Seattle sees nation’s biggest drop in solo car commuters

[Rothman]

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!

*sheds a tear since it has been a long time since he's seen a good explanation of statistics*

[GaryV]

As popularized (but not originated) by Mark Twain:  "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Bruce]

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.

There is no congestion tax at the moment, and so far only the SR 520 Floating Bridge, the SR 99 Tunnel, the I-405/SR 167 HOT lanes, and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge are tolled. We do need a congestion charge for the downtown area to discourage driving in on weekdays, since it makes no sense for the vast majority of road users going to office jobs who aren't carrying around tools in a work vehicle.

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!

Yep. We've already hit capacity for single-person drivers, so it makes sense that people are choosing transit. Over 100,000 people have moved to Seattle proper in the past decade and the number isn't slowing down yet. Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.

[PHLBOS]

Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.

Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.

[jakeroot]

Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.

Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.

Really depends on the area. Around the Seattle area, very few are vocally opposed to land-taking, and NIMBYs are few in number. Nevertheless, mass transit is certainly far less destructive than a new freeway or road, just in terms of the narrower ROW. Where mass transit becomes more destructive is in new building construction around the station areas. Many older single-family buildings, and the families within them, have been removed to make way for transit-oriented development. They are compensated accordingly, but there's no denying that freeways usually produce less gentrification, because they more often encourage new construction in far-away lands.

[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.

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.

Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.

As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least, faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.

[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.

Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.

As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least, faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.

The trouble with Fresno and Bakersfield is that they essentially are the middle ground between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.  It usually takes three hours maximum to reach the center of the major cities in both metro areas by car from Fresno/Bakersfield.  The trouble with using Pacheco Pass instead of Altamont or the Carquinez Straight is that it bypasses the Tracy/Modesto/Stockton traffic which might use it for Bay Area commutes.  At least if Oakland-Sacramento was used as an example corridor the median of I-80 could have been used as much as possible which would have driven costs down.  Lancaster would benefit greatly but it also one of the more expensive sections of the HSR planned, the terrain around Newhall Pass requires a lot of tunneling.  What's odd now is that project is scaled back to Bakersfield-Merced but hasn't been cancelled.  The current governor probably is kicking the issue down the line to whoever is next in office.  The irony is that the Bakersfield-Merced corridor was the place that would likely use the HSR the least given the Amtrak Service is already pretty good and probably will cost fat less.  As much as cities like Fresno get ragged on for mass transit there is a very long standing bus service that date backs to the Streetcar era and at least the BNSF mainline gets secondary use with Amtrak.   

[Bruce]

Instead of trying to build wider and wider freeways (for the most part), we chose wisely to invest in transit that requires less space and doesn't worsen our pollution problems.

Do keep in mind that transit projects have their own NIMBY issues & can involve land takings as well.

For a subway (like the ones built for University and Northgate Link), the property takings have been one or two square blocks needed for each station box, along with some miscellaneous properties for vents and support systems like electrical substations.

A freeway is at least one to two blocks wide and requires a continuous right-of-way, since tunneling is prohibitively expensive at that width.

Most of the NIMBY opposition to transit is usually based in nonsense, like not wanting to give up a lane for buses (which move the most people on the corridor) or trying to prevent upzones around transit.

[Rothman]

No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.

[DTComposer]

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.

Oakland - Sacramento HSR would have been lovely. That could have spurred some serious development in both centers, and I think both would have been more welcoming than folks in the San Joaquin Valley. But my best guess is that the state of California wanted to spur more growth in areas like Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale. The latter of the three would certainly benefit from a complete HSR, since Palmdale has some of the highest commute times in the entire country. I don't know what conditions are like on the 14 Freeway during rush hour, but I'm sure those residents would appreciate a legit alternative.

As I stated in my original post, those in the Valley really should be in favor of more projects like HSR, since it wouldn't encourage, at the very least, faster suburban growth, the very thing gobbling up all the desperately-needed farms.

The trouble with Fresno and Bakersfield is that they essentially are the middle ground between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.  It usually takes three hours maximum to reach the center of the major cities in both metro areas by car from Fresno/Bakersfield.  The trouble with using Pacheco Pass instead of Altamont or the Carquinez Straight is that it bypasses the Tracy/Modesto/Stockton traffic which might use it for Bay Area commutes.  At least if Oakland-Sacramento was used as an example corridor the median of I-80 could have been used as much as possible which would have driven costs down.  Lancaster would benefit greatly but it also one of the more expensive sections of the HSR planned, the terrain around Newhall Pass requires a lot of tunneling.  What's odd now is that project is scaled back to Bakersfield-Merced but hasn't been cancelled.  The current governor probably is kicking the issue down the line to whoever is next in office.  The irony is that the Bakersfield-Merced corridor was the place that would likely use the HSR the least given the Amtrak Service is already pretty good and probably will cost fat less.  As much as cities like Fresno get ragged on for mass transit there is a very long standing bus service that date backs to the Streetcar era and at least the BNSF mainline gets secondary use with Amtrak.   

I was (and am) as big a proponent of HSR as anyone out there (and would be a frequent user), but the planning and execution thus far have been woeful, to say the least. I always figured the powers that be realized that they couldn't get statewide support without connecting both north and south, using the argument that it would relieve the congested air corridor and serve the "underserved" Central Valley cities (in quotes because I'm not sure that they are actually underserved by rail).

If, five or seven years ago, the HSR authority realized what a mess it was in and re-dedicated itself to focusing on existing rail corridors in the north (Caltrain, ACE, Capitals, San Joaquins) and south (Metrolink, Pacific Surfliner, Coaster) - getting those to Acela-like speeds and frequencies and making sure "last mile" connections with light rail/bus service was simple and robust - then I would bet after five to ten years of that service you could make a much more compelling and popular argument for connecting the two for a full statewide HSR. As it is, we're getting the worst of all possible scenarios - behind schedule, over budget, and only on the section guaranteed to have the lowest ridership, ensuring popular support for future construction will be minimized.

[jakeroot]

No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.

My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least. From my experience, gentrification is one of the bigger issues affecting our cities, not the demolition of a few homes to make way for a metro station or new freeway ramp. Unlike expropriation, where compensation is not only direct, but given straight away, gentrification rarely helps those that aren't in owner-occupied housing.

[Rothman]

Your experience must be limited.

ROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays. Heck, right now I know of a case where there's a guy who says he's all for being bought out...but in actuality he hired three separate lawyers to handle the three adjacent parcels related to the project.  Aw, but he's not a NIMBY, right?  On any day in NY, there are tens of projects (out of the few hundred let a year here) held up by these kinds of issues.

Sure, the fair market clauses have made things more tolerable and not everyone throws a fit when eminent domain comes their way, but when it comes down to it, there are a whole lot of people out there that drag out the negotiations because they would have rather not have had DOT come a-knockin'.

(personal opinion emphasized)

[Bruce]

Property acquisition has indeed been a huge challenge for our light rail expansion. Lynnwood Link had to be redesigned to fit within budget because the cost of property had increased way higher than anyone had expected in the last decade (between the estimate being made in 2008 and the acquisition starting in 2018). It's made a bit harder by the fact that we have to find reasonably similar housing within a certain radius for relocated residents, which is a tough ask in a housing market as thoroughly molten as Seattle's.

[Duke87]

No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.

My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least.

Yeah this is one way in which the Seattle area is very different from the northeast. Here, eminent domain of any residential property gets touchy even if you're only talking about taking a corner of someone's yard. If you're talking about needing to demolish the home, forget it, it's not happening.

[jakeroot]

No one's a NIMBY until they come for your house.

My experience has been that many folks are actually quite happy to accept buyouts, and that NIMBYs are rarely those directly affected by construction. Nothing wrong with advocacy groups, of course, but true NIMBYism isn't what is was, outside the New England area at least.

Yeah this is one way in which the Seattle area is very different from the northeast. Here, eminent domain of any residential property gets touchy even if you're only talking about taking a corner of someone's yard. If you're talking about needing to demolish the home, forget it, it's not happening.

I should probably rephrase my comment. It's never easy to just go up and take property. The costs alone make it very difficult. But going by Bruce's comments, taking property is far from impossible around here. It can be just as slow as other parts of the country, but it's not like it won't happen because people start tying themselves to trees and bulldozers.

Your experience must be limited.

Well, of course. But my comment was simply there to emphasize that property acquisition alone is not necessarily a huge point of contention for Seattle residents. Many, from my readings, are more concerned about being priced out of their neighborhoods because of new development that itself sprung-up because of "something" (new road, new transit route, etc). Ultimately, many of these people may end up facing eviction when a developer buys the land out from under them, but that's different from eminent domain. Sure, finding new housing for the displaced residents is hard enough, but who knows how many others will be "naturally" displaced by the higher land values associated with close access to a metro line.

I don't know exactly what the situation is in parts of the Northeast, but around here, metro lines tend to spur new development. While a transit agency may need to acquire 15 properties along a ten mile stretch, and parts of maybe 150 others, it's the development that [usually] follows the construction of the metro line that ends up having a biggest effect on the neighborhood.

[Duke87]

I should probably rephrase my comment. It's never easy to just go up and take property. The costs alone make it very difficult. But going by Bruce's comments, taking property is far from impossible around here. It can be just as slow as other parts of the country, but it's not like it won't happen because people start tying themselves to trees and bulldozers.

More like "because people start hiring lawyers and holding up the project in court for years until eventually the political will behind it dies and/or the state realizes they no longer have the money for it".

I do think it also makes a difference that the northeast isn't really growing much, generally, and is full of a lot of people who want nothing more than to preserve the status quo of development forever. So it's easy to get away with an attitude of "screw it, this isn't worth the agita, let's just go with the no-build alternative".  In a rapidly growing metro area, you're naturally going to have a much greater sense of need among the populace that something needs to happen and the no-build alternative isn't acceptable. Because of the rapid growth you also have a lower percentage of the population with deep and longstanding emotional attachments to their specific dwelling unit and the specific character of the neighborhood.

I don't know exactly what the situation is in parts of the Northeast, but around here, metro lines tend to spur new development. While a transit agency may need to acquire 15 properties along a ten mile stretch, and parts of maybe 150 others, it's the development that [usually] follows the construction of the metro line that ends up having a biggest effect on the neighborhood.

Oh the situation is the same here.

But this is also then what makes proposals to extend service to places that do not already have it often politically problematic. Eminent domain or no eminent domain, you'll get people complaining that they like their neighborhood the way it is and they don't want it altered by bringing rapid transit service into it. A proposal to extend the E train into Southeastern Queens back in the late 80s was killed in part by residents along the proposed routing who complained that the curbside parking on their streets would get clogged up by people driving there to catch the train.

[PHLBOS]

ROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays.

Heck, even when a transit expansion plan involves utilizing an existing rail right-of-way (i.e. no land takings); such has been met with NIMBY opposition due to concerns (I won't go into whether such are valid or not) of others invading their area.  An example of this was when NJ Transit's River Line was first proposed; such was met with that type of opposition despite that much of the line was utilizing an existing railroad bed & right-of-way.  It's since been built & active for about 15 years.

Transit-NIMBY opposition isn't just limited to rail/subway/trolley expansion.  If one proposes a bus line linking a well-to-do town with its more urban (and less well-off) abutters; watch out... see Wellesley, MA.  Such only has one commuter rail station and that's it.  One Wellesley resident actually told me that one reason why there are no MBTA bus routes that actually bordered along the lines of racism; and Wellesley is a politically liberal town.

[US 89]

ROW acquisitions are one of the biggest and most frequent causes for project schedule delays.

Heck, even when a transit expansion plan involves utilizing an existing rail right-of-way (i.e. no land takings); such has been met with NIMBY opposition due to concerns (I won't go into whether such are valid or not) of others invading their area.  An example of this was when NJ Transit's River Line was first proposed; such was met with that type of opposition despite that much of the line was utilizing an existing railroad bed & right-of-way.  It's since been built & active for about 15 years.

Transit-NIMBY opposition isn't just limited to rail/subway/trolley expansion.  If one proposes a bus line linking a well-to-do town with its more urban (and less well-off) abutters; watch out... see Wellesley, MA.  Such only has one commuter rail station and that's it.  One Wellesley resident actually told me that one reason why there are no MBTA bus routes that actually bordered along the lines of racism; and Wellesley is a politically liberal town.

Transit-NIMBYism is a big thing in some of the areas near Salt Lake and is why TRAX will never extend north of downtown. Several years ago a line running north from Salt Lake to Centerville was proposed, but the south Davis County residents came out in full force against it because they couldn't stomach the idea of poorer people from Salt Lake City in their towns. The current plan now calls for bus rapid transit along US 89 up to Bountiful, but I would be surprised if such a thing happened within the next 25 years.