UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf ·...

27
U it dSt t United States Urban Transport St ti ti Statistics: A Compendium December 2008

Transcript of UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf ·...

Page 1: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

U it d St tUnited StatesUrban Transport

St ti tiStatistics:A Compendium

December 2008

Page 2: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

UNITED STATES URBAN TRANSPORT STATISTICS

A COMPENDIUM

CONTENTS

US Urban Personal Vehicle & Public Transport Market Share: 1900‐ 1USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50 Transit Markets 3USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: New York & Nation Compared 5USA Transit (Public Transport) Expenditures & Expenditures per Passenger Mile 6Federal Expenditures: Highways & Transit 8Federal Highway User Fee Expenditures: Highways & Transit 9USA Journey to Work Market Share: 2007 10

OTHER RESOURCES

Top 50 USA Downtowns (CBDs): Employment & Commuting: 2000     http://www.demographia.com/db‐cbd2000.pdfCost of Driving & Public Transport:          http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut‐drvg1960.htmRegional Plan Spending Relative to Transit Market Shares     http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut‐rplantransit.pdfNew York Employment and CommutingNew York Employment and Commuting     http://www.demographia.com/db‐nyc‐employ.pdfDiversion of Highway Travel to Traffic     http://www.demographia.com/db‐hwytrdiversion.pdf

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Document: http://www.demographia.com/

Cover Illustration:

New York, which comprises 43% of the nation's transit ridership and 39% of work trips by transit

Page 3: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

US Urban Personal Vehicle &

DATAPASSENGER

VEHICLE PASSENGER

PUBLIC TRANSPORT PASSENGER PERSONAL VEHICLE

ANNUAL CHANGE IN PERSONAL VEHICLE

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

US Urban Personal Vehicle &Public Transport Market Share from 1900

YEARPASSENGER

MILES PASSENGER

MILESPERSONAL VEHICLE

MARKET SHAREPERSONAL VEHICLE

MARKET SHARETRANSPORT

MARKET SHARE1900 - 19.3 0.00% NA 100.00%1905 0.4 28.0 1.45% NA 98.55%1910 2.4 36.8 6.23% 33.81% 93.77%1915 11.9 45.5 20.67% 27.09% 79.33%1920 52.0 52.5 49.75% 19.21% 50.25%1925 142.0 57.8 71.09% 7.40% 28.91%1930 229.5 61.3 78.94% 2.11% 21.06%1935 253.7 42.0 85.80% 1.68% 14.20%1940 279.3 45.9 85.90% 0.02% 14.10%1945 241.4 130.0 65.00% -5.42% 35.00%1950 403.0 90.0 81.74% 4.69% 18.26%1955 515.0 60.0 89.57% 1.84% 10.43%1960 627.0 48.0 92.89% 0.73% 7.11%1965 786.0 43.0 94.81% 0.41% 5.19%1965 786.0 43.0 94.81% 0.41% 5.19%1970 1,089.0 41.0 96.37% 0.33% 3.63%1975 1,270.6 38.0 97.10% 0.15% 2.90%1980 1,373.9 39.9 97.18% 0.02% 2.82%1981 1,399.3 38.5 97.32% 0.03% 2.68%1982 1,442.1 37.1 97.49% 0.03% 2.51%1983 1,492.5 37.6 97.54% 0.01% 2.46%1984 1,547.7 39.4 97.52% -0.01% 2.48%1985 1 594 8 39 6 97 58% 0 08% 2 42%1985 1,594.8 39.6 97.58% 0.08% 2.42%1986 1,638.0 40.2 97.60% 0.06% 2.40%1987 1,700.3 40.3 97.68% 0.04% 2.32%1988 1,781.7 40.6 97.77% 0.05% 2.23%1989 1,816.9 38.2 97.94% 0.09% 2.06%1990 1,959.0 38.0 98.10% 0.11% 1.90%1991 1,974.7 37.5 98.14% 0.01% 1.86%1992 2,075.6 37.2 98.24% 0.02% 1.76%1993 2 135 2 36 2 98 33% 0 02% 1 67%1993 2,135.2 36.2 98.33% 0.02% 1.67%1994 2,170.8 37.9 98.28% -0.01% 1.72%1995 2,184.8 38.0 98.29% 0.00% 1.71%1996 2,297.9 39.0 98.33% 0.01% 1.67%1997 2,377.8 40.2 98.34% 0.00% 1.66%1998 2,404.9 41.6 98.30% -0.01% 1.70%1999 2,445.8 43.3 98.26% -0.01% 1.74%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 1

Page 4: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC 

USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50 Urban Areas

Ranked by Public Transport Use

RANK URBAN AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTPERSONAL VEHICLE TOTAL

1 New York‐Newark, NY‐NJ‐CT 21,373                            178,552              199,924                 10.69%2 Chicago, IL‐IN 3,948                              101,069              105,017                 3.76%3 Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Santa Ana, CA 3,159                              170,890              174,049                 1.82%4 Washington, DC‐VA‐MD 2,590                              57,151                59,741                   4.34%5 San Francisco‐Oakland, CA 2,490                              49,058                51,548                   4.83%6 B t MA NH RI 1 742 54 511 56 253 3 10%

TRANSPORT  MARKET SHARE

6 Boston, MA‐NH‐RI 1,742                            54,511              56,253                  3.10%7 Philadelphia, PA‐NJ‐DE‐MD 1,580                              62,827                64,406                   2.45%8 Miami, FL 919                                  77,823                78,742                   1.17%9 Seattle, WA 881                                  41,673                42,554                   2.07%10 Atlanta, GA 872                                  73,893                74,765                   1.17%11 Houston, TX 524                                  60,964                61,488                   0.85%12 Denver‐Aurora, CO 516                                  30,798                31,314                   1.65%13 San Diego, CA 483                                39,970              40,452                  1.19%13 San Diego, CA 483                                39,970              40,452                  1.19%14 Baltimore, MD 461                                  30,756                31,217                   1.48%15 Dallas‐Fort Worth‐Arlington, TX 449                                  68,946                69,395                   0.65%16 Portland, OR‐WA 438                                  20,563                21,000                   2.08%17 Minneapolis‐St. Paul, MN 422                                  37,562                37,983                   1.11%18 Pittsburgh, PA 337                                  22,458                22,794                   1.48%19 Honolulu, HI 317                                  7,861                  8,178                     3.88%20 St. Louis, MO‐IL 276                                  39,516                39,792                   0.69%21 Detroit, MI 272                                  60,727                60,999                   0.45%22 Cleveland, OH 259                                  22,859                23,118                   1.12%23 Salt Lake City, UT 252                                  13,033                13,285                   1.90%24 Phoenix, AZ 244                                  45,854                46,098                   0.53%25 Las Vegas, NV 220                                  19,831                20,051                   1.10%26 San Jose, CA 218                                  21,521                21,739                   1.00%27 Sacramento, CA 162                                  20,345                20,507                   0.79%28 San Antonio TX 155 21 077 21 231 0 73%28 San Antonio, TX 155                                21,077              21,231                  0.73%29 Orlando, FL 146                                  26,137                26,283                   0.56%30 Milwaukee, WI 144                                  19,873                20,017                   0.72%31 Cincinnati, OH‐KY‐IN 143                                  24,121                24,264                   0.59%32 Austin, TX 126                                  13,258                13,384                   0.94%33 Tampa‐St. Petersburg, FL 125                                  38,173                38,297                   0.33%34 Riverside‐San Bernardino, CA 118                                  24,766                24,884                   0.48%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 2

Page 5: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

35 Providence, RI‐MA 108                                  15,927                16,036                   0.67%36 Virginia Beach, VA 93                                    21,037                21,130                   0.44%37 Charlotte, NC‐SC 89                                    17,771                17,860                   0.50%38 Buffalo, NY 83                                    12,413                12,496                   0.67%39 Hartford, CT 73                                    13,201                13,274                   0.55%40 Tucson, AZ 66                                    10,851                10,917                   0.61%41 Memphis, TN‐MS‐AR 62                                    15,710                15,771                   0.39%42 Kansas City, MO‐KS 62                                    25,689                25,751                   0.24%43 Jacksonville, FL 60                                    20,021                20,081                   0.30%44 El Paso, TX‐NM 59                                    8,233                  8,292                     0.72%45 Louisville KY IN 59 14 564 14 623 0 40%45 Louisville, KY‐IN 59                                  14,564              14,623                  0.40%46 Columbus, OH 56                                    18,249                18,306                   0.31%47 Fresno, CA 56                                    6,989                  7,044                     0.79%48 Albany, NY 47                                    9,542                  9,589                     0.49%49 Santa Clarita, CA 44                                    4,234                  4,278                     1.0%50 Indianapolis, IN 44                                    18,835                18,879                   0.23%

Top 50 Transit Urban Areas 47,395                          1,829,916        1,877,311            2.52%Top 50 Transit Urban Areas 47,395                          1,829,916        1,877,311            2.52%

All Others 2,455                            1,280,884        1,392,425            0.18%

Total 49,850                            3,110,800          3,269,736             1.52%

Passenger miles in millions (x 1,000,000)Estimated from US Department of Transportation data.Santa Clarita personal vehicle data estimated based upon similar communities (FHWA data is faulty)Santa Clarita personal vehicle data estimated based upon similar communities (FHWA data is faulty)

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut‐usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 3

Page 6: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

2000 2,505.4 43.4 98.30% 0.01% 1.70%2001 2,620.7 46.5 98.26% -0.01% 1.74%2002 2,668.7 45.9 98.31% 0.01% 1.69%2003 2 790 4 45 7 98 39% 0 02% 1 61%2003 2,790.4 45.7 98.39% 0.02% 1.61%2004 2,919.2 46.5 98.43% 0.01% 1.57%2005 3,022.0 46.4 98.49% 0.01% 1.51%2006 3,056.2 48.5 98.44% -0.01% 1.56%2007 (P) 3,110.8 49.9 98.42% 0.00% 1.58%

TRENDCHANGE IN CHANGE IN

PERIOD

CHANGE IN PASSENGER

VEHICLE PASSENGER

MILES (000,000,000)

CHANGE IN PUBLIC

TRANSPORT PASSENGER

MILES (000,000,000)

PERSONAL VEHICLE SHARE OF CHANGE

PASSENGER TRANSPORT SHARE

OF CHANE

CHANGE IN PERSONAL

VEHICLE MARKET SHARE

1900-1910 2.4 17.5 12.10% 87.90% NA1910-1920 49.5 15.8 75.90% 24.10% 698.00%1920 1930 177 6 8 8 95 30% 4 70% 58 67%1920-1930 177.6 8.8 95.30% 4.70% 58.67%1930-1940 49.8 -15.4 144.80% -44.80% 8.82%1940-1950 123.7 44.2 73.70% 26.30% -4.84%1950-1960 224.0 -42.0 123.10% -23.10% 13.63%1960-1970 462.0 -7.0 101.50% -1.50% 3.75%1970-1980 284.9 -1.1 100.40% -0.40% 0.84%1980-1990 585.1 -1.9 100.30% -0.30% 0.94%1990-2000 546.4 5.4 99.00% 1.00% 0.20%2000-2005 516.6 3.0 99.40% 0.60% 0.16%2000-2007 88.8 3.5 96.20% 3.80% 0.06%

All modes reported in National Transit Database except VanpoolPre-1920 personal vehicle data estimated based upon vehicle miles, vehicle and fuel data.

Data in Billions of Passenger Miles. Estimated from data in National Transportation Statistics, James Dunn, Driving Forces Table 4-3, FHWA Highway Statistics, National Transit Database and American Public Transportation Association.

Pre 1920 personal vehicle data estimated based upon vehicle miles, vehicle and fuel data.2007 personal vehicle passenger miles estimated from total urban figure

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 4

Page 7: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

USA Public Transport Market Share 2007:

URBAN AREA PUBLIC TRANSPORTPERSONAL VEHICLE TOTAL

PASSENGER MILESPUBLIC 

TRANSPORT  MARKET SHARE

Comparison: New York & the Nationp

NEW YORK 21,373                          178,552            199,924                10.69%

ALL OUTSIDE NEW YORK 28,477                          2,932,248        3,069,812            0.93%OTHER TOP 50 URBAN AREAS 26,022                          1,651,364        1,677,387            1.55%URBAN AREAS NOT IN TOP 50 2,455                            1,280,884        1,392,425            0.18%

NATIONAL 49,850                          3,110,800        3,269,736            1.52%

SHARE IN NEW YORK 43% 6% 6% 43%

Passenger miles in millions (x 1,000,000)Estimated from US Department of Transportation data.Santa Clarita personal vehicle data estimated based upon similar communities (FHWA data is faulty)

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut‐usa2007ann.pdfP i i l Sit h // d hi /Principal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 5

Page 8: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

USA Transit (Public Transport) Expenditures &

Year

Capital & Operating

Expenditures (Billions of

2006$)

Commercial Revenues

(Including Fares)Total

SubsidiesState & Local

SubsidiesFederal

Subsidies

Share of Expenditures

Paid by Commercial Revenues

Passenger Miles

(Billions)

Work Trip

Market Share

Expenditures per Passenger Mile (2006$)

Expenditures per Passenger MileInflation Adjusted (2006$)

1960 48.0 12.9%1961-1969 $56.9 $54.1 $2.9 -$0.2 $3.0 95.0%

1970 $11.2 $8.9 $2.3 $1.6 $0.7 79.3% 41.0 8.9% $0.271971 $11.2 $8.7 $2.5 $1.1 $1.4 77.7%1972 $12.2 $8.3 $3.9 $1.4 $2.5 68.2%1973 $14.7 $8.2 $6.5 $2.6 $3.9 55.5%1974 $15 3 $7 8 $7 5 $3 6 $3 9 50 9%1974 $15.3 $7.8 $7.5 $3.6 $3.9 50.9%1975 $14.9 $7.5 $7.4 $2.0 $5.4 50.3% 38.0 $0.391976 $17.0 $7.7 $9.3 $2.8 $6.5 45.1%1977 $18.6 $7.6 $11.0 $3.4 $7.6 40.7%1978 $17.2 $7.4 $9.9 $1.5 $8.4 42.7%1979 $18.0 $7.1 $10.9 $2.6 $8.2 39.3%1980 $18.7 $5.9 $12.8 $3.3 $9.6 31.4% 39.9 6.4% $0.471981 $21.3 $6.6 $14.7 $5.7 $9.0 30.9% 38.5 $0.551982 $23.1 $7.3 $15.8 $8.3 $7.5 31.6% 37.1 $0.621983 $24.9 $7.4 $17.6 $9.4 $8.2 29.5% 37.6 $0.661983 $24.9 $7.4 $17.6 $9.4 $8.2 29.5% 37.6 $0.661984 $25.6 $7.4 $18.2 $10.9 $7.4 28.7% 39.4 $0.651985 $26.0 $8.0 $18.0 $11.7 $6.4 30.6% 39.6 $0.661986 $27.2 $8.2 $19.0 $12.6 $6.4 30.1% 40.2 $0.681987 $28.0 $8.5 $19.6 $13.5 $6.1 30.2% 40.3 $0.701988 $28.1 $8.1 $20.0 $14.5 $5.5 28.9% 40.6 $0.691989 $27.8 $8.2 $19.6 $14.5 $5.1 29.4% 38.2 $0.731990 $29.0 $8.0 $20.9 $16.2 $4.7 27.8% 38.0 5.3% $0.761991 $30.2 $8.3 $21.8 $17.0 $4.8 27.6% 37.5 $0.801992 $31.4 $8.3 $23.2 $17.8 $5.4 26.2% 37.2 $0.851993 $29.7 $8.1 $21.6 $16.3 $5.3 27.4% 36.2 $0.821994 $32.9 $8.5 $24.4 $18.5 $6.0 25.8% 37.9 $0.871995 $34.0 $8.7 $25.4 $17.0 $8.3 25.4% 38.0 $0.901996 $33.4 $8.9 $24.5 $19.3 $5.2 26.5% 39.0 $0.861997 $33.5 $9.2 $24.3 $18.8 $5.5 27.4% 40.2 $0.831998 $34.1 $9.3 $24.7 $18.7 $6.0 27.4% 41.6 $0.821999 $34.6 $9.3 $25.2 $18.7 $6.5 27.0% 43.3 $0.802000 $37.3 $9.4 $27.9 $21.1 $6.8 25.2% 43.4 4.6% $0.862001 $37.4 $10.0 $27.4 $19.9 $7.5 26.7% 46.5 $0.802002 $42 0 $9 9 $32 1 $23 8 $8 4 23 5% 45 9 $0 912002 $42.0 $9.9 $32.1 $23.8 $8.4 23.5% 45.9 $0.912003 $45.7 $9.8 $35.8 $27.7 $8.2 21.6% 45.7 $1.002004 $47.2 $10.4 $36.8 $28.5 $8.3 22.1% 46.5 $1.012005 $46.0 $10.7 $35.2 $26.9 $8.4 23.3% 46.4 4.7% $0.992006 $46.3 $10.9 $35.4 $27.0 $8.6 23.5% 49.3 $0.94

Total $1,082.5 $366.2 $716.4 $479.8 $236.6 33.8%

In billions of 2006$

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 6

Page 9: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Subsidy Sources: In Preference as folllows based upon available data.1-US Bureau of the Census Government database or Government Finance Series (intermittent)2-Statistical Abstract of the United States (annual, data intermittent)3-APTA Fact Book (annual)( )

Transit Work Trip Market Share:Decennial US Census2005 US Bureau of the Census American Community Survey

1960s state & local subsidies are net of operating profits.

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 7

Page 10: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

FEDERAL EXPENDITURES (ALL)

Federal ExpendituresTransit & Highways: 2006

FEDERAL EXPENDITURES (ALL)

Expenditures in Billions

Passenger Miles in Billions

Expenditures per Passenger Mile

Relative to Highways

Highways & Streets $32.3 4,933.7 $0.0065 1.0 Transit (Public Transport) $8.6 49.3 $0.1743 26.6 Total $40.9 4,983.0 $0.0082 1.3

SHARE Expenditure Share Travel ShareHighways & Streets 79.0% 99.0%Transit (Public Transport) 21.0% 1.0%Total 100.0% 100.0%

Data from Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and Office of Management and

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

Budget

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 8

Page 11: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

HIGHWAY USER FEES

Federal Highway User Fee ExpendituresTransit & Highways: 2006

Expenditures in Billions

Passenger Miles in Billions

Expenditures per Passenger Mile

Relative to Highways

Highways & Streets $32.3 4,933.7 $0.0065 1.0 Public Transport $4.8 49.3 $0.0973 14.9 Total $37.1 4,983.0 $0.0074 1.1

SHARE Expenditure Share Travel ShareHighways & Streets 87% 99%Transit (Public Transport) 13% 1%Total 100% 100%

Highway user fees: Fees paid by drivers and commercial vehicle operators, generally fuel taxes.Data from Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administrationg y

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 9

Page 12: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

MARKET SHARE BY MODE

USA Transit Journey to Work Market Share: 2007 MARKET SHARE BY MODE

Metropolitan AreaPersonal Vehicle

Drive Alone Car Pool Transit

Work at Home Bicycle Walk Other

Personal Modes

Shared Modes

Akron, OH  MSA 92.7% 85.7% 7.0% 1.3% 2.9% 0.2% 2.0% 0.8% 91.7% 8.3%Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy, NY  MSA 88.4% 79.6% 8.9% 3.0% 3.7% 0.2% 3.4% 1.1% 88.1% 11.9%Albany Schenectady Troy, NY  MSA 88.4% 79.6% 8.9% 3.0% 3.7% 0.2% 3.4% 1.1% 88.1% 11.9%Albuquerque, NM  MSA 89.9% 78.0% 11.9% 1.6% 4.3% 0.6% 2.0% 1.6% 86.5% 13.5%Alexandria, LA  MSA 93.4% 82.6% 10.7% 1.1% 1.9% 0.1% 2.1% 1.5% 88.2% 11.8%Allegan, MI  MSA 92.4% 82.8% 9.6% 0.2% 4.2% 0.0% 2.2% 1.0% 90.2% 9.8%Allentown‐Bethlehem‐Easton, PA‐NJ  MSA 90.5% 81.5% 9.1% 2.2% 3.7% 0.1% 2.7% 0.8% 88.8% 11.2%Amarillo, TX  MSA 94.2% 82.0% 12.2% 0.1% 2.0% 0.2% 1.6% 1.9% 87.7% 12.3%Anchorage, AK  MSA 87.8% 74.3% 13.4% 1.2% 4.7% 1.1% 2.8% 2.4% 85.3% 14.7%Anchorage, AK  MSA 87.8% 74.3% 13.4% 1.2% 4.7% 1.1% 2.8% 2.4% 85.3% 14.7%Ann Arbor, MI  MSA 84.0% 76.2% 7.8% 3.5% 4.4% 1.0% 6.1% 1.0% 88.7% 11.3%Appleton, WI  MSA 90.9% 84.0% 6.9% 0.5% 3.7% 0.4% 3.2% 1.2% 92.5% 7.5%Asheville, NC  MSA 92.3% 78.7% 13.6% 0.8% 4.3% 0.3% 1.5% 0.9% 85.7% 14.3%Athens‐Clarke County, GA  MSA 87.4% 74.6% 12.8% 2.4% 4.7% 0.7% 3.7% 1.0% 84.8% 15.2%Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta, GA  MSA 88.4% 78.0% 10.4% 3.3% 5.0% 0.1% 1.4% 1.8% 86.3% 13.7%Atlantic City NJ MSA 82 4% 75 2% 7 2% 9 5% 3 3% 0 5% 2 9% 1 4% 83 3% 16 7%Atlantic City, NJ  MSA 82.4% 75.2% 7.2% 9.5% 3.3% 0.5% 2.9% 1.4% 83.3% 16.7%Auburn‐Opelika, AL  MSA 93.0% 81.1% 11.8% 0.7% 3.6% 0.4% 1.1% 1.1% 87.4% 12.6%Augusta‐Richmond County, GA‐SC  MSA 91.8% 80.7% 11.1% 0.8% 3.3% 0.3% 2.8% 1.0% 88.1% 11.9%Austin‐Round Rock, TX  MSA 88.0% 74.2% 13.8% 3.0% 5.2% 0.5% 1.7% 1.7% 83.2% 16.8%Bakersfield, CA  MSA 92.2% 75.4% 16.8% 1.4% 2.5% 0.4% 1.9% 1.6% 81.8% 18.2%Baltimore‐Towson, MD  MSA 86.4% 76.6% 9.8% 6.2% 3.6% 0.2% 2.9% 0.8% 84.1% 15.9%Bangor ME MSA 90 0% 79 7% 10 2% 0 9% 3 5% 0 1% 4 2% 1 3% 88 9% 11 1%Bangor, ME  MSA 90.0% 79.7% 10.2% 0.9% 3.5% 0.1% 4.2% 1.3% 88.9% 11.1%Barnstable Town, MA  MSA 90.0% 82.2% 7.8% 1.7% 5.2% 0.4% 2.4% 0.4% 90.5% 9.5%Baton Rouge, LA  MSA 93.3% 82.9% 10.4% 1.1% 3.0% 0.1% 1.7% 0.7% 88.5% 11.5%Battle Creek, MI  MSA 93.9% 84.1% 9.7% 0.4% 2.4% 0.4% 2.3% 0.6% 89.9% 10.1%Beaumont‐Port Arthur, TX  MSA 94.2% 83.6% 10.5% 0.6% 1.8% 0.1% 1.8% 1.5% 88.9% 11.1%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 10

Page 13: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Bellingham, WA  MSA 81.8% 72.6% 9.2% 3.1% 6.3% 2.0% 5.5% 1.2% 87.7% 12.3%Bend OR MSA 86 7% 76 3% 10 4% 0 7% 7 1% 2 1% 2 4% 1 0% 88 8% 11 2%Bend, OR  MSA 86.7% 76.3% 10.4% 0.7% 7.1% 2.1% 2.4% 1.0% 88.8% 11.2%Billings, MT  MSA 91.3% 79.9% 11.4% 1.7% 3.5% 0.4% 2.9% 0.2% 86.9% 13.1%Binghamton, NY  MSA 89.3% 81.0% 8.4% 2.0% 4.0% 0.4% 3.4% 0.9% 89.6% 10.4%Birmingham‐Hoover, AL  MSA 94.9% 83.6% 11.3% 0.6% 2.7% 0.1% 1.0% 0.7% 88.1% 11.9%Bismarck, ND  MSA 90.2% 78.3% 11.9% 0.8% 4.8% 0.6% 2.7% 1.0% 87.3% 12.7%Blacksburg‐Christiansburg‐Radford, VA  MSA 90.3% 76.7% 13.5% 1.4% 4.2% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5% 85.1% 14.9%Bl i t IN MSA 88 8% 79 8% 9 1% 2 6% 2 6% 0 4% 4 3% 1 3% 88 3% 11 7%Bloomington, IN  MSA 88.8% 79.8% 9.1% 2.6% 2.6% 0.4% 4.3% 1.3% 88.3% 11.7%Bloomington‐Normal, IL  MSA 86.2% 75.8% 10.5% 1.7% 4.0% 0.6% 5.6% 1.9% 87.9% 12.1%Boise City‐Nampa, ID  MSA 88.9% 78.4% 10.5% 0.4% 4.7% 1.5% 2.3% 2.2% 89.1% 10.9%Boston‐Cambridge‐Quincy, MA‐NH  MSA 77.6% 69.8% 7.8% 12.0% 4.2% 0.7% 4.7% 0.8% 80.2% 19.8%Boulder, CO  MSA 74.8% 65.4% 9.4% 6.1% 8.4% 3.8% 5.4% 1.5% 84.5% 15.5%Bowling Green, KY  MSA 92.7% 78.4% 14.3% 0.3% 1.6% 0.7% 2.3% 2.3% 85.4% 14.6%B MT MSA 82 9% 70 4% 12 4% 0 9% 6 9% 3 8% 4 8% 0 7% 86 7% 13 3%Bozeman, MT  MSA 82.9% 70.4% 12.4% 0.9% 6.9% 3.8% 4.8% 0.7% 86.7% 13.3%Brainerd, MN  MSA 87.5% 78.1% 9.5% 0.3% 7.1% 0.6% 3.6% 0.9% 90.2% 9.8%Bremerton‐Silverdale, WA  MSA 80.3% 69.2% 11.1% 7.8% 5.9% 0.8% 3.5% 1.7% 81.1% 18.9%Bridgeport‐Stamford‐Norwalk, CT  MSA 80.7% 74.1% 6.5% 9.5% 4.8% 0.2% 3.5% 1.4% 84.0% 16.0%Brownsville‐Harlingen, TX  MSA 91.1% 77.1% 14.1% 0.5% 2.8% 0.1% 2.9% 2.5% 85.4% 14.6%Buffalo‐Niagara Falls, NY  MSA 90.1% 82.0% 8.1% 3.3% 2.5% 0.3% 3.0% 0.9% 88.6% 11.4%Burlington‐South Burlington, VT  MSA 84.4% 73.2% 11.2% 1.8% 5.1% 1.2% 6.3% 1.3% 87.1% 12.9%Canton‐Massillon, OH  MSA 93.6% 85.8% 7.7% 1.3% 2.6% 0.2% 1.9% 0.4% 91.0% 9.0%Cape Coral‐Fort Myers, FL  MSA 91.5% 77.1% 14.5% 1.2% 4.7% 0.3% 1.0% 1.3% 84.4% 15.6%Cedar Rapids, IA  MSA 91.0% 83.0% 8.0% 1.0% 3.3% 0.4% 3.4% 0.9% 90.9% 9.1%Chambersburg, PA  MSA 92.0% 79.1% 13.0% 0.4% 3.8% 0.3% 2.1% 1.4% 86.6% 13.4%Champaign‐Urbana, IL  MSA 79.9% 71.1% 8.8% 5.1% 2.9% 2.6% 8.8% 0.7% 86.1% 13.9%Charleston, WV  MSA 92.1% 82.2% 9.9% 2.0% 3.1% 0.2% 1.8% 0.7% 88.1% 11.9%Charleston‐North Charleston, SC  MSA 90.0% 81.4% 8.5% 1.6% 4.0% 0.3% 2.9% 1.2% 89.9% 10.1%Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Concord, NC‐SC  MSA 91.3% 80.5% 10.7% 1.8% 4.1% 0.1% 1.4% 1.4% 87.5% 12.5%Charlottesville, VA  MSA 82.1% 69.0% 13.1% 2.9% 9.1% 0.4% 4.8% 0.8% 84.1% 15.9%Chattanooga, TN‐GA  MSA 93.0% 82.7% 10.3% 1.4% 3.1% 0.1% 1.6% 0.8% 88.3% 11.7%Chicago‐Naperville‐Joliet, IL‐IN‐WI  MSA 80.3% 71.2% 9.1% 11.5% 3.7% 0.5% 3.0% 1.0% 79.4% 20.6%g p ,Chico, CA  MSA 85.7% 76.6% 9.2% 2.3% 4.5% 3.8% 2.8% 0.9% 88.6% 11.4%Cincinnati‐Middletown, OH‐KY‐IN  MSA 90.9% 82.4% 8.5% 2.7% 3.5% 0.1% 2.2% 0.6% 88.7% 11.3%Clarksville, TN‐KY  MSA 92.1% 82.2% 9.9% 0.3% 2.8% 0.1% 3.7% 0.9% 89.8% 10.2%Cleveland‐Elyria‐Mentor, OH  MSA 89.4% 82.1% 7.3% 4.2% 3.4% 0.3% 1.9% 0.8% 88.5% 11.5%Coeur d'Alene, ID  MSA 90.3% 79.0% 11.2% 0.1% 5.0% 1.4% 1.3% 1.9% 88.6% 11.4%College Station‐Bryan, TX  MSA 90.1% 77.6% 12.5% 1.5% 3.6% 1.5% 1.9% 1.4% 86.0% 14.0%College Station Bryan, TX  MSA 90.1% 77.6% 12.5% 1.5% 3.6% 1.5% 1.9% 1.4% 86.0% 14.0%Colorado Springs, CO  MSA 87.2% 76.9% 10.3% 1.3% 5.5% 0.2% 4.2% 1.6% 88.4% 11.6%Columbia, MO  MSA 89.6% 75.4% 14.2% 0.7% 3.7% 1.1% 3.5% 1.5% 85.1% 14.9%Columbia, SC  MSA 89.0% 78.0% 11.1% 0.9% 6.7% 0.2% 1.4% 1.7% 88.0% 12.0%Columbus, GA‐AL  MSA 88.4% 77.1% 11.3% 0.3% 8.7% 0.0% 1.4% 1.1% 88.4% 11.6%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 11

Page 14: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Columbus, OH  MSA 90.5% 82.2% 8.4% 1.6% 4.6% 0.4% 2.1% 0.8% 90.1% 9.9%Corning NY MSA 89 7% 79 8% 9 9% 0 5% 4 6% 0 3% 3 8% 1 2% 89 7% 10 3%Corning, NY  MSA 89.7% 79.8% 9.9% 0.5% 4.6% 0.3% 3.8% 1.2% 89.7% 10.3%Corpus Christi, TX  MSA 91.9% 78.4% 13.5% 1.3% 2.1% 0.2% 1.6% 3.0% 85.2% 14.8%Corvallis, OR  MSA 80.3% 67.3% 13.0% 1.5% 4.1% 5.7% 7.9% 0.5% 85.6% 14.4%Dallas‐Fort Worth‐Arlington, TX  MSA 91.6% 80.7% 10.9% 1.6% 4.1% 0.2% 1.1% 1.4% 87.5% 12.5%Davenport‐Moline‐Rock Island, IA‐IL  MSA 92.8% 83.3% 9.5% 0.7% 3.3% 0.2% 2.4% 0.6% 89.9% 10.1%Dayton, OH  MSA 91.5% 83.3% 8.2% 1.8% 2.9% 0.4% 2.8% 0.7% 90.0% 10.0%D t IL MSA 93 9% 86 7% 7 2% 1 1% 2 5% 0 1% 1 4% 1 0% 91 7% 8 3%Decatur, IL  MSA 93.9% 86.7% 7.2% 1.1% 2.5% 0.1% 1.4% 1.0% 91.7% 8.3%Deltona‐Daytona Beach‐Ormond Beach, FL  MSA 90.1% 81.0% 9.1% 0.5% 4.9% 0.6% 2.2% 1.6% 90.4% 9.6%Denver‐Aurora, CO  MSA 85.4% 75.6% 9.8% 4.7% 5.8% 0.7% 2.3% 1.1% 85.5% 14.5%Des Moines‐West Des Moines, IA  MSA 91.7% 81.7% 10.0% 1.7% 3.6% 0.1% 2.1% 0.9% 88.3% 11.7%Detroit‐Warren‐Livonia, MI  MSA 93.1% 84.8% 8.3% 1.5% 2.8% 0.2% 1.5% 0.8% 90.2% 9.8%Dothan, AL  MSA 95.1% 87.4% 7.7% 0.1% 1.9% 0.1% 0.5% 2.1% 92.1% 7.9%D DE MSA 93 2% 81 1% 12 1% 1 4% 1 9% 0 7% 1 8% 1 0% 86 4% 13 6%Dover, DE  MSA 93.2% 81.1% 12.1% 1.4% 1.9% 0.7% 1.8% 1.0% 86.4% 13.6%Duluth, MN‐WI  MSA 89.4% 79.7% 9.7% 1.9% 4.2% 0.5% 3.6% 0.5% 88.4% 11.6%Durham, NC  MSA 86.9% 73.7% 13.1% 4.2% 4.6% 0.4% 3.0% 0.9% 82.7% 17.3%Eau Claire, WI  MSA 87.6% 78.7% 8.9% 1.3% 4.3% 0.7% 4.8% 1.3% 89.9% 10.1%El Centro, CA  MSA 90.2% 76.0% 14.2% 1.1% 3.5% 0.5% 3.8% 0.9% 84.7% 15.3%El Paso, TX  MSA 90.4% 79.7% 10.7% 2.0% 2.7% 0.1% 2.2% 2.6% 87.3% 12.7%Elkhart‐Goshen, IN  MSA 92.0% 77.9% 14.1% 0.4% 2.4% 1.7% 2.2% 1.3% 85.6% 14.4%Erie, PA  MSA 88.9% 79.4% 9.5% 2.1% 2.7% 0.2% 5.3% 0.8% 88.4% 11.6%Eugene‐Springfield, OR  MSA 82.0% 72.5% 9.5% 3.5% 5.8% 4.3% 3.9% 0.6% 87.1% 12.9%Eureka‐Arcata‐Fortuna, CA  MSA 83.1% 70.9% 12.2% 1.8% 7.1% 2.4% 5.1% 0.4% 85.9% 14.1%Evansville, IN‐KY  MSA 95.0% 87.1% 7.9% 0.6% 2.3% 0.1% 1.1% 0.9% 91.5% 8.5%Fairbanks, AK  MSA 83.0% 69.5% 13.5% 1.0% 8.7% 1.4% 4.9% 1.0% 85.5% 14.5%Fargo, ND‐MN  MSA 89.5% 81.2% 8.3% 1.0% 3.6% 0.8% 4.3% 0.8% 90.6% 9.4%Fayetteville, NC  MSA 92.5% 82.0% 10.5% 0.5% 3.5% 0.1% 1.9% 1.5% 89.0% 11.0%Fayetteville‐Springdale‐Rogers, AR‐MO  MSA 93.3% 80.6% 12.7% 0.3% 3.0% 0.2% 1.9% 1.3% 87.0% 13.0%Flagstaff, AZ  MSA 80.7% 68.3% 12.4% 0.5% 7.0% 2.4% 7.3% 2.1% 87.1% 12.9%Flint, MI  MSA 94.6% 85.3% 9.3% 0.6% 2.7% 0.1% 1.0% 0.9% 90.0% 10.0%Florence, SC  MSA 94.0% 81.9% 12.1% 0.4% 2.7% 0.4% 1.7% 0.7% 87.5% 12.5%,Fond du Lac, WI  MSA 90.6% 81.4% 9.2% 0.3% 4.7% 0.4% 2.9% 1.2% 90.5% 9.5%Fort Collins‐Loveland, CO  MSA 84.8% 76.4% 8.4% 0.8% 6.9% 2.8% 3.3% 1.4% 90.9% 9.1%Fort Smith, AR‐OK  MSA 94.1% 80.9% 13.3% 0.2% 3.5% 0.3% 1.1% 0.7% 86.5% 13.5%Fort Walton Beach‐Crestview‐Destin, FL  MSA 92.0% 82.1% 9.9% 0.2% 3.6% 0.9% 1.4% 1.9% 89.9% 10.1%Fort Wayne, IN  MSA 94.1% 85.1% 8.9% 0.6% 3.3% 0.3% 0.9% 0.9% 90.5% 9.5%Fresno, CA  MSA 89.3% 76.0% 13.4% 1.5% 3.4% 0.5% 2.0% 3.2% 85.1% 14.9%Fresno, CA  MSA 89.3% 76.0% 13.4% 1.5% 3.4% 0.5% 2.0% 3.2% 85.1% 14.9%Gainesville, FL  MSA 88.1% 75.9% 12.2% 3.1% 2.3% 2.3% 3.2% 1.0% 84.7% 15.3%Gainesville, GA  MSA 92.1% 76.9% 15.2% 0.1% 3.1% 0.1% 0.8% 3.8% 84.7% 15.3%Glens Falls, NY  MSA 89.0% 77.7% 11.4% 1.1% 4.7% 0.2% 3.4% 1.6% 87.5% 12.5%Grand Forks, ND‐MN  MSA 90.5% 81.7% 8.8% 0.8% 3.6% 0.6% 3.6% 0.9% 90.4% 9.6%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 12

Page 15: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Grand Junction, CO  MSA 89.6% 75.2% 14.4% 0.2% 5.1% 1.1% 2.2% 1.7% 85.3% 14.7%Grand Rapids Wyoming MI MSA 91 4% 82 2% 9 2% 1 3% 4 2% 0 6% 1 9% 0 6% 89 5% 10 5%Grand Rapids‐Wyoming, MI  MSA 91.4% 82.2% 9.2% 1.3% 4.2% 0.6% 1.9% 0.6% 89.5% 10.5%Great Falls, MT  MSA 88.7% 79.6% 9.1% 2.9% 3.1% 0.4% 3.3% 1.5% 88.0% 12.0%Greeley, CO  MSA 90.2% 79.9% 10.2% 0.5% 3.9% 0.6% 2.8% 2.0% 89.3% 10.7%Green Bay, WI  MSA 91.2% 83.9% 7.3% 1.0% 2.8% 0.3% 2.7% 2.1% 91.7% 8.3%Greensboro‐High Point, NC  MSA 93.2% 83.0% 10.2% 0.7% 3.3% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% 89.1% 10.9%Greenville‐Mauldin‐Easley, SC  MSA 92.1% 81.3% 10.8% 0.6% 3.8% 0.1% 2.3% 1.1% 88.6% 11.4%G lf t Bil i MS MSA 89 6% 78 6% 10 9% 0 6% 3 7% 0 2% 3 5% 2 5% 88 5% 11 5%Gulfport‐Biloxi, MS  MSA 89.6% 78.6% 10.9% 0.6% 3.7% 0.2% 3.5% 2.5% 88.5% 11.5%Hagerstown‐Martinsburg, MD‐WV  MSA 93.8% 81.2% 12.6% 1.4% 1.7% 0.2% 2.0% 1.0% 86.1% 13.9%Hanford‐Corcoran, CA  MSA 86.2% 70.9% 15.2% 0.7% 3.5% 0.5% 6.0% 3.2% 84.1% 15.9%Harrisburg‐Carlisle, PA  MSA 89.3% 79.2% 10.2% 1.3% 3.3% 0.3% 4.4% 1.4% 88.5% 11.5%Harrisonburg, VA  MSA 86.8% 77.7% 9.1% 0.6% 5.2% 0.8% 4.6% 2.0% 90.3% 9.7%Hartford‐West Hartford‐East Hartford, CT  MSA 89.8% 82.0% 7.8% 2.8% 3.7% 0.3% 2.4% 1.0% 89.4% 10.6%Hi k L i M NC MSA 94 6% 83 5% 11 0% 0 2% 3 0% 0 3% 1 1% 0 9% 88 8% 11 2%Hickory‐Lenoir‐Morganton, NC  MSA 94.6% 83.5% 11.0% 0.2% 3.0% 0.3% 1.1% 0.9% 88.8% 11.2%Hilo, HI  MSA 87.0% 69.4% 17.5% 1.4% 7.3% 0.4% 2.3% 1.7% 81.1% 18.9%Hilton Head Island‐Beaufort, SC  MSA 90.3% 74.0% 16.4% 0.1% 5.3% 0.1% 2.4% 1.8% 83.5% 16.5%Holland‐Grand Haven, MI  MSA 91.3% 84.0% 7.3% 0.7% 3.6% 0.1% 3.6% 0.6% 92.0% 8.0%Honolulu, HI  MSA 81.7% 66.1% 15.6% 7.6% 3.2% 0.6% 5.1% 1.8% 76.8% 23.2%Houma‐Bayou Cane‐Thibodaux, LA  MSA 92.5% 81.1% 11.4% 0.8% 2.6% 0.0% 0.9% 3.2% 87.8% 12.2%Houston‐Sugar Land‐Baytown, TX  MSA 90.7% 78.5% 12.2% 2.6% 3.3% 0.3% 1.5% 1.6% 85.1% 14.9%Huntington‐Ashland, WV‐KY‐OH  MSA 91.8% 80.8% 11.0% 1.2% 2.0% 0.2% 2.9% 1.9% 87.8% 12.2%Huntsville, AL  MSA 96.0% 85.8% 10.2% 0.3% 2.2% 0.0% 0.9% 0.7% 89.5% 10.5%Idaho Falls, ID  MSA 89.7% 74.5% 15.1% 3.2% 3.5% 0.8% 1.9% 0.9% 81.6% 18.4%Indianapolis‐Carmel, IN  MSA 93.2% 84.0% 9.2% 0.8% 3.4% 0.1% 1.6% 0.8% 90.0% 10.0%Iowa City, IA  MSA 80.1% 69.1% 11.0% 4.3% 5.5% 1.5% 7.1% 1.4% 84.7% 15.3%Jackson, MI  MSA 93.2% 86.2% 7.0% 0.4% 3.4% 0.0% 2.1% 0.8% 92.5% 7.5%Jackson, MS  MSA 94.1% 84.2% 9.9% 0.4% 2.7% 0.1% 1.1% 1.6% 89.7% 10.3%Jacksonville, FL  MSA 92.4% 82.5% 10.0% 1.1% 3.3% 0.4% 1.3% 1.5% 88.9% 11.1%Jacksonville, NC  MSA 73.7% 59.3% 14.5% 0.5% 14.6% 0.3% 9.4% 1.5% 85.0% 15.0%Jamestown‐Dunkirk‐Fredonia, NY  MSA 89.9% 80.4% 9.5% 0.3% 3.2% 0.5% 4.7% 1.4% 90.2% 9.8%Janesville, WI  MSA 93.0% 81.5% 11.4% 0.5% 3.6% 0.1% 2.4% 0.5% 88.1% 11.9%,Jefferson City, MO  MSA 93.5% 80.5% 13.0% 0.6% 3.2% 0.0% 1.8% 0.8% 86.4% 13.6%Johnstown, PA  MSA 93.7% 82.5% 11.2% 0.8% 2.1% 0.1% 2.9% 0.4% 88.0% 12.0%Joplin, MO  MSA 89.6% 76.7% 12.9% 0.1% 4.2% 0.6% 3.8% 1.7% 87.0% 13.0%Kahului‐Wailuku, HI  MSA 85.8% 73.2% 12.6% 0.5% 6.2% 0.9% 3.7% 2.9% 86.9% 13.1%Kalamazoo‐Portage, MI  MSA 92.1% 83.1% 9.0% 0.7% 3.1% 0.4% 2.4% 1.3% 90.3% 9.7%Kankakee‐Bradley, IL  MSA 91.3% 77.2% 14.1% 2.3% 2.3% 0.2% 2.7% 1.2% 83.5% 16.5%Kankakee Bradley, IL  MSA 91.3% 77.2% 14.1% 2.3% 2.3% 0.2% 2.7% 1.2% 83.5% 16.5%Kansas City, MO‐KS  MSA 92.2% 83.6% 8.6% 1.3% 3.7% 0.1% 1.5% 1.1% 90.1% 9.9%Kennewick‐Richland‐Pasco, WA  MSA 90.4% 76.6% 13.9% 2.4% 4.0% 0.3% 1.9% 1.0% 83.8% 16.2%Killeen‐Temple‐Fort Hood, TX  MSA 90.9% 78.5% 12.4% 0.4% 2.9% 0.1% 3.8% 1.8% 87.2% 12.8%Kingsport‐Bristol‐Bristol, TN‐VA  MSA 94.7% 85.7% 9.0% 0.2% 2.5% 0.0% 1.8% 0.8% 90.8% 9.2%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 13

Page 16: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Kingston, NY  MSA 85.8% 79.3% 6.5% 3.1% 5.5% 0.5% 4.2% 0.9% 90.4% 9.6%Knoxville TN MSA 94 1% 84 5% 9 6% 0 5% 2 9% 0 1% 1 7% 0 8% 89 9% 10 1%Knoxville, TN  MSA 94.1% 84.5% 9.6% 0.5% 2.9% 0.1% 1.7% 0.8% 89.9% 10.1%La Crosse, WI‐MN  MSA 89.4% 80.9% 8.4% 0.8% 4.8% 0.8% 3.5% 0.8% 90.8% 9.2%Lafayette, IN  MSA 85.9% 77.0% 8.9% 2.6% 5.2% 0.9% 4.6% 0.7% 88.5% 11.5%Lafayette, LA  MSA 94.0% 84.4% 9.6% 0.8% 2.0% 0.3% 2.1% 0.9% 89.6% 10.4%Lake Charles, LA  MSA 95.0% 82.6% 12.4% 0.1% 2.0% 0.1% 1.3% 1.4% 87.5% 12.5%Lakeland, FL  MSA 93.5% 82.3% 11.3% 0.7% 2.0% 0.2% 1.0% 2.6% 88.1% 11.9%L t PA MSA 87 8% 79 5% 8 3% 1 2% 5 6% 0 6% 3 3% 1 4% 90 5% 9 5%Lancaster, PA  MSA 87.8% 79.5% 8.3% 1.2% 5.6% 0.6% 3.3% 1.4% 90.5% 9.5%Lansing‐East Lansing, MI  MSA 89.8% 81.1% 8.7% 1.5% 3.5% 0.5% 4.2% 0.5% 89.7% 10.3%Laredo, TX  MSA 88.8% 72.9% 15.9% 1.9% 5.3% 0.2% 2.9% 0.9% 82.2% 17.8%Las Cruces, NM  MSA 90.7% 78.5% 12.1% 0.3% 5.1% 0.7% 2.6% 0.7% 87.6% 12.4%Las Vegas‐Paradise, NV  MSA 90.0% 78.8% 11.3% 3.6% 2.7% 0.5% 2.0% 1.2% 85.2% 14.8%Lawrence, KS  MSA 85.4% 74.8% 10.6% 1.2% 3.8% 1.8% 7.1% 0.6% 88.2% 11.8%L OK MSA 86 4% 73 4% 13 0% 0 7% 8 0% 0 2% 2 1% 2 5% 86 3% 13 7%Lawton, OK  MSA 86.4% 73.4% 13.0% 0.7% 8.0% 0.2% 2.1% 2.5% 86.3% 13.7%Lebanon, NH‐VT  MSA 86.3% 75.7% 10.6% 0.4% 6.2% 0.2% 5.4% 1.5% 89.0% 11.0%Lebanon, PA  MSA 93.2% 82.3% 10.9% 0.8% 2.7% 0.1% 2.7% 0.5% 88.3% 11.7%Lexington‐Fayette, KY  MSA 91.0% 79.9% 11.1% 1.3% 3.6% 0.7% 2.6% 0.8% 87.6% 12.4%Lincoln, NE  MSA 89.7% 80.7% 9.0% 1.7% 3.4% 1.9% 2.6% 0.7% 89.3% 10.7%Little Rock‐North Little Rock‐Conway, AR  MSA 93.5% 81.4% 12.1% 0.8% 3.3% 0.1% 1.5% 0.9% 87.1% 12.9%Logan, UT‐ID  MSA 81.9% 68.1% 13.8% 1.9% 6.2% 2.3% 6.6% 1.0% 84.2% 15.8%Longview, TX  MSA 91.4% 80.1% 11.3% 0.5% 3.9% 0.1% 1.8% 2.3% 88.2% 11.8%Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Santa Ana, CA  MSA 84.8% 74.0% 10.9% 6.1% 4.4% 0.7% 2.6% 1.3% 83.0% 17.0%Louisville‐Jefferson County, KY‐IN  MSA 92.5% 82.4% 10.1% 2.2% 2.6% 0.2% 1.8% 0.7% 87.8% 12.2%Lubbock, TX  MSA 92.8% 81.1% 11.7% 0.7% 2.7% 0.3% 2.7% 0.8% 87.6% 12.4%Lynchburg, VA  MSA 93.4% 82.8% 10.6% 0.7% 3.2% 0.0% 1.9% 0.7% 88.6% 11.4%Macon, GA  MSA 92.5% 81.8% 10.7% 1.0% 3.7% 0.0% 1.8% 1.0% 88.3% 11.7%Madison, WI  MSA 85.2% 74.3% 10.9% 3.3% 4.2% 2.0% 4.7% 0.6% 85.8% 14.2%Manchester‐Nashua, NH  MSA 90.5% 81.9% 8.6% 0.8% 4.8% 0.4% 2.7% 0.8% 90.7% 9.3%Manitowoc, WI  MSA 89.0% 79.5% 9.4% 0.7% 5.3% 1.2% 2.6% 1.2% 89.9% 10.1%Mankato‐North Mankato, MN  MSA 87.8% 79.1% 8.6% 1.2% 5.4% 0.7% 4.1% 0.8% 90.1% 9.9%McAllen‐Edinburg‐Mission, TX  MSA 91.1% 76.5% 14.6% 0.3% 3.4% 0.2% 1.3% 3.7% 85.1% 14.9%g ,Meadville, PA  MSA 84.0% 74.2% 9.8% 1.0% 5.3% 0.4% 7.8% 1.5% 89.2% 10.8%Medford, OR  MSA 87.8% 78.5% 9.3% 0.3% 5.4% 2.5% 3.0% 1.0% 90.4% 9.6%Memphis, TN‐MS‐AR  MSA 93.4% 83.6% 9.7% 1.4% 2.2% 0.4% 1.8% 0.7% 88.9% 11.1%Merced, CA  MSA 85.8% 71.5% 14.3% 0.8% 3.1% 1.0% 4.5% 4.8% 84.9% 15.1%Miami‐Fort Lauderdale‐Pompano Beach, FL  MSA 88.3% 78.5% 9.8% 3.7% 4.2% 0.4% 1.8% 1.6% 86.5% 13.5%Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐West Allis, WI  MSA 89.5% 81.0% 8.6% 3.6% 3.1% 0.5% 2.5% 0.8% 87.8% 12.2%Milwaukee Waukesha West Allis, WI  MSA 89.5% 81.0% 8.6% 3.6% 3.1% 0.5% 2.5% 0.8% 87.8% 12.2%Minneapolis‐St. Paul‐Bloomington, MN‐WI  MSA 87.1% 78.3% 8.8% 4.2% 4.8% 0.7% 2.3% 0.9% 86.9% 13.1%Missoula, MT  MSA 82.0% 73.8% 8.2% 1.6% 8.1% 3.6% 3.0% 1.7% 90.2% 9.8%Mobile, AL  MSA 93.6% 82.9% 10.7% 0.2% 3.3% 0.3% 1.3% 1.3% 89.1% 10.9%Modesto, CA  MSA 91.1% 79.7% 11.4% 0.6% 4.4% 0.5% 2.0% 1.3% 88.0% 12.0%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 14

Page 17: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Monroe, LA  MSA 93.6% 84.1% 9.5% 1.2% 1.9% 0.0% 2.8% 0.5% 89.3% 10.7%Montgomery AL MSA 94 6% 83 9% 10 8% 0 6% 3 1% 0 0% 1 0% 0 6% 88 7% 11 3%Montgomery, AL  MSA 94.6% 83.9% 10.8% 0.6% 3.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.6% 88.7% 11.3%Mount Pleasant, MI  MSA 84.8% 70.3% 14.5% 1.4% 4.7% 0.5% 8.0% 0.7% 84.1% 15.9%Mount Vernon‐Anacortes, WA  MSA 91.5% 79.0% 12.5% 1.1% 5.2% 0.2% 1.5% 0.4% 86.4% 13.6%Muskegon‐Norton Shores, MI  MSA 92.6% 83.8% 8.8% 0.6% 3.3% 0.6% 2.2% 0.8% 90.7% 9.3%Napa, CA  MSA 85.4% 70.9% 14.5% 1.6% 6.2% 1.0% 5.1% 0.8% 83.9% 16.1%Naples‐Marco Island, FL  MSA 87.9% 74.7% 13.1% 2.0% 6.4% 0.4% 1.4% 1.9% 84.9% 15.1%N h ill D id M f b F kli TN MSA 92 2% 82 0% 10 2% 1 1% 4 6% 0 1% 1 0% 1 0% 88 7% 11 3%Nashville‐Davidson‐‐Murfreesboro‐‐Franklin, TN  MSA 92.2% 82.0% 10.2% 1.1% 4.6% 0.1% 1.0% 1.0% 88.7% 11.3%New Bern, NC  MSA 90.0% 73.6% 16.4% 0.0% 3.5% 0.9% 3.4% 2.1% 83.6% 16.4%New Castle, PA  MSA 90.1% 81.4% 8.7% 1.8% 3.1% 0.5% 3.4% 1.1% 89.5% 10.5%New Haven‐Milford, CT  MSA 89.2% 81.1% 8.1% 3.0% 2.9% 0.4% 3.3% 1.1% 88.9% 11.1%New Orleans‐Metairie‐Kenner, LA  MSA 89.4% 77.7% 11.7% 2.0% 3.7% 0.7% 2.4% 1.9% 86.4% 13.6%New York‐Northern New Jersey‐Long Island, NY‐NJ‐PA  MSA 57.7% 50.3% 7.3% 30.2% 3.6% 0.4% 6.2% 1.8% 62.4% 37.6%N i h N L d CT MSA 88 8% 80 0% 8 7% 2 9% 2 9% 0 3% 4 4% 0 8% 88 4% 11 6%Norwich‐New London, CT  MSA 88.8% 80.0% 8.7% 2.9% 2.9% 0.3% 4.4% 0.8% 88.4% 11.6%Oak Harbor, WA  MSA 80.8% 71.8% 9.1% 4.1% 3.9% 0.1% 9.6% 1.4% 86.8% 13.2%Ocala, FL  MSA 92.4% 81.2% 11.2% 0.1% 5.1% 0.2% 0.6% 1.6% 88.8% 11.2%Ogden‐Clearfield, UT  MSA 90.8% 80.5% 10.3% 2.2% 4.6% 0.2% 1.3% 0.9% 87.4% 12.6%Oklahoma City, OK  MSA 93.1% 81.6% 11.5% 0.5% 3.9% 0.2% 1.4% 0.8% 87.9% 12.1%Olympia, WA  MSA 88.0% 78.6% 9.4% 1.9% 5.4% 1.4% 2.3% 1.0% 88.6% 11.4%Omaha‐Council Bluffs, NE‐IA  MSA 91.9% 82.7% 9.2% 0.7% 4.6% 0.1% 1.8% 0.9% 90.1% 9.9%Orlando‐Kissimmee, FL  MSA 90.8% 80.5% 10.3% 1.7% 4.7% 0.3% 1.2% 1.3% 88.0% 12.0%Oshkosh‐Neenah, WI  MSA 91.9% 83.9% 8.1% 0.5% 2.9% 1.2% 1.9% 1.6% 91.5% 8.5%Ottawa‐Streator, IL  MSA 91.7% 83.6% 8.1% 0.0% 4.0% 0.3% 3.3% 0.6% 91.9% 8.1%Owensboro, KY  MSA 92.2% 83.6% 8.6% 0.0% 4.9% 0.3% 1.7% 0.8% 91.4% 8.6%Oxnard‐Thousand Oaks‐Ventura, CA  MSA 90.6% 79.2% 11.4% 1.0% 4.8% 0.6% 1.8% 1.2% 87.6% 12.4%Palm Bay‐Melbourne‐Titusville, FL  MSA 91.5% 82.2% 9.3% 0.7% 4.1% 0.6% 1.2% 1.8% 90.0% 10.0%Panama City‐Lynn Haven, FL  MSA 93.2% 81.4% 11.8% 1.7% 2.6% 0.3% 1.1% 1.1% 86.5% 13.5%Parkersburg‐Marietta‐Vienna, WV‐OH  MSA 92.7% 80.6% 12.1% 0.7% 1.9% 0.1% 2.8% 1.9% 87.2% 12.8%Pensacola‐Ferry Pass‐Brent, FL  MSA 88.7% 77.2% 11.5% 0.3% 5.0% 0.4% 4.5% 1.2% 88.2% 11.8%Peoria, IL  MSA 93.4% 85.8% 7.6% 0.8% 2.5% 0.2% 2.2% 1.0% 91.6% 8.4%Philadelphia‐Camden‐Wilmington, PA‐NJ‐DE‐MD  MSA 82.8% 73.7% 9.2% 8.9% 3.6% 0.4% 3.7% 0.7% 82.0% 18.0%p g ,Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale, AZ  MSA 88.3% 74.7% 13.6% 2.5% 4.9% 0.7% 1.8% 1.8% 83.9% 16.1%Pittsburgh, PA  MSA 87.0% 77.9% 9.1% 5.4% 3.1% 0.2% 3.6% 0.7% 85.5% 14.5%Port St. Lucie, FL  MSA 94.2% 83.5% 10.7% 0.5% 2.6% 0.7% 0.9% 1.2% 88.8% 11.2%Portland‐South Portland‐Biddeford, ME  MSA 88.9% 79.1% 9.8% 0.8% 4.8% 0.7% 4.2% 0.7% 89.4% 10.6%Portland‐Vancouver‐Beaverton, OR‐WA  MSA 83.8% 73.3% 10.5% 5.6% 5.4% 1.5% 2.9% 0.8% 83.9% 16.1%Pottsville, PA  MSA 91.4% 80.3% 11.1% 0.9% 3.4% 0.1% 3.8% 0.4% 87.9% 12.1%Pottsville, PA  MSA 91.4% 80.3% 11.1% 0.9% 3.4% 0.1% 3.8% 0.4% 87.9% 12.1%Poughkeepsie‐Newburgh‐Middletown, NY  MSA 84.4% 74.5% 9.9% 4.8% 4.9% 0.4% 3.9% 1.5% 85.3% 14.7%Providence‐New Bedford‐Fall River, RI‐MA  MSA 90.1% 80.8% 9.3% 2.7% 3.2% 0.3% 2.8% 0.9% 88.0% 12.0%Provo‐Orem, UT  MSA 84.3% 70.1% 14.2% 2.4% 6.6% 1.1% 4.5% 1.2% 83.4% 16.6%Racine, WI  MSA 92.5% 84.0% 8.5% 1.6% 2.1% 0.7% 2.3% 0.8% 89.9% 10.1%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 15

Page 18: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Raleigh‐Cary, NC  MSA 89.8% 79.0% 10.9% 0.9% 5.7% 0.2% 1.9% 1.5% 88.2% 11.8%Reading PA MSA 89 5% 80 0% 9 5% 1 6% 4 4% 0 1% 3 6% 0 8% 88 9% 11 1%Reading, PA  MSA 89.5% 80.0% 9.5% 1.6% 4.4% 0.1% 3.6% 0.8% 88.9% 11.1%Redding, CA  MSA 91.5% 78.4% 13.1% 0.4% 4.2% 0.3% 1.6% 2.0% 86.5% 13.5%Reno‐Sparks, NV  MSA 87.6% 77.5% 10.2% 3.0% 3.7% 0.6% 3.1% 1.9% 86.8% 13.2%Richmond, VA  MSA 91.8% 81.8% 10.0% 1.5% 3.9% 0.3% 1.6% 0.9% 88.5% 11.5%Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario, CA  MSA 90.8% 76.3% 14.5% 1.4% 4.6% 0.3% 1.7% 1.2% 84.1% 15.9%Roanoke, VA  MSA 92.9% 83.3% 9.6% 0.9% 4.3% 0.2% 1.4% 0.3% 89.5% 10.5%R h t MN MSA 87 4% 77 9% 9 6% 2 9% 4 5% 0 8% 3 6% 0 7% 87 5% 12 5%Rochester, MN  MSA 87.4% 77.9% 9.6% 2.9% 4.5% 0.8% 3.6% 0.7% 87.5% 12.5%Rochester, NY  MSA 90.5% 81.7% 8.9% 2.1% 3.2% 0.4% 3.0% 0.7% 89.0% 11.0%Rockford, IL  MSA 94.0% 84.2% 9.8% 0.9% 3.0% 0.2% 1.2% 0.7% 89.3% 10.7%Sacramento‐‐Arden‐Arcade‐‐Roseville, CA  MSA 88.1% 75.3% 12.8% 2.5% 4.7% 1.6% 2.1% 1.0% 84.7% 15.3%Saginaw‐Saginaw Township North, MI  MSA 93.8% 87.5% 6.4% 0.4% 2.7% 0.4% 1.8% 0.9% 93.3% 6.7%Salem, OR  MSA 89.1% 72.8% 16.3% 1.8% 4.6% 0.8% 2.8% 0.9% 81.9% 18.1%S li CA MSA 85 2% 68 1% 17 1% 2 8% 4 2% 1 2% 5 3% 1 3% 80 1% 19 9%Salinas, CA  MSA 85.2% 68.1% 17.1% 2.8% 4.2% 1.2% 5.3% 1.3% 80.1% 19.9%Salisbury, MD  MSA 90.8% 80.9% 9.9% 1.2% 2.3% 0.5% 4.1% 1.1% 88.9% 11.1%Salt Lake City, UT  MSA 88.3% 75.3% 13.0% 3.1% 5.0% 0.8% 1.8% 1.0% 83.8% 16.2%San Angelo, TX  MSA 88.4% 78.6% 9.8% 1.2% 3.2% 0.0% 4.7% 2.4% 88.9% 11.1%San Antonio, TX  MSA 90.6% 79.0% 11.6% 2.2% 3.0% 0.2% 2.2% 1.7% 86.2% 13.8%San Diego‐Carlsbad‐San Marcos, CA  MSA 85.7% 74.9% 10.8% 3.6% 6.2% 0.6% 2.9% 1.1% 85.6% 14.4%San Francisco‐Oakland‐Fremont, CA  MSA 72.4% 62.7% 9.7% 14.5% 5.7% 1.4% 4.3% 1.7% 75.9% 24.1%San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara, CA  MSA 86.9% 77.0% 10.0% 3.8% 4.1% 1.2% 2.3% 1.8% 86.2% 13.8%San Luis Obispo‐Paso Robles, CA  MSA 83.5% 71.4% 12.1% 0.9% 6.8% 2.4% 5.6% 0.8% 87.0% 13.0%Santa Barbara‐Santa Maria‐Goleta, CA  MSA 80.6% 66.7% 13.9% 4.5% 6.5% 3.5% 3.9% 1.1% 81.6% 18.4%Santa Cruz‐Watsonville, CA  MSA 81.9% 68.9% 13.0% 4.3% 6.5% 2.5% 4.1% 0.8% 82.7% 17.3%Santa Fe, NM  MSA 83.3% 70.4% 12.9% 1.4% 9.9% 0.9% 2.2% 2.4% 85.7% 14.3%Santa Rosa‐Petaluma, CA  MSA 84.9% 72.4% 12.5% 2.2% 7.3% 0.8% 4.0% 0.8% 85.3% 14.7%Sarasota‐Bradenton‐Venice, FL  MSA 89.2% 79.5% 9.7% 0.9% 5.4% 0.9% 1.9% 1.8% 89.5% 10.5%Savannah, GA  MSA 91.7% 81.5% 10.2% 1.8% 2.8% 0.6% 1.7% 1.4% 87.9% 12.1%Scranton‐‐Wilkes‐Barre, PA  MSA 92.7% 82.7% 10.0% 0.8% 2.3% 0.1% 3.5% 0.6% 89.2% 10.8%Seaford, DE  MSA 91.7% 83.1% 8.6% 0.5% 3.3% 0.2% 2.0% 2.2% 90.9% 9.1%Seattle‐Tacoma‐Bellevue, WA  MSA 82.1% 70.6% 11.5% 8.0% 4.8% 0.7% 3.4% 1.1% 80.6% 19.4%,Sheboygan, WI  MSA 90.9% 79.7% 11.3% 0.8% 3.0% 0.8% 3.4% 1.1% 87.9% 12.1%Shreveport‐Bossier City, LA  MSA 91.9% 82.3% 9.6% 1.9% 2.1% 0.1% 1.8% 2.2% 88.5% 11.5%Sioux City, IA‐NE‐SD  MSA 89.7% 79.0% 10.7% 1.0% 5.9% 0.6% 2.2% 0.6% 88.4% 11.6%Sioux Falls, SD  MSA 92.3% 84.7% 7.6% 0.4% 4.0% 0.3% 2.4% 0.6% 92.0% 8.0%South Bend‐Mishawaka, IN‐MI  MSA 90.7% 82.6% 8.2% 1.3% 2.5% 0.6% 4.0% 0.8% 90.5% 9.5%Spartanburg, SC  MSA 94.2% 84.2% 9.9% 0.2% 2.1% 0.2% 1.8% 1.5% 89.9% 10.1%Spartanburg, SC  MSA 94.2% 84.2% 9.9% 0.2% 2.1% 0.2% 1.8% 1.5% 89.9% 10.1%Spokane, WA  MSA 87.5% 77.4% 10.1% 3.3% 4.5% 0.5% 3.1% 1.1% 86.6% 13.4%Springfield, IL  MSA 92.7% 83.1% 9.6% 1.8% 2.6% 0.4% 1.6% 0.8% 88.6% 11.4%Springfield, MA  MSA 88.5% 81.1% 7.3% 1.6% 3.6% 0.7% 4.8% 0.7% 91.0% 9.0%Springfield, MO  MSA 91.5% 81.7% 9.8% 0.8% 3.3% 0.3% 2.9% 1.1% 89.3% 10.7%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 16

Page 19: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

St. Cloud, MN  MSA 87.0% 78.2% 8.8% 1.1% 5.5% 0.5% 4.8% 1.1% 90.0% 10.0%St Joseph MO KS MSA 92 5% 83 3% 9 2% 0 7% 4 4% 0 0% 1 3% 1 1% 90 1% 9 9%St. Joseph, MO‐KS  MSA 92.5% 83.3% 9.2% 0.7% 4.4% 0.0% 1.3% 1.1% 90.1% 9.9%St. Louis, MO‐IL  MSA 90.9% 82.4% 8.6% 2.6% 3.7% 0.2% 1.6% 1.0% 88.8% 11.2%State College, PA  MSA 75.6% 65.0% 10.6% 3.5% 5.9% 1.6% 12.6% 1.0% 86.0% 14.0%Stevens Point, WI  MSA 87.2% 76.2% 11.0% 0.1% 4.3% 1.7% 5.8% 0.8% 88.9% 11.1%Stockton, CA  MSA 92.1% 73.5% 18.6% 1.2% 3.4% 0.4% 2.0% 0.9% 80.2% 19.8%Syracuse, NY  MSA 87.7% 78.5% 9.2% 2.0% 4.2% 0.6% 4.5% 1.0% 88.8% 11.2%T ll h FL MSA 92 6% 81 0% 11 5% 1 5% 2 4% 0 6% 1 4% 1 5% 87 0% 13 0%Tallahassee, FL  MSA 92.6% 81.0% 11.5% 1.5% 2.4% 0.6% 1.4% 1.5% 87.0% 13.0%Tampa‐St. Petersburg‐Clearwater, FL  MSA 89.9% 80.8% 9.2% 1.4% 4.6% 0.7% 1.7% 1.6% 89.4% 10.6%Toledo, OH  MSA 92.3% 84.1% 8.2% 1.1% 2.7% 0.5% 2.8% 0.7% 90.7% 9.3%Topeka, KS  MSA 91.2% 80.6% 10.6% 1.3% 4.2% 0.4% 2.2% 0.8% 88.2% 11.8%Torrington, CT  MSA 89.9% 81.7% 8.2% 1.8% 5.2% 0.1% 2.1% 1.0% 90.0% 10.0%Traverse City, MI  MSA 90.1% 79.8% 10.4% 0.5% 5.9% 0.5% 2.8% 0.1% 89.1% 10.9%T E i NJ MSA 83 6% 72 6% 11 0% 6 8% 3 5% 0 5% 3 7% 1 9% 82 2% 17 8%Trenton‐Ewing, NJ  MSA 83.6% 72.6% 11.0% 6.8% 3.5% 0.5% 3.7% 1.9% 82.2% 17.8%Tucson, AZ  MSA 87.3% 75.4% 12.0% 2.3% 4.7% 1.2% 2.8% 1.7% 85.7% 14.3%Tulsa, OK  MSA 92.8% 81.4% 11.4% 0.4% 3.5% 0.1% 1.9% 1.3% 88.2% 11.8%Tuscaloosa, AL  MSA 92.9% 83.4% 9.5% 0.9% 2.6% 0.4% 1.7% 1.3% 89.6% 10.4%Tyler, TX  MSA 90.2% 80.4% 9.8% 0.6% 4.5% 0.4% 1.1% 3.2% 89.6% 10.4%Utica‐Rome, NY  MSA 90.8% 81.5% 9.3% 1.1% 4.0% 0.2% 3.0% 0.8% 89.6% 10.4%Valdosta, GA  MSA 92.3% 79.9% 12.4% 0.7% 2.9% 0.2% 1.3% 2.5% 86.9% 13.1%Vallejo‐Fairfield, CA  MSA 90.8% 76.4% 14.4% 3.0% 3.0% 0.3% 1.6% 1.2% 82.6% 17.4%Vineland‐Millville‐Bridgeton, NJ  MSA 93.6% 79.2% 14.4% 1.8% 1.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.1% 83.8% 16.2%Virginia Beach‐Norfolk‐Newport News, VA‐NC  MSA 89.3% 80.0% 9.3% 1.3% 5.4% 0.3% 2.6% 1.2% 89.4% 10.6%Visalia‐Porterville, CA  MSA 92.5% 73.3% 19.1% 0.4% 3.1% 0.2% 1.8% 2.0% 80.5% 19.5%Waco, TX  MSA 93.1% 80.4% 12.7% 0.4% 3.3% 0.2% 2.3% 0.8% 86.9% 13.1%Washington‐Arlington‐Alexandria, DC‐VA‐MD‐WV  MSA 78.1% 67.5% 10.6% 13.3% 4.4% 0.4% 3.0% 0.8% 76.1% 23.9%Waterloo‐Cedar Falls, IA  MSA 89.6% 80.6% 9.0% 0.5% 4.0% 0.5% 4.7% 0.6% 90.5% 9.5%Wausau, WI  MSA 91.7% 82.5% 9.2% 0.4% 3.9% 0.7% 2.5% 0.8% 90.4% 9.6%Wichita, KS  MSA 93.8% 84.2% 9.6% 0.4% 3.2% 0.3% 1.6% 0.8% 90.0% 10.0%Williamsport, PA  MSA 90.0% 80.1% 9.9% 1.2% 2.4% 0.2% 5.2% 1.0% 88.9% 11.1%Wilmington, NC  MSA 91.9% 80.9% 11.0% 0.7% 4.1% 0.5% 2.0% 0.8% 88.3% 11.7%g ,Winston‐Salem, NC  MSA 91.9% 83.4% 8.5% 1.1% 3.3% 0.1% 1.5% 2.0% 90.4% 9.6%Worcester, MA  MSA 91.2% 82.1% 9.1% 1.4% 3.6% 0.1% 2.6% 1.0% 89.5% 10.5%Yakima, WA  MSA 93.6% 78.4% 15.1% 0.6% 2.9% 0.1% 2.1% 0.7% 84.3% 15.7%York‐Hanover, PA  MSA 91.6% 82.7% 8.8% 1.1% 3.8% 0.1% 2.4% 0.9% 90.0% 10.0%Youngstown‐Warren‐Boardman, OH‐PA  MSA 92.7% 86.1% 6.6% 0.5% 3.3% 0.1% 1.8% 1.5% 92.8% 7.2%Yuba City, CA  MSA 91.8% 76.8% 14.9% 1.3% 4.4% 0.2% 1.0% 1.3% 83.8% 16.2%Yuba City, CA  MSA 91.8% 76.8% 14.9% 1.3% 4.4% 0.2% 1.0% 1.3% 83.8% 16.2%Yuma, AZ  MSA 90.6% 77.1% 13.5% 1.0% 3.2% 0.1% 3.6% 1.5% 85.5% 14.5%

Total MSAs for which Data Reported 85.6% 75.5% 10.1% 5.8% 4.0% 0.5% 2.8% 1.2% 84.1% 15.9%

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 17

Page 20: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Outside MSA's with Reported Data 90.6% 78.9% 11.6% 0.5% 4.2% 0.3% 3.1% 1.2% 87.8% 12.2%

United States 86.5% 76.1% 10.4% 4.9% 4.1% 0.5% 2.8% 1.2% 84.7% 15.3%

MARKET SHARE RANKING BY MODEPersonal Drive Work at Personal Shared

Metropolitan Area Vehicle Alone Car Pool Transit Home Bicycle Walk Other Modes Modes

Akron, OH  MSA 58 10 303 137 242 203 202 239 11 298Albany‐Schenectady‐Troy, NY  MSA 217 160 247 47 149 211 87 135 155 154Albuquerque, NM  MSA 178 199 84 105 111 97 204 67 215 94Alexandria, LA  MSA 38 60 134 161 301 284 188 88 153 156,Allegan, MI  MSA 74 54 196 294 115 295 181 173 45 264Allentown‐Bethlehem‐Easton, PA‐NJ  MSA 150 99 238 74 158 264 139 225 115 194Amarillo, TX  MSA 10 81 75 303 295 241 250 42 177 132Anchorage, AK  MSA 231 254 43 149 81 40 135 17 244 65Ann Arbor, MI  MSA 274 233 288 33 105 46 14 156 119 190Appleton, WI  MSA 135 27 304 241 155 143 100 122 3 306Appleton, WI  MSA 135 27 304 241 155 143 100 122 3 306Asheville, NC  MSA 79 180 38 207 108 191 263 197 233 76Athens‐Clarke County, GA  MSA 239 251 58 65 78 73 68 161 257 52Atlanta‐Sandy Springs‐Marietta, GA  MSA 218 200 150 36 63 254 272 51 222 87Atlantic City, NJ  MSA 284 246 301 7 205 105 121 102 284 25Auburn‐Opelika, AL  MSA 51 112 85 213 164 152 287 140 188 121Augusta‐Richmond County, GA‐SC  MSA 99 128 114 191 211 196 127 169 160 149Augusta Richmond County, GA SC  MSA 99 128 114 191 211 196 127 169 160 149Austin‐Round Rock, TX  MSA 227 256 36 49 57 121 245 59 285 24Bakersfield, CA  MSA 80 240 5 127 277 144 210 72 294 15Baltimore‐Towson, MD  MSA 252 224 189 13 170 244 122 234 268 41Bangor, ME  MSA 172 156 158 186 175 262 51 114 106 203Barnstable Town, MA  MSA 173 76 289 100 54 161 162 301 28 281Baton Rouge LA MSA 39 53 149 167 238 250 242 261 135 174Baton Rouge, LA  MSA 39 53 149 167 238 250 242 261 135 174Battle Creek, MI  MSA 22 22 190 276 279 133 166 289 60 249Beaumont‐Port Arthur, TX  MSA 13 36 144 235 305 272 225 86 109 200Bellingham, WA  MSA 291 274 220 44 23 18 19 121 176 133Bend, OR  MSA 250 231 151 208 13 17 158 154 111 198Billings, MT  MSA 120 149 96 104 182 159 117 307 202 107Binghamton NY MSA 199 120 272 78 138 129 91 199 72 237Binghamton, NY  MSA 199 120 272 78 138 129 91 199 72 237Birmingham‐Hoover, AL  MSA 5 33 102 232 256 291 301 272 157 152Bismarck, ND  MSA 161 196 83 200 73 95 142 178 191 118Blacksburg‐Christiansburg‐Radford, VA  MSA 157 222 39 130 120 111 101 299 252 57Bloomington, IN  MSA 211 154 239 59 268 142 49 118 143 166

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 18

Page 21: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Bloomington‐Normal, IL  MSA 254 237 148 102 135 103 18 35 171 138Boise City Nampa ID MSA 208 191 145 263 79 29 173 23 97 212Boise City‐Nampa, ID  MSA 208 191 145 263 79 29 173 23 97 212Boston‐Cambridge‐Quincy, MA‐NH  MSA 303 290 290 4 116 79 35 216 302 7Boulder, CO  MSA 305 304 213 15 6 5 20 74 263 46Bowling Green, KY  MSA 62 194 25 277 307 64 164 20 242 67Bozeman, MT  MSA 282 286 67 180 15 4 33 271 209 100Brainerd, MN  MSA 236 198 208 278 12 102 78 196 41 268B t Sil d l WA MSA 297 293 111 10 32 58 83 58 297 12Bremerton‐Silverdale, WA  MSA 297 293 111 10 32 58 83 58 297 12Bridgeport‐Stamford‐Norwalk, CT  MSA 295 258 307 6 72 242 85 100 272 37Brownsville‐Harlingen, TX  MSA 126 215 32 254 249 282 120 12 241 68Buffalo‐Niagara Falls, NY  MSA 165 85 281 39 273 180 112 206 124 185Burlington‐South Burlington, VT  MSA 272 269 109 97 60 38 12 110 196 113Canton‐Massillon, OH  MSA 29 7 292 143 270 221 206 302 17 292C C l F M FL MSA 112 216 21 154 87 189 295 109 264 45Cape Coral‐Fort Myers, FL  MSA 112 216 21 154 87 189 295 109 264 45Cedar Rapids, IA  MSA 129 51 285 171 207 138 92 194 18 291Chambersburg, PA  MSA 90 171 54 269 146 185 195 97 210 99Champaign‐Urbana, IL  MSA 301 281 249 18 247 9 4 266 225 84Charleston, WV  MSA 85 73 175 77 225 212 223 268 159 150Charleston‐North Charleston, SC  MSA 174 101 265 111 131 169 124 124 61 248Charlotte‐Gastonia‐Concord, NC‐SC  MSA 122 135 135 95 130 265 265 103 184 125Charlottesville, VA  MSA 285 295 49 52 3 155 31 251 271 38Chattanooga, TN‐GA  MSA 50 58 154 125 227 275 248 237 145 164Chicago‐Naperville‐Joliet, IL‐IN‐WI  MSA 298 280 231 5 150 112 109 164 304 5Chico, CA  MSA 260 226 229 69 100 3 132 195 128 181Cincinnati‐Middletown, OH‐KY‐IN  MSA 134 68 266 56 181 289 178 287 118 191Clarksville, TN‐KY  MSA 86 72 177 279 252 248 69 182 68 241Cleveland‐Elyria‐Mentor, OH  MSA 195 80 298 24 189 174 216 250 134 175Coeur d'Alene, ID  MSA 158 174 107 297 62 33 279 37 125 184College Station‐Bryan, TX  MSA 168 208 66 117 173 26 213 92 227 82Colorado Springs, CO  MSA 241 219 156 138 39 201 54 73 139 170Columbia, MO  MSA 190 242 28 224 160 41 81 85 249 60,Columbia, SC  MSA 205 201 115 183 18 222 266 54 161 148Columbus, GA‐AL  MSA 219 213 103 282 4 296 273 138 136 173Columbus, OH  MSA 151 77 271 112 88 134 192 243 50 259Corning, NY  MSA 184 152 180 259 90 188 66 123 71 238Corpus Christi, TX  MSA 97 193 41 140 294 237 249 8 247 62Corvallis, OR  MSA 299 301 55 120 126 1 6 294 235 74Corvallis, OR  MSA 299 301 55 120 126 1 6 294 235 74Dallas‐Fort Worth‐Arlington, TX  MSA 109 130 124 108 125 240 288 99 185 124Davenport‐Moline‐Rock Island, IA‐IL  MSA 56 44 209 225 203 224 154 280 64 245Dayton, OH  MSA 114 45 278 92 243 164 136 277 58 251Decatur, IL  MSA 21 4 300 169 274 273 269 166 10 299

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 19

Page 22: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Deltona‐Daytona Beach‐Ormond Beach, FL  MSA 167 119 233 247 67 99 174 66 37 272Denver Aurora CO MSA 264 239 185 20 33 67 167 139 239 70Denver‐Aurora, CO  MSA 264 239 185 20 33 67 167 139 239 70Des Moines‐West Des Moines, IA  MSA 107 94 168 101 165 294 190 208 144 165Detroit‐Warren‐Livonia, MI  MSA 47 14 275 115 250 215 258 247 42 267Dothan, AL  MSA 2 2 291 298 300 245 308 24 5 304Dover, DE  MSA 46 115 77 122 303 75 222 172 217 92Duluth, MN‐WI  MSA 194 158 192 87 118 122 75 297 138 171D h NC MSA 248 262 48 26 91 136 107 185 288 21Durham, NC  MSA 248 262 48 26 91 136 107 185 288 21Eau Claire, WI  MSA 235 179 245 145 109 72 30 113 67 242El Centro, CA  MSA 159 234 27 168 179 114 64 207 259 50El Paso, TX  MSA 154 157 131 80 261 259 183 11 190 119Elkhart‐Goshen, IN  MSA 92 203 31 274 280 23 176 111 236 73Erie, PA  MSA 210 165 206 76 257 239 22 213 137 172E S i fi ld OR MSA 288 275 210 34 34 2 62 291 197 112Eugene‐Springfield, OR  MSA 288 275 210 34 34 2 62 291 197 112Eureka‐Arcata‐Fortuna, CA  MSA 280 283 73 90 11 12 27 300 229 80Evansville, IN‐KY  MSA 4 3 286 229 285 271 286 209 14 295Fairbanks, AK  MSA 281 291 42 174 5 30 28 159 238 71Fargo, ND‐MN  MSA 192 109 273 170 163 62 48 242 26 283Fayetteville, NC  MSA 68 82 147 246 180 280 214 82 100 209Fayetteville‐Springdale‐Rogers, AR‐MO  MSA 40 132 61 281 232 238 209 119 200 109Flagstaff, AZ  MSA 294 297 70 252 14 13 8 27 195 114Flint, MI  MSA 8 12 214 231 254 269 300 188 54 255Florence, SC  MSA 18 87 79 260 263 139 241 254 187 122Fond du Lac, WI  MSA 147 104 225 287 85 158 116 127 27 282Fort Collins‐Loveland, CO  MSA 270 229 270 206 16 8 98 93 20 289Fort Smith, AR‐OK  MSA 14 124 45 295 176 170 289 269 212 97Fort Walton Beach‐Crestview‐Destin, FL  MSA 91 79 176 291 171 52 274 36 65 244Fort Wayne, IN  MSA 16 13 244 239 204 178 304 187 30 279Fresno, CA  MSA 200 235 44 116 187 118 196 5 250 59Gainesville, FL  MSA 224 236 74 41 287 15 102 177 262 47Gainesville, GA  MSA 88 220 12 301 226 261 306 2 261 48,Glens Falls, NY  MSA 206 207 100 165 80 229 94 70 182 127Grand Forks, ND‐MN  MSA 153 91 253 193 168 101 79 189 34 275Grand Junction, CO  MSA 186 245 22 290 58 43 179 53 243 66Grand Rapids‐Wyoming, MI  MSA 117 74 224 139 122 87 211 288 79 230Great Falls, MT  MSA 215 161 234 50 228 132 95 77 166 143Greeley, CO  MSA 162 148 157 256 140 85 133 29 91 218Greeley, CO  MSA 162 148 157 256 140 85 133 29 91 218Green Bay, WI  MSA 125 30 297 178 251 172 141 28 9 300Greensboro‐High Point, NC  MSA 45 50 160 222 199 209 262 144 94 215Greenville‐Mauldin‐Easley, SC  MSA 87 106 129 227 147 293 163 147 126 183Gulfport‐Biloxi, MS  MSA 187 181 122 237 151 243 84 15 131 178

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 20

Page 23: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Hagerstown‐Martinsburg, MD‐WV  MSA 24 108 63 129 306 220 203 180 226 83Hanford Corcoran CA MSA 255 282 11 221 184 124 15 4 270 39Hanford‐Corcoran, CA  MSA 255 282 11 221 184 124 15 4 270 39Harrisburg‐Carlisle, PA  MSA 198 168 164 134 209 181 46 98 130 179Harrisonburg, VA  MSA 249 206 232 236 56 55 40 32 40 269Hartford‐West Hartford‐East Hartford, CT  MSA 181 84 287 55 153 179 155 174 85 224Hickory‐Lenoir‐Morganton, NC  MSA 9 39 116 296 234 197 291 198 114 195Hilo, HI  MSA 246 292 3 126 9 163 165 57 298 11Hilt H d I l d B f t SC MSA 156 260 6 300 50 290 161 48 282 27Hilton Head Island‐Beaufort, SC  MSA 156 260 6 300 50 290 161 48 282 27Holland‐Grand Haven, MI  MSA 119 25 299 209 174 257 74 283 7 302Honolulu, HI  MSA 292 303 10 11 217 93 25 46 305 4Houma‐Bayou Cane‐Thibodaux, LA  MSA 72 116 97 203 266 297 302 7 173 136Houston‐Sugar Land‐Baytown, TX  MSA 143 189 72 58 208 182 264 68 251 58Huntington‐Ashland, WV‐KY‐OH  MSA 100 126 120 147 297 226 115 41 174 135H ill AL MSA 1 9 161 285 289 301 303 273 77 232Huntsville, AL  MSA 1 9 161 285 289 301 303 273 77 232Idaho Falls, ID  MSA 183 252 13 40 185 57 212 200 296 13Indianapolis‐Carmel, IN  MSA 41 26 221 201 193 249 254 221 57 252Iowa City, IA  MSA 300 294 119 22 38 28 9 94 258 51Jackson, MI  MSA 42 5 302 262 194 300 191 217 4 305Jackson, MS  MSA 15 21 174 271 260 256 293 71 70 239Jacksonville, FL  MSA 73 65 170 166 210 130 278 87 102 207Jacksonville, NC  MSA 306 307 20 248 1 165 3 89 254 55Jamestown‐Dunkirk‐Fredonia, NY  MSA 175 140 205 283 220 109 38 90 44 265Janesville, WI  MSA 52 97 94 258 172 267 157 298 156 153Jefferson City, MO  MSA 32 136 51 233 213 303 233 240 220 89Johnstown, PA  MSA 26 63 108 197 293 283 119 304 165 144Joplin, MO  MSA 188 223 57 304 113 88 63 60 199 110Kahului‐Wailuku, HI  MSA 257 270 62 257 24 47 72 9 203 106Kalamazoo‐Portage, MI  MSA 84 47 242 218 229 162 160 107 39 270Kankakee‐Bradley, IL  MSA 121 212 30 67 284 233 137 134 281 28Kansas City, MO‐KS  MSA 82 37 261 135 156 253 257 136 48 261Kennewick‐Richland‐Pasco, WA  MSA 155 225 34 66 136 184 205 167 277 32,Killeen‐Temple‐Fort Hood, TX  MSA 133 188 69 261 240 279 65 44 193 116Kingsport‐Bristol‐Bristol, TN‐VA  MSA 6 11 243 289 276 299 236 241 22 287Kingston, NY  MSA 258 166 306 43 41 113 52 184 38 271Knoxville, TN  MSA 17 16 198 253 241 274 246 249 59 250La Crosse, WI‐MN  MSA 197 122 269 205 74 54 82 252 21 288Lafayette, IN  MSA 256 217 246 60 52 50 39 257 132 177Lafayette, IN  MSA 256 217 246 60 52 50 39 257 132 177Lafayette, LA  MSA 20 17 200 196 299 171 194 205 73 236Lake Charles, LA  MSA 3 61 71 302 296 258 280 91 186 123Lakeland, FL  MSA 33 71 106 223 298 213 298 10 158 151Lancaster, PA  MSA 232 164 274 150 37 83 97 96 29 280

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 21

Page 24: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Lansing‐East Lansing, MI  MSA 179 114 255 114 186 110 53 296 69 240Laredo TX MSA 213 271 9 86 48 235 118 183 290 19Laredo, TX  MSA 213 271 9 86 48 235 118 183 290 19Las Cruces, NM  MSA 144 184 76 286 59 82 146 270 180 129Las Vegas‐Paradise, NV  MSA 171 178 105 32 259 116 201 125 248 61Lawrence, KS  MSA 262 248 139 152 145 21 10 279 152 157Lawton, OK  MSA 251 266 53 220 8 223 186 14 221 88Lebanon, NH‐VT  MSA 253 238 140 272 25 236 21 81 99 210L b PA MSA 44 69 123 199 262 268 143 293 146 163Lebanon, PA  MSA 44 69 123 199 262 268 143 293 146 163Lexington‐Fayette, KY  MSA 130 151 112 141 162 71 149 223 179 130Lincoln, NE  MSA 185 129 240 99 190 20 147 260 89 220Little Rock‐North Little Rock‐Conway, AR  MSA 34 103 81 190 201 287 261 210 194 115Logan, UT‐ID  MSA 289 299 35 84 26 16 11 165 266 43Longview, TX  MSA 118 144 101 251 142 277 227 19 150 159L A l L B h S A CA MSA 268 259 125 14 101 76 144 117 286 23Los Angeles‐Long Beach‐Santa Ana, CA  MSA 268 259 125 14 101 76 144 117 286 23Louisville‐Jefferson County, KY‐IN  MSA 67 66 166 73 265 234 235 259 175 134Lubbock, TX  MSA 55 113 87 219 255 198 138 245 181 128Lynchburg, VA  MSA 35 55 138 211 215 303 207 264 122 187Macon, GA  MSA 69 89 132 172 157 303 226 163 147 162Madison, WI  MSA 265 255 126 37 114 19 37 285 230 79Manchester‐Nashua, NH  MSA 152 86 264 202 71 150 140 219 25 284Manitowoc, WI  MSA 207 163 211 216 49 39 145 120 66 243Mankato‐North Mankato, MN  MSA 230 170 258 151 43 70 55 253 46 263McAllen‐Edinburg‐Mission, TX  MSA 127 227 16 280 191 208 282 3 253 56Meadville, PA  MSA 275 257 182 176 51 151 7 75 92 217Medford, OR  MSA 229 186 217 288 45 10 106 162 33 276Memphis, TN‐MS‐AR  MSA 37 35 191 128 288 149 220 258 108 201Merced, CA  MSA 259 278 26 198 221 44 42 1 255 54Miami‐Fort Lauderdale‐Pompano Beach, FL  MSA 221 187 186 29 121 154 224 69 213 96Milwaukee‐Waukesha‐West Allis, WI  MSA 191 118 263 30 222 119 152 230 172 137Minneapolis‐St. Paul‐Bloomington, MN‐WI  MSA 243 195 250 25 77 63 172 203 204 105Missoula, MT  MSA 287 261 276 110 7 6 108 62 43 266,Mobile, AL  MSA 28 52 136 292 197 190 276 116 95 214Modesto, CA  MSA 128 155 99 228 104 126 199 105 163 146Monroe, LA  MSA 27 24 204 155 304 303 131 295 90 219Montgomery, AL  MSA 7 29 128 240 223 302 294 282 121 188Mount Pleasant, MI  MSA 269 288 19 121 86 120 5 278 269 40Mount Vernon‐Anacortes, WA  MSA 115 176 65 160 53 216 260 303 218 91Mount Vernon Anacortes, WA  MSA 115 176 65 160 53 216 260 303 218 91Muskegon‐Norton Shores, MI  MSA 64 32 254 238 200 90 184 235 24 285Napa, CA  MSA 263 284 18 113 28 45 26 229 274 35Naples‐Marco Island, FL  MSA 228 249 47 81 22 147 268 34 256 53Nashville‐Davidson‐‐Murfreesboro‐‐Franklin, TN  MSA 83 83 162 158 95 260 296 171 120 189

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 22

Page 25: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

New Bern, NC  MSA 170 264 7 308 178 49 88 25 280 29New Castle PA MSA 164 102 257 96 224 107 90 149 78 231New Castle, PA  MSA 164 102 257 96 224 107 90 149 78 231New Haven‐Milford, CT  MSA 202 110 283 48 244 140 96 143 104 205New Orleans‐Metairie‐Kenner, LA  MSA 196 205 88 82 154 81 156 40 219 90New York‐Northern New Jersey‐Long Island, NY‐NJ‐PA  MSA 308 308 295 1 161 131 13 49 308 1Norwich‐New London, CT  MSA 212 145 256 53 248 192 45 233 140 169Oak Harbor, WA  MSA 293 277 236 27 144 252 2 95 208 101O l FL MSA 75 107 110 305 61 225 307 64 117 192Ocala, FL  MSA 75 107 110 305 61 225 307 64 117 192Ogden‐Clearfield, UT  MSA 141 138 153 70 93 218 281 192 189 120Oklahoma City, OK  MSA 49 95 91 244 143 199 267 212 169 140Olympia, WA  MSA 226 182 212 83 46 32 171 170 123 186Omaha‐Council Bluffs, NE‐IA  MSA 98 59 222 214 89 255 228 204 49 260Orlando‐Kissimmee, FL  MSA 140 137 155 98 82 183 285 106 164 145O hk h N h WI MSA 95 31 284 255 246 35 215 63 13 296Oshkosh‐Neenah, WI  MSA 95 31 284 255 246 35 215 63 13 296Ottawa‐Streator, IL  MSA 105 34 282 307 134 177 99 286 8 301Owensboro, KY  MSA 81 38 260 306 68 186 238 218 15 294Oxnard‐Thousand Oaks‐Ventura, CA  MSA 148 167 98 177 70 86 232 128 178 131Palm Bay‐Melbourne‐Titusville, FL  MSA 113 75 216 215 128 84 283 45 55 254Panama City‐Lynn Haven, FL  MSA 43 100 86 103 271 166 292 148 214 95Parkersburg‐Marietta‐Vienna, WV‐OH  MSA 63 134 78 212 302 285 129 43 192 117Pensacola‐Ferry Pass‐Brent, FL  MSA 214 211 92 284 64 157 44 130 149 160Peoria, IL  MSA 36 8 293 195 278 210 185 181 12 297Philadelphia‐Camden‐Wilmington, PA‐NJ‐DE‐MD  MSA 283 263 230 8 169 141 71 275 292 17Phoenix‐Mesa‐Scottsdale, AZ  MSA 222 250 37 63 69 65 231 47 275 34Pittsburgh, PA  MSA 244 202 237 17 231 219 76 265 237 72Port St. Lucie, FL  MSA 11 40 133 249 272 66 305 131 116 193Portland‐South Portland‐Biddeford, ME  MSA 209 172 184 204 75 77 50 276 84 225Portland‐Vancouver‐Beaverton, OR‐WA  MSA 276 268 146 16 47 27 114 227 273 36Pottsville, PA  MSA 116 142 113 179 188 281 67 305 167 142Poughkeepsie‐Newburgh‐Middletown, NY  MSA 271 253 179 19 66 153 60 80 245 64Providence‐New Bedford‐Fall River, RI‐MA  MSA 166 125 219 57 212 194 128 193 162 147,Provo‐Orem, UT  MSA 273 289 29 64 19 42 43 129 283 26Racine, WI  MSA 71 28 267 107 290 68 169 248 63 246Raleigh‐Cary, NC  MSA 180 177 127 182 35 207 218 84 148 161Reading, PA  MSA 193 147 207 109 107 263 73 220 103 206Redding, CA  MSA 111 192 46 266 117 187 252 33 216 93Reno‐Sparks, NV  MSA 234 209 163 46 152 94 103 38 207 102Reno Sparks, NV  MSA 234 209 163 46 152 94 103 38 207 102Richmond, VA  MSA 102 88 171 118 141 176 247 201 129 180Riverside‐San Bernardino‐Ontario, CA  MSA 137 230 17 132 92 173 240 133 267 42Roanoke, VA  MSA 54 46 197 184 112 217 271 306 80 229Rochester, MN  MSA 238 204 199 51 97 61 77 255 183 126

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 23

Page 26: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Rochester, NY  MSA 149 93 248 75 214 137 105 274 98 211Rockford IL MSA 19 19 187 187 233 214 284 262 87 222Rockford, IL  MSA 19 19 187 187 233 214 284 262 87 222Sacramento‐‐Arden‐Arcade‐‐Roseville, CA  MSA 225 243 59 62 83 24 187 160 260 49Saginaw‐Saginaw Township North, MI  MSA 23 1 308 273 258 160 230 190 1 308Salem, OR  MSA 204 272 8 94 96 60 126 191 293 16Salinas, CA  MSA 266 298 4 54 124 34 23 104 303 6Salisbury, MD  MSA 139 123 178 156 283 127 56 137 101 208S lt L k Cit UT MSA 223 244 50 42 65 56 219 175 276 33Salt Lake City, UT  MSA 223 244 50 42 65 56 219 175 276 33San Angelo, TX  MSA 220 183 181 146 216 303 36 16 105 204San Antonio, TX  MSA 146 175 89 71 235 231 175 55 224 85San Diego‐Carlsbad‐San Marcos, CA  MSA 261 247 130 31 27 100 123 150 234 75San Francisco‐Oakland‐Fremont, CA  MSA 307 306 194 2 36 31 47 56 307 2San Jose‐Sunnyvale‐Santa Clara, CA  MSA 247 218 169 28 129 36 168 52 223 86S L i Obi P R bl CA MSA 278 279 80 185 17 14 17 232 198 111San Luis Obispo‐Paso Robles, CA  MSA 278 279 80 185 17 14 17 232 198 111Santa Barbara‐Santa Maria‐Goleta, CA  MSA 296 302 33 21 21 7 61 152 295 14Santa Cruz‐Watsonville, CA  MSA 290 296 52 23 20 11 57 226 287 22Santa Fe, NM  MSA 279 287 56 131 2 51 182 18 232 77Santa Rosa‐Petaluma, CA  MSA 267 276 64 72 10 59 58 228 246 63Sarasota‐Bradenton‐Venice, FL  MSA 203 162 193 188 42 48 217 50 82 227Savannah, GA  MSA 104 98 159 89 253 96 244 101 168 141Scranton‐‐Wilkes‐Barre, PA  MSA 60 57 167 194 286 278 86 281 93 216Seaford, DE  MSA 103 49 259 250 198 206 200 21 19 290Seattle‐Tacoma‐Bellevue, WA  MSA 286 285 93 9 76 69 89 151 299 10Sheboygan, WI  MSA 132 159 104 192 237 53 93 153 170 139Shreveport‐Bossier City, LA  MSA 93 70 195 85 291 270 237 22 133 176Sioux City, IA‐NE‐SD  MSA 182 173 137 175 29 89 177 290 141 168Sioux Falls, SD  MSA 78 15 294 268 137 175 153 292 6 303South Bend‐Mishawaka, IN‐MI  MSA 142 62 280 133 275 92 59 214 31 278Spartanburg, SC  MSA 12 18 172 293 292 204 234 79 62 247Spokane, WA  MSA 237 210 165 38 99 104 104 146 211 98Springfield, IL  MSA 61 48 201 91 269 146 251 215 127 182p g ,Springfield, MA  MSA 216 111 296 106 167 78 29 256 16 293Springfield, MO  MSA 110 90 183 189 202 193 113 141 88 221St. Cloud, MN  MSA 245 197 252 159 40 117 32 142 51 258St. Joseph, MO‐KS  MSA 66 43 226 217 106 303 277 145 47 262St. Louis, MO‐IL  MSA 131 67 262 61 159 228 256 158 113 196State College, PA  MSA 304 305 143 35 31 25 1 179 228 81State College, PA  MSA 304 305 143 35 31 25 1 179 228 81Stevens Point, WI  MSA 242 232 118 299 110 22 16 224 107 202Stockton, CA  MSA 89 265 2 153 192 128 197 202 301 8Syracuse, NY  MSA 233 185 227 79 123 98 41 157 112 197Tallahassee, FL  MSA 65 117 90 119 281 91 270 76 201 108

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 24

Page 27: UitdSttUnited States Urban Transport St ti tiStatisticspublicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdf · 2016-12-18 · PASSENGER MILES PUBLIC USA Public Transport Market Share 2007: Top 50

Tampa‐St. Petersburg‐Clearwater, FL  MSA 176 127 228 123 94 74 243 65 86 223Toledo OH MSA 77 23 279 164 264 123 134 267 23 286Toledo, OH  MSA 77 23 279 164 264 123 134 267 23 286Topeka, KS  MSA 124 131 141 142 119 156 180 246 154 155Torrington, CT  MSA 177 92 277 93 55 292 189 176 56 253Traverse City, MI  MSA 163 153 152 242 30 108 130 308 96 213Trenton‐Ewing, NJ  MSA 277 273 117 12 183 115 70 39 291 18Tucson, AZ  MSA 240 241 82 68 84 37 125 61 231 78T l OK MSA 57 105 95 270 177 286 208 115 151 158Tulsa, OK  MSA 57 105 95 270 177 286 208 115 151 158Tuscaloosa, AL  MSA 53 42 203 181 267 135 239 108 76 233Tyler, TX  MSA 160 139 188 230 98 148 290 6 74 235Utica‐Rome, NY  MSA 136 96 215 163 132 200 111 238 75 234Valdosta, GA  MSA 76 150 68 226 239 202 275 13 206 103Vallejo‐Fairfield, CA  MSA 138 228 23 45 236 167 253 126 289 20Vi l d Mill ill B id NJ MSA 30 169 24 88 308 298 297 26 279 30Vineland‐Millville‐Bridgeton, NJ  MSA 30 169 24 88 308 298 297 26 279 30Virginia Beach‐Norfolk‐Newport News, VA‐NC  MSA 201 146 218 144 44 168 150 132 83 226Visalia‐Porterville, CA  MSA 70 267 1 267 230 205 229 31 300 9Waco, TX  MSA 48 141 60 275 206 232 170 222 205 104Washington‐Arlington‐Alexandria, DC‐VA‐MD‐WV  MSA 302 300 142 3 102 145 110 236 306 3Waterloo‐Cedar Falls, IA  MSA 189 133 241 245 133 106 34 284 32 277Wausau, WI  MSA 106 64 223 265 139 80 151 211 36 273Wichita, KS  MSA 25 20 202 264 219 195 255 231 52 257Williamsport, PA  MSA 169 143 173 148 282 227 24 155 110 199Wilmington, NC  MSA 94 121 121 210 127 125 198 244 142 167Winston‐Salem, NC  MSA 96 41 268 162 195 276 259 30 35 274Worcester, MA  MSA 123 78 235 124 166 247 148 168 81 228Yakima, WA  MSA 31 190 14 234 245 251 193 263 265 44York‐Hanover, PA  MSA 108 56 251 157 148 246 159 186 53 256Youngstown‐Warren‐Boardman, OH‐PA  MSA 59 6 305 243 196 288 221 83 2 307Yuba City, CA  MSA 101 221 15 136 103 230 299 112 278 31Yuma, AZ  MSA 145 214 40 173 218 266 80 78 240 69

Calculated from American Community Survey dataPersonal Modes: Drive Alone, Work at Home, Bicycle, Walk, OtherShared Modes: Car Pool & Transit

This Document: http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-usa2007ann.pdfPrincipal Site: http://www.demographia.com/Principal Site: http://www.demographia.com/

United States Urban Transport Statistics: A Compendium 25