Debate Flares Over Cost of Driving Vs. Metro

• June 29th 2010

by Will Smith

✉️ Want to forward this article? Click here.

A handful of local publications have weighed in on a debate about which commute is cheaper: Metro or driving. The debate started with a post on Washingtonian’s Capital Comment blog, which asserted that driving is the cheaper way to commute from various points outside the District into the Metro Center station downtown. The post was later taken down because of flawed analysis.

This morning, smart growth proponent Greater Greater Washington published a follow-up analysis looking at the same commutes. The analysis resulted in a completely opposite conclusion: driving is roughly twice as expensive as commuting by Metro.

It turns out that quantifying the cost of a commute is pretty tricky. It’s more than just Metro fare versus gasoline and parking. The calculation also has to take into account variables such as the depreciation of your car; the stress caused by sitting for an hour every day in rush hour; the time you can read or do work riding the Metro; safety, etc. GGW’s post has elicited 45 comments (and counting), many of which contain thoughtful critiques of their analysis.

Regardless of how a commute is calculated, one thing is for sure: short ones are better than long ones. As GGW writes, “Shorter commutes, regardless of the mode, will almost always be faster, less expensive, and less stressful than long commutes.”

This article originally published at http://dc.urbanturf.production.logicbrush.com/articles/blog/debate_flares_over_cost_of_driving_vs._metro/2217.