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

[simms3]

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.

Yes, this is true...but have you tried to live your life as a MARTA dependent?  It's probably the worst system in the country and has gained mucho notoriety.  There are basically 3 or 4 bus lines a young professional can safely take without feeling completely threatened and neither the trains nor the busses are reliable (and MARTA bus drivers are the rudest drivers I I think exist).  In fact, MARTA is in the process of committing suicide right now!  I'm sure if the state decided to grow up and help the system out and if all of the corruption and bad employees could be weeded out and if the system could be expanded and brought back to the reliance I at least enjoyed in '06-'08, then there might be a turnaround.  For the time being, I totally don't blame potential choice riders for avoding the system!

[Ocklawaha]

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

The recent surge in transit ridership has not changed the picture in Pittsburgh. Reflecting a national trend, Port Authority transit ridership increased by 6.2 percent in the first three months of the year, a national organization reported Monday.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, the authority provided 16.6 million rides on buses, light rail, inclines and paratransit service in the first quarter, nearly a million more than in the first quarter of 2011.

In April 2012, transit ridership was up by 10 percent compared with the same month in 2011. Light rail ridership was up 30 percent, boosted by the debut of the connector.

[simms3]

Density (I had % under poverty line and land area and comp froze, so will get around...maybe...to posting those, there was definitely some interesting stuff with poverty line)

As of 2011, according to the Census Bureau

Households in selected cities with no access to a vehicle:

New York: 55.1%  27,550
Boston: 36.1%    13,033
Washington DC: 36.1%   9,856
Philadelphia: 33.7%    11,379
San Francisco: 30.1%    17,179
Baltimore: 29.6%    7,671
Chicago: 26.4%    11,841
Pittsburgh: 26%     5,521
Cleveland: 24.3%    5,107
Detroit: 22.4%     5,144

Cincinnati: 22%     3,809
St. Louis: 21.6%    5,157
Miami: 19.7%    11,195
Minneapolis: 19%    7,088
New Orleans: 18.4%     2,029
Atlanta: 17.8%   3,154
Oakland: 17.8%     7,004
Milwaukee: 17.5%    6,145
Los Angeles: 17%      8,092
Seattle: 15.6%    7,250

Portland: 15%     4,375
Memphis: 12.5%      2,053
Denver: 12.4%     3,922
Louisville: 11.5%     1,836
Kansas City: 11.1%     1,459
Tampa: 10.9%     2,960
Columbus: 10.3%     3,624
Sacramento: 10.1%     4,822
Dallas: 10%    3,517
Houston: 9.9%    3,501

Las Vegas: 9.5%    4,298
San Antonio: 9.5%    2,879
Phoenix: 9%    2,797
El Paso: 8.8%    2,543
Indianapolis: 8.7%     2,270
Jacksonville: 7.8%     1,100
Nashville: 7.8%    1,265
Charlotte: 7.6%    2,457
Austin: 7.2%    2,653
San Diego: 7.2%   4,003

Oklahoma City: 6.8%    956
Ft. Worth: 6.7%    2,181
San Jose: 5.4%  5,358

[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.

Yes, this is true...but have you tried to live your life as a MARTA dependent?  It's probably the worst system in the country and has gained mucho notoriety.  There are basically 3 or 4 bus lines a young professional can safely take without feeling completely threatened and neither the trains nor the busses are reliable (and MARTA bus drivers are the rudest drivers I I think exist).  In fact, MARTA is in the process of committing suicide right now!  I'm sure if the state decided to grow up and help the system out and if all of the corruption and bad employees could be weeded out and if the system could be expanded and brought back to the reliance I at least enjoyed in '06-'08, then there might be a turnaround.  For the time being, I totally don't blame potential choice riders for avoding the system!

Depends on where you live I guess, when I lived in Doraville was without a car for 8 months, thank GOD for Marta. Was very easy to get to DeKalb Medical Center by train w/bus connection. NO matter where you live in Atlanta you shouldn't have to drive into downtown if you don't want to. DO you agree?

[simms3]

I don't know when you lived in Doraville, but MARTA train and bus service has been on the decline.  I would not want to rely on either if I didn't have to.  To put it simply, while every transit system in America has seen sweeping ridership increases and popularity over the past few years, MARTA has been the only system that hasn't, including on the heavy rail side.  They've had to cut funding.  It got to the point where I missed a flight and almost another because MARTA went single track - during rush hour I might add and the computer signs in the stations were either broken or turned off (as they always are now) so there was no warning, just a bunch of mad people waiting and checking their watches.  Safety has gone out the door.  The trains and especially busses reek of homeless people and personally, it's not the best system for those of us who put on a suit, carry a briefcase, and go to work.  I took it by choice more than anyone I personally knew (which isn't saying much because I'm part of the blessed anglo fratboy crowd of M3 drivers, LoL) merely because I was determined to try to be "urban" and carless when possible.  But I also had a couple of very bad experiences on MARTA, one of which landed me in the ER.  Just isn't a good system.  It's ghetto and stinky and unreliable and rife with corruption amongst its leadership.  There was a leader who once came and ran Muni here in SF, and someone I know who works for Muni mentioned they are still trying to "purge" themselves from that horrible leadership (the guy came and brought all of his MARTA cronies rather than use Muni folks...then bad shit happened to Muni and it still has a sort of bad rap).

[simms3]

% Below poverty line.  Red = at least 25% below poverty line for sure, Green = likely below 20% below poverty line for sure.  First number is Census 2007-2011 average.  Second number is Census 2009.

Interesting to note that the largest, densest cities are solidly above the poverty line possibly indicating "wealthier" captive riders who don't have a car merely because of the hastle/expense, or they are solidly impoverished cities where it's likely those without a car are poor.

Also interesting to note, in almost all of the cities there are fewer people without car than people below the poverty line, indicating that even the poor in America have cars.

Also interesting since Atlanta was brought up as "why don't more people choose transit"...considering Dallas' light rail line and Houston's bus system are touted as model systems, each city having about the same % of poor people, Atlanta has far more people with no access to a car (so does that mean poor people in Atlanta are even poorer or does it mean more people in Atlanta choose to go carless)?

The west coast cities are quite "non-poor"...look at SF (as I mentioned a couple days ago, there aren't many poor people in the city), Seattle, Portland, Oakland even despite its bad rap, and San Diego.  Also note that some of the city's smallest in land area and most concentrated cities have essentially squeezed out the poor (DC, NYC, Boston, SF).  Each of these cities is so expensive now (even relative to 5-10 years ago) that it's not poor people that don't have access to a car, it's young professionals pulling in 6 figures who still can't afford astronomical rent and the outrageous cost to own/park a car in the city.

As of 2011, according to the Census Bureau

Households in selected cities with no access to a vehicle:

New York: 55.1%    19.4%    20.7%
Boston: 36.1%     21.4%     21.1%
Washington DC: 36.1%    18.2%     21.6%
Philadelphia: 33.7%     25.6%     30.2%
San Francisco: 30.1%     12.3%     15.2%
Baltimore: 29.6%    22.4%     27.1%
Chicago: 26.4%      21.4%     27.5%
Pittsburgh: 26%     22.2%     28.1%
Cleveland: 24.3%      32.6%     41.5%
Detroit: 22.4%      36.2%      44.0%

Cincinnati: 22%     27.4%     32.2%
St. Louis: 21.6%     26.0%     32.4%
Miami: 19.7%     -----    34.8%
Minneapolis: 19%     22.3%     27.6%
New Orleans: 18.4%     25.7%    31.5%
Atlanta: 17.8%    23.2%     27.7%
Oakland: 17.8%     19.6%    22.8%
Milwaukee: 17.5%     -----     33.3%
Los Angeles: 17%      20.2%      25.9%
Seattle: 15.6%     13.2%      14.1%

Portland: 15%     16.8%      20.3%
Memphis: 12.5%      26.0%     33.3%
Denver: 12.4%     18.8%     24.2%
Louisville: 11.5%     17.5%     34.8%
Kansas City: 11.1%     18.2%     21.7%
Tampa: 10.9%    19.2%     24.8%
Columbus: 10.3%     21.8%       27.4%
Sacramento: 10.1%     ------      25.6%
Dallas: 10%     23.0%     30.5%
Houston: 9.9%      21.5%      27.9%

Las Vegas: 9.5%      14.9%     20.1%
San Antonio: 9.5%     19.2%      25.8%
Phoenix: 9%     20.3%     26.5%
El Paso: 8.8%     23.3%     30.8%
Indianapolis: 8.7%     18.9%     20.2%
Jacksonville: 7.8%       15.2%     20.2%
Nashville: 7.8%       18.2%      17.3%
Charlotte: 7.6%     15.0%     19.6%
Austin: 7.2%      18.5%     23.6%
San Diego: 7.2%      -----      18.7%

Oklahoma City: 6.8%      17.1%      23.5%
Ft. Worth: 6.7%      18.1%      24.9%
San Jose: 5.4%      11.1%      15.0%

[simms3]

City land area (water excluded).  Green = small and compact, red = large and consolidated and/or sprawled.  To Lakelander's point, definitely a corellation here, though I don't think small/compact land area is a causation of higher % without car as I think poverty, cost of car, density, public transit, etc can be causing factors.

As of 2011, according to the Census Bureau

Households in selected cities with no access to a vehicle:

New York: 55.1%      303
Boston: 36.1%      48
Washington DC: 36.1%     61
Philadelphia: 33.7%     134
San Francisco: 30.1%      47
Baltimore: 29.6%     81
Chicago: 26.4%      227
Pittsburgh: 26%      56
Cleveland: 24.3%     77
Detroit: 22.4%     139

Cincinnati: 22%     78
St. Louis: 21.6%    62
Miami: 19.7%      36
Minneapolis: 19%      55
New Orleans: 18.4%     169
Atlanta: 17.8%     133
Oakland: 17.8%      56
Milwaukee: 17.5%     96
Los Angeles: 17%      469
Seattle: 15.6%      84

Portland: 15%     133
Memphis: 12.5%     315
Denver: 12.4%      153
Louisville: 11.5%     325
Kansas City: 11.1%     314
Tampa: 10.9%     112
Columbus: 10.3%     217
Sacramento: 10.1%     97
Dallas: 10%     341
Houston: 9.9%      600

Las Vegas: 9.5%      136
San Antonio: 9.5%     461
Phoenix: 9%     517
El Paso: 8.8%     255
Indianapolis: 8.7%    361
Jacksonville: 7.8%     747
Nashville: 7.8%    475
Charlotte: 7.6%      298
Austin: 7.2%     298
San Diego: 7.2%     325

Oklahoma City: 6.8%     606
Ft. Worth: 6.7%     340
San Jose: 5.4%     177

[Tacachale]

Good stuff, Simms. It looks like larger land areas are definitely skewing the numbers. Jax's population includes a lot of people who would be outside the city limits in other cities, diluting the percentage who have no car. I expect Jacksonville would be more similar to, say, Tampa if we were only looking at a percentage of the people who live within 112 miles of the core. It would be even higher if we were only looking at the Old City.

[simms3]

^^^Yes, I think it would be higher, but considering the concentration of people below the poverty line in Jax reside within the original city limits, would "no access to a car" be a result of people willingly choosing transit/walking and not owning a car, or a result of poverty?

And to point out, while 15-20% of Jacksonville's entire population falls below the poverty line, only 8% have no access to a car.  Assuming only poor people have no access to a car, half or more than half of Jacksonville's residents below the poverty line have access to a car, which tells me that no matter the size of the city limits, unless Jax has a large bunch in the core who literally choose not to own a car and park for free but instead rely on JTA, then the numbers really aren't that skewed by land area.

[thelakelander]

Interesting numbers.  Here are two things to keep in mind:

1. The original numbers simply state percentage of households without a car.  It's not an indicator of good or bad transit in the cities listed.

2. Owning a car is very expensive.  Imagine your extra income if you didn't have to pay for the cost and upkeep of an automobile.  A certain percentage of those living in poverty probably wouldn't be in poverty if they were not forced to invest in a car to access jobs, services, school, etc.

[Tacachale]

Yes, I think it would be higher, but considering the concentration of people below the poverty line in Jax reside within the original city limits, would "no access to a car" be a result of people willingly choosing transit/walking and not owning a car, or a result of poverty?

And to point out, while 15-20% of Jacksonville's entire population falls below the poverty line, only 8% have no access to a car.  Assuming only poor people have no access to a car, half or more than half of Jacksonville's residents below the poverty line have access to a car, which tells me that no matter the size of the city limits, unless Jax has a large bunch in the core who literally choose not to own a car and park for free but instead rely on JTA, then the numbers really aren't that skewed by land area.

Poor or otherwise, it seems likely that a higher percentage of carless households in Jacksonville are in the urban core than any other area. But considering that much more suburban area is included in Jacksonville's figures than other cities, the numbers would be skewed somewhat.

Interesting numbers.  Here are two things to keep in mind:

2. Owning a car is very expensive.  Imagine your extra income if you didn't have to pay for the cost and upkeep of an automobile.  A certain percentage of those living in poverty probably wouldn't be in poverty if they were not forced to invest in a car to access jobs, services, school, etc.

Or even just reduce the number of cars below the American standard of over 2 per household. I know my wife and I save a lot of money sharing a car.

[simms3]

Good points, but another question I would have is if we truly think the percentage of Jax residents without access to a car will rise significantly with smaller city limits, take the following cities and ask if Jax would compare:

Sacramento - 97 square miles, 25% under poverty line, nearly 5,000 ppsm (significantly higher density than core of Jax), and with a light rail system and much better bus system - yet only 10.1% don't have access to a car (not to mention the city is more expensive to own a car than Jax).

Tampa - 112 square miles, 20-25% under poverty line, ~3,000 ppsm (comparable to Jax) yet only 10.9% without access to a car

Denver and Portland only 12-15% without access to a car and much higher densities and much better transit

I just don't buy the argument that Jacksonville's city limits size really skews the % without access to a car that much.  Considering that so many of Jacksonville's impoverished residents clearly have a car doesn't mean that shrinking the city limits results in more residents without a car.  People in Riverside and San Marco have cars.  Less than 5% of the population served by JTA takes transit (with only 42,000 riders in total across the city/northern Clay on busses maybe among the 150-230K people in Jax core that number rises to 10% taking transit daily), and I would be willing to bet that those are the people below the poverty line without access to a car, for the most part.

Lake, I do agree with your point that poor people are forced to have a car because we don't invset in transit.  That's kind of a crime.

[thelakelander]

Poor or otherwise, it seems likely that a higher percentage of carless households in Jacksonville are in the urban core than any other area. But considering that much more suburban area is included in Jacksonville's figures than other cities, the numbers would be skewed somewhat.

Yes, regardless of the other factors, discrepancies in land area alone will significantly skew most city comparisons in everything from poverty and percentage of car ownership to density and population growth.

[thelakelander]

Good points, but another question I would have is if we truly think the percentage of Jax residents without access to a car will rise significantly with smaller city limits, take the following cities and ask if Jax would compare:

Sacramento - 97 square miles, 25% under poverty line, nearly 5,000 ppsm (significantly higher density than core of Jax), and with a light rail system and much better bus system - yet only 10.1% don't have access to a car (not to mention the city is more expensive to own a car than Jax).

Tampa - 112 square miles, 20-25% under poverty line, ~3,000 ppsm (comparable to Jax) yet only 10.9% without access to a car

Denver and Portland only 12-15% without access to a car and much higher densities and much better transit

I just don't buy the argument that Jacksonville's city limits size really skews the % without access to a car that much.  Considering that so many of Jacksonville's impoverished residents clearly have a car doesn't mean that shrinking the city limits results in more residents without a car.  People in Riverside and San Marco have cars.  Less than 5% of the population served by JTA takes transit (with only 42,000 riders in total across the city/northern Clay on busses maybe among the 150-230K people in Jax core that number rises to 10% taking transit daily), and I would be willing to bet that those are the people below the poverty line without access to a car, for the most part.

Lake, I do agree with your point that poor people are forced to have a car because we don't invset in transit.  That's kind of a crime.

I'd consider Tampa's 10.9% over 112 square miles and Jacksonville's 7.8% over 747 square miles to be somewhat significant. Regarding comparisons to other cities, it's also important to evaluate the urban context within city limits, which is probably too much detail for what we're doing. 

In the case of Tampa, it's urban core is very similar in age and density to Jacksonville's.  While Jacksonville eventually merged with Duval, Tampa annexed the New Tampa area.  This would be similar to Jacksonville maintaining its old limits and annexing a large portion of the Southside.  Subtract New Tampa, and their percentage of households with no car would also increase. 

New fixed transit built in urban areas over the last 20 years is probably not a significant influence on overall city density.  Nearly every city of decent size got its peak 20th century density via growth around fixed rail (streetcars for the most part).  All newer rail systems are doing is turning around (or at least slowing) decades of population and density loss for cities that were built around rail in the first place.  Those cities that never got rid of those rail lines (and did not annex huge swaths of land), have maintained their early 20th century density levels for the most part.

It's very tough to compare municipal limits as apples to apples because you could literally perform this exercise with any community.  Take Detroit for example.  It's been boxed in by suburbs since WWII, so its boundary has not changed.  Yet, it's being compared head-to-head with communities that have either merged with their core counties or annexed considerable amounts of raw land since 1950.

[simms3]

^^^I don't consider a theoretical maximum 3-5% increase in carless population that significant when you're chopping off 80-90+% of the city limits to get to the very core.  I can maybe see Jacksonville mimicking Memphis - 12.5% carless at most if we really whittle down the city limits to the most urban/carless population.  Beyond that, then all of a sudden Jacksonville is matching Atlanta, Miami, Oakland, Seattle, Portland, LA, New Orleans, etc, which is more than highly unlikely.

Keep in mind that Dallas and Houston sprawl significantly, but have much more robust bus/rail in addition to much more densely populated sections of city in addition to likely a far larger carless population (considering that despite their sprawl and large populations and booming growth, 20-30% of residents fall below poverty line versus only 15-20% in similarly sprawly Jacksonville).  Dallas and Houston only have 10-11% carless population.