The Carless Commute Ranking to End All Carless Commute Rankings

[M II A II R II K]

The Carless Commute Ranking to End All Carless Commute Rankings


Oct 8, 2014

By ERIC JAFFE

Read More: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/...nkings/381220/

Reports: http://www.access.umn.edu/research/a...014/index.html

The Accessibility Observatory at the University of Minnesota has released the most useful transit commute rankings you're likely to see for some time. "Access Across America: Transit 2014" ranks 46 of the biggest U.S. metros based on how many jobs a resident can access by transit during the morning rush of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m.

- The rankings use both city geography and transit schedules to capture the full door-to-door commute experience: from the first mile it takes to reach a bus or train station, to the wait once you're there, to the travel time itself, to the last mile reaching the office. They are also weighted by time, with shorter trips favored over longer ones. So a 10-minute commute gives a city more accessibility points than a 60-minute commute.

- In broader terms, that approach gives these rankings two key advantages. First, they capture the importance of transit frequency across an entire system. The rankings take into account accessibility at every minute between 7 and 9 in the morning. Systems that run a lot of buses and trains, therefore, perform better than those with inconsistent or infrequent service. In this way, the list captures the way most of us run our lives: Real-time transit updates aside, we leave for work when we're ready to leave, not at an exact hour and minute.

- Second, the comprehensive door-to-door approach also captures the importance of transit-oriented development and walkability. A 30-minute bus ride becomes an hour commute with a 15-minute walk on both ends. But it becomes a far more manageable 40-minute commute when homes and offices are located closer to transit stations. So two cities with the same service frequency can still vary considerably in terms of job access based on the type of density and land use that occurs at either end of the trip.

- What's especially interesting about these rankings is how some cities rise or fall depending on the desirable transit commute time. Los Angeles, for instance, is ranked 7th on 10-minute transit commute access but rises to 2nd on 60-minute access. That tells us one thing we already know: L.A. doesn't exactly have a dense, walkable core. It also tells us something we often fail to appreciate, which is that the city has a pretty vast and reliable transit system (at least by American standards), as well as a number of job centers.

- Several other cities display similar trends. San Jose is ranked 15th on 10-minute access but 8th on 60-minute access. Atlanta ranks 39th for 10-minute access but 28th for 60-minute access. Las Vegas and Phoenix rank 42nd and 34th for 10-minute access, respectively, but 20th and 19th for 60-minute access. We tend to think of these metros as sprawling, car-dependent places. That's true to a large extent, but the hour-long rankings also suggest that once these places push transit-oriented development around job centers, accessibility should make a big leap.

- Some cities trend in the opposite direction. New Orleans and Austin are two great examples. These cities rank 22nd and 24th, respectively, in terms of 10-minute transit commutes. That makes sense: Both places have very walkable cores, and New Orleans has a streetcar system that does enhance pedestrian access. But the cities drop to 38th and 41st on the 60-minute rankings, meaning that their transit systems don't do a great job expanding access to different parts of the city, especially for those who don't live in the center.

The Top 10:

1. New York

2. San Francisco

3. Los Angeles

4. Washington, D.C.

5. Chicago

6. Boston

7. Philadelphia

8. Seattle

9. Denver

10. San Jose

.....

NYC: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb....7579/-73.9850






L.A.: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb...0677/-118.1758






NOLA






SF: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb...8242/-122.3743


DC: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb....8881/-77.0245


Chicago: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb....8739/-87.6324


Philly: https://a.tiles.mapbox.com/v4/ctsweb....9474/-75.1252

[Steely Dan]

How can it be considered the ultimate carless commute ranking when it doesn't even consider alternate transportation modes like biking and walking?

[ardecila]

It should take walking into account; it takes walking access times into account so discounting a walk directly to work would be a pretty glaring oversight. I assume most of those walking-accessible jobs are captured in the 10-minute category, since most folks would use wheeled transportation for trips longer than that.

I do like this, though. Ranking transit systems in this way discounts the cheap but worthless streetcar systems that are now spreading across the country, and encourages more ambitious transit that actually works regionally and connects job centers.

[mhays]

Showing proximity to transit is one thing. Actual carless commutes are another.

[eschaton]

The number one thing I don't like about this metric is it's based upon the total number of jobs. Therefore, a larger car-dependent metro can clearly come out ahead of a smaller metro with good transit access.

In the real world, presuming you desire a car-free/light lifestyle, the percentage of metro jobs which are accessible by transit is much, much more important than the absolute number which can be accessed.

[RCDC]

Seems every metric is flawed.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by RCDC

Seems every metric is flawed.

The best one in my opinion would be based on what people actually do for their commutes....Census survey results.

[nei]

why 30 minutes? average commute time in NYC is above 30 minutes.