I end up driving about 100 kilometres each day. The trip to work is 40. The return trip is roughly the same. And when I factor in meandering here and there for routine errands, meals, or meetups, I come out to around 100.
Now, I drive a reliable Honda--but it's getting up there in years. What's more, its odo has passed the 300k mark (180k in miles). And I'm driving it in a region somewhat hostile to small cars with FWD--Wisconsin winters tax even the mightiest 4WDs with their ferocious snows. In the end, I'm driving on borrowed time; and at the rate I drive daily, that time is ticking down quickly.
I highlight this to give my motivation for finding an alternative. It's not the price of fuel: I purchase it at a much-reduced price in ethanol-rich Iowa. And it's not congestion: east of Madison, there's virtually none to speak of. Further, automotive commuting is economically feasible for me--at least in the short-term. So, it boils down to blunting the sting of a sharp economic loss in the somewhat-distant future.
The further I can delay that economic loss, the better equipped I will be to face it. What's more, it's an inevitable aspect of choosing to own a car. So, the less-regular I make the regimen of replacing spent vehicles, the less costly car ownership will be over the course of my life. This all leads me to place a premium on altering my commuting habits.
What is the price of that premium, though? And how does that price affect the selection of an alternative? Some thoughts:
a) The savings accrued to me through replacing a car at, say, 15-year intervals rather than 10 would be (presuming 55 years' drivership throughout my life) the difference between buying 4 cars rather than 6. I presume arguendo that I could accomplish this by decreasing my driving by 33%. Since I tend to buy beaters (albeit reliable ones) to then drive into the ground, each car sets me back around $7000. That $14000 savings spread across 50 years ends up being around 77 cents a day.
b) I consume around $5.30 in fuel a day.
c) I'm frequently involved in minor accidents, but haven't yet experienced a major one. On average, these accidents cost me around $200 a year in out-of-pocket costs and increased insurance premiums. If I were to cut my driving by 33%, I would probably cough up around $133 yearly instead. This would save me an additional 18 cents.
d) Because my auto insurance pays generously for catastrophic claims, and civil remedies always exist for rectifying the very worst ones, calculating savings based on their reduction in risk would yield a relatively negligible result, not to mention flirt with temperamental intangibles that would muddy the analysis.
e) As I intend on retaining use of my vehicle at all times, I cannot use periodic gaps in insurance coverage to cut costs.
Thus, if I were to assign a $0 value to the autonomy and/or convenience personal commuting brings, I should be willing to implement my 33% driving reduction plan for anywhere less than or equal to $6.25 a day. Interestingly, this accords well with my gut instinct--before doing this analysis, I set my reserve price at around $6. As a result, it seems whatever incalculable value I attribute to the personal commuter's sacrosanct freedoms of movement and choice, it's either greatly discounted by continuing as a part-time commuter or offset by other intangibles like feeling eco-friendly, sharing company with a co-commuter, or keeping community assets afloat.
So, if there are any Plattevillains out there looking for a rideshare to Dubuque, let me know. I'd love you for a five-buck chance to carpool.
How much would you have to alter your lifestyle otherwise? That is to say, when do your trips to the grocery, etc take place? As a person with even just a moderate (30 miles round trip) commute myself, I find that high gas prices have trained me into a mode where I get all the stuff I need to get done when I am "out", rather than going out, then going back "in". Now, clearly you don't have to buy your groceries in Iowa, but still, what affirmative alterations of habit would occur and how would that impact your premium?
ReplyDeleteAlso, shouldn't you be CHARGING someone to travel with YOU? I mean, you'll be going there anyway. Is the best deal in this not as the pooler rather than the poolee? It's not like you're going car or insurance free. Those are the main expenses. Or, what about simply sharing, week to week, driving responsibilities? What's the CBA on that?
I'm not saying you didn't run these models. I'm just interested to see your thinking on it.
In considering the value of autonomy and convenience, I meant to subsume lifestyle shifts and all their attendant hardship. Now, I imagine that the reserve price I had intuited probably reflects just that--I'm willing to pay somewhat less for alternative transport than cold rationalism would predict. But if it seems insufficiently discounted for these hardships, it might owe to the particularly anomalous situation I live in: I have both my grocer and bank within walking distance. A cheap barber too. And the library and post office are almost on top of me.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the fly in the ointment in approaching the question as pooler rather than poolee is price differentiation. It would only make economic sense for me to adopt a commuter if said person were willing himself to pay somewhat more than $6.25. I'd need $6.25 to defray the cost of opting out of alternate transport--but I'd also lose the full benefit of maintaining my lifestyle. Given, the latter concern wouldn't really adjust that $6.25 figure too far upward--but in theory, it should a little. In the end, though: if I'm unwilling to pay more than $6 for this service (and I'm probably more price elastic than most), I shouldn't expect to find another person who would. But further than that, actively seeking out that consumer would impose costs of its own.
Good observation, though!