American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Public Transportation Usage Among 

U.S. Workers: 2008 and 2009

INTRODUCTION

This report presents data from 

the 2008 and 2009 American 

Community Surveys (ACS) on the 

percentage of commuters who used 

public transportation to get to work 

in U.S. metropolitan statistical areas 

(metro areas).1 The percentage of 

workers who usually travel to work 

using public transportation has 

remained at about 5 percent since 

the 1990 Census.2

Public transportation accounts for 

a small percentage of commutes 

at the national level, but plays a 

more prominent role in several of 

the nation’s largest metro areas, 

especially in densely populated 

communities. About 39 percent of 

all workers who usually travel to 

work using public transportation 

live in the New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro 

Area. In an eff ort to provide more 

transportation choices for Americans 

nationwide, investment in public 

transportation systems has been an 

integral component of several major 

federal transportation programs in recent 

decades. 

The ACS asks respondents about their 

usual means of transportation to work. 

“Public transportation” includes workers 

who used a bus, trolley, streetcar, subway 

or elevated rail, railroad, or ferryboat, 

and did not work at home. Respondents 

1 For more information on metropolitan statistical 

areas, please see <www.whitehouse.gov/omb

/assets/omb/bulletins/fy2009/09-01.pdf>. 2 Percent public transportation usage for 1990 

and 2000 was 5.12 and 4.57, respectively. 

were to report their usual transportation 

method for the previous week, whether 

or not the information was consistent 

with their commuting activities for the 

majority of the year. 

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

USAGE AMONG U.S. WORKERS: 

2008 AND 2009

Among the nation’s workers, 6.9 million 

commuted to work using public transportation in 2009. This is a reduction 

from 2008, when 7.2 million workers 

Issued October 2010

ACSBR/09-5

By

Brian S. McKenzie 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 diff erent means of transportation on diff erent 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. Workers who worked at home 

are not included in this category. For more 

detailed defi nitions of these terms and 

other ACS terms, see the ACS subject defi -

nitions list at <www.census.gov/acs

/www/data_documentation

/documentation_main/>.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

used public transportation to get to 

work. Table 2 lists ACS estimates 

of the number of workers who 

commuted by public transportation in the 50 largest metro areas, 

in 2008 and 2009, as well as the 

change over the year.3 The national 

percentage of workers 16 years 

and over who used public transportation to commute to work in 2009 

(5.0 percent) was not statistically 

diff erent from the percentage in 

2008.

The New York-Northern New 

Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro 

Area had the highest percentage 

of workers who commuted by 

public transportation (30.5 percent). It was followed by the San 

Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 

Metro Area, where 14.6 percent 

of workers commuted by public 

transportation.4 The percentage of 

workers who commuted by public 

transportation exceeded 10 percent 

in only 5 of the 366 metro areas in 

2009.5 In Los Angeles, the nation’s 

second largest metro area, about 6 

percent of workers commuted by 

public transportation. Also falling within the category of 5 to 10 

percent were several college towns, 

including Ithaca, NY, and Ames, IA. 

For the majority of metro areas, 

including several large metro areas 

such as Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI, 

the public transportation usage rate 

among workers did not exceed 2 

percent. The map provides a visual 

illustration of the percentage of 

3 The margins of error for estimates in 

Table 2 were calculated using an unrounded 

standard error. 4 The percentage of public transportation 

commuters in the San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA Metro Area was not statistically 

diff erent from that of the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metro 

Area. 5 For the following metro areas, the percentage of workers who commuted by public 

transportation in 2009 exceeded and was 

statistically diff erent from 10 percent: BostonCambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; ChicagoNaperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI; New York-Northern 

New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA; San 

Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA; and 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV.

workers who commuted by public 

transportation for all metro areas in 

2009. 

Table 2 shows comparisons 

between the 50 largest metro areas 

in 2008 and 2009. Ten experienced a statistically signifi cant 

decline in the number of public 

transportation commuters, and two 

(Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA, and 

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC-VA-MD-WV) experienced a statistically signifi cant increase in the 

number of public transit commuters.6 The 2009 estimates were not 

statistically diff erent from the 2008 

estimates in the remainder of the 

metro areas. Boston-CambridgeQuincy, MA-NH; Seattle-TacomaBellevue, WA; and WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MDWV, were the only three metro areas 

that experienced a statistically 

signifi cant increase in the percentage of workers who commuted 

by public transportation, and four 

metro areas experienced a statistically signifi cant decline in the 

percentage of public transportation 

commuters.7

Table 1 shows the top 15 metro 

areas ranked by the number of 

workers who commuted by public 

transportation in 2009. The New 

York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area had 

the highest number of workers 

who used public transportation in 

2009, at 2.7 million workers. The 

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 

6 The following metro areas experienced 

a statistically signifi cant decline in the 

number of public transportation commuters: 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC; 

Columbus, OH; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; 

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Las VegasParadise, NV; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

Ana, CA; New York-Northern New Jersey-Long 

Island, NY-NJ-PA; Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, 

AZ; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA; and 

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC. 7 The following metro areas experienced a 

statistically signifi cant decline in the percentage of public transportation commuters: 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC; HoustonSugar Land-Baytown, TX; San Jose-SunnyvaleSanta Clara, CA; and Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC.

Metro Area and the WashingtonArlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 

Metro Area had the second and 

third highest number of workers 

who used public transportation, 

at 506,000 and 405,000 workers, 

respectively. All except 4 of the 

metro areas included in this list 

were among the 15 largest metro 

areas in 2009.8

SOURCE AND ACCURACY 

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2008 

and 2009. The resulting estimates 

are representative of the entire 

population. All comparisons presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and are 

signifi cant at the 90 percent confi -

dence level unless otherwise noted. 

Due to rounding, some details may 

not sum to totals. For information 

on sampling and estimation methods, confi dentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “2009 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2009.pdf>. 

For more information about the 

public transportation usage or 

other commuting characteristics 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

/population/www/socdemo

/journey.html>, or contact the

Journey to Work and Migration 

Statistics Branch at 301-763-2454. 

8 The following metro areas were not 

included among the 15 largest in 2009: 

Baltimore-Towson, MD; Minneapolis-St. PaulBloomington, MN-WI; Pittsburgh, PA; and 

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA. 
U.S. Census Bureau 

3

0 100 Miles

Metropolitan statistical areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of November 2008.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

0 100 Miles

0 100 Miles

Percent

10.0 or more5.0 to 9.92.0 to 4.9Less than 2.0

U.S. percentage ofworkers who commutedby public transportation = 5.0

Percentage of Workers Who Commuted by Public 

Transportation by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2009
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 1.

Top 15 U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas Ranked by 

Number of Workers Age 16 and Older Who Commuted to 

Work by Public Transportation: 2009

Rank Metropolitan statistical area

Used public 

transportation

Number Percent

1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA . . 2,673,447 30.5

2 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506,221 11.5

3 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . 404,829 14.1

4 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360,028 6.2

5 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304,111 14.6

6 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283,582 12.2

7 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . 256,987 9.3

8 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147,955 8.7

9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92,326 3.7

10 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL. . . . . . . . . . . 85,771 3.5

11 Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,119 6.2

12 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,837 4.7

13 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,877 6.1

14 Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,928 5.8

15 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,547 2.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN 

COMMUNITY SURVEY?

The American Community 

Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for the nation, states, 

congressional districts, counties, 

places, and other localities every 

year. It has an annual sample size 

of about 3 million addresses across 

the United States and Puerto Rico 

and includes both housing units 

and group quarters (e.g., nursing 

facilities and prisons). 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>.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Public Transportation Usage for the 50 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas1: 2008 and 

2009

(Estimates and percents are for members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week and used public transportation to get to work)

Metropolitan area

2008 public transportation 2009 public transportation Change in public transportation 

usage (2009 less 2008)

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent

Margin 

of 

error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent

Margin 

of 

error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent 

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

 United States . . . . . . . . . . 7,186,530 46,249 5.0 0.1 6,922,424 42,396 5.0 0.1 –264,106 62,741 – –

Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, 

GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,756 6,365 3.6 0.2 92,326 7,995 3.7 0.3 –1,430 10,219 0.1 0.4

Austin-Round Rock, TX . . . . . . . . . . 25,526 3,000 3.0 0.3 24,113 3,638 2.8 0.4 –1,413 4,716 –0.2 0.5

Baltimore-Towson, MD . . . . . . . . . . 88,056 5,544 6.5 0.4 82,119 5,132 6.2 0.4 –5,937 7,555 –0.3 0.6

Birmingham-Hoover, AL . . . . . . . . . 4,569 1,229 0.9 0.2 3,360 1,063 0.7 0.2 –1,209 1,625 –0.2 0.3

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MANH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272,917 9,327 11.6 0.4 283,582 10,583 12.2 0.4 10,665 14,106 *0.6 0.6

Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY . . . . . . . . 18,162 2,484 3.4 0.5 18,676 2,417 3.6 0.5 514 3,466 0.2 0.6

Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, 

NC-SC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,800 2,823 2.3 0.3 15,417 2,246 1.9 0.3 *–4,383 3,608 *–0.4 0.4

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-INWI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522,547 13,047 11.3 0.3 506,221 12,311 11.5 0.3 –16,326 17,938 0.2 0.4

Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN . . 27,069 2,968 2.6 0.3 24,649 3,022 2.4 0.3 –2,420 4,236 –0.1 0.4

Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH . . . . . . 38,435 3,216 3.9 0.3 35,493 3,565 3.8 0.4 –2,942 4,802 –0.1 0.5

Columbus, OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,070 2,138 1.7 0.2 11,897 2,160 1.4 0.3 *–3,173 3,039 –0.3 0.3

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX . . . . 51,351 3,823 1.6 0.1 46,452 3,818 1.5 0.1 –4,899 5,403 –0.1 0.2

Denver-Aurora-Broomfi eld, CO . . . . 64,420 5,296 4.9 0.4 59,240 4,326 4.6 0.3 –5,180 6,838 –0.2 0.5

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . 34,107 3,304 1.7 0.2 28,939 3,422 1.6 0.2 *–5,168 4,757 –0.1 0.3

Hartford-West Hartford-East 

Hartford, CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,172 2,183 2.5 0.4 16,445 2,112 2.8 0.4 1,273 3,038 0.3 0.5

Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, 

TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,908 5,349 2.6 0.2 60,547 4,929 2.2 0.2 *–11,361 7,274 *–0.4 0.3

Indianapolis-Carmel, IN . . . . . . . . . . 10,277 2,000 1.2 0.2 8,310 1,678 1.0 0.2 –1,967 2,611 –0.2 0.3

Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,660 1,733 1.2 0.3 7,343 1,730 1.2 0.3 –317 2,449 – 0.4

Kansas City, MO-KS . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,231 2,189 1.5 0.2 12,348 2,226 1.2 0.2 –2,883 3,122 –0.3 0.3

Las Vegas-Paradise, NV . . . . . . . . . 33,140 4,234 3.7 0.5 27,834 2,590 3.2 0.3 *–5,306 4,963 –0.5 0.5

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa 

Ana, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380,484 12,110 6.4 0.2 360,028 13,185 6.2 0.2 *–20,456 17,903 –0.2 0.3

Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN . . 13,066 2,113 2.2 0.3 13,724 2,520 2.4 0.4 658 3,289 0.2 0.6

Memphis, TN-MS-AR . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,300 1,660 1.2 0.3 8,212 1,624 1.5 0.3 912 2,322 0.2 0.4

Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano 

Beach, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93,277 6,184 3.7 0.2 85,771 6,434 3.5 0.3 –7,506 8,924 –0.2 0.4

Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, 

WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,407 3,108 3.6 0.4 27,437 3,195 3.7 0.4 –970 4,457 – 0.6

Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, 

MN-WI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83,771 4,355 4.8 0.2 78,837 4,762 4.7 0.3 –4,934 6,453 –0.1 0.4

Nashville-Davidson–Murfreesboro–

Franklin, TN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,896 1,443 1.0 0.2 8,829 1,622 1.2 0.2 933 2,171 0.1 0.3

New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA . . 13,470 2,776 2.6 0.5 14,390 2,175 2.7 0.4 920 3,527 – 0.7

New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-PA . . . . . . . . . 2,755,897 24,847 30.4 0.3 2,673,447 26,566 30.5 0.3 *–82,450 36,374 0.1 0.4

Oklahoma City, OK . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,957 1,155 0.5 0.2 2,466 921 0.4 0.2 –491 1,477 –0.1 0.3

Orlando-Kissimmee, FL . . . . . . . . . . 15,214 2,209 1.5 0.2 17,368 2,816 1.8 0.3 2,154 3,579 0.3 0.4

Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, 

PA-NJ-DE-MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257,961 9,317 9.3 0.3 256,987 10,409 9.3 0.4 –974 13,970 – 0.5

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ . . . . . 50,744 5,020 2.6 0.3 42,855 4,394 2.3 0.2 *–7,889 6,671 –0.3 0.3

Pittsburgh, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65,071 4,227 5.8 0.4 62,928 3,767 5.8 0.3 –2,143 5,662 – 0.5

Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, 

OR-WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68,810 4,630 6.3 0.4 63,877 4,299 6.1 0.4 –4,933 6,318 –0.2 0.6

Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, 

RI-MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,389 2,459 2.7 0.3 20,534 2,518 2.7 0.3 –855 3,519 – 0.5

Raleigh-Cary, NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,702 1,454 1.0 0.3 5,231 1,328 1.0 0.2 –471 1,969 –0.1 0.4

Richmond, VA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,514 2,152 2.0 0.4 11,676 2,003 2.0 0.3 –838 2,940 – 0.5

 See footnotes at end of table. 
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Public Transportation Usage for the 50 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas:1 2008 and 

2009—Con.

(Estimates and percents are for members of the Armed Forces and civilians who were at work last week and used public transportation to get to work)

Metropolitan area

2008 public transportation 2009 public transportation Change in public transportation 

usage (2009 less 2008)

Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent

Margin 

of 

error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent

Margin 

of 

error1

(±) Estimate

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Percent 

Margin 

of 

error1

(±)

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,211 4,078 1.8 0.2 28,913 3,469 1.8 0.2 –2,298 5,354 – 0.3

Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–

Roseville, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,158 2,665 2.8 0.3 24,632 3,254 2.7 0.4 –2,526 4,207 –0.1 0.4

St. Louis, MO-IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,115 3,827 2.8 0.3 33,881 3,215 2.6 0.2 –4,234 4,998 –0.2 0.4

Salt Lake City, UT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,161 2,254 3.2 0.4 16,375 2,397 3.0 0.4 –1,786 3,290 –0.2 0.6

San Antonio, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,335 3,098 2.5 0.3 21,342 3,492 2.3 0.4 –1,993 4,668 –0.2 0.5

San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,489 4,521 3.4 0.3 43,289 3,659 3.1 0.3 –5,200 5,816 –0.3 0.4

San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,137 8,558 14.4 0.4 304,111 9,655 14.6 0.4 –4,026 12,902 0.2 0.6

San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, 

CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,081 3,935 3.6 0.4 26,319 2,665 3.1 0.3 *–5,762 4,753 *–0.5 0.5

Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA . . . . . 138,309 6,360 8.0 0.4 147,955 6,793 8.7 0.4 *9,646 9,306 *0.7 0.5

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, 

FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,636 2,994 1.3 0.2 16,695 3,368 1.4 0.3 59 4,506 0.1 0.4

Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport 

News, VA-NC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,283 3,098 2.2 0.4 11,973 2,256 1.4 0.3 *–6,310 3,833 *–0.7 0.5

Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, 

DC-VA-MD-WV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387,332 10,326 13.4 0.4 404,829 12,540 14.1 0.4 *17,497 16,244 *0.8 0.6

* Statistically different at the 90 percent confi dence level.

– Represents or rounds to zero. 

1

Fifty most populous metropolitan statistical areas based on population estimates as of July 1, 2009. Metropolitan statistical area boundaries defi ned by the 

Offi ce of Management and Budget as of November 2008.

2

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

confi dence interval.

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Surveys, 2008 and 2009.