Sorry about all the videos lately, but looks like some really good stuff out there.

TreeHugger has a great article comparing cars, buses, and bikes. They compare the real estate sacrificed by each mode of transportation.

This image pretty much summarizes everything.

(Image: Press-Office City of Müenster, Germany via TreeHugger)

Let me start by expressing my sincere disappointment with several proposals that passed across USA. They have to do with amending the state constitution to add a clear discrimination. This is understandable for the random bigot states, but it is really incredible that something like this happened in California. California is probably the most progressive state in the US, but looks like there is a large enough number of homophobic and discriminating people that something like this can pass. Unbelievable.

But, let me ask you something else. Regardless if you believe with discriminating proposals or not, how can the state constitution be modified by a simple and actually weak majority? By weak, I mean less than 50% of voters. In California there are over 17 million voters and only something over 5 million voted for this proposal. I usually associate a modification of constitution with a two third majority.

Now, this is where it gets weird. There was a “measure B” on the ballot, which has to do with a specific improvement of public transportation around the city of San Jose. It does not matter if you agree with it or not, but here is the interesting part. In order to pass this measure, you need a two third majority. And since only 66.41% people voted yes, the measure lost. By .25%.

Ok, now, let’s compare these two referendums. The amending of constitution requires a simple majority, while the referendum on spending some money requires two third majority. Think about this one for a second. Constitution versus spending money. Human rights… Money… Now you know where the priorities are. Think about this as you are contemplating a 850 billion dollar bailout for the financial industry without a referendum.

Human rights should always be protected. Any constitutional change that limits human rights should be passed extremely carefully. At least two thirds majority if not a two thirds of all the registered voters. On the other hand, financial conservancy is a good thing, but it if spending large amounts of money to bail out car companies and spend enormous amount of money to build roads without any referendums, it is interesting that this require two thirds majority.

Should the bikes be on the roads? Well, this is a tricky question… for some people. For me it is pretty simple. Yes. But, let’s go baby steps. What is the best way to travel? It turns out the most efficient way is bike. The least efficient way is a single passenger car. In between are things like trains, buses, walking, etc.

But what is the cost of each mode of transportation? Well, walking is pretty much free. For biking, you got to buy a bike. Most people will say that trains are super expensive, because you have to build tracks etc. But what about cars? What is the cost of a car? Well, let’s do a quick math. My assumption is that we buy a car and throw it away 10 years later.

• Normal car: $17,000
• Gas for 10 years at 22 mpg and 15,000 miles per year and $4 per gallon: (15000 / 22) * $4 * 10 = $27,240
• Oil changes every 3000 miles: (15000 / 3000) * $15 * 10 = $750
• Repairs let say $500 per year: $5,000
• Insurance and registration is another $900 per year: $9,000

Did I forget something? Anyway, according to my math, the total cost of having a car for 10 years is about $58,990. But is that the total cost of driving?

Let’s start by comparing this to a bike. Not completely fair comparison, but let’s try it anyway:

• Normal bike: $800
• Panniers, trailer: $600
• Tubes, break pads, let say 10 tubes a year ($5), 2 tires a year ($20), 2 sets of break pads a year ($20): $1000
• Repairs let say $200 per year: $2,000

Did I miss something here? Well, the total is $4,400. And this is for a bike that is tuned twice a year, gets new tires and break pads once a year, has panniers, trailer and so on.

Ok, how about public transportation. Assuming you live in the Bay Area, you are looking at the cost of a bus and Caltrain, Bart, Ace, or Amtrak. So, you are looking at anywhere from $5 to $12 per day for the commuter rail, and couple of dollars per day for the bus if you need a local connection. Assuming the worst, you are looking at $2 for a bus in the south bay, $6 for the Caltrain to San Francisco, and another $1.5 in San Francisco. This twice a day is $19 per day, which in 10 years is about $49,400. But this is the worst case. Also, all public transportation modes have 10 rides or monthly plans. Also, there are commuter tax breaks for the public transport. All these incentives can lower the cost of riding down to couple of $100 per year.

So, according to this, whoever can bike to work should. There is significant saving in that. So even ignoring impact on environment, health, and time, this should be enough motivation for most people to change their transportation habits.

My favorite politician did it again. She managed to prove one more time that either there is no intelligent design, or the designer wanted to make its subject not intelligent. I mean, seriously… Just watch her video:

I guess she is trying to make the whole thing sound like some kind of communist country, but really beside the “government jobs” part it actually sounds really good. I would much rather take public transportation. I would much rather live in the city.

However, let’s play with her statement a little bit. My favorite politician seem to be in favor of Americans being uneducated, moving to the suburban isolation, live in the giant single family monstrosities, and take ASSUVs to their army contractor and oil jobs. Oh, how happy the world would be.

As you are probably aware if you live in US there will be some minor elections this fall. There are several interesting propositions on those elections. Here are some that I have a strong opinion about:

Proposition 1: Build a high speed train between the San Francisco and Los Angeles area. The major opposition falls into three major camps. There are people who say that since California cannot pay for education and health care, why spend money on this. Second argument is that it would never really be complete and it is a waste of money. Finally, the third argument is that it would have a huge environmental impact. Since I am not a finance person, I will ignore the first two. I assume somebody did the math. The only thing to add is that the money will be saved by people not having to drive or fly there. Also, since less people would drive, there would be substantial positive impact on the environment.

Proposition 2: This one has to do with the ethical treatment of farm animals. Though I don’t agree with people abusing farm animals in any way especially not for food production, I think baby steps can help sometimes. That said, baby steps when they really do something, not like a recent PETA fiasco with the Canadian KFC, where now PETA is promoting KFC. But hey, opposition says that the cost of eggs will go up. That is a good thing, isn’t it. So, I would say opposition to any animal cruelty is a great thing. Especially when it involves words such as “Go Vegan!“.

Proposition 4: Requires parents to be notified and consent to the abortion on a minor. Though in general I agree that the parents should be involved with the life of their children, unnecessary delaying potentially harmful pregnancy on a minor can be extremely serious. In addition this law would increase the underground abortion sites which are generally extremely unsafe, unsanitary and dangerous, compared to the abortion in the proper medical setting. Finally, I see this proposition to be a stepping stone towards making abortion illegal.

Proposition 8: Constitutional amendment with text “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” To quote a famous philosopher Wanda Sykes: “if you don’t believe in same sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex.” But in general the message that people should get into their thick head is that this one does not affect them at all! Environment, diet, exercise, financial decisions, etc.. will all affect them, but letting same sex people to marry will not. For more information, check out Let California Ring. Also, check out the arguments against same sex marriage.

Let’s all work together to make this world a happy place. Let’s not bicker about who can associate with who, who has a right to live and who does not, who has access to prosperity and who does not. We are here together and let’s work together to make everybody’s life happy. That includes your life, my life, cats lives, chickens lives, and even lives of people that you do not agree with. And finally, let’s make the lives of our children happy, buy not destroying the environment they will be forced to live in, but protect our precious planet for our children, cats children, chickens children, and anybody else they will share it with.

I was reading TreeHugger today and I saw this graph that pretty much explains why the public transportation in US sucks so much:

That said, the good thing is that when gas is a bit more expensive, there will be some really nice bike lanes all over the US.

Couple of days ago, I received an e-mail from our HR that our $100 per month pre-tax commuter benefits will be moved to another company. Since I bike to work every day, I did not use the commuter benefits so far, but I decided to look at the new benefits.

Several of them make sense, such as: Bus, Ferry, Streetcar, Subway, and Train. Let’s promote the public transportation. Though I only use it when traveling and when I go to SF, I am a huge proponent of public transport.

Then there is: Vanpool (seating for 6 or more adult passengers, excluding driver; 80% of mileage is to transport employees and 50% of seating capacity used for employee transport). That sounds pretty good too, though it is hard to enforce.

Now, when I saw these two, I got really upset:

• Parking at or near work
• Parking at or near public transportation to get to work

I understand the need for … Actually I don’t. If you are driving to work and need to park on a pay parking spot…? Drive to public transportation? Am I missing something?

So, I suggest the following new “eligible expenses”:

• Bike tubes / tires / CO2 cartridges / tube fix kits
• Bike safety / helmets / lights
• Bike repair tools / pumps
• Bikes

These expenses would only be tax deductible for people who bike to work several days a week, let say the magic number 3. There would be several benefits to these benefits:

• Less cars on the roads, so roads would be safer, in better shape, and so less money would be spend on maintenance
• Cyclists would be better equipped, so less wasted time, less cycling accidents, and less frustration
• People would get more exercise, so there would be less stress and healthier people

Finally, it would solve a whole lot of other problems that people may or may not realize at this point:

• Cleaner environment, such as air
• Less trash next to the road
• Less road rage
• Less need for roads ~ more space for green
• Less suburban sprawl
• More jobs for bike mechanics
• …

Reading about tax benefits to polluters always leaves a horrible taste in my mouth. Especially when there are no obvious benefits to them. So, instead of investing into infrastructure to support the pollution and destruction of the environment, why not chose the clean, renewable, leg energy? Support biking to work.