Living Car Free - Report: Average driver wastes 38 hours per year in traffic

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/traffic.congestion.ap/index.html

Not one mention of the Bicycle as a possible option for commuters. A shame.

Same old story. I think maybe bikes are never mentioned in these because riding bikes doesn't really generate any money for people outside of the bike-bubble. Whereas cars, public transit, etc. all make sure that money gets spread around. Know what I mean?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/traffic.congestion.ap/index.html

Not one mention of the Bicycle as a possible option for commuters. A shame.

Now that would just be unamerican to suggest more intelligent development, cyclo commuting, or anything besides "adding capcity". :rolleyes:

Now that would just be unamerican to suggest more intelligent development, cyclo commuting, or anything besides "adding capcity". :rolleyes:

as soon as we had the chance we took a car to the moon. are we surprised by our car head design and planning?

as soon as we had the chance we took a car to the moon. are we surprised by our car head design and planning?

I am guessing/hoping you are not being completely serious with this example. The lunar astronauts had enough trouble walking in those suits. I am sure they could have ridden bikes in low gravity as well without ANY trouble.

As to the article. It is a shame that they don't even mention bicycles. But at the same the bicycle isnt a cure-all. I know I spend at least that long in traffic per year. Probably more. Nature of the beast. Not all jobs are ones you can bike to.

-D

I am guessing/hoping you are not being completely serious with this example. The lunar astronauts had enough trouble walking in those suits.

when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail. ;)

Same old story. I think maybe bikes are never mentioned in these because riding bikes doesn't really generate any money for people outside of the bike-bubble. Whereas cars, public transit, etc. all make sure that money gets spread around. Know what I mean?

At the same time, that is just a perception. If there were lots of bicycles, all that bicycle money would flow around just as well as car money. It's just who it flows to...:rolleyes:

I am guessing/hoping you are not being completely serious with this example. The lunar astronauts had enough trouble walking in those suits. I am sure they could have ridden bikes in low gravity as well without ANY trouble.

As to the article. It is a shame that they don't even mention bicycles. But at the same the bicycle isnt a cure-all. I know I spend at least that long in traffic per year. Probably more. Nature of the beast. Not all jobs are ones you can bike to.

-D


Once for a thought experiment, I did the math and it seemed reasonable that with the lunar gravity, no air resistance, a good rider, a lunar bicycle with massively infinite gearing and a good long ramp that a bicyclist could achieve liftoff with their own power. I'm sure someone may prove me wrong one day, but its a neat thing to think about.

I know this post was supposed to be pro bicycle but I think I'm going to go by myself a car, or at least a motorcycle.

If all goes well I'll spend 660 hours bicycle commuting in a year.
It would be 293 or less by car.. Even if we double the 38 hours wasted that makes it 369 hours.

I waste 291 hours riding a bicycle a year by commuting by bike :D

It isn't doing me much good healthwise anyways. I just got told I need to go on a low cholesterol diet now even though I'm averaging over 200 miles a week and don't eat fast food. :o

It isn't doing me much good healthwise anyways. I just got told I need to go on a low cholesterol diet now even though I'm averaging over 200 miles a week and don't eat fast food. :o

Eat whole grains and learn to cook locally grown food from scratch (vs. processed, packaged foods) and you'll be OK - no need to diet.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/18/traffic.congestion.ap/index.html

Not one mention of the Bicycle as a possible option for commuters. A shame.
Yes but the key question here you missed: does using a car and wasting 38 hours a year still end up being faster than riding a bicycle would be for these people?
~

At the same time, that is just a perception. If there were lots of bicycles, all that bicycle money would flow around just as well as car money. It's just who it flows to...:rolleyes:It's all about who the money flows to. Think about the drop in mortality rate, decrease in health costs, etc. Think of how much money is saved via the population dropping dead on average 10 years earlier from social security, pensions, etc. Work 'em hard when ya do, and make sure they don't stick around very long after. Profit isn't made from happy people.

Yes but the key question here you missed: does using a car and wasting 38 hours a year still end up being faster than riding a bicycle would be for these people?
~
I can only speak for my own experience, but I've been without a car for 2 years and lost over 50 lbs and returned to a normal blood pressure in the 18 months since I started biking. I really don't do all that much riding beyond my work commute and running errands. I haven't had to join a gym, either. For me, those hours on a bike are not wasted. :)

Yes but the key question here you missed: does using a car and wasting 38 hours a year still end up being faster than riding a bicycle would be for these people?
~
The report on the local news tonight said the average Albuquerque driver spends wastes 36 hours a year in traffic (slightly below the average, I guess) but even so, at worst my commute is about 1 hour and 15 minutes but it's usually more like 40 minutes. By bike alone it would probably take at least 2 and a half hours if I was really fast, probably more than that though.

Bike commuting is great for big cities and short distances. But when you've got to go 30 miles one way, not so much. If I made my commute by bike I'd be leaving the house by 4am and spending 5-6 hours a day on the bike.

Eat whole grains and learn to cook locally grown food from scratch (vs. processed, packaged foods) and you'll be OK - no need to diet.
Funny thing is I changed my diet about a month ago. I didn't eat much if any meat before then but I eat almost all my calories from unprocessed food and whole grains now with no fast food. I wish I had a test 3 months ago to see what my cholesterol was back then.

I took a different route home today from work and sadly it isn't at all bike friendly. For most I don't see bikes doing it, where it can though it is great to see. I think "improving public transportation and changing driving patterns through flexible work schedules, telecommuting and carpooling." especially work schedules/telecommuting could help a great deal

USA Today said the study came up with three solutions.

>>>>>>>
Texas Transportation Institute, a research arm of Texas A&M University. Instead, researchers recommend many steps:

•Businesses can help reduce travel during peak hours by letting employees work earlier or later shifts and offering them other flexible work options.

•Commuters should use the telephone or Internet instead of making some trips, travel in off-peak hours and use public transportation or carpools.

•Transportation agencies must improve the efficiency of existing road and transit systems and add capacity where needed.

>>>>>>>>>>.

First of all, most business operate between 9 to 5 and workers coming in early means they will start before working hours and leave early? Workers starting work late during prime business hours (means lost business) and leaving work late when most activity is over and their services are not needed is also not desirable. Bottom line, flexible work hours are not attractive to business which is why few companies offer them.

Second, the concept of "Working at home" is also not attractive to business. The overwhelming majority of business activity require that you have a physical presense at their location. Public transportation is a good idea but it requires costly investment and remains underfunded in most cities. Cities do not want to invest in these services and prefer to build more highways.

Third, increasing more efficiency by building more roads is a joke.

Same old story. I think maybe bikes are never mentioned in these because riding bikes doesn't really generate any money for people outside of the bike-bubble. Whereas cars, public transit, etc. all make sure that money gets spread around. Know what I mean?

It may have more to do with the fact that for many commuters, a bike will never be a viable option. If you live an hour away from work by car, getting there by bike might be tough. Also most people aren't going to want to cycle to work in a New England winter or an Mississippi summer.

Cycling at night isn't always safe either. I used to commute to work by bike in the UK and it could get scary at times. Cycling works best were the distances aren't large and the weather is reasonable. Public transport is going to be a better alternative for most people assuming the mass transit schedules mesh with work schedules and the home and work locations are close to mass transit.

This is a bike forum but the majority of people living car free in the U.S. are probably living in a dense urban area with pedestrian friendly streets, great mass transit, convenient access to cabs and/or rental cars and most importantly; horrifically expensive parking. In places where the parking is cheap, you are probably going to find more car light than car free people.

Instead of turning into a hampster on a treadmill for 1 hour a day (absolutely pointless), biking is a much better alternative + fresh air instead of stinky air of local gyms.

I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone give up their cars and ride for two hours to work every morning, I am just saying that if at least some, a few, a couple of those motorists who didn't have that far to go, maybe just a couple miles, just got off their lazy ass and rode a bike to work instead, everyone would benefit, including themselves.

The radio reported this morning that people in the DC area waste 60 hours per year in their cars.

It's all about who the money flows to. Think about the drop in mortality rate, decrease in health costs, etc. Think of how much money is saved via the population dropping dead on average 10 years earlier from social security, pensions, etc. Work 'em hard when ya do, and make sure they don't stick around very long after. Profit isn't made from happy people.

Well, let's not forget that the bicycle industry wouldn't generate a tenth of what the car industry generates, even if everyone used bicycles. a bike is much cheaper, requires no fuel and is easy to repair on the cheap. That's the real reason. Plus people are lazy.

Instead of turning into a hampster on a treadmill for 1 hour a day (absolutely pointless), biking is a much better alternative + fresh air instead of stinky air of local gyms.

Funnily enough, this is just the opposite of the reason why I have considered using threadmills for the first time ever (nothing could be sillier than a threadmill). The thing is, I live in Moscow!

Instead of turning into a hampster on a treadmill for 1 hour a day (absolutely pointless), biking is a much better alternative + fresh air instead of stinky air of local gyms.
If you call car exhaust and ozone alert days fresh air I get plenty on my 3 hour round trip bicycle commute. I like the treadmill or elipse because I can watch my favorite show, check my email or have a chat which I guess I could do on a bike too but I might miss my bailout que to avoid an inattentive driver.

I gotta go to the gym for weight work anyhow, by bicycle.

Wow-38 hours only? I tell you, if I take my car to work and back I lose between 2 and 4 hours a day. This is extra time it would take me to get there, as the bike only takes up to an hour. On a yearly basis of a 3 hour average loss this would work out at 5x3x45=675. 675 HOURS LOST. More than my entire holiday entitlement! Mind you, this is urban traffic. But still...675 hours? I'd rather cycle...

The report on the local news tonight said the average Albuquerque driver spends wastes 36 hours a year in traffic (slightly below the average, I guess) but even so, at worst my commute is about 1 hour and 15 minutes but it's usually more like 40 minutes. By bike alone it would probably take at least 2 and a half hours if I was really fast, probably more than that though.

Bike commuting is great for big cities and short distances. But when you've got to go 30 miles one way, not so much. If I made my commute by bike I'd be leaving the house by 4am and spending 5-6 hours a day on the bike.
The most fuel-efficient vehicle you can get right now is a gas-engine motorized bicycle, and many will top out near or over 30 mph... IF they're legal where you live (which I believe they are in NM).

-----

The motorized-bike forum here only seems to focus on electric bikes, which is rather an uninformed shame.
Electric-powered bicycles are impractical for the same exact reasons that electric cars are--relatively high costs and low operating ranges. The only type of electric vehicle that has ever gained widespread acceptance is trains--which run off of overhead wires, and so aren't limited by battery capacities.
~

The most fuel-efficient vehicle you can get right now is a gas-engine motorized bicycle, and many will top out near or over 30 mph... IF they're legal where you live (which I believe they are in NM).

-----

The motorized-bike forum here only seems to focus on electric bikes, which is rather an uninformed shame.
Electric-powered bicycles are impractical for the same exact reasons that electric cars are--relatively high costs and low operating ranges. The only type of electric vehicle that has ever gained widespread acceptance is trains--which run off of overhead wires, and so aren't limited by battery capacities.
~
I'd love so much to have a Tesla Roadster, because it's fast and green and good looking. If only I had the bux. :o

As far as a motorized bike goes, I'd probably have to go with a scooter or small motorcycle if I was going to do that because of power issues (I've got to go up a long, steep hill with other cars as part of my commute) and also because of the often poor road quality. How well do bike wheels and tires handle a loaded commuter bike with an IC engine? It's got to put a lot of stress on them, right?

I'm not opposed to the idea, really, but in order to get rid of the car, I'd need a much more capable machine than a moped or I'd need to live much closer to the university. I'm not sure I can afford either at the moment.

A friend of mine lives in Surrey, B.C. and works in Vancouver. His commute is at least one hour each way (by car or truck) and he does it every day. Because he's in construction work and has to haul tools and supplies, he isn't able to use transit. He uses his commute to listen to tapes or CDs of material he's studying for his own use. Although his commute is annoying, he's doing his best not to waste his time while he's in the vehicle.

Anyone wasted 38 hours per year in traffic delays wasn't driving along any of Philadelphia's popular routes.

38 hours per month, is more like it! Philadelphia's popular routes from suburbs to city are jam-packed every morning, and the opposite direction will be jammed every evening. The counter-commute traffic is pretty terrible too.

At the same time, that is just a perception. If there were lots of bicycles, all that bicycle money would flow around just as well as car money. It's just who it flows to...:rolleyes:

Interesting thing though is that I spend about $100 a year on bike parts. When I was a driver, I spent that much or more a month for gas and insurance, and I believe that was way cheap by comparison. Cars, because they depreciate so rapidly, require constant (expensive) maintenance, and require black gold to grace their insides are an economy unto their own. When you talk about about people switching from an auto to a bicycle is a paradigm shift for the entire economy, going from 1/4 - 1/3 of your pay for transportation costs to 1/100th of your pay. The entire economy will take a hit and it is tough for people to change away from that reality. Everyone from road workers, car manufacturers, oil workers, toll booth operators, gas station attendants, insurance salespeople, etc. will have to restructure their lives essentially. Economies don't do that overnight. Also, I am certain that the Ford Motor Co. and Standard Oil (they are still around right?) will do everything in their power to keep us on the automobile industrial complex crack rock that we have been huffing on for so long. It is in their best interest and the perceived best interest of everyone who is wrapped up in the process.

-Scott

I'm not opposed to the idea, really, but in order to get rid of the car, I'd need a much more capable machine than a moped or I'd need to live much closer to the university. I'm not sure I can afford either at the moment.

Ah... there we have it. People think they can't afford to live closer. So they mover farther away and spend money to commute. When oil (gas) is cheap, it's workable for them... now... everybody tries to do that, and suddenly you have insane traffic (DC, Philidelphia, etc....) .... Now triple (or more!) the price of gas and see how the economics work out...

I've known people that move far out to the suburbs and end up having to buy a second car for the wife... then a third for the kids, because nothing is close enough to ride or walk to... now count in the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance.... Wow... the economics suddenly don't look so good. Now add traffic jams and time spent idling in traffic... oh, and don't forget that gym membership because nobody is getting any excercise....

I think part of the 'Living Car Free' philosophy is people living in smaller, more dense communities, where much more is within walking/biking distance.

Personally, I was driving a '79 Chevy Blazer 4x4 before I went car free. I spent about $7,000 for car expenses the last year that I was driving all the time. Went to a bike... in the last year and a half I've spent less than $1,000 on bike equipment / transportation expenses...

With an income of around $30,000 I just gave myself a 20% raise. (More... I don't have to pay taxes on the 'extra' money!)

I think part of the 'Living Car Free' philosophy is people living in smaller, more dense communities, where much more is within walking/biking distance.

It's a nice model in theory and it's been discussed a lot out here in an effort to preserve agricultural land from sprawl.

But the reality is there will always be those who want a country residential lifestyle with a large yard or small farm and some seclusion from their neighbours. Others will buy large houses on large urban properties. Both of these trends will contribute to sprawl and both are happening around me. If country residential was a fringe trend, it wouldn't be an issue. But when this is seen as the ideal, it can result in some messy developments.

I'm also seeing communities around me where businesses have set up along the highway. As a result, some communities are ideal for motorists and awkward for any other form of transportation.

To promote compact and dense communities will require some creative marketing. It will mean showing the public that densification can be an enjoyable lifestyle.

If I had my choice I'd live in a pretty small house near the downtown area... I need just enough yard to give my dogs a little room to play and to grow a little garden. Preferably in an area where you know all your neighbors.

That's the biggest thing I don't like about where I live now. I live in a condo complex... there are 24 units in each building, and at least 7 buildings... But the only neighbor's I really know are the dog owners. I run into them while we're out walking our dogs. The others? I know the people living in 3 of the units that share a stairwell with me... but just barely. We say hi once in a while, while they're on their way from the car to the condo or from the condo to the car. That's it.

I really like the cohousing idea (http://cohousing.org/default.aspx)... it's awesome. Maybe someday I can find a house in one.

If I had my choice I'd live in a pretty small house near the downtown area... I need just enough yard to give my dogs a little room to play and to grow a little garden. Preferably in an area where you know all your neighbors.


That's the exact setting in which I live, and I LOVE it. I can walk downtown, yet I have a small yard for my dogs, parks for any future kids, and my bike commute to work is 8 minutes. I have the best neighbors in the world, which was my main concern before moving in. I moved to this area when it was more than a little sketchy, but all of my neighbors have lived in their houses for at least 15 years, and we all look out for one another. My lot is only 3,600 square feet, and I know that kind of density wouldn't be the first choice for many people, but fences work wonders.

.

To promote compact and dense communities will require some creative marketing. It will mean showing the public that densification can be an enjoyable lifestyle.

Shh! We don't want all those suburban riff-raff moving into our dense downtown neighbourhoods :D.

I like the neighbours I have already, those 'country living folks' can have their empty, lonely spaces any time.

Shh! We don't want all those suburban riff-raff moving into our dense downtown neighbourhoods :D.

I like the neighbours I have already, those 'country living folks' can have their empty, lonely spaces any time.
I love that you said that. When I start arguing with a suburbanite about the great aspects of living downtown, I hear their silly responses, based very little on anything they've actually experienced, I become more and more convinced that I'm very happy they live where they do and I live where I do.

If I had my choice I'd live in a pretty small house near the downtown area... I need just enough yard to give my dogs a little room to play and to grow a little garden. Preferably in an area where you know all your neighbors.
[....]
I really like the cohousing idea (http://cohousing.org/default.aspx)... it's awesome. Maybe someday I can find a house in one.

You could think about living in an inner-city neighborhood. Most cities have areas of beautiful old homes that can be bought for a song and fixed up to their former glory. Since crime rates are generally MUCH lower than they were 15 or 20 years ago, some of these old neighborhoods make great places to live, even for young families. (school quality can be a big problem if you have kids, however.)

Co-housing--there are several of these projects where I live. Sometimes they rent units to people who don't want to invest, or can't afford to. I noticed that some of the co-housing projects in my city are listed on Wikimapia (http://wikimapia.org/), so that might be a good place to find out what's available.

It isn't doing me much good healthwise anyways. I just got told I need to go on a low cholesterol diet now even though I'm averaging over 200 miles a week and don't eat fast food. :o

Biking doesn't burn many calories per mile. There are health benefits, but biking works partly because it isn't terribly strenuous.

I used to enjoy driving and over time found that besides making my hips hurt like a muttha I was a total stress case by the time I got to work... a 45 -60 minute drive depending on traffic and weather.

My ride to work is never more than 35 minutes and I always get to work with a smile and no time riding is ever wasted.

bah, i drive 14+ hours a day (on call truck driving), average 1000kms per trip. I get PAID to sit in that truck, regardless of traffic delays (and believe me, in the Lower Mainland there are aplenty ....ie: 4 lanes into 1 lan. for the bridges...etc.)

i have a onboard fridge, CD/mp3, company paid cell and one helluva nice truck to drive..... air cushion seating, heat/air conditioningetc.

I could really care less about delays in traffic. By the time i'm done and in my own truck back home, rush hour is over and its smooth sailing.

Biking doesn't burn many calories per mile. There are health benefits, but biking works partly because it isn't terribly strenuous.

Huh?

40 calories per mile is what cycling burns and that's pretty good. I burn 600 to 800 almost every day and I love it. How many who sit on a bucket seat could say the same? Riding 10 mph to the DQ isn't going to do you much good, but real transportation cycling on a daily basis will make you lean, fit and strong. This I know!

Biking doesn't burn many calories per mile. There are health benefits, but biking works partly because it isn't terribly strenuous.
I suppose breathing hard and dripping sweat is not terribly strenuous?

Biking doesn't burn many calories per mile. There are health benefits, but biking works partly because it isn't terribly strenuous.
Strenuous enough for me to lose about 40 lbs in the last year. :)

I suppose breathing hard and dripping sweat is not terribly strenuous?

depends on what kind of shape your in and how fast you go

I can ride all day at 15mph and not sweat and use roughly 15-20 calories per mile, or ride at 25mph and sweat and use 35 cals per mile.

depends on what kind of shape your in and how fast you go

I can ride all day at 15mph and not sweat and use roughly 15-20 calories per mile, or ride at 25mph and sweat and use 35 cals per mile.

I agree. One great thing about both cycling and walking is that they can be adjusted to individual fitness levels as well as the individual's need for speed. I encourage people who are very unfit to ride because even if they ride very slowly, they probably walk even slower. If you can't make a little speed, carfree probably won't work for you and you'll go back to driving. Or at least taking the bus.

However, I disagree with your calorie-burning estimates. A member of this forum (SSP) writes programs for tracking exercise. He says that cycling burns about 40 calories per mile, regardless of speed or intensity. Of course the calories per hour will vary a lot more. If you pedal 10 mph its 400 cal/hour, but 800 if you pedal 20 mph. (There's a lot more info on this controversial issue in the Training and Nutrition (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335527) forum.

However, I disagree with your calorie-burning estimates. A member of this forum (SSP) writes programs for tracking exercise. He says that cycling burns about 40 calories per mile, regardless of speed or intensity. Of course the calories per hour will vary a lot more. If you pedal 10 mph its 400 cal/hour, but 800 if you pedal 20 mph.[/SIZE]

he should visit analyticcycling.com or is it .org? anyway, he should go there and learn some basic physics

aero drag increases with the square of velocity, mechanical friction is linear

he should visit analyticcycling.com or is it .org? anyway, he should go there and learn some basic physics

aero drag increases with the square of velocity, mechanical friction is linear

I added a link to a forum discussion of the "40 calorie per mile myth" (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335527). A lot of these points are covered in mind-numbing detail. The conclusion I came away with after some additional research is that 40 cal/mile is a good rule of thumb for most riders. What scientists call a "quick and dirty measure."

I added a link to a forum discussion of the "40 calorie per mile myth" (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=335527). A lot of these points are covered in mind-numbing detail. The conclusion I came away with after some additional research is that 40 cal/mile is a good rule of thumb for most riders. What scientists call a "quick and dirty measure."

for your average fat american rec rider, ya its probably not too far off, although many of them can't sustain that for very long