Your math is flawed!
Originally Posted by
adlai
I bike commute, and I have to say that it is not cheaper than taking a car. Here's why.
1. There's a fair bit of maintenance to do on the bicycle. Over the past two years I've had to replace an entire rear derailleur after it ate a spoke on my rear wheel, change out the chain, replace the tires, change at least a dozen flats, spend about 3 hrs adjusting the front derailleur (and no, the LBS people didn't do it right). I'd say that the costs of maintinence and various upgrades over the past year or two has amounted to about 500
Flats may be annoying but unless you break the valve stem they are super cheap to fix. 25 cents for a patch and less than 10 minutes of time. A dozen flats is a lot in two years - are you riding in the gutter/ where there is a lot of debris, and keeping tires at proper pressure? Cars cost a helluva lot more to maintain, in terms of shop time as its much less likely you can do the repair yourself and parts are very expensive on cars!
There may be periods when lots of things go wrong on an old well-used bike at once, at which case maybe it is better financially (though not environmentally) to scrap the thing and buy a new commuter for about $350 or $400 with a few years of warranty on it.
Originally Posted by
adlai
2. True, car expenses include things like yearly registration, paying for parking, gasoline, replacing broken parts, etc. However, by and far car maintinence is, mile-for-mile, cheaper. Tires are a great example. The last flat tire I got in a car was entirely my fault and a result of a flagrant misjudgement. I regularly get flats in bicycles, both road and mountain, while doing on regular pavement. Otherwise, a low-end tire will take you 40k miles, and a set will cost maybe $500. With bicycles, you're buying a new pair of gatorskins at $80 every 4k miles. Cheaper tires last shorter.
I bought tires for about half that price that lasted me at least twice that long.
Originally Posted by
adlai
3. there are other costs not accounted for. An obvious ones of course are the greater mobility of the car allowing you more freedom in getting to jobs, carrying capacity of people and cargo, and the fact that cars are safer than bicycles due to safety regs which will ensure that you're okay should you ever be hit. With a bicycle, mile-for-mile, you're at a greatly increased risk of death compared to a car, in general it takes you longer to get to places, you're breathing in toxic fumes from the vehicles on the road.
Now of course, I love bicycles and commuting in them so that's what I choose, but economically, at best it's a wash in terms of cost savings.
I'm not sure how you are ensured you will be okay being hit in a car. To me the bicycle has much greater mobility, I can get to work usually faster than a car, and almost always in the same amount of time. I don't have lost productivity due to sitting in gridlock. Maybe you meant to say greater range. (which obviously comes at a lot higher operating costs)
But while mentioning other costs not accounted for there's the gym membership I don't need because I bike commute and get in shape that way, the sick days I don't need to take because I'm healthier, the societal costs of the car I don't add to my city, the more productive I am due to getting to work in a better mood, and less stress not having to hunt for parking.