Daryl, Just some clarification: Cost burden of kidney failure (Litman, fair to Daryl, I started to use kidney failure as a small example, refer to my post on April 21..)- Suppose my kidney fail today, I'd have to pay the S$31,200 annual cost for dialysis. This cost is not for "treatment" or cure, it merely clean my blood for a couple of days, there is no end to this until someone is willing to donate his kidney and if I have the money to pay for the operation. In such situation, I will most likely lost my job and can no longer support my family. (income lost ON TOP OF medical expenses). Not only that, my wife also have to quit her job because taking care of a kidney failure patient is a very demanding job. Therefore she will lost her income too. That's how I come to the total lost of S$60,000 (based on current GDP, double income family) in addition to the medical cost of S$31,200. I know I may be stretching the concept of "cost" too far here, but it should be reasonably within the scope of "lost value". Health benefit (value) of cycling and walking (human power transport): I agree that the health value of walking and cycling is "only" applicable to those who don't get sufficient exercise otherwise.However, the unexpected fact is <a href="http://tinyurl.com/gpffr">two third of the world population are physically inactive</a> (http://tinyurl.com/gpffr), the majority can benefit from integrating at least 30 minutes of fast walking or cycling into their daily life. If the information <a href="http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf">here </a>(http://www.activelivingleadership.org/pdf_file/TheFacts.pdf) is reliable, the health value of walking+cycling is potentially US$117 billion and 200,000 human in US per year. Perceived efficiency of car I can see where you come from - most people just check what are the available choices and car seems (especially in USA) the only sensible one. This is also the mainstream opinion. Your Excel sheet try to illustrate the mainstream view through cost reasoning and that may be exactly how the majority see it, even it may not be the truth. On the other hand I'm optimistic that the mainstream view is likely to change, and the opinions on this cutting edge group will slowly become the norm. Francis Chu Daryl Oster <et3@et3.com> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> > Original Message From: chuwa [mailto:chuwasg@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@et3.com , www.et3.com </blockquote>