METRO Magazine Logo
MenuMENU
SearchSEARCH

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.

Ad Loading...

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.

Ad Loading...

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)

Ad Loading...
  • 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.

Ad Loading...
  • 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)

Ad Loading...

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.

Ad Loading...

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

More Management

Patrick Scully, president at Complete Coach Works.
Managementby StaffFebruary 18, 2026

Complete Coach Works Names Patrick Scully President

He succeeds the company founder, Dale Carson, who remains chairman of the board. 

Read More →
LIT Legacy Tour photo
Managementby StaffFebruary 18, 2026

Latinos In Transit Launches 'Legacy Tour' Marking 10 Years of Impact

The tour reflects LIT’s commitment to supporting professional growth, collaboration, and opportunity for individuals at all career stages within the transit industry, according to LIT officials.

Read More →
2026 LITLA Class
Managementby StaffFebruary 16, 2026

LIT Announces the 2026 Leadership Academy Class

Curated and facilitated by transportation industry leaders, LITLA provides a high-quality, structured learning experience that combines theoretical knowledge, professional networking, and practical leadership application.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
Cover photo for METROspectives with WSP USA's Inez Evans Benson
Managementby Alex RomanFebruary 16, 2026

WSP's Inez Evans-Benson on Customer Satisfaction and the Customer Experience

Drawing on decades of industry experience, Evans-Benson offered insights into the differences between the two, along with tips for better customer engagement and more.

Read More →
Portrait of Joshua Schank, Ph.D., alongside the ACES Mobility Coalition logo.
Managementby StaffFebruary 16, 2026

ACES Mobility Coalition Selects Joshua Schank as New Executive Director

Veteran transportation innovator to lead coalition as it pushes nationwide expansion of shared autonomous mobility.

Read More →
A Parsons & Sons bus
Motorcoachby Staff and News ReportsFebruary 12, 2026

Parsons & Sons Named METRO’s 2026 Motorcoach Operator of the Year

METRO Executive Editor Alex Roman presented the award to the operation’s President/CEO Scott Parsons at the United Motorcoach Association’s EXPO in Birmingham, Alabama.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
The ONE Transit Board wearing newly branded hats.
Managementby StaffFebruary 12, 2026

Central Oklahoma RTA Approves New Name, Branding

The brand strategy was developed based on input from RTA board members, staff, and stakeholders, along with secondary research conducted over a months-long process.

Read More →
Fans riding VTA for Super Bowl LX.
Managementby StaffFebruary 10, 2026

VTA Delivers Record Super Bowl LX Ridership

In close coordination with regional partners including Caltrain and BART, the agency ensured convenient interagency connections and seamless transfers for game-day passengers.

Read More →
A BART railcar
ManagementFebruary 9, 2026

BART Details Contingency Plans Without Funding

Because rail has high fixed costs and low marginal savings, it is impossible to close the projected FY27 $376M deficit with service cuts and fare increases alone, said agency officials.

Read More →
Ad Loading...
A picture of C-TRAN's electric bus.
Managementby StaffFebruary 6, 2026

C-TRAN Sees Fourth Consecutive Year of Ridership Growth

The total ridership includes all fixed-route bus service, C-VAN paratransit service, The Current, Vanpool, and special event service. Almost all individual routes saw year-over-year increases from 2024 to 2025.

Read More →