One More Time: Here Are 4.6 Billion Reasons to Support Bike Infrastructure

Cyclists may only account for 1 percent of all trips taken in the U.S., but that’s still good enough to save the American people a total of $4.6 billion per year, according to research recently released by the League of American Bicyclists, the Sierra Club, and the National Council of La Raza. The announcement coincided with National Bike to Work Day, observed last Friday as part of Bike Month.

National Bike to Work Day, as observed last Friday in St. Louis, MO. Photo: @aboutcycling via ##http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/05/18/152945439/bike-to-work-day-your-photos-and-riding-advice-from-grant-petersen##NPR##

It gets even better, as a recent article in Forbes pointed out:

The average annual operating cost of a bicycle is $308, compared to $8,220 for the average car, and if American drivers replaced just one four-mile car trip with a bike each week for the entire year, it would save more than two billion gallons of gas, for a total savings of $7.3 billion a year, based on $4 a gallon for gas.

The Forbes story made it into our headline stack on Monday, but as congressional Republicans seem poised to make another run at eliminating the Transportation Enhancements program (a major source of funds for bike infrastructure), the numbers bear repeating.

Especially these numbers: Biking and walking put together make up 12 percent of trips, but bike-ped funding accounts for less than two percent of transportation spending. Furthermore, though the U.S. had 40 percent more bicycle commuters in 2010 than in 2000, efforts persist to gut what few bike-ped programs remain in favor of increased highway spending.

And yet, here’s a list of bicycling facts that have emerged (or re-emerged) in recent research:

Add to that the knowledge that transportation is overtaking housing as the single largest household expenditure in America, especially among low-income households, and it should be a no-brainer: Funding bike-ped infrastructure is a bargain.

That’s what makes it so hard to take seriously the argument, trotted out repeatedly by the likes of apparent heir to the T&I chair Bill Shuster, that programs like TE or Safe Routes to School don’t have a sufficient federal interest to be included in the surface transportation reauthorization bill. As far as I can tell, investing in cycling serves at least three different federal interests: Controlling health care costs (by promoting good health), reducing the deficit (by ensuring that federal investment generates the maximum economic activity possible), and reducing dependence on oil imports (duh).

If it’s not a federal concern, then whose is it? Is it local communities, who would be given more control over bike-ped funding under new rules proposed in the Senate’s two-year transportation bill? Apparently not, since those very same rules are the ones some House Republicans find objectionable.

Why else oppose federal investment in bicycle infrastructure — because the founding fathers had never heard of bicycles? (That sure doesn’t bode well for the Federal Aviation Administration.) Back at the TRB Annual Meeting in January, Shuster pointed to the post roads clause in Article I of the U.S. Constitution as the justification for a tradition of federal surface transportation spending that dates back to the Cumberland Road (1806) and the Gallatin Plan (1808).

However, the irony seems lost on Shuster that at its inception, the Cumberland Road (now U.S. Highway 40) was almost literally a road to nowhere, and that all transportation was at that point non-motorized. Couldn’t one argue that the true “strict constructionist” approach would be for the federal government to only support non-motorized travel?

Whatever their reasoning, opponents of bike/ped funding — vested though they may be in the status quo — probably can’t hold up forever against the cold, hard cash that stands to be saved by millions of Americans deciding to ride a bike.

  • Anonymous

    I wonder how they came up with the $308 estimate for the average annual cost to operate a bike.

    My bike has cost me close to $308 over its lifetime of five years (and counting), even if you add up the purchase price, parts and accessories, and the one time I took it to a shop. That’s an operating cost of about $60/year, assuming I lose my bike tomorrow.
    I may be near the cheap end of the scale, but I don’t think I’m alone!

  • Mark

    We should not fail to mention that the House Republicans get a whole lot of funding from oil companies and the highway lobby.    This fact pretty clearly explains their entire policy stance.  

  • Chc09

    qrt145  I thought that was very high as well.  In the three years I’ve had mine, I’ve replaced the chains twice ($20 each) and the brake pads three time ($20 per front/rear), purchased a bottle of chain lube ($7), a box of inner tube patches ($4), new tire set ($75 total) and took it to the shop to get a tune-up once ($35).  So I’m going at way less than $308 per year.  Granted I do basic maintenance myself but even a tune-up every 6-months wouldn’t get me anywhere near half the estimated cost from Forbes.  

    If the cost of my bike is included, then I approach that amount in a three year period, but it’s a decent one that I expect to last at least another 10 years (if it doesn’t get stolen before that of course).  Eventually the wheels and gears may need replacement, but over a 10 year time frame, it wouldn’t come anywhere near $308/year.  Plus my work-out is built into my commute, further saving me time and money.  

  • Edith Savoy

    Hi Ben-

    If the US decides to support bicycle infrastructure, I have a suggestion where some of the money saved should be spent-to subsidize businesses to install safe bicycle storage facilities on their property. This will encourage their employees to ride their bikes to work, and their customers to use theirs to run errands without worrying about theft or vandalism. This will result in even more savings for the US.
    Also, since bicycles don’t create any wear and tear on pavement, the roads and highways won’t have to be repaved as many times as they are now.

  • @bed44860202dd999e4344ea35c9e93c0:disqus How about requirements instead of subsidies? We don’t subsidize parking minimums and we’ve still managed to pave the world.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Why Do African Americans Tend to Bike Less?

|
Michael Andersen blogs for The Green Lane Project, a PeopleForBikes program that helps U.S. cities build better bike lanes to create low-stress streets. It took a week in Copenhagen for Albus Brooks to start thinking seriously about bicycling. The Denver City Council member, 35, had never owned a bike. By the time he headed home […]

Don’t Believe the Headlines: Bike Boom Has Been Fantastic for Bike Safety

|
The Governors Highway Safety Association released a report Monday that, the organization claimed, showed that the ongoing surge in American biking has increased bike fatalities. Transportation reporters around the country swung into action. “Fatal bicycle crashes on the rise, new study shows,” said the Des Moines Register headline. “Cycling is increasing and that may be […]

It's True: The Typical Car Is Parked 95 Percent of the Time

|
Cars are a very inefficient transportation technology for too many reasons to count. They take up huge amounts of space but get driven around mostly empty — the average private car in the U.S. carries only 1.6 people. A lot of the time, people drive distances that are short enough to easily walk or bike — 28 percent of car trips […]

It’s True: The Typical Car Is Parked 95 Percent of the Time

|
Cars are a very inefficient transportation technology for too many reasons to count. They take up huge amounts of space but get driven around mostly empty — the average private car in the U.S. carries only 1.6 people. A lot of the time, people drive distances that are short enough to easily walk or bike — 28 percent of car trips […]