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

[Mike Dahmus]

I always get a bee in my bonnet over this one. Dan is definitely moving in 
the right direction; but I'd go even further; most cyclists have no clue 
about suburban economic reality as it applies to transportation. In 
reality, you only ever really save money on cars if you're one of the 
trivially small number of people who can get rid of an automobile 
completely (become a one-car family if you're a central-city couple with 
the best job locations; for instance).

One of these days I'll turn this into a FAQ. But I'm so so lazy...

To whit:

At 07:09 AM 11/25/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>>"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.

In fact, nearly none of us in traditional jobs EVER have the option of 
working less for less income. EVER. This is a red herring. I've offered to 
accept a lower salary for more vacation several times and it's never even 
been an option. (I even went lower than strict parity would suggest; but 
corporate policy is not equipped to deal with people who are willing to do 
this). It is not surprising that cycling commuters are disproportionately 
represented in industries (such as academia) where this is sometimes an 
option. It is surprising that those (hopefully disproportionately educated) 
people don't realize that their employment situation is atypical.

>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.

The start of this is correct (although most cyclists don't get it) but the 
second half is incorrect. The mileage-based depreciation on cars is vastly 
overstated by the fact that the IRS tracks it that way (but they do that 
with a lot of things; it's the only way to write off a capital expense over 
N years - it doesn't mean it reflects actual marketplace reality). Those of 
us who have bought and sold multiple cars know that the mileage you put on 
your car, if not truly excessive, makes next to zero difference in the 
amount of money you'll get when you sell or trade it in.

My estimate is that the depreciation of a car is 99% time and 1% mileage. 
If you drive your car 30,000 miles a year, you'll see an impact from those 
miles. However, the difference between 5,000; 10,000; and 15,000 miles is 
virtually nothing.

(I almost traded in my convertible for a new Prius last Thursday but it 
turned out the car they had in wasn't the package we had wanted; the impact 
of my low mileage was zero according to the Blue Book).

>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.

Yes.

>    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.

However, don't forget that the fixed cost of insurance is nearly as high 
for the Civic you drive 3,000 miles a year as it is for your neighbor's new 
Camry they drive 20,000 miles a year. Last I checked, neither State Farm 
nor USAA offered mileage-based insurance.

>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.....

The SUV craze shows this, if you're cynical. Giving more of the benefit of 
the doubt; it's also probable that most commuters think they're being 
safest for everyone if they do what everybody else does and drive.


---
Mike Dahmus
mdahmus 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20031125/6e2fdcfb/attachment.html