Who Drives to Work? Commuting by 

Automobile in the United States: 2013

American Community Survey Reports

By Brian McKenzie

August 2015

ACS-32

INTRODUCTION

The automobile has played a fundamental role in 

shaping where we live and how we get around. It has 

influenced the form and density of our communities 

and expanded the geographic range of daily travel. 

Nationally, the private automobile is the predominant 

form of transportation for work and other travel purposes.1 In 2013, about 86 percent of all workers commuted to work by private vehicle, either driving alone 

or carpooling (Figure 1). In recent years, the percentage 

of workers who commute by private vehicle remained 

relatively stable after decades of consistent increase. 

For several individual years since the mid-2000s, the 

average number of vehicle miles traveled in the United 

States has either increased at a slower pace than in previous decades or declined.2, 3, 4 Although such shifts in 

travel behavior are slight, they have captured attention 

because they represent a disruption in an unequivocal, 

decades-long pattern of increased automobile travel. 

This report focuses on patterns of commuting by private vehicle among U.S. workers in 2013. It highlights 

differences in rates of automobile commuting by key 

population characteristics such as age, race, ethnicity, 

and the types of communities in which workers live. 

The information presented is based on data from the 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, “Summary of Travel Trends: 

2009 National Household Travel Survey,” Technical Report No. FHWAPL-11-022. 2011, <www.nhts.ornl.gov/publications.shtml>. 2 Michael Sivak, “Has Motorization in the United States Peaked?,” 

Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, 2014,

<www.umtri.umich.edu/our-results/publications/has-motorization

-us-peaked>. 3 Department of Transportation, “Beyond Traffic 2045: Trends and 

Choices,” 2015, <www.dot.gov/beyondtraffic>. 4 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, “Commuting in America 2013: Brief 12 Auto Commuting 2013,” 

Washington, DC, 2015, <traveltrends.transportation.org>.

American Community Survey (ACS), a survey conducted 

annually by the U.S. Census Bureau to gather information about changes in the socioeconomic, housing, and 

demographic characteristics of communities across the 

United States.5 ACS questions related to travel focus 

solely on commuting and do not ask about leisure 

travel or other nonwork trips. Among other questions 

about work-related travel, the ACS asks respondents 

how they get to work. Respondents may choose from 

among several transportation modes (Figure 2).6 In 

the United States, commutes make up less than 20 

5 Estimates for Puerto Rico are not included in this report. 

6 Commutes may involve multiple transportation modes, but ACS 

respondents are restricted to indicating the single mode used for the 

longest distance.

Figure 1. 

How People Travel to Work: 2013

(Percentage of workers. Universe: workers 16 years and 

older. Data based on sample. For information on 

confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling 

error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey,

Table S0801. 

Bicycle

Other means

of travel

Walked

Worked

at home

Public

transportation

Carpooled

Drove alone 76.4

2.8

4.4

5.2

9.4

0.6

1.3
2 U.S. Census Bureau

percent of all trips taken, but play 

an important role within the mix 

of daily travel by determining peak 

travel demand across transportation systems.7 This information is 

critical for tracking trends in travel 

behavior over time and informing 

transportation planning and

policy decisions.

To explore recent changes in travel 

behavior, several 2013 estimates 

are compared to estimates from 

2006, the earliest year of full ACS 

implementation.8 The analysis is 

limited to workers 16 years and 

older and employed during the ACS 

reference week. ACS commuting 

questions have served as the basis 

7 American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, “Commuting 

in America 2013: Brief 12 Auto Commuting 

2013,” Washington, DC, 2015, <traveltrends

.transportation.org>. 8 Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. Margins of error 

are presented for all estimates. A margin of 

error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. 

The larger the margin of error in relation to 

the size of the estimates, the less reliable the 

estimate. When added to and subtracted from 

the estimate, the margin of error forms the 

90 percent confidence interval.

for several U.S. Census Bureau 

reports, but this is the first of such 

reports to take a comparative look 

at patterns of commuting by private vehicle.9

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

• About 86 percent of U.S. workers commuted to work by 

automobile in 2013; 3 out of 4 

commuters drove alone.

• At 76.6 percent of workers,

driving alone to work peaked

in 2010. 

• The rate of carpooling has 

declined during each decade 

since 1980. About 9.0 percent 

of workers carpooled in 2013, 

down from 19.7 percent

in 1980. 

• At 78 percent, workers living 

in principal cities within metro 

areas had a lower rate of automobile commuting in 2013 than 

9 For more U.S. Census Bureau reports

on specific commuting modes, see

<www.census.gov/hhes/commuting/data

/commuting.html>.

Definitions

Private Vehicle and Automobile

are used interchangeably in this 

report to refer collectively to 

cars, trucks, or vans used for 

commuting. This includes workers who drive alone or carpool. 

Workers are civilians and

members of the Armed Forces, 

16 years and older, who were at 

work the previous week. Persons 

on vacation or not at work the 

prior week are not included.

Means of transportation to work 

refers to the principal mode 

of travel that the worker usually used to get from home to 

work during the reference week. 

People who used different means 

of transportation on different 

days of the week were asked to 

specify the one they used most 

often. People who used more 

than one means of transportation 

to get to work each day were 

asked to report the one used for 

the longest distance during the 

work trip. 

A principal city is designated

as the largest city in each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical 

area. Additional cities qualify 

if certain population requirements are met. For more detailed 

definitions of these and other 

ACS terms, see the ACS subject 

definitions list at

<www.census.gov/acs/www

/data_documentation

/documentation_main/>.

Figure 2.

Reproduction of the Question on Travel Mode from 

the 2013 American Community Survey 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey Questionnaire. 

See <www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/questionnaire_archive>.

31 How did this person usually get to work LAST 

WEEK? If this person usually used more than one 

method of transportation during the trip, mark (X) 

the box of the one used for most of the distance. 

Car, truck, or van 

Bus or trolley bus 

Streetcar or trolley car 

Subway or elevated 

Railroad 

Ferryboat 

Taxicab 

Motorcycle 

Bicycle 

Walked 

Worked at 

home ➔ SKIP 

to question 39a 

Other method 

10 §.4J&¤ 

e. Name of U.S. state or foreign country 

f. ZIP Code 

Yes ➔ SKIP to question 35c 

No 

b. LAST WEEK, was this person TEMPORARILY

absent from a job or business? 

Yes, on vacation, temporary illness,

maternity leave, other family/personal

reasons, bad weather, etc. ➔ SKIP to 

question 38 

No ➔ SKIP to question 36 

c. Has this person been informed that he or she 

will be recalled to work within the next 

6 months OR been given a date to return to

work? 

Yes ➔ SKIP to question 37 

No 

40 Du

WO

usu

Usu
U.S. Census Bureau 3

their suburban or nonmetropolitan counterparts (89 percent and 

91 percent, respectively).

• Urban workers aged 25 to 29 

showed about a 4-percentage 

point decline in automobile commuting between 2006 and 2013. 

• Workers aged 25 to 29 showed 

the largest increase in public transportation commuting 

between 2006 and 2013, from 

5.5 percent to 7.1 percent.

• Hispanic workers showed the 

highest rate of carpooling in 

2013 and the largest declines

in carpooling between 2006

and 2013, from 18.6 percent

to 14.7 percent. 

• Among the workers with the 

highest earnings and no vehicle 

at home, the rate of bicycle 

commuting more than doubled 

between 2006 and 2013, from 

1.1 percent to 2.4 percent.

NATIONAL TRENDS

IN COMMUTING

BY AUTOMOBILE

Transportation networks, whether 

transit lines, sidewalks, or roads, 

have played an important role in 

guiding the design of our communities. The flexibility and speed 

afforded by automobile travel has 

contributed to an urban form

vastly different from the dense

hub-and-spoke patterns associated 

with streetcar-oriented development or the grid-like patterns associated with early walking-oriented 

cities.10 The automobile, among 

10 Kenneth Jackson, “Crabgrass Frontier: 

The Suburbanization of the United States,” 

New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

other forces, facilitated decentralization of the workplace and 

greater physical separation of home 

from work.11 Many of the nation’s 

now-mature automobile-oriented 

landscapes include residential and 

commercial spaces not easily accessible by other means, which has 

reinforced the automobile’s predominance among travel modes. 

Figure 3 shows the percentage of 

U.S. workers who commuted by 

private vehicle between 1960 and 

2013. It differentiates between 

carpooling and driving alone 

beginning in 1980, the first year 

11 Nathaniel Baum-Snow, “Changes in 

Transportation Infrastructure and Commuting 

Patterns in U.S. Metropolitan Areas, 1960–

2000,” American Economic Review Papers and 

Proceedings, 100 (2): 378–382, 2010.

Figure 3. 

Commuting by Automobile: 1960 to 2013

(Percentage of workers. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 Census; 2006, 2010, 2013 American Community Survey.

Carpooled

Drove alone

Total automobile

2013

ACS

2010

ACS

2006

ACS

2000

Census

1990

Census

1980

Census

1970

Census

1960

Census

64.0

86.7 87.9 86.5

84.1

77.7

86.3 85.8

73.2

64.4

9.49.7 10.7 12.2 13.4

19.7

75.7 76.0 76.4 76.6
4 U.S. Census Bureau

this detailed information became 

available. Commuting by private 

vehicle continuously increased 

from 64.0 percent in 1960 to its 

peak at 87.9 percent in 2000. The 

largest gains occurred between 

1960 and 1970, when the rate of 

automobile commuting increased 

by almost 14 percentage points. 

Between 2000 and 2013, the rate 

of automobile commuting declined 

from 87.9 percent to 85.8 percent. 

While information about carpooling 

has been available only since 1980, 

a clear trend of declining rates of 

carpooling is evident. Almost 20 

percent of U.S. workers carpooled 

to work in 1980, but this number 

declined over the next 3 decades, 

reaching its lowest point in 2013, 

at 9.4 percent. Driving alone to 

work increased notably during the 

1980s and 1990s, but the pace of 

increase slowed during the early 

2000s. The peak rate of driving 

alone to work occurred in 2010, 

with 76.6 percent of all workers. 

TRENDS IN COMMUTING 

BY AUTOMOBILE ACROSS 

COMMUNITIES

The interchange of people, goods, 

and services that provide the building blocks of regional economies 

often transcend municipal boundaries to encompass several contiguous communities. This is also true 

of transportation networks, such 

as roads and transit systems. For 

this reason, metropolitan statistical 

areas (referred to as metro areas 

in this report for brevity) and their 

components are often the most 

appropriate geographic units for 

assessing travel patterns. A metro 

area contains a core urban area 

population of 50,000 or more and 

consists of one or more counties.12

12 For more detailed information about the 

Office of Management and Budget standards 

for delineating metropolitan and micropolitan 

statistical areas, visit <www.census.gov

/population/metro/>.

They include counties containing 

core urban areas, as well as any 

adjacent counties that have a high 

degree of social and economic 

integration with urban cores. Large 

central cities within each metropolitan or micropolitan statistical area 

are designated “principal cities,” a 

commonly used geographic unit 

within this report. 

The automobile is the predominant 

commuting mode for all metro 

areas, even those with comparatively low rates of automobile 

travel.13 Some of the most striking community-level differences 

13 For a list of rates of driving alone or 

carpooling for metropolitan statistical areas, 

see ACS Tables GCT0802 and GCT0803 in 

American FactFinder at <www.Factfinder2

.census.gov>.

in automobile commuting occur 

across different types of communities within the same metro area, 

such as central cities and their 

suburbs. Figure 4 compares rates 

of private vehicle commuting for 

workers who lived in principal 

cities within metro areas, workers who lived outside of principal 

cities within metro areas, and 

workers who lived outside of any 

metro area in 2006 and 2013.14, 

15 At 78 percent, workers living in 

principal cities within a metro area 

had a lower rate of private vehicle 

14 Unless otherwise stated, metro area 

comparisons across years use each respective 

year’s metro area definitions and boundaries. 15 Figure 4 and several other figures have 

corresponding appendix tables, located at the 

end of this report, that include the numbers 

and margins of error associated with them.

Figure 4. 

Automobile Commuting by Type of Community

(In percent. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For

information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error,

and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 1 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey. 

2006 2013

87

91

86

80

9090

78

89

Lived in a 

principal city,

in metro area

Lived outside 

principal city,

in metro area

Lived outside

any metro area

All workers
U.S. Census Bureau 5

commuting in 2013 than their 

suburban or nonmetropolitan area 

counterparts (89 percent and 91 

percent, respectively).16 Between 

2006 and 2013, workers living 

in principal cities also showed 

the largest decline, from 80 percent to 78 percent, in automobile 

commuting. 

Table 1 ranks the 15 large metro 

areas (populations of 500,000 or 

greater) among those with the largest declines in private vehicle commuting between 2006 and 2013.17

Even with relatively high rates of 

16 In this report, the term “suburb” refers 

to areas within a metropolitan statistical area 

but outside of a principal city. 17 Note that this table uses the most 

recent metropolitan statistical area definitions, updated in 2013, and allows a direct 

comparison with their equivalent county 

aggregates in 2006. For this reason, 2006 

estimates presented here may differ slightly 

from those based on the 2006 metropolitan 

statistical area definitions.

decline, the level of private vehicle 

commuting of several metro areas 

on the list remained above the 

2013 national average of about 

86 percent of workers. The list 

includes metro areas from all four 

U.S. regions. Large metro areas, 

such as San Francisco and Boston, 

show relatively large declines 

in automobile commuting rates 

between 2006 and 2013. The 

automobile commuting rate in the 

San Francisco metro area declined 

by about 4 percentage points. 

The New York City metro area, the 

nation’s largest, showed the lowest 

rate of automobile commuting, at 

56.9 percent in 2013, down from 

59.1 percent in 2006. 

Table 2 shows metro areas with 

the lowest rates of private vehicle 

commuting in 2013 with the travel 

mode other than the automobile 

most commonly used to get to 

work.18 The list includes a diverse 

set of metro areas and a variety 

of secondary travel modes. Metro 

areas that contain some of the 

nation’s largest cities such as New 

York City, Washington, DC, San 

Francisco, Chicago, and Boston 

relied heavily on their subway and 

bus systems. Those associated with 

college towns such as Ithaca, NY, 

18 In the Bremerton, WA metro area, the 

rate of walked (5.6 percent) and worked from 

home (5.4 percent) are not statistically

different from that of ferry commuting.

In the Corvallis, OR metro area, the rate of

walked (7.9 percent) and worked from

home (7.7 percent) are not statistically different from that of bicycle commuting. In the 

Missoula, MT metro area, the rate of bicycle 

commuting (5.2 percent) is not statistically 

different from that of walking. 

Table 1.

Metro Areas of Populations 500,000 or Greater Among Those With the Largest Declines in 

Rate of Automobile Commuting Between 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Rank Metropolitan statistical area

Percentage 

of workers

2006

Margin

of error (±)

Percentage 

of workers

2013

Margin

of error (±) Decline

Margin

of error (±)

1 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA . . . . . 73.6 0.5 69.8 0.5 3.8 0.7

2 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH . . . . . . 78.9 0.5 75.6 0.4 3.3 0.7

3 Durham-Chapel Hill, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8 1.2 83.9 1.4 2.9 1.8

4 Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.6 0.9 88.7 1.9 2.9 2.1

5 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT . . . . . . . . 81.3 1.2 78.5 1.0 2.8 1.6

6 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . 82.3 0.5 79.5 0.6 2.8 0.8

7 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington,

 PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.1 0.4 80.5 0.4 2.7 0.6

8 Deltona-Daytona Beach-

 Ormond Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 0.8 89.4 1.2 2.7 1.5

9 Madison, WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.5 0.8 81.9 1.1 2.7 1.4

10 New Orleans-Metairie, LA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 0.7 89.1 0.7 2.6 1.0

11 Springfield, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.7 0.9 87.1 1.1 2.6 1.4

12 Boise City, ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.9 1.0 88.5 1.1 2.4 1.5

13 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA . . 59.1 0.3 56.9 0.3 2.2 0.4

14 Syracuse, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.6 0.9 87.4 0.9 2.1 1.2

15 Albuquerque, NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91.4 0.8 89.3 0.8 2.1 1.2

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. See ACS Table S0802 in American FactFinder at <www.Factfinder2.census.gov>. The differences in percentages

in this table may not be statistically different from one another, or other metro areas not shown. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.

A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate.

When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Corvallis, OR, and State College, 

PA, showed high rates of walking and bicycling to work. In the 

Boulder, CO metro area, more than 

1 in 10 people worked at home. 

Almost 8.0 percent of workers 

in the Bridgeport, CT metro area 

got to work by commuter rail, 

and 6.4 percent of workers in the 

Bremerton, WA metro area used a 

ferry for their longest commute 

segment.

DIFFERENCES IN 

AUTOMOBILE COMMUTING 

BY AGE 

Rapidly evolving transportation 

options and changing demographics across communities raise 

several questions about current 

and future travel patterns. Young 

people show some deviation from 

several long-standing travel-related 

indicators, including higher rates

of commuting by travel modes 

other than private vehicles

and lower rates of vehicle availability.19, 20 Driver’s licensing rates 

among young people have also 

declined or held steady in recent 

years.21, 22, 23 To what extent

these deviations may become 

a sustained pattern remains 

unclear. This question is closely 

tied to other patterns of population change, such as labor market 

19 Brian McKenzie, “Modes Less Traveled: 

Bicycling and Walking to Work in the United 

States: 2008–2012,” American Community 

Survey Reports, ACS-25, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2014. 20 Joseph Kane and Adie Tomer, “Millennials and Generation X Commuting Less by Car, 

But Will the Trends Hold?,” Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Infrastructure Initiative, 

Washington, DC, 2014. 21 U.S. PIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group, “New Directions: Our Changing 

Relationship With Driving and Implications for 

America’s Future,” 2013, <www.uspirg.org

/sites/pirg/files/reports/>. 22 U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Federal Highway Administration, Highway 

Statistics Series, <www.fhwa.dot.gov

/policyinformation/statistics/>. 23 Noreen C. McDonald, “Are Millennials 

Really the ‘Go-Nowhere’ Generation?,” Journal 

of the American Planning Association, 81(2), 

1–14, 2015. 

trends, the types of communities in which young workers live 

and work, and the transportation 

options within those communities. 

Table 3 shows differences in

commuting mode by age for 2006 

and 2013. With few exceptions,

the likelihood of driving alone to 

work increased with age in 2013, 

while carpooling declined. Workers 

aged 16 to 24 show the lowest 

rates of driving alone, at 70.1 

percent in 2013. Between 2006 

and 2013, the rate of carpooling 

declined across all age categories. 

The universal decline in carpooling 

coincided with a mixed pattern

of increases in other modes. 

Driving alone increased from

76.0 percent to 76.4 percent 

among all workers and increased 

by about 1 percentage point

among workers in the youngest 

and oldest age categories. The 

three youngest age groups experienced an increase in commuting 

Table 2. 

Metro Areas Among Those With the Lowest Rates of Automobile Commuting

and Their Second Most Common Commute Mode: 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Rank Metropolitan statistical area Percentage of

workers who 

commuted by 

private vehicle 

Margin

of error 

(±)

Alternative

travel mode

with highest

commuting share

Second most 

common

commute

mode

(percentage of

workers)

Margin

of error 

(±)

1 New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . 56.9 0.3 Subway or elevated rail 18.9 0.2

2 Ithaca, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.7 3.6 Walked 17.5 2.4

3 San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.8 0.5 Bus or trolley bus 7.6 0.3

4 Boulder, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.9 1.8 Worked at home 11.1 1.3

5 Corvallis, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.6 3.9 Bicycle 8.8 2.5

6 Iowa City, IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.4 2.8 Walked 11.1 2.0

7 Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.6 0.4 Subway or elevated rail 6.2 0.3

8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . 75.7 0.4 Subway or elevated rail 8.0 0.3

9 Bremerton-Silverdale, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.0 1.9 Ferry 6.4 1.0

10 Missoula, MT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.2 4.3 Walked 8.5 3.1

11 Champaign-Urbana, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.4 1.6 Walked 7.9 1.3

12 Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.5 1.0 Long distance

or commuter rail

7.6 0.6

13 Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.1 0.4 Bus or trolley bus 4.7 0.2

14 Urban Honolulu, HI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.1 1.0 Bus or trolley bus 7.9 0.7

15 State College, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.2 2.2 Walked 9.9 1.9

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. See ACS Table S0801 in American FactFinder at <www.Factfinder2.census.gov>. Data are based on a

sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size

of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 3.

Commuting Mode by Age Group: 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Age group and commute mode

2006 2013

Workers 

(in thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

Workers

(in thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

ALL WORKERS

 Total workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,266 100 Z 142,962 100 Z

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,046 76.0 0.1 109,277 76.4 0.1

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,852 10.7 0.1 13,387 9.4 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,684 4.8 Z 7,393 5.2 Z

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 623 0.5 Z 882 0.6 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,952 2.9 Z 4,000 2.8 Z

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,698 1.2 Z 1,793 1.3 Z

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,411 3.9 Z 6,229 4.4 Z

16 to 24 years

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,619 69.1 0.2 13,143 70.1 0.2

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,914 14.8 0.2 2,300 12.3 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,026 5.2 0.1 1,091 5.8 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 0.8 Z 204 1.1 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,235 6.3 0.1 1,234 6.6 0.1

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 1.6 0.1 310 1.7 0.1

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427 2.2 0.1 455 2.4 0.1

25 to 29 years

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,185 74.6 0.2 11,687 74.8 0.2

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,951 13.0 0.2 1,594 10.2 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 5.5 0.1 1,117 7.1 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 0.6 Z 148 0.9 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 2.8 0.1 499 3.2 0.1

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 1.3 0.1 203 1.3 0.1

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 2.1 0.1 376 2.4 0.1

30 to 34 years

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,041 75.3 0.2 11,830 75.6 0.2

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,726 11.8 0.1 1,605 10.3 0.2

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 5.7 0.1 979 6.3 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 0.5 Z 116 0.7 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340 2.3 0.1 394 2.5 0.1

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 1.2 0.1 197 1.3 0.1

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462 3.1 0.1 534 3.4 0.1

35 to 44 years

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,660 77.0 0.1 23,507 77.0 0.1

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,486 10.5 0.1 2,985 9.8 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,635 4.9 0.1 1,539 5.0 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 0.4 Z 165 0.5 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697 2.1 Z 605 2.0 Z

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401 1.2 Z 375 1.2 Z

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,319 4.0 0.1 1,350 4.4 0.1

45 to 54 years

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,449 78.7 0.1 25,223 78.6 0.1

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,966 9.2 0.1 2,758 8.6 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,399 4.3 0.1 1,424 4.4 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 0.3 Z 140 0.4 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 2.0 Z 611 1.9 Z

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356 1.1 Z 373 1.2 Z

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,391 4.3 Z 1,581 4.9 0.1

55 years and older

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,092 77.8 0.1 23,889 78.8 0.1

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,808 7.8 0.1 2,145 7.1 0.1

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952 4.1 0.1 1,243 4.1 0.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 0.2 Z 109 0.4 Z

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 2.6 0.1 657 2.2 Z

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 1.1 Z 336 1.1 Z

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,495 6.4 0.1 1,932 6.4 0.1

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate,

the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

by public transportation. Workers 

aged 25 to 29 showed the highest 

public transportation increase, from 

5.5 percent to 7.1 percent. Younger 

workers also showed notable 

increases in bicycle commuting. 

For example, for workers in two 

age categories, 25 to 29 years and 

30 to 34 years, the percentage 

of bicycle commuters increased 

about 0.3 percentage points, a 

small absolute increase, but a 

substantial proportional increase 

given the small numeric base for 

bicycle commuting. Technological 

and policy changes not only affect 

how we travel, but whether or not 

we travel. Working from home has 

consistently captured an increased 

share of overall commutes over the 

last few decades.24 Between 2006 

and 2013, the rate of workers who 

worked at home increased from 3.9 

percent to 4.4 percent.

Differences in travel patterns are 

evident across age groups, perhaps because age often aligns with 

important social and economic 

24 Peter J. Mateyka, Melanie A. Rapino, and 

Liana Christin Landivar, “Home-Based Workers 

in the United States: 2010,” Current Population Reports, P70-132, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2012.

predictors such as education, 

family structure, or community of 

residence, which influence transportation options and preferences. 

Figure 5 combines the drove alone 

and carpooling categories to show 

an overall rate of automobile commuting by age and the type of 

community in which workers live. 

This figure compares workers living 

within principal cities within metro 

areas to all other workers. Young 

workers in principal cities (in metro 

areas) showed relatively low rates 

of automobile commuting in 2013 

and declines in rates of driving 

between 2006 and 2013. Among 

Figure 5. 

Commuting by Automobile by Age and Community Type: 2006 and 2013

(Percentage of workers. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: See Appendix Table 2 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.

Lived elsewhere (2013)

Lived elsewhere (2006)

Lived inside principal city, in metro area (2013)

Lived inside principal city, in metro area (2006)

Nation (2013)

Nation (2006)

83.9

82.4

87.4

85.8 86.8

87.0

85.0

87.6

80.2

85.9

85.6

87.1

87.9

73.6 76.7 77.7 79.5

75.9

80.5

80.6 79.9 80.7 81.7

79.7

88.0 91.4 90.8 90.2

89.9

90.2

87.4 90.9 90.5 89.5 88.1

88.0

16 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years

55 years

and older
U.S. Census Bureau 9

them, workers aged 16 to 24 

showed the lowest rate of automobile commuting at 73.6 percent in 

2013. Automobile commuting rates 

changed little for most age groups 

between 2006 and 2013, but rates 

for younger workers, the focus 

of increased media attention in 

recent years, showed some decline. 

Workers aged 25 to 29 living in 

principal cities showed the largest 

decline in automobile commuting, 

from 80.6 percent in 2006 to 76.7 

percent in 2013. Compared with 

their urban counterparts, workers 

who lived outside of principal cities 

in metro areas were more likely 

to commute by automobile and 

showed less variation in automobile commuting rates across age 

groups. Among urban workers in 

2013, workers aged 45 to 54 had 

the highest rate of automobile commuting at 80.5 percent, whereas 

workers living elsewhere reached 

their highest rate of automobile 

commuting between ages 25 and 

29 at 90.9 percent.25

Differences between cities and the 

communities that surround them 

25 Among nonurban workers, the automobile commuting rate for workers aged 25 to 

29 was not statistically different from that of 

workers aged 30 to 34. 

become more acute within some 

of the nation’s largest metro areas, 

particularly those with extensive 

public transportation systems. 

Figure 6 shows rates of automobile 

commuting by age for the ten cities with the highest level of public 

transportation activity based on 

passenger trips: New York City, 

Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, 

DC, Boston, Philadelphia, San 

Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle, and 

Baltimore.26 The graph reinforces 

26 American Public Transportation Association, “Public Transportation Fact Book,” 

Appendix A: Historical Tables, Washington, 

DC, 2014, <www.apta.com/resources

/statistics>.

Figure 6. 

Automobile Commuting by Age in the Ten Cities With the Most Public Transportation

Activity: 2006 and 20131

(Percentage of workers within ten cities (combined). Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For

information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

1 Level of public transportation activity is based on passenger trips and passenger miles associated with the area's transit agency in 2013.

Cities include: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle, Baltimore. See APTA

2014 Public Transportation Fact Book at <www.apta.com/resources/statistics>. 

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 3 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey. 

2006 2013

55 years

and older

45 to 54

years 

35 to 44

years 

30 to 34

years 

25 to 29

years 

16 to 24

years 

42

38

53

46

50

43

49

54

50

52 53 52
10 U.S. Census Bureau

the pattern of declining automobile 

commuting rates in urban areas 

with a diverse set of transportation 

options. Automobile commuting 

rates generally declined between 

2006 and 2013, regardless of age, 

but younger workers showed the 

largest declines. Workers aged 16 

to 24 showed the lowest rate of 

automobile commuting in 2013 at 

38 percent, but workers aged 25 

to 29 showed the sharpest decline 

in automobile commuting between 

2006 and 2013, from 49 percent to 

43 percent.

TRENDS IN DRIVING ALONE 

AND CARPOOLING BY RACE, 

ETHNICITY, AND FOREIGNBORN STATUS

Figure 7 shows the rate of driving 

alone and carpooling by race and 

ethnicity.27 In 2013, White workers 

27 Federal surveys now give respondents 

the option of reporting more than one race. 

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a 

race group are possible. A group such as 

Asian may be defined as those who reported 

Asian and no other race or as those who 

reported Asian regardless of whether they 

also reported another race. This report 

shows data using the first approach (race 

alone). For further information, see the report 

“Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 

(C2010BR-02)” at <www.census.gov/library

/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-02.html>. 

Each group, including in the analysis that

falls outside of the Hispanic category, 

includes only workers who identified

as “non-Hispanic.”

had the highest rate of driving 

alone to work at 80 percent, and 

the lowest rate of carpooling at 

8 percent. Asian workers had the 

lowest rate of driving alone at 67 

percent. Between 2006 and 2013, 

all groups listed showed declines 

in carpooling. Hispanic workers 

showed the highest rate of carpooling in 2013 at 15 percent, down 

from 19 percent in 2006, the largest decline among groups. 

Table 4 takes a closer look at differences in commuting mode by race 

and ethnicity. It compares workers living within principal cities in 

metro areas to those in all other 

types of communities. White workers living outside of a metro area’s 

Figure 7. 

Rates of Driving Alone and Carpooling by Race and Ethnicity: 2006 and 2013 

(In percent. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, 

sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 4 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey. 

Drove alone Carpooled

Other

White

Black 

Asian 

Hispanic

2013

2006

65

69

67

67

71

72

80

80

71

71

14

13

11

9

9

8

13

11

15

19
U.S. Census Bureau 11 Table 4. Travel Mode by Ethnicity, Race, and Community Type: 2013 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance.html) Ethnicity and race and type of community of residence Total number of workers within community type for each group (thousands) Percent- age of workers within community type for each group Margin of error (±) Car, truck, or van: drove alone Car, truck, or van: carpooled Public transportation Bicycle Walked Other means Worked at home Per- cent Margin of error ±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) Per- cent Margin of error (±) HISPANIC Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,562 100.0 Z 68.9 0.2 14.7 0.2 7.7 0.1 0.7 Z 3.2 0.1 1.9 0.1 2.9 0.1 Lived in principal city, in metro area . . . . . 10,161 45.0 0.2 63.9 0.3 14.0 0.2 12.4 0.2 1.0 0.1 4.0 0.1 2.0 0.1 2.8 0.1 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,401 55.0 0.2 73.1 0.3 15.3 0.2 3.8 0.1 0.5 Z 2.5 0.1 1.8 0.1 3.0 0.1 ASIANTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,652 100.0 Z 66.8 0.3 12.9 0.2 10.9 0.2 0.6 Z 3.9 0.1 1.1 0.1 3.9 0.1 Lived in principal city, in metro area . . . . . 3,654 47.8 0.3 60.4 0.5 12.1 0.3 16.0 0.3 0.8 0.1 5.8 0.2 1.2 0.1 3.6 0.2 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,998 52.2 0.3 72.6 0.4 13.5 0.3 6.1 0.2 0.3 Z 2.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 4.2 0.2 BLACKTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,328 100.0 Z 72.2 0.2 9.5 0.2 11.0 0.1 0.3 Z 2.8 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.1 Lived in principal city, in metro area . . . . . 7,350 48.0 0.2 65.8 0.3 9.1 0.2 16.9 0.2 0.4 Z 3.6 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.6 0.1 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,978 52.1 0.2 78.1 0.3 9.8 0.2 5.5 0.1 0.3 Z 2.1 0.1 1.5 0.1 2.7 0.1 WHITETotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94,004 100.0 Z 79.9 0.1 7.7 Z 3.1 Z 0.6 Z 2.6 Z 1.1 Z 5.0 Z Lived in principal city, in metro area . . . . . 24,656 26.2 0.1 73.3 0.2 7.2 0.1 7.1 0.1 1.5 Z 4.4 0.1 1.3 Z 5.3 0.1 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . 69,348 73.8 0.1 82.3 0.1 7.9 0.1 1.7 Z 0.3 Z 1.9 Z 1.0 Z 4.9 Z OTHERTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,416 100.0 Z 71.0 0.4 11.4 0.3 6.4 0.2 0.9 0.1 4.3 0.2 1.8 0.1 4.3 0.2 Lived in principal city, in metro area . . . . . 1,253 36.7 0.5 64.3 0.7 11.0 0.5 11.8 0.5 1.5 0.2 5.6 0.4 1.7 0.2 4.1 0.3 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,164 63.3 0.5 74.8 0.5 11.7 0.4 3.2 0.2 0.5 0.1 3.5 0.2 1.9 0.1 4.4 0.3 Z Rounds to zero. Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Race groups do not include workers who identified as Hispanic. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
12 U.S. Census Bureau Table 5. Carpooling Rates Across Industries by Hispanic Origin: 2013 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance.html) Industry All workers Hispanic workers Non-Hispanic workers Number of workers (thou- sands) Percent carpooled Margin of error (±) Number of workers (thou- sands) Percent carpooled Margin of error (±) Number of workers (thou- sands) Percent carpooled Margin of error (±) Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,387 9.4 0.1 3,321 14.7 0.2 10,066 8.4 0.1 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,385 15.9 0.3 577 25.2 0.7 808 12.6 0.2 Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 14.1 0.4 210 27.2 1.2 185 9.1 0.3 Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services . . 1,492 10.9 0.2 408 13.3 0.4 1,084 10.2 0.2 Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,576 10.5 0.1 399 17.1 0.5 1,176 9.3 0.1 Other services, except public administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 9.5 0.2 164 12.4 0.5 506 8.8 0.2 Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,436 9.1 0.2 444 18.2 0.5 992 7.5 0.1 Educational services, and health care and social assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,743 8.5 0.1 381 10.3 0.3 2,362 8.2 0.1 Retail trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,393 8.4 0.1 295 11.4 0.3 1,099 7.9 0.1 Wholesale trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 8.3 0.3 107 15.7 1.0 217 6.8 0.2 Armed Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 8.3 0.5 14 9.8 1.4 67 8.0 0.5 Public administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541 8.0 0.2 75 9.9 0.6 466 7.8 0.2 Transportation and warehousing, and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535 7.7 0.2 119 11.2 0.6 416 7.1 0.2 Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 6.7 0.2 32 9.7 0.9 173 6.4 0.2 Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 6.5 0.1 97 8.9 0.5 515 6.2 0.1 Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

principal city had the highest rate 

of driving alone at 82.3 percent in 

2013, while Asian workers living 

within a metro area’s principal city 

had the lowest rate at 60.4 percent. 

Hispanic workers living outside of 

a principal city showed the highest 

rate of carpooling at 15.3 percent. 

For all groups, commuting by public transportation was more common for workers within a metro 

area’s principal city than those 

living elsewhere. For example, 16.9 

percent of Black workers living 

within principal cities commuted 

by transit compared with only 5.5 

percent of their counterparts living 

elsewhere. Differences in rates of 

bicycle commuting between city 

dwellers and other workers varied 

considerably across groups. Among 

White workers living in principal 

cities, 1.5 percent commuted by 

bicycle, compared with only 0.3 

percent of those living in all other 

community types.

Table 5 shows rates of carpooling 

by Hispanic origin and industry for 

2013. Among all workers, those in 

the construction industry showed 

the highest rates of carpooling in 

2013 at 15.9 percent, followed by 

agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining at 14.1 percent. 

Among Hispanic workers in these 

industries, about 1 in 4 carpooled 

to work. Workers in information, 

finance and insurance, real estate, 

and rental and leasing showed the 

lowest rate of carpooling at 6.7 percent and 6.5 percent, respectively. 

Travel patterns also vary by

foreign-born status. Figure 8 shows 

that in 2013, foreign-born workers 

were less likely than native-born 

workers to drive alone to work, at 

65 percent and 79 percent, respectively. Between 2006 and 2013, 

native- and foreign-born workers 

showed a small increase in driving 

alone to work. Foreign-born

workers were more likely than 

native-born workers to carpool to 

work in 2013 at 14 percent and 8 

percent, respectively. Rates of carpooling declined for both groups 

between 2006 and 2013. 

Table 6 takes a closer look at 

variation in travel mode among 

foreign-born workers, differentiating by place of birth and current 

type of community. Travel patterns 

across foreign-born groups are 

closely linked to both differences in 

sociodemographic characteristics 

Figure 8. 

Rates of Driving Alone and Carpooling by Foreign-Born Status: 2006 and 2013 

(In percent. Universe: foreign-born workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality

protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 4 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey. 

Native-born

Foreign-born

10

79 8

78

63 17

65 14

Drove alone Carpooled 2013

2006
14 U.S. Census Bureau Table 6. Travel Mode by Place of Birth and Community Type Among Foreign-Born Workers: 2013 (For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/guidance.html) Place of birth and type of community of residence Total number of workers in group (thousands) Car, truck, or van: drove alone Car, truck, or van: carpooled Public transportation Bicycle Walked Other means Worked at home Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Percent Margin of error (±) Africa Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 536 63.1 1.4 8.0 0.7 19.0 1.1 0.4 0.1 4.2 0.6 2.2 0.4 3.1 0.4 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552 75.8 1.2 9.3 0.8 7.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 2.7 0.4 1.2 0.3 3.3 0.5 Asia Principal city within metro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,191 61.0 0.5 12.6 0.3 15.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 5.6 0.2 1.3 0.1 3.7 0.2 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,566 72.2 0.5 13.9 0.4 6.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 2.1 0.2 1.1 0.1 4.5 0.2 Caribbean Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 950 45.3 1.0 8.7 0.6 35.2 0.9 0.5 0.1 5.7 0.5 1.5 0.3 3.1 0.3 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,226 74.9 0.8 10.9 0.6 7.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.2 1.5 0.2 3.3 0.3 Central America Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 969 54.3 1.2 17.3 0.9 17.1 0.8 1.5 0.3 4.5 0.4 2.8 0.4 2.5 0.3 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,107 62.5 1.0 19.7 0.9 7.6 0.5 1.0 0.3 3.3 0.4 3.0 0.5 3.0 0.4 Europe Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 1,006 56.1 0.8 8.2 0.4 18.4 0.7 2.3 0.2 6.8 0.4 1.7 0.2 6.5 0.5 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,415 76.8 0.6 8.7 0.4 4.3 0.3 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.2 1.1 0.1 6.6 0.3 Mexico Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 3,243 63.2 0.6 18.6 0.5 9.1 0.4 1.0 0.1 3.4 0.2 2.5 0.2 2.3 0.2 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,671 68.0 0.6 20.9 0.5 2.9 0.2 0.6 0.1 2.9 0.2 2.1 0.2 2.7 0.2 North America (remainder) Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 160 62.6 2.0 7.1 0.9 11.8 1.4 2.4 0.5 5.9 0.9 2.1 0.7 8.1 1.1 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263 76.7 1.3 7.4 0.9 3.1 0.5 0.7 0.2 2.3 0.5 1.2 0.3 8.6 0.8 Oceania and At Sea Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 60 56.3 3.8 10.5 2.7 15.5 3.6 2.4 1.1 7.8 1.9 1.5 0.9 6.0 1.5 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 71.0 3.3 11.9 2.0 4.8 1.5 0.9 0.6 2.6 0.9 3.1 1.4 5.9 1.5 South America Principal city within metro area . . . . . . . . . . 719 49.9 1.2 10.4 0.7 27.7 1.1 1.0 0.2 5.5 0.5 1.3 0.2 4.0 0.4 All other community types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 994 71.2 1.0 12.6 0.7 7.0 0.5 0.4 0.1 2.3 0.3 1.6 0.3 4.9 0.5 Note: Universe: foreign-born workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

and residential location.28 Some 

groups have disproportionately 

settled in urban areas, which may 

increase their likelihood of using a 

diverse set of travel modes. Among 

foreign-born workers from the 

Caribbean who lived in a principal city, 45.3 percent drove alone 

to work, the lowest rate among 

groups. Foreign-born workers from 

Europe, North America, and Africa 

who lived outside of a principal 

city had the highest rates of driving alone to work, at 76.8 percent, 

76.7 percent, and 75.8 percent, 

28 Gil Tal and Susan L. Handy, “Travel 

Behavior of Immigrants: An Analysis of the 

2001 National Household Transportation

Survey,” Transport Policy, 17 (2), 85–93, 

2010.

respectively. Foreign-born workers 

from Mexico and Central America 

who lived outside of a principal city 

had the highest rates of carpooling, 

at 20.9 percent and 19.7 percent, 

respectively. Rates of bicycling and 

walking to work were relatively 

high among workers from Europe, 

North America, and Oceania/Born 

at Sea living in a principal city 

within a metro area. 

Social science research shows

that, for several socioeconomic 

indicators, the foreign-born

population increasingly mirrors

the native-born population as 

the number of years spent in the 

United States increases. Travel 

behavior is no exception to this 

pattern.29, 30 Figure 9 shows that 

foreign-born workers had lower 

rates of driving to work alone 

than native-born workers in 2013, 

regardless of year of entry, but the 

difference generally declines as 

the number of years spent in the 

United States increases for foreignborn workers. Among foreign-born 

newcomers living in principal cities 

(up to 3 years in the United States), 

42 percent drove alone to work, 

compared with 63 percent among 

foreign-born workers who had lived 

29 Sungyop Kim, “Immigrants and Transportation: An Analysis of Immigrant Workers’ 

Work Trips,” Cityscape 11.3, 155–170, 2009. 30 Daniel G. Chatman, “Explaining the 

‘Immigrant Effect’ on Auto Use: the Influences 

of Neighborhoods and Preferences,” Transportation, 41 (3):441–461, 2014. 

Figure 9. 

Driving Alone for Native-Born and Foreign-Born Workers by Year of Entry to the

United States and Community Type: 2013

(Percentage of workers within each group. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on

confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Lived outside

any metro area

Lived outside principal

city, in metro area 

Lived in a principal

city, in metro area

More than

15 years 

10 to

15 years 

All foreign- Up to 3 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 

born

Native-born

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 4 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. 

72

54

42 44

72

76

64 63 6262

50

70

53

59

63

82 81

66

71

59

64

Foreign-born workers: years in the United States
16 U.S. Census Bureau

in the United States for more than 

15 years. Foreign-born workers 

in suburbs and outside of metro 

areas show similar patterns of 

converging toward the automobile 

commuting rates of native-born 

workers within the same type of 

communities. 

Native-born workers showed 

little variation in commuting by 

carpool across the three types of 

residence communities in 2013, 

whereas the carpooling rate for 

foreign-born workers living outside of metro areas was about 7 

percentage points higher than that 

of their urban counterparts (Figure 

10). Among foreign-born workers, 

recent arrivals generally had higher 

rates of carpooling than those who 

had been in the United States for 

several years. Among foreign-born 

workers living in the United States 

for 3 years or fewer and living 

outside of a metro area, about 1 in 

4 carpooled to work.

VEHICLE AVAILABILITY 

Travel choices are highly influenced 

by not only a household’s access 

to private means of transportation, 

but also public infrastructure such 

as roads, public transportation systems, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks. 

Most U.S. workers do not have the 

option of taking a subway to work, 

but less obvious travel limitations 

such as perceived monetary, temporal, and safety costs associated 

using a particular travel mode also 

influence travel decisions.

The ACS asks respondents “How 

many automobiles, vans, and 

trucks of 1-ton capacity or less are 

kept at home for use by members 

of this household?” Workers may 

lack access to a private vehicle 

for a variety of reasons, such as 

financial constraints, preference for 

other modes of travel, or disability 

that prevents them from driving. 

Given the high dependence on 

automobiles within most communities, vehicle availability may play 

an important role in the overall 

mobility options of many workers 

and households.31

Figure 11 shows that a plurality of 

workers, 42 percent in 2013, live 

in a household with access to two 

31 For more information on trends in vehicle availability, see: American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials, 

“Commuting in America 2013: Brief 7, Vehicle 

and Transit Availability,” Washington, DC, 

2015, <traveltrends.transportation.org>.

Figure 10. 

Carpooling for Native-Born and Foreign-Born Workers by Year of Entry to the 

United States and Community Type: 2013

(Percentage of workers within each group. Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data based on sample. For information on

confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

More than

15 years 

10 to

15 years 

All foreign- Up to 3 years 4 to 6 years 7 to 9 years 

born

Native-born

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 5 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. 

8

21

16

27

18

1212

24

22

19

15

16 16

15

25

8

10

21

15

14

19

Foreign-born workers: years in the United States

Lived outside

any metro area

Lived outside principal

city, in metro area 

Lived in a principal

city, in metro area
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Figure 11. 

Number of Vehicles Available by Community Type: 2013

(Percentage of workers within group. Universe: workers 16 years and older in households. Data based on sample. For

information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: Numbers are rounded. See Appendix Table 6 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.

No vehicles 1 vehicle 2 vehicles 3 or more vehicles

Outside principal city, Outside any metro area 

inside metro area 

Inside principal

city, in metro area

All workers 

38

41

36

22

42

32

29

39

24

9

19 18

43

3 2

4

Figure 12. 

Workers With No Available Vehicle by Age and City Residence: 2006 and 2013

(Percentage of workers. Universe: workers in households 16 years and older who did not have access to a vehicle at home.

Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, 

see www.census.gov/acs/www/)

Note: See Appendix Table 7 for estimates and margins of error.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey. 

Lived elsewhere (2006) Lived elsewhere (2013) Lived in a principal city,

in metro area (2013)

Lived in a principal city,

in metro area (2006)

55 years

and older

All workers 16 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years

8.5

3.1

10.2

2.92.9

8.9 8.6 8.8

2.1 2.3

3.0

11.2

2.7 2.4

10.2

8.5 8.5

9.7

1.71.9

7.3

1.7

7.8

7.4

2.2 2.0 2.1

7.4
18 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 7.

How Workers With No Access to a Vehicle Get to Work by Earnings Categories

and Travel Mode: 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Person earnings and travel mode

2006 2013

Workers

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin

of error (±)

Workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin

of error (±)

ALL WORKERS LIVING IN HOUSEHOLDS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,742 100.0 Z 6,351 100.0 Z

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,004 17.5 0.3 1,326 20.9 0.3

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 810 14.1 0.3 731 11.5 0.2

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,399 41.8 0.4 2,602 41.0 0.4

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 2.6 0.1 202 3.2 0.1

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871 15.2 0.3 919 14.5 0.3

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 5.2 0.2 307 4.8 0.2

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214 3.7 0.1 264 4.2 0.2

$0 TO $24,999

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,407 100.0 Z 3,387 100.0 Z

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 14.0 0.3 614 18.1 0.4

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 17.3 0.4 487 14.4 0.3

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,331 39.1 0.5 1,283 37.9 0.4

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 3.1 0.2 120 3.5 0.2

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 16.9 0.4 553 16.3 0.4

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 5.8 0.3 191 5.6 0.3

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 3.8 0.2 138 4.1 0.2

$25,000 TO $74,999

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,925 100.0 Z 2,256 100.0 Z

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 22.7 0.5 559 24.8 0.5

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 10.6 0.5 214 9.5 0.3

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876 45.5 0.6 980 43.4 0.6

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1.9 0.2 65 2.9 0.2

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 11.9 0.4 265 11.7 0.4

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4.0 0.3 89 3.9 0.2

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3.3 0.2 84 3.7 0.2

$75,000 OR MORE

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 410 100.0 Z 708 100.0 Z

Car, truck, or van: drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 22.0 0.9 152 21.5 0.7

Car, truck, or van: carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.1 0.5 30 4.2 0.4

Public transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 46.8 1.4 339 47.8 1.1

Bicycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.1 0.3 17 2.4 0.3

Walked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 15.8 0.9 101 14.3 0.7

Other means . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.2 0.5 28 3.9 0.4

Worked at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5.0 0.6 41 5.8 0.5

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers in households 16 years and older who did not have access to a vehicle at home. Data are based on a sample and are subject to

sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable 

the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.

vehicles, and only 4 percent have 

no access to a vehicle at home. 

Among workers living within cities 

in metro areas, 9 percent had no 

vehicle access, compared with 2 

percent for those who lived in a 

suburb and 3 percent for those 

who lived outside of a metro area 

in 2013. About 1 out of 4 workers living within a principal city in 

a metro area had access to three 

vehicles or more, compared with 

38 percent of workers living outside of a metro area. Just as rates 

of driving to work vary by age and 

community type, so do rates of 

vehicle access (Figure 12). In 2013, 

11 percent of workers between the 

ages of 25 and 29 who lived within 

principal cities in a metro area 

lacked access to a vehicle at home, 

higher than any other age group. 

The rate of no vehicle accessibility 

changed little between 2006 and 

2013. Workers aged 25 to 29 experienced the sharpest decline, at just 

over 1 percentage point. 

More than 6 million workers in 

the United States lack access to 
U.S. Census Bureau 19

a private vehicle at their home.32

Among them, strategies for getting 

to work vary according to a number 

of factors, such as financial constraints, physical ability, distance 

to work, or the availability of other 

forms of transportation. Many 

workers who lack vehicle access 

also lack access to public transportation, often creating barriers to 

accessing employment, particularly 

for low-income workers.33 Table 7 

shows how workers with no available vehicle traveled to work across 

earnings categories and how this 

changed between 2006 and 2013. 

Across all earnings categories, 

workers who did not have access 

to a vehicle used public transportation at much higher rates than 

the 5.2 percent national average. 

In 2013, workers without vehicle 

access earning $75,000 or more, 

the highest earnings category, were 

most likely to ride transit to work 

at 46.8 percent. This may reflect 

the prevalence of high earners in 

very large cities with high rates of 

public transportation usage such 

as New York, San Francisco, and 

Washington, DC. Among the highest earners, the rate of bicycle commuting more than doubled between 

2006 and 2013, from 1.1 percent 

to 2.4 percent. The relatively high 

rate of workers who reported driving alone with no vehicle access 

is a surprising outcome. In the 

two highest earning categories, 

more than 20 percent of workers 

32 See American Community Survey Table 

B08014, 2013 American Community Survey 

on American Factfinder at <www.Factfinder2

.census.gov>. 33 Adie Tomer and Robert Puentes, “Transit 

Access and Zero-Vehicle Households,” Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2011.

reported driving to work alone.34

Between 2006 and 2013, the rate 

of working from home and commuting by bicycle increased among 

workers without vehicle access 

across all earnings categories.35

Solutions to transportation problems vary across households and 

communities. The travel concerns 

of many rural workers may vary 

dramatically from those of urban 

workers, and the most efficient 

travel mode for a 25-year-old 

living alone may differ from 

that of a larger household with 

young children. Overall, commuting patterns have changed only 

modestly at the national level in 

recent years, but rates of change 

are notably higher within certain 

population subgroups. The higher 

prevalence of young and urban 

workers lacking automobile access 

is consistent with their low rates 

of automobile commuting within 

cities. Historically, perhaps driven 

by necessity, transportation change 

and innovation has largely occurred 

within cities. In many ways, recent 

changes in the landscape of transportation options are no exception. 

Several cities now offer car sharing and bicycle sharing programs. 

Mobile apps for smart phones are 

able to follow public transportation 

arrivals in real time, eliminating 

some of the uncertainty typically 

associated with waiting for buses 

and trains. On-demand ride-sharing 

34 The ACS question about vehicle availability asks respondents, “How many automobiles, vans, and trucks of 1-ton capacity 

or less are kept at home for use by members 

of this household?” Some workers report that 

they have no vehicle at home, but they drive 

to work. This combination of responses may 

result from several possible scenarios. For 

example, a worker may use a company car, 

borrow another person’s car, have a private 

driver, have a vehicle of more than 1-ton 

capacity, or use a car-sharing program. It is 

also possible that some respondents who do 

not have access to a vehicle report their commute by some form of transportation, such 

as vanpool or taxi as a trip made by private 

vehicle. 35 The rates of working from home for the 

highest earners were not statistically different 

between 2006 and 2013.

services that operate similar to 

taxis have also proliferated in some 

urban areas. These technological 

changes offer some insight into the 

higher rates of declining automobile commuting within cities 

discussed throughout this report. 

Other factors, such as demographic 

changes in the workforce, transportation and housing policies, and 

changing neighborhood preferences, may also play an important 

role in people’s decisions about 

how to get to work. 

CONCLUSION

Commuting is only one aspect of 

daily travel, but serves as a critical 

indicator of changing travel behavior across populations and places. 

The automobile continues to 

dominate work-related travel, but 

the rate of automobile commuting 

has stabilized in recent years after 

decades of increase. Since 1980, 

carpooling has captured a declining 

share of workers’ commutes, while 

the rate of driving alone increased 

until 2010, and then changed little 

thereafter. 

Disaggregating the working population reveals differences in commuting patterns across population 

subgroups. For example, younger 

workers, those under the age of 

35, show lower rates of automobile 

commuting and sharper declines 

in automobile commuting in recent 

years than their older counterparts. 

The sharpest declines in rates of 

driving are associated with workers between the ages of 25 to 29, 

particularly those living in cities 

where there are more transportation options and more potential for 

variation in travel mode. The extent 

to which today’s young workers will 

retain their travel habits as they 

age will be an important determinant of future travel patterns. 

Regardless of age, workers living 

in cities showed sharper declines 
20 U.S. Census Bureau

in rates of driving to work in recent 

years than their counterparts living 

in more suburban communities, or 

communities outside of a metro 

area. 

Commuting is a local-level phenomenon, so transportation infrastructure, such as highways, transit systems, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks, 

play some role in influencing travel 

decisions across households and 

communities. Individual and household characteristics, such as family 

structure, financial resources, job 

type, and housing preferences, 

all affect decisions about vehicle 

ownership and commuting choices. 

While modest shifts away from 

automobile travel have captured 

headlines in recent years, the 

automobile remains the dominant 

commuting mode among workers 

in the majority of the nation’s communities, even many large cities.

Technological changes will continue 

to shape the transportation landscape and will influence the relative 

efficiency and attractiveness of 

travel options, old and new. Smart 

phones have provided new ways of 

utilizing familiar means of travel, 

such as bicycles and automobiles, 

in the form of mobile apps. The 

possibilities for working at home 

or remotely have expanded across 

numerous labor market sectors in 

recent years. Beyond technological changes, many communities 

have prioritized creating environments with multiple transportation 

options, including nonmotorized 

forms of travel, such as bicycling 

and walking. Travel surveys generally cannot completely capture the 

rapidly changing and increasingly 

complex transportation landscape, 

but the ACS provides valuable 

insight into the most common 

commuting modes. The pace of 

changes in transportation infrastructure and travel behavior will 

inevitably vary across communities and demographic groups, as 

this report shows with the distinct 

commuting patterns of young and 

urban workers. As travel patterns 

evolve, the ACS remains one of our 

most important tools for tracking 

local and national changes in how 

we get to work.

SOURCE OF

THE ESTIMATES

The American Community Survey 

(ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for congressional 

districts, counties, places, and 

other localities every year. It has 

an annual sample size of about 3.5 

million addresses across the United 

States and Puerto Rico and includes 

both housing units and group quarters. The ACS is conducted in every 

county throughout the nation, and 

every municipio in Puerto Rico, 

where it is called the Puerto Rico 

Community Survey. Beginning in 

2006, ACS data for 2005 were 

released for geographic areas with 

populations of 65,000 and greater. 

For information on the ACS sample 

design and other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs/www>.

ACCURACY OF

THE ESTIMATES

The estimates presented in this 

report are primarily based on the 

ACS sample interviewed during 

2013. The report also includes 

several estimates from the 2006 

ACS for comparison. The estimates 

based on this sample approximate 

the actual values and represent 

the entire U.S. resident household 

and group quarters populations. 

Sampling error is the difference 

between an estimate based on 

a sample and the corresponding 

value that would be obtained if the 

estimate were based on the entire 

population (as from a census). 

Measures of the sampling error are 

provided in the form of margins 

of error for all estimates included 

in this report. All comparative 

statements in this report have 

undergone statistical testing, and 

comparisons are significant at the 

90 percent level, unless otherwise 

noted. In addition to sampling 

error, nonsampling error may be 

introduced during any of the operations used to collect and process 

survey data such as editing, reviewing, or keying data from questionnaires. For more information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the 2013 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data document located at

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy

/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2013.pdf>.

For more reports related to the 

commuting patterns of U.S. workers, go to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Journey to Work and Migration 

Statistics Branch Web site, at 

<www.census.gov/hhes

/commuting/>, or contact the 

Journey to Work and Migration 

Statistics Branch at 301-763-2454. 

SUGGESTED CITATION

McKenzie, Brian, “Who Drives to 

Work? Commuting by Automobile 

in the United States, 2013,” 

American Community Survey 

Reports, ACS-32, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2015.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Appendix Table 1.

Commuting by Automobile by Community Type and Travel Mode: 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Community type and

travel mode

2006 2013

Workers

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

Workers

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

LIVED IN PRINCIPAL CITY, IN METRO AREA

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,059 100.0 Z 47,074 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,247 80.0 0.1 36,851 78.3 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,453 69.1 0.1 32,409 68.8 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,795 10.9 0.1 4,442 9.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,812 20.0 0.1 10,223 21.7 0.1

LIVED OUTSIDE PRINCIPAL CITY,

 IN METRO AREA

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,410 100.0 Z 76,827 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,966 89.7 0.1 68,560 89.2 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,533 79.5 0.1 61,586 80.2 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,433 10.3 0.1 6,974 9.1 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,444 10.3 0.1 8,267 10.8 0.1

LIVED OUTSIDE ANY METRO AREA

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,796 100.0 Z 19,062 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,685 90.3 0.1 17,253 90.5 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,060 78.3 0.1 15,283 80.2 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,624 12.0 0.1 1,970 10.3 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,112 9.7 0.1 1,808 9.5 0.1

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate,

the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. This table corresponds to Figure 4.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 2.

Commuting Mode by Community Type, Age, and Travel Mode: 2006 and 2013—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Type of community, age,

and travel mode

2006 2013

Number

of workers

(thousands)

Percentage of

all workers 

within group

Margin

of error 

(±)

Number of 

workers

(thousands)

Percentage of

all workers 

within group

Margin

of error 

(±)

WORKERS WHO LIVED IN A PRINCIPAL CITY,

IN A METRO AREA

All workers within specified community type

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,247 80.0 0.1 36,851 78.3 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,453 69.1 0.1 32,409 68.8 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,795 10.9 0.1 4,442 9.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,812 20.0 0.1 10,223 21.7 0.1

16 to 24 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,073 75.9 0.3 4,953 73.6 0.3

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,103 61.4 0.3 4,164 61.8 0.4

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 14.5 0.3 789 11.7 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,613 24.1 0.3 1,781 26.4 0.3

25 to 29 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,404 80.6 0.3 4,953 76.7 0.3

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,723 68.1 0.3 4,343 67.2 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 12.5 0.3 610 9.4 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,059 19.4 0.3 1,507 23.3 0.3

30 to 34 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,236 79.9 0.3 4,638 77.7 0.3

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,616 68.2 0.3 4,067 68.1 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 11.7 0.3 572 9.6 0.3

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,069 20.1 0.3 1,329 22.3 0.3

35 to 44 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,490 80.7 0.2 7,942 79.5 0.3

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,394 70.3 0.2 6,950 69.6 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,096 10.4 0.2 992 9.9 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,026 19.3 0.2 2,047 20.5 0.3

45 to 54 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,628 81.7 0.2 7,495 80.5 0.2

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,742 72.2 0.2 6,654 71.5 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886 9.5 0.2 841 9.0 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,706 18.3 0.2 1,814 19.5 0.2

55 years and older

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,416 80.2 0.3 6,869 79.7 0.2

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,874 72.2 0.3 6,231 72.3 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542 8.0 0.2 638 7.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,339 19.8 0.3 1,745 20.3 0.2

See note at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Appendix Table 2.

Commuting Mode by Community Type, Age, and Travel Mode: 2006 and 2013—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Type of community, age,

and travel mode

2006 2013

Number

of workers

(thousands)

Percentage of

all workers 

within group

Margin

of error 

(±)

Number of 

workers

(thousands)

Percentage of

all workers 

within group

Margin

of error 

(±)

ALL OTHER WORKERS

All workers within specified community type

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84,651 89.9 0.1 85,813 89.5 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,594 79.2 0.1 76,869 80.2 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,057 10.7 0.1 8,945 9.3 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,556 10.1 0.1 10,076 10.5 0.1

16 to 24 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,460 88.1 0.1 10,490 87.4 0.2

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,516 73.1 0.2 8,979 74.8 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,944 14.9 0.2 1,511 12.6 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,549 11.9 0.1 1,514 12.6 0.2

25 to 29 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,732 91.7 0.1 8,327 90.9 0.2

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,462 78.3 0.3 7,344 80.1 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,270 13.3 0.2 984 10.7 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 8.3 0.1 836 9.1 0.2

30 to 34 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,531 91.1 0.2 8,796 90.8 0.2

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,425 79.3 0.2 7,763 80.1 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,106 11.8 0.2 1,033 10.7 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 8.9 0.2 890 9.2 0.2

35 to 44 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,656 90.5 0.1 18,549 90.3 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,266 80.1 0.1 16,556 80.6 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,390 10.5 0.1 1,993 9.7 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158 9.5 0.1 1,988 9.7 0.1

45 to 54 years

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,788 90.4 0.1 20,486 89.8 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,707 81.3 0.1 18,569 81.4 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,080 9.0 0.1 1,917 8.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,209 9.6 0.1 2,315 10.2 0.1

55 years and older

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,484 87.8 0.1 19,165 88.3 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,218 80.1 0.2 17,658 81.4 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,266 7.7 0.1 1,507 6.9 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,016 12.2 0.1 2,533 11.7 0.1

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate,

the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Estimates in this table correspond to Figure 5.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
24 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 3.

Automobile Commuting by Age and Travel Mode (2006 and 2013) in Ten Cities With the 

Most Public Transportation Activity: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, 

Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle, Baltimore1

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/data_documentation/ Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data_2013.pdf)

Age and travel mode

2006 2013

Workers within

ten cities

(thousands)

Percent 

within

ten cities

Margin of 

error (±)

Workers within

ten cities

(thousands)

Percent 

within

ten cities

Margin of 

error (±)

ALL WORKERS

WITHIN TEN SPECIFIED CITIES

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,826 100.0 Z 9,481 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,496 50.9 0.3 4,533 47.8 0.3

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,753 42.5 0.3 3,870 40.8 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743 8.4 0.2 662 7.0 0.2

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,330 49.1 0.3 4,949 52.2 0.3

16 TO 24 YEARS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,065 100.0 Z 1,032 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 42.4 0.9 397 38.5 0.8

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 32.9 0.8 325 31.4 0.8

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 9.5 0.5 73 7.0 0.5

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 614 57.6 0.9 635 61.5 0.8

25 TO 29 YEARS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,078 100.0 Z 1,454 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529 49.1 0.8 618 42.5 0.7

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 40.2 0.8 531 36.5 0.7

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 8.9 0.5 87 6.0 0.3

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 50.9 0.8 836 57.5 0.7

30 TO 34 YEARS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,197 100.0 Z 1,356 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 593 49.6 0.7 619 45.7 0.9

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 41.5 0.7 537 39.6 0.8

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 8.0 0.5 82 6.1 0.4

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604 50.4 0.7 736 54.3 0.9

35 TO 44 YEARS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,298 100.0 Z 2,136 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,213 52.8 0.6 1,078 50.5 0.6

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,030 44.8 0.6 920 43.1 0.6

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 8.0 0.3 158 7.4 0.3

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,085 47.2 0.6 1,057 49.5 0.6

45 TO 54 YEARS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,850 100.0 Z 1,847 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 54.1 0.6 965 52.2 0.6

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 842 45.5 0.7 821 44.5 0.5

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 8.6 0.4 143 7.8 0.3

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 45.9 0.6 883 47.8 0.6

55 YEARS AND OLDER

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,337 100.0 Z 1,656 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 709 53.0 0.7 855 51.6 0.5

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 601 45.0 0.7 736 44.4 0.5

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8.1 0.4 119 7.2 0.3

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628 47.0 0.7 801 48.4 0.5

Z Rounds to zero.

1

 Level of public transportation activity is based on passenger trips and passenger miles associated with the area’s transit agency in 2013. Cities include:

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC, Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Atlanta, Seattle, Baltimore. See APTA 2014 Public Transportation Fact 

Book at <www.apta.com/resources/statistics>.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the 

margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. Estimates in this table correspond to Figure 6.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
U.S. Census Bureau 25

Appendix Table 4.

Commuting by Automobile by Foreign-Born Status and Travel Mode: 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Nativity status

and travel mode

2006 2013

Total

workers

(thousands)

Percentage 

of workers

Margin of 

error (±)

Total

workers

(thousands)

Percentage 

of workers

Margin of

error (±)

FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,589 100.0 Z 23,695 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,299 80.1 0.2 18,900 79.8 0.1

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,565 62.8 0.2 15,488 65.4 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,734 17.3 0.2 3,412 14.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,290 19.9 0.2 4,796 20.2 0.1

NATIVE-BORN WORKERS

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116,677 100.0 Z 119,267 100.0 Z

Automobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102,599 87.9 Z 103,765 87.0 Z

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,481 78.4 0.1 93,790 78.6 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,118 9.5 0.1 9,975 8.4 0.1

Other mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,078 12.1 0.0 15,502 13.0 Z

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate,

the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. This table corresponds to Figure 8.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.
26 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 5.

Commuting by Automobile by Foreign-Born Status, Years Living in

the United States, Community Type, and Travel Mode: 2013—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Nativity, years living in United States,

community type, and travel mode

Total workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers 

Margin

of error (±)

ALL NATIVE-BORN WORKERS

Lived in principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,061 71.9 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,970 8.2 0.1

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,057 81.8 0.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,226 8.1 0.1

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,671 80.9 0.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,779 9.8 0.1

ALL FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS

Lived in principal city in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,347 58.6 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,473 13.6 0.2

Lived outside principal city in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,529 71.4 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,748 14.6 0.2

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 66.3 0.9

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 20.8 0.8

FOREIGN-BORN WORKERS: YEARS IN UNITED STATES

UP TO 3 YEARS

Lived in principal city in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352 42.1 1.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 15.9 0.8

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354 54.3 1.4

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 21.0 1.1

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 44.2 3.0

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 26.9 3.2

4 TO 6 YEARS

Lived in principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 407 49.8 1.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 15.3 0.9

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430 61.8 1.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 18.7 1.0

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 62.4 3.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 22.3 3.0

7 TO 9 YEARS

Lived in principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511 52.6 1.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 16.5 0.9

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 617 64.4 1.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 19.0 0.8

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 62.5 3.1

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 25.3 2.6

See note at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau 27

Appendix Table 5.

Commuting by Automobile by Foreign-Born Status, Years Living in

the United States, Community Type, and Travel Mode: 2013—Con.

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Nativity, years living in United States,

community type, and travel mode

Total workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of

workers 

Margin

of error (±)

FOREIGN BORN WORKERS: YEARS IN UNITED STATES—Con.

10 TO 15 YEARS

Lived in principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,390 58.6 0.6

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 14.8 0.4

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,830 69.9 0.5

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425 16.2 0.5

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 64.0 2.0

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 23.9 1.9

16 YEARS OR MORE

Lived in principal city, in metro area 

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,687 63.1 0.4

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 704 12.1 0.3

Lived outside principal city, in metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,297 75.5 0.3

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874 12.5 0.2

Lived outside any metro area

Drove alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 71.6 1.2

Carpooled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 17.6 1.1

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s 

variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate,

the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. This table corresponds to Figures 9 and 10.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.
28 U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix Table 6.

Number of Vehicles Available at Home by Community Type: 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Community type Total workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of

workers 

Margin of

error (±)

ALL WORKERS

No vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,351 4.5 Z

1 vehicle available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,598 21.6 0.1

2 vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,852 41.6 0.1

3 or more vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,789 32.3 0.1

INSIDE PRINCIPAL CITY IN METRO

No vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,131 8.9 0.1

1 vehicle available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,241 28.5 0.1

2 vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,020 38.8 0.2

3 or more vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,046 23.8 0.2

INSIDE METRO, OUTSIDE PRINCIPAL CITY

No vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,721 2.3 Z

1 vehicle available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,836 18.1 0.1

2 vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,136 43.4 0.1

3 or more vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,610 36.2 0.1

OUTSIDE ANY METRO

No vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499 2.6 0.1

1 vehicle available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,521 18.7 0.2

2 vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,695 40.8 0.2

3 or more vehicles available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,133 37.8 0.3

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older in households. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure 

of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from 

the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. This table corresponds to Figure 11.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.

Appendix Table 7. 

Number of Vehicles Available at Home by Community Type and Age: 2006 and 2013

(For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs

/guidance.html)

Community type and age

2006 2013

Total workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

Total workers 

(thousands)

Percentage of 

workers

Margin of 

error (±)

INSIDE PRINCIPAL CITY IN METRO

16 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 576 9.3 0.2 596 9.6 0.2

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 10.2 0.3 723 11.3 0.2

30 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 9.8 0.2 605 10.2 0.2

35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 898 8.6 0.2 848 8.5 0.2

45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 686 7.4 0.2 723 7.8 0.1

55 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495 7.4 0.2 636 7.4 0.2

ALL OTHER COMMUNITY TYPES

16 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373 3.0 0.1 353 3.1 0.1

25 to 29 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 3.1 0.1 270 3.0 0.1

30 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 2.4 0.1 265 2.7 0.1

35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452 2.0 Z 441 2.2 0.1

45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390 1.7 Z 470 2.1 0.1

55 years and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 1.7 Z 420 1.9 Z

Z Rounds to zero.

Note: Universe: workers 16 years and older in households. Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of 

an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the 

estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval. This table corresponds to Figure 12.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 and 2013 American Community Survey.