BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

Sorry, but gas prices don't really influence my commuting habits but how about when they call suggesting they do a side story on how to start commuting by bike and what they need to know? There are companies downtown that have provisions for bike commuters. I know GNC's corporate offices have a room dedicated to indoor bike parking. It is rarely used. My mom works there and she rides a few days a week and usually is the only one. There are a random few others that park there a few days a month. This is in a building where a 1000 people work. Mom parks at the Eliza Furnace trail head and rides into down town, she says it is faster and she does not have to pay for parking.

How about people who started bike commuting because they *anticipated* higher gas prices in the future? I bet there's a bunch of those here.

Or am I too cynical if I suggest that the news media are only interested in reaction, not preparation... Of course, they have good reasons, they say, they want to appeal to the "man on the street".

I'm sure the gas savings showed in my wallet in the long run but I always noticed that even the $5 parking options are more expensive than the gas used to drive in. Not including wear and tear of course. I can't bicycle commute anymore but I used to do it to avoid traffic, paying for parking, exercise and enjoyment. Saving a couple bucks paid for extra food intake needed.

How about people who started bike commuting because they *anticipated* higher gas prices in the future?

To be fair, it's not exactly news if it happened long ago. "Man continues biking to work due to long-anticipated high gas prices; our exclusive interview at 11!" It makes a better story if there's something that just happened to report.

I'll admit that driving by the GetGo in Bloomfield every morning made me get some panniers and hop on my bike sooner than if I didn't have to see the higher gas prices every morning. That being said, I think it was the combo of gas prices and parking that did it.

In fact, I survived my first ride in and out of Oakland yesterday (sorry, I'm really proud because I'm so out of shape--like wheezing out of shape).

greenbike - the wheezing quickly dissappears, and leaves shapely calves in its wake you are awesome, keep it up!

I could pass for one of the "requested" people. Driving a diesel, I'm about $0.30 ahead of the curve. I went from buying fuel every 10 days or so to buying fuel every 6 weeks or so last year. This year, if I've got a quarter tank or less, and it's closer than 15 miles, I hop on the bike instead. I also hop on the bike instead if it's sunny, if it's a weekend, if I'm meeting other people on bikes, if I'm headed to a park or might go somwhere pretty, if I'm happy, if I'm sad...

So I'm not purely motivated by fuel costs. But after that initial wallet relief, it's a strong motivator for me when I'm tired, it's raining, and the hills I swear to god get steeper and more up than down. A tank costs me more than $50 now, so biking stretches that out a LOT. I keep close enough track of our budget that we feel it acutely when I drive instead of biking.

Thanks everyone. Greenbike and ejwme can you pm me your contact info so I have it when the time comes?

Thanks, ejwme. And yes, the hills---sheesh. I went through Friendship on the way in and I thought I was going to die. Just wait till I start biking to Squirrel Hill for bar review. Shady Ave. WOOT

Isn't the savings from bike commuting minimal unless you get rid of the car, or a car, entirely? The car still sits in the driveway, carrying insurance, registration, and inspection fees. And having it means that you do use it from time to time.

Scott: Done.

I saved $2300 on fuel and maintenance last year compared to my 2007-2009 average, and I still have a car. This year I'm driving even less - I've clocked 400 miles since July.

If that's your idea of "minimal" maybe you can just mail me a "minimal" check.

playing devil's advocate, historian? how significant do those savings have to be to be worth it to someone?

Salty, I crunched numbers based on my circumstances back in 2007 - 34 mile round trip to work, paid for car getting 28 MPH, gas at 3 dollars a gallon, and I found a savings, but not a large one. I kept out the fuzzy wish-based numbers bike advocates always toss around - 'don't need a gym membership any more, don't need to see a doctor', etc.

While I saw a savings, it wasn't enough to persuade me to put the car aside for an extended period. When I considered the time involved - 34 miles is 3.5 hours for me, 2 hours of them late at night - I found the savings "minimal." Your mileage may vary. I still commuted a few times after than analysis, but I did it because I wanted to, not out of some thought that I was going to save money.

"playing devil's advocate, historian? how significant do those savings have to be to be worth it to someone?"

Bike commuting can be "worth it to someone" if it winds up costing more to do it. It would be to me.

BTW, for the folks who think I'm the devil's advocate, I've just been giving advice to an Ohio Facebook friend on bike commuting, and some comments on the subject to the Pottstown Mercury which they may use in a future article. I think bikes should be ridden for their own sake.

Computing costs of car ownership is tough. AAA does it every year for new cars. On average, a safe bet is taking the IRS business expense reimbursement which currently is about 50 cents/mile.

Without a doubt the majority of savings come from not even owning a car, but there are still fairly decent savings from not operating it especially given avg mpg/gas/parking.

http://www.aaaexchange.com/main/Default.asp?CategoryID=16&SubCategoryID=76&ContentID=353

@historian, regardless of why you think bikes should be ridden, people come to their own conclusions on why they ride their bike. most do it because it's fun, but occasionally people do it because it saves them money, or helps them get healthy, or because it's good for the environment (or all of the above).

"In coming up with the estimates below, AAA figures in average fuel, routine maintenance, tires, insurance, license and registration, loan finance charges and depreciation costs. Fuel prices are based on late-2010 national averages."

Hmm. When I crunched my numbers, I didn't include "loan finance charges and depreciation costs" because I had no loan and didn't plan to sell my vehicle. Also we can leave out the driver's license since I'd want one anyway. I had no parking expenses. I don't do my own car or bike repairs aside from the simplest things, so I'm paying a shop regardless.

"...because it's good for the environment..."

One red herring at a time, please.

@ Scott, I think we are all enjoying the discussion. With the possible exception of those who are invested in 'conventional wisdom' on bike commuting, of course.

If I can find my four year old breakdown of the numbers, I'll post them. If Salty wants to post his, I'd like to see them. Perhaps one of us might change our mind a bit.

If only TV news had been around at Noah's party: "Breaking news, area man learns to swim".

"This just in, bicycling is actually BAD for the environment."

Yep, you just pick those bikes off the vine. Those bike trees grow naturally on the banks of the Mon and Yough. It's not like we need a factory to build them and trucks to ship them to the store.

"If it’s as bad as Al Gore says it is, it will take more than a few bike lanes to fix it. But more importantly, you don’t need to win that fight (or even engage in it) to make your point. Cycling has plenty of merit without dragging in tangential and controversial issues like Global… whatever the heck they call it this week."

"Good for the environment" != "Fights global warming", speaking of red herrings (or straw men).

The problem with getting too involved in common political discussions is that one starts hearing what one wants to disagree with, rather than what is actually being said. (And that failing is certainly not restricted to any political affiliation, although it does seem to loosely correspond to degree of political fervor.)

They reimbursed a milage allowance when I had jury duty on probably the nicest day in March. There was some accident on the parkway so I got to pedal past hundreds of cars waiting just sitting there as I made my way down the jail trail. Parked almost next to the door and it cost me nothing, and Uncle Ravenstahl (Corbett?) paid me something like $1.50 for the round trip. The people sitting next to me were psyched they got their parking validated (which saved them $5 off the daily rate?). I think a lot more people would be excited to see just how much money they could save with a bicycle.

Reddan, the Global Whatever and environment arguments seem to be merged wherever you look. (The second story on the first webpage Google brings up for "environmental news" is on food prices allegedly being impacted by climate change. Some of us call that "weather.") I think if Scott can toss hyperbole around, so can I.

Meanwhile, to get back to topic, no one aside from Salty has offered hard and fast numbers about the monetary savings from bike commuting if you continue to own a car. I'd like to see some.

In my own case, I saw my gas savings at 3 dollars a gallon, which came to around 15 dollars a week, eaten up by increased food expenses. I suppose I could have eaten cheaper and pocketed more, but I didn't see the point.

Since commuting by bike would reduce your mileage, it would be appropriate to include a share of routine car maintenance costs (since they're based on mileage) and tire replacement costs (they last longer when you use them less). Possibly depreciation too. Wouldn't a car lose value the more miles it has?

If you cut your driving in half by bike commuting, your car maintenance and tire replacement costs should be halved too. (You'd have some corresponding bike costs increase, but those are much cheaper than for cars.)

A car that spends less time on the road is normally at less risk of being in an accident, but I think that benefits your insurance company, not you (unless you can get a discount for putting less miles on a car).

"Possibly depreciation too. Wouldn't a car lose value the more miles it has?"

I never think of a car's value aside from a means to get from Point A to Point B.

*cringe* the historian - not that I'm trying to define your arguments for you, but you appear to be sidling up to an old debate here... many arguments against "biking for the environment" start off with the assumption that the goal (in terms of environmental impact only, of course) is to have NO impact, rather than to simply have LESS impact. One really can't argue that, mile for mile transportation-wise, owning a bicycle has the same impact to the enviroment as owning a car. That's hashed to death in other threads and places, including the validity of comparing mile for mile transportation, which is only useful when used in the proper context (and I admit, not all contexts are valid for all situations - see "pedicab ambulance" bit for example).

One thing I'm really tired of hearing, from any side of the argument, is that "if we can't fix it, we might as well do nothing at all." Defeatism (even when it's called "realistic" or "pragmatic") is just lazy and unattractive. The line I give my husband when I hear him say stuff like that (on any topic) is "Well lets just stay at home and kill ourselves, then."

that all being said, you're right, the argument for cycling doesn't have to bring up the environment. the original topic was money, which is not a red herring.

Despite my best efforts, I wasn't able to, at least yet, drop my car and associated insurance and registration. So my budget still includes that. But like I said, just by biking instead of driving for a decent portion of my trips (not all), I noticed a huge difference in frequency of times I stand there pumping liquid money into my car. Of course I don't bike to Cranberry, I bike to the monroeville shuttle (which, yes, uses gas). And I run a lot of my errands more locally, rather than going to farther flung places to which biking would be an all day ordeal but I previously wouldn't have thought twice about driving to. So it's not a matter of simply swapping bike for car and dropping the car. But just because it's not black and white doesn't mean it's a total pointless wash. For me, it's a much lighter shade of gray.

For one year I kept an extremely detailed spreadsheet of costs associated with driving and biking (not the "no gym membership" type, but the ones with actual receipts). Spent less on the bike and gear than I did on the car (less than half, actually), I owned the car outright so no payments to consider, and I totally had the bike shop do all the repairs because I'm super lazy. The bike didn't pay for itself in one year, but after two I'll have started to realize actual savings, aside from the fuel, and making no allowance for the "biking is fun" part. In fact, now that I've got the base infrastructure in place (apporpriate and durable gear), even in a bad year my annual bike costs should be paid for in a partly cloudy June, the rest of the year is just money saved.

Like I said, it doesn't have to pass a black and white test to be of noticeable benefit. It just might take some extra attention, and it may not apply in all cases. But that doesn't mean it's a red herring.

I said the "red herring" was the environmental issue, not the reported cost savings.

BTW, I've argued with a bike advocate before when he proclaimed "bikes do not harm the planet." It wasn't Scott.

I live in a 2 person house, where one of us drives, and I bike. This our spending for the past 22 months. The "Bike" category is what I've spent on all my bike clothing, accessories, tires, tubes, parts, racks, panniers, etc and I don't have budget gear at all. Anything I buy for my bike goes in that category. The rest is all on the car. The generic "auto and transport" thing is tolls and registration/inspection for the car. The public transit figure and parking is artificially low, since we don't always use electronic payment for those. The rest should be pretty accurate though.

Admittedly, due to where we live, and where we both work/go to school, and the limited public transit in our region, a lot of this car crap was likely unavoidable. Our next move will focus on finding an apartment equidistant from both our jobs/school, and will be on a major transit line and near a zipcar. I imagine we will save a significant amount of money by getting rid of our car, even if we have to pay more in rent.

I started again this year when the gas prices soared, but only because I happen to like riding a bike, not to save money. I will not save enough money in gas to cover the cost of the bike.

@thehistorian - most people who regularly commute by bicycle don't live 17 miles from work. i've commuted by bike for nigh on nine years now, and i've always lived within five miles of work.

so, for daily trips, i went from filling up once every two weeks or so to filling up once every two months or so. back when i had a car, that was a savings of probably around $500 per year. even in hilly pittsburgh, i wasn't spending nearly that much more on food because of cycling.

granted, like many people, it wasn't the gas money savings that prompted me to commute by bicycle. it was a combination of fun, convenience (when i've lived within two miles, it's been quicker by bike), and not wanting to pay $12 per day for parking. now, i don't even have a car, and as you suspect, that's where the real savings come in. but i don't think you can compare your 35 miles per day to the average case, where i think some significant savings can be seen.

HiddenVariable, you are correct. My experience isn't typical, which is why I asked.

Some numbers:

Saving about $30.00/month in gas. I used to fill up at least once a month, now it's more like once every 3 months.

Saving a few dollars/month on insurance. My insurance gives me a discount if I put less than 2,500 miles on my car per year. The savings is not big, but noticeable in a 12 month billing cycle. It's in the neighborhood of $3-$5 per month.

I don't even know how to begin calculating the wear and tear figure. I own the car (no payments). I'm changing tires less, changing oil less. Most car maintenance items are on a mileage AND time schedule though (change spark plugs every 3 years OR 50,000 miles), so that muddies up the numbers even further for me.

Some psychology:

Since I so seldom fill up my car these days, I buy premium and put an octane booster/injector cleaner in the tank every other fill-up. It seems to run better on the rare occasion I do drive my car.

Since I'm riding my bike more I don't skimp on cheap tires or brake pads. If a part breaks, I try to replace it with something just as good or better.

I must be breaking even. I've been on the same salary for 3 years now. 2 of those years driving to work, one biking and I haven't seen any extra money at the end of the month.

Since I'm using the cheap one more (bike) and the expensive one less (car) I can take better care of both of them. Mostly, I just enjoy riding my bike.

I think it will be significant when we see the news interview with someone who recently purchased some behemoth vehicle to commute in despite the high gas prices.

I can hear it now- "Oh, I make so much money it does not matter." "The environment? I never think about that."

thehistorian

frequenter

Private Message

Posted 51 minutes ago

Reddan, the Global Whatever and environment arguments seem to be merged wherever you look. (The second story on the first webpage Google brings up for "environmental news" is on food prices allegedly being impacted by climate change. Some of us call that "weather.") I think if Scott can toss hyperbole around, so can I.

************************************************

Ok, rather than wasting my time trying to provide you with the immense wealth of concrete data that climate whatever is absolutely influencing the price of food globally, as well as the mountain of irrefutable data pointing to our actions as a species influencing natural weather patterns wordwide, I will just ask you to explain to me how riding a bike over a car isn't affecting our local ecosystem or tied to environmental issues inherently?

To say that bikes don't harm the planet is foolish. To say that they harm it much less is accurate. Even if you don't agree with science, I assume you still like drinking water and eating healthy food no?

I posted this in an older thread. The numbers come straight from quicken and I'm pretty anal about categorizing things:

2007-2009 avg yearly spending vs 2010 actual:

gasoline: 1708.62 vs 182.77 (1525.85 saved)

auto service: 1406.29 vs 601.92 (804.37 saved)

I pay something like $500/yr for insurance and let's say $200 for registration, inspection, etc. So, that's certainly less than my operating and maintenance expenses.

Then, it depends on how you want to fudge the depreciation. My last car cost me almost $10/day for every day I owned it, which was ridiculous. My current car is much more sensible but still in the range of $5/day over its lifetime ($20k mini cooper - maybe it's worth $5k now, divided by 9 years = 3285 days). You can't ignore it just because you're not selling the car.

I will say that my commute now is about 1/6 of what it was for most of 2007-2009, although gas was a lot cheaper for most of that time too. But, it's also a choice to live so far from your office that you're car-dependent. Unfortunately, I do understand that the past 50+ years of auto-centric development make it difficult for everyone to live so close to work, and I got lucky, but...

Anyways, the extra money is really just a side-benefit, and it's not really about the environment either.

"Hide the decline," sparkbros.

"I will just ask you to explain to me how riding a bike over a car isn't affecting our local ecosystem or tied to environmental issues inherently?"

It's spit in the ocean. Or the Yough. Or the Mon.

Compare - would you rather breathe in Pittsburgh now, or the "hell with the lid off" era, when the city was a "great sooty blot?" Lot more cars around now than there were in the 1860s.

Again, I like bikes. But not as a Green prop.

"Then, it depends on how you want to fudge the depreciation. My last car cost me almost $10/day for every day I owned it, which was ridiculous. My current car is much more sensible but still in the range of $5/day over its lifetime ($20k mini cooper - maybe it's worth $5k now, divided by 9 years = 3285 days). You can't ignore it just because you're not selling the car."

Why not? Do you take depreciation on your bike?

I drive a 15 year old car with 155K on it. It has no value. I only get a car to move me from point A to point B. It's not an investment. So I don't see how depreciation matters in your calculations.

@the historian I never think of a car's value aside from a means to get from Point A to Point B.

You've never bought, sold, nor traded-in a car?

"I will just ask you to explain to me how riding a bike over a car isn't affecting our local ecosystem or tied to environmental issues inherently?"

"It's spit in the ocean. Or the Yough. Or the Mon."

No it's really not. Yikes

@Mick, for scrap, yes, when they reached the end of their useful life. I'm 45 and I've only owned three cars in my life. I also lived car-free for about five years.

Hmm, I guess that makes me greener than some. Certainly cheaper.

Haha, spit in the ocean. That is funny. Why should we bother with anything then?

Why should I vote? It is only one vote! How could I possibly make any difference? Why don't I just toss my trash on the ground? Who cares, right? It is only a burger wrapper/cigarette butt/coors light bottle. There is plenty of other trash blowing about. Maybe I should shoplift an apple now and again. Hey its only $0.50 worth of produce, and the grocery store must move $100k/day worth of stuff, thats only 0.0005% of what they sell in a day. Spit in the ocean! How could they possibly miss it?

So Yikes and Haha, you'd prefer Pittsburgh in the 1860s then? Or Danora in 1948?

Less cars on the road means cleaner air and cleaner streets, the streets wash into the streams and rivers, so less cars means cleaner water.

What does Pittsburgh in the 1860s have to do with automobiles today? I can't see your connection. The smog and soot came from steel mills and industrialization. Why would more people riding bikes introduce more steel mills? You seem to think that less cars would introduce more pollution or move us back in time or something?

Neil, what are you trying to accomplish in this discussion? I mean that seriously...I'm truly not understanding what point you're trying to make, especially as regards the "turning back time" to the 1860s thing.

So Yikes and Haha, you'd prefer Pittsburgh in the 1860s then? Or Danora in 1948?

do you mean to imply that the addition of cars to the pittsburgh roads has put the lid back on hell?

OK, my turn. Short term, no, there isn't much savings in going bike vs car. I bike a few miles in on one day, I save maybe $3 in gas. Big whoop. If I use the bus to cart my bike and my butt the 10 uphill miles to the closest big intersection, with the cash fare I'm probably down a couple of nickels. As everyone on this board knows, I'm a transit fanatic, and even I'm saying an occasional bike/bus day isn't going to convince anyone.

Even on a slightly larger scale, if you biked in once a week, no it isn't going to save you much money. Yes indeed, you still have the car and all its overhead. Everyplace I've ever worked has free parking, so really, unless you plunge in and go absolutely bonkers hanging up the keys, you really don't save much of anything IMHO.

The bigger thing is not dollars and cents, it's in changing one's notion of what's possible. Once you realize that a 10-mile trip is possible, then you can start to consider alternatives you were previously blind to. The old car dies; do I *really* need to replace it? *Can* ZipCar suffice for the 15 times a year I really need to have an automobile at my disposal? Maybe a hundred or so for a monthly bus pass really would make sense next month.

It's when you hang up the keys for a while and try the alternatives, and actually try to depend on them for a while, do you start to see the plethora of cars as over the top, culturally. On my one street of seven houses, there are 15 cars for 18 people, including children and non-drivers; that's 14 cars for 14 people in six houses, not counting my own house.

Me, I once had four cars for three drivers. I started riding buses, and once that proved reliable, I began shedding cars, and eventually I was down to one. I added bikes to the equation to save money because I was unemployed and broke, and couldn't even afford bus fare. Biking was (essentially) free. There would eventually be bike maintenance costs, but far less than gasoline, even at 2007 levels. With the money I save on a 2nd or 3rd or 4th car, I can keep the one going for a long time. In 20 years, I've only bought two cars.

So, yeah, all that said, starting bike (or bus) commuting to save money at the pump really does not make that much difference in the short run, but in the long run? Yes, big time.

"Neil, what are you trying to accomplish in this discussion? I mean that seriously...I'm truly not understanding what point you're trying to make, especially as regards the "turning back time" to the 1860s thing."

I'm trying to point out environmental impact of bike riding vs driving is relatively miniscule compared to past changes, and while we are at it other current ones.

It's when you hang up the keys for a while and try the alternatives, and actually try to depend on them for a while, do you start to see the plethora of cars as over the top, culturally.

this has been my experience as well. i really loved my car for a number of reasons (it was pretty sexy, for one), but when i realized how little i was driving, i thought about giving it up. i couldn't do it, because i thought i relied too much on it.

then it got stolen, and i never replaced it. it has completely changed my perspective of cars-as-necessary. the idea of driving somewhere within two miles is now abhorrent to me.

One reason I stopped riding the bus back and forth from where I live to school is because I couldn't depend on it. The car was much easier because I could stop for errands on the way home, leave when I wanted to, and get to where I wanted to go if I suddenly needed to do something extra.

However, my realization at how out of shape I am plus the rising gas prices was a double-push to get myself out there, trade in my not-so-commuting friendly bike for a better one, and just start. I hope that I can do the errands and trips in a certain mile radius with the bike eventually. It's going to take me awhile, but the money factor is definitely important to me. Parking and gas combined. Does it take longer to get places? Sure. Did the bus? Yes. But I have the ability to come and go when I want and take extra trips if I need to.

In some cases it will take you less to bike!

Hehehehe, this is true. That is my goal. Right now I am so slow that it takes longer, but once I have to start biking up Wilkins or Shady, I think I might gain some speed on the flat parts.

Also as many on this board know, what I'm really about is multi-modal transportation as an alternative to the car. The bike makes a lot of sense a lot of the time. So does the bus. Many occasions, one or the other just doesn't cut it. The two together make a great alternative to 100% dependence on the car.

The savings may be less in cost and more in time. From crossing a river or passing Crosstown Blvd to being parked Downtown and touching the nearest sidewalk with shoe leather, the bike is going to be the faster mode in nearly all cases, as well as zero cost or nearly so.

I'm really bad at math and with money, so I'm not even going to get into an analysis. I don't bike because of the cost of gas, or car expenses, though I'm working under the assumption that my car will last longer, so I don't have to deal with that as soon, that's appealing. I fill up infrequently enough so that if a tank costs $5 or $10 dollars differently one way or another, I don't really notice. I bused all week, no biking so since I don't have to fill up my car tonight, I think I am going to get a very expensive bottle of Tequila on the way home, unleaded premium That's what I'm going to do with that savings.

I'm trying to point out environmental impact of bike riding vs driving is relatively miniscule compared to past changes, and while we are at it other current ones.

Virtually anything an individual does is miniscule compared to the overall problem. So individuals should do nothing?

Try that in other contexts: "Your honor, the money I took is relatively miniscule compared to the bank's vast wealth. You should just let me go free."

A fairer argument would be that even if everyone switched to bikes (as much as they could), it would still have a miniscule impact relative to other causes. But I don't think you've made that argument, and I expect you'd have a hard time defending it if you did.

Oh, and the "past changes" argument? We used to enslave lots of black people. Now we don't. That's a huge improvement. When a little job discrimination occurs today, it's miniscule in comparison. Therefore it's OK?

I have to work in a different part of town for eight days in a row later this month. If I ride my bike those 8 days, I will avoid spending nearly $90 just in parking fees.

I also feel in better physical shape and less stressed out the more I ride my bike.

I can afford a car, but for a lot of people, just saving a couple of bucks a day is actually a pretty big deal, and perhaps more of an incentive.

'm trying to point out environmental impact of bike riding vs driving is relatively miniscule compared to past changes, and while we are at it other current ones.

Thank you for clarifying. I believe I now understand your point, even if I don't quite see why it matters that past changes have had a greater impact in some areas of the environment.

IMO, "the environment" is not just air, or the Amazon rainforest, or polar bears standing on tiptoe on some ice floe. The environment is urban, and suburban, and rural, and wilderness; we don't exist outside of it. Making it better isn't just a matter of focusing on causes célèbres such as "global warming" or "depleted ozone layer" or "hip-deep horseshit in the streets". It's also a matter of small things, like making room for one another, and forming connections with the world and the community around you, and simply using less and wasting less.

It's very easy to point out that any given "conservation measure" isn't the ultimate solution to a given problem; but, something like cycling, which helps address many environmental factors, is far more valuable than a single "oh look, we fixed one problem" approach. Trying to say "cycling is not beneficial to the environment" because other things have had larger effect on air quality is failing to see the forest for one specific tree.

For me I think the bike is better / faster then in certain situations. For short trips with high traffic Bikes are so much better then cars. You don't get held up in traffic. Cars get really bad MPG on short trips in stop and go traffic. So, using a bike really pays off here.

As for the environment. Not using a car has one big benefit: No noise pollution (makes the street more pedestrian friendly).

Learning how to ride a bike in the city really adds to your freedom. You don't really have to worry about traffic jams because you can easily get around them.

If you pay for parking then it really does save cash to take transit or ride your bike.

@the historian I'm trying to point out environmental impact of bike riding vs driving is relatively miniscule compared to past changes, and while we are at it other current ones.

I'd guess you'd be half right.

Past? Sure. When every house in Pittsburgh was heated by caoasl, it was dirty here- even if you didhn't count the mills.

The past is gone, though.

I don't know how much polution is caused by the manufacture, operation, fueling and disposal of cars and car parts, but I would be shocked if it were less than a quarter or more than 3 quarters.

A quick perusal of the web leads to this

http://www.autorepair.ca.gov/80_BARResources/02_SmogCheck/Air_Pollution_Sources.html

42% of air pollution. Seems right to me.

Not "miniscule."

Cut it in half? 21%? Not "miniscule"

Cut it to a quarter? 10%

STILL not "miniscule".

I've wanted to commute to work since I first got on my bike a few weeks ago, but since I've changed jobs and now have a job where I have to pay for parking I decided that when my hours allow it I am going to commute to work the price of gas was also a huge factor. Currently when the weather (and my legs) allow it I commute door to door from my house in Penn Hills to the Steel building down town. When I expect a rainy ride I drive to the end of the Jail trail and ride from there. I've had to spend some money to have all of the clothing and equipment I need, but I made up for it in the first month of commuting.

Very apropos: PG: Parkways to display estimated travel times

"Estimated travel time: You'd be there already if you had biked. Heck, you'd be there already if you had walked."

"I drive a 15 year old car with 155K on it. It has no value. I only get a car to move me from point A to point B. It's not an investment. So I don't see how depreciation matters in your calculations."

If you stole the car it doesn't matter but presuming you paid for it - 15 years is 5500 days, if you paid $10k (cash - or add more for financing) it has cost you $2/day just to own it.

Sure, you have to throw in depreciation on the bike to make it a fair comparison. I paid $700 for my bike in 1993 - 10 cents a day! I paid $1000 for my other bike that I've had for ~2 years. Well, it's not valuless but even assuming it were, that's $1.50/day.

"If you stole the car it doesn't matter but presuming you paid for it - 15 years is 5500 days, if you paid $10k (cash - or add more for financing) it has cost you $2/day just to own it.

"Sure, you have to throw in depreciation on the bike to make it a fair comparison. I paid $700 for my bike in 1993 - 10 cents a day! I paid $1000 for my other bike that I've had for ~2 years. Well, it's not valuless but even assuming it were, that's $1.50/day."

That's spreadsheet money, not real. Besides, the remark that started all this discussion was my comment that the savings was minimal unless a hypothetical person, or me, got rid of the car entirely. Your spreadsheet dollar fifty is meaningless in that context.

Even then, however, considering that a car is a useful item, it might be worth your hypothetical 1.50 a day to keep it.

Oh, and I didn't steal the car.

Back to the original post. Scott, if a journalist calls, send 'em my way. I started this whole crusade during the gas run-up in the 1990 Kuwait fiasco. In 20 years, I've gone from four cars to one car, not knowing what a bus was to being a transit fanatic, and not biking much at all to biking extensively.

Thumbnail guess, that's saved me $100K in 20 years, in not driving and maintaining my own personal fleet. You have to start somewhere.

"It's very easy to point out that any given "conservation measure" isn't the ultimate solution to a given problem; but, something like cycling, which helps address many environmental factors, is far more valuable than a single "oh look, we fixed one problem" approach. Trying to say "cycling is not beneficial to the environment" because other things have had larger effect on air quality is failing to see the forest for one specific tree."

Agreed, Reddan. However, using environmentalism as a selling point for bike commuting, as I've tried to point out, isn't a strong argument.

Stu, now that's interesting. How did you get the 100 K figure over 21 years? Is that from the transition from 4 motor vehicles to 1, not replacing them as they were sold or scrapped?

"The bigger thing is not dollars and cents, it's in changing one's notion of what's possible."

Bravo! My experience exactly.

Figuring from just going from two cars to one, not from four, so the number is conservative. I figured on 20 years of $5K/year savings. The $5K was from not having a $250/month car payment ($3K), $1K in gasoline and insurance, and $1K in repairs, defined as anything from oil changes to not buying fuzzy dice to hang from the mirror to the $2,200 transmission rebuilds both of my cars have needed. Toss in there that 20 years of not getting a ticket, a fender bender or clobbering a deer (as I came within 18" of doing a mere 90 minutes ago), and I think the $100K over 20 years figure is not only believable, but low.

Again, I saved $2300 last year WITHOUT getting rid of my car. I don't consider that "minimal".

Sure, I could save more by getting rid of my car, but that's on top of what I've already saved.

I don't understand this "spreadsheet money" business. The last I checked, when you go to a car dealer you give them actual money and they give you a car in return. If you give them a spreadsheet, they're not going to give you a car.

"I don't understand this "spreadsheet money" business. The last I checked, when you go to a car dealer you give them actual money and they give you a car in return."

Yes, a transaction took place. Note the use of the past tense. The monetary savings from bike commuting is going forward. It's a comparison of expenses and costs, and depreciation is not a cost.

Stu, that's impressive, on the whole. I think the fuzzy dice and deer are mountain-building, however - you don't need a car to buy fizzy dice and you can hit a deer on a bike. I don't advise it, however.

Yes, a transaction took place. Note the use of the past tense. The monetary savings from bike commuting is going forward. It's a comparison of expenses and costs, and depreciation is not a cost.

depreciation is most certainly a cost. it's a cost as long as you have a car, so it doesn't apply in the context you brought up, but it's most assuredly a cost. you could sell your car at any time and have the money it's worth. any time you don't do that costs you money.

@HiddenVariable I agree with you that depreciation is a cost. However, it is a sunk cost and based on accounting principles when considering multiple alternatives sunk costs are not decision variables. When making a decision the only costs that should be considered are current and future benefits and costs.

Your argument that as long as you don't sell the car the depreciation costs you money is incorrect. Selling a car or not is another alternative.

It seems to me the the decisions are:

-Commute by car

-Commute by bike and/or other non-personal car modes while keeping your car

-Commute by bike and/or other non-personal car modes and selling your car

Obviously the most savings would come from selling the car. I believe you are looking at the decision from the economic profit point of view, but economic profit isn't based on cash in compared to cash out which is what most people are concerned about.

This thread has gotten silly. I was asking for people who decided for themselves that they wanted to start replacing car trips with bike trips in order to save money. I'm interested in behavior not opinions about that behavior.

Wow. Makes me yearn for the days of the meat eaters vs. abolitionists thread. Pierce, save us!

Wow, so if i bought a car and a tanker of gas at the same time my commuting costs would be zero? Awesome! Hey, why stop there? I'll buy a jet and a big tank full of fuel and then I can fly for free too! Wow, your brand of economics is just flat out spectacular, why doesn't everyone just buy expensive stuff since it doesn't "really" cost you anything?

Historian, to help me better understand, are you arguing that since the car has already been purchased, that the cost is then negligible, or at least 'not going to change'?

What about someone who is making payments on the car? I am just trying to understand where the line exists of when the money going into the physical existence of a car counts, and when it does not.

I think I get where you are coming from, but I want a better framework from your perspective.

Only mildly related, but since I have never owned a car, can someone answer this for me with more knowledge on the subject? Isn't there a way you can get a car declared recreational or something with the insurance co. if you only drive it X number of miles? I seem to recall that from the 10 minutes way back when where I considered buying one.

He's arguing semantics to try to prove some point. There is a real cost associated with owning a car, just like everything else you own. It's not like the money you spent on it would have magically disappeared otherwise.

My car is listed as "pleasure use only" and has some mileage limitation, although its something ridiculously high like 8500mi. IIRC it saved me 100 bucks a year (~20%) or so.

@wojty - Yes. When I went down to two cars, and was riding the bus from McCandless to Monroeville, I had the 2nd car insured as sub-6,000 miles per year usage. Its purpose was to get me 3 miles each way from the bus stop to my place of work. Ironically, that car met its end (and I permanently went down to one car) when the other car was in for inspection and someone T-boned me when I was 2.2 miles from home.

@thehistorian - Dice: Less a matter of mountain building, more an example of incurring a cost for the car that would not be there if the car was not there. Maybe an alarm system is more illustrative. Deer: Clobbering a deer costs money, minimally the deductible on your insurance; I know of cars totaled from a deer hit. The greater point is, not having the car or the car miles traveled translates indirectly to costs not incurred, given enough time, because *something* would have happened to the car in that time. What, when, how costly, how often, is all irrelevant, given that mentioning it at all is to further underline that my numbers are likely an underestimate.

"So Yikes and Haha, you'd prefer Pittsburgh in the 1860s then? Or Danora in 1948? "

straw man enters predictably

"@thehistorian - Dice: Less a matter of mountain building, more an example of incurring a cost for the car that would not be there if the car was not there. Maybe an alarm system is more illustrative. Deer: Clobbering a deer costs money, minimally the deductible on your insurance; I know of cars totaled from a deer hit. The greater point is, not having the car or the car miles traveled translates indirectly to costs not incurred, given enough time, because *something* would have happened to the car in that time. What, when, how costly, how often, is all irrelevant, given that mentioning it at all is to further underline that my numbers are likely an underestimate."

Understood. I just found the fuzzy dice as a savings amusing.

This thread has gotten silly.

Hi Scott, welcome to the Interwebs. I take it you're new here.

enter XKCD again

I save a lot by not driving (like I could buy a Bike Friday every year from gas money, I calculated when gas was less) but more importantly I'd rather be knitting on the two legs of buses (and chatting with different population segments, if they're chatty enough to strike up conversation with me), and bike the bits in between, than drive in traffic hardly any faster.

you'd like to think that you're saving money @sprite, but you're not. it's not real money. and even if you were saving money you shouldn't talk about it because you should only be biking for the sake of biking.

Some more resources on the subject:

http://www.geargather.org/profiles/blogs/your-driving-costs-from-aaa

http://bike-pgh.org/green

Science is merely liberal propaganda.

Science is merely liberal propaganda.

And, lest we forget, science historically was mostly pursued by old rich white guys, so you know it can't be trusted.

Everyone knows Marie Curie was a cross-dressing man.

cburch Science is merely liberal propaganda.

As a scientist and liberal, I find it appalling that there are times when this is true. Read any of the works, of Hyde and Mertz for a good example.

Timely xkcd:

(P.S.: I said "mostly", dammit.)

^ I like the stick figure rendition of a zombie!

RE scott's comment it's not real money..

Today I left my (insured) car in it's usual parking spot on the street & rode my bike to work, making a couple of pit stops in metered neighborhoods along the way for errands.

I avoided spending $12–$15 on parking alone.

Ironically, one of my stops was at a bank where I tried to exchange five $20 bills for a Ben Franklin to send a relative as a graduation gift. They wouldn't take the money!!! I had to go to another bank...

mick, i was talking about basic physics. everyone knows that physics was invented by liberal godless commies to make jesus look bad. they said so on talk radio so it must be true!

Magnets... how do they work? Miracles son.

@ALMKLM

"Wow. Makes me yearn for the days of the meat eaters vs. abolitionists thread. Pierce, save us!"

Heh, I'm honored you remembered our name.

Already made a slight detour on the subject here:

http://bike-pgh.org/bbpress/topic/pancake-dinner-to-support-climate-ride#post-70908

We don't advocate the environmental aspect A) because it's not relevant to morals and as stated in this thread previously, saving the "environment" isn't really a compelling argument

The Power Of Green Compels You!!!!!

(so stop projectile vomiting pollutants!)

It all depends on how psychologically violently a Born Again Hippy was converted. Or maybe I'm the only one like that. Meh. (It was money that started me on the Path to Conservation, though, so who knows...)

Slight tangent - I finally bit the bullet on my lawn. Started mowing with the old push mower (ca. 1930s? 1830s? 1330s? OLD) I had laying around. Why? Don't want to pay for the power for the electric one I've got, don't want to pay for gas for any other one either, and don't want to pay for the Lawn Guy anymore (and he killed my raspberries but let the knotweed thrive, his name is mud). Benefits I'm realizing? I can mow without annoying my neighbors when I'm insomniac at 5AM on Sunday. I can mow with the dog outside without freaking her out. I won't smell like grass AND fumes, and don't have to pay attention to those nasty fluids machines always seem to require and produce. These are all green, and all good. Down side? I have to pay attention, make time for it, use energy for it. Money (and dead raspberries) got me there, environment is keeping me going.

Not everyone can do it. Not everyone will do it. My reasons may not compel everyone but they do me, and environment is one of them.

@ejwme

But even you, a Born Again Hippy? commute from Penn Hills to Cranberry everyday. So how much motivation is the environment to an average joe when factoring in their choice of transportation?

How close are you to your neighbors? I would still be annoyed by the sound of a reel mower at 5AM (But I've been called a crotchety old man before)

I'm on 0.239 acres (including house and driveway), and my neighbors are likewise. Given that my one neighbor snowblows at 4AM on a day that quite clearly the county is 100% housebound, I think a reel mower at 5AM isn't so bad.

I've never understood Average Joe, so I have no idea. I think I'm trying to say that we have enough battles to fight without abandonning weapons that, while not universal, are still sharp. I don't start with the environmental argument, sometimes I don't bring it up at all, but I don't discount it. Like personal automobiles, it exists and has its time and place, good or bad.

@ejwme - you can get the blades of your reel mower sharpened...it will be quieter and cut the grass better. Reminds me, I need to take mine in....

Hyla, I hope you know I was joking.

Same to you, Scott

From my Facebook. From people in Minneapolis

if you continue to own a car.

Getting rid of a car will save a lot of money... even if you "continue to own a[nother] car."

On a related note to the original post, hasn't this story been done to death?

I swear this is something they do every summer too. "Gas prices went up, somebody must be riding a bicycle because of it!"

My cycling is independent of gas prices, as I think most peoples' on this board is

I hate the fact that people at work assume I either got a DUI or don't wanna pay for gas.

Not a problem for me. I just stake myself out as a complete loony, and then I can do anything.

@Stu: we could all stand to be a little loonier...