# Cities with the shortest and longest commute times



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

Here's something you might find interesting:

Commute time: calculated as the average time (in minutes) of a trip to and from work, based on: US: 2008 Canada, Europe, Sydney: 2006.

Cities associated with low commute times are considered to be more attractive places to live.

With the highest average commute time, Toronto ranks last among the 19 metro areas for which data are available. With the exception of New York, the US cities do well on this indicator. London, Montreal and Toronto are the only cities to receive “D” grades.

# cities ranked: 19

The Grade

# - City Name - grade - average commute time in minutes

1. Barcelona A (48.4)
2. Dallas A (53.0)
3. Milan A (53.4)
4. Seattle A (55.5)
5. Boston A (55.8 )
6. Los Angeles A (56.1)
7. San Francisco B (57.4)
8. Chicago B (61.4)
9. Berlin B (63.2)
10. Halifax C (65.0)
11. Sydney C (66.0)
12. Madrid C (66.1)
13. Calgary C (67.0)
14. Vancouver C (67.0)
15. New York C (68.1)
16. Stockholm C (70.0)
17. London D (74.0)
18. Montreal D (76.0)
19. Toronto D (80.0)

Data unavailable for Hong Kong, Oslo, Paris,
Shanghai, and Tokyo.

Source: http://bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard_on_Prosperity_2010_FINAL.pdf

Interesting to see where these cities fit. Looks like cities with more highways tend to rank higher compared to those with more rapid transit systems (subways). 

I've been to both Barcelona and Toronto and I agree with this list. Barcelona has excellent transport infrastructure whereas Toronto has few transit lines and highways.

Thoughts?


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

This list is too limited imo. 

Based on that list, I don't see any correlation between transit vs highway prominence. Barcelona and Madrid are examples of cities which have both good transit and highway systems, yet Los Angeles has limited transit but is still one of the best performing cities, while Toronto has a more or less similar transport system and is the worst performing city. On the other hand, Milan, a city with extensive transit is performing good, while London, which has very extensive transit options, is performing very bad. 

Of course the geographical sizes of these cities can be an influence, although I doubt if it is a leading one (Dallas is very large, yet has short commuting times, while Stockholm is relatively compact but has very long commuting times). 

Also, does this list include city propers, urban areas or metropolitan areas?


----------



## Haljackey (Feb 14, 2008)

Is it for the metropolitan area.

Size can be a factor, so can density, but it is sufficient transport infrastructure that affects these results the most.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

its 30mins-ish for me when commuting into manchester...although it can take as long as 2hrs when going home if i miss my train! urgh


----------



## Dr.Scope (Jul 5, 2010)

While they are finally replacing the 520 bridge in to Seattle in 2014 or 2015 it will still have the same # of lanes... 3 on each side (1 is HOV) and will now cost money (toll bridge). :nuts:

And if that is not bad enough the 405 has such bad surfacing it feels like driving on a pebble road :lol:

So Seattle should be higher up in my opinion.


----------

