Cities with the shortest and longest commute times

[haljackey]

Here's something you might find interesting:

Commute time: calculated as the average time (in minutes) of a trip to and from work, based on: US: 2008 Canada, Europe, Sydney: 2006.

Cities associated with low commute times are considered to be more attractive places to live.

With the highest average commute time, Toronto ranks last among the 19 metro areas for which data are available. With the exception of New York, the US cities do well on this indicator. London, Montreal and Toronto are the only cities to receive "D"  grades.

# cities ranked: 19

The Grade

# - City Name - grade - average commute time in minutes

1. Barcelona A (48.4)
2. Dallas A (53.0)
3. Milan A (53.4)
4. Seattle A (55.5)
5. Boston A (55.8 )
6. Los Angeles A (56.1)
7. San Francisco B (57.4)
8. Chicago B (61.4)
9. Berlin B (63.2)
10. Halifax C (65.0)
11. Sydney C (66.0)
12. Madrid C (66.1)
13. Calgary C (67.0)
14. Vancouver C (67.0)
15. New York C (68.1)
16. Stockholm C (70.0)
17. London D (74.0)
18. Montreal D (76.0)
19. Toronto D (80.0)

Data unavailable for Hong Kong, Oslo, Paris,
Shanghai, and Tokyo.

Source: http://bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard_on_Prosperity_2010_FINAL.pdf

Interesting to see where these cities fit.  Looks like cities with more highways tend to rank higher compared to those with more rapid transit systems (subways). 

I've been to both Barcelona and Toronto and I agree with this list.  Barcelona has excellent transport infrastructure whereas Toronto has few transit lines and highways.

Thoughts?

[mapman]

Is the commute time for just drivers or is it across all modes of transportation (cars, bikes, transit, rail, etc.)?

[haljackey]

Is the commute time for just drivers or is it across all modes of transportation (cars, bikes, transit, rail, etc.)?

All modes of transportation.  The study doesn't care how you got to work, just how long it took.

[agentsteel53]

I am surprised about NY's poor rank (and Boston's good one!)  I have lived in Boston and spent many a weekend in New York and I found NY's subway system to be infinitely superior to Boston's.

driving in Boston and driving in New York are both a challenge - New York is just plain intense, with all drivers expected to take all shortcuts, no matter how tenuous and requiring of furious acceleration and sharp steering, which is also the case in Boston but not quite to the extent of having a thousand unwritten rules about when to run a red light.  As far as navigational ease - New York: Brooklyn has three distinct grids of avenues and streets, which is bad enough, but in Boston... Tremont Street intersects Tremont Street, and that's all I have to say about that.

[Chris]

Actually, in the US, cities with more transit also have the longest commuting times.

New York City 38.4 minutes
Chicago 32.7 minutes
Philadelphia 30.3 minutes
Riverside 29.8 minutes
Baltimore 29.7 minutes
Washington 29.4 minutes
San Francisco 29.2 minutes
Oakland 29.1 minutes
Los Angeles 28.5 minutes
Boston 28.2 minutes

The shortest commuting times are in mid-sized cities with no extensive public transport at all. (Wichita, Tulsa, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Louisville, etc)

US Census

[english si]

74 minutes for London is a long commute! I'd have said that commuting from here to Central London is above average, given I'm on the edge of the inner commuter belt of places outside London and with a slower rail line, but inside an hour and a quarter you could drive (or train, though it's a bit iffy thanks to poor interchanges and having to go in then out) to a lot of places in North/West London and get a train to either somewhere like Liverpool Street or Waterloo - the West End falls within that 74 minutes, as does much of the City.

I guess you do have commuters from Southampton (nearly two hours on the train), Leicester (rather fast - about the same as Aylesbury on the train), Cambridge, Swindon, Brighton, Eastbourne and Colchester. But I'm sure they are massively in the minority.

London has most of it's employment in a few small, central areas (the West End, the City and Docklands). The well paid jobs are in the City and Docklands, and those doing those jobs will live either on the fringes of London proper or outside of it in the country. Good rail links means that people live further out - you can do some work or relax on a train, you lose less of your day than if you were driving for an hour and a half each way.

[Truvelo]

How are these times calculated? From the outer suburbs to the central core? If this is the case then surely the larger cities will have the longest commutes if the distance to the center is further.

[haljackey]

Actually, in the US, cities with more transit also have the longest commuting times.

New York City 38.4 minutes
Chicago 32.7 minutes
Philadelphia 30.3 minutes
Riverside 29.8 minutes
Baltimore 29.7 minutes
Washington 29.4 minutes
San Francisco 29.2 minutes
Oakland 29.1 minutes
Los Angeles 28.5 minutes
Boston 28.2 minutes

The shortest commuting times are in mid-sized cities with no extensive public transport at all. (Wichita, Tulsa, Omaha, Oklahoma City, Kansas City, Louisville, etc)

US Census

That was from the 2002 Census which is not as up to date as the 2006/2008 stats.  
-In addition, that's only to work, not to and from work.  That's why your list is different than mine.

How are these times calculated? From the outer suburbs to the central core? If this is the case then surely the larger cities will have the longest commutes if the distance to the center is further.

This is a comprehensive stat that can include from the outer suburbs to the central core, but can also include those who live a 5 minute walk away (so a 10 minute commute time).  
-As for larger cities having longer commute time, that depends on the city's transport infrastructure.  You could have a smaller city with terrible transit and gridlock (so high commute times) or a larger city with excellent transit and good road/highway design and capacity.

[Chris]

How are these times calculated? From the outer suburbs to the central core? If this is the case then surely the larger cities will have the longest commutes if the distance to the center is further.

Not necessarily. Houston, Miami, Atlanta and Phoenix are geographically very large cities, but are not in the top 10 list. Some smaller cities do make it to the top 10, like San Francisco, Riverside and Baltimore.

I'd say city size is a factor, but not a leading factor.

[J N Winkler]

I am kind of surprised Berlin and Madrid scored so low because they have extremely good transit systems.  Madrid also has a dense freeway-grade highway network--I'd say it compares well to Barcelona's (the number-one city) in density.

[english si]

I am kind of surprised Berlin and Madrid scored so low because they have extremely good transit systems.  Madrid also has a dense freeway-grade highway network--I'd say it compares well to Barcelona's (the number-one city) in density.

Large hinterlands? Great attractive strength. Less so Berlin, but Madrid is almost a Paris or London where it attracts the companies, jobs and money. Decent transit allows longer commutes from the edges of these large hinterlands.

[haljackey]

I'd say city size is a factor, but not a leading factor.

Size of the urban area is a factor, but don't forget to include density as well.  Having sufficient transport infrastructure influences these numbers the most.  

Barcelona (first place on the list) has a lot of highways in strategic locations in the city (due to good planning for the 1992 Olympics) and on the transit side, operates subways and dedicated bus-only roads.  The city also has thousands of bicycles that anyone can use by paying a small fee.

-Toronto (last place on the list) has few highways and its streetcar system shares the road with traffic, which does not make it efficient.  The lack of sufficient transit funding and subway lines is also a major problem (although they're trying to fix that).  There may not be many highways, but the ones that do exist are massive (highways 401 and 427 have a minimum of 12 lanes).

[leifvanderwall]

L.A. gets an A and Chicago gets a B ? Those freeways get jammed so quickly hardly anyone can move anywhere. I would imagine if I wanted a quicker commute time I'd stay off the freeways.

[haljackey]

Toronto does not have an extensive highway network nor does it have an extensive rapid transit network. That's a leading reason why it placed dead last.

I've been to Barcelona and I agree with its #1 rank. Barcelona has excellent transport infrastructure whereas Toronto is severely lagging in transport infrastructure.

Possible solutions for Toronto:
-Get the Gardiner underground and add another lane or HOV lane in each direction
-Add HOV lanes along the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) or convert one lane in each direction to HOV lanes.
-Add more lanes to the 401 where it needs it. Fix up bottlenecks at interchanges with the 427 and 404 to relieve congestion and increase overall traffic flow
-Extensive additions to the subway network and rapid transit
-LRT and rapid transit extensions in the GTA including a line to Pearson Airport
-Introduce a congestion tax similar to London (extreme)
-Build a high speed rail line or two to reduce long distance car commuting
-Expand GO Transit extensively
-Build Highway 448 in the existing power corridor to relieve congestion on part of the DVP and 401.