[sustran] Re: "regenerative" value of human power transportation

[Carlos F. Pardo SUTP]

Mr Oster's point of view reminds me of a vanguard movement during the two
first decades of the XX century: futurism. I quote the manifesto:

"We drove on, crushing beneath our burning wheels, like shirt-collars under
the iron, the watch dogs on the steps of the houses."

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/T4PM/futurist-manifesto.html 

Marinetti and his colleagues never had in mind the consequences of what they
were saying, and they were quickly shown that speed was not the best way to
go. We simply have to remember, as Mr. Chu has said, that transport is a
means to an end, and that value and cost for human beings are beyond Excel
spreadhseets and could be better measured by quality of life (perceived or
"calculated"). As in conflict resolution theory, if it will be impossible to
persuade Mr Oster to embrace these views, we might as well amuse ourselves
with his opinions. I, for one, do not agree with him (as I guess many people
in this list do). I ride a bicycle every day and believe in the virtues of
human contact and moderately high population densities.

 

Best regards,

 

Carlos F. Pardo

 

  _____  

De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org] En
nombre de chuwa
Enviado el: Viernes, 21 de Abril de 2006 04:01 a.m.
Para: et3 at et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Asunto: [sustran] "regenerative" value of human power transportation

 

Daryl,

I am refering to your earlier thread "ETT as a global solution" and this
"Hybrid cars- article from IHT". But it's best to start a new thread.

I am reading sustran because I am interested in the development of
sustainable transport. To me the essence is the human and the environment
need to be sustainable, not "transportation" itself. Transportation is a
mean to an end, it is best to have as little negative ecological impact as
possible. In this respect, I see no real contradiction between your position
and many others.

However, talking about total value verse cost, I can tell there is a
fundamental value different when comparing human-powered transportation with
motorized transportation. 

Appropriate level of exercise, like cycling (a human transport), has a
"regenerative" value to the human body, while motorized transportation
doesn't. In most of the developed society, where lack of physical exercise
is a common root cause of "lifestyle disease (hyper-tension, diabetes, heart
disease, colon cancer, you name it..), such regenerative value of human
power transportation should be properly factored in. People are willing to
pay BIG money to go to the gym. More people are more willing to pay MUCH
more in hospital when attempting to "recover" some of their lost health.

In less developed area, where exercise is necessary due to other daily
chores, such regenerative value of human-powered transportation may be
lower. 

I would be very interested to see this "regenerative" value reflected in
your famous Excel sheet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Following is small attempt to provide a support for the "regenerative" value
in Singapore, based on one disease (kidney failure):
Potential medical cost saving for new kidney failure case alone can be
S$245,000,000 in 15 years. (suppose 30% population opt for bicycle
commuting)
There are estimated 500 new cases every year and the cost of treating kidney
failure patient is S$ 31,200 per man-yr 
(source: National Kidney Foundation, Singapore)
Cost of new cases in 15 years (new cases from 2nd year onward) become:
500*0.5*(1+14)*14yr* S$31,200= S$1,638,000,000
Daily bicycle commuting reduce the risk of kidney failure by 50%*,
therefore; new cases of kidney failure will be reduced by
30%(population)*50%(reduction rate)=15%. This equals to reduction of S$245.7
Millions in 15 years.

* this 50% reduction can be deducted from the following:
1) regular exercise (incluidng cycling) helps to reduce diabetes by 50%:
"a 50% reduction in the risk of developing coronary heart disease,
noninsulin-dependent diabetes and obesity"
http://www.euro.who.int/document/Trt/Booklet.pdf (World Health Organization)
2) a direct link exists between diabetes and kidney failure : "Diabetes is
the single leading cause of chronic kidney failure in the U.S., accounting
for about 35 percent of the new cases each year ..." 
http://www.kidney.org/general/aboutdisease/diab.cfm (National Kidney
Foundation, Inc.)

It's not water tight, but hopefully the idea is clear.

Warm regards from Singapore,

Francis Chu
Senior Design Consultant,
Philips Design








Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com> wrote:


> Original Message From: Todd Edelman
> Hi everyone,
> Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? 

This is the sustainable transportation list!! And since cars are presently
the most sustainable form of transportation, it makes sense to give them a
little ink once in a while. But I say that cars can and MUST be greatly
improved upon; (just as cars have improved upon the sustainability of
trains, and trains improved upon the sustainability of muscle powered
transport).

> Technical
> information about engines is always interesting of course, as are "the
> facts" about "hype-brid cars", but talking about "cost" as only, for
> example, purchase price vs. long-term fuel price, etc is like sooooo last
> century! (That means "cost" involves many, many factors--and I know Daryl
> has been challenged on that point before).

Todd,
Just what costs did I leave out?? 
NOTE: in the spreadsheet I recently posted, I included ALL of the costs
Litman advocates, even though I do not agree with them, and they have not
been equally applied to bikes and trains. 
If you have costs that should be added to the spreadsheet I submitted,
please specify them -- that is one reason I posted it. 

Also, just what is it about adding up and comparing the costs and benefits
of different modes that "is like sooooo last century" ? The world operates
like that! And that is the main reason that intercity train use has dropped
from a 90% market share in the US in 1910, to less than a 1% share today (in
spite of 30 years of the government paying most of the true cost of people
who ride trains). 

> This discussion started with a posting from Carlos, and I wrote him
> off-list that hype-brids were, in my opinion, not a step in any direction
> except the wrong one, because they are overwhelmingly still supposed to be
> used by individuals and like all other cars have all many negatives
> besides "tailpipe emissions" for this reason and many others. So they just
> confuse people, and lots of California politicians buy huge hybrids, and
> it is all such a bunch of nonsense... the Audi Awhatever may be a "great"
> car but there is great about it.
> Todd Edelman
> International Coordinator
> On the Train Towards the Future!
> Green Idea Factory,
> a member of World Carfree Network

BTW Todd, this is NOT a car-free list either, nor is it a train list. It IS
about improving the sustainability of transportation - especially in the
HIUGE developing markets in the Far East -- cars/roads are contributing, but
they are reaching the point of marginal value. 

Sustainability is NOT about being "car-free" or about "Train Towards The
Future", it IS about dramatically improving the efficiency, ecology, and
social sustainability of transportation. Ideas to accomplish this must be
measured on a total benefit/total cost basis -- not with hyperbole and
childish ridicule. 


Daryl Oster
(c) 2006 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: POB 1423, Crystal River
FL 34423-1423 (352)257-1310, et3 at et3.com , www.et3.com




================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is
on urban transport policy in Asia.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/public/sustran-discuss/attachments/20060421/6e5aaffe/attachment.html