It seems that savings would be increasingly realized the greater one distances themselves from their car, provided both are being used. If someone commutes to work by bike but keeps a car for the other stuff (and fully insures the car), they're not going to save much beside gas. If they ride a lot more and drop the automotive insurance coverage to liability only, they save that plus more gas, repairs, and depreciation, etc. If they sell the car and commute for everything, they save even more.

There's other benefits besides the financial-personal health, the environment, etc. It's worth the cost of building up a good commuter bike as far as I'm concerned.

I don't actually commute to save money. I do it for the ride and exercise. But the cost savings is definately an side benefit.

I have to own a car anyways, so I can't claim insurance, taxes, etc.. as a savings. It's a issue of the cost of gas, wear and tear on the car versus the wear and tear on the bicycle. (They've both been long paid for.)

Looking at the cars bills and figuring the gas cost for mileage I ride yearly instead of driving, it's probably in the $800-$1000 range for the car. While I haven't spent one penny on the bike in the past three years. I don't have the upgrade obsession that some have.

As far as increased food for energy. I don't see it. At 5'10" and close to an eight of a ton, I could probably cut back on food and still ride.

It saves some, but bike parts break over time, and you have to replace tires, but you won't have the increased medical costs down the road.

.....till some a-hole cager runs you down.

Is there a savings in riding? A small one, I 'spose. If you ride an old craigslist or tag sale bike, and have a fairly lengthy commute, you'll save a decent amount. If you bought a 5 thousand dollar carbon fiber racer to commute, I'd say your break even point might be reached....by your grandkids.

Somebody brought up this point, I think it was on the e-bike forum. They claimed that riding an e-bike was more efficient as the cost of electricity was lower than the added food needed to fuel a pedal biker. I said that their argument made sense IF they were getting by on a subsistence diet. I, like you weigh pretty damn near an eigth ton and, like you, I am sure eat plenty, even when I'm sitting home on my but. Infact, it's safe to say that on a day wasted away watching TV, my caloric intake is higher than if I rode a century. It's called eating something because you're bored. And it's a really bad habit.

I agree. If you bought the bike soley for commutting, it'll be a long time to pay it back.

But, if you own that bike anyways because your a leisurely weekend warrior, then it's really a sunk cost in the equation. You own it anyways.

I'm car-lite. At 106,000 mi, I just replaced all struts, and shocks myself. Two days worth of work, $300 dollars worth of parts. If I had this done by a shop, it would have cost me an additional $275.

Rear brakes - $150 done two months ago
New windshield - $199 done last weekend.

It'll need new tires before winter this year $80 for 4, and not including labor or installation.

Oil change - $30 this is coming up..

I try not to drive it as much as I can, it's sat at my office's garage since Monday of this week, so ya I usually bring it home on the weekends (for family errands/outings). I take it to work and park it - just in case I get an offsite assignment or meeting.

Yes, food intake does increase with commuting, but the cost of vehicle upkeep in my mind still exceeds this.

I have been recording my commutes with one of the Clean Air Campaign websites here in Atlanta since April 2009. They claim with my 11 mile one way commute that I have saved over $400 in commuting costs in that time period alone. I have no idea where they come up with that number but I have been riding since June 2008. At $400/month I think I paid for the bike by now, yes?

I think the Clean Air Campaign is taking some considerable liberties with their equations.

That sounds like a convincing argument to buy a new bike! Hm.. what to buy what to buy.
hmmm. perhaps that is another reason I don't save any money.

for me personally I save no money by commuting. very rough number crunching here: to drive my car costs $0.16/mile ($3/gal fuel, oil change, tires) excluding cost of car and insurance because I have those regardless. maintenance on my bike costs $0.12/mile (just tires and tubes). that's a difference of $.04 cents a mile. so to break even on my $800 bike would take 20,000 miles of commuting. only way I see to save money by commuting is by having no car, a cheap bike, or a terribly non-fuel efficient vehicle. does that mean i'm selling my bike? of course not, I do it for the love (exercise ain't bad either).

12 cents a mile for tires and tubes? You must really burn through them.

That does seem pretty high. I was kinda annoyed when the sidewall on my $35 tires gave out after 3800 miles and there was plenty of tread left. I do overload them a bit though so I guess I'm stuck with that but even if I swapped both tires and tubes at that time $80 at 3800 miles that is $.02 per a mile? Which really still burns me.
I hope you misplaced a decimal place, and I didn't, or wow you are burning through those things.

That's what I was thinking...

While I somewhat understand the logic in this I find it an interesting mindset and somewhat illuminating insofar as how attached we are to the automobile. That the owning of an automobile has become such a necessity that we discount those costs as if they are simply a given. Kind of like, "I have to breathe don't I?"

I suppose in trying to come up with a formula to determine "at what point does commuting save $$" a few things are revealed:

#1- If you are attached to owning a car and simply must have a car to the point where you don't even factor in the cost of the automobile and it's upkeep as part of the equation then you will indeed "save" less money commuting on a bike.

#2- If you must have the latest bling for your bike, factor in all your recreational bike bling, must have the latest, the newest and the best for your bike. And you have all your repairs done at a bike shop. You will save less money commuting by bike.

#3- If you give up your car(s) entirely, if you go car-lite (ie. a two car family becomes a one car family) or you're a pragmatic realist in your accounting and factor in the cost of owning the automobile including initial costs, insurance, all upkeep and things like parking, tolls, parking tickets, fines registration etc. then the bicycle will definitely win out on the balance sheet. And, if 5,000 miles a year on your bike means 5,000 less per year on your car it could mean an extra year or two of ownership of the car reducing the initial cost over time. In other words, delay the purchase of a new car or increase it's resale value. But, overall, car ownership reduces the savings.

Last time I figured, it was costing me around 55 cents a mile to drive my mini-van. My Electra Townie has cost us about $10 for the past 14 months and around 1000 miles. So that comes out to about 1 cent per mile.

My LHT has cost me about $1 for the past three months, or 250 miles, or about .4 cents per mile.

Driving was costing me around $600/mo. My two boys and I riding our bikes for the past year, or longer, has cost us a little over $10. So, for me, the savings is astronomical ... !!! Oh yes, I've ridden the bus maybe 10 times in the past six months. That a total of $25. But I would have ridden the bus anyways, even if I had no bike, and was still driving, so that really doesn't even make any difference, that is, regarding expenses riding bicycles.

Oh yes, I forgot to include ALL the expenses that go along with driving -- tickets, court costs, time lost from work, court school. So for me, the total cost of driving was probably closer to 60 cents/mile.

If we're going to leave out fixed costs of owning, then we should also leave out the purchase cost of the bicycle.

see attached snapshot of my Clean Air Campaign Commute log.
No idea where they get their $$$ amount from but that's pretty impressive for 50 trips/1000 miles.

I am checking with the Clean Air Campaign people to check their math. Will post that here when I get word. If I ride 5000 miles/year (20 miles/day x 5 days x 50 weeks) commuting. That is going to be a significant amount of $$$ saved no matter how it's calculated.

Riding might save you 400 a month IF it allows you to go car free. Of course, you could get by on less than 400 a month if you drive an older car and have reasonable insurance rates.

500 dollars saved by not driving 1000 miles?

Propaganda bull$hit.

Lets use real bad numbers 16 mpg, 4 dollar gas. That's 25 cents a mile. Maintenance on a decent car is likely to run a few cents a mile. Insurance is a fixed cost, so you can't include it. More realistic numbers, $2.50/gal and 25 mpg come out to a dime a mile.

I'm all for parking the car to help save the polar bears and all, but outright bull$hit claims such as these hurt the cause rather than help it, IMHO.

I don't think you were the original poster that brought up some of those additional expenses but just how many people were spending time with tickets, court costs, time from lost work and court school? Isn't that stretching it just a bit or are those actual expenses you incurred?

Reading bike forums sometimes I'd think alot of cyclists probably get more of the above on their bike then in their car.

Hm 50 cents a mile is mile is lower then both AAA and the IRS.. Did you enter figures on your car and/or select you got rid of it.
Around here we can get per mile insurance which would technically mean you could account for insurance savings since it would not be a fixed cost.

At what point does commuting save $$?

The day you don't buy a car.