- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Still taken from Lund University cost-benefit study videoVideo: Cars cost society six times as much as bicycles concludes Danish cost-benefit study
If you combine the cost to society with the cost to the individual, a car is six times as expensive as a bike. That is the finding of a study carried out by Stefan Gössling from Lund University and Andy S Choi from the University of Queensland who have investigated a cost-benefit analysis used by Copenhagen Municipality to determine whether new cycling infrastructure should be built.
The Lund University study looked at how cars compare to bicycles in terms of air pollution, climate change, travel route, noise, road wear, health and congestion in Copenhagen. The researchers found that if the costs to society and the costs to private individuals are added together, the impact of the car is EUR 0.50 per kilometre, while the impact of the bicycle is EUR 0.08 per kilometre.
Cycle infrastructure projects often draw questions regarding their public funding, but after reviewing the cost-benefit framework developed in Copenhagen, it was found that each kilometre travelled by car incurs a cost to society, whereas every kilometre cycled does not. The researchers found that one kilometre by car costs EUR 0.15, whereas society actually earns EUR 0.16 for every kilometre cycled. On top of this, it was concluded that the cost of car driving is only likely to increase in the future, whereas the cost of cycling appears to be declining.
"The cost-benefit analysis in Copenhagen shows that investments in cycling infrastructure and bike-friendly policies are economically sustainable and give high returns", said Gössling.
According to a recent report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the true impact of running a car is not reflected in the cost, and that even worse, with continuing urban sprawl, people are actually being given an incentive to drive. The report advocated 'setting a realistic carbon price' – by which it meant higher taxes on driving into a city so as to account for air pollution and congestion.
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 22 min 20 sec ago
Could not agree more, I get quite furious when I see people mocking overweight people cycling, jogging, swimming or taking any other exercise when...
- IanGlasgow 41 min 20 sec ago
Sorry to see Endura struggling. They're based in Linvignston, not Edinburgh, which puts them very close to where I grew up....
- mdavidford 2 hours 22 min ago
I dunno - seems like it's coming round on a regular basis...
- Rich_cb 4 hours 4 min ago
The mistake is to focus on the US....
- chrisonabike 4 hours 16 min ago
I mean it seems silly to complain in detail when we're firmly in the territory in the UK of "you will have to live with this the rest of your life ...
- eburtthebike 6 hours 47 min ago
I thought students were supposed to be intelligent?
- whosatthewheel 6 hours 58 min ago
She will serve "no more than a half", so 3 years and 4 months and she is walking free. And with the practically non-existent road policing it's...
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 28 min ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 8 hours 43 min ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- slc 9 hours 49 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
Add new comment
25 comments
The problem is now there simply are too many cars on the roads any fool can see that daily most cities are clogged yet drivers still insist on spending two+ hours stationary pumping out pollution.
Out of town shopping centres create more demand as people can no longer just stroll along to shops on the high street: pandering to the car has created a monster thats now firmly turned and bitten its creator on the bum!!
Not saying abolish cars but a tough stance must be taken where high urban density is concerned follow Paris for example and ban cars from some parts of the city encourage employers to install shower facilities etc.
Obesity is becoming an ever increasing problem in the UK and the NHS openly say its a ticking time bomb thats costing millions already the sums stack up do the maths!
So, @Shep73, you're talking about electric cars vs petrol/diesel powered cars?
First off, what's the relevance to the article? That was a bit, ehm, confusing.
Second, lifespan usage given the choice between oil fuels vs renewable electricity sources (quite doable as a consumer) would still heavily favour the electric when all externalities are factored in.
And no, I'm not thinking lithium ion batteries are that great a solution or environmentally. Combustion engine particles and gases etc are even worse though.
And then we of course have the impacts of using oil for fuel, rather than making useful things with it.
Shep, you appear to be arguing that the total lifetime cost of a petrol/diesel car is lower than that of an electric or hybrid, is that correct?
If so I'm not sure what relevance that really has to the article above.
The figures are flawed.
The costs to society are FAR greater than a mere 6x that of bicycles. And I apologise in advance but this is one pudding that has to be over-egged.
Most of us know the list of health problems is huge (lungs, heart, obesity and mental health) - there's the cost to the NHS of course - the 'relatively low' number of all those KSIs - that's for PEDESTRIANS as well as cyclists, and all the years of financial costs in terms of social care and medical support, loss of employment etc and the impact on families (stresses and strains of losing loved ones).
Costs to employers in days off sick etc
Then there's the grossly neglected consideration of the actual impact the motor mayhem imposes on the 70% to 90% of society who would cycle if it weren't for the....erm...
By comparison, wear and tear of infrasructure is a minor though still the weight and grind of all that excessive and inappropriate vehicle use takes its toll on the road markings and...what else?...burst water mains (roads were not built for cars, and certainly never for the number and weight).
And how much does it cost for a few metres of motorway ramp? As opposed to a good few square kilometres of segregated joined up cycle network...
And in case that's not enough, there's catastrophic climate breakdown (still widely referred to as climate change....oh hold on a minute...sorry that was a dream I had). 'Don't even talk about it' to paraphrase George Marshall. These costs are likely to be large and increasing the longer the delay in cutting oil usage at source (alternatives? - any costs and difficulties involved in making this transition will be but nothing compared to the cost of business as usual). A war footing is needed. What are regarded as basic freedoms (eg to drive when/how/as often as I like) can no longer be considered as legitimate rights when they deprive future (and current) generations, of a realistic chance of adapting in time.
The bike is beyond a win-win. The car is an occasional useful tool but certainly well over 6x the cost to society of bikes.
There is also of course an economic case (based on the current non-acceptance of simple laws of physics) against each and everyone of those shiny new vehicles being churned out to feed the world mass delusional aspiring classes...willingly chaining themselves and their futures to a debt underwritten by big oil's Arctic and the neo-cons frackfest but...you get the picture.
Copenhagen is constantly ranked as one of the best cities in the world to live in, one of the reasons for it's success is that it restricts use of private motor vehicles. In the 21st Century cities that ban cars will be the ones that succeeded, cars in cities was a 20th Century experiment that failed...
I'm intrigued by the "Victorian modes of transport" though.
Trains, trams, bicycles, walking? Sounds alright to me.
Shep, you need to fully explain your comment. Compared to what is the ICE most efficient?
This is still flawed. If you're going to do a study like this, everything from manufacture to scrapping/recycling should be included. They don't want you to know it but the combustion engine is still the most environmentally friendly when you include the two major factors I've mentioned.
Eh, what? You're seriously deluded if you think that's the case.
Deluded about what?
That the manufacture, use, and decommission of vehicles powered by internal combustion engines is the most environmentally friendly way to provide transport.
Please, show us the results/data from studies published in peer-reviewed journals.
It's a very strong claim. Also, counter to all studies I've seen on the topic (not that it's a huge number, but still.)
I'm an engineer in the automotive industry, the manufacture of the motors and recycling is far more detrimental to the environment than a normal engine, hydrogen fuel cells are the same. Car manufacturers wouldn't bother with them if there wasn't a market for it it. Not so long ago it wasn't worth buying a hybrid car new because most people sold them before it even become environmentally friendly. The buy back was 1000's of miles. This was in part to do with the shipping of components from one country to another, put in the car than shipped back.
The motors were only made by specialist companies. Automotive companies then bought them. Some parts actually went around the world twice before it even got put into a car. Also everything in a combustion engine can be recycled. In a hybrid that is not the case.
What?
How on earth can you think that the costs of scrapping a car are lower than the costs of scrapping a bike?
Where did I say that?
Society might safe some money, i certainly do not. In March l dinged my helmet on a branch that was unusually low on my commuter road. New Helmet, 50£. In April my rear derailleur broke off, 35£, new chain 18£, took the bike in for them to have a look at my rear wheel. needed replacing 65£, front headset needed replacing another 65£. I worked out that i basically spent the money that i would have saved in a year commuting in two months. Over a year I average 1.5 times commuting a week. I will have to increase my average to recoup that money.(-:
Your experience isn't typical. Lots of people wear normal clothes, they just get on and ride. I put over 6,000 miles/year on my SCR 2 and it just keeps going. Most spending is stuff I want rather than need.
The cost of driving your car is far more than just fuel.
http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/running_costs/
More importantly, the cost to society is invariably brushed under the carpet.
http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-co...
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/motoring-taxes-would-have-to-triple-to-cover-...
By cycling to work I'm healthier and happier; my car does 5,000 miles/year instead of 11,000 while maintenance and insurance costs are lower and there's one less car in the queue. I don't have to do the school run because my two kids cycle 6 miles a day. In nearly 2 years all their bikes have needed is brake pads and noodles, 1 chain and 1 gear cable.
£233? you'd be hard pushed just to insure an average car for less. Maybe we need some more detail on your maths? Add in the cost of an annual service, MOT and VED and it's hard to see how the car can be cheaper. Also, if you had bumped into a tree in the car or broken a bit off of it (the exhaust perhaps) I suspect that the cost of repair would have been more than the £50 and £35 for your helmet and derailleur respectively.
Does anyone really believe that if the car was abolished tomorrow the impact on general economic activity would be positive?
Because that's the implication of saying that it each km driven by car provides a net loss.
Return to Victorian modes of transport and sustain, nay improve on, a 21st century economy.
Right.
Steady there. Who’s suggesting cars are abolished? The study is looking at the relative cost to society of driving/cycling in a city. It’s pretty obvious that there is an economic cost to driving a car to the individual (fuel, insurance etc), but also there are other obvious costs such as building and maintaining a road network that come out of general taxation. Then there are also some less obvious indirect costs such as dealing with the medical costs of air pollution that also come out of general taxation. These latter costs are effectively a subsidy that society pays to individuals using cars in a city, and these could be reduced by making the cost to the driver reflect the true costs of their journey and encouraging a switch to other forms of transport.
It’s not a net loss, it’s a cost, and should be factored into decisions about how journeys are made in the same way as any other cost like fuel, congestion charging, depreciation etc.
Rather a straw man argument since no one, as far as I can see, has advocated abolishing the car.
The choice we have now is whether to continue ignoring the net cost to society of unconstrained motoring, which we currently do, or acknowledge it and do something about it. A start would be to use the appropriate means of transport for a particular journey.
Most people with a car think nothing of using it for every possible journey, including ones that they could make easily and often more quickly by active transport. That's one of the main reasons, aside from diet, we have an obesity epidemic. I try to use my own car - parked probably less than six feet from my front door - as little as possible and do all of my local trips on foot or bike.
Research from TfL suggests that 4.3 million trips per average day in London are potentially cyclable, equivalent to 23 per cent of trips by all modes and 35 per cent of trips by mechanised modes. Of those 4.3 million potentially cyclable trips, 3.5 million would take less than 20 minutes for most people to cycle (TfL Analysis of Cycling Potential). Imagine the effect on London's roads of those journeys switching modes.
I don't know whether other local transport authorities have produced similar or contradictory data.
It's not an implication: it's what this study suggests from the data analysed, and it's not the only study that has come to a similar conclusion.
I don't think anyone has asked for that, either.
But nobody has or is advocating the abolition of cars.
Do you happen to work in an industry connected with oil by any chance?
I think those of us who drive and ride intuitively understand this already.
It's useful knowledge for persuading those responsible for transport policy and for the Treasury to re-allocate spending towards cycling.
I can only imagine however that if you put up these well-thought through and evidenced figures in front of your typical UK driver that you'd get the same old rants and raves about road tax etc...
I'm sure we'll get there in the end - looking at the sheer number of people riding in in London this morning we've made great progress already - but overall the pace of change is about as glacial as a car in rush hour
I wish the cost of cycling was falling. Since discovering that there was much better kit than the stuff sold in Aldi, cycling is costing me a fortune.
My maths might not be the strongest, but if motoring yields a net loss to society and cycling a net benefit - "one kilometre by car costs EUR 0.15, whereas society actually earns EUR 0.16 for every kilometre cycled" - I don't understand how 'Cars cost society six times as much as bicycles'.
That include the benefits. Just considering the cost is 0.08c vs 0.5c per kilometre, which is 6 times less for bicycles.