NATIONAL OPPORTUNITY ROADMAP
Many cities.
Every city has its own rhythm—and its own mobility opportunity. Explore local demand indicators and the economics that could shape CYVO’s national expansion.[6]
Find a city RegionAll regions Northeast Midwest South West Alaska Hawaii Roadmap stageAll stages Evaluation Planned Active
+ − Reset
United States — Albers USA projection U.S. Census Bureau 2024 state boundaries. Alaska is reduced in scale; Alaska and Hawaii are positioned in insets. ALASKA · INSET HAWAII · INSET ● Evaluation ◇ Planned ■ Active [9]
Enable JavaScript to explore city scenarios. City research and source records remain available on the Sources & Disclosures page .
New York, NY — Evaluation. New York offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 1,915,214 households have no vehicle available (56.7%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[100] Los Angeles, CA — Evaluation. Los Angeles brings a resident base of 3,878,718 and 178,146 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[101] Chicago, IL — Evaluation. Chicago offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 321,432 households have no vehicle available (27.4%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[102] Houston, TX — Evaluation. Houston brings a resident base of 2,387,910 and 102,278 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[103] Phoenix, AZ — Evaluation. Phoenix brings a resident base of 1,673,122 and 46,819 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[104] Philadelphia, PA — Evaluation. Philadelphia offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 196,339 households have no vehicle available (27.9%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[105] San Antonio, TX — Evaluation. San Antonio brings a resident base of 1,526,621 and 49,419 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[106] San Diego, CA — Evaluation. San Diego combines 1,404,461 residents with median household income of $111,032. Our evaluation focus is a dependable, time-saving service for recurring local journeys, with fares tested against local purchasing power.[107] Dallas, TX — Evaluation. Dallas brings a resident base of 1,326,093 and 50,771 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[108] San Jose, CA — Evaluation. San Jose combines 997,395 residents with median household income of $148,226. Our evaluation focus is a dependable, time-saving service for recurring local journeys, with fares tested against local purchasing power.[109] Austin, TX — Evaluation. Austin brings a resident base of 993,771 and 35,915 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[110] Jacksonville, FL — Evaluation. Jacksonville brings a resident base of 1,009,831 and 35,969 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[111] Fort Worth, TX — Evaluation. Fort Worth brings a resident base of 1,014,376 and 24,808 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[112] Columbus, OH — Evaluation. Columbus brings a resident base of 931,551 and 34,965 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[113] Charlotte, NC — Evaluation. Charlotte brings a resident base of 943,474 and 27,414 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[114] Indianapolis, IN — Evaluation. Indianapolis brings a resident base of 890,315 and 32,991 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[115] San Francisco, CA — Evaluation. San Francisco offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 122,680 households have no vehicle available (33.0%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[116] Seattle, WA — Evaluation. Seattle offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 75,811 households have no vehicle available (19.8%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[117] Denver, CO — Evaluation. Denver brings a resident base of 729,019 and 37,150 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[118] Washington, DC — Evaluation. Washington offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 120,469 households have no vehicle available (36.5%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[119] Boston, MA — Evaluation. Boston offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 100,402 households have no vehicle available (34.0%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[120] Nashville, TN — Evaluation. Nashville brings a resident base of 704,965 and 23,778 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[121] Oklahoma City, OK — Evaluation. Oklahoma City brings a resident base of 713,014 and 19,223 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[122] El Paso, TX — Evaluation. El Paso brings a resident base of 681,724 and 18,526 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[123] Portland, OR — Evaluation. Portland brings a resident base of 636,958 and 40,570 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[124] Las Vegas, NV — Evaluation. Las Vegas brings a resident base of 678,924 and 22,444 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[125] Detroit, MI — Evaluation. Detroit offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 52,030 households have no vehicle available (19.4%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[126] Memphis, TN — Evaluation. Memphis brings a resident base of 610,936 and 27,480 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[127] Louisville, KY — Evaluation. Louisville brings a resident base of 640,793 and 27,485 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[128] Baltimore, MD — Evaluation. Baltimore offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 74,075 households have no vehicle available (27.8%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[129] Milwaukee, WI — Evaluation. Milwaukee brings a resident base of 563,512 and 40,566 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[130] Albuquerque, NM — Evaluation. Albuquerque brings a resident base of 560,333 and 12,669 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[131] Tucson, AZ — Evaluation. Tucson brings a resident base of 554,011 and 22,913 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[132] Fresno, CA — Evaluation. Fresno brings a resident base of 550,091 and 16,540 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[133] Sacramento, CA — Evaluation. Sacramento brings a resident base of 535,787 and 17,908 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[134] Atlanta, GA — Evaluation. Atlanta brings a resident base of 520,066 and 36,517 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[135] Kansas City, MO — Evaluation. Kansas City brings a resident base of 516,045 and 21,409 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[136] Miami, FL — Evaluation. Miami offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 37,765 households have no vehicle available (18.6%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[137] Raleigh, NC — Evaluation. Raleigh brings a resident base of 499,637 and 14,371 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[138] Omaha, NE — Evaluation. Omaha brings a resident base of 489,263 and 16,225 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[139] Minneapolis, MN — Evaluation. Minneapolis brings a resident base of 428,572 and 34,772 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[140] Cleveland, OH — Evaluation. Cleveland offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 40,273 households have no vehicle available (23.5%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[141] New Orleans, LA — Evaluation. New Orleans brings a resident base of 362,701 and 26,772 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[142] Tampa, FL — Evaluation. Tampa brings a resident base of 414,575 and 16,103 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[143] Orlando, FL — Evaluation. Orlando brings a resident base of 334,871 and 9,137 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[144] Pittsburgh, PA — Evaluation. Pittsburgh offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 27,349 households have no vehicle available (19.1%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[145] Cincinnati, OH — Evaluation. Cincinnati offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 27,087 households have no vehicle available (18.6%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[146] St. Louis, MO — Evaluation. St. Louis offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 29,580 households have no vehicle available (19.9%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[147] Salt Lake City, UT — Evaluation. Salt Lake City brings a resident base of 217,783 and 12,789 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[148] Richmond, VA — Evaluation. Richmond brings a resident base of 233,655 and 12,757 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[149] Buffalo, NY — Evaluation. Buffalo offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 23,813 households have no vehicle available (19.9%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[150] Hartford, CT — Evaluation. Hartford offers a substantial everyday-access opportunity: 15,172 households have no vehicle available (30.8%). Our evaluation focus is convenient neighborhood journeys and connections to existing transportation.[151] Birmingham, AL — Evaluation. Birmingham brings a resident base of 198,477 and 10,306 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[152] Charleston, SC — Evaluation. Charleston brings a resident base of 159,011 and 5,270 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[153] Boise, ID — Evaluation. Boise brings a resident base of 237,959 and 7,925 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[154] Spokane, WA — Evaluation. Spokane brings a resident base of 230,604 and 8,054 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[155] Anchorage, AK — Evaluation. Anchorage combines 289,600 residents with median household income of $105,356. Our evaluation focus is a dependable, time-saving service for recurring local journeys, with fares tested against local purchasing power.[156] Honolulu, HI — Evaluation. Honolulu brings a resident base of 344,977 and 18,154 households without an available vehicle. Our evaluation focus is repeat local trips and convenient connections, building utilization around everyday travel needs.[157]
What makes a compelling market?
People & purchasing power
Population and household income establish the scale and economic context for a local service.[6]
Everyday travel needs
Vehicle access and commuting patterns help frame recurring journeys, connections and service design.[6]
Economics at street level
Fares, utilization, charging access, empty miles and operating costs determine how a promising market becomes a productive fleet.[8]
LET’S BUILD THE NEXT CHAPTER
Good businesses begin with good conversations. Contact CYVO ↗ 