Availability isn't the question. I'm assuming the survey question is "do you drive to work or take public transportation."

I have the ability to take a train to work, but it would take me an extra 30 minutes or so each way because I live only a minute walk from the train station, but my job is about a mile away. Also, the train costs me more than driving. I've done it, and would rather do it, but it doesn't work well enough.

It's greatly inflated by virtue of doing it by county instead, mingling major transit routes with fully rural areas.

But even that aside I strongly agree. Cook county would be under 50 if people were more willing to take the train

Those two counties are Petroleum County, with a population of about 500, and Garfield County with a population of about 1,100. Both counties have a single town with about a quarter of the population.

This means a majority of the population live in the country, and likely work the lands they live on. This means no commute to work, which is what was measured.

This is a flaw in the methodology. Rurual Montana is not a bastion of urban planning. It is a mistake to look at travel to work exclusively. People need to travel to many destinations. And those living in those two counties probably use cars for everything else.

I'm wondering that too. Just a guess, low population density with lots of farmers 'working from home' since they live on their farm.

They don''t go to work. Farmers don't travel for work but it's likely low survey response. Very low population density there(1-10/mi)

You aren't getting anywhere in Montana without a car

What’s going on in that one area in Montana?

Nothing.

I drove though there once. Hours of seeing nothing but road.

Horses, atvs.

Staten Island doesn't have the subway infrastructure that other boroughs have. The one line it does have does has relatively high usage. Maybe it's wise to expand it?

There are a lot of reason why we're not, but excessive car use is one of the lesser reasons!

In comparison to the US yeah probably but still overall pretty high would be my assumption.

The map actually does a good job of highlighting how population dense places exist without a lot of cars per person. New York and San Francisco are both shown and have green or yellow patches. Mass transit works so damn good but, like election maps, the actual region highlighted is empty space with a few people all doing the same things.

The real alternative to cars isn't public transit; it's walking and biking (with zoning density that facilitates that). Public transit is a 'nice to have' layer built on top afterward.

The lack of sufficient population density to support public transit makes Americans crave cars. Population density is low because the US has the space, and the areas that are dense are stupidly expensive.

I'd love to take a bus or light rail to work, but instead I end up having a saily commuteof over 100 miles round trip. In the city where I work, a 600sft studio apartment would cost an extra 30 grand a year versus my 3 bed, 2 bath place 50-ish miles away.

America is essentially a third world country with just a handful of developed metropolitan areas

And those few developed areas havnt meaningfully evolved or improved in decades and especially compared to the infrastructure developments seen in asia or Europe