This question of getting out of a car and taking transit is an active one with a few friends of mine as one of them is considering switching her commute.
She works centrally, lives in the Westheights area. Her husband works from home, and they're pondering divesting themselves of the older of their two cars.
For her, the equation is that she'd expect to still drive around 3 days a week, and take a ~55 minute transit trip the rest of the time. For that, the savings come from avoiding having to maintain or replace the second car.
I live centrally, and I work in the Eastbridge area. My wife also works from home but needs frequent access to the car. For me, the equation is a 45 minute trip, 4 days a week (on average). We avoid paying for a new second car while we squeeze extra life out of the first.
Contrast: Another friend said he calculated the cost/benefit of taking transit. For him, it worked out to three hours of "overtime" per day where he'd be paid $0.68 per hour. His assumptions were different, of course. A much longer trip, and he wouldn't be divesting himself of the vehicle. Whereas in my situation, with about 50 minutes a day of additional travel time, I "earn" closer to $30 an hour and that's before I even consider marginal income tax rates (so let's call it $50 per hour of additional travel time I endure.)
There's more to it than that, of course (both pro and con) but the point is this: if you're in a situation where you can divest a vehicle, there are huge savings to be had-- very reasonable to assume that unless you're a smart used-vehicle shopper (i.e. pay less for a car that is not a lemon), you're saving yourself around $5K a year of after-tax money if you trade car loans, insurance and gas for a bus pass.
But if you don't see yourself without that car (and its costs), there's very little benefit to be had, considering how much of the other costs of using that car (roads, parking) are heavily externalized.
Edit: And in addition, if you're adding three hours of travel to your day, it probably doesn't matter what the savings is. You'll only do it if you have to.
She works centrally, lives in the Westheights area. Her husband works from home, and they're pondering divesting themselves of the older of their two cars.
For her, the equation is that she'd expect to still drive around 3 days a week, and take a ~55 minute transit trip the rest of the time. For that, the savings come from avoiding having to maintain or replace the second car.
I live centrally, and I work in the Eastbridge area. My wife also works from home but needs frequent access to the car. For me, the equation is a 45 minute trip, 4 days a week (on average). We avoid paying for a new second car while we squeeze extra life out of the first.
Contrast: Another friend said he calculated the cost/benefit of taking transit. For him, it worked out to three hours of "overtime" per day where he'd be paid $0.68 per hour. His assumptions were different, of course. A much longer trip, and he wouldn't be divesting himself of the vehicle. Whereas in my situation, with about 50 minutes a day of additional travel time, I "earn" closer to $30 an hour and that's before I even consider marginal income tax rates (so let's call it $50 per hour of additional travel time I endure.)
There's more to it than that, of course (both pro and con) but the point is this: if you're in a situation where you can divest a vehicle, there are huge savings to be had-- very reasonable to assume that unless you're a smart used-vehicle shopper (i.e. pay less for a car that is not a lemon), you're saving yourself around $5K a year of after-tax money if you trade car loans, insurance and gas for a bus pass.
But if you don't see yourself without that car (and its costs), there's very little benefit to be had, considering how much of the other costs of using that car (roads, parking) are heavily externalized.
Edit: And in addition, if you're adding three hours of travel to your day, it probably doesn't matter what the savings is. You'll only do it if you have to.