Chart: America's driving capitals

[edale]

Originally Posted by craigs

Personally, I consider the Bay Area and the Southland to each be a single metropolitan area, but the powers that be disagree. So we have each of those regions split into not merely two, but multiple MSAs (e.g., Santa Rosa and Oxnard-Ventura). It's not that LA and SF "benefit" from anything here, it's just how the comparison is being made. I suspect many other areas would see a change in the numbers and perhaps rankings if we compared CSAs.

You said Vegas, Miami, and LA "do well" on this list, but take issue with my use of the word benefit? LA 'benefits' in this sense by having a better ranking on this list due to the IE being a separate MSA. Not that anyone cares, or even knows, about this list besides this handful of nerds on SSP

I'm quite familiar with how the census defines MSAs, and the oddities that abound with metro area divisions. Depending on the subject of the list at hand, having adjoining metro areas separated can either make a region rank better or worse/higher or lower. I agree that the greater Bay Area should be a single MSA. I also agree that the IE and LA should be a single MSA.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by Crawford

So DC is the only transit-oriented metro (for American standards) with a comparatively high share of average miles driven.

And the "which is more urban/transit oriented" comparisons make sense for Boston, Philly, Chicago and SF. They're all about the same in terms of miles driven.

Not terribly surprised that DC lands somewhere in the middle despite a metro and transit presence given a few factors:

- military presence scattered about the MSA which is naturally ex-urban
- MSA map is absurdly defined stretching from Shenandoah on the West, WV/MD to the NW, MD/VA Cheasapeake on the East
- Its a polymorphous metro with major nodes in suburban areas - namely Tyson's Corner, Reston, Arlington, Alexandria, Bethesda, Gathersburg etc.
- Sandwiched between Richmond and Baltimore MSAs, further clogging arteries

[Comrade]

Originally Posted by The162urbandude

Also, LA and Vegas being near the bottom is kind of curious, especially with so many people complaining about LA's car dependence and inadequate transit and very few people walking/biking.

Just spit ballin' here but Vegas isn't very big and a huge chunk of the population likely works in hospitality around The Strip, which is somewhat centrally located.

The south-end of Clark County (around Henderson) is only seven-miles from The Strip.

Nellis Air Force Base is like 14 miles east from The Strip.

Vegas is actually a pretty easy city to get around.

As for LA, it wouldn't surprise me if people generally worked/played in the area they lived. If you're in, say, Hacienda Heights, you're probably frequently staying in that vicinity and not driving into downtown every day.

But what the hell do I know lmao

[Wigs]

Buffalo's scoring well on these lists

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Comrade

As for LA, it wouldn't surprise me if people generally worked/played in the area they lived. If you're in, say, Hacienda Heights, you're probably frequently staying in that vicinity and not driving into downtown every day.

That's what I suspect as well.

[JManc]

One city that is deceptively easy to get around in is Anchorage. The city limits is huge and is low density but the actual developed areas are pretty compact. I can get from the airport to midtown or downtown in about 10-15 minutes.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Comrade

As for LA, it wouldn't surprise me if people generally worked/played in the area they lived. If you're in, say, Hacienda Heights, you're probably frequently staying in that vicinity and not driving into downtown every day.

Speaking for myself, anecdotally, I work 8 miles away from where I live. My partner, when he's not working from home, goes to his office one day a week, and it's about 3 miles away.

So yeah, being that Los Angeles has many job centers, it's possible to work close to where you live. And many people WFH. But see, there are also many people who don't work close to where they live in Greater Los Angeles, so I was surprised that LA made it into the top 10 (of that particular list) of MSAs that drove the least during the weekdays.

And speaking personally, it's on the weekends that we tend to venture further out from where we live, either on public transportation, or by driving.

[plinko]

Sadly, while I work from home 2 days a week, I still have a 5 day average of 32.4!

At least my commute is pretty...



Source

[ocman]

Originally Posted by The162urbandude

Also, LA and Vegas being near the bottom is kind of curious, especially with so many people complaining about LA's car dependence and inadequate transit and very few people walking/biking.

People choose to live based on commute times more than distance. Just because Angelenos live 24 miles away from work doesn't mean their commute times are less that people in Raleigh. I imagine Americans have a similar threshold in commute time and this list is probably more indicative of traffic congestion rankings with the lower half being the worst.

[jd3189]

I'm actually a rare zero for LA, relatively speaking. I live on the same block as the hospital I work at. However, a lot my my coworkers commute in from as far as the IE to do a few shifts a week.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by plinko

Sadly, while I work from home 2 days a week, I still have a 5 day average of 32.4!

At least my commute is pretty...



Source

To a lot of people outside of California, myself included, that view will probably remind them of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[Centropolis]

I knew St. Louis would be up there. St. Louis passed on building the planned subway/heavy rail system and its mid-century wealth and influence was its doom - we got all the highway (and demolition) funding we asked for and then some (along with Kansas City) before Missouri lost its relative position in congress. Not a tollway in sight and a better-than-Texas expressway system.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I knew St. Louis would be up there. St. Louis passed on building the planned subway/heavy rail system

Such an unfortunate swing and a miss.

Might've been like the midwest's Philly with comprehensive legacy rail systems (rapid transit & commuter) that remained intact.

[PhillyRising]

Even living here in suburban Philly...I am at about the area average from a suburb to suburb commute and it's only 20 miles over the road because of the terrain and our lack of expressways that keep it from being a 15 mile commute if it were a straight line from door to door. It takes me about 25 minutes at most going in at 5am and about 40 coming home at 3:45 with traffic and more red lights.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by PhillyRising

Even living here in suburban Philly...I am at about the area average from a suburb to suburb commute and it's only 20 miles over the road.

I can't fully tell, but it sounds like you're talking about the one-way driving distance for your commute, which would put you at roughly double of the Philly metro average weekday miles driven (40 miles vs. 21.1 miles)

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Most miles traveled
1 Raleigh, N.C. - 38.1
2 Birmingham, Ala. - 36.1
3 Jacksonville, Fla. - 36.0
4 Nashville, Tenn. - 35.5
5 Charlotte, N.C. - 35.5

Genuine question for people living in these cities and commuting long distances. Why not just live closer to work? Its not like there is any significant advantage achieved by living that far away when it comes to housing cost. And ya'll go to and commute to the same stores anyway.
I am very ignorant on this topic.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Genuine question for people living in these cities and commuting long distances. Why not just live closer to work? Its not like there is any significant advantage achieved by living that far away when it comes to housing cost. And ya'll go to and commute to the same stores anyway.
I am very ignorant on this topic.

Length of commute time is the primary consideration for how far people choose to live from work, so all of those cities with long commute distances are places where it is easy to cover a long distance in a short amount of time. All cities are equally influenced by the 30-minute commuting radius rule. Within a 30-minute radius, people will prioritize other factors like status, space, etc. Outside of a 30-minute radius people will prioritize distance.

This happens regardless of primary mode of transit. If a city/region builds wide roads, freeways, etc., then people will just respond by living farther away. If a city/region prioritizes fast and reliable mass transit then people will respond by clustering close to transit hubs.

The size of cities remained relatively stagnant for around 1,000 years. Bloomberg compared how ancient Rome and medieval Paris were roughly the same size, mainly due to most people needing to commute on foot. Municipal boundaries paralleled rough estimates of how far someone could walk in 30 minutes, also known as the Marchetti Constant.

Most people still commute 30 minutes each way every weekday, but how we commute has changed. Across the 19th and 20th centuries, the Second Industrial Revolution introduced ever faster and more convenient methods of public and personal transportation. From railroads and streetcars to subways and highways, development eventually led to the poster child of 21st-century suburban sprawl, Atlanta.

https://jalopnik.com/the-30-minute-c...nia-1851002886

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Length of commute time is the primary consideration for how far people choose to live from work, so all of those cities with long commute distances are places where it is easy to cover a long distance in a short amount of time. All cities are equally influenced by the 30-minute commuting radius rule. Within a 30-minute radius, people will prioritize other factors like status, space, etc. Outside of a 30-minute radius people will prioritize distance.

This happens regardless of primary mode of transit. If a city/region builds wide roads, freeways, etc., then people will just respond by living farther away. If a city/region prioritizes fast and reliable mass transit then people will respond by clustering close to transit hubs.

Do people in those cities average sub-30 minute commutes door to door?

[Crawford]

There are plenty of reasons why people would rationally choose long commutes. They have a spouse, with a short(er) commute. They have family commitments. They like their home, or community, or school system. They're willing to trade a longer commute for lower home costs.

People on average change jobs every 3-5 years. In a major metro, it would be pretty hard to find a strategic location ensuring careerlong convenient access for two working spouses. Harder still if kids are in the equation.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Gantz

Do people in those cities average sub-30 minute commutes door to door?

Yeah, probably. Without congestion it takes about 30 minutes to drive 30 miles on most freeways. That matches up with average commuting distance for cities on the higher end according to this list.