In honor of Bicycle Month, some less-than-flattering car stats...
• In 2006, 17 cents of every family dollar went to automobiles.
(US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006, in Arends, B., 2008, "A real auto bailout: Escape your car," The Wall Street Journal Online, December 22, 2008)
• It costs $100,000 to buy and drive a Ford F-250 the average amount (15,000 miles/year) for the typical amount of time (5 years).
[Leonhardt, D., Big vehicles stagger under the weight of $4 gas, The New York Times, June 4, 2008]
• The average annual operating cost of a bicycle is $308, 2.25% that of an average car ($13,646).
[Bike cost from Moritz, W., 1997, Survey of North American bicycle commuters: Design and aggregate results, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1578, 91-101. Automobile cost based on U.S. average of 40.2 daily person miles traveled (2001 National Household Travel Survey) and direct driving expense of $0.93 per mile (Commute Solutions)]
• Americans spend more on transportation than any other category except housing. On average, 18% of household expenditures are for transportation.
[U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and Department of Transportation, 2009, Pocket Guide to Transportation 2009]
• The average American household spends an entire three months' pay on transportation.
[Center for Neighborhood Technology, 2009, in AZ Central.com, 2009, "Average cost of transport consumes 3 months' pay"]
• The average American household spends more on transportation than on clothing, health care, and entertainment combined.
[Bureau of Labor Statistics in "The Costs of Owning a Car," Motavalli, J., The New York Times, 18 March, 2009]
• Excess air pollution in parts of California costs $28 billion annually (up to $1,600 per person) in health care costs, school absences, missed work and lost income potential from premature deaths.
[Hall, J., et al., 2008, The benefits of meeting Federal Clean Air standards in the South Coast and San Joaquin Valley Air Basins, California State University Institute for Economic and Environmental Studies (IEES)]
• The US is responsible for a quarter of global oil consumption. The transportation sector accounts for two-thirds of this.
[US Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2007, in Jacobson, S., and D. King, 2009, Measuring the potential for automobile fuel savings in the US: The impact of obesity, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14, 6-13]
• In 2005, the average annual delay for every person using motorized travel during peak periods was 38 hours.
[Schrank, D., and T. Lomax, 2007, The 2007 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Institute]
• The average amount of time an American spends in a vehicle is slightly more than an hour a day.
[Hu, P., and T. Reuscher, 2004, Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Travel Survey, U.S. Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration]
• The U.S. transportation sector is almost entirely dependent on petroleum as an energy source. Nearly two-thirds of the petroleum used in the U.S. is imported.
[US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, and Department of Transportation, 2009, Pocket Guide to Transportation 2009]
• One billion extra gallons of gasoline are consumed annually due to overweight and obesity in the US.
[Jacobson, S., and D. King, 2009, Measuring the potential for automobile fuel savings in the US: The impact of obesity, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14, 6-13]
• Every one-pound increase in the average weight of American car passengers increases fuel consumption by 40 million gallons.
[Jacobson, S., and D. King, 2009, Measuring the potential for automobile fuel savings in the US: The impact of obesity, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14, 6-13
...More analysis later...
16 comments:
Dan,
Your second item is suspicious, it clearly indicates the calculation is based on $4 gas ... which is double the price of gas currently. Leaving such things without comment leads one to doubt the rest of the numbers as well ... recall the Mark Twain quote on lies.
I think it's clear there is a bit of cherry picking of numbers going on here in a lot of cases. For example, in the next case ... how many people do you know ride their bike 42 miles a day? Is that a reasonable expectation for a family with kids?
To be sure, the price has gone down some due to the artificially low prices of gasoline, with it having dropped back down to $2/gallon (for the time being). No doubt that was a calculation based on data from a couple of years ago.
The cost of driving that particular truck may be down to $75,000 or so, I don't know for sure. At least until gas prices go back up.
Where'd you get your 42 miles a day figure? I suppose you are referring to the "40.2 daily person miles traveled" in that one stat?
Life is about choices. The people I know who get by with no cars or by using their cars less (as my family does) make that choice and make corresponding choices to do most of their living, working and playing within a radius of 3-5 miles. Once you've done that, getting by on a bike, by walking or mass transit, becomes doable for a family, including children.
A family may not be able to bike 40.2 miles (or 42 miles) every day, but I think that most of us can afford to be a little more thrifty about using gasoline and wear and tear on vehicles.
Related: it is possible to forget how to ride a bicycle. I discovered that a few years ago when I tried to ride a bicycle after having not done so in more than twenty years. I was not a vision of grace.
One of the stats I didn't include is related to that point, John...
Cars are used for 75% of trips under one mile.
[Blomberg, R., et al., 2004, Pedestrian transportation: A look forward, TRB A3B04: Committee on Pedestrians]
Dan,
I'm not sure I find that figure credible even still. The list price of the truck is what $22-25k? Your estimate (dropping the cost to $75k/5 years) indicates you estimate the price of fuel at half of the $100k figure. Which means 5 years -> $25k in maintenance? I think that is high. Who spends $5k per year on maintenance on a new car? I think that figure is inflated as well.
Look, I'm a cyclist. I'm not arguing that bikes shouldn't be used and used more than we do now. My point is that by inflating the figures in ways that are obvious you are making a good argument for the other side. A person can look at their own usage and expenditures and say, "Gosh, I spend a lot less ... so my usage is acceptable or good." You lose credibility.
They might, but the odds are, they'd be underestimating, I would guess.
Look, I offered up a series of stats that I had located. I haven't verified each one, but they sound within the realm of believability to me. I wondered about that specific one myself, but I have not researched it to verify the report.
AAA tells us that the average US motorist paid $7700/year (in 2003, it's up closer to $8100/year now) for their car. That's factoring in car costs, loan costs, gas costs, maintenance cots, insurance costs, parking costs, taxes, etc, etc. It's NOT factoring in environmental or societal costs, but let's set that aside for now.
That's the average. I suppose the truck would get worse than average gas mileage and perhaps pay more in taxes and insurance? Even at $8000/year, that comes to $40,000. I'm supposing the difference comes in driving 15,000 miles a year at 10-15? MPG at $4/gallon gas.
Sounds at least close to believable to me.
Here's the link to the Ford story, where the author points out that the Ford F-250 costs close to $50,000 right off the bat. Considering that (if that's right), then his estimate of $100,000 sounds all the more believable.
However, according to this site, you'd have to buy the upper-end-most Ford F-250 to get up to that $50,000.
Still, I appreciate you calling me on the stat, Mark. It always hurts an argument if you start off on a bad stat.
Dan,
With the caveat that many (perhaps too many, although I am loath to tell someone what kind of vehicle it is acceptable to drive) people could provide for their transportation needs with something other than a full size pick up or SUV. I'm not sure I buy your points as being realistic or practical. For instance, I would suggest that your Ford truck numbers would be significantly different (read lower) if you used the Ford truck (F150, which is smaller, lighter, has better aero, smaller engines, and is more likely to be 2WD), that is significantly more popular than the F250. The people who drive F250's are primarily contractors or people who use them for something besides commuting. I eagerly await your suggestions on how to haul a reasonable amount of construction supplies from the source to the job site. Sorry, I'm not going to apologize for driving a full sized truck. In addition to the costs you mentioned, it has provided the following benefits. Employment and transportation for a number of homeless men, the means for me to provide for my family, as well as a number of charitable functions. Not to mention the fact that my commute varies from 15-40 miles per day, because I work is a geographically large metropolitan area, and we are trying to avoid concentrating low income housing in the hood.
Having said that, a smaller vehicle is on my radar, when it becomes feasible. I realize your heart is in the right place, but you need to realize that it is not feasible for everyone to adopt your preferred lifestyle.
You also didn't factor into your F250 example that a large number of trucks in that class are diesel which changes the numbers by fair amount. One other factor to consider, what is your load. For example 2-3 trips with a smaller vehicle or one with a larger vehicle. 5-6 kids to soccer (or whatever) in one vehicle or 1 kid in 5-6 vehicles. Again, not saying that you don't have any point here, just that it is not necessarily as simple as you assume it to be.
Craig said:
I'm not sure I buy your points as being realistic or practical. For instance, I would suggest that your Ford truck numbers would be significantly different (read lower) if you used the Ford truck F150
Of course it would. That's just one statistic, to give an idea of actual costs for a specific model. It's not meant to suggest that Ford F-250s are the only trucks people drive.
I'm not sure what's unrealistic or impractical about that. Those words don't seem to apply to the stats in question.
Craig also noted:
Sorry, I'm not going to apologize for driving a full sized truck. In addition to the costs you mentioned, it has provided the following benefits.
No one is asking you to apologize, Craig. I think you are misunderstanding the point of these stats: It's not to punish anyone or single anyone out for being naughty. It's to point out how very costly the prevalence of the personal auto can be individually and societally. It's to question the wisdom of policy that has encouraged and subsidized the personal auto as choice.
I'm saying it's way past time for us to end motorist welfare and gov't support for auto companies and begin to make wiser transportation policy. The personal auto as the norm will almost certainly NOT be the norm 100 years from now. It's time to make better policies and plans.
Having said that, I'm not talking about banning personal autos. I'm talking about ending motorist subsidies and governmental encouragement of the personal auto and channeling that support and money in wiser direction. Or, at the least, to end the subsidies and bad policies.
If we had to pay actual costs (ie, let the Market work) for driving, it would not be an attractive option and people would get around in other ways, people would live in smaller circles as is more fitting from a personal and fiscal responsibility point of view.
I take your point about your choice of statistics. However the F250 was chosen for a reason, it is an extreme. It is not in any way representative of the type of vehicle that 95% of people drive. I would suggest that it would be more persuasive not to argue from an extreme. But, your choice. I would also agree with your point about removing subsidies for gas etc., if you were against removing all subsidies, not just the ones you don't like. BTW, the gas subsidy is actually pretty small, so it probably wouldn't make much difference. The ripple effects through out society would be significant though.
re: gas subsidies...
Motorists are subsidized in many ways. The personal auto as the primary mode of travel is subsidized in many ways.
It has been estimated in many different studies that if we were to remove these subsidies and pushed something closer to actual costs of driving on to the price of gas, gas would cost closer to $5-25?/gallon.
Would you be interested in those studies?
This source (from 1994, so it is very dated) estimates it between $5-15, depending upon how you want to measure it.
Here's another source, placing it at about $15/gallon (I'm not sure what year that is from).
There are other studies if you are interested.
Dan,
If your point is that we should stop subsidizing any form of energy, and allow those decisions to be made on the merits, then I could agree with that. Providing the subsidies were returned to the taxpayers, which would offset some of the increases.
If your point is that the subsidy on oil/gas should be removed in order to penalize, then I would disagree.
I also assume that you are willing to pay the society wide price that would result from your proposal.
Craig said:
If your point is that the subsidy on oil/gas should be removed in order to penalize, then I would disagree.
Well, that's not my point. I didn't say that nor do I think it. I don't have any desire to "punish" motorists (I am one sometimes still, after all). I just think it reasonable that we ought not subsidize motorists nor should we encourage by our policies the personal auto as dominant mode of transport. It's a failed and failing policy.
I also assume that you are willing to pay the society wide price that would result from your proposal.
I'm thinking it reasonable and desirable that we ought to pay actual costs for gasoline/personal auto, instead of taxpayer- and others-paid discounts for gas. When you have hidden costs in a capitalist system, you don't have a responsible system and you won't have good results generally.
If we start doing this, then, yes, societally, we will have larger expenses. But the person who has been secretly plugging his house into the water system and getting water for free who suddenly has to start paying full costs for his water is not somehow being oppressed when he is asked to pay the actual costs, is he?
Dan,
I'm not saying oppressive, I'm just saying that the cost of everything will rise. I'm not sure that I'm willing to make that commitment until there is actually technology that will allow us to accommodate the reasonably inexpensive movement of goods and services. I still don't get if you are willing to remove subsidies on every form of energy, or you just want to focus on gas.
What would happen, if after removing all subsidies, it became apparent that gas was still the most efficient?
Post a Comment