Let's Talk Numbers

This post is by one of Copenhagenize's finest, Rachel. She's been involved in quite a few of our projects, including the next Copenhagenize Index for bicycle-friendly cities.

By now we all know (or have at least heard) that cycling is beneficial for cities, and the benefits range from improving health to decreasing congestion. For those who aren’t on board yet, some of the findings we developed here at Copenhagenize should help change your mind.

We can talk on and on about the various benefits that come with bikes, but when it comes to municipalities actually implementing policies and infrastructure, the conversation will inevitably turn to numbers. How do the real costs of driving a car compare with the costs of riding a bike? We believe we have developed a comprehensive cost analysis to properly compare these modes of transport.

With Christine Grant spearheading this effort, we were able to come up with a cost analysis that incorporated typical factors such as travel time, vehicle and road maintenance, health, and carbon emissions. However, we also made sure to include several other factors that would represent the real costs of driving and cycling rather than just the face value costs we often encounter that only account for gas prices and carbon emissions. These factors include noise pollution, the impact of oil leaking from vehicles on water quality, parking and a city’s branding/tourism.

Population, modal share, average household income, and the cost of a gallon of gasoline are city-specific values that can easily be changed for each city, but in order to provide a concrete example, we looked at numbers for Christine’s hometown – Seattle, Washington.

Basic Stats:

Population: 563,374

Average Household Income: $45,736

Cost of 1 Gallon of Gasoline: $4.15

Total Trips (all modes) Annually: 5.9 million

Modal Share:

Bicycle: 2%

Pedestrian: 7%

Public Transit: 18%

Car: 73%

For calculating the costs of maintaining and operating a car and a bicycle, we took not only internal but also external costs into consideration.

Internal costs include:

Travel time
Vehicle/bike usage (gas, tires, maintenance)
Health
Parking Fees

External costs include:

Air, noise and stormwater (i.e. from oil runoff) pollution
Road deterioration
Parking Infrastructure
Branding/tourism
Climate change
Congestion

Out of these costs, there were two particularly interesting comparisons. The internal time cost for cyclists is $0.33/km and $0.16/km for motorists, which is a $0.17 difference between the two. Based solely on these numbers, it seems like cyclists are paying twice the amount of motorists to get somewhere, but this is where a crucial cost comes in: maintenance and operation. Cyclists pay a meager $0.03/km but motorists are paying $0.71/km (hello, peak oil!). At this point, cyclists are paying $0.36/km and motorists are paying $0.87/km (a $0.51/km difference). The margin, however, gets even wider as we factor in all the external costs, and we conclude that cycling actually results in a profit of $0.46/km ($0.73/mi) whereas cars cost $1.13/km ($1.82/mi). The total cost difference is $1.59/km ($2.55/mi) between cars and bikes!

Now that the financial benefits of cycling over driving are clear, what would happen to a city if there were a modal shift of just 1% of drivers becoming cyclists? In order to have this modal shift, there would need to be approximately 8,300 drivers becoming cyclists to have a 50.5 million km decrease in Vehicle Kilometers Traveled (VKT) and a 32.4 million km increase in Bicycle Kilometers Traveled (BKT) per year.

So by this point, we’ve been crunching a lot of numbers and our brains are running at full speed and as a result, we’ve got some compelling figures to prove the bicycle victorious over the car once again. By shifting 1% of drivers to become cyclists, $57.2 million is saved from reducing the goal VKT and $14.7 million is profited by increasing the goal BKT for a total benefit of $71.9 million.

So there you go. Are you convinced?

Overcomplicating Winter Cycling - Why It's Bad

One of the main focuses of this blog has always been on how Copenhagen and other cities have succeeded in increasing cycling levels by approaching the subject using mainstream marketing techniques. Tried and tested marketing that has existed since homo sapiens first started selling or trading stuff to each other. Modern bicycle advocacy, by and large, is flawed. It is firmly inspired by environmentalism which, in turn, is the greatest marketing flop in the history of humankind. Four decades of sub-cultural finger-wagging, guilt trips and preaching have given few results among the general population. When sub-cultural groups start trying to indoctrinate and convert the public, it rarely ever succeeds. For the better part of a century, people all over the planet rode bicycles because they were quick, easy, convenient and enjoyable. In hilly cities. In hot cities. In snowy cities. After the bicycle largely disappeared from the urban landscape because urban planning s...

A Walking Helmet is a Good Helmet

At long last logic prevails. A new campaign has hit the streets of Denmark, thanks to the visionaries at The Danish Road Safety Council [Sikker Trafik] and Trygfonden [an insurance company]. Intense promotion of walking helmets for pedestrians has begun. This logic has been sorely missed. These two organisations have happily promoted bike helmets but pedestrians suffer just as many head injuries, if not more. This Danish campaign poster reads: "A walking helmet is a good helmet" "Traffic safety isn't just for cyclists. The pedestrians of Denmark actually have a higher risk of head injury. The Danish Road Safety Council recommends walking helmets for pedestrians and other good folk in high risk groups." The slogan is catchy in Danish since it kind of rhymes. All in all it's a brilliant project. Let's save some lives. The new walking helmets will be available in the Danish Cyclists Union's [Dansk cyklist forbund] shop. Although, as the...

Driving Kills - Health Warnings

I think it's safe to say that we have a pressing need for marketing cycling positively if we're to encourage people to ride bicycles and begin the transformation of our cities into more liveable places. Instead of scare campaigns about cycling [a life-extending, healthy, sustainable transport form], wouldn't it be more appropriate to begin campaigns about the dangers of automobiles? Many people in car-centric countries no longer regard cars as dangerous. Maybe they realise it, but the car is such an ingrained part of the culture that the perception of danger rarely rises to the surface of peoples consciousness. Sure, there are scare campaigns for cars out there, but what if we just cut to the chase? Much like smoking. Only a couple of decades ago, cigarettes were an integral part of life, whether you smoked or not. That has changed radically. We think that we could borrow freely from the health warnings now found on cigarette packs around the world. In order to be tho...

The Life-Sized City Blog

Search This Blog