[sustran] Re: Comparing Costs of Modes

[Daryl Oster]

Todd Litman,

Your Transportation Cost Analysis (TCA) is a useful resource, and I agree
that true cost comparisons must be made on a per passenger mile basis, I
applaud your excellence and monumental efforts to do so.  Please do not
interpret my suggestions for improvement in the negative.  I hope you
consider additional categories for trains, planes, boats, and projected cost
estimates for automated PRT, and ETT.  Thanks for your consideration of the
following:   

There are several inequities readily apparent in your  TCA (table 4, average
travel 1996 $/passenger mile ( http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca.xls):
*Internal crash cost of bikes, cars and motorcycles;
*External crash cost of cars and motorcycles;
*Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars;
*Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes;
*Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes;
*Transport diversity
*Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes
*Land use impacts
*Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians
*Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians
It appears that many of the numbers were “pulled out of the air” to reward
bikes and pedestrians, while punishing cars and especially motorcycles.  I
will address each point as follows:


*Internal crash cost of bikes relative to cars:
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/bc/index.htm shows that in 2001, there were 728
bicycling fatalities and 45,000 bicycling injuries resulting from traffic
crashes in the United States. While these numbers continue to decrease from
year to year, bicyclist fatalities still account for 2 percent of all
traffic fatalities as well as 2 percent of all traffic injuries.  

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/study/index.htm shows that in
2001 shows that bicycles accounted for 0.8% of the personal transportation
trips.  

The Other bike trips - The 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey
(NPTS) shows that bike to work trips comprise 8% of all bicycle trips. 

Average bicycle trip length – work - NPTS shows an average round trip
distance for bike to
work trips of 4.0 miles. 

Average bicycle trip length – other - NPTS shows an average round trip
distance of 2.8 miles for all other bike trips. 

((4mile (0.08)) + (2.8mile(0.92))) = 2.9 miles average bicycle trip length.

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY SUMMARY OF TRAVEL TRENDS 1995
NATIONWIDE PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION SURVEY shows that the national average
car trip length was 9.06miles.  

Therefore the safety of bikes relative to cars on a vehicle mile basis is:
2%of fatalities  / (0.8% of trips * (2.9bike miles/9.06car miles)) = 7.8
times the risk per vehicle mile for bikes relative to cars.  The cost of the
internal risk of bikes relative to cars must therefore be adjusted
accordingly.  

In tca.xls,  Todd Litman shows the internal crash cost of  cars to be 5
cents per passenger mile; the internal crash cost for motorcycles is listed
as 43.7 cents per passenger mile; and the internal crash cost for bicycles
is listed as 5 cents per passenger mile – the same as cars.

The factor of cars relative to motorcycles is 43.7 / 5 = 8.7 roughly
corresponding to the internal crash death rate factor of motorcycles
relative to cars.

If Litman correctly applied this factor to motorcycles, why is it that he
fails to apply it to bicycles?  If it were applied to bikes, it would
increase the per mile cost of bikes to: 5 * 7.8 = 39cents per mile. 

Therefore the average per mile cost adjusted for this factor would show:
Cars stay the same at 73.8cents/passenger mile, and bicycles would increase
from 44.1cents to 78.1 cents per passenger mile from this factor alone.  


*External crash cost of cars and motorcycles;
Litman claims the external crash costs for motorcycles are higher than cars,
while insurance rates and physics prove the opposite.  Liability insurance
is required for cars in most states, while for motorcycles it is usually not
mandatory.  The liability insurance cost for cars is 3 to 4 times the rate
for motorcycles, furthermore the liability insurance rate for bicycles is
not zero, and when adjusted for mileage is often actually higher than cars.


*Internal and external Parking for motorcycle and cars;
Litman lists the parking internal and external costs for motorcycles as
greater than or equal to cars, while listing bikes at less than 1/10 the
rate of cars.  In actuality, one can park 3 or 4 motorcycles in the place of
one car, thus the rate applied to motorcycles is not justified.  

*Congestion of cars, motorcycles and bikes;
Litman incorrectly applies a higher rate to motorcycles than cars, while the
rate for bikes is less by a factor of 18!  In fact many states allow
motorcycles and bikes to split lanes, therefore the congestion factor for
motorcycles should be less.  Bikes actually cause congestion at a higher
rate than cars due to their slow speed compared with motorized traffic, they
typically operate at less than 1/3rd the speed limit – causing much more
congestion than their physical volume.  Pedestrians crossing streets also
contribute much more to congestion than is reflected in the chart.  The time
at traffic lights devited to pedestrian crossing is a major cause of
congestion.   The per mile congestion rate must compare physical volume,
time, speed, and flow issues.

*Land value of cars, motorcycles, and bikes;
Litman charges cars at 17 times greater rate than bikes.  Litman incorrectly
charges motorcycles a higher rate than cars, when cars occupy 3 to 4 times
more space. Bikes usually get very little use, so they have increased
external costs for storage for a much higher percentage of the time.  


*Transport diversity.
This is a totally bogus factor – without an merit – it appears just an
invented way to unjustly penalize cars and motorcycles relative to walking,
trains, busses, and bikes.  

*Barrier Effect of cars, motorcycles and bikes.
Litman claims bikes at zero – the came as pedestrians, he claims cars at
.007, motorcycles at .009, this again is incongruent with reality.
Motorcycles should be rated between bikes and cars, and bikes should rate
higher than pedestrians.  Is this just another reward for walking and bikes?
It depends on the perspective, pedestrians and bikes could be as justifiable
viewed as barriers to cars and motorcycles due to their slow speed.  Train
tracks constitute huge barriers, what of this?

*Land use impacts
Again Litman assigns zeros to walking, bikes, trains and busses, while
placing a large factor on cars, and even greater factor on motorcycles.
This again is a matter of perspective – there is a lot of rail ROW that is
exclusive – no other use possible, where cars, bikes, motorcycles, and even
pedestrians use roads.  Motorcycles and bikes both are able to use narrow
paths along with pedestrians. – once again the bias for trains, busses,
bikes and walking is apparent in Litman’s work. 

*Water pollution of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians
Most water pollution is the result of erosion. Pavement for cars,
motorcycles bikes, and pedestrians causes high velocity runoff that induces
high erosion rates.  Another major contributor is foot and bike traffic that
kills ground covering vegetation.  To assign zeros to pedestrians and bikes
is unjustified.  

*Waste of cars, motorcycles, bikes, and pedestrians.  
Physical evidence shows that pedestrians and cyclists are more likely to
litter than motorists.  Pedestrians and cyclists wear out their clothing and
shoes at a faster rate than motorists.  Tires on bikes wear out 30 times
faster than car tires.  

Some other notes / observations / suggestions:

Litman also places the cost of vehicle ownership for motorcycles higher than
cars 25.2cents/mile motorcycles, to 14.vcents per passenger mile.  While
this may be true in North America (where per year use is low), it is not
representative of the rest of the world.  Litman assigns an average
occupancy of 1.00 to motorcycles; actual is closer to 1.2 as many ride
double, especially those who tour and put on high miles.  

Also, if everyone used telecommuting, and all transportation were automated,
would not all much of cargo impacts and costs be attributed to
telecommuting? 

To correctly calculate the true impacts and costs of travel there are
several additional things that must be considered, please see the attached
spreadsheet that shows some of the biggest cost and impact reasons that show
why cars are so popular.

Happy holidays,


Daryl Oster
(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service marks
of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Alexander Litman [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 9:47 AM
> To: et3 at et3.com
> Subject: RE: Comparing Costs of Modes
> 
> 
> Please read my paper more carefully before you criticize it.
> 
> If automobile insurance totally covered accidents society would be
> indifferent to crashes and there would be no need for traffic safety
> programs. But by its nature insurance can only cover a portion of total
> costs (if crash damages were fully compensated some people, those who
> place
> a relatively low value on their own injuries, would have an incentive to
> cause crashes and be injured). The costs in my analysis reflect
> uncompensated crash costs.

Todd, In actuality, what you describe is the one of the leading insurance
frauds.  In fact, my wife and I were the victim of such an attempt to
defraud our insurance company.  A driver intentionally swerved across 2
lanes to sideswipe the front corner of our vehicle, and then claimed we ran
into him causing great injury.  Fortunately I had a digital camera, and took
several photos.  It was also fortunate that we had the same insurance
company!  The insurance company attorney noticed that the injuries claimed
were on the opposite side of the body from the crash! The court case was a
slam dunk - he got zip, and his attorney was severely reprimanded.  This
abuse runs up the rates for all of us - and is not a reflection of true
risks and damages.  


> 
> Again, I recommend that you learn more about multi-modal economic
> evaluation, which accounts for all relevant costs. That is the only way
> you
> can really justify a new mode.
> 
> 
> Best holiday wishes,
> -Todd Litman
> 
> At 12:27 AM 12/24/2004 -0500, Daryl Oster wrote:
> 
> > > --Original Message From: Todd Alexander Litman
> [mailto:litman at vtpi.org]
> > >
> > > For more discussion see "Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis"
> > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tca) and the "Comparing Transit and Automobile
> Costs"
> > > section of "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs"
> > > (http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf).
> >
> >
> >Todd,
> >I scanned your work when it was announced a week or two ago, (it looks
> like
> >you have gone to a lot of effort); and it appeared to me that some of the
> >costs you are claiming for cars are added in more than once, while some
> of
> >the other modes do not receive the same treatment.  One area is risks and
> >accidents, this cost is covered in insurance cost, yet you add it again.
> >For bikes, the death risk is greater - AND the cost is mostly paid by
> auto
> >insurance - not reflected in the graphs. I will be happy to discuss
> further
> >if you want to.
> >
> >
> > > I think it is generally a mistake to criticize a particular mode as
> being
> > > inefficient or unsustainable. A better approach is to recognize that
> > > nearly every mode can play a role in an efficient and sustainable
> > > transportation system, including walking, cycling, public transit,
> inter-,
> > > city rail highways, and perhaps some new modes yet to be developed.
> The
> > > key is to determine which is most cost effective for a particular
> > > situation, taking into account all benefits and costs.
> >
> >We definitely agree on this, and I applaud your efforts to move in this
> >direction.
> >
> >
> > > I cannot say how Evacuated Tube Transport costs compare with other
> modes
> > > because we lack operating examples. It would be interesting to perform
> a
> > > comprehensive analysis.
> > > Best holiday wishes,
> > > -Todd Litman
> >
> >
> >We do have examples of travel in an evacuated environment 109 gigameters
> per
> >hour multiplied by 6.1B people - continuously 24-365 without fail. That
> >amounts to 5,824,524,000,000,000,000,000 (5.8X10ee21) passenger
> kilometers
> >per year, and the energy use is immeasurably low.
> >
> >And there are plenty of examples of the costs required to approximate
> those
> >"perpetual motion" transportation conditions on earth's surface in tubes.
> >We have performed comprehensive analysis, some is presented on
> www.et3.com ,
> >I invite any criticism you may offer.
> >
> >
> >
> >Daryl Oster
> >(c) 2004  all rights reserved.  ETT, et3, MoPod, "space travel on earth"
> >e-tube, e-tubes,  and the logos thereof are trademarks and or service
> marks
> >of et3.com Inc.  For licensing information contact:    et3 at et3.com ,
> >www.et3.com  POB 1423, Crystal River FL 34423-1423  (352)257-1310>
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> Todd Litman, Director
> Victoria Transport Policy Institute
> "Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
> 1250 Rudlin Street
> Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
> Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
> Email: litman at vtpi.org
> Website: http://www.vtpi.org
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by Netsignia Online, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transport cost.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 25600 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20041230/ccbc7837/transportcost-0001.xls