U.S. Cities with Most Households without a Car. Some Suprises

[thelakelander]

As of 2011, according to the Census Bureau

Households in selected cities with no access to a vehicle:

New York: 55.1%
Boston: 36.1%
Washington DC: 36.1%
Philadelphia: 33.7%
San Francisco: 30.1%
Baltimore: 29.6%
Chicago: 26.4%
Pittsburgh: 26%
Cleveland: 24.3%
Detroit: 22.4%

Cincinnati: 22%
St. Louis: 21.6%
Miami: 19.7%
Minneapolis: 19%
New Orleans: 18.4%
Atlanta: 17.8%
Oakland: 17.8%
Milwaukee: 17.5%
Los Angeles: 17%
Seattle: 15.6%

Portland: 15%
Memphis: 12.5%
Denver: 12.4%
Louisville: 11.5%
Kansas City: 11.1%
Tampa: 10.9%
Columbus: 10.3%
Sacramento: 10.1%
Dallas: 10%
Houston: 9.9%

Las Vegas: 9.5%
San Antonio: 9.5%
Phoenix: 9%
El Paso: 8.8%
Indianapolis: 8.7%
Jacksonville: 7.8%
Nashville: 7.8%
Charlotte: 7.6%
Austin: 7.2%
San Diego: 7.2%

Oklahoma City: 6.8%
Ft. Worth: 6.7%
San Jose: 5.4%

[simms3]

I think it's interesting to venture a guess:

As of 2011, according to the Census Bureau

Households in selected cities with no access to a vehicle:

New York: 55.1% no need, no parking
Boston: 36.1%  no need, no parking
Washington DC: 36.1%  mix of lots of poor people, and no need/no parking
Philadelphia: 33.7%  mix of lots of poor people, and no need/no parking
San Francisco: 30.1%   no need, no parking
Baltimore: 29.6%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Chicago: 26.4%   mix of lots of poor people, and no need/no parking
Pittsburgh: 26%
Cleveland: 24.3%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Detroit: 22.4%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around

Cincinnati: 22%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
St. Louis: 21.6%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Miami: 19.7%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Minneapolis: 19%  decision to go carless and use transit, parking can be a hastle
New Orleans: 18.4%
Atlanta: 17.8%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Oakland: 17.8%   lots of poor people with access to transit, and lots of rich people with cars who still take the transit because they work in SF
Milwaukee: 17.5%   impoverished city can't afford car, but transit is largely sufficient to get around
Los Angeles: 17%   mix of lots of poor people, and no need/no parking
Seattle: 15.6%  decision to go carless and use transit, parking can be a hastle

Portland: 15%  decision to go carless and use transit, parking can be a hastle
Memphis: 12.5%  poor city, now you're getting into #s of people who cannot afford car, but transit not sufficient either
Denver: 12.4%  choice decision to go carless and use transit, parking can be a hastle
Louisville: 11.5%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Kansas City: 11.1%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Tampa: 10.9%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Columbus: 10.3%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Sacramento: 10.1%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Dallas: 10%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Houston: 9.9%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one

Las Vegas: 9.5%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
San Antonio: 9.5%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Phoenix: 9%   wealthy spawlville
El Paso: 8.8%   so much poverty here, suprised this number is as low as it is
Indianapolis: 8.7%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Jacksonville: 7.8%    cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Nashville: 7.8%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Charlotte: 7.6%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Austin: 7.2%   wealthy spawlville
San Diego: 7.2%   wealthy spawlville

Oklahoma City: 6.8%   cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
Ft. Worth: 6.7%  cheap/easy to own car, poor transit so you need one
San Jose: 5.4%  wealthy spawlville

[thelakelander]

What's your thoughts on Pittsburgh and New Orleans?

[simms3]

I don't know.  What are yours?

[thelakelander]

Both are dense enough that parking can be a hassle and their neighborhoods tend to have enough mix of uses that you can get around without a car if desired.

[thelakelander]

Another observation is that cities covering more land area tend to be at the bottom of the list.  In other words, Jacksonville would be a lot higher if it the 30 square mile old city never consolidated with nearly 800 square mile county.

[simms3]

^^^Wouldn't that likely mostly be due to poverty?  Folks in Riverside and San Marco, the two densest/most walkable neighborhoods with the best access to DT still have cars (often multiple), and frankly it seems like many/most people in NW Jax and the poorest areas still have cars.

[thelakelander]

Poverty and a change in urban context would both be major factors in a city like Jax as well as one like NYC. The scale of change just happens to be vastly different.  Nevertheless, anytime you pull in hundreds of miles of growing suburbs into the mix (ex. Jax, Nashville, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, San Diego, etc.), you're going to have greater percentages of car ownership.  Anytime, your burbs are separate municipalities (ex. Detroit, Miami, Cincinnati, St. Louis, etc.), your percentage of car ownership will be lower.

With that in mind, it would be interesting to the see the square mileage of each of the municipalities on the list.  That would illustrate how strong the link between land area and percentage of car ownership is.

[Keith-N-Jax]

I wouldn't call Miami transit largely sufficient, but for the most part this is a good read. I think more people in Atlanta could go carless but choose not to.

[thelakelander]

Yeah, this list doesn't say anything about each respective city's transit operations.  It just census data illustrating the % of households with no car ownership.

[Ocklawaha]

Pittsburgh is a transit 'sleeper'. A city with diverse mass transit options Light Rail/Subway, BRT busway, inclines, river, etc. The population is not unlike Medellin, where density is clustered around transit lines because all traffic runs through narrow valleys and canyons... which happens to be where the homes are.

New Orleans is fairly dense, sitting below sea level surrounded by water. Not unlike Pittsburgh's canyons, New Orleans entire population is either within the questionably safe low level bowl, or on one of the few above water line islands. Add a solid transit system (the nations oldest continuously operating system) and generations who grew up riding the system and you've got a pretty good formula for transit use. Add to this the awakening delivered by reconstruction of many original streetcar routes, and you can park the Tin Lizzie.

OKC, built on streetcars and interurbans has a VERY small transit bus system which doesn't even get to many of the city's boundaries let alone the booming suburbs like Guthrie, Yukon, Mustang, etc. and it doesn't operate on weekends for the most part. Hourly headways, and years of 'California Think' highway construction has reshaped the city. After rail service was eliminated in Oklahoma City and its environs, transit use fell 97 percent on a per capita basis.

[Tacachale]

Another observation is that cities covering more land area tend to be at the bottom of the list.  In other words, Jacksonville would be a lot higher if it the 30 square mile old city never consolidated with nearly 800 square mile county.

Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. Comparing cities like Pittsburgh, with 58.3 square miles, to Jacksonville with its 874 square miles, isn't all that instructive. However, I imagine that a good percentage of Jacksonville households without a car live within the 58.3 square miles around the urban core.

[Ocklawaha]

PITTSBURGH, yesterday we were discussing an opinion that MCI Express Coaches would have a 'rail like' ridership lets look at this interesting case:

Pittsburgh, offers an interesting study. Pittsburgh found that even with exclusive busways (freeways built just for buses) and new articulated buses and coaches, choice riders overwhelmingly prefer rail.

Two new exclusive busways have been built to speed bus travel. The South Busway opened first, parallel to one of the remaining rail lines. Ridership grew slightly during the 1980-1981 energy crisis, but by 1984, it had fallen off to a level lower than before the busway opened. The second busway, to the east, was completed in 1983. It provided a new EBA bus line, making ridership comparisons difficult, but the system load factor declined from 12 to 10.5 passenger-miles per bus mile despite the use of articulated buses on EBA. The promise of 80,000 passengers per weekday never materialized. Ridership is between 21,000 and 29,000 each weekday in the most densely populated area of the city and its suburbs

Two rail corridors were retained in Pittsburgh, with a plan to convert one of them into an automated guideway, but opposition blocked this federally funded effort. The two rail lines continued to operate, with patronage increasing from 20,000 per weekday after World War II to 24,000 by the time that the rail system was disrupted for reconstruction. This trend was diametrically opposed to the rest of the system. An alternatives analysis determined that light rail service should be provided. A new downtown subway replaced street operation. Ridership increased to nearly 30,000 each weekday, with little change in travel time. Data compiled by Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission reveal that rail ridership 10 miles from downtown is at the rate of 39 annual rides per capita. Bus travel is at the rate of 10 in the South Hills and 19 in the north, where there is no rail service.

SOURCE:
Newsline. Vol.14, No.7, December 1988, p.2.

.

[thelakelander]

Interesting. I noticed your source is from 1988. How do they compare today?

[simms3]

I'll take the time to break down the list by square mileage, density and % below poverty line tonight...maybe it can help draw conclusions because while of course these cities aren't apples to apples comparisons, I think that basically 1 or 2 of 3 or 4 major drivers accounts for the carless % in each one.

For instance, poverty does not drive the carless % in SF...SF has one of the lowest percentages of people living below the local poverty line of all cities in the country, but it is the 2 densest city behind NYC (which as a % does not have that many impoverished people either compared to say a Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Miami, etc) and 2nd or 3rd most expensive city to own a car behind NYC and maybe Boston.  Arguably its transit system is horrible for itself despite being more extensive than any system outside of NYC and maybe Boston...MUNI and BART are inadequate and leave major coverage gaps, which is probably part of the reason why so many commute by bike (in addition to mild weather year round and bike friendly streets).