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

[Daryl Oster]

Francis,

Thank you for your comments and observations on improving the spreadsheet to
include the positive value of exercise for those who walk and / or ride a
bike for transportation.  

I agree without reservation that moderate and frequent exercise has many
valuable health benefits.  It is also clear that daily walking and or bike
riding are very good exercise.  Therefore the value of the health benefits
should be added to the hiking and biking modes on the chart I submitted.  

If the health benefits are to be properly equated, they must be made
comparable on a cost per passenger mile (or km) basis.  

According to the 2006 CIA World Fact Book
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sn.html 
Population = 4,492,150 persons
76.1% are in the age bracket of 15 to 64 years old. 
3.3% are unemployed

According to you 30% commute via bike, and there are 500 new kidney cases
every year treated at a cost of $ 31,200 per year

500cases * 30% * $31,200 * 50% = $2,340,000 savings / year
Assuming 350 commute days per year, $2,340,000/360 = $6,500/day savings.

If we assume a 5 mile daily round trip commute for each worker, we have
total miles per day of:

4,492,150 persons * 72.8% * 5 miles = 16,351,426 person miles per day.  

So the likely health exercise value of the kidney disease treatment savings
per mile = $6,500 / 16,351,426 = $0.0004 per person mile value.  

Kidney disease is not the only thing that is reduced by exercise, there are
many other conditions that are costly to treat that can be reduced with
proper exercise.  I hope someone takes the time to equate all of them, and
if it can be shown to be significant (compared with the major cost and
benefit items on the chart), I will gladly include them.  


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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg at yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:01 AM
> To: et3 at et3.com; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
> Subject: "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.
> 
>