More bogus reporting - High gas prices reduce obesity?

[.RJ]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/us_nm/gasoline_obesity_dc">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070911/us_ ... obesity_dc</a><!-- m -->

"I was pumping gas one day, thinking with gas prices so high I may have to take the Metro," he said, referring to the public transportation system serving the St. Louis area.

I wonder if he really did the math on this one - because you dont really come out ahead around here in terms of $$. The traffic/parking issue is another one entirely.

[Mike]

Yep, the $ savings are certainly not there. The real advantage is having someone else do the driving (catch up on reading, nap, etc), reducing traffic congestion (for others...), not polluting as much, and keeping miles off your car.

[Ginger]

Well, you have to tie in the one's own individual value of not waiting in traffic and dealing with parking. Those factor into the dollar argument. I agree that metro/driving is a wash in monetary terms... but if metro went to my office I'd probably take it. I'd value the mindlessness and ease that it offers.

Substitution is a pretty sound principle, though. As prices rise on one good, it's substitute good, if at a lower price, is used. If the substitute good were a market good then the increased demand would raise the price and eventually both goods would reach a natural equilibrium. Metro isn't a market good, though, it's one giant government subsidy, and it doesn't react to demand the same way a private sector version would. Meaning - yeah, as gas prices go up metro would get more use. Direct factor or solution to obesity - probably a strech.. although the extra 5 or 10 minutes of walking for 300 pound Timmy or Jainey certainly won't be bad for them.

[white_2kgt]

The metro does come out cheaper if you take into consideration the total cost of the vehicle and not just the gas. Things like insurance and PM on the car like tires/oil/etc. Just look at the mileage reimbursement rate from the federal govt as a guideline then decide if the metro is cheaper, although now the metro has raised prices so who knows.

[HAULN-SS]

Yeah, but that only works if you don't need a car at all. Most people are still paying insurance and maintenance on their car, it's just sitting in their driveway more often. I've generally found you spend more on maintaining a car that's not being driven than you do one that gets used often...in the long run.

[.RJ]

The metro does come out cheaper if you take into consideration the total cost of the vehicle and not just the gas.

You're paying insurance regardless of whether you are driving it or not. If you have a commute of 10 miles each way thats 5,000 miles a year on your vehicle commuting - not completely insignificant, but thats one oil change, marginal tire/brake wear.

Like deersty said, it works out great if you can get rid of the car all together - but that doesnt work unless you're living in Arlington or DC (at least, IMO).

[Ginger]

Your SS doesn't count. Not even a little.

[Mike]

I've generally found you spend more on maintaining a car that's not being driven than you do one that gets used often...in the long run.

Nope, at the rate I'm going (tires, oil, filters), the S2000 is definitely going to cost me less now that it gets ~30mpw rather than the ~250 it used to. Maybe if we're talking about some old clunker, sure, but modern cars? Nope.

[Ginger]

You can't say that not using the car frequently doesn't have any bearing on cost. You know better than that.

[Mike]

You can't say that not using the car frequently doesn't have any bearing on cost. You know better than that.

huh? who you talking to? quoting is good.

i'm going to assume you're talking to me... in a modern car, if you start it once a week (maybe even less), you're not going to run in to any issues that would not have cropped up had you driven it every day.

[Ginger]

Psst, Mike, I was talking to RJ and Derek.

[Mike]

Psst, Mike, I was talking to RJ and Derek.

then quote, fucker.

[Ginger]

Eat my sweaty balls!

[Mike]

mine are sweatier... unless you rode (pedals) in today too.

[Ginger]

I can't commit to getting up early in the cold and riding my pedalcycle. I can't even commit to exercising regularly, like, at all.

[.RJ]

i'm going to assume you're talking to me... in a modern car, if you start it once a week (maybe even less), you're not going to run in to any issues that would not have cropped up had you driven it every day.

Yep.

Also, something else to consider here - the use of public transport is a factor in major metro areas I think but there's no correlation with gas prices. If you go to NYC, you dont see a lot of fat people - why? Not many people have a car and walks/takes public transport everywhere because the cost of car ownership (parking, insurance, etc) is prohibitive. There's only 2 or 3 major metro areas where the cost of vehicle ownership is so high - and it was high before gas prices doubled. I dont see how a few areas of the country have any influence here. The number of miles driven, on average, per person is still more than it was before gas prices went up.

[Ginger]

... marginalism? Public transportation is accessible for people outside of major cities.

[.RJ]

Public transportation is accessible for people outside of major cities.

Of course - but when you already have a car, it doesnt save any time and parking is a non issue - what benefit is there to use it?

[Ginger]

You're classifying everybody way too generically. You can't say that your criteria fit for everybody that's not in your 2 or 3 major cities. I mean, that's like, the definition of marginalism. There are people that swing between metro and driving depending on a ton of factors - gas prices definitely being one of them.

Dude in the article is saying that there's an effect. He's got the data and I'm inclined to believe it.

[.RJ]

You're classifying everybody way too generically. You can't say that your criteria fit for everybody that's not in your 2 or 3 major cities.

I'm not saying that - People in those 2 or 3 metro areas (This is a gross assumption on my part) were utilizing public transport long before gas prices spiked up due to other factors, and that isnt correlated to gas prices, and cant affect the correlation being drawn in the article.

How are people using public more transport to save on gas AND increasing the number of miles driven in a year?