Living Car Free - Dollar-value of the benefits of car ownership

I'll go zeppinger one better. EVERYBODY would be better off if most people didn't own cars. They would be healthier, wealthier, and especially happier.

Universal freedom from cars is a wonderful social goal for the world to undertake. It can't happen tomorrow, but those of us who are carfree and carlite (including ILTB) are helping it to happen faster.

Zeppinger, how is you travels coming? Did you make it to San Diego? I talked to someone from Olympia last Wednesday and he was on his fifth bike since leaving Washington.

If I had a dollar for every time that tired old question gets asked....

Why is it so hard for people to understand the different between personal transport and commercial/industrial applications?

I'm not saying we shouldn't make the most responsible choices possible for commercial and industrial uses, of course - what I am saying (and is of course obvious) is that there are completely separate topics.So, the food a cyclist needs isn't on average grown, processed, packaged, transported, etc... Using about seven calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy? Regardless of what form of transportation people use, on average there are still some associated lifecycle energy uses/emissions and so on...

(And I see it as very ignorant to focus on fossil fuels here - I certainly didn't mention them.)Considering that on average a cyclist at 15mph needs ~10Wh/mile at the pedals, ~40Wh/mile in terms of food, and ~280Wh/mile in terms of fossil fuel energy required to grow, process, and so on, that food, if you think it's ignorant to not include that in considering how "green" a mode of transportation is, I imagine a PR firm concerned with greenwashing would love to have you on their team. ;)

We can't just ignore industry or private applications if we're going to look at whether something is "green" in any serious way. Otoh if all we're doing is environangelism, giving pats on our backs because we can haz bicycle, then sure, don't bother looking at anything besides some narrow view. Bottled water? Totally "green", I mean, water is all natural, therefore bottle water must be "green". Coal power? Why not! Coal comes from "Mother Earth", therefore it must be "green" too... :twitchy:

Otoh if all we're doing is environangelism, giving pats on our backs because we can haz bicycle, then sure, don't bother looking at anything besides some narrow view. Bottled water? Totally "green", I mean, water is all natural, therefore bottle water must be "green". Coal power? Why not! Coal comes from "Mother Earth", therefore it must be "green" too... :twitchy:

Just what are you trying to say?

Zeppinger, how is you travels coming? Did you make it to San Diego? I talked to someone from Olympia last Wednesday and he was on his fifth bike since leaving Washington.

That trip ended in December and yes it was amazing! I made it with just one bike. The only repairs I made en route were 10-15 flat repairs, a new rear tire (side wall blow out), a new chain (the old one was OLD even at the start of the trip) and a rear cassette which was also pretty used to begin with.

I just moved to Korea a few days ago and am already working on getting set for a cross Asia tour!
Here are a few pics from PCH!
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2220.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2425.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2258.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2928.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2748.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2719.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2646.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2236_1.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2369_1.jpg
http://i719.photobucket.com/albums/ww199/eglayzer/DSCN2622_1.jpg

Hmm, old thread being revived from death.


So, the food a cyclist needs isn't on average grown, processed, packaged, transported, etc... Using about seven calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy? Regardless of what form of transportation people use, on average there are still some associated lifecycle energy uses/emissions and so on...

Completely missed the point.


We can't just ignore industry or private applications if we're going to look at whether something is "green" in any serious way

"Green" is a term I don't use. Just like "safe-sex", its a fell-good, media-hype, politically-correct term to avoid facing issues.

The point of the car-free movement is that we believe using personal motor vehicles * to be irresponsible. Period. (*this part I always include, some do not.)

That belief accepts and considers that there are many [i]non-personal applications for motor-vehicles, and in many of those cases the motor vehicle is the best available choice (public transit, farm equipment, etc.). That belief acknowledges that just about every aspect of our lives consumes energy and resources. That belief makes no statement that cycling, public transit, or any form of transportation is free of environmental impact or "green". It is a simple statement that use of one specific form of personal transportation is irresponsible and unjustifiable.

I am fully aware that the produce I buy at the local farmer's market arrived in a pick-up. It had to be delivered *somehow*, but this is NOT personal use, is it? Of course, given the choice between two stands, I will buy from the farmer who makes efforts to conserve energy.

patc,
Brings up some good points. However, many of the vegetables I buy come from an organic farm about 10 miles down the road from me. I ride my bike over to get them. That is about as close to green as you can get. But, the road was paved using asphalt products, by large oil consuming vehicles, etc, etc. Perhaps I should ride my mule bareback across country for true greeness.:roflmao2: (btw we don't have a mule...yet)

All anyone can do is make informed choices and attempt to lower their overall impact. FWIW I live what used to be a rural environment, but has/is fast becoming suburban. I used to have to commute 7+ miles to the nearest grocery store in town. That has now been cut to 1.5 miles.

Aaron:)

So, the food a cyclist needs isn't on average grown, processed, packaged, transported, etc... Using about seven calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy? Regardless of what form of transportation people use, on average there are still some associated lifecycle energy uses/emissions and so on...


Just what are you trying to say?

I think what he's trying to say is either
"Since nobody is morally pure, it's all hopeless, and we should all waste fossil fuels whenever we darn well feel like it."
OR
"You-all can take a stand for this or a stand for that, but me, I won't take a stand for anything... I'll just tell people they're full of **** when they stand up for an idea they believe in."

I think what he's trying to say is either
"Since nobody is morally pure, it's all hopeless, and we should all waste fossil fuels whenever we darn well feel like it."
OR
"You-all can take a stand for this or a stand for that, but me, I won't take a stand for anything... I'll just tell people they're full of **** when they stand up for an idea they believe in."

I don't think CE means to make either statement. From previous posts, I judge him to be somebody who walks the walk, even if he doesn't always talk the talk. CE's scientific and engineering expertise is a valuable resource for this forum, IMO.

We should all acknowledge that our continued dependence on motor vehicles, and the huge carbon emissions that even the "greenest" American is indirectly responsible for. Being carfree alone is NOT an adequate response, although it's certainly a good start. A reduction of global warming to a manageable level will require across-the-board changes in transportation, food production and energy policies.

However, many of the vegetables I buy come from an organic farm about 10 miles down the road from me. I ride my bike over to get them. That is about as close to green as you can get. But, the road was paved using asphalt products, by large oil consuming vehicles, etc, etc. Perhaps I should ride my mule bareback across country for true greeness.:roflmao2: (btw we don't have a mule...yet)Leave the mules at home and don't focus initially on what is harder (Ask for concrete roads?) to change, and the low energy inputs to your diet, unless of course you're as green as you're gonna get and that's that. A small electric motor, solar panel, and a couple battery packs would reduce the energy consumption associated with your cycling by more than an order of magnitude, and the energy would be via a renewable source.

Hmm, old thread being revived from death.



Completely missed the point.OMGZ, I posted a few weeks later! Not all of us constantly post on BF... :innocent:



The point of the car-free movement is that we believe using personal motor vehicles * to be irresponsible. Period. (*this part I always include, some do not.)

That belief accepts and considers that there are many [i]non-personal applications for motor-vehicles, and in many of those cases the motor vehicle is the best available choice (public transit, farm equipment, etc.). That belief acknowledges that just about every aspect of our lives consumes energy and resources. That belief makes no statement that cycling, public transit, or any form of transportation is free of environmental impact or "green". It is a simple statement that use of one specific form of personal transportation is irresponsible and unjustifiable.A specific form of transportation is irresponsible and unjustifiable based on what, your say so? Why don't you use a quantitative yardstick in this situation?

I am fully aware that the produce I buy at the local farmer's market arrived in a pick-up. It had to be delivered *somehow*, but this is NOT personal use, is it? Of course, given the choice between two stands, I will buy from the farmer who makes efforts to conserve energy.There's no distinction between "personal" and otherwise if using a quantitative yardstick that compares different actions based on their impact in specific arenas. We can't just wave our hands and claim that only some portion of what we use is "personal", therefore a certain type of transportation is unjustifiable and irresponsible compared to cycling that's presumably justified/responsible even though it uses as much if not more energy, from non-renewable sources.

So, the food a cyclist needs isn't on average grown, processed, packaged, transported, etc... Using about seven calories of fossil fuel energy for every calorie of food energy? Regardless of what form of transportation people use, on average there are still some associated lifecycle energy uses/emissions and so on...
Considering that on average a cyclist at 15mph needs ~10Wh/mile at the pedals, ~40Wh/mile in terms of food, and ~280Wh/mile in terms of fossil fuel energy required to grow, process, and so on, that food, if you think it's ignorant to not include that in considering how "green" a mode of transportation is, I imagine a PR firm concerned with greenwashing would love to have you on their team. ;)

We can't just ignore industry or private applications if we're going to look at whether something is "green" in any serious way. Otoh if all we're doing is environangelism, giving pats on our backs because we can haz bicycle, then sure, don't bother looking at anything besides some narrow view. Bottled water? Totally "green", I mean, water is all natural, therefore bottle water must be "green". Coal power? Why not! Coal comes from "Mother Earth", therefore it must be "green" too... :twitchy:



You are really muddying the water here pal. Industrial food production has little to do with cycling. If you have a problem with the amount of fossil fuels used to transport your food great distances, try buying locally whether through a local organic food co-op or a farmers market. Better yet, start your own garden in your backyard (if available) or on a plot in a community garden.

I don't have exact figures, but I would guess that in reality only a small portion of the world could actually produce food in this manner, however that is another issue in it's self (IE over-population).

patc,
Brings up some good points.

I did? I thought I was just ranting... I mean, yes, yes, I made very good points.


But, the road was paved using asphalt products, by large oil consuming vehicles, etc, etc. Perhaps I should ride my mule bareback across country for true greeness.:roflmao2: (btw we don't have a mule...yet)

Think of it this way - it may be asphalt, but at least your bike adds less wear to the road than most other vehicles. And it is relatively easy to recycle - some cities just grind up old asphalt, add a new binding agent, and make new roads from it.

A specific form of transportation is irresponsible and unjustifiable based on what, your say so?

Funny thing, that's how opinions works... my opinion is indeed "my say so". Again you missed the point, though - while that is my opinion, I was explaining the belief of the car-free movement to the best of my ability.


Why don't you use a quantitative yardstick in this situation?

What makes you think I don't?


There's no distinction between "personal" and otherwise if using a quantitative yardstick that compares different actions based on their impact in specific arenas. We can't just wave our hands and claim that only some portion of what we use is "personal", therefore a certain type of transportation is unjustifiable and irresponsible compared to cycling that's presumably justified/responsible even though it uses as much if not more energy, from non-renewable sources.

If *you* can't make decisions based on usage, that's your shortfall, not mine. It would be idiotic not to. In fact, just about every decision is based on context!

Is alcohol bad? Is drunk driving bad?
Are cell phones bad? Is driving while texting bad?

Is a delivery truck used to carry produce from a local farm to a market bad?
Is a city bus packed at peak hour a poor use of energy and resources?
Is using a bike to commute 10km to work a god use of resources?
Is it a waste to use a "car" to commute, alone, to work every day when other options are available?

Sorry, but if you can't make a distinction between personal motor vehicle use and other uses for motor vehicles, you have no credibility with me. :rolleyes:

funny thing, that's how opinions works... My opinion is indeed "my say so". Again you missed the point, though - while that is my opinion, i was explaining the belief of the car-free movement to the best of my ability.



What makes you think i don't?



If *you* can't make decisions based on usage, that's your shortfall, not mine. It would be idiotic not to. In fact, just about every decision is based on context!

Is alcohol bad? Is drunk driving bad?
Are cell phones bad? Is driving while texting bad?

Is a delivery truck used to carry produce from a local farm to a market bad?
Is a city bus packed at peak hour a poor use of energy and resources?
Is using a bike to commute 10km to work a god use of resources?
Is it a waste to use a "car" to commute, alone, to work every day when other options are available?

Sorry, but if you can't make a distinction between personal motor vehicle use and other uses for motor vehicles, you have no credibility with me. :rolleyes:

+1

Funny thing, that's how opinions works... my opinion is indeed "my say so". Again you missed the point, though - while that is my opinion, I was explaining the belief of the car-free movement to the best of my ability.Fair enough. If you wish to base you belief off of a qualitative opinion as opposed anything quantitative that's your call. Reminds of the poster who though velomobiles were similar to cars because they were both "cages". :twitchy:

What makes you think I don't?The fact that you just stated you were explaining the belief of the car-free movement to the best of your ability, and that best didn't include any sort of quantitative yardstick. Maybe you were wrong, and that isn't your best, but you said it was so that's all I can go with.




If *you* can't make decisions based on usage, that's your shortfall, not mine. It would be idiotic not to. In fact, just about every decision is based on context!

Is alcohol bad? Is drunk driving bad?
Are cell phones bad? Is driving while texting bad?

Is a delivery truck used to carry produce from a local farm to a market bad?
Is a city bus packed at peak hour a poor use of energy and resources?
Is using a bike to commute 10km to work a god use of resources?
Is it a waste to use a "car" to commute, alone, to work every day when other options are available?

Sorry, but if you can't make a distinction between personal motor vehicle use and other uses for motor vehicles, you have no credibility with me. :rolleyes:It isn't about a personal decision, it's about using a quantitative yardstick to assess the impact of something. If you don't want to do that, which is fine as your choice, then don't, but don't try to conflate your qualitative opinion with the sort of quantitative assessment I was referring to. :thumb:

You are really muddying the water here pal. Industrial food production has little to do with cycling. If you have a problem with the amount of fossil fuels used to transport your food great distances, try buying locally whether through a local organic food co-op or a farmers market. Better yet, start your own garden in your backyard (if available) or on a plot in a community garden.

I don't have exact figures, but I would guess that in reality only a small portion of the world could actually produce food in this manner, however that is another issue in it's self (IE over-population).Industrial food production has everything to do with cycling wrt a quantitative analysis of energy use, which is what I was referring to, and what you have apparently responded to. Now, if we're talking about your, or anyone else's, qualitative opinion here, then it would be a different matter, but I'm talking a quantitative yardstick, not a qualitative opinion. That said, as a qualitative opinion, you can even say that a specific form of transportation is irresponsible and unjustified because someone looked at you funny when you went to work/sk00l/whatever yesterday. Your opinion does not have to be based on logic, reason, or any sort of quantitative yardstick at all, and by your own admission, it isn't, unless of course you were wrong about explaining your position to the best of your ability.

FIt isn't about a personal decision, it's about using a quantitative yardstick to assess the impact of something. If you don't want to do that, which is fine as your choice, then don't, but don't try to conflate your qualitative opinion with the sort of quantitative assessment I was referring to. :thumb:

We're either having two separate conversations, or you are deliberately misunderstanding my words. Or both. Either way I have no interest in a holding a discussion in biweekly instalments.

Think of it this way - it may be asphalt, but at least your bike adds less wear to the road than most other vehicles. And it is relatively easy to recycle - some cities just grind up old asphalt, add a new binding agent, and make new roads from it.
There is an asphalt company here that does that. They show up at some Earth Day festivals with brochures describing how they recycle the asphalt. Some greenies get all pissy over the fact that they have a booth at Earth Day, for some reason they don't like a road building company trying to explain how they recycle too.

Supposedly (http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/condemo/roads/) a big chunk of asphalt is reused in some way or another.

There is an asphalt company here that does that. They show up at some Earth Day festivals with brochures describing how they recycle the asphalt. Some greenies get all pissy over the fact that they have a booth at Earth Day, for some reason they don't like a road building company trying to explain how they recycle too.

The city here is testing equipment that recycles asphalt on the spot. You fill it with a small amount in the morning. At each pot-hole/damaged pavement area, the crew dumps the broken chunks of old pavement in the machine. It grinds this up and adds it to the mix, and the crew then fills the holes/cracks with some of the materials they have just removed. As an added bonus this reduces fuel use - a crew can be out all day with this machine, as opposed to going back for more asphalt 2-4 times per day.

The thread linked below looks at the dollar value of not using a car: (it asks, essentially, "how much would they have to bribe you to get you to drive to work every day instead of biking?")

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=504482

My question is, when you do not consider the things you don't like about cars (cost, lack of exercise, etc) what is the money value of the benefits a car* can provide? I am mainly thinking of a car but you may answer for an SUV/pickup/minivan if you prefer.

The downsides of cars are plentiful (pollution, danger, $$ for insurance/purchase/repair/fuel, less exercise, land use, $$ for road construction&maintenance ) and well-discussed on this forum. The up-sides are also sometimes discussed but the financial up-sides are what I'm particularly interested in focusing on for this thread. Feel free to argue that, even ignoring everything you don't like about cars, the money value of the benefits of having a car is small or negligible.

*one you own or get to use every day

as far as I know,
the US has been off The Gold Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard)
so the question of "monetary worth"... well...
thats a bit mis-leading
just as in the statement, "I just bought a new car." more likely, "I just signed a loan/lease for a new car." which is ultimately debt

so the question of what is the "value of the car"? if i may reword the question.

more overly, the value of the car is social stability.
aka: Wage Slave
that is the value of the car. its the ability to produce a society operating in a set (as in Range and Domain) of behaviors.
right down, to what time you wake up, what line you come to a full stop at, how fast you will travel, what pre-determined paths you will take, our icons, our heros, in fact... by large... our ENTIRE CULTURE.

I think it would quite interesting to do a study: across America
simple flash cards. with various objects, words in various languages, etc...
i'm quite certain every person in the US can identify "car"
how many can identify 4x4 truck? pretty sure a vast majority
how many can identify Mustang, Camero, Corvette, Ferrari, etc...
there are so many other iconoclastic things to pick from.
by far, in my opinion... The Car, most people recognize.

I have to admit that I only skimmed a lot of this thread. However, it looked like it had devolved to the usual self-congratulatory car bashing thread.

I have been car lite for several years (about 7) during which I have used my bicycle when it fit my schedule and my motorcycle when I have been unable to take the bike (distance or scheduling). I am a grad-student (yes, at over 40) and when my motorcycle broke down recently (a sensor went bad, it is only about $110 fr all the parts, it is a matter of getting the block of time to do the work) I have been relying entirely on my bicycle.

I am very pro-bike; however, I can say with assurance that this is not working out. I am living about 20 miles from the school and use the bus for a link. To be at an 8am class I have to be at the bus stop at 6:20am.

The real trouble is on the other end. Because the buses leave at 5:20pm and 6:20pm, to return, I have to forgo a lot of activities and lectures that I am supposed to be attending. While it would be possible to ride to school in the morning, it is not possible to ride back, the hills in that direction are just too steep. Most days this is not a problem. As a result I was bike/busing to school about three days a week. Trying to do it those other two days has shown me just how unworkable the whole "bike only idea really is.

As far as living closer, it is a matter of economics. I have looked into it. First off, the dorms are over $1,000 per month, that is just out of the question. A room in a shared apartment will run about $400 - $550 per month before utilities. My current rate is $200/month including utilities.

Very simply, I would like to live car-free; but, car (in my case motorcycle) lite is about all that works.

As far as living closer, it is a matter of economics. I have looked into it. First off, the dorms are over $1,000 per month, that is just out of the question. A room in a shared apartment will run about $400 - $550 per month before utilities. My current rate is $200/month including utilities.

Very simply, I would like to live car-free; but, car (in my case motorcycle) lite is about all that works.

This raises an interesting point. I live 2 miles from campus, but pay almost $500/mo for a single before utilities (which, depending on the time of year, add $60 to $100 to the total price). Would I be willing to live 20 miles away to save ~$350 a month? On the face of it, it seems like a no-brainer, especially considering that I spend only about $20-$40 each month on gas. However, if I lived 20 miles away, cycling would be out of the question (at least to campus), due to the distance and the roads I'd need to use. I'd also be far less willing to do social things with classmates, and coming to campus in general would be a much greater hassle than it already is. But knowing this implicitly and saying it's worth a few hundred extra a month is another thing entirely.

Food for thought.