid transit.

------
curtis
> _We are cleaving into two nations—one where daily life revolves around the
> car, and the other where the car is receding in favor of walking, biking,
> and transit._

Walking, biking, and transit are not actually the same thing, except that they
are "not driving". So it's more accurate to say that there are two kinds of
commuters, those that take cars and those that don't. There's absolutely
nothing new about this though. It's likely true that more people are not
driving these days, but that's got more to do with the fact that more of us
are living in large cities where it's simply not possible for everyone to
drive, and where transit is more practical because of the density.

This notion that at some point in the future there will not be people
commuting in cars is just dumb, and kind of tiresome. There's a lot of noise
being generated by people who think driving a car is flat out immoral, and I'd
contend this isn't a moral issue it's just a practical one, and I really wish
it were treated this way.

~~~
the_gastropod
Ignoring all the other problems, like car crashes, urban land-use,
infrastructure spending to support them, etc, their emissions alone should be
a _clear_ moral issue when talking about cars. When the alternatives (walking,
public transit, and bicycling) are _orders of magnitude_ more efficient, it's
absolutely a moral issue.

~~~
briandear
Walking, public transport and biking are orders of magnitude more inefficient
if you have kids or have to transport anything bigger than a backpack.

~~~
bobthepanda
As someone who grew up in New York, kids are actually much easier with
walking, public transport, and biking. I was able to go out to school, head to
team sports, go to restaurants and shopping, hang out with friends, etc. all
independently.

When I went to college, all of my suburban friends hadn't done too much of any
of that, because being in the suburbs before driving age requires a parent
available to be your chauffeur. Anecdotally, they were also more prone to
underage drinking before college, because they just couldn't go out and do
much.

~~~
JackFr
As someone who raised three children in Manhattan, walking and public transit
are fine with small children. Biking, while a great source of recreation, is
simply not an option for transportation with small children. And the ability
to fall back on a cabs or Uber on rare occasions is also sometimes necessary.

That being said, at an older age, I never had to take my children anywhere.
Like you said, they walked, rode or took public transport.

Finally in my experience, city kids are just as prone to underage drinking as
their suburban counterparts, possibly moreso because of the increased
opportunity. What they don't do however, is drink and drive.

~~~
ndnxhs
You can get bike trailers for very cheap that carry small kids.

------
lordnacho
Would be really interesting to see this done on a map of Europe. You'd think
there's a lot more public transit used.

As a visitor to the US, the main thing that strikes me is always the vast
amount of car related space there. Wider roads, massive car parks. Places with
no sidewalk!

And I'm also surprised at the two places I thought would have more public
transport usage. Really, only 30% of NYC? I guess it's sparse outside
Manhattan? SF I kinda understand because what I saw of the underground looked
way too small for a city of several million.

~~~
alchemism
The mass transit systems outside of NYC proper are designed to feed people in
and out of the city core in two large waves, and [are] not designed to move
people around the larger urbanized region (the "Tri-State area") outside of
those two waves.

So for the large majority of residents, a car will still be a necessity. Even
Manhattanites will eventually feel the need buy/rent a car so they can do
things like go to a forest or a quiet beach for a day.

~~~
jermaustin1
When I lived in Manhattan, I used ZipCar regularly. It was provided free as a
"benefit" by my employer. If I had to pay for it or monthly parking or
anything like that, I would have just stayed in town.

~~~
ghaff
In my experience a lot of people only find Manhattan tolerable because they
can get out of the city on a regular basis. Assumes a certain income level of
course. But those I know who live in Manhattan, SF, etc. without cars rent
Zipcar and conventional rentals a lot. As well as Uber, etc.

Many people are just largely stuck to public transit lines of course. But the
demographic that is actually moving into cities (college educated
professionals) mostly doesn’t think that way.

------
sandworm101
>> "a smaller-than-average share of workers drives to work alone in more
compact college towns"

We all talk about trying to get people our of their cars, but imho isn't all
about cities or even transport systems. Imho it is about jobs. The great
divide is between those who work in places that support alternative to private
vehicles and those that do not.

If your employer wants you to work changing hours on short notice, public
transport doesn't work. Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal
is difficult if that means they won't have a bus/train available. I want to
see studies comparing various sectors. I'd bet good money that those working
government and/or education jobs (the college towns in the above quote) are
less likely to drive cars to work. And conversely, those who work private
sector jobs (swing shifts, late hours, on-call etc) are more likely to drive
cars.

Personally, I now work in a government job (military) with a few hundred
people in one building. Lots of people do bike/walk/run to work. We have bus
stop right in front of our base, but nobody uses it. It just isn't reliable.
Our bosses don't want to hear that we are late because the bus was stuck in
traffic. We also sometimes have to work strange hours/shifts. Sometimes our
day ends "whenever it ends". 2000 quickly becomes 0300. Will the bus get me
home at a random hour and with enough time to sleep before the morning? My
car/bike/feet sure will.

~~~
flyingpenguin
> Asking someone to show up an hour earlier than normal is difficult if that
> means they won't have a bus/train available.

I lived in Seoul for close to a year without a car. I never used a taxi and
never looked up or planed my routes before I left home/work/shop/etc. The
longest I remember waiting for a train/bus was around 4minutes. In this
instance, I saw my bus pulling away as I was walking up. There was another of
the same bus in line behind 3 other buses.

I have lived in Denver without a car for close to 4 years. I pay 4x as much in
public transit fees, I know all train times and bus times by heart and I plan
when I leave based on those times. I usually bike to/from the train because it
is literally faster than the bus stop less than 100ft from my house.

We have a chicken and egg problem.

Edit: God I miss the trains in Seoul. I don't know if they had times but the
rule seemed to be if a train was pulling out, you just had to wait for the
next train to finish pulling in.

------
SystemOut
I don't understand why Americans love their cars so much.

I grew up in Oklahoma and you pretty much have to have a car. Huge amount of
land, not many people. Virtually no public transportation.

I moved to the Bay Area back in 2000 and car-pooled for exactly one year of
that time and then took BART the other 16 years before moving to Chicago. Even
though I like driving I really hate traffic. Why would I sit in traffic when I
can read/sleep/work/etc. It was cheaper as well. I wouldn't even talk about a
different job unless they were within reasonable distance to a BART station.

I moved to Chicago recently and now take Metra (commuter train) and then walk
15 minutes. It's a little sucky in winter (today was 16 F, Friday is expected
to be -6 F in the morning - dress in layers and have warm boots). Even then, I
wouldn't drive. The cost, the time, the potential for accidents just aren't
worth it to me.

I get why people drive in rural areas. You pretty much have to. But I don't
know why folks don't push for mass transit more in cities. Cars are so
expensive and monopolize your entire time getting to/from somewhere. I tried
car pooling and really didn't like it since I'm essentially trapped with the
same people every day. Mass transit can be crowded but I can still read or
listen to audio books if I don't have a seat. But cars are ingrained in so
much of the culture here plus I think a lot of people won't admit it but just
don't like being around other people.

~~~
zjaffee
Having a car gives you a stronger sense of having control over your
transportation, namely you don't have to rely on other people, on timetables,
or the stability of the regional transit system in order to get from place to
place.

You do have to deal with traffic, but for many people it's worth the tradeoff.

------
julienb_sea
I find this interesting. Of my tech coworkers and friends in Seattle, its
50/50 on car ownership, but the vast majority do not commute to work by car. I
personally drive, but that is due to circumstance where public transit is
inconvenient for me and I can easily afford to drive and park downtown, saving
me 30-45 min both directions. In my view, driving a car becomes much more
necessary once you exit the 20-something tech stage of life and actually have
a family to support and move around.

Also, unpopular opinion, public transit is only worthwhile for commuters.
Shared uber/lyft is more efficient in pretty much all other situations, except
for people wealthy enough to live in easy transit corridors. Subsidizing ride
share infrastructure via uber/lyft would benefit a much broader class of
people than investments in cute but pointless public transit like our Seattle
streetcar.

------
grawprog
I'm not sure why but the transit system in my city seems to keep making
decisions and changes that benefit people making short trips within the
central areas while detrimenting those that use it to commute outwards to
work. I'm not sure the reasoning for this. But every time the schedules or
fares change it always becomes more difficult, takes longer and costs more to
travel to outer areas.

~~~
cgy1
Off the top of my head, the reason is probably because there just isn't a
critical mass of people heading in the other direction that would make
financial sense for them to run trains/buses in that direction, not to mention
the last mile problem of how to get to your job after you're dropped in the
suburban transit center with no public transit available to get you from the
transit center to your office.

~~~
grawprog
No it's more things like plans to change the fare system to one based on
distance travelled, changing bus schedules so they end up more filled up but
no longer arrive at offices and businesses for a time when people typically
begin work, increasing multiple zone fares while leaving single zone fares the
same, new train and bus routes being put in to service already well serviced
areas while ignoring outlying areas.

Back in 2001 or so the plan for the next train line was for a heavily
underserviced area here. It was delayed and instead a line was put in in an
area with multiple busses servicing it. They finally put the line they
originally talked about around 2 or 3 years ago. But it still doesn't cover as
much area as the original plans were and rather than putting new trains for
this line like the did with the other one, they took some from the line that
services the farther away areas.

There are two big rushes of people in both directions. The trains and busses
are packed always. The only reason I can think of is because they know most
people commuting to work on transit have no choice. Where has people taking
one time short trips usually do and they're trying to incentivise them to take
transit at the expense of commuters.

It also just so happens those areas tend to have a higher percentage of
wealthier people living in the and members of the transit board.

~~~
bluGill
A train should never be put someplace without first trying bus service. If you
can get busy bus service you know the train will be used. If you can't get
busy bus service - well it is easy to try those same buses on a different
route until you find where people actually want to go. (and then you can build
the train there if the real numbers show it is worth it)

~~~
burfog
Are there buses in Boston? I lived there, and I wouldn't know. Buses are not
something I'd contemplate using.

From experiences in other cities, where I looked into the matter:

Buses are too hard to use. Buses often stop on an unexpected side of the
street, get rerouted, get cancelled, and have horribly complicated schedules.
Routes even vary moment by moment. The crime situation is worse. The weather
protection is worse.

I've never known anybody who would use buses. Buses are just noisy things that
block traffic, damage pavement (proportional to 4th power of mass), and belch
lung-clogging soot. AFAIK, they drive around empty, except that sometimes they
serve as homeless shelters.

------
jdlyga
I moved from the long island suburbs to New York City, and it's very
interesting taking the subway to work instead of driving. It really feels like
the subway people and the drivers are living in two separate countries. It's a
totally different way of living, and I really enjoy it.

------
ilaksh
Most places in the US are just very spread out. It's too much area and too low
density for trains and buses to cover. Simple as that.

When I lived in New York I could walk to the ferry and then walk to my
designated skyscraper a short distance away. But in southern California or
Fort Worth, the only place with significant density is downtown. The houses
and malls are spread over large distances. Sure there are sidewalks and it is
possible to walk to the closest mall or Walmart, but that may easily take 20
or 30 minutes, that is the only place you can walk to and you generally feel
like you are taking your life in your hands crossing traffic.

You can theoretically live in a downtown area but for most places in the US
it's too expensive for the average person to buy a home or even for most
people to rent. And again there is a massive area around the downtown that you
would not be able to go to without a car.

It just comes down to this: there is just so much land that people wanted to
use all of it. So it is designed to sprawl out. Then people get used to having
single family houses with big yards and the skyscrapers are far away and
everyone needs a car.

------
peterwwillis
It's weird, but I first noticed this when I went to Greece. It's kind of
difficult to get around in Greece. They don't have a wide-ranging national
train system like some other European countries. They have a bunch of regional
bus lines to get you from area to area, and they may only run once or twice a
day. That'll mostly just get you between major cities, and they take a while.

I also noticed how difficult it was to get from my SO's place in NJ farm
country to a nearby big city. From Philadelphia, I have to take an Amtrak up
to Newark (or a SEPTA regional line up to Trenton, and then an Amtrak/NJT to
Newark), then another train to the closest NJT stop in NJ, and then bike a
couple dozen miles. That's at least 4 hours, compared to 1.2 hours by car.

Nearby towns and cities have shuttle services between other cities/towns, but
trying to get to Philadelphia with those would require 5 or 6 transfers,
basically the entire day, if you can even time it right to do it in one day.
Anyone who lives out in the boonies and wants to work a well-paying job in the
city is going to need to commute hours by car, which is expensive both in
transportation cost and in time.

Having a car is expensive, but anyone trying to improve their station in life
will need one to get to a better job. And the time it takes to transport
themselves takes them away from things like family/personal time, childcare,
continuing education, or additional jobs. So transportation will definitely
hold the country's economic development back (in terms of increased access to
jobs that pay better), as long as most of the good jobs are located in hard-
to-reach metropolises.

If you suggest a plan for people to ditch their car in exchange for better
public transit, the response seems to be _" but I like my car!"_. Nobody wants
to give up a convenience just to improve the economy.

~~~
herbst
In Switzerland only very few people of my social circle own a car and the fast
majority of them needs it for work. Compared to neighbouring countries having
a car is not even that expensive.

It's just a lot more confident to use public transport mostly because it's
cheap and just great.

I think people will learn to use public transport options once it's
affordable, reliable and everywhere.

As counter example Austria where I know a lot more people with cars. Their
public transport isn't bad but expensive and unreliable.

------
cwal37
Working my way through Alain Bertaud's _Order Without Design: How Markets
Shape Cities_ [1] at the moment and it's proving to be a really great resource
for understanding this kind of thing and in the process marrying together a
bunch of urban planning concepts and principles from economics. Also has some
pretty great graphic design work on the charts and figures side of things and
a nice layout wherein there are many small sections of 1-2 pages or less with
condensed lessons.

Not halfway through yet, but I feel pretty comfortable recommending it if
you're into the topic area of this article (urban mobility, how commutes+jobs
shape urban areas, etc.).

[1] [https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-
design](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/order-without-design)

------
skizm
More than 50% of commuters drive to work alone in NYC? That seems insane to
me. I don't know or know of a single person that drives to work in NYC. Tolls
and parking alone would eat around $10k per year, plus even if it was free the
traffic seems to make it not worth it when compared to subways. Also, if
you're willing to shell out the money to drive, why not just take a cab or
uber at that point?

Is there some large subset of workers I'm not seeing that it would be more
economic / convenient to drive into or around the city on a daily basis?
(truck drivers / cab drivers / uber drivers don't count I wouldn't think?)

~~~
beefalo
The data is for the whole NYC metro area, so the drivers are probably people
that live and work in the suburbs and are not commuting to Manhattan. I have
seen numbers that put people in the city proper at like 75% no car ownership.

------
wffurr
Interesting definition of "class" in the article. It tries to contrast the
knowledge-based "creative class" with the "working class" when it reality both
are primarily earning wages and salaries rather than dividends and capital
gains.

------
rsync
Here is everything you need to know about public transit, commuting and car
culture in America:

[https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-
song...](https://www.ispot.tv/ad/wy2O/state-farm-backstory-truck-song-by-john-
taylor)

------
njarboe
I have never seen a train this empty during commute hours. An empty seat on
each side of a person? Standing room only and packed like sardines is more
realistic (and a needed density for economic viability of trains not
subsidized by others).

BTW, cars are also a mode of "transit".

------
wil421
Basically looks like a population density map with NYC being the exception.

Did anyone expect anything different?

------
johngorse
Why do people with car drive alone to work? There is a big chance that someone
from your neighborhood is going at least in your direction. We practice co-
driving in Europe all the time.

~~~
jpindar
We call it carpooling, and it's not that uncommon, I've done it. Some highways
have special "High Occupancy Vehicle" lanes to encourage it.

~~~
kaybe
May I point to this corresponding mode of transport for car-less people:

[http://slug-lines.com/](http://slug-lines.com/)

------
ozten
That visualization is too zoomed out to be useful. I was curious to zoom in on
cities and some curious rural patches.

------
fulafel
0.5% bike to work and 6% walk to work. Interesting that the difference is so
large, you'd think that so many more people live withing short biking range vs
walking range. I wonder what the stats are for other continents.

~~~
ndnxhs
I assume in America walking is seen as a lot safer due to being physically
separated a little bit from cars.

------
frogpelt
I know their job is to talk about cities and stuff. But what's the point?

The United States is the 4th largest country in the world and the third most
populous.

Is it any wonder that we have a wide diversity of experiences?

------
protomyth
If you want the base data [https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/acs/](https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/)

------
soared
These maps don't show a dam thing and the analysis is super weak. Its common
sense that people in cities make more money and are more likely to walk to
work. Then workers in rural areas drive alone to work and make less money.

[https://xkcd.com/1138/](https://xkcd.com/1138/)

~~~
francisofascii
Ironic that the people making more money walk, (which historically has been
what poor people do). And the current poorer people use a privately owned
transport vehicle. That would not be common sense to an American living more
than 100 years ago. :)

~~~
the_gastropod
It's not common sense today either. I don't think many people actually
understand how expensive driving a car is. These expenses are both individual
(maintenance, gas, insurance, tolls, tickets, etc.) and societal (greenhouse
gas emissions, crashes, infrastructure like roads, bridges, and interstate
exchanges, inefficient land use from parking, etc.)

I'm confident in the future we'll look back at how most Americans live today,
and cringe at the massive inefficiency.

~~~
TuringNYC
There is another "expense" in driving cars - having to expend mental load on
driving and not being able to focus 100% on something else during commute
time.

Exactly one year ago, we tried an experiment and moved to Arlington VA, just
outside Washington DC. We live ~5km from my office and i switch it up between
walking, metro, and cycling with a big bias towards walking. Door-to-door, 95%
of the route is dedicated trail so there is no mental load of avoiding
traffic. I churn thru audiobooks, catch-up conversations with friends, and
sometimes just plain uninterrupted thinking. _This is the best gift given i
've given myself for a long, long time._ Summertime walks are so pleasurable
that I look forward to going to work early in the day and coming back just as
the sun subsides.

This is all awesome enough that I'm dreading the next job in SF/SV/NYC just
because of commute alone.

If you are curious, this is the typical (non-winter) walk:
[https://www.instagram.com/p/BhCXV4eDvSZ/?utm_source=ig_web_c...](https://www.instagram.com/p/BhCXV4eDvSZ/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link)

------
pellefant
Can be please stop seeing this propaganda here from Citylab whos aim is to
promote UNs Agenda 2030?

