Possibly, but I don't believe that the 99 closure is a good test of this. - We know it's only temporary, and we knew about it ahead of time. It can be easy to

Possibly, but I don't believe that the 99 closure is a good test of this. - We know it's only temporary, and we knew about it ahead of time. It can be easy to put off many types of errands, or work from home (lots of tech workers here), for a little while. That doesn't mean it's sustainable. - They've upped the water taxi routes for the closure (but not buses, AFAICT?), and they're taking hundreds more passengers per day. That's not going to last. Adding more public transit options permanently would be fantastic, but apparently that's not a sustainable option, either. - A lot of commutes are being time-shifted. The rule of thumb I've been hearing is "Double your normal transportation time". That's a significant cost. I know of people leaving home early, and then sitting in the parking lot because their workplace isn't even open yet. There's a huge number of person-hours being wasted just to deal with this added constraint. - I seem to recall hearing that the vehicle accident rate was up this week. Based on the wrecks I've seen and the sirens I've heard (I'm hearing some right now), I believe it. - The Google traffic map only shows speeds down to "Slow" ("stop and go", claims this article), but that still covers a wide spectrum. There's 3-block section near me that Google says is orange-to-red on a typical weekday at 4-6pm, but I avoid it entirely because it literally takes 45 minutes to drive down those 3 blocks. (Personally, I'd call that "gridlock".) Google Traffic is probably designed to tell you what regions to avoid as a driver, not as a statistical analysis of traffic volume. What other real-world costs are not visible on a simple color-coded traffic map?