Deseret News | Reader comments: Bike commuting doesn't save money

Reader comments
Bike commuting doesn't save money

Kevin | 6:14 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Great story. My solution is to telecommute.

Bob | 7:07 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Your 27 mile commute costs 54 cents driving a compact car with a CNG tank. The Compressed Natural Gas conversion also results in a much smaller "carbon footprint," hence, the income tax subsidy to help cover the cost of the tank and regulator for your car. Additionally, your engine will last about twice as long with the cleaner burning natural gas.

Commute time? You're right. Even CNG cars get stuck in traffic, but do you have to clean up and change clothes when you get to work?

Health Benefits? Your're right again about the health benefits and risks of accidents while biking.

Wouldn't it be great if you had a class one (separate) bike path to ride? Maintenence is small with no overloaded trucks breaking up the pavement, and you're able to appreciate the better world you're making instead of dodging cars.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 7:44 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

The push to get us on bikes by al gore & huntsman the younger and cohorts was never about saving energy anyway. It's about control.

Comments continue below

Raul | 7:51 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Nice try, bike tires and tubes are much cheaper to maintain on bikes than cars, bikes dont need oil changes, parking is zero, weight loss is a good thing. I guess if your in a rush to get home to watch american idol, a car IS more convienient though.

Dave | 7:49 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

You ommited the taxes you do not have to pay when riding a bike.

Bob | 7:52 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I'd love a CNG, but if there was a dramatic increase in NG demand, wouldn't that just drive up the cost? Granted, NG appears much cheaper than other alternatives...but could everyone convert to this form transportation? That's probably not what you are asserting. Perhaps the key to any financially sustainable solution is energy diversification. I'd be interested to know what the market share is for various types of cars (gas, CNG, hybrid, bio, etc.).

Cameron | 8:06 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

New CNG cars aren't sold in Utah. You have to buy used, usually old government fleet vehicles. In California you can buy them new.

However, these vehicles are generally more expensive than their gasoline versions, and it takes a number of years for them to pay for the extra cost.

Bikes R Us | 8:19 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Yes bike tires and tubes are much cheaper, but you change them much more frequently. I haven's seen a bike tire with an 80,000 mile rating. Add up all the tires and tubes you would use over 80,000 miles and the cost would exceed that of car tires.

Engine repair on bikes is also much more expensive than anything you will ever see on a car.

lost in DC | 8:25 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

you're also not counting the cost of a gym membership, which you now don't need, and the eventual health-care costs those 25 extra pounds would have caused you. Also, you don't need to buy that extra meal, you can pack a little more.

Roscoe | 8:25 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

What's the purpose of this letter? Evidently to take a jab at those who would advocate commuting by bike instead of by car (the left). What ever the purpose, the letter is a crock. Extra calories provided by McDonals junk food? If your only interest is in what's cheaper, clearly it's less expensive to ride a bike than drive a car.

Himself | 8:36 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I think the equation being suggested is
cost per mile = (price per calorie) * (calories per mile).

There is an implied assumption that the price of calories is equal, no matter the source.

But if these numbers are true:
Human on a bike is 35 calories per mile.
Car is 1800 calories per mile.

Then the calorie price doesn't mean much.

The car costs 50 times the bike.

I miss biking to work | 8:37 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I now work nearly 30 miles away and it takes too long to ride in. Plus no shower when I get here. I miss biking to work and I've gained 10 pounds lately.

Not to mention | 8:55 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Not to mention the extra cost in processing the extra human waste caused by your extra eating.... Pedal one, pedal on!

Biker | 9:02 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Yeah, biking sure is a terrible deal. Maybe you should give it up and go back to driving everywhere. I bet you ride a Specialized S-Works or some other $5,000 bike - I'll buy it off you for $200. Do we have a deal?

By the way, you can get more than enough extra calories for your commute by eating Ramen noodles and it won't cost you more than a dollar.

Did I just say that out loud? Dang - now I bet you won't sell me that bike.

Cameron | 9:33 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Calorie consumption causes global warming.

Ramen man | 10:02 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Yeah, why can't they design a car that runs on ramen noodles? Oh, that's right, ramen is basically made of oil.

lowonoil | 11:04 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Although this letter was toungue in cheek, it will probably be used to reenforce the belief systems of those who imagine that a car for everybody and everybody in a car is the best of all possible schemes for transportation and that transit, bicycles, and even sidewalks should all go away.
They dream of a world where there is no alternative to driving and call it "Freedom".

I'm sure that an extra helping or two of potatoes or rice would cover the increased calorie needs far more cheaply than a Big Mac combo.

you got to be kidding me!!! | 11:09 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

riding a bike not cheaper than driving a car? the car insurance you would save in a year should pay for your bike and biking expenses several times over. bike vs car expenses should be a "no brainer".

Confused | 11:17 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

You got to be kidding!!!

Uh, your car insurance does not go away just because you ride a bike. You still need to have insurance if you drive at all.

Lew Jeppson | 11:17 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I found the writer's analysis fascinating. It was a determined attempt at personal transportation economics. But the transportation consumer has a difficult time evaluating alternatives intelligently because a true competitive market in transit does not exist - all government supported by a variety of taxes, so the writer could not included all of the costs he bears for transportation alternatives. Only when all costs are born out of pocket can an accurate analysis be made.

If there were three or four private toll road operators in business, each self-supporting, offering various pricing alternatives in competition, along with private transit competing for traffic like Bamberger of old, with all costs being born by the public out of pocket, then the transporation consumer could really make an intelligent choice. Anyway - to the writer - a pleasant and entertaining attempt!

Lew Jeppson | 11:30 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

As for government, not being a direct provider of transportation, it could concentrate on environmental preservation - a necessary function of government, not being in competition with itself, imposing carbon, NOX, and other taxes as it sees fit on private transportation providers.

Anonymous | 11:33 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008

Cool article. I'd still ride my bike anyway. I'd rather give my money to bike shops than oil execs and politicians.

Mike Packard | 12:05 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

As Lew notes above, those transit "benefits" cost somebody else...a lot!

The Cheapest alternatives?

Work at home.

Ride share. Your gas cost goes to $2 a gallon if you split it with a freind.
There are a lot of new technologies that will very soon facilitate super-ride-sharing. Also, as Lew pointed out, we will all benefit when we have real user-paid options and alternatives. The whole transportation system is dishonest and biased.
It is time to get rid of CBD "freebie-rails" and go back to basics, with everybody paying their own way.

As I mentioned above, the huge gains in clean air and better mobility will come as a result of new technologies making the car-road system more effective, more adaptable, and more cost effective.

We live at a time when the average person has a smart cell phone smarter than a main frame computer of the 1970's and cellular communication not available to the richest man in the world, then.

We must stop throwing many billions in the UTA money pit and, instead utilize the greatest bargain in history...the flood of new technologies into the hands of the public...like a mile-wide cornucopia..... All to make transportation work better.

SKye | 12:09 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

@Cameron | 8:06 a.m. Aug. 1, 2008
"New CNG cars aren't sold in Utah."

That's not true at all, Ken Garff Honda Downtown
64 E. 900 South, sells New Honda Civic CNG Vehicles, talk to Ron Brown--There is a waiting list, just like there is for Civic Hybrids, for Toyota Prius, and for most other high-efficiency vehicles. But you can buy new CNG in Utah.

ReasonedTraveler | 12:57 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

This may be the most pointless and inane op-ed published in a very long time.

Oscar Ynostroza | 1:13 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

To be heathy and in good physical condition: "priceless"

MEB | 4:52 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

I have to disagree, ReasonedTraveler. I thought it was very entertaining. I'd have to use the KFC line - "I didn't see that coming". I was expecting a lecture on why we should all be riding our bikes to work, but it was far more than that.

The alternative is we could go back to the mundane arguing that we do on these pages every day.

Great piece, Josh!

about insurance | 4:52 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

We found out the hard way that you have to have car insurance even if you don't drive. If you have a drivers license in Utah, you have to have insurance. It's insane.

Thomas | 5:13 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

The interesting thing is that the human body and a modern internal-combustion automobile have approximately the same thermal efficiency. In both cases, about 25% of the calories of energy supplied to the machine can be translated into kinetic energy.

However, that only measures the calories of energy that are actually present in the fuel fed into the machine. Which fuel source takes more calories of energy to produce -- gasoline or food?

I frankly don't know. Gasoline has to be pumped, refined, and transported, while food has to be planted, fertilized, harvested, processed, packaged, transported, and served. And then there's the energy spent processing the waste products -- both from packaging and excretion. If I had to guess, I'd bet that producing 2,000 calories' worth of food takes more energy than producing 2,000 calories' worth of gasoline.

SFMI | 5:38 p.m. Aug. 1, 2008

What I see in about 10 years if oil keeps increasing and 75% of people ride bikes to work is this...bike registrations costs sky rocket, bike insurance, then government mandated insurance, uninsured insurance, safety inspections, bike parking costs, taxes on bike sales.

BobBentbike | 5:29 p.m. Dec. 17, 2008

British Medical Association. Cycling: towards health and safety. Oxford University Press, 1992. "Even in the current hostile traffic environment, the benefits gained from regular cycling are likely to outweigh the loss of life through cycling accidents for the current population of regular cyclists." The life years gained due to the health and fitness benefits of cycling outweighed the life-years lost through injuries by a factor of around 20.

Joshua could improve his odds by not riding in door-zone bike lanes. Even more, advocate for the removal of those door-zone bike lanes and promote "share the road" instead. Meanwhile, I'm impressed by the 27 mile daily commute - quite a bit more than my 9.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.