Latest news with #Point2Homes
New York Post
2 days ago
- Business
- New York Post
Dozens of New Jersey suburbs have more renters than homeowners — more than any other state
In the Garden State, signing a deed to buy a home is being outnumbered in certain areas by inking a lease to rent one. As housing affordability continues to decline nationwide, a growing number of New Jersey suburbs especially are now dominated by renters — recasting the classic vision of suburban life. A new analysis of US Census data by Point2Homes reveals that 39 New Jersey suburbs with populations more than 10,000 are now renter-majority — a figure that leads the nation. Advertisement 6 New Jersey suburbs are becoming ground zero for the rise of the 'renter majority,' as the dream of suburban homeownership slips further out of reach. Col. Wilson – Once a haven for aspiring homeowners who wanted to maintain close ties to New York City, the state's inner-ring suburbs are seeing significant demographic and economic transformation as more residents lease rather than buy. Places like Harrison, Union City, West New York, Passaic and Elizabeth are among the top 20 suburbs in the country with the highest shares of renter households. Advertisement In Harrison, located near Newark, over 81% of households are occupied by renters; in Union City, it's nearly 80%. The trend isn't just about where people are living — it's about how. 6 According to a recent study by Point2Homes, 39 New Jersey suburbs now have more renters than homeowners — more than any other state represented in the national analysis. John McAdorey – 6 Places like Harrison, Union City, West New York, Passaic and Elizabeth top the list, with renter rates exceeding 74%. Fotosforthefuture/Wirestock Creators – The shift reflects both an affordability crisis and changing attitudes about homeownership, according to the National Association of Home Builders, which noted that nearly 75% of US households cannot afford a median-priced new home in 2025 — now hovering around $460,000 with a 30-year mortgage rate at 6.5%. Advertisement In New Jersey, the shift is particularly stark. Of the 15 suburbs nationwide that flipped from homeowner-majority to renter-majority between 2018 and 2023, four are in New Jersey — more than any other state. 6 From 2018 to 2023, four New Jersey suburbs — including Bound Brook and Secaucus — were among the top 15 nationwide to tip into renter-majority status. Luis – Bound Brook, for example, saw its renter population jump from just under 50% to more than 58%. Advertisement North Arlington, East Franklin and Secaucus also made the list, each undergoing a similar transformation. Meanwhile, Elizabeth and Paterson added more than 3,500 renter households each over the past five years, ranking among the top 10 suburbs nationwide for absolute growth in renter households. The movement isn't just driven by rising home prices — it's also a response to skyrocketing urban rents, especially considering nearby New York. 6 The trend reflects both affordability challenges and broader cultural shifts: younger generations shaped by the 2008 housing crash are increasingly opting to rent, not just for financial reasons but for flexibility, remote work compatibility and proximity to transit. Bildgigant – 6 In places like Elizabeth and Union Township, large-scale rental developments near train stations are rapidly reshaping once ownership-dominated landscapes, catering to renters priced out of New York City and nearby urban centers. Felix Mizioznikov – Younger generations, especially millennials and Gen Z, are turning to suburban rentals as a middle ground: close enough to transit, but far enough from the eye-watering rents on or on the other side of the Hudson. Developers have responded in kind. In places like Union Township and Elizabeth, mid-rise apartment buildings have cropped up near train stations, catering to commuters and remote workers alike.
Newsweek
3 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Renters Are Beginning to Outnumber Homeowners in Suburbs
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new report found that 15 suburbs across the United States have shifted to see a majority renter status, reflecting major changes in the housing market between 2018 and 2023. Many other areas also experienced a boom in renter populations during the same time period. Why It Matters The trend followed years of escalating home prices and affordability challenges, with new U.S. Census data showing that renters now outnumber owners in 203 suburbs of the nation's 20 largest metro areas. As of 2023, 203 out of nearly 1,500 U.S. suburbs with populations over 10,000 were renter-dominated, according to a new report by Point2Homes. This total fell from a peak of 233 suburbs in 2018, highlighting both rapid growth and some fluctuation as market conditions, development, and demographics changed. Rising home prices, stagnant wage growth, and limited inventory have made renting in suburbs attractive for populations previously expected to buy homes in these areas, according to DoorLoop's 2025 housing statistics. A sign advertising units for rent is displayed outside of a building in Manhattan on April 11, 2024. A sign advertising units for rent is displayed outside of a building in Manhattan on April 11, To Know Between 2018 and 2023, 15 suburbs outside major U.S. cities experienced more than half of their households switching from owning to renting, with notable shifts in suburbs surrounding New York City, Miami, Boston, and Baltimore. Meanwhile, communities such as Frisco, McKinney, and Grand Prairie, all in Texas, experienced significant growth in renters. Frisco, a Dallas–Fort Worth community, added over 10,213 new renter households from 2018 to 2023, according to Point2Homes. Approximately 6.08 million households currently rent suburban homes in these large metros, an increase of around 231,000 since 2018. This partially resulted from developers prioritizing build-to-rent single-family homes in suburban locations, responding to high demand for space and amenities. Challenges of homeownership—such as soaring prices and tightened lending—have made owning less accessible for younger and lower-income Americans. Between 2018 and 2023, the cost of homeownership surged, driven by mortgage rates that climbed to nearly 8 percent by fall 2023, according to Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at Home prices also remained at or above pandemic-era highs across much of the country. "As a result, homeownership became increasingly unattainable for many households," Jones told Newsweek. "Simultaneously, builders responded to the shifting market by ramping up investment in multifamily construction, which expanded the rental supply. The combination of rising housing costs and increased suburban rental availability led many households to choose renting in the suburbs over buying a home." Renter household growth has been especially pronounced in the South and Midwest, such as in Dallas-area suburbs, where rental households rose by 18 percent, surpassing the city's 8 percent growth rate. Suburbs around Minneapolis and Boston exhibited similar patterns, a reversal of traditional expectations where cities, rather than suburbs, drew the majority of renters. The median age of U.S. renters is now 39, compared to 56 for homeowners. The median income for suburban renters, at $42,500, lags significantly behind that of homeowners, who earn an average of over $86,000. Racial disparities persist, with Black and Hispanic households making up a higher proportion of renters. Another piece of the puzzle is that an increasing number of Americans want mobility, and renting presents that option. "In today's world, renting can make more sense for a lot of people," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "Just looking around my own neighborhood, I've seen families move in, stay for a year or two, and suddenly they're gone—transferred across the country, and a 'For Sale' sign is up the next day. Texas has become a magnet for that kind of churn." What People Are Saying Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "Simply put, the cost of ownership in many of these locations is just too high, especially for younger, mobile residents. With a home, it's not just about the monthly mortgage, which is more expensive due to higher interest rates. It's about the down payment, property tax, and all the other odds and ends financially of ownership that serve as barriers to many." Hannah Jones, senior economic research analyst at told Newsweek: "This trend underscores just how challenging it has become for the typical U.S. household to purchase a home. Ample rental supply has helped ease pressure on rents in many parts of the country, making renting an increasingly attractive option." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "It reflects a growing problem: housing affordability is under pressure. Some cities are being overwhelmed by migration and simply don't have the housing stock to absorb it. Others, especially in the South, are experiencing the opposite. But when economic opportunity moves in, real estate trends shift fast." Nationwide title and escrow expert Alan Chang told Newsweek: "In many cases, renting was the only financial path forward due to the lack of affordable homes to purchase. City life is not what it used to be, as recent years saw an uptick in crime and civil unrest. This made suburban neighborhoods a more attractive option, especially for those with younger children. Noemi Konta, a communications strategist for Point2Homes, told Newsweek: "Developers have responded to this demand by building more rental stock outside traditional city centers—especially in areas where there's room to create the kinds of communities today's renters are looking for. "So it's no surprise that we're seeing a more mixed tenure landscape in the suburbs: these areas are no longer just for homeowners, but for a broad and growing renter population as well." What Happens Next As affordability challenges and changing lifestyle demands persist, analysts project continued growth in renter-majority suburbs, with developers and policymakers likely to reassess zoning, infrastructure, and community services. "Renting may still be pricey, but it offers flexibility if residents have to relocate and entry into communities they would otherwise be unable to afford if ownership was the only option," Beene said.
USA Today
6 days ago
- Automotive
- USA Today
Should you buy that car? It makes sense to own one in these cities.
Should you buy that car? It makes sense to own one in these cities. Show Caption Hide Caption How Trump's tariffs will effect everyday prices With new tariffs on imports, several everyday goods are likely to become more expensive for American consumers. Cars and auto parts, many of which are produced through an integrated North American supply chain, will see price increases as manufacturers adjust to higher costs. unbranded - Newsworthy Own a car, or use public transit? It's a classic debate full of trade-offs. For most Americans, quicker commutes and the convenience of car ownership outweigh the pros of using public transit. But that comfort often comes at a steep price, averaging around $8,137 per year when factoring in fuel, insurance, maintenance, and parking, according to a study by Point2Homes, a resource for renters that publishes market research. For the average homeowner, that's 8% of their income, but for the average renter, it's 15%, the study found. Meanwhile, public transit costs commuters on average less than $1,000 per year — a more than $7,000 annual difference, the study's author Andra Hopulele notes. 'This financial imbalance underscores how transit affordability can play a key role in household budgeting, particularly for lower- and middle-income renters,' Hopulele told USA TODAY. 'The tradeoff is clear: significant cost savings versus modest time gains. For budget-conscious commuters, especially renters, public transit can offer meaningful financial relief.' More: Used car prices hit record highs in 2025: What buyers need to know Debating buying a car versus sticking to the bus route and metro system? Here's what to know: Where ditching the car saves the most money Commuters can save thousands by ditching cars in some of the nation's most well-known cities, according to the study. Four of the top five cities where ditching a car will save more than $7,000 are in California. They are: San Francisco, where commuters save an average of $10,188 New York, where commuters save an average of $9,538 San Diego, where commuters save an average of $8,676 Los Angeles, where commuters save an average of $8,436 Boston, where commuters save an average of $8,195 Washington, where commuters save an average of $8,078 Philadelphia, where commuters save an average of $7,983 Jacksonville, Florida, where commuters save an average of $7,662 San Jose, California, where commuters save an average of $7,488 Chicago, where commuters save an average of $7,362 Where owning a car saves the most time While saving money is always nice, for some Americans, time is money. Point2Homes calculated the average amount of time drivers save on their work commutes in each city by subtracting the average car commute times from the average public transit commute times Americans reported in the Census American Community Survey. Two California cities where opting for public transit saves consumers some of the most money also rank in the top 10 of places where owning a car saves Americans the most time on their way to and from work. They are: Las Vegas, where commuters save an average of 52.3 minutes per day and 9.1 days per year San Jose, where commuters save an average of 50.8 minutes per day and 8.9 days per year El Paso, Texas, where commuters save an average of 46.8 minutes per day and 8.2 days per year Fort Worth, Texas, where commuters save an average of 44.4 minutes per day and 7.8 days per year San Antonio, where commuters save an average of 42.3 minutes per day and 7.4 days per year Phoenix, where commuters save an average of 41.3 minutes per day and 7.2 days per year Detroit, where commuters save an average of 40.5 minutes per day and 7.1 days per year Indianapolis, where commuters save an average of 39.2 minutes per day and 6.9 days per year San Diego, where commuters save an average of 38.9 minutes per day and 6.8 days per year Columbus, Ohio, where commuters save an average of 37.3 minutes per day and 6.5 days per year Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Should you buy that car? It makes sense to own one in these cities.
Own a car, or use public transit? It's a classic debate full of trade-offs. For most Americans, quicker commutes and the convenience of car ownership outweigh the pros of using public transit. But that comfort often comes at a steep price, averaging around $8,137 per year when factoring in fuel, insurance, maintenance, and parking, according to a study by Point2Homes, a resource for renters that publishes market research. For the average homeowner, that's 8% of their income, but for the average renter, it's 15%, the study found. Meanwhile, public transit costs commuters on average less than $1,000 per year — a more than $7,000 annual difference, the study's author Andra Hopulele notes. 'This financial imbalance underscores how transit affordability can play a key role in household budgeting, particularly for lower- and middle-income renters,' Hopulele told USA TODAY. 'The tradeoff is clear: significant cost savings versus modest time gains. For budget-conscious commuters, especially renters, public transit can offer meaningful financial relief.' More: Used car prices hit record highs in 2025: What buyers need to know Debating buying a car versus sticking to the bus route and metro system? Here's what to know: Commuters can save thousands by ditching cars in some of the nation's most well-known cities, according to the study. Four of the top five cities where ditching a car will save more than $7,000 are in California. They are: San Francisco, where commuters save an average of $10,188 New York, where commuters save an average of $9,538 San Diego, where commuters save an average of $8,676 Los Angeles, where commuters save an average of $8,436 Boston, where commuters save an average of $8,195 Washington, where commuters save an average of $8,078 Philadelphia, where commuters save an average of $7,983 Jacksonville, Florida, where commuters save an average of $7,662 San Jose, California, where commuters save an average of $7,488 Chicago, where commuters save an average of $7,362 While saving money is always nice, for some Americans, time is money. Point2Homes calculated the average amount of time drivers save on their work commutes in each city by subtracting the average car commute times from the average public transit commute times Americans reported in the Census American Community Survey. Two California cities where opting for public transit saves consumers some of the most money also rank in the top 10 of places where owning a car saves Americans the most time on their way to and from work. They are: Las Vegas, where commuters save an average of 52.3 minutes per day and 9.1 days per year San Jose, where commuters save an average of 50.8 minutes per day and 8.9 days per year El Paso, Texas, where commuters save an average of 46.8 minutes per day and 8.2 days per year Fort Worth, Texas, where commuters save an average of 44.4 minutes per day and 7.8 days per year San Antonio, where commuters save an average of 42.3 minutes per day and 7.4 days per year Phoenix, where commuters save an average of 41.3 minutes per day and 7.2 days per year Detroit, where commuters save an average of 40.5 minutes per day and 7.1 days per year Indianapolis, where commuters save an average of 39.2 minutes per day and 6.9 days per year San Diego, where commuters save an average of 38.9 minutes per day and 6.8 days per year Columbus, Ohio, where commuters save an average of 37.3 minutes per day and 6.5 days per year Reach Rachel Barber at rbarber@ and follow her on X @rachelbarber_ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Should you buy a car? It makes sense to own one in these cities. Sign in to access your portfolio
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Automotive
- Miami Herald
How much can renters save by switching from a car commute to using public transit?
How much can renters save by switching from a car commute to using public transit? Historically, driving has been Americans' preferred way to get to work. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, the share of workers who drive to work alone never dipped below 75%. Only the increase in remote work following the pandemic put a dent in these numbers: The share of workers driving to and from the office daily declined slightly, but hovers around a fairly high 69% to this day. And that's no wonder. Navigating the city by car shaves hours off of a commuter's weekly traffic time. It's also much more comfortable than getting up earlier to walk to the metro or bus station and then walk some more to the office. However, to save that time and keep a certain level of comfort, the typical American commuter spends thousands of dollars just to cover the commute costs. Alternatively, the annual costs associated with commuting by public transportation are significantly lower. On average, whereas a car commute might equate to a little more than $8,000, taking the bus costs just $972 per year. This means that a commuter willing to ditch the car in favor of the bus could potentially save around $7,000. Of course, that's a substantial amount for anyone, but it's renters who would benefit the most: With a monthly income of around $4,000, the average U.S. renter household would save the equivalent of nearly two months' salary by choosing public transit. Homeowners who commute would get the same discounts should they choose public transportation. But, given that the median monthly income for owner households is around $8,000, those savings represent a far smaller share: For owners, the costs related to car commute represent 8% of their average annual income, whereas driving to work bites more than 15% out of a renter's salary. So, Point2Homes asks how much money can commuters, and especially renters, save by switching from a car commute to using public transportation in the 30 largest U.S. cities? And conversely, how much time could they save if they went for the car, instead of the bus? Commute savings: In the 30 largest US cities, commuters can save either time or money Commuting by car instead of public transit saves up to 218 hours (or nine days) per year in Las Vegas, while ditching the car in favor of the bus saves up to $10,000 per year in San versus owners in the 30 largest U.S. cities: Saving thousands of dollars is great for anyone's budget, but renters would benefit from ditching the car more so than owners. Average savings represent approximately 8% of owners' income, but a massive 15% of renters' median cities for budget-conscious renters: In 27 of the 30 cities in the analysis, renters would save more than the equivalent of a month's salary if they ditched the car in favor of public fact, in three cities (Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore), yearly savings would exceed the equivalent of two months' cities for commuters pressed for time: When it comes to how much time they can save, both renters and owners who drive to work would spot the biggest difference in Las Vegas (where the car commute takes 52 minutes less compared to a public transit commute) and San Jose, California, (51 minutes less), adding up to nine days per year. Time is money: US car commuters save time, but driving to work costs $7,165 more per year, on average For owners, yearly car costs may mean just 8% of their average annual income, but driving to work consumes more than 15% of a renter's salary. From parking and fuel costs to insurance and maintenance, commuting by car is thousands of dollars more expensive than commuting via public transportation. To be more precise, it's a hefty $7,165 more. With a monthly income of a little more than $4,000, the typical renter household has to set aside the equivalent of nearly two months' worth of income every year just to be able to cover the costs of getting to work by car. The median income of a renter household is around half that of the typical owner household. According to the latest Census numbers, while the former is $51,393 per year, the latter hovers around a much more comfortable $97,352. Right off the bat, this means that renters need to develop budgeting skills that owners can, in theory, do without. And one glaring budget drain is car costs. Adding up the average annual insurance ($2,670) and maintenance ($1,500) costs, as well as annual fuel ($1,699) and parking ($2,268) costs reveals that car commuters spend around $8,000 just to get to and back from work. While this represents less than 8% of owners' income, it's more than 15% of renters' annual income. It is, however, faster. How much faster? The average American car commuter shaves off almost 33 minutes from their round-trip commute each day simply by choosing the car instead of the bus. This adds up to nearly six days per year. Plus, while paper math might make it seem easy to choose between saving money and saving time, commuters who are juggling taking the children to school, getting to work in time and possibly running multiple errands each day have a lot more to take into consideration than just money. Also, switching to mass transit to save money sounds great, but some cities are simply too steeped in car culture. While New York City, for example, distinguishes itself from other U.S. cities for its low personal car ownership and its significant use of public transportation, cities like Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Jacksonville, Florida; and Memphis, Tennessee, are car-dependent, having very low transit scores. According to Walkscore, these cities have minimal public transportation, not many bike lanes, and some of the lowest walkability scores out of all of the cities in the analysis. There are many reasons why America is so car-dependent, but ultimately what's more important to address is the financial burden that the costs of owning a car place on American households. According to the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy: In terms of total national household spending, transportation accounted for a total of $1.6 trillion, making it the fourth highest category of household expenditure in the country. After a decline in 2019-2020 due to the restrictions of the COVID-19 pandemic, between 2020-2021 the total national household spending on transportation continued to increase by nearly 30%. […] many U.S. cities lacking reliable, well-funded, and inclusive public transport options, people are forced to travel by personal vehicles to access essential destinations, like school or work. The lack of affordable, sustainable public transport options thus creates a noticeable financial burden on average American households-with fewer mobility options, many are forced to make difficult financial decisions that can impact quality of life. Best cities for budget-conscious renters: Ditching the car saves most money in San Francisco, New York City and San Diego Translating savings into monthly income, it's Philadelphia, Detroit and Baltimore that shine on the podium with yearly savings equal to at least two months' worth of income. The renters in America's 30 largest cities could benefit the most from switching to public transit commutes. With renter household incomes hovering around half that of homeowners', it's no wonder commute savings would have a bigger impact on renters' wallets. However, that financial impact also depends on the city they commute in. Commuters in large, busy and densely populated coastal hubs would benefit the most from taking the metro. Costs associated with car commutes in San Francisco and New York City surpass $11,000, and they're nearly $10,000 in cities like San Diego, Los Angeles, Boston, and Philadelphia. Yearly mass transit, however, costs around $1,000 to $1,500. Commuters who switch from car to metro could easily pocket the thousands of dollars difference. Click here for the full data on all 30 large U.S. cities With savings of around $10,000, San Francisco commuters who ditch the car for a year would see the most significant financial improvement. As the second-most densely populated major U.S. city, commuting by car in San Francisco might take a toll on commuters' wallets, and their lifestyle, as well. Next comes the most densely populated U.S. urban area: In New York City, commuters know the drill as 51% already use public transit to get to and from work. But, the 20% who use a car stand to save $9,538 if they decide to join the majority. These savings are sizable, but there are cities where commuting renters who ditch the car stand to gain even more. That's because both San Francisco and New York City renters would only save the equivalent of one month's salary if they crossed to the public transit side. However, in Philadelphia, Detroit, and Baltimore, giving up a car commute and taking the bus to work for a year would translate to more than two months' average salary. The share of car commuters are indeed below 50% in extremely busy cities like New York City (31%); Washington, D.C. (46%); San Francisco (48%); and Boston (49%). However, commuting by car is the absolute norm in the other 26 large cities in the study, with commuters who drive to work in Fort Worth, Texas; Oklahoma City; and Memphis, representing the crushing majority at 96%. In fact, in 17 of these 26 car-centric cities, car commuters represent more than 90% of all commuters. This means that a significant number of renters could save the equivalent of at least a month's salary if they had the option to leave the car at home. But, do they? Public transit infrastructure is complex and extremely well-developed in many cities, especially in densely populated coastal urban hubs, but it's often less efficient in more sprawling, lower-density cities where people need to cover long distances to get to work. The least-lucky commuters are car commuters from San Jose; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Seattle: Although they come very close, the total yearly savings that renters would see if they switched from a car commute to public transit don't add up to a month's salary. Best cities for commuters in a hurry: At 45 minutes, the shortest car commutes are in Memphis, and Columbus, Ohio Ditching the car would take a toll on Las Vegas and San Jose commuters as it would add almost an hour to their daily round-trip. Money is important, but many commuters choose to drive to work because it's faster and more comfortable. What's more, quite a few of them jump in the car in the morning because they have a lot more ground to cover than just the route to and back from the office. Dropping the kids to school and taking them back; going to another part of town to run an errand; or maybe going to the gym at lunch are all tasks that would be nearly impossible, or, at the very least much harder to get to without a car. Click here for the full data on all 30 large U.S. cities For commuters looking to save time, there are two possible scenarios: Either they live in a city where car commutes are short compared to other large cities or the difference between taking the car and taking the bus is so big that they have no choice but drive to work to make it work. In the first scenario, commuters in five of the 30 largest cities are the luckiest, with average daily commutes just under 50 minutes. Despite living in big urban hubs, car commuters in Memphis; Columbus, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; El Paso; and Oklahoma City spend half the time behind the wheel compared to NYC commuters. What's more, taking the bus would add at least 30 minutes to the time they spend in traffic every day. Granted, they would save a lot of money, but saving time is also a big plus. In the second scenario, it's commuters from two cities who would feel the biggest difference. Public transit commuters in Las Vegas and San Jose would spend almost one hour more in traffic, every day, if they gave up their cars. In El Paso, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Detroit, they would be forced to endure the mind-numbing traffic conditions for an extra 40 to 50 minutes. This adds up quite fast. At the other end of the spectrum, there are a few large cities where taking the car would greatly increase commute costs without offering a huge time advantage in exchange: In Washington, D.C. and Boston, commuters would have to spend around $8,000 more to commute by car, but would only save around 20 minutes per day. With daily savings of around 25 minutes, commuters in Charlotte, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco wouldn't be much better off. Commuting in NYC: The Bronx renters would save $8,700 by choosing public transit, the equivalent of 2+ months' salary Manhattan commuters can't catch a break: Whether by car or metro, getting to and from work takes forever. So they might as well choose the money. Although car culture dominates in the U.S., New York City, quite unsurprisingly, deviates from the norm: Mass transit, and especially the subway, are much more representative for the Big Apple. And that makes sense in America's most populous city, and its most densely populated one, as well. Space is a most valuable commodity in the City That Never Sleeps and that includes parking spaces and garages: Finding a spot to park your car is a challenge in itself. Add this to all the other usual costs and it becomes obvious that owning a car and driving around in America's largest city comes at a premium, more so than in any other city in the U.S. Most households in NYC (54%) don't own a car and people here rely on public transit to commute and move around. More precisely, according to the most recent Census data, of all of the residents who commute to work in the city, 32% use the subway, 12% take the bus, 10% walk to work, 4% travel by commuter rail, 5.6% carpool, 3.1% use a taxi, 1.7% ride their bicycle to work, and the smallest share (0.4%) travel by ferry. However, 30% of all commuters drive to work alone. Car ownership is significant in a few boroughs, and it's those commuters who would benefit the most from switching sides. In Staten Island, 68% of commuters drive to work, followed at a distance by Queens, where 43% rely on their car to move around. In The Bronx, 30% drive to work, while Brooklyn commuters who use a car are fewer, representing 26% of all commuters. Manhattan, the city's main employment center, has the lowest share of car commuters: Less than 10% of all employees here drive to work. Yet, Manhattanites would see the biggest savings: Given that car commuting costs in this borough are nearly $15,000 and mass transit costs are almost 10 times lower at $1,584, drivers who give up driving would save $13,294 per year. The average Manhattan renter household makes around $7,000 and the typical owner household earns a little more than $16,000, which means the math is mathing in NYC's poshest borough. Savings would be quite impressive in Brooklyn, as well. At $9,634, commute savings represent much more than a renter household's monthly income ($5,363) and are almost equal to an owner household's income (around $10,000). Not to be outdone, Queens and The Bronx are almost neck and neck, with annual savings of $8,902 and $8,698, respectively. And, although The Bronx seems to trail behind these other boroughs, it's actually way ahead of the pack: Renters who rely on the subway instead of a car could save more than the equivalent of two months' median salary, which is more than renters in any other borough. At $7,186 per year, Staten Island mass transit commuters would see the smallest savings, but that amount would still represent more than the local renter's median monthly income. How about saving time? Most NYC commuters use public transportation, but even the few ones who insist on driving should give it up and never look back: A car commute shaves so little time from the daily commute and is so much more expensive that it's almost not worth it. Driving to work only saves around eight minutes in Manhattan, and around 20 minutes in Brooklyn and The Bronx. Deciding between the car and the subway in Queens and Staten Island is a tougher choice, though: Giving up the car adds more than half an hour to an employee's daily commute in Queens and, in Staten Island, a mass transit commute takes 50 minutes more than a car commute. Compare commute times and commute savings in the 30 largest U.S. cities plus the five NYC boroughs: Methodology is a real estate listing portal for rental homes across the United States. Part of Yardi Systems, Point2Homes covers housing trends and news through comprehensive studies that draw from internal data, public records, governmental sources, and online research. For this study, we took into consideration the 30 most populous U.S. cities, per the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS 2023).Data about means of transportation to get to work, tenure by vehicles and commute time for the 30 largest U.S. cities were also sourced from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS 2023).Data on fuel and maintenance costs was sourced from AAA, car insurance costs from Bankrate, and parking rates from on the financial cost of public transit commuting in each city was sourced from APTA and local transit authority median income for the renter and owner households at the national level and also for the 30 cities used in the analysis were sourced from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS 2023). This story was produced by Point2Homes and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
