Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Let's try it one last time, this time with a 2x3 km trip (thinking it may be a better standard to query)

Expand Messages
  • eric.brtiton@free.fr
    Dear Friends, Is this a total wild goose chase? Let me try it with you one last time, with first the follow word of clarification as to why I am on this trail.
    Message 1 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      Dear Friends,

       

      Is this a total wild goose chase? Let me try it with you one last time, with first the follow word of clarification as to why I am on this trail.

       

      We would like to put our hands on a couple of credible numbers (or a range) that will permit us to carry out quick and dirty order of magnitude analysis of situations where someone takes a 3 km trip to a store, workplace, whatever – instead of driving a car there.  It would be great to be able to be, let’s say, more accurate than Al Gore on this. I.e., ballpark numbers that relate to something pretty solid.

       

      Here is the I hope very simple (simplistic) profile that I am trying to get my arms around (ballpark numbers):  Here is an idea of a profile which I find a good one, but there may be better ones. Anyway . . .

       

      1.     Total cost profile (internal, externalities) for a “typical” 2X3 km car trip with a cold start and heavy foot in “city traffic”. (You have numbers for another shortish trip in the city, well that would be just fine. For a specific place, wonderful!)

      2.     Let’s assume an “average car, averagely maintained, average weather” And if it helps, why not with air conditioning turned on full blast (that’s average ain’t it?)

      3.     Actual travel time on way from A to B say 15 kph – meaning a 12 minute trip, to which we might add, say, three minutes for finding a parking space (i.e., additional running time which pushes up just about all the costs).

      4.       Age, make and maintenance of car, meteorological conditions, altitude, driver skills, city size, traffic conditions, and other such stuff will obviously influence our number(s) - but it must be possible to be sensible about this and use available data without someone having to do another PhD.

       

      Internal costs:

      1.     To the owner/driver for such a trip (maybe pointing out on the way the difference between average and marginal)
      The usual, possibly pro rata per km or hour:
      annualized vehicle purchase costs, annual finance charges on vehicle loan(s), gasoline and motor oil, insurance, maintenance and repair, parking, licenses, and other fees.
      Numbers that come to mind as I scan various data and sources suggest that $1.00/km. is a ballpark figure to get us going. (And since in the States much of this tends to be cheaper, maybe that works out to closer to $1.00/mile there.)
       

      ·         Which, if any of this makes any sense, suggests that our guy’s trip is going to cost him something on the order of $6.00, but if we add the extra time and charges to park his crate, perhaps something closely to $7.00.

      ·         Does this make sense to you?

       

      2.     To the city, state:

      ·         John kindly tells us that his data suggests: “… "total direct costs (including operation, maintenance, new construction, debt service, and highway police but excluding financial aid to local government) work out to about USD $0.03 per vehicle-kilometer traveled.".

      ·         So let’s call it USD .0.20 for the two legs. (Anything different or better on this?)

      ·         What about parking costs to the community?  Anything else?

      Cost of Externalities: Pro rate costs, numbers for . . .

       

      ·         Accidents

      ·         Emissions: CO2, NOX, particulates (from both engine and tire/road interaction)

      ·         Marginal cost in terms of global lost time and other traffic variables of the nth vehicle into a busy urban traffic stream.

      ·         Fuel consumed: Treating it here as an “externality” since in addition to putting the squeeze on the car guy’s pocket book, it also has broader national, international implications. (resource, geopolitics, security)

      ·         Land use

      ·         Public health

       

      This is purely conceptual arithmetic of course and the basic numbers for our proto-trip or something like it must be out there. And if they are, it would be very very kind if you could point them this way. (As I would, will, your way, if and when I had/have them.)

       

      With all good wishes,

       

      Eric Britton

       

      Reinventing Transportation in Cities - at http://www.invent.newmobility.org/

      The Greening of Transport in Parishttp://www.paris.newmobility.org/

      Vélib’ City Bike – Policy Briefhttp://www.velib.newmobility.org/ 

       

      Europe: 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris,  France.    T:  +331 4326 1323

      USA: 9440 Readcrest Dr., Los Angeles, CA  90210.     T: +1 310 601-8468

      E. eric.britton@.... E2. fekbritton@... Skype: newmobility

       

      The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on people in our daily lives. Seeking out and pioneering new transformational concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs and business. Supporting local government as that closest to the people and the problems. Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and politicians.  And through our long term world-wide collaborative efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just world.

       

       

       

    • eric.brtiton@free.fr
      Thanks so much Mari. This is excellent and I draw the attention to all of us who care about these things to this table and to the full report. And as I look at
      Message 2 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

        Thanks so much Mari. This is excellent and I draw the attention to all of us who care about these things to this table and to the full report.

         

        And as I look at their table 7, the feeling that comes to me is that if we take their figure , at the lower limit, we are looking at external cost for our one way 3 km  trip at € 20-25 – at the lower limit.

         

        And with that we have not even started to factor in the negative impacts in terms of land use and urban form, which are the result of the fact that the basic “metric” of the car is one that  necessarily works to destroy the urban forms that are closest to ecological, environmental and life quality values.

         

        Nor do they factor in the huge negative impacts on local (down town) business and the economy of the city.

         

        I propose that we continue to gather in these bits and pieces over the coming days and then see if we can come up with some numbers that are going to make the fundamental points to our mayors and civic leaders who need to be thinking about all this in very new ways.

         

        Collaborative problem solving.

         

         

         

        From: Mari Jüssi [mailto:mari@...]
        Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2007 19:36

         

        Hi, Eric

        For external costs you can use the cost estimates of CE Delft who is making a study for the Eur. Commission.

        http://www.ce.nl/4288_Inputpaper.pdf

        page 28

        I also cut the table out for you.

        Best wishes

        Mari


         

      • Lee Schipper
        Delft does it better than anyone, but again the numbesr are very time and place specific. Lee Schipper Director of Research, EMBARQ From Oct 1, Visiting
        Message 3 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          RE: Let's try it one last time, this time with a 2x3 km trip (thinking it may be a better standard to query)

          Delft does it better than anyone, but again the numbesr are very time and place specific.

          Lee Schipper
          Director of Research, EMBARQ
          From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar,
          UC Transportation Center
          UC Berkeley, CA



          -----Original Message-----
          From: eric.brtiton@... [mailto:eric.britton@...]
          Sent: Sun 10/14/2007 2:53 PM
          To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: Mari Jüssi; Lee Schipper
          Subject: Let's try it one last time, this time with a 2x3 km trip (thinking it may be a better standard to query)

          Thanks so much Mari. This is excellent and I draw the attention to all of us who care about these things to this table and to the full report.



          And as I look at their table 7, the feeling that comes to me is that if we take their figure , at the lower limit, we are looking at external cost for our one way 3 km  trip at ? 20-25 - at the lower limit.



          And with that we have not even started to factor in the negative impacts in terms of land use and urban form, which are the result of the fact that the basic "metric" of the car is one that  necessarily works to destroy the urban forms that are closest to ecological, environmental and life quality values.



          Nor do they factor in the huge negative impacts on local (down town) business and the economy of the city.



          I propose that we continue to gather in these bits and pieces over the coming days and then see if we can come up with some numbers that are going to make the fundamental points to our mayors and civic leaders who need to be thinking about all this in very new ways.



          Collaborative problem solving.







          From: Mari Jüssi [mailto:mari@...]
          Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2007 19:36





          Hi, Eric

          For external costs you can use the cost estimates of CE Delft who is making a study for the Eur. Commission.

          http://www.ce.nl/4288_Inputpaper.pdf

          page 28

          I also cut the table out for you.

          Best wishes

          Mari







        • Lee Schipper
          oops that strikes me as way to high...by an order of magnitude. Lee Schipper Director of Research, EMBARQ From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar, UC Transportation
          Message 4 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Let's try it one last time, this time with a 2x3 km trip (thinking it may be a better standard to query)

            oops that strikes me as way to high...by an order of magnitude.

            Lee Schipper
            Director of Research, EMBARQ
            From Oct 1, Visiting Scholar,
            UC Transportation Center
            UC Berkeley, CA



            -----Original Message-----
            From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com on behalf of eric.brtiton@...
            Sent: Sun 10/14/2007 2:53 PM
            To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
            Cc: Mari Jüssi; Lee Schipper
            Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Let's try it one last time, this time with a 2x3 km trip (thinking it may be a better standard to query)

            Thanks so much Mari. This is excellent and I draw the attention to all of us who care about these things to this table and to the full report.



            And as I look at their table 7, the feeling that comes to me is that if we take their figure , at the lower limit, we are looking at external cost for our one way 3 km  trip at ? 20-25 - at the lower limit.



            And with that we have not even started to factor in the negative impacts in terms of land use and urban form, which are the result of the fact that the basic "metric" of the car is one that  necessarily works to destroy the urban forms that are closest to ecological, environmental and life quality values.



            Nor do they factor in the huge negative impacts on local (down town) business and the economy of the city.



            I propose that we continue to gather in these bits and pieces over the coming days and then see if we can come up with some numbers that are going to make the fundamental points to our mayors and civic leaders who need to be thinking about all this in very new ways.



            Collaborative problem solving.







            From: Mari Jüssi [mailto:mari@...]
            Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2007 19:36





            Hi, Eric

            For external costs you can use the cost estimates of CE Delft who is making a study for the Eur. Commission.

            http://www.ce.nl/4288_Inputpaper.pdf <http://www.ce.nl/4288_Inputpaper.pdf>

            page 28

            I also cut the table out for you.

            Best wishes

            Mari








          • Michael Yeates
            From Australia ... three costs in A$s that are or may be fairly accurate (and will need to be independently and currently sourced and verified) and may need to
            Message 5 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              From Australia ... three costs in A$s that are or may be fairly accurate (and will need to be independently and currently sourced and verified) and may need to be changed to different metrics are:-

              1. There is/was a tax concession for use of business vehicles and it used to be on a graduated scale ie less/km for smaller vehicles ... but is or was around A$0.70c per km ... now government tax collectors are rarely known to be excessively generous so a conversion upwards for inflation and the "lack of generosity" factors might be appropriate. Other tax systems I would assume have similar concessions. These might be useful to use as a bottom line and would seem likely to provide a national fit in different locations? 

              2. The cost of providing and servicing parking on the street is an interesting "cost" but can be determined from the cost of constructing and maintaining full strength road/pavement including extended underground and overhead services, etc on a per sqm basis then converted to a per car basis then used with other selected metrics eg the daily average car use to the CBD or "target" location or as a raw number of car bays provided, always remembering that there are usually more car parking bays provided than indicated by demand although some of these will be privately provided. Each car bay has a series of costs both capital and ongoing as well as externalities eg much larger stormwater drainage systems are needed to cope with the increased impervious area and reduced absorption ... which can often then lead to INCREASED demand on treated water to supplement a depleted ground water system ... the figures are small locally but big when amalgamated say over a city or region or nationally or globally, even if only a smallish % of the total problem .... so there are costs associated with both stormwater disposal and treatment .... There is also in hotter climates at least, a substantial over-heating problem caused in part by loss of treed areas (shading and absorption is high) being converted to road surface as well as by the pavement's absorption/reflection of heat (and light in some situations) that then "requires additional cooling eg air conditioning, shading, etc ... all these are costs attributable to the car parks. And I understand that in some parts of Europe (UK?) some road construction techniques are being changed to cope with the older forms of bitumen seal melting in the increased heat ... so there is yet another incremental cost ...

              3. Our annual cost of road crashes is said to be around A$16-20 billion (but would be much much more if long term and minor injury costs were also included as I believe they are in the NL) so here is another metric that might be able to be used from each region, country etc ... by converting to the appropriate measure ... in our case with a population of say 20 million, it can become a per capita figure and if there is say 20% of the population who are drivers, then it can become a per driver figure, and if the average trip is say 10,000kms, then it can become a per km figure ...

              It is a bit like trying to work out the health benefits of walking and cycling and of use of public transport ... a matter of selecting which metrics suit ... and certainly NOT something to try to do too accurately as there are too many variables to argue over and EACH tends to require a host of PhDs just to get a statistically defensible outcome ... so that comes later if we have not stuffed the place up first ...

              I know it is a bit corny, but I suggest that it is still extremely useful to keep thinking of ourselves as that frog in the every increasing temperature in the pot on the back of the stove ...!

              The problem for "us" in this type of exercise is that many of these costs (eg hospital costs of road crashes) are quite deliberately spread across the whole economy rather than being paid by the users ( or more accurately the "causers") as part of the "user pays" rhetoric ... in the same way that the GNP and GDP assessments actually show a BENEFIT from the costs of crashes, etc ... so the so called "green economy" discussions of some years ago need to be revisited ... in my view urgently, so that oil spills in the ocean are paid for by motorists and countries such as Australia and the USA are not allowed to export CO2 (and in Australia's case extremely cheap high quality coal but claim the CO2 produced is not our problem) then rely on "off-setting" ...

              This alone could be worth looking at as Australia is just starting the first of 6 weeks of a national government election campaign where off-setting and business-as-usual are already very prominent ... .

              Of course we also have to separate out the other products and users of oil by-products ...!

              But essentially I am with the frog ...!

              So no way is it a wild goose chase.

              It is difficult because just about all measures and all political rhetoric is framed in ways that tend to (if not deliberately) obfuscate and confuse the paths ...

              It IS however a "save the frog" exercise and while so complex, is unlikely to be easy ... so best presented in a "simplistic" form but with all the caveats and assumptions included (in effect as footnotes) so that the opportunities for further more detailed analysis are made clear ...

              It seems to me too that some of the work of Newman and Kenworthy and their associates (ongoing) might usefully be employed or revisited ... again to defend the bottom line of any costs ...

              MY..................................

              At 12:43 AM 15/10/2007, eric.brtiton@... wrote:

              Dear Friends,

               

              Is this a total wild goose chase? Let me try it with you one last time, with first the follow word of clarification as to why I am on this trail.

               

              We would like to put our hands on a couple of credible numbers (or a range) that will permit us to carry out quick and dirty order of magnitude analysis of situations where someone takes a 3 km trip to a store, workplace, whatever – instead of driving a car there.  It would be great to be able to be, let’s say, more accurate than Al Gore on this. I.e., ballpark numbers that relate to something pretty solid.

               

              Here is the I hope very simple (simplistic) profile that I am trying to get my arms around (ballpark numbers):  Here is an idea of a profile which I find a good one, but there may be better ones. Anyway . . .

               

              1.     Total cost profile (internal, externalities) for a “typical” 2X3 km car trip with a cold start and heavy foot in “city traffic”. (You have numbers for another shortish trip in the city, well that would be just fine. For a specific place, wonderful!)

              2.     Let’s assume an “average car, averagely maintained, average weather” And if it helps, why not with air conditioning turned on full blast (that’s average ain’t it?)

              3.     Actual travel time on way from A to B say 15 kph – meaning a 12 minute trip, to which we might add, say, three minutes for finding a parking space (i.e., additional running time which pushes up just about all the costs).

              4.       Age, make and maintenance of car, meteorological conditions, altitude, driver skills, city size, traffic conditions, and other such stuff will obviously influence our number(s) - but it must be possible to be sensible about this and use available data without someone having to do another PhD.

               

              Internal costs:

              1.     To the owner/driver for such a trip (maybe pointing out on the way the difference between average and marginal)
              The usual, possibly pro rata per km or hour: annualized vehicle purchase costs, annual finance charges on vehicle loan(s), gasoline and motor oil, insurance, maintenance and repair, parking, licenses, and other fees.
              Numbers that come to mind as I scan various data and sources suggest that $1.00/km. is a ballpark figure to get us going. (And since in the States much of this tends to be cheaper, maybe that works out to closer to $1.00/mile there.)
               

              ·         Which, if any of this makes any sense, suggests that our guy’s trip is going to cost him something on the order of $6.00, but if we add the extra time and charges to park his crate, perhaps something closely to $7.00.

              ·         Does this make sense to you?

               

              2.     To the city, state:

              ·         John kindly tells us that his data suggests: “… "total direct costs (including operation, maintenance, new construction, debt service, and highway police but excluding financial aid to local government) work out to about USD $0.03 per vehicle-kilometer traveled.".

              ·         So let’s call it USD .0.20 for the two legs. (Anything different or better on this?)

              ·         What about parking costs to the community?  Anything else?

              Cost of Externalities: Pro rate costs, numbers for . . .

               

              ·         Accidents

              ·         Emissions: CO2, NOX, particulates (from both engine and tire/road interaction)

              ·         Marginal cost in terms of global lost time and other traffic variables of the nth vehicle into a busy urban traffic stream.

              ·         Fuel consumed: Treating it here as an “externality” since in addition to putting the squeeze on the car guy’s pocket book, it also has broader national, international implications. (resource, geopolitics, security)

              ·         Land use

              ·         Public health

               

              This is purely conceptual arithmetic of course and the basic numbers for our proto-trip or something like it must be out there. And if they are, it would be very very kind if you could point them this way. (As I would, will, your way, if and when I had/have them.)

               

              With all good wishes,

               

              Eric Britton

               

              Reinventing Transportation in Cities - at http://www.invent.newmobility.org/

              The Greening of Transport in Paris – http://www.paris.newmobility.org/

              Vélib’ City Bike – Policy Brief – http://www.velib.newmobility.org/ 

               

              Europe: 8/10 rue Joseph Bara, 75006 Paris,  France.    T:  +331 4326 1323

              USA: 9440 Readcrest Dr., Los Angeles, CA  90210.     T: +1 310 601-8468

              E. eric.britton@.... E2. fekbritton@... Skype: newmobility

               

              The Commons: A wide open, world-wide open society forum concerned with improving our understanding and control of technology as it impacts on people in our daily lives. Seeking out and pioneering new transformational concepts for concerned citizens, activists, community groups, entrepreneurs and business. Supporting local government as that closest to the people and the problems. Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators and politicians.  And through our long term world-wide collaborative efforts, energy and personal choices, placing them and ourselves firmly on the path to a more sustainable and more just world.

               

               

               

              No virus found in this incoming message.
              Checked by AVG Free Edition.
              Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 13/10/2007 7:26 PM
            • Michael Yeates
              Really good stuff ... including Dave and his shopping trip comments. But the GDP and GNP methodology seems to overcome a lot of the (unwarranted?) concern
              Message 6 of 7 , Oct 14, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Really good stuff ... including Dave and his shopping trip comments.

                But the GDP and GNP methodology seems to overcome a lot of the (unwarranted?) concern about detail and minute accuracy, local variability etc so why should we worry overly about these ?

                In terms of GDP and GNP, etc is the outcome of the following event "good" or "bad" ... and in that assessment, what elements are missing? Is it these "missing elements" that we need to bring to the global table?

                Link: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=305412
                 
                Yes I know, tough and certainly not easy ... but there are huge indirect and externality costs in these events that are the direct result of what are described as benefits when these projects are frst mooted but the full real costs are more or less excluded ...

                In this case and most others, even the delays in traffic will be turned into a benefit because they will be used to justify the reconstruction, etc.

                Just total up the full real costs of ALL these types of events (ie all road crashes globally) just to get a feel for the cost ... and then try to position that figure in terms of GNP and GDP or "green economics", peak oil, wars, water shortages and global warming etc...

                MY...................

                At 04:53 AM 15/10/2007, eric.brtiton@... wrote:

                Thanks so much Mari. This is excellent and I draw the attention to all of us who care about these things to this table and to the full report.

                 

                And as I look at their table 7, the feeling that comes to me is that if we take their figure , at the lower limit, we are looking at external cost for our one way 3 km  trip at € 20-25 – at the lo lower limit.

                 

                And with that we have not even started to factor in the negative impacts in terms of land use and urban form, which are the result of the fact that the basic “metric” of the car is one that  necessarily works to destroy the urban forms that are closest to ecological, environmental and life quality values.

                 

                Nor do they factor in the huge negative impacts on local (down town) business and the economy of the city.

                 

                I propose that we continue to gather in these bits and pieces over the coming days and then see if we can come up with some numbers that are going to make the fundamental points to our mayors and civic leaders who need to be thinking about all this in very new ways.

                 

                Collaborative problem solving.

                 

                 

                 

                From: Mari Jüssi [mailto:mari@...]
                Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2007 19:36

                 

                Hi, Eric

                For external costs you can use the cost estimates of CE Delft who is making a study for the Eur. Commission.

                http://www.ce.nl/4288_Inputpaper.pdf

                page 28

                I also cut the table out for you.

                Best wishes

                Mari


                 

                No virus found in this incoming message.
                Checked by AVG Free Edition.
                Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.9/1069 - Release Date: 13/10/2007 7:26 PM
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.