Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

datadriventhoughts.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#71

Post by ricksplat »

bpodgursky wrote: post #29
socialist_coder wrote: post #12

This should not really be very surprising as walking is not very efficient. You should be comparing driving to cycling, as both are wheeled forms of transportation. Cycling is up to 5x more efficient than walking ( https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html ) So, if you compare driving to cycling, cycling wins hands down. And, this is with the artificially low cost of fossil fuels. If fossil fuels properl…

Did you read the article? They compare bicycling too. Also, a lot of fossil fuels are used grow and transport food the food you eat. It's not immediately obvious to me that the fossil fuel impact of growing the food, transporting it, and packaging it is less than the fuel to move a car in the first place.

If you're going that far perhaps factor in the costs of drilling and shipping fossil fuels on the other side ... admittedly it probably is a factor or so less than the proportion associated with foodstuffs - but - the foodstuffs side has plenty of room for optimisation whereas the fossil fuels side is on a degenerative trend

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#72

Post by gonvaled »

pkaye wrote: post #30
socialist_coder wrote: post #12

This should not really be very surprising as walking is not very efficient. You should be comparing driving to cycling, as both are wheeled forms of transportation. Cycling is up to 5x more efficient than walking ( https://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/humanpower1.html ) So, if you compare driving to cycling, cycling wins hands down. And, this is with the artificially low cost of fossil fuels. If fossil fuels properl…

Do you think the fossil fuel subsidies benefit the agriculture industry hence also making for cheaper food?

Modern food is packaged oil.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#73

Post by et-al »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #59
honkhonkpants wrote: post #41

This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…

How many Ethiopian restaurants, improv theaters, and dueling piano bars did you pass? A lot of niche interests can't sustain themselves at all with only a small fraction of a small population.

I know it's a rhetorical question, but San Francisco's Tenderloin neighborhood actually offers all three in 0.6 miles:

Unscripted Theatre Company > Johnny Foley's > Tadu Ethiopian Kitchen

In five years time, this will probably not be the case.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#74

Post by gonvaled »

Gustomaximus wrote: post #33

This analysis should take the additional calories it takes to walk vs sit to represent a fair cost of walking. Or add the cost of calories for sitting should be included in the driving option as these are part of the process.

Sure, but since driving is faster, and sitting consumes less calories than moving, the additional calories will be little.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#75

Post by mobiuscog »

fpgaminer wrote: post #56

The article touches on this, but doesn't directly address it: whether they're using gross calories or net calories. Gross is the total calories you burn during that mile. Net is how many additional calories you are burning as a result of walking versus being sedentary. Glancing at the wikipedia article which the author uses doesn't clarify this, nor does Wikipedia's citation. I didn't check the citation's citation. C…

This can't be mentioned enough, because otherwise the travelling by car would have to include the 'human' fuel element as well.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#76

Post by collyw »

knowtheory wrote: post #13

Except your food expenditures are a sunk cost, and you can't replace them with fuel expenditures. This is literally comparing apples and gasoline.

Yes, it is taking the total calories used (actually its not that clear). It should be comparing the extra calories burned by cycling minus the calories burned sitting. Driving the car, you will still be burning most of those calories as well as burning the gasoline.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#77

Post by aaron695 »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #41

This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…

This is pure trolling and has nothing to do with the article.

It purely was looking at the cost in fuel of go a mile compare to other transport.

Be it across a current city, desert or large dessert.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#78

Post by vixen99 »

smadge wrote: post #55
honkhonkpants wrote: post #41

This analysis makes the same mistake that innumerable other analysts have made before: that going a mile is something worth doing. If you stipulate that everything is a mile apart, then you're guaranteed to get this outcome. The point of walking is that if you throw out the cars then everything is much closer together, and then you don't have to walk a mile. If I start from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and wal…

I agree! "Driving a mile is infinitely more expensive than staying where you are, from a fuel perspective"

So the infinite universe is no big deal then?

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#79

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Why has nobody mentioned opportunity cost?

There's a huge opportunity cost of not being able to travel as fast and far as a car lets you. You can't* get an Uber or bum a ride from a friend to your mother's house in the middle of nowhere on Christmas morning. There's few parts of the country where walking/biking year round is feasible.

*at a reasonable price point.

Re: Walking a mile is 3x more expensive than driving, from a fuel perspective

#80

Post by allendoerfer »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #66
allendoerfer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have posted that at the top level, so this could be the top comment. While the statistics are nice to look at, I have read the article you mentioned, too (was on HN a while ago) and instantly thought that metabolism unfortunately renders the whole calculation useless and wrong.

> While the statistics are nice to look at, I have read the article you mentioned, too (was on HN a while ago) and instantly thought that metabolism unfortunately renders the whole calculation useless and wrong. Why did you think this? Can you articulate a change that metabolism would make to the calculation?

It adapts, like my parent comment has said. Most of our energy is spend on keeping the system running, not running with our feet. If we start to run, we burn more energy, because our metabolism has not adapted yet, once it adapts (see his example with Africa), there is very little change. Obviously this is simplified.
Post reply on HN