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

Workers Who Drove Alone 

to Work: 2007 and 2008 

American Community Surveys

American Community Survey Reports

By 

Alison K. Fields 

and Michelle E. Jiles

ACSBR/08-5

Issued September 2009

Introduction

This report is one of a series produced 

to highlight results from the 2008 

American Community Survey (ACS), 

focusing on changes between the 2007 

ACS and the 2008 ACS. The report 

series is designed to cover a variety of 

economic topics, such as poverty, occupation, home values, and labor force 

participation. This series provides information about the changing economic 

characteristics of the nation and states, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico. The ACS also provides detailed 

estimates of demographic, social, 

economic, and housing characteristics 

for congressional districts, counties, 

places, and other localities every year. 

A description of the ACS is provided 

in the text box “What Is the American 

Community Survey?” 

This report presents data on the percentage of workers who drove alone at 

the national and state levels based on 

the 2007 ACS and 2008 ACS. Workers 

are civilians and members of the Armed 

Forces, 16 years and older, who were at 

work the previous week and self-report 

that they drove alone to work. People 

on vacation or not at work the prior 

week are not included. Respondents 

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. Data are restricted 

to the residence-based population 

as opposed to the workplace-based 

population. 

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 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. 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. In 

2008, the first set of multiyear estimates 

was released for data collected between 

January 2005 and December 2007. 

These 3-year estimates were published 

for geographic areas with populations 

of 20,000 and greater. The U.S. Census 

Bureau is planning to release the first 

5-year estimates in late 2010 for the 

smallest geographic areas based on data 

collected between January 2005 and 

December 2009.

The data contained in this report are 

based on the ACS sample interviewed 

in 2007 and 2008. For information on the 

ACS sample design and other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs/www>.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

The data contained in this report 

are based on ACS samples that 

were selected for interview in 2007 

and 2008 and are estimates of 

the actual figures that could have 

been obtained by interviewing the 

entire population using the same 

methodology. All comparisons 

presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and 

are significant at the 90 percent 

confidence level unless noted 

otherwise. Due to rounding, some 

details may not sum to totals. 

For information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality protection, and sampling and 

nonsampling errors, please see the 

“2008 ACS Accuracy of the Data” 

document located at <www

.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/ACS/accuracy2008.pdf>. 

Percentage of Workers Who 

Drove Alone

The percentage of workers 16 

years and over who drove alone in 

the United States was 75.5 percent 

in 2008—not significantly different 

from Arizona, Utah, or Wyoming. 

Nationally, there was a decrease 

in the percentage of workers who 

drove alone from 2007, when it 

was 76.1 percent. 

In 12 states, 80 percent or more 

of workers drove alone in 2008 

(Alabama, Indiana, Kansas, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and 

West Virginia). For 14 states and 

the District of Columbia, 75 percent 

or fewer workers drove alone in 

2008 (Alaska, California, Colorado, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Montana, New 

Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, 

and Washington). In 3 states 

(Alaska, Hawaii, and New York) and 

the District of Columbia, less than 

70 percent of workers drove alone 

in 2008.

Comparing states for 2008 shows 

that the percentage who drove 

alone in Alabama (83.0 percent) 

was not statistically different from 

Tennessee or Ohio but was higher 

than the percentage who drove 

alone in the other 47 states and the 

District of Columbia. Conversely, 

the percentage who drove alone 

in the District of Columbia (37.2 

percent) was the lowest compared 

to the 50 states. New York and 

Hawaii ranked second and third, 

but Hawaii was not significantly 

different from Alaska. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2008.

* DC is represented at 4.5 times the scale of other continental states.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA 

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

NJ 

HI

VT NH

PR

DC *

United States

= 75.5 percent

80.0 or more

Less than 75.0 percent

75.0 to 79.9

Percentage of Workers Who Drove Alone to

Work by State and Puerto Rico: 2008 

 

 

Percentage
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Comparing the percentage 

of workers who drove alone 

between 2007 and 2008, 22 

states experienced a decrease. 

The remainder of the states and 

the District of Columbia had 2008 

estimates not statistically different 

from 2007. Four of the states were 

in the Northeast (Connecticut, 

Maine, Massachusetts, and 

Pennsylvania). Five of the states 

were in the Midwest (Indiana, 

Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, and 

Wisconsin). Six states in the South 

also experienced decreases in 

the percentage of workers who 

drove alone (Georgia, Maryland, 

Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, 

and Virginia). Seven states in the 

West showed statistical decreases 

(California, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Washington). Idaho experienced the 

greatest decrease in workers who 

drove alone, at 2.3 percent; but 

Idaho is not significantly different 

from Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, 

Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, 

Nevada, Oregon, or Washington. 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Workers Who Drove Alone to Work by State and Puerto Rico: 2007 and 2008

(Estimates and percentages are for Armed Forces and civilian workers 16 years and older who worked last week and drove alone to work. For

information on confi dentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and defi nitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Area

2007 workers who drove alone 2008 workers who drove alone

Difference in workers who drove 

alone

 (2008 less 2007)

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 . . . 105,954,656 121,899 76.1 0.1 108,775,532 140,227 75.5 0.1 *2,820,876 185,804 *–0.5 0.1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,652,706 16,282 83.4 0.5 1,702,592 16,740 83.0 0.5 *49,886 23,352 –0.4 0.7

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218,370 6,076 66.2 1.4 225,636 5,991 66.2 1.4 7,266 8,533 0.0 2.0

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,077,219 19,521 74.8 0.5 2,183,335 21,273 75.3 0.5 *106,116 28,872 0.5 0.7

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 978,100 12,718 80.8 0.8 1,004,273 11,640 80.2 0.6 *26,173 17,241 –0.7 1.0

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,013,179 47,470 73.2 0.2 12,223,667 46,209 72.7 0.2 *210,488 66,247 *–0.4 0.3

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,822,969 14,852 74.5 0.5 1,880,334 15,006 73.7 0.5 *57,365 21,113 *–0.9 0.7

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,368,547 11,826 79.6 0.5 1,375,574 12,473 78.7 0.5 7,027 17,188 *–0.9 0.7

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324,704 7,468 79.9 1.1 327,261 6,881 78.6 1.2 2,557 10,155 –1.3 1.6

District of Columbia . . . . . . 110,570 4,928 38.2 1.7 112,669 5,175 37.2 1.5 2,099 7,146 –0.9 2.2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,507,890 32,711 79.6 0.3 6,576,041 33,841 79.4 0.3 *68,151 47,066 –0.2 0.4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,410,742 20,286 78.7 0.4 3,501,318 26,127 77.7 0.4 *90,576 33,078 *–1.1 0.6

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426,310 7,748 68.0 1.0 431,588 8,435 65.7 1.2 5,278 11,454 *–2.2 1.6

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533,416 7,865 76.4 0.9 529,144 7,635 74.1 0.8 –4,272 10,962 *–2.3 1.2

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,428,808 25,544 73.7 0.4 4,554,019 24,790 73.3 0.3 *125,211 35,596 –0.5 0.5

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,454,339 14,866 83.1 0.3 2,479,732 17,902 81.9 0.4 *25,393 23,269 *–1.2 0.5

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,187,796 10,044 78.7 0.5 1,221,512 10,952 77.9 0.6 *33,716 14,860 *–0.8 0.8

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,118,101 12,064 81.3 0.5 1,162,220 9,324 80.9 0.5 *44,119 15,247 –0.4 0.7

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,515,521 14,203 81.3 0.6 1,525,116 14,887 81.2 0.5 9,595 20,575 –0.1 0.7

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,496,289 14,429 80.9 0.5 1,596,221 17,428 81.5 0.5 *99,932 22,626 0.6 0.8

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509,119 6,238 79.2 0.8 502,420 8,385 77.3 0.8 –6,699 10,451 *–1.8 1.1

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,067,927 19,894 74.3 0.5 2,130,775 18,204 73.2 0.5 *62,848 26,966 *–1.1 0.7

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 2,323,566 19,135 73.0 0.5 2,390,915 21,716 72.3 0.5 *67,349 28,944 *–0.7 0.7

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,655,587 20,547 83.1 0.3 3,668,492 19,493 82.2 0.3 12,905 28,322 *–0.8 0.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,084,735 11,311 77.8 0.4 2,158,869 13,189 77.7 0.4 *74,134 17,375 –0.1 0.5

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 977,958 14,788 82.7 0.6 1,013,882 13,311 81.7 0.6 *35,924 19,896 *–1.0 0.9

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,220,144 14,651 80.7 0.4 2,271,508 14,608 79.8 0.4 *51,364 20,690 *–0.9 0.5

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339,721 6,137 73.7 1.1 347,295 6,606 72.8 1.2 7,574 9,017 –0.9 1.6

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725,449 7,356 79.9 0.6 753,062 8,290 79.7 0.7 *27,613 11,084 –0.1 0.9

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 952,328 11,561 77.8 0.7 966,036 11,413 76.8 0.7 13,708 16,245 *–1.1 1.0

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 551,724 7,977 81.4 0.8 570,142 7,884 81.0 0.8 *18,418 11,215 –0.4 1.1

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,961,506 18,525 71.8 0.4 3,072,339 18,967 71.7 0.4 *110,833 26,513 –0.1 0.6

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 668,770 10,999 77.2 0.9 681,872 12,231 76.6 0.9 13,102 16,449 –0.6 1.3

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,766,878 30,760 54.1 0.3 4,949,585 34,549 53.7 0.3 *182,707 46,259 –0.4 0.4

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 3,322,734 24,625 79.8 0.4 3,496,540 21,124 80.0 0.3 *173,806 32,445 0.2 0.5

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 264,096 4,899 78.6 1.1 270,852 4,560 77.8 0.9 *6,756 6,693 –0.7 1.4

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,386,629 23,089 83.0 0.3 4,497,218 22,492 82.6 0.3 *110,589 32,233 –0.4 0.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,317,265 11,684 80.5 0.5 1,365,900 13,864 80.5 0.6 *48,635 18,131 0.1 0.7

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,285,945 14,869 73.2 0.6 1,288,323 12,782 71.7 0.5 2,378 19,608 *–1.5 0.8

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 4,408,680 23,881 76.7 0.3 4,506,231 22,368 76.2 0.3 *97,551 32,720 *–0.5 0.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 405,406 9,044 80.7 1.1 411,631 8,646 80.8 1.1 6,225 12,512 0.2 1.6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 1,592,679 14,776 81.1 0.6 1,635,442 13,088 81.1 0.5 *42,763 19,739 0.0 0.7

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 314,228 5,770 77.3 1.1 328,744 4,909 78.2 0.9 *14,516 7,575 0.9 1.5

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,314,318 14,494 83.4 0.4 2,360,831 14,459 82.7 0.4 *46,513 20,472 *–0.7 0.6

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,474,133 34,657 78.9 0.3 8,866,518 42,617 78.4 0.3 *392,385 54,930 *–0.5 0.4

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 933,392 10,836 74.9 0.7 974,403 11,504 75.0 0.7 *41,011 15,804 0.1 1.0

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243,088 5,149 74.6 1.2 243,543 4,750 73.3 1.3 455 7,005 –1.2 1.8

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,936,676 17,797 77.5 0.3 3,013,428 23,333 76.7 0.4 *76,752 29,345 *–0.7 0.6

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,259,602 17,665 73.1 0.4 2,287,798 21,021 71.5 0.6 *28,196 27,458 *–1.7 0.7

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 598,815 9,710 81.2 0.7 620,420 9,688 80.9 0.8 *21,605 13,717 –0.3 1.1

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,241,470 12,626 79.8 0.4 2,309,025 14,843 79.3 0.4 *67,555 19,487 *–0.6 0.5

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204,512 5,071 74.8 1.4 209,241 5,484 74.9 1.5 4,729 7,469 0.1 2.0

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 864,584 13,855 76.0 0.6 919,141 15,283 76.3 0.9 *54,557 20,629 0.4 1.1

* Statistically different from zero at the 90 percent confi dence level.

1

 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 th

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 per

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007 and 2008; and Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2007 and 2008.

e margin of error in relation to 

cent confi dence interval.