I started out using public transit when I had a job that was in a fixed, nearby location and began and ended in daylight hours.

However having a career that frequently required me to go more than five miles away, to many differing locations, sometimes at night, sometimes too early in the morning to get a decent transit connection, transporting heavy materials at times....changed all of that.

I think we should try to provide affordable public transit...and do it at a reasonable fiscal cost......but many people have employment situations or business demands that mitigate against utilizing public systems.

So it isn't always a matter of what you prefer to do---but what you have to.

When I lived in Vancouver, BC, I had an 8 minute commute by bike. I rode in all but the worst weather, because in eight minutes you don't get very wet (I used an umbrella), and because the bus or walking took way too long and we didn't have a car.

To get around the neighbourhood, I usually rode my bike or walked. For trips to other parts of the city, it was bike in good weather, sometimes transit in bad weather. For trips out to the suburbs, it was public transit, and these were sometimes long and unpleasant. For trips to buy big heavy things, we got a car from the car co-op (similar to Zipcar, but cheaper).

If money had been no issue, we would have gotten a car for those trips to the suburbs, but it did not seem worth it considering we had no need for a car for most trips. But we still wouldn't use the car in the city much: It would not have been convenient for our work commutes; I'm concerned about the environmental impacts of cars, and I really enjoy riding my bicycle.

So I'm a little bit of 3, 4, and 5, but open to occasional car use, but income and expense was a huge barriar to car ownership, something that wasn't mentioned and I'm sure would have to be for a North American survey. (Canada isn't that different from the US—public transit use is a bit higher but the cities look pretty similar.)

Is it assumed that #5 is desired? That we should be so mobile as not to care about our mobility at all as if it were second nature?

Because, if this is the case, I feel that public transportation and biking should be included in that definition. These all should be so common as not be "alternative."

I would say I'm a mix between #3 and #5 - almost all of my trips are by bicycle year-round, and next to that, by foot. I make a few trips by car, and a few trips on transit here and there. I'm not really heavily motivated by environmental concerns, though I do think that's important - I'm primarily motivated by convenience and enjoyment, and then by equity and livability concerns. I find a bicycle to be the easiest way to get around inner Portland, and I enjoy it much more than driving or riding transit, even in the rain :)

Well I definitely used to be #5, when I lived in NYC. I mostly walked everywhere, taking public transit only when going to far-flung locations (like the Bronx, or the Upper East Side) or when really pressed for time. I walked about 2.2 miles to & from work, every day, some weekends, through rain, snow, and oppressive summer heat & humidity.

Now, I mostly have to bike everywhere, though I still try to make as many trips on foot as possible. (Unfortunately, that isn't very many, because Portland is so lacking in density that so many destinations are, by NYC standards, "far-flung.") And I take public transit more than I used to, whenever I grow tired of getting wet on my bike. I'm definitely not as healthy as I was -- biking 8 miles round-trip just doesn't do as much for me as briskly walking 4.5 miles round-trip did.

Personally, I just don't believe that most people really make their transit decisions based primarily on eco-consciousness. I think people bike, walk, drive, or take public transit because they prefer one mode (it makes them feel better, they enjoy it, etc.) or because one is decidedly more convenient than the others.

I'm a #5 - mostly. I grew up like a lot of kids, loving trains, but also loving bus rides (we didn't have a car). I consider myself more open to change, and have finally accepted that an automobile would be convenient. But only in cases where my transit option is less so.

I'm none of these. I ride public transit as an enthusiast, advocate, and activist. Now if anyone said less public transit service was "greener" than more because people would make "choices" based on "neighborhood availability," and it forced people in poor neighborhoods to lose access to quality services, than I would be against that statement.

I definitely think a survey in this country would produce different results. In fact, I've heard that the American auto industry and auto-dominated suburbs were actually responses to the forumer USSR increasing their public transit services back in the post-WW2 40s and 50s. Haven't heard anything to support or refute that claim, though.

...but many people have employment situations or business demands that mitigate against utilizing public systems.
So it isn't always a matter of what you prefer to do---but what you have to.
Well said, and there will always be jobs where it will be impossible to use public transit. However, I see no reason why those who work in fixed locations everyday think they need to drive their own car to and from everyday. I see no reason why businesses should be allowed to purposely locate jobs in areas with little or no public transit to discourage its use. And I see absolutely no reason why driving alone to work everyday and/or a drivers license should be a requirement for jobs that do not require driving, or an employer can say 'once every year or three we might ask someone to drive to a location not accessible by public transit.'