BIKE: Back to Illich and the hours it takes to travel by car

[Dan Connelly]

> "Another way to convert money into time is to figure out the average 
> speed of a car after accounting for the time needed to earn money to 
> pay for it. Average speeds for urban autos is 25mph (11, see website). 
> Based on a 7-mile one-way commute, that takes 140 hours a year. Once we 
> add in the 517 hours required to pay for the car [from the table 
> above], we have 657 hours total, which brings our average speed down to 
> 5.3mph -- slower than a bicycle."
> 

I like this analysis.  However, calculations like this always invite comment.
A few:

1. Many people don't have the option to work less for less income.  This,
    however, is true only in the short term.  In long term, they can save
    and retire early, for example, so spending less does in fact translate
    into time in the long-run.

2. Many people won't sell their cars, so including fixed capital costs in
    the marginal cost of driving may be misleading.  However, this isn't
    strictly true, as cars contain a strong mileage-based depreciation
    component.  Additionally, driving less results in less need for
    enhanced car features.   So capital costs are, to some degree, marginal.

3. It's unfair to use an average car, without using an average bike.  My
    3 bikes sum to around $5k in capital (one mountain bike, one road bike, one
    commuting bike) for 3 bikes.   This is a non-trivial investment.  If you're
    going to use a low-end ($100) commuting bike, use a low-end ($2K?) commuting
    car.

    For me, if I was going to get a car, it'll be a <=$3k used Honda Civic,
    or similar (high-end example: http://austin.craigslist.org/car/18860321.html @ $3.6k;
    low-end example: http://austin.craigslist.org/car/19734903.html @ $1.1k)
    Thus this analysis is only partially applicable to my
    decision.  Getting a Porche or SUV or pick-up (in many cases)
    is for recreation, not utility.

    Any analyis of this sort should acknowledge that the choice isn't binary
    (cheap bike, average car).  It's more of a sliding scale
    (cheap bike, expensive bike, cheap car, average car, expensive car).

Additionally, the analysis omits externalized costs.  (for example,
a fractional probability of killing or maiming a pedestrian, times
the social cost of killing or maiming a pedestrian). Only
a selfish commuter fails to include these in cost-benefit calculus.
Unfortunately, I'm cynical enough to believe most commuters are selfish.....

Dan