Roads
Is driving now cheaper than Metro? No.
Yesterday, Washingtonian Capital Comment blog calculated whether it is cheaper to drive into DC from the suburbs instead of riding Metro after the fare hike went into effect.
Photo by MSVG on Flickr.
Rodger Nayak found driving to be cheaper "every time, ... particularly if you take your car to the subway station and pay to park in a Metro garage or lot.
However, as many commenters almost immediately noticed, his analysis was flawed for several reasons. First, he calculated round-trip Metro cost, but only one-way driving. If you double the number of miles, driving already becomes more expensive in several of the examples.
More importantly, Nayak only calculated the cost of gas and parking, but the marginal cost of driving a mile includes more than that, like depreciation and wear and tear which forces more frequent maintenance and replacing the car sooner. There are also fixed costs, like insurance, but even if we assume that a specific rider already has a car and insurance (which should vary more by miles driven but doesn't), there is plenty missing.
To their credit, Washingtonian retracted the piece. We've gone ahead and redone their calculations for the four examples Nayak picked:
| Origin station | Vienna | Frc./Spg. | Shady Gr. | New Carr. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metro before fare hike (Nayak) | $13.20 | $13.30 | $13.95 | $11.25 |
| Metro after fare hike (Nayak) | $14.40 | $14.50 | $14.75 | $12.15 |
| Metro with "peak of the peak" | $14.80 | $14.90 | $15.15 | $12.55 |
| One-way mileage (Nayak) | 16 | 14.2 | 22.3 | 10 |
| Nayak driving cost | $11.92 | $11.92 | $13.01 | $11.35 |
| Nayak 2-way driving cost | $13.84 | $13.84 | $16.02 | $12.70 |
| Using IRS rate for total ownership cost | $26.00 | $24.20 | $32.30 | $20.00 |
All trips involve commutes from the listed station to Metro Center. All assume a commuter who parks at the station (it's cheaper to take the bus to the station or live near a walkable station).
Nayak doesn't factor in the proposed "peak of the peak" 20¢ Metro fare. The third row above assumes a rider commutes both ways during the peak 1½ hours, adding an additional 40¢ to Metro. If it's possible to commute before or after, that wouldn't apply.
Below Nayak's original numbers are the numbers using his per-mile calculations but doubling them for round trip, for an apples to apples comparison with Metro. The next line replaces his per-mile gas-only calculations with the IRS's per-mile value.
The IRS already calculates an average cost of driving for tax purposes. Taxpayers can deduct 50¢ per mile for trips taken for business purposes. This is a nationwide average, combining average gas mileage (some are higher and some lower, while the heavier traffic here probably makes it lower), average gas prices (ours are a bit below the national average), average car costs and maintenance costs, and more. However, it provides a useful benchmark.
Nayak's calculations assume a $10 daily parking rate at Metro Center, which is about the lowest it goes and requires "early bird" arrivals. Most downtown garages run about $14-20 even with "early bird," so it would be reasonable to add another $5 (or more) to the driving costs above, which we've done in the last row.
All told, the commute cost using the IRS rate and a more average parking rate downtown comes out to about twice the cost of Metro even riding at the most expensive times and parking at a Metro lot.
The mistakes in the original reflect a miscalculation that many commuters are making on a daily basis. There's a huge temptation to assume that the cost of driving is equal to the price of gasoline and it's far too easy to forget the costs of depreciation, maintenance, taxes, fees and financing.
There are essentially two ways to understand the costs of commuting: in dollars and in time. When we think about driving as a cost in dollars, we shouldn't think of miles per gallon, we should think of the total cost per mile. Besides the IRS's 50¢ average, AAA's 2010 Driving Costs report finds the average cost of driving between 36.6¢ and 92.6¢ per mile, depending on the size of the vehicle and number of miles driven per year.
And then there's time. It's tempting to assign a dollar value to time, and say that an hour is worth some fraction of a person's pre-tax income, but that's not really fair. Time is only as valuable as what you use it for.
Just because commuting by car gets a person someplace in 45 minutes where Metro would take an hour is not necessarily a better deal.There's a cost associated with stress that different commuters place on different people.
There's one last important consideration: What if Metro really were slightly more expensive than driving? Does it make sense for everyone to make the switch? No.
While Metro fare is fixed (at least until the next hike) the cost of driving is not. More people driving means more cars on the road and worse congestion on already at-capacity freeways. This would make commutes even longer, burning more fuel and wasting more time. A surge in demand for downtown parking would drive those prices up. So even if driving were a slightly cheaper option today as the original, incorrect analysis concluded, there's no guarantee that it would hold if commuters made the switch.
Best of all would be to avoid having to commute from the most distant stations in the Metro system to downtown DC. No matter what the numbers, when it comes to commutes, there's one thing we know with confidence: shorter commutes, regardless of the mode, will almost always be faster, less expensive, and less stressful than long commutes.
 | Rob Pitingolo moved to the DC area in mid-2010 and currently resides on Capitol Hill. He also writes about issues of urbanism, economics, transportation and politics at his blog, Extraordinary Observations.   |
 | David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. |
Comments
- Community stories show the shift to a walkable lifestyle
- Young kids try to assault me while biking
- Focus transportation on downtown or neighborhoods?
- Metro bag searches aren't always optional
- Some are pushing to limit sidewalk cycling
- Endless zoning update delay hurts homeowners
- DDOT agrees to repave 15th Street cycle track
The IRS number is factoring is gas already, so you are double counting. Not sure if it includes parking (I don't think so).
Also, most of the early bird garage specials are between 8 and 12, and most people use them. Renting a monthly spot is also possible.
The entire exercise is stupid because the only people dump enough to take metro from that far out are federal workers -- who are comped for the entire price. Eliminate the federal benefit and I suspect nobody would ride metro from EFC out.
BTW, the numbers are even bad when you are close in. I can pay $4 in metro fares (roundtrip, peak) for a hot, 45 minute (door to door) crowded ride on the orange line. Or I can pay $8 for a nice parking spot and a 20 minute (door to door) AC car ride. Granted on most days I walk, but the price hikes are now making sure when it isn't nice I am going to drive.
by charlie on Jun 29, 2010 10:29 am • link • report
Then you follow it up with "How much would you be willing to pay for your preferred option?" What is the tipping point from "well, I'd prefer Metro, but for $2 I'd drive" and that gives you the value of the experience of riding Metro. Then you'd have to average that out. I have no idea what would win. I know which I'd prefer. [I never ride Metro at rush hour and think to myself "how do people live like this every day?"]
by anonymous on Jun 29, 2010 10:32 am • link • report
If you say the early birds are $8-12, okay. Bestparking doesn't show them. In that case, use the second to last row.
by David Alpert on Jun 29, 2010 10:33 am • link • report
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
Plus I get to take a nap.
by engrish_major on Jun 29, 2010 10:34 am • link • report
Of course each individual's calculations will be different, but the whole reason this came up was because of Washingtonian's errors. The error of counting Metro fares for a round trip but only counting gas for a one-way journey is sloppy and inexcusable, regardless of the value judgments you might have about driving or transit.
by Alex B. on Jun 29, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
these are flawed numbers. Seems like if you take car ownership at face value then your IRS numbers are way inflated.
Bottom line is that a car might be a little more expensive but it is way comfier, way more reliable, and way more air conditioned!
by no no on Jun 29, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
by engrish_major on Jun 29, 2010 10:35 am • link • report
$0.50 per mile also seems a bit high, and fails to consider things such as the fact that my insurance, ownership, and (to a lesser extent) maintenance costs are the same regardless of whether I drive my car to work, or leave it at home.
Unfortunately, although DC has a fantastic commuter rail system, Metro's hub-and-spoke model and infrequent weekend service, coupled with the miserable state of American intercity rail makes it difficult for some of us to ditch cars completely, even if we can walk to the station and take Metro to work.
by andrew on Jun 29, 2010 10:36 am • link • report
I don't think Rob double-counted gas. His numbers reflect the 50-cent IRS rate multiplied by the number of miles roundtrip + $10 (or $14) in parking. He didn't add in gas separately.
E.g., for Vienna: 16 miles * 2 (roundtrip) * 50c + $10 (parking) = $26.00
I'm not sure how the IRS rate works. To the extent it includes sunk fixed costs (like insurance for someone who already lives in the suburbs and would have a car regardless), asking a car owner to use that full number is a little disingenuous.
One thing the calculation still doesn't include is tolls, if applicable. Right now this isn't an issue in the region, as Metro doesn't approximate any tolled car routes. With the opening of the Silver Line, it could come into play.
by Joey on Jun 29, 2010 10:40 am • link • report
If youÂ’re driving a nice new car, then your experience will be better, but your cost will be higher as well. The IRS and AAA numbers reflect the cost for a typical driver in a typical car. Obviously not everyone can be typical.
by Rob Pitingolo on Jun 29, 2010 10:41 am • link • report
Most maintenance is done every x000 miles and obviously parts wear out the more they're used, but even an undriven car will rust, sun decay etc...
Insurance companies often ask how many miles you drive, and there is probably a relationship between miles driven and crashes had/tickets received that can increase your rates.
Another cost left off is the social costs of driving (namely pollution) which I suspect are larger than taking metro.
I do remember reading that most depreciation calculations are unrealistic. They have the value of car going to $0 after 6 years (or something) which is pretty unrealistic. A car probably loses ~10% of it's value per year (so it's related to the current value of your car).
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:43 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Jun 29, 2010 10:43 am • link • report
In that case, time matters and how. I can drive to work in 35 minutes. According to WMATA, it'd take 1 hour 40 minutes to Metro and bus (so 1 hour 55 minutes to get to my building...not counting time to get to Van Dorn) and cost $11.00 round trip. That's $55.00 a week and my Civic costs about $20 a week to fill up.
(And, yes yes, I know, move. But sometimes there are reasons one can't move...and that doesn't change the fact that Goddard is in a bit of a Metro dead zone.)
I'd love to use Metro to commute, but sometimes it's just not the best solution.
by Matt T on Jun 29, 2010 10:43 am • link • report
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:45 am • link • report
I really think people discount the value of a persons time.
You say sort of offhandedly that an additional 15 minutes each way by taking metro versus driving isn't a big deal, or is unfair, but I suspect you only feel that way because this metric isn't leaning in your favor. There are only two ways to regard time during the week. Its either your personal time, or time you are spending at work, and the more time I have to sacrifice that is associated with the "work", is less personal time I get. Even if you had a job where you punched a clock every day for your 8 hours, the commuting time involved in getting back and forth from your job doesn't count.
We've all seen the average income of the metrorail rider is ~$100K a year, or $50 dollars an hour. An extra 15 minutes each way (30 minutes per work day)comes out to an extra 120 hours a year spent commuting, or $ 6,000 dollars a year ($ 25 bucks a day) "extra", just with those additional 15 minutes per way.
And lastly, these comparisons are always skewed because everyone who drives, or considers driving "already" has a car. The costs associated with finacing, insurance etc are spread among the other things the person uses the car for. I don't know anyone who doesn't currently own a car who would (or has) decided to buy one simply for the commute rather than take metro.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 10:48 am • link • report
by Tom M on Jun 29, 2010 10:49 am • link • report
Unfortunately, a 45-minute auto commute is more likely to equal an hour-and-a-half Metro commute due to the incessant delays and outages. Most people, given the choice, would rather spend a little more money to cut their commute time in half.
by JoJo on Jun 29, 2010 10:51 am • link • report
Look, if you take the CHEAPEST operating cost from the AAA report (and that's JUST gas/maintenance/tires) and use that along with the bogus $10 parking number you still get a number that's competitive with Metro costs.
As to the "driving is more comfortable" argument: to each his or her own, but I can't say that I think sitting in traffic in a car is more pleasant than having someone drive for you while you read a book or take a nap.
by MLD on Jun 29, 2010 10:53 am • link • report
So I could read the paper at home and then drive to work, drive home and go for a run OR I could metro/read and bike to work and reverse it on the way home. Totaled up it takes the same amount of time.
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:53 am • link • report
But the 50 cent IRS figure is highly misleading. It is an accounting figment, not a cash flow number. And it is largely based on deprecation, another accounting concept, and one that can easily be avoided (drive an older car).
However, I see your line that you aren't double counting. My bad.
@DavidC; this is a stupid exercise because right now about 85% of the commuters at the tail end of the red and orange are feds who only ride metro b/c it is free. The delays, crowding and other assorted pains -- not to mention the price -- already make driving a much better choice except for a few federal cheapwads.
We've built a subways system where the average income of the rider is 100K+. Wonderful. Sounds like the Disneyworld monorail for yuppies.
by charlie on Jun 29, 2010 10:56 am • link • report
Free parking, but also not far from the metro, though I had to bus to and from Greenbelt Metro.
I ended up vastly preferring to bike. It was just as fast as Metro in the early morning (though maybe slower than driving), and much faster than either in the afternoon.
The quality of the time was better, too. I waved to lots of people, met several interesting folk (including a guy on his 6th post pacemaker tour down to NC). Metro, on the other hand, was OK in the morning, but made me motion sick on the way home. And who ever talks to a stranger on Metro?
However, there are always downsides. I ate everything in sight - Good thing my employer stocked the work fridge! Try figuring that into your commuting analysis! I also developed an expensive taste in bike wheels and lighting, which kinda used up all that money I was saving :)
by Ron Alford on Jun 29, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
I don't know wha the cost of your rail trip from Silver Spring to Metro Center is now, but the interactive fare calculator the Post put together shows your round trip cost on rail fare will be 6.90 per day after the increase. If your fare today is less than 6 bucks (lets just say 5.90 for symmetry) then the cost of your commute just went up by $1 dollar each way, or %17 percent. Thats not trivial to some.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 11:03 am • link • report
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 11:04 am • link • report
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 11:08 am • link • report
Side note, I crunched my own numbers, including factoring in the vehicle purchase and insurance, and my own personal cost-per-mile comes out to about $0.33/mi. The car itself was by far the single-biggest item, with gas being the second biggest (assuming $3/gal gas and averaging 30mpg, which I easily do).
Second, and perhaps more importantly, this exercise does not take time into account. Sure it may be cheaper for me to take Metro in (which until the recent fare increase, it was slightly cheaper). But I would also be spending an average of an hour-and-a-half a day MORE on Metro than I would be driving (average commute is 25 minutes by car, an hour-ten by Metro).
While my numbers are probably not representative of commuters in this region as a whole, I place a higher value on my time than I do on any potential money savings by taking Metro. And I'd hazard a good bet I'm not the only one.
by Froggie on Jun 29, 2010 11:09 am • link • report
And since when is AC some huge advantage for cars? I think metro's AC works a he'll of a lot better than my cars'.
by Reid on Jun 29, 2010 11:10 am • link • report
Add in preventable heart attacks and acute asthma attacks, their DALY's and associated medical costs from the extra air pollution from the cars. These costs raise tax burdens and health care costs for everyone, e.g. felt on the individual level.
((ironic captcah words: alpha tobacco) b/c tobacco use has been replaced as the biggest cause of preventable disease by obesity/inactivity)
by Bianchi on Jun 29, 2010 11:13 am • link • report
by Wheatoner on Jun 29, 2010 11:15 am • link • report
by Reid on Jun 29, 2010 11:17 am • link • report
I don't know what the 85% number is, but here is the link for Metro Rail rider income
http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1677783&nid=25
How is it difference from the average commuter? I think the Bus Ridership number (same link) at 69K a year is a pretty telling difference, and frankly, that doesn't even do it full justice.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 11:17 am • link • report
Even if it does go up to almost $7 round-trip for peak rail from Silver Spring to Farragut North, that is still $3 less than parking costs alone in this neighborhood.
by engrish_major on Jun 29, 2010 11:19 am • link • report
But if you really care about that 15 minutes, how about sleeping less? How about not showering? How about living 15 minutes closer to work?
This is the same kind of calculation that lets corporations justify owning jets for their executives.
by Tim on Jun 29, 2010 11:19 am • link • report
Don't expect the parking increases to happen until September because vacations reduce parking demand in summer. Also, the parking price increase will (all else being equal, which of course it isn't) be smaller than the fare increase because some people who now drive will decide not to come downtown at all.
by Ben Ross on Jun 29, 2010 11:24 am • link • report
by Nate on Jun 29, 2010 11:24 am • link • report
Median income in the DC urban area was $86,000 in 2008:
http://bit.ly/aVF27p
by MLD on Jun 29, 2010 11:27 am • link • report
by David Alpert on Jun 29, 2010 11:27 am • link • report
My commute by Metro is 45 minutes door to door including walk time on both ends. I can drive it in 30 minutes, so I lose 15 minutes every morning.
On the way home, Metro is still 45 minutes door-to-door. Driving, however, is usually 45 minutes to 1.5 hours. That is a huge variation that makes my arrival time wildly unpredictable. My median drive home time is just over an hour, so it usually makes up for the 15 minutes I lost in the morning.
If I could predict which days would be 45 minutes and which would be 1.5 hours, I might be indifferent to whether I take Metro or drive. The problem is the drive time is far less predictable than the Metro time.
When you consider accidents, weather and construction events, Metro almost always wins. It has taken me more than 3 hours to drive home on multiple occasions, and has never taken more than 1 hour on Metro.
by Stanton Park on Jun 29, 2010 11:32 am • link • report
by Ben Ross on Jun 29, 2010 11:32 am • link • report
Those costs are included in the IRS number used in this post. Or think of it this way. You commute 25 miles per day, and your car gets 25 miles per gallon, so your gas use for the day is say $3 bucks.
Yet at the 50 cents per mile calculation, you are "accounting" for $12.50 per day, the difference being 9.50 per day used for maintenance and depreciation.
Now, you may drive a Maybach or other multihundred thousand dollar vehicle, but for the other 99.99%, interval maintenace and depreciation doesn't come anywhere close to reaching or exceeding that $9.50 per day (fictional commute).
And Tim,
Really now, maybe you have a crappy low paying job, and no friends or family with which to spend your time, but an extra half hour a day is pretty significant. That extra 15 minutes each way adds up to 5 ENTIRE (24 hour)days per year spent commuting. Losing 5 entire days a year is pretty significant, and for most (especially with the chronic delays Metro has been experiencing the past few years) that 15 minutes savings is vastly understated as it is usually atleast twice that.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 11:34 am • link • report
@MLD,
The problem with using your MSA number is that incomes are much higher outside of Metrorail accesible regions.
For example, your number includes Loudoun County, the richest County in the entire nation where the ave family income is 110K a year. Golly gee, how many metrorail comuters are there in Loudoun?
What about Fairfax County, second richest in the nation? It has 3 metrostops in it and the vast majority of the million plus workers in Fairfax don't take Metro.
DC, interestingly enough is lumped in there too and has a huge metrorail using population. DC incomes? ~60K a year.
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local-beat/Loudoun--The-Richet-County-in-the-US--87115887.html
Point is you can't use such a blanket number for such a specific demographic.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 11:45 am • link • report
by SA on Jun 29, 2010 11:54 am • link • report
To know what the number really is would require a lot more research than I did to reach the conclusion that people who work make more money than people who don't work. The point is, though, that the median income of Metrorail riders is in the same ballpark as commuters in general. As I see it, one of the values of the system is that it's one of the few institutions that brings all segments of our community together.
By the way, I wonder what's the median income of people who park in downtown DC. I don't have any statistics, but my impression from looking at people waiting for their cars is that it's much, much higher than Metrorail riders.
by Ben Ross on Jun 29, 2010 11:57 am • link • report
by ed on Jun 29, 2010 12:06 pm • link • report
The idea is, if possible, to take that into account when planning out where you work/live. I see too many people having zero regard to any of this and then throwing up their hands and shouting "Well! How am I supposed to take mass transit it's impossible!" YOU made it impossible by locking yourself into an impossible situation.
I know people are going to say that life is unpredictable and I just took whatever job/apartment I could get and all of that. I am not saying EVERYONE must take mass transit, just that there is a large subset of people who don't consider it at all and then get all incredulous when it doesn't cater perfectly to their very specific situation.
by matt on Jun 29, 2010 12:18 pm • link • report
by Alex on Jun 29, 2010 1:00 pm • link • report
by Bossi on Jun 29, 2010 1:04 pm • link • report
Interesting that we both reverse commute. Maybe the biggest turn-off for suburban commuters is the long distance from metro to their homes.
captcha: ulnas called.
by mark on Jun 29, 2010 1:08 pm • link • report
If you've got a new car, you'll be paying off the acquisition cost of the vehicle, and if you've got an older car, you'll be spending quite a bit more on "unscheduled" maintenance, and other routine (but expensive) high mileage maintenance.
I own a 12-year-old car, and even though it's paid off and I take care of it, it's been bleeding me dry for the past year.
When I rented my apartment, I found a place close to Metro *and* my workplace. I bike to work, and take Metro to see friends across town. My work-related commuting costs for the past 4 months have averaged out to about $15/month (damn shoelaces keep getting caught), plus about $30 for miscellaneous Metro fares. It's definitely nice to have an extra chunk of change in my pocket.
by andrew on Jun 29, 2010 1:18 pm • link • report
by NikolasM on Jun 29, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
Your post reminds me of classic "Metro psychology". We seem to remember every single way Metro has slighted us, from broken-down cars to non-existent A/C. Those bad experiences remain in our collective psyche for, as far as I can tell, eons and contribute to many people's overall negative opinion of Metro.
I'm not saying that Metro gets a pass for some of the lousy service it has provided as of late; however, people will typically forget that they were stuck in traffic for an extra hour due to an accident, congestion, construction, etc. They're overall opinion of driving remains the same. It's certainly an interesting phenomenon.
by Adam L on Jun 29, 2010 1:21 pm • link • report
I've ridden metro to work 6 out of the past 10 work days, and EVERY single day, had something amiss with atleast one of the two trips. People don't complain about Metro on a daily basis because they were slighted 6 months ago and just have elephantine memories...people complain on a daily basis because things happen to them on a daily basis.
Yesterday was the Redline issue (don't have many people causing accidents on the beltway by purposelly trying to kill themselves...something that seems to have become a real issue for WMATA).
The day before that two cars on a 6 car train didn't have A/C so everyone was trying to crowd into the other 4. Then we have the random and unpredicatable single tracking, random headways (even during rush), stopped in a tunnel for 8 minutes while metro spaces out the trains...I could go on, but these are my experiences in the past 10 days.
The road construction is long lasting and predictable. Construction delays will be the same today on my route as they will be tomorrow. Metro gets a pass with this too, which is primarily a weekend concern as they have been shunting service to accomodate "track work" every weekend for the past 4 years.
Yes, there are accidents and delays due to weather, but as someone who drives as much as he metros, and has been for the better part of the past 15 years, a driving commute is FAR and above more predictable than is metro.
by nookie on Jun 29, 2010 1:35 pm • link • report
I would bet that driving is cheaper than parking at Minnesota Ave, Deanwood, Anacostia, Ft Totten, Capitol Heights, West Hyattsville, Southern Ave & Naylor RD then traveling to another part of DC or just outside of the borders or driving from one county to another.
I currently work and live in DC; I travel from one end to the other and it is cheaper and quicker to drive than it would ever be to take metrorail and then the bus because of the way Im going I would have to go downtown adding time when my travel would never take me there.
When I lived in Maryland I traveled between Montgomery County & PG County; I would have had to be a damn fool to take the train from the one end of the system to another then have to take a bus or walk.
by kk on Jun 29, 2010 1:41 pm • link • report
You can also talk on the phone (with an ear piece) while in the car, which you cannot do in the metro.
Also, to add to the question of costs for driving, what if your employer pays for parking?
by Jen on Jun 29, 2010 1:54 pm • link • report
by Paul on Jun 29, 2010 1:56 pm • link • report
Also, I like riding trains. :)
by Andrew on Jun 29, 2010 2:05 pm • link • report
People gripe about the Red Line. Duh, the Red Line blows. The Beltway does too. I would never live on the Red Line or outside the Beltway. I would also never expect mass transit to conscribe to a suburb to suburb commute. If your suburb is so great work there or vice versa.
by Alex on Jun 29, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report
Alex, there are whole swaths of suburbia in our area where people in certain professions, especially single people, can't easily afford to live. Have you talked to an unmarried schoolteacher or nurse recently?
To be honest, the last time I was searching for a job, I didn't even bother applying for positions in northern Virginia, because I knew I could never afford to live there.
Frankly, for some people driving will always be better than Metro, and for other people, Metro will always be better. Can we stop beating the dead horse?
by Greenbelt Gal on Jun 29, 2010 4:00 pm • link • report
PS on reading. I either read and respond to twitters and email on my Blackberry. I've also invested in a Kindle. Very easy to read one-handed while standing during rush hour. (And I can listen to tunes at the same time)
by lou on Jun 29, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report
I chose housing with transit in mind. A car is a bit of a headache where I am. I could walk, bike, bus or metro to work, all subsidized by my employer. Even when I wasn't working for the Feds my employer (non-profit) paid for my commute. Even for my NoVa co-workers single passenger commuting is not an option as the parking around here is expensive and the cheaper options are a 1/2 mile hike. It is different if your employer provides parking or just reserves its few spaces for super VIPs. My bf has to pay his employer to park.
Captcha "jerkiest $25"
by Mari on Jun 29, 2010 4:08 pm • link • report
by Vicente Fox on Jun 29, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report
$300/month car payment
$100/month car insurance
$100/month parking at work
$100/month gas and maintenance
Metro:
$0. Thank you, transit subsidy!
Metro is definitely cheaper for me. Infinitely cheaper, one might say.
I also appreciate the peace of mind of not having to drive around and around and around until I find a parking spot, and then wondering if the car will get broken into or stolen after I leave it in said parking spot.
Obviously, going carfree doesn't work for everybody. If you work at someplace that's only accessible by car, for instance. But for those of us who do have a choice, carfree is a quality choice to make.
by Anon on Jun 29, 2010 4:57 pm • link • report
by David T on Jun 29, 2010 5:03 pm • link • report
What's the real cost of a downtown parking space these days? It's around $18 grand, no? I know personally I spent 14k owning a (very modest) car last year. Get rid of that cost, and that increases my standard of living quite a bit.
by Dave Murphy on Jun 29, 2010 5:26 pm • link • report
I nap on Metro quite frequently, and really my biggest fear is sleeping past my stop; not physical harm. My commute on the Green Line is 23 minutes... 24 if it's slowed by a Yellow Line train switching over. So I just set my phone's alarm for 20 minutes, close my eyes, and out like a light.
My trains are generally pretty empty since I tend to do both reverse commute & off-peak commuting, but I've never felt unsafe on Metro at any time of day/night. Granted, there could certainly be some other issues at play -- such as gender, age, race, what environment people were raised in, socio-economic background, etc. -- whereby others might feel discomfort in the very same situations where I feel fine.
by Bossi on Jun 29, 2010 5:30 pm • link • report
One more thing... I am mindful of theft when I'm asleep. To that end, I just tuck stuff between me & the wall, and I'll loop any straps through my arms or legs.
I've only ever lost two things on Metro: my phone once (the finder called a friend's phone number & I was reunited with my phone) and also a Gatorade bottle which fell out of my backpack yesterday whilst running to catch a train... I made it, but the bottle didn't. Poor bottle... I can still see it when I close my eyes, rolling ever so slowly away as they doors shut between us.
by Bossi on Jun 29, 2010 5:34 pm • link • report
If you were driving, you could have simply re-opened the door and picked up the bottle. Then again, you probably wouldn't have dropped it to begin with since you'd have been leaving on your schedule ... and not someone else's. Yeah, you can't really equate the 'purchase' of a Metro ride with the 'purchase' of a car ride. You get a lot more for the car ride.
What would really be a more interesting excercise would be comparing the costs of moving someone via Metro vs. letting them drive themselves in their own automobile. Given that mass transit is heavily subsidized, I'd suspect the costs when added together (i.e., what the rider pays PLUS what the taxpayer pays for them) is far higher for Metro riders than for people who drive themselves.
by Lance on Jun 29, 2010 6:40 pm • link • report
You're absolutely right, I could've saved my bottle... but despite owning a car & having done a car commute for the past 5 years... I opted to take transit, nonetheless :)
Don't forget that roads are also heavily subsidised: each user purchases & maintains their own vehicle, and also the combined highway budgets for Maryland, Virginia, adjacent counties, & DC dwarf WMATA's budget (even if adjusting the State budgets for population in the DC area).
Looking at user capital costs only (purchasing a car), assuming a modest $7500 average car price (that's a lot of used cars) applied to the 302,255 people who reported driving alone as they commute into DC: that's about $2.2 billion... compared to a $2.1 billion 2010 WMATA budget. And that's before insurance, maintenance; public highway budgets; congestion costs; injury/fatality costs...
by Bossi on Jun 29, 2010 8:11 pm • link • report
by Lindemann on Jun 29, 2010 8:37 pm • link • report
by Miriam on Jun 29, 2010 9:23 pm • link • report
Are you seriously going to open that can of worms in this discussion?
by William on Jun 29, 2010 9:27 pm • link • report
You have to be a troll.
by NikolasM on Jun 29, 2010 9:48 pm • link • report
The IRS says "A fringe benefit is a form of pay for the performance of services. For example, you provide an employee with a fringe benefit when you allow the employee to use a business vehicle to commute to and from work.
Any fringe benefit you provide is taxable and must be included in the recipient's pay unless the law specifically excludes it.
Commuting benefits are not tax deductible - except for all the exclusions. Originally parking was the only exclusion. Even if your employer gave you free parking, this benefit was not taxed. Some companies wanted to be able to offer people the choice of a parking space or a cash payout. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 allowed employers to do this, but if you took the cash, you still had to pay a tax on it.
Then people started asking "Why are we subsidizing driving on one hand (by not taxing this benefit) and promoting not driving on the other?" They could have fixed this in two ways:
1. Allow employers to give those who don't use parking a tax free payout equivalent to the benefit of parking. [Actually, if you wanted to make it fair, this would have to mandatory, not voluntary]
2. Remove the tax-free exemption for parking and tax it like most other benefits.
But those solutions would have made too much sense. So, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century extended the fringe benefit to those who used transit or vanpools. Now you're employer could offer you free parking tax-free; give you a payout AND allow you to pay for your transit tax-free; or give you a partial payout (including none), but let you use some of your pay to pay for transit with untaxed dollars.
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:46 pm • link • report
by David C on Jun 29, 2010 10:48 pm • link • report
I have kids also and would own a car anyway. There is no way to carry to kids around without a car unless you leave in one of those nice walkable areas where the average home price is above 500k and rents start at 2000 a month.
by kw on Jun 29, 2010 11:59 pm • link • report
Drivers will typically say their commute is xx minutes. What that means is that from the time they turn on their car and note the time on their digital clock until they pull into their parking space.
Transit users count from the time they leave their home until they get to their desk.
Most car drivers (my wife is a good example) tend to quote either their optimum time (what it takes on that day when traffic works perfectly) or their horror story time--when they are sharing war stories. The average time is somewhere between these.
In the end, if at all possible, the best commute is the bike commute. Cheap, often faster or almost as fast (particularly if you're going into DC), with lots of side benefits. Bike commuters are the happiest commuters.
by Steve O on Jun 30, 2010 12:41 am • link • report
by Steve O on Jun 30, 2010 12:42 am • link • report
by SF on Jun 30, 2010 10:58 am • link • report
“More people driving means more cars on the road and worse congestion on already at-capacity freeways. This would make commutes even longer, burning more fuel and wasting more time.” This is an excellent point and shows the negative and important consequences of driving. Recently I visited http://www.commuternation.com/dc where I learned how I could save up to 40% on my commute with public transit. That means I will spend even less money, fuel and time on my commute to work.
by vjulie on Jun 30, 2010 12:21 pm • link • report
by DR on Jun 30, 2010 4:49 pm • link • report
Oh yeah, are you counting the time it takes to shower and get dressed at the office? Or the shower you'll need to take immediately after you get home? I would not be a happy commuter biking in 90 degree heat or 40's and rainy...
by Jason on Jun 30, 2010 4:56 pm • link • report
40 and raining is pretty fun, actually. As is 5 inches of snow, or 100 degrees. I understand there are folks whose schedules are very tight because of childcare issues, and there are jobs where one can't arrive sweaty, and there's no place to shower, etc...
But is there a certain age that your average American's sense of fun and adventure is surgically removed?
by oboe on Jun 30, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report
If fares reflected actual costs, I'd probably agree that driving would be cheaper... especially after ridership plummeted & fares per person went skyrocketing as a result to keep the balance. ...But what if driving costs were similarly charged to each motorist? :)
by Bossi on Jun 30, 2010 5:16 pm • link • report
For example, AAA says that the average small sedan owner pays $437 per year on "Ownership expenses" - i.e. 'licenses, registration, and taxes'.
This is nowhere near what I pay in ownership expenses each year.
I live in Maryland. Car registration costs $64 per year. A driver's license costs $30 every 5 years, or $6 per year.
The only tax on automobiles in Maryland is the sales tax paid at the time of purchase. The sales tax on a $22,000 car is $1320, or $132 per year over 10 years.
MD does not require regular safety inspections, and I am exempt from emissions testing since I drive a diesel.
So, my 'ownership expenses' in a given year are $64 + $132 + $6, or approximately $200 per year - less than half the AAA estimate of $437.
by Mike on Jun 30, 2010 6:26 pm • link • report
Actually, cost allocation studies have found that motorists on average do cover their costs through the state and federal fees they pay. Obviously this varies - someone in DC traveling during rush hour imposes a higher cost than someone driving in Montana, for example, and state taxes vary. Of course if the gas taxes and other fees car drivers paid were spent expanding highways instead of building useless light rail lines then highways would be less congested and motorists' external costs would be lower.
by DR on Jul 1, 2010 8:39 am • link • report
Working in the industry, I can say quite confidently that the fees currently in place don't cover the costs; especially with inflation & increased environmental/legal requirements quickly eroding each fees' purchasing power (note that inflation for roadway products has vastly outpaced overall inflation).
by Bossi on Jul 1, 2010 9:50 am • link • report
Can you cite such a study, or should we just take your word for it? BTW
From a Post article about the shortage of road funds.
The lack of state funding for basic road maintenance, such as median grass mowing and road striping, has prompted Fairfax officials to consider converting the county to a city, a largely tactical move that would give it more control over its road network.
To make up the shortfall, Fairfax has tapped into about $52 million worth of revenue from a county real estate tax on commercial and industrial landowners.
by David C on Jul 1, 2010 9:52 am • link • report
Add a Comment