The statistics for DC are probably skewed high, because it doesn't consider the suburbs which lie outside of the Beltway where the Metro does not reach. Many of the people who work in the Northern Virginia suburbs around DC commute from Richmond VA, or the Shenandoah Valley, communities where there is no public transportation linking them to their workplace.

I've seen this chart before, and one of the things I found most intriguing about it is how low the numbers are for Portland, which is considered sort of a New Urbanist transit nirvana in transit-geeky circles (and I consider myself a transit geek). Meanwhile, Baltimore, where I live, is largely considered a missed transit opportunity, someplace where (conventional wisdom has it) "nobody" takes transit. Yet we can see that Baltimore's transit use is significantly higher than Portland's! I do think (as Yglesias implies in his post) that part of the disconnect in perception is racial -- Portland is an overwhelmingly white city where relatively large numbers of whites ride the bus or train; in Baltimore, a majority black city, I'm often the only white person on the bus when I ride. Transit geeks being largely white (again, in my experinece), there's this sort of blindness, this sort of "oh, nobody I know rides the bus" that creeps in.

As someone who lives in OKC, let me tell you that chart understates the problem here greatly. After WWII, the city planners decided to make OKC the largest city, geographically, in the nation. It's currently somewhere at 3rd to 5th largest, geographically (or at least it was last time I checked). Now this means OKC has such horrible urban sprawl that livestock is actually raised inside the city limits. Seriously, I've been to farms inside the city limits. MetroTransit, our local bus company, has a fleet of 80 buses. For a city this size, it should have four times that number. Getting anywhere on the bus here takes more than an hour. That's if the bus isn't late, which they frequently are, or it didn't break down from being old and over used. Fairly little of the city even has sidewalks. To say you need a car to get around OKC is an understatement.

An acquaintance of mine has or had a blog about living in Oklahoma City without a car. I've encouraged him to comment with a link, and I hope he does. I lived in OKC for five years, and not only is it spread out, but even going short distances can be a hassle. Bikes are a rare sight, so drivers aren't used to seeing them and therefore are not gracious towards them. Sidewalks are rare outside residential zones.

Interestingly, every major city in Texas falls in that top-left corner, with only Austin outside (but barely) the magnified portion.

Another great example of the total wastefulness of american utterly trashy commercialised way of life. It is clear that the people are expected to have their own private car by default in this urban environment as a mean for transportation. How vain is that? And totally unfair for the people who do not have a car.

Or perhaps it is not just the corrupt elitist architecture of these yank areas, perhaps it is due to the fact that USA simply does not really have such old level of urbanisation that the layout for city structure would have been developed naturally around non-industrialised methods of transportation, so in modern age it would have be a necessity to engineer more public transportation based on how the city had developed to be in the old days. Well, that is just my theory. I guess the real reason is still the overly induvidualist wasteful american lifestyle that simply does not pay any thought to anything else but shopping malls and drive ways in terms of city architecture. It is like the entire usonian landscape has been whored out to private commercialism and its needs to create more value.

OK, America-bashing aside, I think everyone can agree that the utility of public transportation goes up as population density increases (and the cost goes down.) That's why cities, when trying to decide where the new bus routes go, use population density unserved by transit as the single biggest factor.

So, what I would like to see, is a chart showing cities' population density plotted against usage of public transportation. I think that on such a chart, NYC would no longer be an outlier, but one extreme of a general trend.

For instance, from Wikipedia (link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density), I see that the next major cities in the USA by population density are San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston. Look at where those lie on the graph. Sure looks like a general trend is emerging.

I encourage people, rather than politicizing charts like this, to come up with new and creative ways to interpreted the data.

Something is skewed with this data.

I've lived in both Seattle and Portland, and Portland by far has more walkers, bicyclist, busers, trolley and light rail riders. Seattle just got light rail this year- Portland has had it for many. Seattle has NOWHERE near as many bicyclists as Portland does.

This data is off.

Just another Portland resident chiming in--we've got an absolute ton of full-time bike commuters (myself included).

And the bus system ain't the greatest--I might give it more thought if every line here didn't stop running by about 1:30am.

This is something that's been touched on in some of these comments, but I think that this graph is less illuminating than it could be because it doesn't contain any data about why people are driving. There's a difference between a city with little public transit infrastructure (a sparse and ailing bus system in OKC, for example) and a city with more robust transit options where people simply opt not to use them (which I perceive as the problem in LA). Both may give the same result, seen on this type of graph, but they're totally different problems with different solutions.

.... bikes?

Anyway, I live in downtown Milwaukee and I have to say my car is a liability more than anything. I pay each month to park it, pay at meters, try to navigate streets that are always either under construction or snow. So I take the bus and use my car a couple of times a week to visit my SO who lives in a different part of town (15 minute drive).

But this is my individual experience. I imagine that life in the suburbs is very different, I wouldn't know as I never really go there. I could see that people who live in the 'burbs would have to take their cars to work. But where they park them is a mystery to me.

Hi
Thanks for Sharing.i agree with your points calculating the cost of auto transport quote is the easiest and fastest way to find a company that works for you. Prefer that company who provides a cost calculator before shipping.maldives speed boats