2019's Cities with the Best (and Worst) Public Transportation

Ranks 100 U.S. cities across three key dimensions: Accessibility; Convenience; Safety; Reliability; and Public Transit Resources.

by Adam McCann

January 2, 2020

2019's Cities with the Best (and Worst) Public Transportation — Seattle ranked as the "best" city for public transportation in the U.S. in a new report from WalletHub.
Photo: King County Metro

7 min to read

Public transportation may be a simple convenience or an absolute daily necessity, depending on the city and the size of its population. The scope of public transportation in giant metropolises like New York City can be massive.

According to the MTA, the New York City subway has over 665 mainland track miles and transports over 1.75 billion passengers per year. That’s not to mention the city’s 5,700 buses that carry over 760 million passengers per year.

There are many benefits to using public transportation over personal vehicles. The first is economic growth. According to the American Public Transportation Association, “every $1 invested in public transportation generates $4 in economic returns.” In addition, the APTA states that taking public transportation is cheaper in the long run than buying a vehicle and paying for its upkeep and gas costs. Public transportation also has drastically lower odds of an accident than driving a personal vehicle and helps to cut down pollution from emissions.

But not all cities have the same quality of public transportation. To find out where passengers will fare best during their daily commute, WalletHub compared 100 cities across 17 key metrics. Our data set ranges from share of commuters who use public transit and average age of the fleet to number of injuries and peak hours spent in congestion.

Main Findings

Cities with the Best Public Transportation

Overall Rank (1=Best)	City	Total Score	‘Accessibility & Convenience’ Rank	‘Safety & Reliability’ Rank	‘Public Transit Resources’ Rank
1	Seattle, WA	77.97	7	6	3
2	Boston, MA	77.84	2	34	10
3	San Francisco, CA	75.21	1	27	80
4	Washington, DC	71.23	3	48	52
5	Madison, WI	71.06	46	1	4
6	Jersey City, NJ	69.05	4	22	97
7	New York, NY	68.87	5	22	97
8	Reno, NV	68.13	76	8	1
9	Honolulu, HI	67.85	30	13	12
10	Portland, OR	66.82	13	31	29
11	Minneapolis, MN	66.72	8	51	31
12	Denver, CO	65.98	14	25	27
13	Oakland, CA	65.68	10	27	80
14	Los Angeles, CA	64.79	15	15	60
15	San Jose, CA	64.47	21	21	35
16	Boise, ID	64.45	82	3	37
17	Lubbock, TX	64.33	92	14	5
18	Milwaukee, WI	64.18	42	4	18
19	San Diego, CA	64.13	32	11	15
20	Austin, TX	63.66	19	68	2
21	Baltimore, MD	63.50	12	35	79
22	Chicago, IL	63.33	6	71	59
23	Lincoln, NE	63.10	24	20	46
24	Chula Vista, CA	62.46	89	11	15
25	Laredo, TX	61.52	99	5	43
26	Santa Ana, CA	61.48	35	15	60
27	Long Beach, CA	61.25	38	15	60
28	Omaha, NE	60.93	69	1	93
29	Wichita, KS	60.76	66	7	30
30	Newark, NJ	60.17	16	22	97
31	Memphis, TN	60.14	58	10	87
32	St. Paul, MN	59.00	27	51	31
33	Pittsburgh, PA	58.96	39	53	33
34	El Paso, TX	58.51	61	40	45
35	Fremont, CA	58.29	43	27	80
36	Greensboro, NC	58.21	57	43	36
37	Cincinnati, OH	58.17	37	42	40
38	Irvine, CA	57.88	70	15	60
39	Toledo, OH	57.77	77	58	7
40	Albuquerque, NM	57.67	11	88	19
41	San Antonio, TX	57.63	49	55	6
42	Aurora, CO	57.60	81	25	27
43	Corpus Christi, TX	57.43	54	67	8
44	Anaheim, CA	57.16	74	15	60
45	San Bernardino, CA	56.94	60	32	49
46	Cleveland, OH	56.65	18	73	53
47	Atlanta, GA	56.47	22	41	96
48	Riverside, CA	56.37	65	32	49
49	Birmingham, AL	56.15	97	30	44
50	Durham, NC	56.06	36	49	66
51	Las Vegas, NV	56.06	44	37	76
52	Miami, FL	55.86	20	45	94
53	Tucson, AZ	55.85	33	57	41
54	Detroit, MI	55.47	52	47	73
55	Phoenix, AZ	55.39	26	61	67
56	Orlando, FL	55.07	25	78	38
57	Lexington-Fayette, KY	54.96	63	77	11
58	Anchorage, AK	54.88	50	54	42
59	Fort Wayne, IN	54.85	88	50	55
60	Colorado Springs, CO	54.66	79	72	9
61	Jacksonville, FL	54.16	62	36	83
62	Columbus, OH	54.13	45	59	54
63	Buffalo, NY	53.91	40	56	75
64	Stockton, CA	53.82	90	9	84
65	Dallas, TX	53.78	29	79	20
66	Nashville, TN	53.73	31	60	85
67	Scottsdale, AZ	53.32	68	61	67
68	Houston, TX	53.32	34	70	65
69	North Las Vegas, NV	52.72	94	37	76
70	Sacramento, CA	52.09	51	44	90
71	Virginia Beach, VA	51.99	47	74	56
72	Winston-Salem, NC	51.63	85	69	14
73	Raleigh, NC	51.42	41	89	13
74	Norfolk, VA	51.18	48	74	56
75	Irving, TX	51.12	56	79	20
76	Glendale, AZ	50.84	98	61	67
77	Garland, TX	50.38	84	79	20
78	Hialeah, FL	50.28	83	45	94
79	Fresno, CA	50.22	71	87	26
80	Henderson, NV	50.09	95	37	76
81	Louisville, KY	49.83	64	85	47
82	Chandler, AZ	49.55	80	61	67
83	Chesapeake, VA	49.38	93	74	56
84	Fort Worth, TX	49.26	75	79	20
85	Plano, TX	49.13	78	79	20
86	Mesa, AZ	49.00	86	61	67
87	Bakersfield, CA	48.98	59	86	74
88	Kansas City, MO	48.76	23	93	34
89	Philadelphia, PA	48.73	9	97	86
90	Gilbert, AZ	48.52	100	61	67
91	St. Louis, MO	46.51	17	96	51
92	Baton Rouge, LA	46.26	91	91	17
93	Arlington, TX	45.70	96	79	20
94	Oklahoma City, OK	45.64	55	90	89
95	Tulsa, OK	43.02	72	94	48
96	New Orleans, LA	42.43	28	92	100
97	Charlotte, NC	40.67	53	95	88
98	Tampa, FL	24.69	67	98	91
99	St. Petersburg, FL	24.03	73	98	91
100	Indianapolis, IN	21.13	87	100	39

Survey Methodology

To determine the cities with the best and worst public transportation systems, WalletHub compared a sample of 100 U.S. cities across three key dimensions: 1) Accessibility & Convenience, 2) Safety & Reliability and 3) Public Transit Resources.

We evaluated those dimensions using 17 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the most favorable living conditions.

Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order the cities in our sample. Our sample considers only the city proper in each case and excludes cities in the surrounding metro area.

Accessibility & Convenience – Total Points: 40

Share of Commuters Who Use Public Transit: Double Weight (~6.15 Points)

Average Commute Time for Transit Users: Full Weight (~3.08 Points)

Average Car Commute Time as Share of Average Public Transport Commute Time: Double Weight (~6.15 Points)

Transit Connectivity Index: Full Weight (~3.08 Points) Note: The TCI is a measure of how connected the average household member is to the availability of a transit ride.

Jobs Accessible Within a 30 Minute Transit Commute per 100 Civilian Employed Residents: Full Weight (~3.08 Points)

Peak Hours Spent in Congestion: Full Weight (~3.08 Points) Note: The total number of hours lost in congestion during peak commute periods compared to free-flow periods on a per capita basis. Peak corresponds to the absolute worst portion of the morning and afternoon commute, while free-flow is the best performance experienced over 24 hours.

Annual Public Transport Cost as Share of Median Annual Household Income: Double Weight (~6.15 Points)

Share of Commuters Who Prefer Public Transport: Full Weight (~3.08 Points) Note: This refers to commuters that choose public transportation even if they have one or more vehicles available.

Presence of Dedicated Rapid Bus & Rail Transport: Full Weight (~3.08 Points) Note: This binary metric measures the presence or absence of dedicated rapid bus and rail systems in a city.

Airport Accessibility by Public Transit: Full Weight (~3.08 Points) Note: This binary metric measures the presence or absence of a direct fixed-guideway access to an airport terminal or free bus shuttle access from rail station to an airport terminal.

Safety & Reliability – Total Points: 40

Public Transit Safety and Security Events per Passenger Miles Traveled: Full Weight (~10.00 Points) Note: Events include the following: collision, derailment, fire, security and not otherwise classified events.

Public Transit Injuries per Passenger Miles Traveled: Full Weight (~10.00 Points)

Public Transit Fatalities per Passenger Miles Traveled: Double Weight (~20.00 Points)

Public Transit Resources – Total Points: 20

Public Transport System Total Fixed Guideway Directional Route Miles per Urbanized Area Population: Full Weight (~4.00 Points) Note: The mileage in each direction over which public transportation vehicles travel while in revenue service.

Total Public Transit Vehicles Operated in Annual Maximum Service per Service Area Population: Double Weight (~8.00 Points) Note: The number of revenue vehicles operated to meet the annual maximum service requirement.

Average Age of Public Transit Fleet: Full Weight (~4.00 Points)

Average Lifetime Miles per Active Vehicles: Full Weight (~4.00 Points) Note: The total miles accumulated on all active vehicles since date of manufacture divided by the number of active vehicles.

Article, originally posted Sept.10, 2019, reprinted with permission from WalletHub.com

Topics:mobility passenger rail public transit public transportation traffic congestion trains New Mobility Bus Paratransit Rail Technology Management

More Management

Turning Transportation Challenges into Opportunities

Management•by Alex Roman•October 22, 2026

Brian Dickson on Building Stronger, More Resilient Transportation Organizations

Bus Business Consultants Founder Brian Dickson discusses the leadership principles, operational discipline, and strategic planning that separate transportation companies positioned for long-term success from those stuck in survival mode.

Groundbreaking ceremony for LA Metro's Vermont Transit Corridor BRT

Bus•by Staff and News Reports•October 22, 2026

LA Metro Breaks Ground on Vermont BRT Project

The 12.4-mile corridor is projected to serve 66,200 daily riders, reduce travel times by up to 24%, and create the nation's busiest bus rapid transit corridor.

Management•October 21, 2026

Building Stronger Leaders, More Resilient Transit Teams

Dr. Carol Parker Walsh discusses leadership development, employee retention, workplace culture, and preparing transit’s workforce for AI and automation.

ABC Companies President and CEO Roman Cornell

Bus•October 21, 2026

Roman Cornell on ABC Companies’ Evolution and the Future of Passenger Transportation

The company’s CEO discusses carrying forward a third-generation family legacy, ABC’s continued evolution in passenger transportation, support for increasingly complex fleets, and how technology and continued investment could help operators improve uptime.