[sustran] Accounting exercise

[Eric Bruun]

Daryl

If you want to talk about flaws, you can not apply monetary "accounting" as your sole means of
evaluation in the first place. Some important considerations can not be monetized, or should not be monetized, or this is such a large range of contestable values that the result is a very wide range of values.

If you really want to do a comprehensive analysis that includes all impacts from a transportation
system, you might want to look at the Analytic Hierarchy Process.

Eric Bruun


-----Original Message-----
>From: Daryl Oster <et3 at et3.com>
>Sent: Apr 22, 2006 9:22 AM
>To: chuwasg at yahoo.com, 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Fwd: Re: "regenerative" value of human power	transportation
>
>
>> Original Message From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg at yahoo.com]
>> Daryl,
>> let's stick to the kidney failure case for a while. The S$31,200 cost is
>> for dialysis service for a patient per year (3~4  times per week). Behind
>> each kidney failure there is huge implication to the immediate family
>> members. It often suggest two person out of job (the patient and the care
>> taker). Base on the current GDP per capita (S$30K), this may be another
>> S$60,000 of value lost.
>
>IMO, that is not proper accounting - the value of the treatment is the same
>regardless of who it is applied to, because it is exactly offset by the
>income in either case.  
>
>In fact, I am now starting to think that your whole exercise premise may
>have some flaws, allow me to explain:
>
>If we are to use your logic and apply it to the possible benefit of cars we
>must calculate the health regenerative benefits of resting!  It is well
>known that someone involved in physical labor (or exercise) must sit down
>and rest to regenerate for optimal health -- the ride home from a job
>requiring physical labor could supply the needed inactivity necessary to
>maintain good health before they go home to eat and engage in more physical
>work at home by mowing the lawn, raking leaves, shoveling snow, etc. .
>There are many workers who have physically demanding jobs - and home lives
>too.  In fact likely as many or more workers must physically work or walk,
>than have jobs with no physical demands.  A bike ride demand could
>negatively effect the health of such a person by placing too many physical
>demands on the body.  
>
>> Unfortunatly I am not in a good position to provide the cost burden of 
>> many other lifestyle diseases. I wonder any on the list may be able to 
>> estimate this aspect of  "regenerative" value of cycling?
>
>We agree on the health benefits of moderate exercise.  The benefits of
>cycling exercise only apply to those who would not otherwise get a
>sufficient amount of exercise -- such as a university professor, lawyer, or
>accountant, these jobs are fewer in comparison to jobs that require some or
>much physical effort.  
>
>
>> On the other hand,  I don't understand why you use a fixed mileage per
>> person-life. The need to travel to get things done is largely shaped by
>> available transportation choices. In Hong Kong, some people stop stocking
>> things in their fridge as they discover their Super market down stair can
>> do a much better job and is equally accessible. 
>
>The discussion topic IS sustainable TRANSPORTATION - not sustainable living.
>Since you bring it up, the one who has a grocery store below his house is
>still reliant on transportation -- the transport to get the produce out of
>the field, to the wholesale market - to the warehouse and then to the
>distribution centers, and finally to the individual stores.  The link to the
>necessity of transportation is absolute and cannot be severed. 
>
>> On the other extreme, one
>> of my colleague living in Belgium travels daily to our office in Holland,
>> a round trip of 250km.
>
>The measures of transportation sustainability consider benefit and cost
>only, and valid comparison must only consider benefits and costs ON A
>PASSENGER (or ton) MILE (or km) BASIS.  It is the efficiency of
>transportation that determines the sustainability -- the need is a constant
>-- and different people all have different needs -- the need modifications
>are a totally separate issue, and overall living efficiency is always on a
>case by case basis bade by individuals-- and need is modified according to
>relative cost and benefit of all necessities - food, water, shelter, work,
>and ALL linked in some way by transportation.  
>
>
>> I stop driving two years ago and switch to cycling as my main commuting
>> mode. This reduce my "mileage" by 75%, yet I manage to go to the same
>> office every day. You won't believe the money I save (car, COE, road tax,
>> insurance, fuel..)
>> The bottom line is that I know there is one less car polluting the air and
>> there is one more healthier and happier person on Earth.
>
>It is wonderful that you enjoy a healthier and happier life because you ride
>a bike to work.  Many who now use cars could also make the same choice and
>enjoy the benefits you do.  It is also true that many who now travel by bike
>would enjoy a better life if they owned a car.  The chart I submitted show
>the biggest reasons why the car is winning the market for transportation
>mode, and what MUST be provided if MOST people are to be expected to change
>to a more sustainable mode.  
>
>> I am not against ETT, in fact, I found it may be a good answer to many
>> dense urban setting. It should work very well with bicycle and walking.
>> Good luck with ETT!
>> Regards,
>> Francis
>
>I am not against biking or walking - nor am I against cars.  I am simply
>stating the transportation facts as I see them, and as most people see them,
>although they may not be able to say precisely why.  
>
>Thanks for your comments and reasoned observations, now I hope to be able to
>get good data on the real value of the total health benefits (or losses) of
>cars, bikes, and other modes.  
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>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.