BLOGS: Bus bunching, diffusing conflict, congestion charging, etc.
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.

Seattle ranked as the "best" city for public transportation in the U.S. in a new report from WalletHub.
Photo: King County Metro
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
More Management

Bringing Austin’s First Light Rail System to Life
Austin Transit Partnership CEO Greg Canally discusses the city's nearly 10-mile light rail project, its collaborative approach to project delivery, the importance of community engagement, and the milestones ahead as construction approaches in 2027.
Read More →
ETA CEO John Maglio on Transit Technology, Innovation, and Building Agency Trust
ETA founder and CEO John Maglio explores the evolution of transit technology, the importance of reliable systems, and how stronger partnerships can help agencies improve operations and the passenger experience.
Read More →
Metra Draft Plan Outlines Costs, Service Improvements for Regional Rail
The Systemwide Network Plan identifies infrastructure needs and potential investments to expand all-day, bidirectional rail service across the Chicago region.
Read More →
New Orleans RTA Names Augustine III as New CEO
In this edition, we also spotlight recent personnel moves at HDR, PATH, STV, and more, highlighting the people taking on new roles across the transportation industry.
Read More →
How Transit Agencies Are Using Free Rides to Improve Voting Access
Transit agencies are using fare-free service, trip-planning tools, and targeted rides to improve voting access. See what other agencies can learn from these efforts.
Read More →
Caltrain’s Electrification Drives a New Era of Ridership Growth
The railroad’s shift to electric service has brought more frequent trains, stronger customer satisfaction, and increased ridership, earning it APTA’s Outstanding Public Transportation System award.
Read More →
Chicago, Charlotte Transit Agencies Expand Rider Support Programs
CTA launched crisis intervention teams as CATS prepares to deploy fare ambassadors, expanding customer assistance and security efforts across both systems.
Read More →
New York MTA Launches Historic $1.9B Signal, Track Modernization Project
Funded in part by congestion pricing revenue, the project will replace nearly century-old signals along the A and C lines in Brooklyn and Queens.
Read More →
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.
Read More →
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.
Read More →