and Washington, D.C. as new central cities because these cities
had not yet reached a population of 500,000 by 1900. The old
central cities (those built up before the age of the automobile)
have the highest number of households with no cars—almost 55
percent in 1963-65. In the new central cities only 15 percent
reported having no automobile. In other words, the older cities
were built to accommodate the walker, and to some extent they still
do. Better public transportation lessens the need for a car in the
old central cities as well. The relationship between age of central
city and car ownership remain whatever the family income. (Table
4-12).
COMMUTING TO WORK
In 1960-70
commuting accounted for over 40 percent of all car miles travelled.
Throughout the 1960s, commuters turned to the automobile in
increasing numbers. In 1960, two-thirds of all workers drove to
work in cars; by 1970 that proportion had grown to over
three-fourths.
The shift
to cars occurred among workers living in both urban and rural
areas. The car continued to be the dominant commuter mode in 1973
when about 85 percent of all employed heads of households used
private transportation, mainly the car, to go to work. The privacy
of those using private transportation was usually complete: over
four-fifths traveled alone (Table 4-13). Some traveled considerable
distances. Almost one-fourth reported going fifteen miles or more
one way (Table 4-14). The use of the car and other private
transportation, the absence of car pooling, and the fairly long
distances involved all point to considerable energy use.
Why is
public transit so little used? The main reasons given are either
that it is not available at all, or if it is available, it is not
convenient to home, work, or both. Commuters mentioned also the
time it takes, needing a car for work, and the cost and discomfort
of public transit (Table 4-15). The comparative disadvantage of
public transit is obvious from data on commuting time. On the
average, bus riders and other public transit commuters take twice
as long to get to work as do car commuters.
Almost half
the respondents who use public transit acknowledged, either
implicitly or explicitly, that cost was an important factor in
their choice. About 15 percent stated explicitly that public
transit was cheaper for them than a car; another 30 percent
reported they had no car or car pool available. The lack of a car
is, of course, related to low income. Much smaller numbers of
respondents cited other advantages of public transit such as being
faster or more convenient than the auto (Table 4-16).
Most car
commuters report that they do not have the option of public
transit. Those who do were asked to compare cars and public transit
on