I'm wondering that too. Just a guess, low population density with lots of farmers 'working from home' since they live on their farm.

Those two counties are Petroleum County, with a population of about 500, and Garfield County with a population of about 1,100. Both counties have a single town with about a quarter of the population.

This means a majority of the population live in the country, and likely work the lands they live on. This means no commute to work, which is what was measured.

This is a flaw in the methodology. Rurual Montana is not a bastion of urban planning. It is a mistake to look at travel to work exclusively. People need to travel to many destinations. And those living in those two counties probably use cars for everything else.

low population density means high variance in stats.

always expect the highest and lowest stats to come from those areas.

But it’s probably farmers who live on their farm or something.

They don''t go to work. Farmers don't travel for work but it's likely low survey response. Very low population density there(1-10/mi)

You aren't getting anywhere in Montana without a car

Horses, atvs.

What’s going on in that one area in Montana?

Nothing.

I drove though there once. Hours of seeing nothing but road.

Also, note the scale. It starts at 50% reliance.

A portio of that area I know is full of retirees who relocated to escape the woke coasts. (Speaking anecdotally of extended family that relocated to that zone for a community of old conservatives.) So I wonder if retirees are counted.

The area in Arizona thats a little lighter may also be a shade of that too. Snowbirds might be skewing it with people who just plain don't commute.

I'd expect it's pretty lightly populated at least, as that generally makes it easier to stand out in statistics.

Everyone works and lives on the same farm?

It truly is

About all we really got is some damn good... Highly fattening... Food.

In comparison to the US yeah probably but still overall pretty high would be my assumption.

Do farmers depend on cars to get to work?

Staten Island doesn't have the subway infrastructure that other boroughs have. The one line it does have does has relatively high usage. Maybe it's wise to expand it?

The map actually does a good job of highlighting how population dense places exist without a lot of cars per person. New York and San Francisco are both shown and have green or yellow patches. Mass transit works so damn good but, like election maps, the actual region highlighted is empty space with a few people all doing the same things.

The real alternative to cars isn't public transit; it's walking and biking (with zoning density that facilitates that). Public transit is a 'nice to have' layer built on top afterward.

Not everybody lives in the US and in a lot of countries being able to go to work without a car is normal.

I mean there are a lot of people that do go without cars. I went without a car for 8 years because I lived on a bus line and I worked on a bus or a train line depending on how far I had to go. The commute sucked sometimes was over 2 hours. There are times where I had to be on the bus at 4:30 in the morning to be to work at 6:30. And when you go 4 to 5 hours a day just commuting a car is very nice because that same drive was maybe 45 minutes between morning and afternoon. That gives you so much more time to do everything else. Having a functioning system doesn't mean much when you have to go so far.

America is essentially a third world country with just a handful of developed metropolitan areas

And those few developed areas havnt meaningfully evolved or improved in decades and especially compared to the infrastructure developments seen in asia or Europe

The lack of sufficient population density to support public transit makes Americans crave cars. Population density is low because the US has the space, and the areas that are dense are stupidly expensive.

I'd love to take a bus or light rail to work, but instead I end up having a saily commuteof over 100 miles round trip. In the city where I work, a 600sft studio apartment would cost an extra 30 grand a year versus my 3 bed, 2 bath place 50-ish miles away.

They're farmer. They live on the farm, and ride a tractor to work.

There are a lot of reason why we're not, but excessive car use is one of the lesser reasons!

It's greatly inflated by virtue of doing it by county instead, mingling major transit routes with fully rural areas.

But even that aside I strongly agree. Cook county would be under 50 if people were more willing to take the train

Availability isn't the question. I'm assuming the survey question is "do you drive to work or take public transportation."

I have the ability to take a train to work, but it would take me an extra 30 minutes or so each way because I live only a minute walk from the train station, but my job is about a mile away. Also, the train costs me more than driving. I've done it, and would rather do it, but it doesn't work well enough.

The cars belong to commuters whose car use would be reflected in their home county instead of SF.

If it’s SF I gotta know why there are so many cars there then.

Part of this will be people who simply have the habit of driving no matter what. A small part of that will be people who legitimately need a personal car even in a fairly pedestrian friendly area (eg, people with disabilities). However, a big part of the phenomenon you are observing is people who live in SF needing to leave it, and people who live outside SF needing to enter it. While SF itself may be pedestrian friendly (relative to the rest of the US at least), the bay area as a whole is still a cars-as-default space. So maybe you bought a house in the city proper and love living there, but your job (which you got after buying the house and which you must keep in order to pay the mortgage) is in a suburban office park. And you have many friends with homes in the suburbs who you like to visit. And you love travelling to the Sierras, but there is no good transit for this purpose. On the other hand, perhaps you live in the burbs, but work downtown - you could park at a more far-flung transit station and ride transit into the denser part of town, but due to the friction of transferring between modes, sitting in traffic for a few more minutes is a less painful experience.

The solution is simple: either charge more for public on-street parking and aggressively enforce parking laws with meter maids - or simply ban cars from streets/areas which are already pedestrian friendly. In either case, especially in a place like SF, you should also scale fines for breaking the law with the law-breaker's income/wealth.

Saying there isnt enough parking in SF is like saying that there isnt enough ice cream in SF. Sure, everyone will admit that they like it when it is presented to them - but the fact is that the government shouldnt be in the business of ensuring that there is a limitless supply of it at all times.

Given the percent of the map that falls in the 0-50 range, there's really no reason for it to be 5 (or 10) colors. Conversely, the 90-100 range accounts for a very large amount of the map, and being able to differentiate it is valuable.

This isn't like a graph where the scale changes in the middle to obfuscate the data; it's making the map more readable and providing more information, it just requires the user to actually be literate.

They’re not listed in the top counties list in the corner, so I suspect No Data Available became 0% when coloring in. Otherwise, maybe most people live on the ranch they work at?

Horses?

People live on farms?

I think the information on the wiki is wrong. Seems the majority are in agriculture.

But also 27% are remote workers.. Mystery solved.

bus

God damn commies are everywhere.