Seattle Residents Save $12K a Year By Taking Transit

More reason for the po’ to get off the roads and make it easier for those of us who can easily afford cars to get where we want to go.

Your headline should convey the same information as your article. Seattle residents don’t save 12K a year by taking transit, the AVERAGE Seattle resident COULD save 12K a year by taking transit instead of driving. Some people would save more, some people would save much less. It’s an important distinction given that with such a large affluent population here, as well as a large lower-income/poverty population, this estimate really isn’t applicable to a large proportion of the city population.

I understand that a headline is not an article, but the way you wrote it just gives a really sleazy sense of overstating the facts. Even though I am strongly in favor of people switching to transit and making it easier to get around without a car, when you write things in this manner it just leaves the door open for people to pick apart your writing style rather than dealing with the actual content of the article. Kind of like I’m doing right now.

I’m dubious of these numbers. Go to the calculator, put in your numbers and figure for yourself what the cost of your commute is.

Frankly I think skewed data like this sends the wrong message. Car commuters can point to how expensive it is to drive, how parking rates should be lower and gas taxes should be smaller, meanwhile pointing a finger at the “free ride” those taking the bus are getting.

Whatever amount transit users save, it is primarily because about 70% of the cost of their transit trips is paid by taxpayers – not the transit rider.

Transit riders are just freeloaders who are leeching off the taxpayers instead of paying for their own transportation.

Their carbon calculator claims a car that gets 25 mpg produces .77 pounds of CO2 per mile traveled.

http://www.publictransportation.org/tools/carbonsavings/Pages/default.aspx

Biased studies by non-profit organizations?  One more reason to overhaul the tax-exempt portion of the tax code.  We are paying people to mislead and divide us.

Ah, Grover and his tired fix-the-potholes-over-everything propaganda. We subsidize your ability to drive much more than we subsidize public transit. Get over it.

yeah, we need more than the 30000 deaths we already have each year due to motor vehicles, so you can save 10 minutes in your commute.

That is just a flat-out lie from the cheapskates who love getting a free ride paid by taxpayers, instead of paying your own way.

The funny thing about this story to me is that they try to use a financial benefit to make the case to save the environment. I could save a lot of money living is a cold small apartment, the problem is, I earn money to live a better more enjoyable life…not to be sit in the rain waiting for a bus to be sneezed on (or assaulted as Erica has reported being the victim of).

Live close to where you work. It’s:
1) good for your mental health,
2) it gives you more time (either driving or using transit),
3) keeps you better connected to the community
…and, oh right, has a positive externality for the environment.

Great news. Raise the fares. Pay for your transportation choice and cost, rather than gouging the taxpayers. We’re not bribing you to take public transportation. Pay the cost of your choice.

We all pay for highways and the streets within our cities. I use the highway much much less than I use city streets (but still use city streets much less than auto drivers). Can I have my money back for the highways that you use near your suburban home?

This study assumes a commuter averaging 15,000 miles per year.  Metro buses have an operating cost of about 80 cents per passenger-mile.  So, the cost to Metro of taking each rider 15,000 miles per year is $12,000 per year.

A monthly pass costs around $125 for unlimited trips, which is $1,500 per year.

So, a transit rider in our area who travels 15,000 miles per year on Metro costs the taxpayers about $10,500 per year in tax subsidies!

A transit rider using monthly passes to go 15,000 miles per year is paying only about 1/8 of the operating cost of their trips.  Taxpayers are paying the other 7/8 o fhe operating costs for that transit rider.

And the monthly passes pay ZERO of the capital costs of the transit trips (like buying the buses), and ZERO of the cost of the roads the buses use and damage.

So, again, the only reason why taking transit saves commuters money is because transit riders are mooching off the taxypayers, while motorists are paying for their own transportation, and motorists are also paying for the roads with all the taxes and fees motorists pay, which transit riders do not pay.

The point is if a person is acting in their own best interest they will use what is made available to them. This is not looking at total cost of either mode. Your same point could be said about those driving cars with combustible engines, they are free loading by dumping tons of pollutants into the air that must be absorbed by trees/plants that they don’t own and dumping tons of oil/pollutants into the waterways which they don’t own, etc. etc., etc.

drivers pay their own way? how ignorant can you get?

Drive as much as you want.  It might not matter to the environment, after all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2073686/Fountains-methane-1-000m-erupt-Arctic-ice–greenhouse-gas-30-times-potent-carbon-dioxide.html

Depending where someone’s job is, transit may not be the best option. 

I used an example of a 20 mile RT commute and $4/gal gas and no parking expense.

In my hypothetical scenario, car costs are a wash against transit. 

The added overhead and maintenance expense of the car is $5,600 per year.  If that car gets you to a job that pays $3 more per hour, it’s also a wash.

What I did not calculate in are side trip other than commute, where you may have family, items too big to carry by bus, etc, where taxi or other expenses come into play.  Some say that as many as 80% of trips are non-commute trips.

Continuing to simplify the argument as ECB and her new-found website have will not help us get to a better regional solution where everyone benefits…

brilliant logic, do something because it just might not have any consequences. Drive like a maniac because you just might not kill someone. A few rounds of russian roulette. So much for personal responsibility.

Are you really that stupid?  Or just an inveterate liar?

You helped pay for my car?

You help pay for my gas?

You help pay for my ties?

You pay for the maintenance on my car?

You are a fucking idiot.

The city of Seattle collects as much revenue just from parking fees, parking taxes and parking fines as it spends on paving streets.

The highways, for example the 520 bridge, are paid for with gas tax and tolls.

Transit users don’t pay for parking, and transit users don’t pay gas tax or tolls.

Do they?

tires*, not ties

New cars are more energy efficient than transit in our area.  So diesel buses are dumping more tons of pollutants per passenger mile into our air than new cars.

Quit spinning the truth to fix potholes. Where do you get your numbers? Does the average commuter ride the bus 15000 miles a year?  What actually causes the vast majority of wear and tear on highways, is it the millions of cars and trucks, or hundreds of busses? 

Drivers mooch off public infrastructure. Get off your high horse.

Typical Publicola horseshit from Erica Barnett, who wouldn’t know a fact if it slithered up behind her and bit her on the ass.

The so-called “study” (read: propaganda) assumes that taking transit to work replaces a car that’s driven 15,000 miles a year. They lump all of the car’s costs into one bucket, and comparing it with a subset of the miles. It’s complete lunatic bullshit.

Publicola, you fool only yourselves and those who want to be fooled. Anyone with a spare brain cell laughs at you.

You don’t drive on public roads?

You paid for the bridges, the traffic lights, the hospital bills of those injured in traffic accidents?

You pay for enforcing traffic laws?

The cost of subsidizing your ability to drive is hard to take, obviously.

the methane is being released is a secondary effect from human activities putting CO2 into the atmosphere, which is causing the permafrost to thaw.  Most scientists acknowledge this, FOX News and the oil industry do not.

Reducing petroleum and coal use IS important.

The question is however, what is the best and fairest way to do that.

more grover bs. Try providing any evidence that shows the amount of fuel per person for a bus is more than that for a car.

Guhhhh……Grover. All people who spend money in Washington pay for highways through this little thing called sales tax. Sales tax in Washington being the primary source for much of our state fund is overwhelmingly regressive. The poorer you are (transit riders, woo) the greater the proportion of your income is spent on taxes.17% vs. 2% of income on average.

Drivers on 520 will pay tolls on top of this. They also do pay gas tax but there are NUMEROUS

It’s hardly even possible to ride transit for 15,000 miles a year, especially in Seattle. Do the math. It’s at least 65 miles a day. Not even Redmond to West Seattle is that far, let alone covered by a transit solution that would replace it realistically.

Then there is the question of whether someone who uses transit will get rid of their car. As someone who used transit for many years both here and in the East, I can attest that you don’t get rid of the car. Not even if it’s a second car. You take a small discount on your auto insurance for lower mileage, but that’s it.

So the “study” that compares the cost of 15,000 miles in your car to the cost of transit is complete propaganda horseshit. Anyone who thinks about it for a few seconds will see it. Publicola is nothing but a propaganda merchant. I’m sure Seattle Transit Blog will be all over this one too. There are no lies these people won’t tell in their Righteous War on the Car.

like the human population is really worried about extinction to care

can you cite where you found info to make that assertion.  maybe pothole fixes, but not all street projects.  Mercer alone is $20+M from the bridging the gap fund…

Auto insurance pays for hospital bills of people hurt in auto accidents, and motorist pay for the auto insurance.  If you don’t drive an auto do you pay for auto insurance? 

Yes, gas taxes and FINES paid by motorists (e.g. speeding tickets) pay for enforcing traffic laws.

Yes, the revenue collected from gas taxes, tolls, MVET, license fees, sales taxes on new and used cars, et. al. pay for traffic lights and bridges, as well as the roads.

And, are you actually admitting that motorists pay for the operating costs of their transportation?  Or, are you claiming that taxpayers helped pay for my car, tires, maintenance, gas, etc.?

You forget that a major portion of our transit fleet is made up of completely electic and hybrid vehicles.

http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb30/Edition30_Chapter02.pdf

Page 2-14

BTU per passenger-mile 2009

cars:  3,538
transit buses:  4,242

No, it doesn’t. Gas taxes, registration, and insurance  could never pay all the costs associated with subsidizing your ability to drive. 

It sucks being called a freeloader, doesn’t it?

Drivers pay for the roads.  Transit users do not pay for the roads.

What causes the majority of wear and tear on roads?  Buses cause much more damage to roads than cars.  And buses don’t pay any tax on the diesel they burn. 

When I took my 400cc scooter to the Eastside for a 34 mi round trip, I’d pay $18 a month for gas, $19 a month for insurance, $8.50 a month for licensing. No parking. Because scooters = cars to ECB, I am wondering how I would save more money paying $5.50 or $6.00 daily on transit. 

My savings per year was $169. Even that sounds generous.

“I understand that a headline is not an article, but the way you wrote it just gives a really sleazy sense of overstating the facts.”

Or as Erica likes to call it, “journalism.”

Yes, they used a higher number than the average transit commute distance, big deal. The savings to the user is still legitimate. I’ve been weighing the pros and cons of transit v. car cost almost daily for 5 years and make a calculated decision very time I choose to drive vs. take the bus. 

As to whether costs of public subsidy are greater for transit vs. driving (and whether they should be greater or not), that’s a different argument. 

…also, your tone is obnoxious. Act like an adult if you are one. 

This article ( if you could really call it that) is hysterical non truth. I don’t mind subsidizing buses. I ride them some. I drive some. I think there is  a public benefit ( to bus users and non users) by me subsidizing public transit. And if articles like this would address the real benefit and be honest about it, rants from people like “overnighter” above might not occur.

“This calculator will help you compare the price of using public
transportation with the price of paying at the pump and then parking
your car in town.”

The calculator doesn’t say anything about car ownership, which eliminating is a big part of the savings. So this headline should read….”Save $12k by selling your car and taking transit.”

HUh? I’m agreeing, we need fewer cars. What better way than to make it too expensive for the poor.

While better, electric vehicles/transit use hydro power that if not used here could be sold to other areas burning coal/gas/etc, so your carbon footprint for electric vehicles needs to use the fuel mix for western states, not just Seattle or Washington.

You obviously missed my point. Shorter commute, regardless of mode, is better for a host of non-environmental reasons.

How does one take ‘transit’ to Crystal to take a family of 4 skiing for a long weekend? Let me know, because we’ll be doing 4-5 ski trips in the next two months so would love to see how ‘transit’ will make that easier.

Agreed, it is a matter of sunk costs. If you own a car and don’t work downtown, the numbers are not so great, or the service doesn’t actually exist in practical terms.
In order to actually get people out of their cars at a meaningful rate you pretty much have to supplant that car and wait for the car to die or sold.
That is a long cycle, bus as replacement vehicle.

Sales tax is not used for state highways.  You are wrong.

520 is paid for only with gas tax and tolls — no sales taxes at all.

Federal grants come from the federal gas tax.  You are aware that the gas tax everyone pays in WA state includes both state gas tax and federal gas tax?

You don’t pay a dime for the cost of my car, my gas, my tires, my car maintenance, etc.  Yet taxpayers pay about 75% of those costs for transit users.

Is this really too complicated for you:  I pay the entire cost of my car, gas, tires, etc. while transit users pay, on average, only about 25% of those costs for the buses they ride.

Bill B.:  Mercer is not a road project for motorists – it is a road diet and beautification project for Paul Allen.

Just rebuilding Mercer Street for those few blocks would have cost a couple million dollars.

Motorists do indeed pay for their own transportation, as I have described.

And, I guess it will fall to transit users to say whether or not it sucks to be a freeloader, since transit users are leeching off taxpayers for the vast majority of the cost of their transportation.

A low percent in Seattle are electric.  And, electric vehicles and hybrids are included in the ”fleets” in the study.

What that study uses is the AVERAGE car in the U.S. in 2009.  New cars are far more energy-efficient than the average car in 2009.

The average U.S. car in 2009 got about 24 mpg.  The average NEW car sold in the U.S. in 2011 got about 31 mpg — an improvement of about 30%.  In a couple decades, the average NEW car sold in the U.S. will get about 56 mpg — more than double the mpg of the average car on the road in 2009.

So the average NEW car in the U.S. is much more energy-efficient than cars in that study, and, therefore,  more energy-efficient than buses by an even larger margin than that study shows.

Think! if you dare. My “tone” is this way because, as with so many other things, the bullshit here is so thick.

That “study” makes two errors, and they are not small ones:

1. That transit will replace 15,000 miles of driving a year. The truth is that the average American commute is 32 miles, for a total of about 7,600 miles a year. Even if mass transit replaced all of those miles, as opposed to the typical pattern of driving to a park and ride lot and using public transit for part of the journey, the “study” doubled the miles replaced.

But that’s not all, because then there is the next issue.

2. That you’ll ditch your car if you commute to work via mass transit. Well, that’s not usually going to happen either. More likely, you’ll drive to a collection point (see “park and ride lot” above). You’ll need your car. And you’ll likely want your car for use on weekends. Which means that you cannot allocate insurance or even maintenance savings on a per-mile basis, as this bullshit “study” did.

So, Chris, do you like being a propaganda tool? Or are you just one more lying Transitisa yourself, willing to pump out any piece of bullshit for your cause? Do you people really imagine that someone’s not going to pay attention, and catch you?

By the way, I have actual commuting experience both here and in the East. I know what I’m talking about. Do you?

Right, as if you use your car for nothing other than going to work and back.

Look, this bullshit “study” implicitly acknowledges otherwise. It based car ownership costs on 15,000 miles a year driven, which is twice the mileage of the average American roundtrip commute.

What are people doing with the other half of their miles?

Transit riders =/= taxpayers. Thanks for educating us. 

>> “Seattle Residents Save $12K a Year By Taking Transit”

Another PubliCola “fact”

No wonder Metro somehow doesn’t know how many passenger miles per gallon their system gets. 

Right, because EVERYONE buys a new car every time the gas mileage improves. 

I’m not defending the study, per se, but it does refer to two-car households selling one of their cars. In my case, I own two cars and use one almost exclusively to commute the 4 mile daily round trip. If I sold that car and switched to transit I would save probably about $500 a year in gas; $800ish in insurance and somewhere around $500 in maintenance; less the the roughly $400 in bus tickets. In my particular case, I would save some money cause I don’t use my car for anything else, but I don’t want to take the bus for a number of reasons and since the commute is short, the savings are great.

You drive that car less than 1,000 miles a year, you say?

I’d have to buy a new car *every year*, plus gas, plus insurance, plus maintenance, plus parking, to even come close to spending  $12k a year. And then somehow transit would have to replace every bit of that at zero cost. There’s no way $12,000 is even a gross rough ballpark estimate of how much I’d save switching to transit.

Especially since there would be dozens of times when the bus couldn’t possibly get me where I needed to be when I needed to be there, and I’d end up spending a fortune on taxi fare and zipcar. There goes all my savings. Owning a car is cheaper.

Be a good driver. Avoid accidents and traffic violations and you will be rewarded with good-driver discounts. Bad driving is expensive. Save on auto insurance with “Clearance Auto” instantly.

That study assumes a load factor of 9.2 for transit buses. That’s a pretty drastic under-estimate for Seattle transit usage. If that increases to 11, then bus and car are equivalent BTU output per passenger-mile with transit, anything over and it’s more efficient.

So in reality, any Seattle bus that’s even half full (seated capacity is 40 on the non-articulating models) will be twice as efficient as a car. A bus full to seated capacity will be 4 times as efficient as a car, and one full to standing capacity will be even moreso.

Also keep in mind that the load capacity they assume for cars is 1.5, which means that all the incentives for carpooling are already taken into account. If you compare SOV to bus, you only need a load factor of 7.1 to break even on energy usage.

This study also ignores the other side effects of transit usage. Things like decreased miles driven because transit is an option (i.e. walk down to a movie because you know you can take the bus back). Or decreased miles driven because transit presence has allowed less parking, leading to higher density neighborhoods, which makes walking more attractive.

There are ski busses that run to the various slopes

@FrequentPoster:disqus Pretty darn close to it (I probably add an extra 20 or 30 miles a month for lunch trips or stops on my way home, not the car that my wife drives for work and we both drive in the evening. The point being, most of their savings in the study is from getting rid of the second car, not from driving less.

I would save two dollars a day.  For two dollars I can leave work whenever I want, not when the bus stops running (mine stops at 8 PM, I’d have to catch a different one that goes all the way downtown, adding a good hour to my commute).  For two dollars a day, I can run errands on the way home.  For two dollars a day, I feel like I’m getting my money’s worth.

The only real way to make savings (which for me according to that calculator would be about 6k a year) would be to sell my car.  Not going to happen.

1. “getting rid of one car” implies the family has another car.  Yes, if you use transit and car mixing it up for different trips, you gain the advantages of both.  use the right tool for the right job.  and have several tools.  wise.
2. if it costs $12K a year then it must be that the people driving and spending that much get a value greaterr than $12K a year out of that car.  Here’s some of them:  don’t have to wait in the rain.  don’t get colds from crowding in with others.  can enjoy your better music system in your car.  freedom to change your mind and just go where you want, hey, this park too crowded, we’ll motor over here.  enjoying the views from a car.  ANd, obviously, you don’t wait 10 or 20 minutes to go.  So, for anyone with an implicit wage of say $20 an hour or more, for instance, $50 an hour, that transit choice often is far more expensive than studies like this suggest as i doubt it included the wait time, hassle factor, cost of colds, the implied cost of being wet and in the rain, the implied cost of being less safe or just perceiving less safety, and other pleasantness factors.
3. perhaps we should go for better transit and bike options without trying to prove “car owners who drive are stupid as well as planet killers?” as in fact around the world even the cities with the best transit people who can afford to get and park a car usually do so the moment they make enough dough even if they just use it to go skiing.  when i was in amsterdam?  we went around without a car.  but my dutch buddy had one~!  yes, it was parked a few blocks a day.  the day we went for a drive to the beach was great!  because we picked when and where to go, we were able to bring wine and cheese and lots of stuff, a blanker even, then we hit delf or some other town on the way back.   probably we could have used transit in this transit laden nation, too, they seem to have trolleys everywhere, but cars are fun and this is often left out of the equation leaving the anti car proponents with a rather grim and stern countenance that matches the image of the environmentalist scold.  notably even this factoid about eliminating “one” car seems to imply……most people if they can will keep the other one.  I’d also say if you live in Seattle without a car or without using one often you’re really missing what makes this State great which is the access to nature from skiing to hiking to drifting in a lake to simply touring chuckanut drive or going to sequim or yakima whatever.  it’s a fairly amazing fucking state nature wise.  those without cars hopefully can passenger off  the folks who do keep a car around.  What is the “cost” of giving up all that beauty, healthful activity and fun?

I’m glad I don’t have the urge to attack the reporter’s and the publication’s credibility every time I read an article I disagree with in the Wall Street Journal. That must get exhausting. Make sure to take some B vitamins!

Car-commuters pay much less than they should for their convenience. Frist, in many places (I live in Dane County, Wisconsin) propoerty tax payers pay for about 60% of all road building, repari and maintenance costs.  Second, when children and other vulnerable people contract asthma and other respiratory diseases, the families of those children and others pay the monetary and psychological costs of those diseases. Car drivers go about their uncaring way, leaving a green cloud over the cities many people call home.  Gasoline taxes need to be higher, and a portion of the proceeds needs to be dedicated to public and private health care premiums.

Hmm, so you drive this car 1,000 miles a year, and spend $500 on gas? At $3.75 a gallon, you’re getting 7.5 miles to the gallon. What is your car? A Sherman tank? And you’re pay $2,200 a year in total costs, i.e., $2.20 a mile, or so you claim. Christ on a crutch, this isn’t about buses. Sell the fucking car and take taxis.

Do you think you are paying too much for your auto insurance?

Insurancebread.com simplies the comparison step and shows every insurance company’s rate in your area.

Anywhere in United States of America. 

Accessible through Smartphones, too.

Http://www.insurancebread.com

Are you really too stupid to understand this?  The study shows that the AVERAGE car on the road in 2009 was significantly more energy-efficient than the average transit bus.  NEW cars are much, much more energy-efficient than the average transit bus.  And the mpg of new cars is increasing every year!

As new cars enter the fleet, and old, inefficient cars are junked, the AVERAGE car on the road will be more and more energy-efficient.

Really, is this actually too difficult for you?

transit riders = about 5% of all trips.

taxpayers = everybody.

Everybody pays taxes for transit.  Only about 5% of trips are transit riders.

So, 100% of the public is paying for the 5% who ride transit.

Transit riders pay only about 25% of the OPERATING cost of their trips, with taxpayers paying the other 75%.

Motorists pay 100% of the operating costs of their trips, without tax subsidies.

Diesel buses use more energy per passenger-mile than cars. so diesel buses cause more pollution per passenger-mile than cars.

In Seattle, revenues from parking, and taxes and fees on cars total more than Seattle spends on paving roads.

I wonder if Grover’s employer knows how much time he spends running his mouth and fomenting unrest by twisting facts to his liking while on the clock? 

posting numbers in a forum without reference proves nothing.

you will not be happy until there are twenty lane highways to every ticky-tacky suburb, parking garages on every city block, unlimited on-street parking, multi lane avenues in every city and town, and those who can’t afford or want to use a car banned from being able to travel anywhere. Fortunately, no one really wants their cities and towns to look that way. Your point of view is becoming the minority one, and no matter how much you whine and lie on internet forums, subsidies for drivers will continue to be more fairly distributed to alternate forms of transportation.

Except for the actual cost of gas, which is heavily subsidized by federal taxes. But you know, keep lying if it helps you feel better…

http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm

And that’s not even including non-primary subsidies, such as the amount we spend in military costs to ensure access to oil producing countries.

Ah yes, the fact-free attack. Specialty of the brain-dead Seattle Smugster!

Way better to make it too expensive for the rich, whose cars tend to get worse gas mileage and pollute more than the tin cans on wheels that the poor can afford. How about a 200% tax on cars and SUVs over 4000 pounds and those that get less than 20 mpg? The revenue could be used to improve bus and rail transportation for the po’ and for folks who are smart enough to ride mass transit instead of spending their retirement money and their children’s inheritance on cars.

Except for Boston, those “winning” cities are in states that pay the highest state and federal combined gas tax. We are paying 60 cents on the gallon in taxes when we fill up. Anyone know how much tax revenue the gas taxes brings to the state?