More myths about driving vs. transit

In response to today's Dr. Gridlock column, "Metro's Costs Have Pushed Some to Grab the Car Keys" in the Post:

1. Unless you decide to optimize your trip to work by optimizing the linkages and connections between where you work and where you live, this is a losing game. People who live past Wheaton and have to drive to the subway station aren't optimizing their location. People who can get to their jobs in 45 minutes by driving are not optimizing where they live to be transit-accessible to their place of employment.

2. As long as people receive subsidized parking it is difficult for transit to compete.

3. As long as people don't amortize the cost of buying a car and the cost of insurance (not to mention maintenance expenses not covered by warranties), they will underprice the cost of a daily trip by only including variable costs (gas, parking) and not fixed costs (insurance, car payment). It's fair to say that the cost of a car payment + insurance is equal to about $20/day.

So the Wheaton experience recounted in today's Post:

Another commenter -- part of a two-commuter household -- said the cost of taking Metro from Wheaton to Farragut North each day is greater than the price of parking and gas. The Metro is $4 for parking plus $14.40 round trip for two during peak periods. A garage at K and 18th streets NW is $11, and the gas is $2 a day

Compares the $18.40 cost of the subway + parking to the $13 cost for driving, costs of parking + gas without considering the $20 daily fixed cost of owning a car.

The real cost is $17.40 for the Metro + bus (instead of driving to and from the station) vs. $33 for the cost of owning a car and insurance + parking and gas.

4. Even so, there are trips that are less efficient by transit, depending on the origin and the destination of the rider, and the transit infrastructure and provision of service between those locations.

Just like with choosing where you live to have efficient transit options, businesses and organizations ought to be choosing their locations with an eye to efficient transit.

For example, a letter to the editor in yesterday's Post "Fed Up With Traffic Near FedEx Field " complain about the difficulties of getting to FedEx Field in Lanham in Prince George's County, because it is not located proximate to transit. (Note that the Nationals baseball stadium and the Verizon Center are steps away from transit, and RFK Stadium is a short walking distance from the Stadium-Armory station.

Similarly, now that National Harbor has been built, there are complaints about the failure of its location to have good transit connections. See "Gaylord Resort Asks for More Transit Service" from the Washington Post. Whose fault is that? This is a problem of commission--an error made at the outset--not some mere oversight or omission.

The person in today's column, living in Cleveland Park traveling to and from Georgetown could ride a bike just as easily and as quickly as driving, but would still find it hard to have a quick transit trip. Now, had he chosen to live on the Wisconsin Avenue corridor, with bus service up and down Wisconsin Avenue to and from Georgetown, this wouldn't be an issue.

Still, by doing more focused research using the idea of the mobility shed and transit hubs (such as subway stations), it would be possible to get a better sense of origin-destination pairs and better target transit and other modes using the TravelSmart methods of transportation demand management.