Originally Posted by JugglerDave
I found after doing lots of spare-time calculation stuff, that it's virtually impossible to justify cost savings of a bike over a car on a *per mile* basis. The only way it saves money is if you can fully replace a car. Even the "car lasts longer" argument fell through, because if I keep a car for 8 years instead of 7 years, or have a "trade in" value increase due to lower miles, the cost still is much higher on a "per mile" basis on a bike once you factor in everything (clothing, food, maintenance, parts, actual cost of the bike).
If I compare car ownership and a health club membership- or even simply driving (assuming I'd have a car and bikes)- biking still wins. 40 miles is a long enough drive to actually use some gas- and it takes roughly an hour extra to drive round trip (half hour longer each way) while giving me a better work out than in the gym (meaning that I actually save time)- or I don't need to take a bike ride after work. Time is also money. And I ride a bike that I made from spare parts.