« Long Bridge Park Groundbreaking Soon | Main | Bike Items That Have Little to Nothing to do With DC (10/11/09) »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not sure where these numbers come from, but they seem misleading to me. Most cars are the primary mode of transportation for the user, whereas most bikes are not. Moreover, one of the regular posters to this blog (I forget whom) has argued that the real cost of operating a bicycle may be much higher than estimates suggest.

I think that the car number may be somewhat misleading, too. I believe it reflects the 5-year cost of operating a new car. But that is not the only option. Keeping a car longer is a lower cost option (repairs increase, but depreciation becomes less of a factor) as is buying a used car.

I'm sure bike ownership is a good deal less expensive, but 25x less is probably an exaggeration.

I'd like to know where those numbers come from as well. They don't match up with my experience.

They don't match up with my experience.

Yeah, mine either. I've got a 1994 beater, which, including gas, maintenance, insurance, repairs, won't cost me more than $1000 this year, and that's with a couple road trips thrown in.

I average close to 100 miles a week on the bike (between commuting and weekend riding), so my car is at best a co-primary mode of transportation, but even at that, it's nowhere near 25 times more expensive than my bike's upkeep...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009


 Subscribe in a reader