Trouble with math

From reading other blogs, it does seem bloggers have a habit of overreacting to factual or other errors in newspaper writing. I'd like to avoid that stereotype but there was something that I simply couldn't let slide.

Bartley Kives is one of the better writers at the Free Press. He used to be the guy on the music/entertainment side of things and now does a solid job working the city hall beat, including reporting on some of our esteemed mayor's shadier dealings.

But it seems he has a bit of difficulty with numbers. From an otherwise reasonable article about gas prices and walking, he offers the following analysis:

According to city research conducted in 2005, the average Winnipegger commutes 11.5 kilometres every day. And according to 2006 census data collected by Statistics Canada, that one-way trip takes an average of about 30 minutes.

Even though those two statistics were not intended to be taken together, the implication is kind of ugly: We appear to be moving around three kilometres an hour, which suggests a lot of us spend a ridiculous amount of time idling in rush hour.

The first paragraph leaves a bit of confusion as to whether we are taking about a 11.5 kilometre trip taking 30 minutes, or a 30 minute commute covering half that distance, but neither set of numbers should produce the highlighted conclusion Kives comes to.

Try this: 11.5 km / 0.5 hours = 23 kph

Or, at worst: (11.5 km / 2) / 0.5 hours = 11.5 kph.

This would be a rather unimportant error, if he didn't rely entirely upon the result to support the following argument:

Three kph is slower than the average human being saunters, let alone actually walks on the way to work.

I'd like to think I'm a big supporter of active modes of transportation, but even I wouldn't argue that walking is faster than driving.