This report compares the socioeconomic factors, urban locations, and commute patterns of urban workers in the United States and Mexico. The US dataset contains information on 3.5 million commuters over 4 years of the American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), representing 98 million workers in total in the 100 largest metropolitan areas. The Mexican dataset contains information on 2.9 million commuters, representing 32 million workers in Mexico’s 59 metropolitan areas and next largest 41 urban areas. The hundred largest urban areas account for roughly 65% of the employed population in the US and 85% in Mexico. Chapter 1 introduces the motivation for the study. Chapter 2 describes in detail the data sources and variables used to compare households, urban areas, and commutes. Chapter 3 and 4 describe the main differences in commuters and urban areas across the two samples. Chapter 5 then presents an analysis of how different measures of urban form covary across urban areas in the US and Mexico. These analyses flow into three analytical chapters that focus on the relationship between urban form and mode choice, the commute patterns of the working poor, and predictors of cycling. In Chapter 6, the authors find that urban residents living in housing types associated with more centrally located housing in more densely populated urban areas with less roadway are less likely to commute by private vehicle than similar residents in other housing types and other urban areas in both countries. In addition to some differences in the strength, significance, and sign of several predictor variables, the authors find large differences in elasticity estimates across contexts. In particular, the US’s high rates of driving and generally car-friendly urban form mean that even dramatic shifts in urban form or income result in only small predicted changes in the probability of commuting by private vehicle. The authors conclude with two important limitations to their findings and a discussion for the need for more research into the relationships between urban form and travel behavior from outside of the US. Chapter 7 focuses on the commuters from the poorest fifth of households in each county and, like Chapter 6, finds common relationships on each side of the border, despite substantial socioeconomic and urban differences across the samples. For example, low-income workers with higher incomes and higher educational attainment are more likely to drive to work and less likely to use active modes. The authors also find that urban form and road networks are strongly and significantly associated with low-income commuter mode choice and travel time. Collectively the statistically significant measures of urban form and transportation have about a five times stronger relationship to the probability of driving to work by car than does income in both the US and Mexico. In terms of public policy, the authors find that efforts to reduce driving or promote compact development are more likely to reduce driving and more likely to be pro-poor in Mexico than in the US. High rates of driving and auto-oriented urban form make policies to reduce driving particularly likely to be regressive in US metropolitan areas. The final chapter focuses specifically on cycling, a mode that gets combined with walking in earlier chapters. In both national contexts, men in relatively poor households are likeliest to cycle. The similarities in cycling commuters generally stop with these two commonalities, however. The archetypal US bike commuter is a recent college graduate, lives by himself in a centrally located apartment in a moderate-to-high density city, like Portland, OR, and commutes to work in a relatively low-paying service sector job for a college graduate, perhaps at restaurant or not-for-profit. The archetypal Mexican bike commuter, by contrast, is in his mid-thirties, has only a few years of formal education, lives with a large family in a house in the suburbs of a large dense metropolitan area, like Mexico City, and commutes to a relatively low-paying agriculture, construction, or manufacturing job. Local context matters and the most effective public policies to promote urban cycling will almost certainly vary across national borders. For example, the analysis suggests that suburban cycling investments will likely do a lot more to support Mexican cyclists than US ones. The authors conclude that there is a need for studies that include comparable measures of cycling infrastructure, local built environments, and non-work trips in different national contexts.