50% of Boston's workforce commutes using the T every day, but it doesn't show up on the map. I'm assuming because most of those stops are in outlying towns and, therefore, only make up a minority of the commuting workforce in each area. According to the federal government, the T is the third best public transit system in the US due to it being the fastest average commute out of any by at least half an hour, only outclassed by the quality of DC and Seattle (I believe, might be Portland that's #1? I'd have to look again).

Ok! As per the marriam-webster definition of a metropolis:

the chief or capital city of a country, state, or region,

the city or state of origin of a colony (as of ancient Greece),

a city regarded as a center of a specified activity,

a large important city.

As per Cambridge:

a very large city, often the most important city in a large area or country.

Collins:

A metropolis is the largest, busiest, and most important city in a country or region.

Britannica:

a very large or important city — usually singular

Oxford:

A very large urban settlement usually with accompanying suburbs. No precise parameters of size or population density have been established. The structural, functional, and hierarchical evolution of global metropolises is rooted as much in the past as in the present: modern information and communications technology may be more advanced than the 19th-century telegraph, but the processes and outcomes are much the same (Daniels (2002) PHG 26). ‘[Berlin's] wealth of facilities, as well as their scatter across the metropolis, can be understood only in the light of the city's history and, paradoxically, its troubles.

Longman:

a very large city that is the most important city in a country or area

You:

NYC but only if half the people use public transit

The North American approach (because Canada is guilty too) to transit is to just throw a bunch of busses at the problem and act like they’ve “solved traffic”.

Nobody thinks they're "solving traffic". In most of North America, buses are seen as transportation for poor people. Cities feel like they need to supply them because poor people need to get to their jobs, but it doesn't have to be a good solution.

In Switzerland where they actually do try to solve traffic with buses, those buses have their own dedicated lanes, their own stop lights, etc. Plenty of rich people still drive because it's a status symbol or something, but buses, trams and trains are the fastest way to get from A to B. Cars are forced to yield to bus traffic. The result is that buses are fast and predictable, so everybody's happy to use them, which means they get increased investment, which leads to even better bus service, so even more people use them, etc.

I very seriously tried to be a no car household, I got to one car and I just walked a mile to work, rain or shine.

But my wife was a 6 minute drive from work, but due to criscrossing highways it was entirely unwalkable and like a 40 minute bus ride.

I'm in a similar boat. 45m drive by car. 2h using PT. Including a 30 minute walk for the last bit to my office. This doesn't include waiting for busses or trains.

Realistically it'd be 2.5h without delays. And that's just one way. After that I'm expected to work for 8h and do it again.

So if i leave at 7am, +5h+8h +30minute lunch break I'd be home by ...8.30pm?

And that is hoping the connections line up after work... Cycling isn't really an option as there's no shower in the workplace. And knowing corps I'm pretty sure they won't appreciate people charging their electric bike battery in the office for free.

RIP work-life balance using PT. And I already feel like it's shit.

Though I do try to use the train when I can. Even though it ain't cheap either...

That, or those people live in the place they work, or else only a few minutes away.

Or people

(source)

Not a map, but at least some more data from some other countries. The own car is unfortunately the most used mode of transport for commuting in every surveyed country, but the US seem to be especially far behind when it comes to alternatives.

Climate impact is significantly less for motorcycle riders, that's the only mitigation I can think of.

One, they are much better on gas use. So less energy in general to move them.

Two, they are much lighter, which as we are discovering with electric vehicles, matters a great deal in how horrible the tire wear is (and remember that 28% of microplastics in the environment come from car tire degradation alone!).

Three, for traffic purposes, they are much, much better. They are smaller, so recall that picture that floats around of how much space 100 passengers takes up. They aren't near the train/bus level, but are closer to the bicycle portion of the picture than the cars. It becomes even better if they are scooters compared to motorcycles (scooters are generally even lighter and have smaller engines with better gas usage). I always hear the stat thrown around that if 25% of individuals switched to motorcycles, modern traffic jams in cities (in America, I guess, where I hear it uttered) would nearly disappear.

Make public transit a viable alternative.

My commute is 45 minutes by car, over 2 hours by public transit. We need massive investment into public transportation. More buses, more trains.

And, I'll get crucified by this I'm sure, but it's true: bicycle infrastructure is nice but a far far secondary goal. When we prioritize cycling over buses and trains, all we're doing is supporting upper middle class office workers and work-from-home recreational cyclists. It's not a sea change. It doesn't move the needle. Taking away a car lane to make a dedicated bus lane moves the needle. Taking away a car lane to make a bike lane does not, unless mass transit is already a viable option.

Making public transport not absolute dogshit.

Like, I don't even mean "We need to extend it way out into the boonies" kind of thing. Something as simple as "Public transport that isn't so dogshit that the locals in major cities avoid it like the plague whenever possible" would go a long way towards reducing traffic congestion and car usage, even with suburbs and rural areas continuing to use cars excessively.

NYC, yes. That's the yellow on the map.

Syracuse, no.

Nobody drives in New York, too much traffic

It's funny that it's both visible and wrong

A large majority of the United States lives in a city or urban center.

Most people live in cities.