On Other Blogs
Herald's Driving Stats Ignore the Hidden Costs of Driving—and Hidden Benefits of Transit
The Everett Herald dissected
the cost and speed of various methods for getting from Everett to Seattle the other day, and concluded that driving is cheaper and faster in almost all cases than taking the bus or Sounder rail.
Here's their conclusion:
Unfortunately, the Herald is only telling part of the story. Here are some factors they either didn't mention or failed to consider in coming up with their conclusion that driving between Everett and Seattle makes the most sense:
• The shortest driving times are actually in carpool lanes, which require two or more people in a car. When most people hear "driving is the fastest way to commute to Seattle," they probably assume that means "driving alone." However, in every time slot the Herald considered, driving with fellow commuters was significantly faster than driving in general-purpose lanes---as much as 18 minutes faster at during the prime morning-commute time of 8 am. Conversely, carpooling itself requires planning and takes time---probably not enough to make driving alone a quicker option, but enough to make it look less attractive compared to transit.
• While the Herald estimates that driving to Everett costs $4.39, compared to $3 for a Sound Transit bus, $4.50 for the train, and $3.50 to take Community Transit, its estimate for driving costs appear to include only gas prices ($3.75 per gallon, which itself is lower than the current $3.95 state average). That excludes the many other costs associated with owning a car, including maintenance, insurance, the cost to own and maintain or rent parking, and the risk of accidents, to name a few.
• The Herald 's calculation also assumes drivers' cars have gas mileage of 25 mpg---a level only compact cars and some of the most efficient full-size sedans can achieve. A typical SUV like a late-model Chevy Suburban gets more like 20 mpg. And that's assuming zero traffic---slow down below highway speeds, as traffic does at rush hour, and mileage plummets.
• Calculating the relative value of different commute modes based only on how fast they are and how much they cost assumes that people's time has no value. Sitting in traffic drastically limits your options---legally, you can listen to the radio or talk on your phone with a headset, and that's pretty much it. Additionally, it's well known that driving in traffic is stressful (because it's dangerous, because drivers lack control over the behavior of others around them, because other drivers are hostile, and for many other reasons). Stress, of course, leads to health risks.
In contrast, on the train or bus, you can stretch your legs, read a book, catch up on emails, sleep, or work---do things, in other words, that are more productive, enjoyable, and healthy than staring at the taillights in front of you.
• Finally, the "driving is better" narrative leaves out one major reason driving isn't much, much worse: All the people who commute by transit instead of getting in their cars. Nearly 10,000 people use transit to commute from Everett to Seattle, or about 10 percent of all Everett-Seattle commuters. If all those people drove instead, congestion (and driving times and costs) would be significantly worse than it is today, eliminating much of the supposed "advantage" of driving alone.
I don't know whether, considering all of those factors, most people would choose to take transit, telecommute, work off hours, or carpool instead of driving. But studies like this that ignore the hidden costs of driving and the hidden benefits of transit do a disservice by promoting driving alone as the only rational option.
Here's their conclusion:
Whether commuting in the morning or evening, driving is usually the fastest way between Everett and Seattle. For the purposes of this snapshot, we chose the Everett Station as the starting point and bus stops closest to King Street Station in downtown Seattle, where the Sounder train stops, as destinations.
Early in the morning, driving can be 20 minutes faster or more than taking the bus or train. That difference shrinks as I-5 fills. Between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., it could take longer to drive than it would riding a Sound Transit bus.
These numbers are averages, and things change every day. One bad accident on I-5 or a mudslide on the railroad tracks can mess up a trip. In general, auto commute times in the Puget Sound region are trending downward, according to studies by the INRIX Corp. of Kirkland and the Texas Transportation Institute.
Unfortunately, the Herald is only telling part of the story. Here are some factors they either didn't mention or failed to consider in coming up with their conclusion that driving between Everett and Seattle makes the most sense:
• The shortest driving times are actually in carpool lanes, which require two or more people in a car. When most people hear "driving is the fastest way to commute to Seattle," they probably assume that means "driving alone." However, in every time slot the Herald considered, driving with fellow commuters was significantly faster than driving in general-purpose lanes---as much as 18 minutes faster at during the prime morning-commute time of 8 am. Conversely, carpooling itself requires planning and takes time---probably not enough to make driving alone a quicker option, but enough to make it look less attractive compared to transit.
• While the Herald estimates that driving to Everett costs $4.39, compared to $3 for a Sound Transit bus, $4.50 for the train, and $3.50 to take Community Transit, its estimate for driving costs appear to include only gas prices ($3.75 per gallon, which itself is lower than the current $3.95 state average). That excludes the many other costs associated with owning a car, including maintenance, insurance, the cost to own and maintain or rent parking, and the risk of accidents, to name a few.
• The Herald 's calculation also assumes drivers' cars have gas mileage of 25 mpg---a level only compact cars and some of the most efficient full-size sedans can achieve. A typical SUV like a late-model Chevy Suburban gets more like 20 mpg. And that's assuming zero traffic---slow down below highway speeds, as traffic does at rush hour, and mileage plummets.
• Calculating the relative value of different commute modes based only on how fast they are and how much they cost assumes that people's time has no value. Sitting in traffic drastically limits your options---legally, you can listen to the radio or talk on your phone with a headset, and that's pretty much it. Additionally, it's well known that driving in traffic is stressful (because it's dangerous, because drivers lack control over the behavior of others around them, because other drivers are hostile, and for many other reasons). Stress, of course, leads to health risks.
In contrast, on the train or bus, you can stretch your legs, read a book, catch up on emails, sleep, or work---do things, in other words, that are more productive, enjoyable, and healthy than staring at the taillights in front of you.
• Finally, the "driving is better" narrative leaves out one major reason driving isn't much, much worse: All the people who commute by transit instead of getting in their cars. Nearly 10,000 people use transit to commute from Everett to Seattle, or about 10 percent of all Everett-Seattle commuters. If all those people drove instead, congestion (and driving times and costs) would be significantly worse than it is today, eliminating much of the supposed "advantage" of driving alone.
I don't know whether, considering all of those factors, most people would choose to take transit, telecommute, work off hours, or carpool instead of driving. But studies like this that ignore the hidden costs of driving and the hidden benefits of transit do a disservice by promoting driving alone as the only rational option.
