First off, I’d like to say how much Straight Dope helps me pass my time at work. If it weren’t for Cecil and the SDStaff, I would have learned how to write Javascript by now.
Anyway, since California is about to pass some promising emissions legislation and I just watched An Inconvenient Truth , my personal emissions has been on my mind (if not also out of my butt – but that’s another matter). Specifically, I wonder if I ought to take public transit to work instead of driving.
Option 1: I drive to work, which is 11 miles one way. My car gets 29 mpg, and gas costs roughly $3.25 a gallon, give or take a nickel.
*Gas cost: *0.8 gallons
***$cost: ***$2.60 +/- $0.05
Option 2: I take a train, the station of which is 3 miles away (the bus schedule is very inconvenient, and I’m too out of shape to bike there). Thus, I usually drive and park there, which costs $1.50. Train ticket is $1.75 one way. Gas cost: 0.28 gal $cost: $6
In what sense am I/the environment/my conscience better off taking mass transit? Does it even matter on the macro level?
To put it another way, Al Gore told me to take mass transit whenever I could, while Cecil suggests that on a global level, meh (I’m probably twisting his bottomline to suit my laziness, but the bell he rings is kind of pessimistic).
How about continue as you’re doing for the present, but begin riding the bike evenings and weekends, getting in shape so you can bike to the train station? If you work at it even moderately, you should be in good enough condition to bike those 3 miles each way after a month, shouldn’t you?
Heh. Glad to see I’m not the only spending too much work-time here
Okay, to answer the several questions:
You, personally, are better off taking the train, I’d guess. First, your calculcation for driving the car all the way (Option 1) only factors in the cost for gas - but your car also costs you taxes, and insurance, and you have to put aside some money for repairs etc. Add this “Overhead/operating cost” to each mile you drive.
Secondly, if you slowly started taking the bike to the train, you have a good health benefit.
Thirdly, another health benefit/increase in personal comfort when taking the train is: instead of the stress of early morning traffic jam, you can relax and read a book or listen to music on the train. (If you can get a seat, and not stand squeezed in the aisle.)
As for the enviroment: less people all alone in their cars means less traffic jams means less exhausts and less stress. (Option 3 would therefore be a car pool, if possible). BUT: what kind of train are you using? How is the electricity produced in your area? If the trains are 30 years old, they’ll waste more energy than new trains (very efficient, they gain a lot of energy back when braking). If your electricity comes from old-fashioned coal plants, but your car is very, very new with all required filters, your car may produce far less exhaust than the train indirectly. (Still leaves Option 3 - and splitting the gas money also helps you personally.)
Oh, another question about the train option: are there no commuter tickets for a month or year that are cheaper? And does the train company not offer free parking for commuters? (We have Park+Ride spaces at almost all of the outlying subway stations in my city, to encourage commuters to switch to trains. Saves also the hassle of trying to find a parking spot in the inner city.)
But some of these costs are much lower (e.g., repair, maintenance, insurance) if the car is not used for daily commuting.
Another benefit to society if you take the train is that the efficiency and convenience of the train will increase as ridership increases so that you taking the train daily will make the train a more attractive option for your neighbors and coworkers.
> Option 1: I drive to work, which is 11 miles one way. My car gets 29 mpg, and
> gas costs roughly $3.25 a gallon, give or take a nickel.
> Gas cost: 0.8 gallons
> $cost: $2.60 +/- $0.05
This is not the complete cost of your driving to work. Your true cost is all the costs of your car, not just the gas. The cost of buying the car (including the financing costs), insurance, maintenance, and regular service will be much higher than this. An extremely cheap estimate of the true cost is .30 per mile, and it's probably more like .50 per mile. (Much would depend on your car.) For a 22-mile round trip (your estimate was for the round trip, right?) would thus be $6.60 to $11.00. At the low end then, your cost would be just about the same as your cost for public transportation. At the high end, it would be noticeably higher.
A logistical question then: for people who bike for any portion of their daily commute, do they keep their work clothes in a bag to avoid getting them wrinkled/sweaty?
Believe it or not, 11 miles isnt really that far on a bike, my work is 15k (about 10 miles) with hills to boot and I ride there in about 40 minutes without being the fittest guy in the world, which is about 10 minutes more than going by car. Try it as an experiment if you manage to start getting to the station maybe?
I started doing it a few years back, worked up to doing it most days of the week and now we’ve sold one of our two cars. When I started doing it I weighed 109kg, now Im 80kg, from obese to normal BMI wise.
Go the whole way and you avoid all of the emissions and costs too, other than what it took to make the bike. A shower you can use is almost mandatory though. I carry my clothes and towel in a pannier that can unzip and be a backpack, wet stuff goes in plastic bags.
Havent had that problem myself. Its really not that hard to prevent after all.
You’ve still got the weekends and after work after all, and if its that much of a concern, have a day off driving to work once a week or something like that.
To the OP: I’ll bet you’re not too unfit to bike all the way to work, let alone 3 miles! That’s only around 10 minutes cycling. IMO your best choice is walking to and from the station; 3 miles will take you maybe 30 minutes each way, and you get fit for free!
Not driving your car to work doesn’t mean you never ever drive it. I drive my car maybe once every two weeks; it’s now 12 years old and has only 56,000km (35,000 miles) on the clock. The only mechanical work that’s needed doing (apart from regular stuff like changing the oil and brake pads) is the front bearings had to be replaced. I did have flat batteries but that was a fault in the alarm system.
Well I had no need to drive my car, which was old, with a very low mileage and in generally good condition.
Due to lack of use the front disk brakes started binding, boiling the fluid and leading to total foot brake failure. The third time that happened I got rid of it. I ‘sold’ it to an elderly Indian guy who had asked me about it some years before. Ironically I met him yesterday, for the first time in years, he is delighted with the car.
Admittedly mine was an extreme case, but not using a car can be more expensive than using it.
> Admittedly mine was an extreme case, but not using a car can be more
> expensive than using it.
How often were you using the car? There have been a couple of occasions when I didn’t drive my car for four weeks because I was on vacation, and each time the battery was a little low. Each time though, it started anyway and after being driven for a long ride was O.K. If you’re using the car at least once a week it’s certainly not true that it’s more expensive not using it than using it.
Similarly, I only drive my own car once every two weeks to once per month, and it’s not any worse for the wear (err, lack of wear). I think maybe the tires have a tendancy to go out of round, and that’s it. Last year I often spent up to two months at a time without driving it, and while I blame the sitting on the destruction of my tires (since replaced), they had 60,000 miles on 'em, so I could be putting false blame.
