Archives

Search Archives
In the Spotlight

Transforming Secondary Education: New $100 million initiative to improve education quality across the nation.
Learn More »

Recent Spotlights »

View all Archives - Environment and Development »

The American Energy Consumer







Table 4-19.Present and Potential Users of Public Transit, by Size and Type of Area, 1973
Size of metro area Location in metro area Outside metro area
Present and potential users of public transit Less than 1 million 1 million or more Central city Ring Urban Rural
Number in millions
All employed heads of households 15.5 20.2 15.7 20.0 6.1 7.9
Percent
All employed heads of households 100 100 100 100 100 100
Public transit users 4 15 13 8 0 2
Public transit users plus easy switchers 12 24 24 14 1 2
Public transit users plus all possible switchers 34 49 53 34 5 2
Source: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies' Lifestyles and Energy Surveys.

given current routing and scheduling, public transit use could be increased by 10 percent and serve about one-quarter of all employed heads of households. Changes in routes, schedules and cost could probably attract more commuters in all types of locations.

Footnotes

Footnote :

c The men and women who were employed heads of households were about 60 percent of all employed persons in 1973.

Footnote :

a Parts do not add exactly because some household heads used more than one means of transportation.

Footnote :

b Less than 0.5 percent.

Footnote :

a Does not add because some respondents gave more than one reason.

Footnote :

a Excludes unknowns. Distribution is presented for the 11.8 million heads of households for whom comparative data are available.

Footnote :

b The comparison is between the total cost of public transit and out-of-pocket car costs. Excludes unknowns. Distribution is for the 8.8 million heads of households for whom comparative data are available.

Footnote :

a Excludes unknowns. Distribution is for the 3.2 million heads of households for whom comparative data are available.

Footnote :

a Includes those private transit users who could switch to public transit and not spend more time commuting.

Footnote :

b Includes those who could switch but who then would spend more time commuting.

SUBURBAN GROWTH AND COMMUTING PATTERNS

Suburban growth has been rapid over the decade of the 1960s. In 1960 one-tenth of all workers lived in suburbs of metropolitan areas of 100,000 or more; by 1970, over one-third of all workers lived in suburbs. Suburban dwellers' commuting habits reflect their higher incomes and higher energy use patterns. Suburbanites are more likely than central city dwellers to use their cars for commuting and they are more likely to have to travel further to get to work (Table 4-20).

Most suburbanites do not work in the central city. Two-thirds of all workers living outside the central city (in SMSA's of 100,000 or more) in 1970 also worked outside the central city (Table 4-21). This means that a radial transit system geared to moving people from the suburbs to the central city cannot meet most suburban commuting needs.

For the third of suburbanites who work in the central city, radial