Photo by Oran

One of the most notable social interfaces that we make in the realm of transit is with the driver.  Chances are there will be some kind of greeting when you board, maybe a “thank you” or “bye now” when you de-board, and occasionally you might find some passengers will strike up a conversation with the driver during the ride*.  None of these verbal interactions are actually necessary; all they really do is foster politeness and social civility.  Of course, there are instances that do require the driver’s speech**: announcing stops, rules, and answering passenger questions.

However, sitting on a delayed bus while the driver is answering the question of a passenger who’s standing outside the front doorway can be infuriating for passengers already on board.  But beyond just the interests of the passengers, sometimes this can throw buses off schedule, cause bunching, and even break connections.  To be sure, there are times when driver assistance is necessary– visually-impaired passengers, for example, might need the route number read aloud.  Most of the time, however, the driver is asked information which is already readily available elsewhere.

Good transit systems actually minimize driver-passenger interaction, which does two things: 1) information about the route/system is clearly conveyed, either online, in paper, or posted at stops, requiring less reliance on the driver; and 2) precious minutes on the schedule can be saved to boost system reliability and efficiency.  And it’s not like we don’t already do this– train drivers and engineers, for example, are hidden away from public view entirely on our rail modes, simply because you can trust passengers to know what they’re doing without needing assistance.

As mentioned at the top of the post, there is also social component of driver-passenger interface, which can be good or bad.  Driver attitudes, for one, tend to rub off on passengers.  Any regular transit rider will know that a sour driver is more likely to inflame your own tempers, while an amiable one can spruce up your day.  While the trade-off is there, I’m a big believer that we shouldn’t have to intertwine drivers into our social lives, and that it’s best to just let them get on with their jobs.

*King County Metro actually discourages its drivers from casually conversing with passengers. This rule is often broken.

**Many of these functions are disappearing as Metro installs its new on-board system with automated announcements.

Flow of tweets in Chicago. (Eric Fischer)

Spiffy new infographic shows where transit routes could go if they followed where tweets were coming from.

(H/T: Chetan Chandrashekhar)

This is an open thread.

Throughout Metro’s network, there are a number of common-stop corridors along which multiple routes will run, usually combining for frequent service.  Some of these corridors are scheduled to optimize the distribution of service frequency and eliminate bus bunching, others not so much.  Along the corridors with no schedule coordination, you’re likely to see several buses come at once within the span of a few minutes, then no buses at all for the next several minutes.

A lot of this is the result of other scheduling “hotspots” in the network, or timepoints and pulses, mostly at park-and-rides, transit centers, and other major hubs were infrequent and frequent services come together at one destination.  Scheduling to incorporate both timed connections at these hubs and frequency coordination along common corridors is no simple task– that’s why Metro splits up its scheduling responsibilities by each bus base.

Unfortunately, this brings up another challenge: common corridors are sometimes made up of routes based out of different bases, hence different schedulers.  At Eastgate, for example, routes like the 212 and 218 combine for frequent service to downtown Seattle in the peak*.  However, because both of these routes each come out of two different bases, uncoordinated scheduling often leads to bunching at the freeway stop, limiting the usefulness of passenger capacity the bus at the rear end of a bunch brings.

While an easy administrative solution is to simply apportion the routes along common corridors to one scheduler, I recognize that the network is much more complex, routes need to move around, and common corridors tend to straddle the edges of geographic boundaries.  That said, Metro should develop a standard for developing coordination among separate schedulers for common corridors.

I’m not aware of any other corridors in Metro’s network where this is an issue with all-day frequent service, but assuming the free interchange of routes between bases can happen at any service change in the future, it’ll be a good practice to ensure stable and reliable service along our most heavily-traveled corridors.

*I chose this selfishly to illustrate my personal commute, at the same time recognizing that it’s not a very good example, given the limited peak-only span.  If anyone has a clearer or better example, particularly with all-day service, I’d like to hear it!

Lines: A Line, Link, and the 150?

Branding is always an exciting topic to discuss, largely because we can exercise our imaginations without having to spend lots of capital money.  One of the finer points about branding that Jarrett Walker touches upon in his book Human Transit is transit’s associated terminologies and nomenclature.  Choosing between whether to use line or route, for example, can reveal a lot about your service or at least how you want your service to be perceived.

The most clear-cut example of this across North American transit agencies is the fact that we usually reserve “routes” for bus transit and “lines” for rail transit.  Jarrett’s excerpt at Human Transit really deserves a full read:

…Lurking inside these two words, in short, is a profound difference in attitude about a transit service.  Do you want to think of transit as something that’s always there, that you can count on?  If so, call it a line.  We never speak of rail routes, always rail lines, and we do that because the rails are always there, suggesting a permanent and reliable thing…

Obviously there’s existing cultural and institutional inertia behind the conventions of transit nomenclature– people use certain terms because they’ve always been used in that way, which helps produce the semantic vernacular of locally accepted definitions.  You’re likely to use the term ‘bus route’ because people know what you mean and you know what they mean, not because you have a value judgment to make against bus transit.

Nonetheless, I think there is a solid argument to be made in reorienting transit’s vocabulary around its physical and practical qualities, like service levels, frequency, utility, etc.  While I don’t think the word “route” will ever disappear from common usage, there should be a strong delineation between the level of service a “line” will reflect, as opposed to what a “route” will reflect.  RapidRide, for example, does just that, by branding what is really higher quality bus service as lines (e.g., A Line, B Line, etc.) instead of routes (e.g., Route A?).

If you want to really follow that criteria, however, there are a lot more routes in the regional network that should be rebranded as bus lines– the 41, 150, 255, 511, 545, and 550 to name a few.  To be sure, there are even finer nuances in classifying service levels beyond what “route” and “line’ offer us, like stop spacing, vehicle type, boarding operations, etc.  But if we really want a good place to begin in promoting our high-quality frequent transit corridors, then we should start referring to them as “lines” irrespective of the mode.

Photo by Dave Honan

There are few neighborhoods in our region that have as good transit service as the International Blvd area of Tukwila does.  With that comes an opportunity to harness existing capacity and use it to stimulate development.  Yet Tukwila is often overlooked when it comes to TOD and land use.  Indeed, the town is largely suburban and low-density; however, it also has one of the State’s highest minority populations and is, geographically, situated at an important “crossroads” in South King.

Transit-wise, this geographic advantage translates into high-quality service at Tukwila-International Blvd to points north, south, east, and west:

• A Line: Federal Way and points south along Pacific Highway.
• Link: Sea-Tac Airport, Rainier Valley, Downtown Seattle, and connections north.
• 124: Alternative all-day service to Seattle via the Duwamish through Georgetown & SODO.
• 140: Burien to the west, Southcenter, Renton to the east, to be replaced by the F Line in the future.

More below the jump.
(more…)

Photo by wings777

If there’s one thing we learned from our wacky weather week, it’s that no mode of transportation, steel, asphalt, or concrete, is immune to cold harsh weather.  During the ice storm, there wasn’t a soul in the region that didn’t find trouble getting around.  This included rail users, of course, when both Central Link and Tacoma Link’s catenary lines iced over and rail switches along the BNSF mainline froze.  Buses, however, were hit much harder– jackknifed and stranded, many were left out on streets and highways near and far while those that did keep running were slow and unreliable.

During last year’s Thanksgiving storm, Link was lauded for its smooth performance as trains whizzed by parking lot traffic on I-5 and a record number of passengers boarded.  The Seattle Times took the opportunity to pit it against Thursday’s ice storm woes, with a seeming interest in demonstrating light rail’s shortfalls.  Too often, though, stuff like this turns into fodder for transit opponents, who’ll use it as a case example against building rail, even when the framing is simply saying that ice is more menacing than snow (which it is).

With Link this time around, the woes were attributable to a disadvantage in the electrification technology– the overhead catenary lines froze over, something that wouldn’t have happened with a third rail system or if, say, the line were entirely subway.  But you can take just about any form of transportation and improve it in some way shape or form.  Just like how switch heaters and third rail help trains fend away ice, studded tires and chains help cars and buses navigate the snow.

Things like this muck up discussions and debates over mode technology, especially when people make an emotional argument against a mode because of one experience they had aboard that mode.  If last November was any indication, rail does hold a commanding advantage over road-based modes in inclement weather, not because of any technological ice/snow-proof advancements but because of the physical design of the rail trackway itself.

Whether it’s the track design or higher passenger capacity offered by rail, or the greater coverage flexibility from buses, the inherent qualities of any modal technology should be the real cornerstone of the debate.

*Disclaimer: The author is currently employed by Sound Transit.  However, all opinions expressed in this article are completely his own and may not reflect the views of anyone else.

It’s time for our third snow open thread.  Just about all agencies regionwide are in snow operations, meaning reroutes, slow buses, lengthy delays, and some canceled routes entirely.  If you’re about to head out, the smart thing to do is probably turn around and stay put.  Otherwise, be sure to check emergency service revisions.

Any rider-to-rider advice is welcomed in the comments.

Photo by Joshua Putnam

Though we’ve agreed that it’s premature to make any kind of definitive conclusion on long-term travel trends post-tolling, one thing is clear– I-90 has begun to adopt 520′s notorious congestion, something that was, of course, to be expected.  However, with the R8A Two-Way Transit & HOV project still incomplete and both directions on I-90 competing for the peak, 520 defectors have worsened an already fragile situation.

My bus, for example, has been slowed three times in the PM peak direction express lanes for the first time in recent memory.  While the delay only adds up to a couple of minutes for me, the real losers are those using transit in the reverse-peak direction: eastbound in the morning and westbound in the afternoon, which currently has a measly transit mode share simply because the incentives to drive in that direction are far too great.

Of course, tolling just one segment over Lake Washington ignores the fact that both bridge corridors should be considered as part of a cross-lake system.  This is a good financial argument for the State to make, too, because there won’t be enough toll revenue from 520 alone to finance the entirety of the bridge replacement.  Though currently prohibited by State law, tolling I-90 to offset the funding shortfall can be allowed under an exemption granted by the Legislature.

The discussion around I-90 tolls hasn’t only been constrained to politicians, planners, and transit bloggers.  Shortly after the 520 tolls commenced, an anonymous citizen started a Toll I-90 effort with an advocacy webpage and even merchandise to boot.  Whether or not the State can muster up the political will to follow through, however, is a much different story.

Gov. Christine Gregoire

[Update 9:37am: We're hearing that a smaller $5 billion package might be unveiled instead, with a larger share dedicated to road operations and maintenance as well as some county authority for local transit funding.  We won't know for sure if this is the case until the Governor actually delivers her speech.]

In her annual State of the State address this morning, Governor Gregoire is expected to propose a rather bold statewide transportation package– $21 billion in total, purported to cover roads, ferries, and transit. With the gas tax revenues largely dried up and new funding needed, much would seem to hinge on a vote to the people, at least as current prospects stand. And with a significant emphasis on road expansion, it’s less than clear how voters might react any differently than they did, say, to Roads and Transit (RTID) in 2007.

The real loser in this package would be transit.  Of the $21 billion under a likely scenario, only around $2.5 billion would be siphoned into “direct” transit investments– less than one-seventh of the whole pie.  While the Governor is expected urge lawmakers to approve new “funding options” for local agencies, that will likely come in the form of self-taxing authority instead of direct help. The hint of such a proposal is already drawing ire from transit opponents (acting on misguided principles, to be sure).

It’s hard to see this as anything but a giant statewide manifestation of the RTID vote.  Many of the projects proposed under such a package would certainly accelerate sprawl and run counter to the Governor’s own pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions in half by 2050.  And the measly acknowledgment of transit would do little to assuage our financial woes let alone provide a solid footing for strong capital investment in the long-run.

Westlake Station after the New Year, photo by Oran

Last Saturday evening, many cities around the world celebrated International Free Transit Day, a day when riders were allowed to board transit services for either a portion or entirety of the day without paying a dime (okay, Chicagoans did have to fork over a penny.  Here in Seattle, however, these festivities went largely unheard of, and transit users continued quietly paying their fare.  I’m talking, of course, about New Year’s Eve, when billions of late-night revelers worldwide were out and about well past midnight, and many in no state to drive.

International Free Transit Day isn’t exactly a recognized holiday– it’s more of an acknowledgement on the part of transit agencies that thousands, sometimes millions, of people will be out on New Year’s Eve needing some form of transportation, whether it’s because of large-scale events that need high-capacity transportation for crowd control or because of the countless many who will be celebrating through drink but most certainly not drive.

More below the jump.

(more…)

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

Just about every year, we keep a close eye on Olympia during the legislative sessions to see if anything promising ever comes out for transit.  Usually little does, but it’s a stark reminder of how much hope we have resting on the State’s shoulders.  Once upon a time, before Tim Eyman declared war on transportation funding, the State did have a much more proactive role in ensuring local transit remained strong and robust.  Over the years, unfortunately, State involvement and help for transit, either direct or indirect, has been measly at best.

At last month’s meetup with Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, an attendee asked the secretary how important she thought the State’s role was in terms of supporting transit.  While there was some mention of WSDOT-sponsored rail projects and hints of local funding options here and there, Hammond’s answer, much to our dismay, had strong emphasis on highway capital projects (i.e., HOV lanes, direct access ramps, etc.), which suggested a stronger obligation to fund “transit” projects if they also help cars, too.

More below the jump.

(more…)

Photo by Mike Bjork

This morning,  Sound Transit released the specifics on the extended schedule for Link on New Year’s Eve. As was done last year, two extra trips will run from Westlake to accommodate late New Year’s revelers.  Tacoma Link will also see extended service:

Sound Transit Link light rail and Tacoma Link trains will operate on extended hours Saturday, Dec. 31 to accommodate New Year’s Eve revelers.  Link light rail will run two additional southbound trips from Westlake Station at 12:58 a.m. and 1:13 a.m.; the last northbound trip will depart Sea-Tac Airport at 12:20 a.m. and continue to Westlake.

The last northbound trip for Tacoma Link will leave the Tacoma Dome Station at 1:00 a.m.; the last southbound train will depart the Theatre District Station at 1:24 a.m.

The monorail will also be running its last trains until about 1am, so Link riders who will be celebrating in the Seattle Center area should have enough time to get back to Westlake to make their connection:

On December 31. 2011, the Monorail will be open until 1:00AM for the New Year’s Eve fireworks at the Space Needle. Due to regulations, the Monorail will carry its last passengers from Westlake Center to Seattle Center at 11:15PM. We will resume service from Seattle Center to Westlake Center once we receive the “ALL CLEAR” from the Fire Marshall (estimated to be 12:20AM).

It’s heartening to see accommodations continuing to be made for late evening service, but there’s plenty of precedent from other cities to do more.  Many agencies across the country will run an extra service overlay on the evening of New Year’s Eve in addition to their regular Sunday frequencies, with some even offering fare-free service past a certain period, including neighboring Portland and Vancouver.

Obviously, with so many transit agencies under the ORCA umbrella here, there may be some policy complications to going completely fare-free for a certain time period, but from a technical standpoint, the ORCA system is capable of doing just that.  With so many infrequent riders taking transit regionwide on the evening of the 31st, making service seamless would be a good step to leaving a lasting impression for our system.

If you’re planning on doing some local transit travel this holiday season or are plagued with the misfortune of having to work, be sure to check timetables before heading out.  All major transit agencies will be running Sunday schedules on both the actual and observed holidays– tomorrow, the 26th, for Christmas, and January 2nd, for New Year’s.  Unfortunately, that means no service for Snohomish County Community Transit on those days.

In the intervening period, Metro will be on a reduced weekday schedule, with some routes canceled entirely and others with only some trips canceled.  Community Transit, Sound Transit, and Pierce Transit, on the other hand, will all operate regular schedules on the weekdays.  Saturday schedules will be in effect for New Year’s Eve, with the exception of Tacoma Link and Central Link, which will run extra late trips to accommodate New Year’s revelers.  The monorail will also have an extended schedule that day.

Photo by VeloBusDriver

In the spirit of the holidays, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to think about the sentimental value transit often offers us.  To do this, a little digging is required, exercising our past memories to elicit those experiences we often had aboard, or sometimes off-board, transit.  While I’m not that old and didn’t have the fortune of developing a nostalgia for things like the Interurban and the early streetcar trolleys, many of you, our readers, have had such experiences far and wide.

Many of my nostalgic memories around transit occurred in the early to mid-90s– the DSTT was new, Metro ridership was on the rise, the RTA was preparing to go to the ballot, and many questions were being asked about the future of rapid transit for the Puget Sound region.  But what I remember most were the daytime trips my grandmother would take me on from her apartment in the International District to Seattle Center: a ride on a dual-mode Breda trolley through the bus tunnel, and a transfer to the Monorail at Westlake, with a chocolate ice cream cone on the 4th floor food court to boot.

Over time, it’s been the little things that have stuck out at me as I ponder my old perceptions (and misconceptions) of transit.  Like many of you, I was particularly fond of being the one to pull the stop request cord; to hear a real ‘ding’ aboard a bus today is considered a novelty.  And since I never continued beyond Westlake in the DSTT, I somehow wound up with the belief that the tunnel continued onto Vancouver B.C. with a station underneath the Seattle Center House.

I blinded myself with some other self-concocted myths over the years– when I was in middle school and didn’t care particularly for transit, I thought that Sound Transit bus drivers were far meaner than Metro drivers, only to discover a number of years later that they were all the same.  And for the longest time, I would never board a Seattle-bound commuter bus at Eastgate because the long queue gave me the impression that riders had to have a special pass or eligibility to board.

What are your special memories of transit?  Did you ever fabricate naive falsehoods that turned out to be wrong?

Photo by SD70MACMAN

Every now and then, a big story revolving around transit comes up and captures the special attention of the local news media, either good or bad.  Whether it was Prop. 1, King County’s $20 car-tab fee, Metro’s ad fiasco, or last year’s bus driver assault, big issues always manage to find their way to the front page, with some attention-grabbing headline to boot. Media portrayal of  transit or any other hot-button topic is never completely unbiased– there’s always a tinge of opinionated framing at the discretion of the author or headline writer.

So it’s not terribly surprising when headline writers cook up a juicy title when they can, especially if it means eliciting strong reader reaction.  Take this KING 5 headline, for example: Neighbors survey Light Rail neighborhood for robbery risk – a great example of correlation conflated with causation.  While this strategy– making some connection with recent notable cases of crime occurring around a relatively new light rail line– might help sell views, it only reflects a mark of poor journalism.

More after the jump.

(more…)

Visualization of Overlake redevelopment, image from City of Redmond

On Tuesday, the Redmond City Council approved the Master Plan for redevelopment in the Overlake Village area*. As we’ve reported in the past, the project is transit-oriented in nature, to be served by the B Line and a future Link station along 520.  The planning includes several major revisions to the existing street network, including subdividing the suburban superblock parcels and building a ped-bike connection to employment areas north of the freeway.

The Seattle Times has the primer on the vision for the area:

The City Council approved a development agreement Tuesday that allows a hotel and conference center, 1,400 apartments or condos and 1.2 million square feet of offices and stores on the site of Group Health’s former Eastside hospital.

Located adjacent to Microsoft’s main campus and a planned Sound Transit light-rail station, the project — even if built by more than one developer — will be “an iconic development for Overlake that will set the pace and style” for other high-density projects in the area, Redmond Planning and Community Development Director Rob Odle said Wednesday.

Consider this Redmond’s own version of the Bel-Red plan with a similar set of rules– upzoning could raise height limits to 120 feet and developers would be incentivized to build higher if they offer ‘public amenities’ like park space. The City is also pursuing other low-impact development opportunities in the area, including rain gardens and stormwater vaults.  When compete, redevelopment would complete a TOD corridor between Bellevue and Redmond, linking the Hospital District, Bel-Red, and Overlake together.

The City of Redmond is never shy about putting up really high-quality comprehensive planning documents on their website, so I’d be remiss in not linking to a few of them: the Master Plan itself (PDF) and a 167-page street design manual (PDF) just for Overlake Village.

*This particular project concerns only redevelopment on the Group Health site.  The Overlake Village subarea can accommodate a much higher level of development capacity.

Photo courtesy Slack Action

When the federal stimulus package was passed two years ago, it provided one key provision benefiting transit commuters nationwide– an increase of the monthly transit benefit from $120 to $230, matching that of the parking benefit.  Just around this time last year, the increase in the transit benefit was due to expire the following January had Congress failed to approve an extension.  Luckily, that fate was avoided, which allowed transit commuters to reap the same tax-deductible benefits as drivers for 2011.

Unfortunately, the extension was only for this year, which brings up the matter before Congress again.  If Washington doesn’t act on the benefit extension before the end of the year, drivers will be getting a higher direct federal commuting subsidy than transit users come 2012.  I’m not convinced this is a good direction for the country’s transportation policy, and neither does Transportation for America:

If Congress does nothing by the end of the year, if you take transit to get to work each day you could be paying more out of your own pocket when the tax benefit for transit is cut in half. If that wasn’t enough, drivers will keep enjoying the same great parking benefit ($230) – nearly double what transit commuters will be eligible to receive. We don’t think that’s fair, and Congress needs to hear about it.

So if you spend more than $120 a month on your commute in a vanpool, train or bus, the federal government will be sending a message loud and clear: they’d like you to start driving to work, where you can get $230 for parking deducted from your paycheck tax free.

Be sure to tell Congress that slashing the transit benefit is the wrong thing to do at the wrong time.  While Washington State Senators Murray and Cantwell are already strong transit allies and are likely to approve the extension, many House representatives are not and can’t be counted on to do the same.

Photo by raggiesoft

We’ve written many a time on the misguided fluff coming from Michael Ennis, Washington Policy Center’s (WPC) Transportation Director, both for his abrasive attitude toward transit and unwavering support for automobile dominance.  Despite repeated rebuttals, however, it seems like WPC’s ideology continually creeps into its legislative advocacy regarding transportation, sometimes even in contrast to to the think-tank’s free-market platform.

The most recent example is Ennis’ analysis of the Voice of Washington survey results and subsequent recommendation principles for the upcoming Legislative session.

Lacking public support for a gas tax increase may spell trouble for policymakers who want a transportation package in 2012 during a presidential election year. Given the current economic climate and combined with the Governor’s new statewide sales tax proposal for general government (probably with a vote in April), a transportation tax package in November now seems less likely.

Ennis knows that any increase in the gas tax is tied down by a lot of political baggage so it’s pretty convenient for him to cherry-pick this one single finding to argue against any kind of transportation package.  What he ignores is the broad support for more other funding options (PDF) and user-based charges, like the vehicle emissions fee, electric vehicle license fee, and variable tolling.

It really depends on what comes out of the upcoming legislative session, but it’s premature to suggest that touching the gas tax is the only option up for consideration.  While a tax increase and/or elimination of the sales tax exemption has been a point of support on this blog, we’ve still been receptive to other viable options, highlighted in the work (PDF) done by the Connecting WA Task Force.  More below the jump.

(more…)

Photo by AvgeekJoe

This morning, the Washington State Transportation Commission released the first results of its Voice of Washington survey, which polled respondents on their feelings about State transportation funding and investments.  The highlight conclusion from the survey results shows a broad willingness to invest more in transportation, transit and rail included.  However, support is split on funding methods for such new investments, as only a third of the given options received majority support.

Several of the findings seem to add insult to the injury of I-1125′s defeat.  Not only did the majority of respondents support sharing use of  toll revenue within a travel corridor (i.e., not limited to the tolled facility, an 1125 restriction), both variable tolling and HOT lanes, two of Tim Eyman’s favorite targets, received over 60% support.  In addition to majority support for tolls as a new funding stream, a vehicle emissions fee and an electric vehicle license fee were also strongly favored.  On the losing side, only 46% supported an increase in the age-old gas tax.

Transit and passenger rail fared well in the survey, receiving 63% of support.  Around 60% also supported continued funding of the State ferry system.   What’s more ambiguous is differentiating where transit falls into the three investment priorities most strongly favored by respondents: repairing/maintaining the existing system, increasing capacity, and expanding travel options.  How much transit was perceived as part of these priorities, versus roads, is certainly less clear.

More findings are available at Publicola.  The survey will remain open through the end of the year.

Photo by Oran

From time to time, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) will publish transit savings reports that essentially compare the localized monthly cost of taking transit versus the monthly cost of driving.  It’s obviously a simplified comparison, but a fairly credible baseline to examine the cost differentials between the two modes.  The national savings, on average, amounts to $816 for the month of November, and $9,797 when calculated over the whole year.

The list of the top 20 cities puts Seattle at 4th among the company of San Francisco and Philadelphia.  According to APTA, a Seattleite saves $992 a month on average, just by switching to transit.  The methodology:

APTA calculates the average cost of taking public transit by determining the average monthly transit pass of local public transit agencies across the country.  This information is based on the annual APTA fare collection survey and is weighted based on ridership (unlinked passenger trips).  The assumption is that a person making a switch to public transportation would likely purchase an unlimited pass on the local transit agency, typically available on a monthly basis.

APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving.  The cost of driving is calculated using the 2011 AAA average cost of driving formula.  AAA cost of driving formula is based on variable costs and fixed costs.  The variable costs include the cost of gas, maintenance and tires.  The fixed costs include insurance, license registration, depreciation and finance charges.  The comparison also uses the average mileage of a mid-size auto at 23.4 miles per gallon and the price for self-serve regular unleaded gasoline as recorded by AAA on November 18, 2011 at $3.38 per gallon.  The analysis also assumes that a person will drive an average of 15,000 miles per year.  The savings assume a person in two-person household lives with one less car.

What the report doesn’t take into account is the employer-paid fare subsidy for transit users or the upfront vehicle purchase price parking subsidy for car users, both of which represent largely sunk costs that aren’t readily apparent each time a trip is made.  While I suspect that the differential would widen vary considerably* if those accommodations were made, that could only be assumed if mode use were mutually exclusive.  Since many transit users do own cars, it would be interesting to see how numbers would stack up if costs for both were factored together.

*Depending on locality, driving costs could vary with parking costs; the counterclaim, of course, is that in places where parking is free, those expenses are still passed onto the employee in another form.  Quantifying that, however, would be beyond the scope of such an analysis.