Seattle sees nation’s biggest drop in solo car commuters

[Bruce]

From The Seattle Times:

In 2018, just 44% of the 444,000 Seattle residents who were employed drove alone to work on a typical day, according to the latest census data. That's a huge decrease since 2010, when a solid majority (53%) of Seattle's workers were solo car commuters.

Seattle's 9 percentage-point drop is easily the largest decline among the 100 most-populous U.S. cities since the start of the decade. And we now have the sixth-lowest percentage of drive-alone commuters among those 100 cities. The lowest is New York, where only about 23% of commuters drive alone.

Good news, to be sure – but we still have a lot of folks driving themselves to work in Seattle. Even as the percentage plummeted, there was still an increase in terms of raw numbers, because the population grew so much in this period. The total number of drive-alone commuters was 197,000 in 2018, which is a 9% increase since 2010. In comparison, the total number of working Seattle residents increased more than three times faster, at a rate of 31%.

One other mode of commuting declined among Seattle residents: Carpooling. Slightly less than 7% of us share the drive to work with other people on a typical day. Once a popular way to save gas money and improve traffic congestion, enthusiasm for carpooling has stalled, both locally and across the country.

But all the other alternative methods of transportation have increased, and none more impressively than transit. More than 23% of workers who live in Seattle took public transportation to work most days in 2018, which is a 5 percentage-point increase since 2010. And 2018 marks the first year that more than 100,000 Seattle residents used transit to get to work on a typical day.

But all the other alternative methods of transportation have increased, and none more impressively than transit. More than 23% of workers who live in Seattle took public transportation to work most days in 2018, which is a 5 percentage-point increase since 2010. And 2018 marks the first year that more than 100,000 Seattle residents used transit to get to work on a typical day.

https://twitter.com/dongho_chang/status/1197529264662417408

[Max Rockatansky]

Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling...  We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around. 

[Brian556]

Stupid hippies

[Max Rockatansky]

Stupid hippies

Probably has more (at least I think so) to do with geographic constraints making building difficult which is a common problem shared with cities like San Francisco and New York.  I'm sure all those folks driving alone from Stockton would gladly live near their job in the Bay Area if there was somewhere affordable to put them   

[Bruce]

The road infrastructure is deterring drivers because it's well beyond its capacity and there is no easy way of solving the problem. At the same time, as the article states, we are rapidly improving the transit situation to make it a more attractive (and smart) option, and it's working. The model of just slapping on some bus lanes and running more trips is something that every American city should be following.

[Alps]

Stupid hippies

This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Stupid hippies

This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?

This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.

[Max Rockatansky]

The road infrastructure is deterring drivers because it's well beyond its capacity and there is no easy way of solving the problem. At the same time, as the article states, we are rapidly improving the transit situation to make it a more attractive (and smart) option, and it's working. The model of just slapping on some bus lanes and running more trips is something that every American city should be following.

That depends, in the newer cities that were built with automotive traffic in mind that seems to be mostly unnecessary.  Places like Phoenix and Las Vegas tend to be able to plan out their patterns along new highway corridors.  Seattle was pretty much already on it's way to be built to capacity by the time the era of freeways hit.  Having to commute from places like the Kitsap Peninsula doesn't exactly bode well for the prospects of the area not becoming another San Francisco Bay.  The buses and trains really seem to be the only option left that will make a difference unless some serious red tape is cut on some big time new bridgework.  But then again, that might just force urban sprawl more out into areas like Kitsap more than it already is occurring now.

[Max Rockatansky]

Stupid hippies

This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?

This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.

Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe.  Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:

1.  In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2.  If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit.  Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.

The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services.  Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently.  That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate.  It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.

[Bruce]

Stupid hippies

This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?

This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.

Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe.  Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:

1.  In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2.  If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit.  Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.

The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services.  Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently.  That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate.  It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.

The bus stop spacing problem is a huge issue politically, because the most vocal minority of users will rail against having to walk further. Can't be helped when the sidewalks leading to most bus stops are also either non-existent or so poor that they can cause injury.

The money-no-object solution is to run multiple tiers of services, which a few places have done (including my own county's pre-BRT). A local route that makes very frequent stops and enables transfers to a faster skip-stop service that stops every few blocks or maybe every mile, and then on top of that true express options that make very few stops. Of course all three tiers would need to be frequent enough to actually attract and retain riders, at a minimum of 15 minutes on weekdays.

[Max Rockatansky]

Stupid hippies

This is rather unbecoming of a state DOT employee, wouldn't you think?

This is why transit is so despised. Anyone's who's a someone drives everywhere, and only hippies and poor people use transit.

Actually there is something to this, at least on the whole nation wide compared to places like Europe.  Most of that perception and reality has to do with several factors:

1.  In most American cities most commutes are going to be infinitely easier than using mass transit.
2.  If you can't afford a car your options generally are affordable mass transit.  Mass transit is usually heavily subsidized which means in most cities your ridership will be from lower incomes.

The biggest problem I've seen with mass transit State side is that there are way too many damn stops and not enough frequency of services.  Almost every country I've been to has mass transit services that are spread out but have service far more frequently.  That does mean if you want to use mass transit that you have to walk a bit which isn't exactly an activity many Americans will tolerate.  It also really helps that much of the older cities in places like Europe invested in Mass Transit far more than they did roads because the cityscape is more compact, far older and harder to build in.

The bus stop spacing problem is a huge issue politically, because the most vocal minority of users will rail against having to walk further. Can't be helped when the sidewalks leading to most bus stops are also either non-existent or so poor that they can cause injury.

The money-no-object solution is to run multiple tiers of services, which a few places have done (including my own county's pre-BRT). A local route that makes very frequent stops and enables transfers to a faster skip-stop service that stops every few blocks or maybe every mile, and then on top of that true express options that make very few stops. Of course all three tiers would need to be frequent enough to actually attract and retain riders, at a minimum of 15 minutes on weekdays.

By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is.  Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options.  Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail.  Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?

[index]

Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling...  We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around.

To be fair, a lot of the water around there is so deep it's just not practical or possible to build a bridge unless you want to shell out a zillion dollars on building a floating bridge.

Stupid hippies

That seems like a rather...ignorant thing to say. There's nothing wrong with using less cars and transporting more people. It helps save on emissions and makes places suck less. But, unfortunately, you're always going to have detractors with knee-jerk responses like this that criticize anyone who actually cares about the environment as "pussies" or "hippies", etc etc. Same mentality of rolling coal in a giant pickup truck while lambasting folks who drive efficient cars or use public transit.

[Max Rockatansky]

Over it equally suggests the road infrastructure is so poor that people rather tolerate mass transit or carpooling...  We're talking about a city where ferry commuting is still a thing and just tolled a highway that was traditionally free when the Viaduct was around.

To be fair, a lot of the water around there is so deep it's just not practical or possible to build a bridge unless you want to shell out a zillion dollars on building a floating bridge.

Stupid hippies

That seems like a rather...ignorant thing to say. There's nothing wrong with using less cars and transporting more people. It helps save on emissions and makes places suck less. But, unfortunately, you're always going to have detractors with knee-jerk responses like this that criticize anyone who actually cares about the environment as "pussies" or "hippies", etc etc. Same mentality of rolling coal in a giant pickup truck while lambasting folks who drive efficient cars or use public transit.

If I recall correctly there are depths of 600 feet even at the narrow point between Discovery Point and Bainbridge Island?...that would fall under one of those geographic challenges.  In the case of somewhere like San Francisco Bay the depth is much shallower which allows for much more ease in bridge building. 

I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want.  For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes.  But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others.  A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States.  Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."

[Bruce]

By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is.  Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options.  Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail.  Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?

A lot of the poorer outlying neighborhoods (particularly North Seattle and southern West Seattle) lack sidewalks, since they were built in the early post-war boom and annexed shortly afterwards...long before ADA mandated access. The sidewalk backlog would cost hundreds of millions to build out. There are also the issues posed by the topography, since walking an extra two or three blocks can involve hillclimbs or random obstacles (like ravines and unsafe arterials).

[Max Rockatansky]

By and large that's a huge cultural issue in the U.S. in general that "walking" would become a political sticking point...but it is what it is.  Personally when I lived in larger cities I actually found it faster to walk most places (like downtown Chicago) than it was to use interurban mass transit options.  Again that goes back to the lack of desire of most riders to be willing to walk a little further to get to point where they can jump on a bus or light rail.  Now in a city like Fresno I would see the sidewalk infrastructure as being a serious concern but I never found myself really wanting for a side walk in Seattle, maybe I'm missing something?

A lot of the poorer outlying neighborhoods (particularly North Seattle and southern West Seattle) lack sidewalks, since they were built in the early post-war boom and annexed shortly afterwards...long before ADA mandated access. The sidewalk backlog would cost hundreds of millions to build out. There are also the issues posed by the topography, since walking an extra two or three blocks can involve hillclimbs or random obstacles (like ravines and unsafe arterials).

So in a sense one might say that Seattle is the king of sidewalk related accidents?...at least in an ironic historic sense.  I couldn't fathom any city in the first world replicating raising the streets of downtown and expecting the general public to pay for sidewalks.  Those stories about people falling 10-30 into what is the Seattle Underground certainly are interesting to say the least. 

Either way it's interesting to see some of the annexed parts of the city pose such a challenge to the parts most people see on a visit.  West Seattle in particular doesn't really resemble much of the rest of the City.  It's no wonder since it incorporated at the turn of the 20th Century before being annexed.  Is any part of Ballard affected by poor pedestrian access?  The main streets seemed to be pretty well designed but I recall the neighborhoods were kind of wonky when we visited family last year. 

[jakeroot]

If I recall correctly there are depths of 600 feet even at the narrow point between Discovery Point and Bainbridge Island?...that would fall under one of those geographic challenges.  In the case of somewhere like San Francisco Bay the depth is much shallower which allows for much more ease in bridge building.

Exactly. Bainbridge, Vashion...other islands; they're not far away but there's a legit chasm between the shorelines. The options are basically:

A) floating bridge;
B) underwater tunnel akin to the Channel Tunnel (with 3-6 mile approach tunnels);
C) floating tunnel (SFT);
D) suspension bridge with mile-high support columns; or
E) ferries.

My guess is that a proper ferry system is the best option for more than a couple reasons: 1) they're massively cheaper than a bridge, 2) fares recover about 70% of the yearly operating costs, 3) it keeps vehicles from flooding into the city anymore than the already are, 4) they limit the desirability of development in areas that really don't need to be developed anyway (Bainbridge, Vashon), and 5) the ferries are part of our identity (there are few more iconic shots than Elliott Bay with a ferry skipping across it).

[jakeroot]

I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want.  For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes.  But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others.  A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States.  Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."

But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.

The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.

IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.

[NE2]

Stupid hippies

ok boomer

[hotdogPi]

While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)

[oscar]

While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)

Geography really helps, for Seattle.

I've resigned myself to having two major cities on each coast (Seattle and San Francisco, New York City and Boston) unavoidably car-unfriendly, and try to avoid driving there. Portland OR, not quite.

[Rothman]

To me, the battle between roads and transit is a simple matter of scarcity.  I view the issue not that one or the other is underfunded, but that the entire multimodal system is woefully underfunded (to a greater extent than is realized from the narrow view of just maintenance) to prevent a truly comprehensive approach to infrastructure improvement that allows both roads and transit to be progressed as needed.  In short, tax the rich.

As an aside, I am not persuaded by the argument that transit should be pursued simply because it encourages denser development.  For one, at least when I was in grad school and that mantra was becoming prevalent, the evidence to support it was pretty shaky.  For another, it ignores the fact of our cultural preferences, especially in regards to the needs of families (i.e., a lot of us choose not to live stacked upon each other and especially chafe at having to live above noisy businesses).  As I've said time and time again, those that promote dense development seem to have the focus on the individual rather than family units -- to the point where large families are dismissed as outliers and even irresponsible (some dark social engineering ideas can come into play in this regard).

Rather, I do wonder if this whole rivalry between roads and transit has actually been concocted by those that want to direct funding to less worthy areas and if transit and DOTs and the like could have a more united front when it comes to transportation funding overall.

[Henry]

With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever. My suspicion is that the toll facilities and so-called "congestion tax" may have something to do with it.

[Max Rockatansky]

While I support more transit use, intentionally making it harder to drive is not the way to do it. (I don't know if Seattle is doing this or now, but I believe that Portland is.)

Geography really helps, for Seattle.

I've resigned myself to having two major cities on each coast (Seattle and San Francisco, New York City and Boston) unavoidably car-unfriendly, and try to avoid driving there. Portland OR, not quite.

The thing with Portland compared to all the other cities is that at least my own personal experience it actually does remain a way more functional road based city.  I think a lot of the heat Portland gets for being transit friendly comes from the fact that it tore up the freeway alignment of US 99 to build the Tom McCall Waterfront Park.  I'd argue Portland probably is way more livable city having a large park than a redundant freeway that was more or less duplicated by I-405. 

[Max Rockatansky]

I would imagine a lot of the push back to mass transit comes from the perception that it is being "pushed" on people rather than something people really want.  For example; in the urban areas of California the popular opinion is that the High Speed Rail is a good thing and gives an mass transit alternate to cars or planes.  But when you get to more rural and blue collar areas like the Central Valley it is viewed as urbanists trying to force their views on others.  A similar pattern of competing view points in regards to mass transit can be seen in urban versus rural areas through out much of the United States.  Personally mass transit isn't so much a negative to me, the things that really get me are more new roads opening with tolls and looming threat of "mileage taxes."

But what people want is not necessarily what's best, no? I mean, I love my car on the few days that I drive (I walk to school/work), but I also know that things like buses and trains carry more people per-square foot, and the development associated with those types of transport systems are equally compact.

The way I see it, places like Vacaville or Dixon are growing because of the need for cheap housing, but the need for housing is growing in those areas because we encourage driving. Dixon-area farmers want to drive their cars, not take a damn bus or train, so they vote in favor of politicians (and therefore policies) that encourage that. Problem is that they suddenly decide they hate cars when a developer asks to buy their land to build the tract housing necessary to support those cars that they previously so vehemently supported.

IMO, rural and suburban residents should vote most heavily in favor of density and public transit, because those two things are the only real way to control not just the demand for road space, but also the demand for land for car-centric tract housing.

Regarding the HSR in California it really is polarizing.  Probably best thing that could have been done was chose a coastal route that connected San Francisco Bay to Los Angeles.  Forcing the HSR through San Joaquin Valley just ending up stirring the agricultural folks since they largely didn't want it.  I'd argue that building a smaller HSR between Oakland' and Sacramento would have had more merit that could have shown it was useful as commuting toll.  Spur lines would have been easier to sell if there was an interurban model already functioning.  The trouble in California is that the urban and rural crowds have almost total view points on almost everything.  While there are more people living in urban areas there is a far stronger rural presence than in California than most probably assume.  It probably doesn't help that cities have historically prayed upon rural regions of the state (Owens Valley and Hetch Hetchy come to mind) for infrastructure development. 

But that said it is beyond me why anyone would want commute to the Bay Area from places like; Dixon, Fairfield, Stockton, Tracy or Modesto.  Really it illustrates that there is a problem with reasonable white collar jobs being available in the Central Valley and affordable housing basically not existing in the Bay Area.   

[jeffandnicole]

With mass transit becoming more of the norm than the exception, I am not surprised at all that Seattle is seeing fewer one-person commutes than ever.

They're not.  They're seeing more one person commutes.  If you re-read what Bruce had said, commuting is up basically across all forms of types of commuting except for carpooling.  However, the *percentage* of single trips via car has gone done. 

To put it another way, using numbers (below numbers are for illustrative purposes only):

50,000 people commute via car (50%)
50,000 people commute via bus (50%)
100,000 total.

New figures:

60,000 commute via car (40%)
90,000 commute via bus (60%)
150,000 total.

As seen above, it's not fewer people commuting via car; in fact, it's the exact opposite, and there's more cars on the road.  However, because the number of users taking mass transit rose even higher, the overall percentage of single-car users dropped.

Statistics are fun!