<html> <body> Mr. Oster and I had nearly the same debate on another list about a year ago. I appreciate that he is using my transportation costing analysis framework and default values (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/tca" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/tca</a> ), but I think his analysis framework has several critical flaws. Let me mention a few key features that I disagree with. First, Oster reaches the unsurprizing conclusion that if you are to travel high mileage and charge a high value of time, automobile travel seems cheapest, due to economies of scale (since most automobile costs are fixed, average costs decline significantly with increased consumption). But this assumes that everybody can and should drive high mileage and is based on an excessive value of travel time (most travel time cost studies suggest that the value should be one-third to one-half prevailing wages during peak periods and probably significantly less during off-peak, yet Oster uses US$15.00 for everybody, which is probably an order of magnitude too high for developing country conditions). Transportation professionals are realizing that the best transportation system maximizes "accessibility" rather than "mobility", in other words, it apply strategies such as more accessible land use patterns and improved mobility substitutes such as telework and delivery services to reduce the need to travel (particularly by motor vehicle) (see http://www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf ). If we evaluate transportation in terms of accessibility rather than mobility, then modes such as walking and public transit become more valuable because they help support more compact, mixed land use development and have low costs when used for short trips. In other words, Oster's analysis framework represents the sort of self-fulfilling prophesy that results in automobile dependency: if you assume that automobile travel is cheapest and best, you can build a transportation/land use system which favors that mode so it actually becomes cheapest, at least from the users perspective.  Second, Oster's cost framework ignores some of the most significant costs of automobile travel, including parking costs, congestion costs, and crash costs (including these would nearly double what he calculates as vehicle costs). It also fails to account for the much higher costs of driving under urban-peak conditions, which suggests that even if driving is cheapest on average, under urban-peak conditions other modes may be more cost effective. Food costs, which he incorporates, is only relevant for people who are eating too little, if people are eating too much and benefit from increased physical exercise, as is the case in most developed countries and even many lower-income countries, than time and calories spent walking and cycling represent a benefit rather than cost. I have no idea why Oster focuses on kidney disease as the risk associated with sedentary living, most studies (including a couple I've been involved with, see http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/downloads/SGBC_Health%20Report%20Final.pdf and http://vtpi.org/health.pdf ) indicate that cardiovascular diseases is the main risk. The health benefits of increased walking and cycling are much larger than Oster's analysis implies, probably similar in magnitude to crash reduction benefits, although we generally do not try to monetize that impact because the relationships are complex. Perhaps a simpler way to quantify it is to say that the first 30 minutes a day of active transportation (walking and cycling) incurs no time cost.  Third, I think that Oster misrepresents the basic question. It is useless to ask, which mode of travel is cheapest and best to accommodate, since costs vary significantly depending on the situation. It is far better to ask, which mode is most cost effective and most appropriate for a particular situation. Walking and cycling are most cost effective for shorter trips, particularly in urban areas where space is at a premium or by people who are either low income or need to increase their physical activity; public transit is most cost effective for travel on major urban corridors and between cities; and automobile travel is most cost effective for some types of trips such as off-peak and rural travel, and when carrying heavy loads, although my research indicates that a significant portion of automobile travel that occurs in most developed countries results from market distortions that underprice driving, and in a more efficient transportation market the total amount of driving that occurs in developed countries would decline by a third or more (see  http://www.vtpi.org/opprice.pdf ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 06:32 PM 4/20/2006, Daryl Oster wrote: > Is this the "fuel economy" list? The "better car" list? <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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@et3.com , <a href="http://www.et3.com" eudora="autourl">www.et3.com</a> ================================================================ 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.</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA �Efficiency - Equity - Clarity�   </body> </html>