Challenging assumptions: cost per mile of driving a car.

[beltim]

I think if we are going to really do the math right, we will need to add in the cost of health care by not exercising adequately.  How much sooner in your life will you need blood pressure medication, or start taking aspirin?  How about that extra visits to the hospital?  The cost of healthcare is astronomical and may even go higher as we get older and need it.  I think that has got to be worth an extra 50cents a mile minimum.  I better bike more.

Interestingly, if you don't already exercise, 50 cents a mile is in the right ballpark: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dr-james-aw/benefits-of-exercise_b_7796360.html

However, these effects are all nonlinear, and with reduced impact for additional units of exercise.  So if you already get more than a few hours of exercise per week, choosing to ride a bike instead of drive probably negligibly effects any healthcare savings.

[Chris22]

I think if we are going to really do the math right, we will need to add in the cost of health care by not exercising adequately.  How much sooner in your life will you need blood pressure medication, or start taking aspirin?  How about that extra visits to the hospital?  The cost of healthcare is astronomical and may even go higher as we get older and need it.  I think that has got to be worth an extra 50cents a mile minimum.  I better bike more.

So the ONLY healthy people are bike commuters and the only way to exercise is to ride a bike.  Got it.

[GuitarStv]

I think if we are going to really do the math right, we will need to add in the cost of health care by not exercising adequately.  How much sooner in your life will you need blood pressure medication, or start taking aspirin?  How about that extra visits to the hospital?  The cost of healthcare is astronomical and may even go higher as we get older and need it.  I think that has got to be worth an extra 50cents a mile minimum.  I better bike more.

So the ONLY healthy people are bike commuters and the only way to exercise is to ride a bike.  Got it.

No, but it changes the time equation.

You will often find that the time difference between commuting by bike and driving+exercising is much closer than it would originally seem.

[Chris22]

I think if we are going to really do the math right, we will need to add in the cost of health care by not exercising adequately.  How much sooner in your life will you need blood pressure medication, or start taking aspirin?  How about that extra visits to the hospital?  The cost of healthcare is astronomical and may even go higher as we get older and need it.  I think that has got to be worth an extra 50cents a mile minimum.  I better bike more.

So the ONLY healthy people are bike commuters and the only way to exercise is to ride a bike.  Got it.

No, but it changes the time equation.

You will often find that the time difference between commuting by bike and driving+exercising is much closer than it would originally seem.

But the inflexibility should be accounted for as well.  I get home in 15 minutes by car, hang out with my kid until she goes to bed at 830, then exercise 30-60 min.  Prolonging my commute at basically the worst time of day means I am not with my kid, I'm not helping my wife with dinner, etc etc.  It's all well and good for a single person or a DINK, but it changes vastly when you add kids to the mix.

[beltim]

Incidentally, to properly account for health effects you also have to take into account the risks of each mode of travel.  Using only death rates^1,2 (because injuries are harder to evaluate) and the statistical value governments use to figure out the cost-effectiveness of safety features³, bicycling "costs" about 35 cents per mile, while driving "costs" about 5 cents per mile.  The net difference is about 30 cents per mile.  The difference is actually slighter larger in Canada⁴.

If anyone has good injury data, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.


1. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/
2.http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
3. http://www.livescience.com/15855-dollar-human-life.html
4. http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/viewFile/3621/2744

[GuitarStv]

Incidentally, to properly account for health effects you also have to take into account the risks of each mode of travel.  Using only death rates^1,2 (because injuries are harder to evaluate) and the statistical value governments use to figure out the cost-effectiveness of safety features³, bicycling "costs" about 35 cents per mile, while driving "costs" about 5 cents per mile.  The net difference is about 30 cents per mile.  The difference is actually slighter larger in Canada⁴.

If anyone has good injury data, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.


1. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/
2.http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
3. http://www.livescience.com/15855-dollar-human-life.html
4. http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/viewFile/3621/2744

I think that you're making a mistake by not counting the health benefits, but including adverse health effects of cycling.


Netherlands study:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/

On average, the estimated health benefits of cycling were substantially larger than the risks relative to car driving for individuals shifting their mode of transport.

Barcelona study:  http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521.full

Public bicycle sharing initiatives such as Bicing in Barcelona have greater benefits than risks to health

England:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9729218/Driving-is-five-times-more-dangerous-than-cycling-for-young-men.html

The health benefits of cycling are much greater than the fatality risk.

Cyclists use different roads than cars.  When you take this into account, the danger of cycling vs driving is substantially reduced.  http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cycling_and_health.pdf

These data also present a skewed picture as the
types of roads used by cyclists and cars are
different, in terms of exposure time. The analysis
includes roads such as motorways, which are
not used by cyclists. Also, the data include
casualties among people aged under 17 who
cannot drive cars but are often cyclists.
The Dutch Ministry of Transport attempted to
remove this bias, noting that it is more accurate
to examine only the risk for distances that can
be cycled and not consider the kilometres
travelled on motorways, on average the “much
safer” kilometres. When they adjusted the data
to exclude motorway journeys, they found that
the chance of being admitted to hospital
following a crash is virtually equal for both
modes of transport, but in terms of fatalities per
billion kilometres travelled there are nearly twice
as many motorists killed as cyclists.

[beltim]

Incidentally, to properly account for health effects you also have to take into account the risks of each mode of travel.  Using only death rates^1,2 (because injuries are harder to evaluate) and the statistical value governments use to figure out the cost-effectiveness of safety features³, bicycling "costs" about 35 cents per mile, while driving "costs" about 5 cents per mile.  The net difference is about 30 cents per mile.  The difference is actually slighter larger in Canada⁴.

If anyone has good injury data, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.


1. http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/
2.http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview
3. http://www.livescience.com/15855-dollar-human-life.html
4. http://journal.cpha.ca/index.php/cjph/article/viewFile/3621/2744

I think that you're making a mistake by not counting the health benefits, but including adverse health effects of cycling.

I think you're making a mistake by ignoring my previous post, where I only talked about the health benefits of cycling.

[GuitarStv]

Oh.  Whoops, sorry I missed that one.

[Chris22]

Cyclists use different roads than cars.  When you take this into account, the danger of cycling vs driving is substantially reduced. 

This logic cracks me up.  I mean, yeah, I get it, if you commute via interstate, you can't do that by bike, but otherwise, if you're going the exact same place (your office) you will literally be using the exact same roads.  And unless for some strange reason you take a less direct route by car, if you don't take the same roads, it means you're taking a less direct way, adding to the overall inconvenience. 

[GuitarStv]

Cyclists use different roads than cars.  When you take this into account, the danger of cycling vs driving is substantially reduced. 

This logic cracks me up.  I mean, yeah, I get it, if you commute via interstate, you can't do that by bike, but otherwise, if you're going the exact same place (your office) you will literally be using the exact same roads.  And unless for some strange reason you take a less direct route by car, if you don't take the same roads, it means you're taking a less direct way, adding to the overall inconvenience.

It's important because there are many people who don't get on the highway to go to the supermarket or to work.  It turns out that in their case cycling might actually be the safer mode of transport.

If we spent tax payer money building special bike only superhighways all over the place I suspect that cycling would substantially increase in safety.

[Chris22]

It's important because there are many people who don't get on the highway to go to the supermarket or to work.  It turns out that in their case cycling might actually be the safer mode of transport.

That makes no sense to me.  If I'm going the exact same place at the exact same time, it's safer to be on a bike rather than in a car?  Doesn't pass the smell test.

If we spent tax payer money building special bike only superhighways all over the place I suspect that cycling would substantially increase in safety.

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike. 

[Guses]

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike.

PFFFT! Bunch of wimps. Try -40 plus windshield factor to +110 plus humidex.

Are you made out of chocolate? Will water from the sky melt you?

Anytime someone says something, you respond that you can't because "REASONS".

[Chris22]

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike.

PFFFT! Bunch of wimps. Try -40 plus windshield factor to +110 plus humidex.

Are you made out of chocolate? Will water from the sky melt you?

Anytime someone says something, you respond that you can't because "REASONS".

All that time out in the weather has really affected your reading comprehension. 

I didn't say anything about me I said if you build elaborate expensive bike trails in this area, most of the time they will go mostly unused because people don't want to use them.  Steve seems to think we should invest in hugely expensive infrastructure that almost no one is going to use.  You can say they SHOULD all you want, but it doesn't matter, they still won't.  That seems like a bad idea to me.

[Barbaebigode]

It's important because there are many people who don't get on the highway to go to the supermarket or to work.  It turns out that in their case cycling might actually be the safer mode of transport.

That makes no sense to me.  If I'm going the exact same place at the exact same time, it's safer to be on a bike rather than in a car?  Doesn't pass the smell test.

Almost my entire commute is made on segragated bike paths. And the short distance that I share with cars by bike is on a empty street that I don't use when driving my car because of large number of one way streets in the area. In my case it certainly feel safer going by bike. But it all depends on the city, route, traffic laws, etc.

[GuitarStv]

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike.

PFFFT! Bunch of wimps. Try -40 plus windshield factor to +110 plus humidex.

Are you made out of chocolate? Will water from the sky melt you?

Anytime someone says something, you respond that you can't because "REASONS".

All that time out in the weather has really affected your reading comprehension. 

I didn't say anything about me I said if you build elaborate expensive bike trails in this area, most of the time they will go mostly unused because people don't want to use them.  Steve seems to think we should invest in hugely expensive infrastructure that almost no one is going to use.  You can say they SHOULD all you want, but it doesn't matter, they still won't.  That seems like a bad idea to me.

They will want to use them once my master plan to increase gas taxes by a power of ten goes into effect.  Muahahahahahahahahahaha!

[EnjoyIt]

I think the risk of death by car vs bike vs saving money is silly.  Once your dead who cares how much money you saved one way or the other. 


I bike to the grocery store and take trails for 95% of the ride.  I believe it is definitely safer than driving.  I am skeptical of committing to work because I would need to spend about 1.5 miles on a busy service road and don't think it will be very safe.

I also never mentioned that biking is the only way to exercise.  All I am saying is that biking regularly is healthy and should reduce your health care related costs.  That is it.

There was an interesting post on bogleheads the other day about a guy asking if spending an extra $300K on a house is worth it if it cuts his commute by 1 hour each way.  For some people having that extra hour every day for 15-30 years is money well spent, and I would agree.  For others they would rather save as much as possible, retire as soon as possible and not commute at all.

We all get to choose what makes us happy and what works for us.  There is no set defined answer.

[Northwestie]

It's important because there are many people who don't get on the highway to go to the supermarket or to work.  It turns out that in their case cycling might actually be the safer mode of transport.

That makes no sense to me.  If I'm going the exact same place at the exact same time, it's safer to be on a bike rather than in a car?  Doesn't pass the smell test.

Almost my entire commute is made on segragated bike paths. And the short distance that I share with cars by bike is on a empty street that I don't use when driving my car because of large number of one way streets in the area. In my case it certainly feel safer going by bike. But it all depends on the city, route, traffic laws, etc.

My answer, as a regular bike commuter is - it depends.  Just as mentioned above - if there are dedicated bike trails then the risk is zero.  On roads - I find that the main bike commuting roads in Seattle - that have bike lanes but no curb separation are safe as well - drivers are used to seeing piles of bikes so they are aware.

And certainly there are roads, even in bike-friendly cities that you want to avoid - south of downtown Seattle is more industrial and not too bike friendly.  But - I have to say, how did people turn into such chicken-shits about everything?  Folks are scared of their shadows these days.

[GuitarStv]

I blame millennials.  Not because I believe that they're at fault, but because that seems to be the in thing to do these days.

[Guses]

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike.

PFFFT! Bunch of wimps. Try -40 plus windshield factor to +110 plus humidex.

Are you made out of chocolate? Will water from the sky melt you?

Anytime someone says something, you respond that you can't because "REASONS".

All that time out in the weather has really affected your reading comprehension. 

I didn't say anything about me I said if you build elaborate expensive bike trails in this area, most of the time they will go mostly unused because people don't want to use them.  Steve seems to think we should invest in hugely expensive infrastructure that almost no one is going to use.  You can say they SHOULD all you want, but it doesn't matter, they still won't.  That seems like a bad idea to me.

Sorry, I mistakenly assumed that you considered yourself people...

[darkadams00]

If we spent tax payer money building special bike only superhighways all over the place I suspect that cycling would substantially increase in safety.

I suspect we'd spend a whole lot of money on something the vast majority of people would never use.  I realize that lots of people here prove their self worth by the crappy weather they can bike commute in, but here in Chicagoland, where it tends to be either 20* or 90* most of the year, and various forms of water fall from the sky, no one wants to be on a bike.

Hypotheticals lead to sound reasoning, I guess. I'm more inclined to have a different opinion.

Build a small city 5 miles square (25 square miles). Fill it with adequate housing, jobs, shops, and public spaces---and no streets for cars, only narrow streets for bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. I think it would fill up in short order and start a trend. You would see larger cities looking at creating similar sections to attract like-minded people--well-educated, higher earning, health conscious people who wouldn't mind the chance to integrate healthy choices into daily life without competition with cars, car-minded people, car-centric shopping centers, and huge car-centric intersections. Through streets would beat out the cul de sac, and there would not be any worry about buying a home that backed up to "the street." Without cars, there wouldn't be any street noise. I'm sure hospital usage would be lower, and general health metrics would be improved for the residents.

Small towns already exist, but they tend to lack several of the key ingredients. Jobs are scarce or of the wrong sort. Housing is too spread out to allow any density at all. Stores are on the edge of town near the highway built back in the 70s that mostly killed out the downtown shops.

So with the right development, this could be reality, but the effort seems to be bigger than anyone has been able to manage. A bike super-highway is only as effective as the places it connects. In some cities now, this would work, but the list of viable areas is likely to be small. Until non-car mobility becomes a focus somewhere instead of an afterthought, many potential riders will continue to drive.

[beltim]

Oh.  Whoops, sorry I missed that one.

No worries.  I suspect the relationship between biking and overall health looks something like the attached file.  Unfortunately, people tend to only focus on one part of the graph – if you only look at the first part, and assuming the person doesn't get enough exercise, then the health benefits of biking clearly wins out.  But since there's an asymptotic limit to health benefits from exercise, at some point the increased danger from biking on the roads outweighs the health benefits of exercise (the PLoS Medicine paper the MMM cites in his biking safety post shows a maximum health benefit of exercise at the equivalent of 5-6 hours of bicycle riding per week, assuming no other exercise).

[alsoknownasDean]

In some cases, it might be cheaper to drive or take a bus. If you're commuting on a freeway with little traffic and no parking costs, sure, it might be hard to justify riding a bike.

As usual, it depends entirely on one's situation. In my case (with a ~8km/5mi commute to the inner city), parking the car at my workplace is expensive ($12-18 per day is the usual daily rate for parking), so that tilts the equation in favour of the bike or public transport. The bike is usually faster than public transport (and often competitive with driving when peak hour traffic is taken into account).

That and I like the physical and mental boost I get from physical activity, and hey, I need the exercise :)

[robartsd]

Build a small city 5 miles square (25 square miles). Fill it with adequate housing, jobs, shops, and public spaces---and no streets for cars, only narrow streets for bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. I think it would fill up in short order and start a trend. You would see larger cities looking at creating similar sections to attract like-minded people--well-educated, higher earning, health conscious people who wouldn't mind the chance to integrate healthy choices into daily life without competition with cars, car-minded people, car-centric shopping centers, and huge car-centric intersections. Through streets would beat out the cul de sac, and there would not be any worry about buying a home that backed up to "the street." Without cars, there wouldn't be any street noise. I'm sure hospital usage would be lower, and general health metrics would be improved for the residents.

Small towns already exist, but they tend to lack several of the key ingredients. Jobs are scarce or of the wrong sort. Housing is too spread out to allow any density at all. Stores are on the edge of town near the highway built back in the 70s that mostly killed out the downtown shops.

So with the right development, this could be reality, but the effort seems to be bigger than anyone has been able to manage. A bike super-highway is only as effective as the places it connects. In some cities now, this would work, but the list of viable areas is likely to be small. Until non-car mobility becomes a focus somewhere instead of an afterthought, many potential riders will continue to drive.

While your bike friendly utopia sounds great to me, it would have difficulty getting critical mass to avoid the job problem, unless it is built as a university/company town. How to design for service access - nobody wants to move their stuff where the closes place to park the moving truck is a mile away, fire trucks need fairly large streets, and most people would continue to expect a weekly refuge pickup (though zero waste would be an ideal goal). To me it seems that you end up with a network of mostly 2 lane streets, a ban on most motor vehicles (perhaps all vehicles need a permit to enter the zone and must not stay longer than a specified period), and low speed limits. If the community has a parking areas with a car share (for residents to visit other communities) and bike share (for visitors to the community) at the edges it could have potential.

[Apostrophe]

Cyclists use different roads than cars.  When you take this into account, the danger of cycling vs driving is substantially reduced. 

This logic cracks me up.  I mean, yeah, I get it, if you commute via interstate, you can't do that by bike, but otherwise, if you're going the exact same place (your office) you will literally be using the exact same roads.  And unless for some strange reason you take a less direct route by car, if you don't take the same roads, it means you're taking a less direct way, adding to the overall inconvenience.

Cycling is far safer and a shorter distance for me.

Cycling is 25 miles each way, and driving would be 31. Cycling is on the canal trail for 85% of my ride, and bike lanes for the rest. Driving is on 4-lane highway, though I could take surface streets and make it slower and about the same distance.

I ride an electric bike with a Bosch mid-drive, and generally average about 23-24 mph on my bicycle, which gets me to and from work faster than my car or my motorcycle, which even has access to the HOV lanes. For me, a bike is simply the best way to commute. Until it's summer in Phoenix. Hahahaha. Then, yeah...

[darkadams00]

Build a small city 5 miles square (25 square miles). Fill it with adequate housing, jobs, shops, and public spaces---and no streets for cars, only narrow streets for bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. I think it would fill up in short order and start a trend. You would see larger cities looking at creating similar sections to attract like-minded people--well-educated, higher earning, health conscious people who wouldn't mind the chance to integrate healthy choices into daily life without competition with cars, car-minded people, car-centric shopping centers, and huge car-centric intersections. Through streets would beat out the cul de sac, and there would not be any worry about buying a home that backed up to "the street." Without cars, there wouldn't be any street noise. I'm sure hospital usage would be lower, and general health metrics would be improved for the residents.

Small towns already exist, but they tend to lack several of the key ingredients. Jobs are scarce or of the wrong sort. Housing is too spread out to allow any density at all. Stores are on the edge of town near the highway built back in the 70s that mostly killed out the downtown shops.

So with the right development, this could be reality, but the effort seems to be bigger than anyone has been able to manage. A bike super-highway is only as effective as the places it connects. In some cities now, this would work, but the list of viable areas is likely to be small. Until non-car mobility becomes a focus somewhere instead of an afterthought, many potential riders will continue to drive.

While your bike friendly utopia sounds great to me, it would have difficulty getting critical mass to avoid the job problem, unless it is built as a university/company town. How to design for service access - nobody wants to move their stuff where the closes place to park the moving truck is a mile away, fire trucks need fairly large streets, and most people would continue to expect a weekly refuge pickup (though zero waste would be an ideal goal). To me it seems that you end up with a network of mostly 2 lane streets, a ban on most motor vehicles (perhaps all vehicles need a permit to enter the zone and must not stay longer than a specified period), and low speed limits. If the community has a parking areas with a car share (for residents to visit other communities) and bike share (for visitors to the community) at the edges it could have potential.

Tech hubs would work fine. The US has tech areas (albeit not currently designed for car-free life) in Irvine CA, Austin TX, and Raleigh NC just to name a few. A belt line could make access to the city easy. The "zone" could be supported by bike-shares, small electric vehicle shares, etc. Public service vehicles could be given a pass. If you remember, cars have only been integral to US society for about one hundred years. With agriculture now mostly outsourced to more distant areas and an increase in education/white-collar professions, we have never lived in a society more capable of such a lifestyle. Whether this ever became a reality says more about social inertia rather than feasibility. I definitely feel that if someone built it, people would fill it. There are just too many people already willing to relocate from great distances for better weather, better schools, lower crime, and good jobs. Population figures attest to that. Add such an interesting infrastructure, and the lifestyle (and, yes, novelty) would be an even bigger magnet.

And, yeah, it's utopian talk, but it's more interesting than another round of Rethuglican and Dimwit poli-babble.

[NoCreativity]

If I had to choose, I think I'd go with a Ninja 250R over a bicycle.  Not quite as efficient as a bicycle from a caloric perspective, but more flexible and timesaving.  So I vote get rid of the car and the bike and just buy one of those used for cheap.

This is what I do - 2009 KLX250S at 70mpg. Bought it when it was two years old for $3,000.

I haven't read through all of the responses in this post yet, so this discussion may get there.... but I would like to see a more reasonable comparison. I also agree this whole argument is pretty silly.

Bikes win. I get it. I love bikes more than most other mechanical objects that exist. toilets are also nice. If you can own a bike and use it as primary transport then awesome!

Instead of the bike-vs-car argument, what about a comparison from the premise that a (motorized transport device) is going to be owned, so how do you mediate these costs in the most efficient way possible for your particular lifestyle?

I think most people on this board, at least initially, start looking at improving lifestyle efficiency through the lens of their particular situation, as in "I have a car and I need a car". They may choose to change lenses later on, but initially they (we / I) work from a corner of the room that we have painted our selves into until we can reach the door to another area? maybe that's too many analogies...

[NoCreativity]

so I did read all these responses. I have found this thread much like the movie: Burn After Reading

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0887883/

[darkadams00]

I haven't read through all of the responses in this post yet, so this discussion may get there.... but I would like to see a more reasonable comparison. I also agree this whole argument is pretty silly.

Bikes win. I get it. I love bikes more than most other mechanical objects that exist. toilets are also nice. If you can own a bike and use it as primary transport then awesome!

Instead of the bike-vs-car argument, what about a comparison from the premise that a (motorized transport device) is going to be owned, so how do you mediate these costs in the most efficient way possible for your particular lifestyle?

I think most people on this board, at least initially, start looking at improving lifestyle efficiency through the lens of their particular situation, as in "I have a car and I need a car". They may choose to change lenses later on, but initially they (we / I) work from a corner of the room that we have painted our selves into until we can reach the door to another area? maybe that's too many analogies...

For us, we initially moved to a place we thought we would enjoy (new job, new location, new lifestyle really). We rented until we learned the ins and outs of the area and found a really good place to buy. The place we bought was even more optimal for utility and recreational cycling as well as an overall great place to live a healthy lifestyle. Those changes did take a couple years, but the early reading and conversations back then led to almost immediate lifestyle changes. Those changes only expanded over time. So to spend time discussing what I had already been doing or what the average Joe was doing never seemed to be productive to me.

Of course, some people act like the room they're painted in is the size of the Pacific. They may never reach a door. I liked the words of my boss when we were talking about my "trying the bike" when I decided not to immediately replace my worn-out second car. "There are a hundred salesmen who will be in the dealership tomorrow if you decide you want a car." So the experiment couldn't really fail. At worst, it would delay a car purchase for a bit. Luckily, that bit has been several years now. This door has an awesome view as well.

[alsoknownasDean]

Build a small city 5 miles square (25 square miles). Fill it with adequate housing, jobs, shops, and public spaces---and no streets for cars, only narrow streets for bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. I think it would fill up in short order and start a trend. You would see larger cities looking at creating similar sections to attract like-minded people--well-educated, higher earning, health conscious people who wouldn't mind the chance to integrate healthy choices into daily life without competition with cars, car-minded people, car-centric shopping centers, and huge car-centric intersections. Through streets would beat out the cul de sac, and there would not be any worry about buying a home that backed up to "the street." Without cars, there wouldn't be any street noise. I'm sure hospital usage would be lower, and general health metrics would be improved for the residents.

Small towns already exist, but they tend to lack several of the key ingredients. Jobs are scarce or of the wrong sort. Housing is too spread out to allow any density at all. Stores are on the edge of town near the highway built back in the 70s that mostly killed out the downtown shops.

So with the right development, this could be reality, but the effort seems to be bigger than anyone has been able to manage. A bike super-highway is only as effective as the places it connects. In some cities now, this would work, but the list of viable areas is likely to be small. Until non-car mobility becomes a focus somewhere instead of an afterthought, many potential riders will continue to drive.

While your bike friendly utopia sounds great to me, it would have difficulty getting critical mass to avoid the job problem, unless it is built as a university/company town. How to design for service access - nobody wants to move their stuff where the closes place to park the moving truck is a mile away, fire trucks need fairly large streets, and most people would continue to expect a weekly refuge pickup (though zero waste would be an ideal goal). To me it seems that you end up with a network of mostly 2 lane streets, a ban on most motor vehicles (perhaps all vehicles need a permit to enter the zone and must not stay longer than a specified period), and low speed limits. If the community has a parking areas with a car share (for residents to visit other communities) and bike share (for visitors to the community) at the edges it could have potential.

I don't think cars even need to be banned. Ideally cities are designed so that 90+% of what one needs/wants is within a five mile radius of where they live, with quality, reliable public transport to take care of most of the longer journeys.

There will be people who need to travel via car/truck for whatever reason.

Of course cities are often not designed that way, jobs may be consolidated in particular areas and housing near where one goes may be expensive.

The other question is, do fuel prices take into account the externalities caused by the production/consumption of fuel? There are massive economic benefits and improvements to quality of life that result from motorised transport, but there are also negative impacts.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

[Metric Mouse]

Build a small city 5 miles square (25 square miles). Fill it with adequate housing, jobs, shops, and public spaces---and no streets for cars, only narrow streets for bikes and sidewalks for pedestrians. I think it would fill up in short order and start a trend. You would see larger cities looking at creating similar sections to attract like-minded people--well-educated, higher earning, health conscious people who wouldn't mind the chance to integrate healthy choices into daily life without competition with cars, car-minded people, car-centric shopping centers, and huge car-centric intersections. Through streets would beat out the cul de sac, and there would not be any worry about buying a home that backed up to "the street." Without cars, there wouldn't be any street noise. I'm sure hospital usage would be lower, and general health metrics would be improved for the residents.

Small towns already exist, but they tend to lack several of the key ingredients. Jobs are scarce or of the wrong sort. Housing is too spread out to allow any density at all. Stores are on the edge of town near the highway built back in the 70s that mostly killed out the downtown shops.

So with the right development, this could be reality, but the effort seems to be bigger than anyone has been able to manage. A bike super-highway is only as effective as the places it connects. In some cities now, this would work, but the list of viable areas is likely to be small. Until non-car mobility becomes a focus somewhere instead of an afterthought, many potential riders will continue to drive.

While your bike friendly utopia sounds great to me, it would have difficulty getting critical mass to avoid the job problem, unless it is built as a university/company town. How to design for service access - nobody wants to move their stuff where the closes place to park the moving truck is a mile away, fire trucks need fairly large streets, and most people would continue to expect a weekly refuge pickup (though zero waste would be an ideal goal). To me it seems that you end up with a network of mostly 2 lane streets, a ban on most motor vehicles (perhaps all vehicles need a permit to enter the zone and must not stay longer than a specified period), and low speed limits. If the community has a parking areas with a car share (for residents to visit other communities) and bike share (for visitors to the community) at the edges it could have potential.

I don't think cars even need to be banned. Ideally cities are designed so that 90+% of what one needs/wants is within a five mile radius of where they live, with quality, reliable public transport to take care of most of the longer journeys.

There will be people who need to travel via car/truck for whatever reason.

Of course cities are often not designed that way, jobs may be consolidated in particular areas and housing near where one goes may be expensive.

The other question is, do fuel prices take into account the externalities caused by the production/consumption of fuel? There are massive economic benefits and improvements to quality of life that result from motorised transport, but there are also negative impacts.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

In this city, could we also make the weather perfect every day and ban skateboards? Mountain and ocean views would be nice as well.

[Sid Hoffman]

I find it odd that no one has mentioned the fact that in many parts of the US (and the world, for that matter), riding your bike all the time means your skin will turn to leather and your risk of skin cancer skyrockets.  That's a very negative and very real health impact to riding a bike all the time.

[GuitarStv]

I find it odd that no one has mentioned the fact that in many parts of the US (and the world, for that matter), riding your bike all the time means your skin will turn to leather and your risk of skin cancer skyrockets.  That's a very negative and very real health impact to riding a bike all the time.

Sunscreen and physical barriers (light blocking clothing) really render this concern moot don't they?

[Guses]

I find it odd that no one has mentioned the fact that in many parts of the US (and the world, for that matter), riding your bike all the time means your skin will turn to leather and your risk of skin cancer skyrockets.  That's a very negative and very real health impact to riding a bike all the time.

Sunscreen and physical barriers (light blocking clothing) really render this concern moot don't they?

Clothing?! My junk rides FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

[Digital Dogma]

Bikes win. I get it. I love bikes more than most other mechanical objects that exist. toilets are also nice. If you can own a bike and use it as primary transport then awesome!

If I could commute to work and back on my toilet I'd be super efficient in the morning.

[GuitarStv]

Bikes win. I get it. I love bikes more than most other mechanical objects that exist. toilets are also nice. If you can own a bike and use it as primary transport then awesome!

If I could commute to work and back on my toilet I'd be super efficient in the morning.

Amateur.  That's what the cut-outs in your saddle are designed for.

[bobechs]

Bikes win. I get it. I love bikes more than most other mechanical objects that exist. toilets are also nice. If you can own a bike and use it as primary transport then awesome!

If I could commute to work and back on my toilet I'd be super efficient in the morning.

Amateur.  That's what the cut-outs in your saddle are designed for.

And no water and sewer connection fees to pay...

Imputed passive income!  Multiple imputed income streams!  Yippee!

[darkadams00]

I find it odd that no one has mentioned the fact that in many parts of the US (and the world, for that matter), riding your bike all the time means your skin will turn to leather and your risk of skin cancer skyrockets.  That's a very negative and very real health impact to riding a bike all the time.

And how was it that people in the US got around before, say 1920? For how many thousand years? And what percentage of the world will reach their destinations today without relying on a car, even in progressive, 1st world countries?

As another poster put it--Only in America is riding a bike every day a remarkable event.

Even here in MMM-land, both American bike cultists and American bike haters are guilty of idiocy, just on differing ends of the spectrum. Not everyone wants to ride or currently lives in an area or has a commute suitable to ride. If they're not inclined now, they might not ever be. And not everyone wants to ride in a car and might have even made some life choices that reflect that despite the naysayers and their list of crazy "reasons." Just weight your decisions using whatever criteria are important to you. If cycling around town works for you, great! If not, move on.

[hoping2retire35]

to the OP, I appreciate your analysis; I never really agreed with MMM's assumptions. OTOH, I was shocked that only commuting 7 miles to work would still cost that much.

[Bob W]

My cost is around 20 cents per mile include depreciation and alternative use of capitol, taxes, ins, gas, mat, etc..   Annual cost about 3K.  Yep I could do better but I live in the hills.   No bikes for me.  I've done the calories burned per mile of biking in the past.   As I recall it came in around 10 cents. 

[Chris22]

FWIW, I recently removed my snow tires and went back to all-seasons; gas mileage has jumped up by about 2mpg.  I forgot about that snow tire hit when doing my calcs.

[beardsly]

Cyclists use different roads than cars.  When you take this into account, the danger of cycling vs driving is substantially reduced. 

This logic cracks me up.  I mean, yeah, I get it, if you commute via interstate, you can't do that by bike, but otherwise, if you're going the exact same place (your office) you will literally be using the exact same roads.  And unless for some strange reason you take a less direct route by car, if you don't take the same roads, it means you're taking a less direct way, adding to the overall inconvenience.

It's important because there are many people who don't get on the highway to go to the supermarket or to work.  It turns out that in their case cycling might actually be the safer mode of transport.

If we spent tax payer money building special bike only superhighways all over the place I suspect that cycling would substantially increase in safety.

I zigzag through residential streets when biking to work, I never bike on the main 40mph+ roads.  Commute by car takes 15 minutes, bike takes 23-25 minutes.  This does take me away from my kids up to 20 minutes per day however for the cost of 20 minutes I get 50 minutes of exercise and by the time the kids go to bed at 8:30 I have no desire to go to the gym.

Back to the original topic, I agree with the original poster that the costs associated with driving a car "can" be far less than the $0.50 per mile MMM listed.  After buying bike tires, accessories and clothing for all weather bike riding I doubt I am saving much money.  I am saving money by not having a gym membership and I am staying healthy by biking (lost 40 pounds the last 12 months mainly from biking).  So i think the health / time benefit is 90% of the incentive for me.  That being said, what works for me may not work for someone else.  If someone drives to work and stays healthy with a gym membership then I have no problem with that, I think a gym membership is money well spent IF it is used on FREQUENT basis.

[robartsd]

This logic cracks me up.  I mean, yeah, I get it, if you commute via interstate, you can't do that by bike, but otherwise, if you're going the exact same place (your office) you will literally be using the exact same roads.  And unless for some strange reason you take a less direct route by car, if you don't take the same roads, it means you're taking a less direct way, adding to the overall inconvenience.

I zigzag through residential streets when biking to work, I never bike on the main 40mph+ roads.  Commute by car takes 15 minutes, bike takes 23-25 minutes.  This does take me away from my kids up to 20 minutes per day however for the cost of 20 minutes I get 50 minutes of exercise and by the time the kids go to bed at 8:30 I have no desire to go to the gym.

My travel time situation is similar. Following the zigzag route through residential streets (route somewhat optimized to avoid traffic signal waits and minimize distance traveled) in a car would save about 5 minutes over biking it (worth doing when the main streets are too congested, if only for the more pleasant driving experience - I hate driving in congested traffic). My total time increase for biking is a little more because I change clothes for my commute, so my total bike commute time ends up being close to my total public transit commute time. I think the net cost of changing my clothes when I get to the office is about 5 minutes each way (I could reclaim even more time if I ride home full effort in my work clothes). For me cycling is a money saver because a car commute would involve adding a vehicle to our household and parking fees.

[Metric Mouse]

to the OP, I appreciate your analysis; I never really agreed with MMM's assumptions. OTOH, I was shocked that only commuting 7 miles to work would still cost that much.

Fuzzy math for the win! Sets the tone for much of the posts on this site.

[jsstylos]

Thanks to the OP for the analysis -- this is the type of information that makes this forum useful and interesting.

[ooeei]

Of course the costs may be different for you.  I think you're underestimating the value of your DIY approach, and you're obviously not the target example of MMM's article.  I know plenty of people who commute in giant trucks stuck in traffic all day.  They get around 1/2 the mileage you do, some have 6 tires, and they have mechanics do all of their maintenance and repairs (sometimes the dealership even).  Their truck also cost more like $50,000-80,000, and they get new ones regularly. 

To take the cost of the car out of the cost of commuting is a bit sketchy.  If someone buys a brand new car every 3 years for their work commute, that has to factor in to the cost of commuting somehow. I suspect that if someone commuted by bike to work (the main time most people are driving), they aren't going to upgrade their car nearly as often.  When discussing the difference in cost that extra replacement cost has to be accounted for, and for a typical middle/upper middle class commuter it can be very high.

I agree that for you personally the cost is lower, but the cost can be and often is much higher than your personal numbers.  I thought of the article as saying "Hey you there, with the 2016 F-150/Range Rover/Tahoe/whatever that you just upgraded from the 2013 model, you're spending a boatload of money just on getting yourself to work.  If you biked there instead and just got a more value oriented car for the weekend trips, here's how much $ you could save in the next few years."  The more someone drives, the lower the cost per mile gets, but it's still a useful approximation.

[HenryDavid]

Biking is more fun. Fresh air, wind, birds, trees, beavers (yup, in big Canadian cities we still have beavers), other people on bikes.

If I lived in a place unfriendly to biking, which pushed me toward driving, I would just . . . move.
But that's me.