Don't put the burden on people. Cities worldwide are hostile to cyclists and even pedestrians.
It's a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. Cities won't improve conditions for cyclists if they only see car traffic and people will avoid cycling under bad conditions.
You know what, you're right.
This is EXACTLY the problem.
I was speaking with city planners for a project they were working on (proposed road widening)
, and every time I brought up the need for cycling infrastructure in certain areas, they would say something like "not enough cyclists use that route", and I'd always follow up by saying "because that route is too dangerous or inconvenient without cycling infrastructure."
The addage "if you build it, they will come" applies completely to cycling infrastructure.
Which of course is because they have started to invest in excellent bike infrastructure decades ago, and made it a priority. So it isn't really putting the burden on people. I wouldn't expect people to bike in a hostile environment. But I hope we create friendlier environments.
It would also help if expensive private jets and yachts had to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Oil industries and others need to pay for their pollution too and certainly can't claim government money as they pollute.
It's kinda insane how many cruises there are that don't even really make any stops. Just giant inefficient hotels. I feel like there has got to be a set of incentives to get rid of the majority of these a hotel with a no phone policy (or located somewhere remote) would replace 90% of the appeal.
Yeah right, keep putting this problem on "everyone" because those bigger poluting companies can do nothing to change their course of action.
I think this shouldn't be read as an individual call to action as in 'everyone has to do their part and start cycling'.
Rather, it should be a call for governments to support a changing traffic and transportation infrastructure.
It's a chicken and egg problem. No one cycles because cycling infrastructure sucks, so politicians don't care about cyclists so cycling infrastructure sucks. To break the pattern we need to soften things at every link of the chain. That means going somewhat our of our way to cycle and to pressure politicians to improve things.
Personally I am currently I the process to moving to a more walkable city where I will be able to cycle to do most chores. It will increase my commute dramatically but I don't go in every day and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to be free of my car. I tried biking in my current city but it was simply too dangerous. I was having near collisions weekly.
Aside from emissions, cycling is also healthier, safer, more pleasant for everyone else.
I see it less of a question of "where to put the blame?" as more "in what environment we want to live?".
Cycling puts also less money in the pockets of bigger polluting companies, and you can still blame them on the ride for all the good reasons.
When are these idiots (journalists/editors) going to learn that messaging matters? 690 million tonnes? Yeah, sounds like a lot. No context for that number in the headline which is all most people read.
Perhaps instead of listingn only statistics and pretending that laypeople care, help people see what that would mean for them personally. Get them invested in the idea. Help plant the seeds and allow them to come to the conclusion that things should change. It's like someone saying the government spent a billion dollars on something. Sure, that's a lot of money, but the vast majority of people have no real concept of what a billion of something even is.
It's a damn shame that the us isn't more bike friendly. I would kill to have a public transit system that didn't suck, but unfortunately,l unless there is a massive change, I don't see car usage going anywhere.
Don't worry, when gas becomes $100/gal in the next decade or two the US will become really bicycle friendly.
Cycling is cool but that's small-fry compared to if we all went vegan (or even just vegetarian)...
While I'm a card carrying bike nut and plant-based eater, I feel we can make more of a difference encouraging people to do things that are less all in.
Work commute too far right now? Maybe start replacing the small car trips with bike trips.
Veganism unthinkable? Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.
Something people can wrap their heads around, and after trying, realise they haven't died.
Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.
I'm not a vegan but, are there really people who eat meat 7 days a week?
I live in regional Australia, there are people who eat meat every meal.
Does it not get boring?
I'm not the one to ask, I don't eat meat.
While I'm also a card carrying bike but and plant-based eater, I think that in many places the answer is also better public transport. When I lived in a big city, busses, subway stations, trams, etc were always 5-10 minutes away, both walking and waiting for the next one.
I live in a smaller town now of ~40,000. However, only ~13,000 live in the actual "town", roughly 20 minutes of walking. The rest of the people live anywhere from 10-60km away. Grocery stores can be anywhere from 10-30km away. Iove biking into work when the weather is nice, but it also snows six months out of the year. Even for a "small trip", you're looking at 20km round trip in hilly terrain to the nearest anything that isn't a neighbor. Busses exist, but out in the countryside they'll come twice around 6am and then twice around 6pm, and none at all during weekends. So if you're not working in the middle of the week, you're SOL unless you're prepared to spend 12 hours in town.
It's also a chicken and egg problem though, everyone has a cat because public transport isn't great. But public transport isn't great because there's no demand, because everyone has a car.
This issue is definitely not only in my town, 70% of the country is dotted with small towns like this and the same issues. Not everyone is physically capable of biking 20km on a summers day, let alone in -20°C on a half meter of snow, so they have almost no choice but to drive.
I live in a town of about 20,000. The adjacent regional centre (80k people) is about 35km away. We're the opposite of snowy, we have highs in the mid 20s here right now in the dead of winter, high 30s to mid 40s with high humidity in summer. I bike commuted to the regional centre for years, but again, I'm aware I'm a bit extreme.
Agreed better public transport is also important. We're lucky, our buses run about hourly throughout the day, you are a bit screwed at night.
The luxury! It's been a bit of an annoyance for us since we moved out of the town center and into the countryside... If we want to have a night out with drinks involved, either gotta book a taxi or have a nice friend to drive us (or one of us just doesn't drink, but that sort of defeats the purpose of us going out for drinks together...)
The culture here is also just more car-centric. If I bike to work, which honestly is downhill almost all the way, all my coworkers look at me like I'm some Olympic athlete. Like cmon, it takes less than 40 minutes, it's not exactly impressive.
Vegan (or even just vegetarian) is cool, but that's small-fry compared to if we just stopped having freaking kids.
Well... I mean I'm not having kids either, but someone has to to continue the species, nobody needs to eat meat.
someone has to to continue the species
Why?
"Willful extinction" is not a productive way to end climate change.
You won't convince people, so it's DOA, but it's also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don't obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.
"Why do you think people should exist?" Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it's not a great one.
You won’t convince people
I don't have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.
And unless I'm mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now. Edit: I was, in fact, mistaken.
Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That's wildly distinct from willful extinction.
I... What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we're both trying to convince people of a thing, I'm not sure I see how that is actually relevant.
Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having "fewer" kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions
There's nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We've been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It's that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.
I'm doing my part. The life of one person creates so much waste and pollution.
And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don't go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.
And that is nothing compared to corporate emissions and air travel, but the internet LOVES telling you that how you live your life is wrong for moral reasons or due to some panic.
I say this as a chef that's generally vegan friendly. We gotta stop blaming each other when we're a drop in the bucket compared to big business. They got you attacking other people so they can do what they want with impunity.
Totally agree with your sentiment, we wasted so much time putting the pressure on the individual when the real culprit was Industry, there is no argument whatsoever there.
That being said, the Agriculture Industry (food production in general) does account for a hearty chunk, about 25%, of all worldwide emissions, and that is without doing calculation for "land lost" costs, i.e. the reduction in forests we took by having agricultural industry there instead, and the emissions those forests could have negated.
Food is a serious driver of climate change. Meat, but especially beef, is the worse food in terms of the cost we pay in overall emissions. Moreover, half of ALL agricultural land in use is for pasturing animals. Beef being eliminated as a food product would incredibly help climate change and meet emission goals much faster. This video does a great job at summarizing the problem, is a generally reliable channel for informative mini docs, and provides a huge list of sources you can review there.
Yes but not everyone lives in a flatland like the dutch do, I believe I could fully transition to a bicycle if cars weren't the top priority on my city, but I know many friends that live in parts of the city that are basically mountains.
Ebikes are definitely the answer. Much easier to ride up hills and very accessible for regular people to start riding. Plus they are significantly cheaper than cars when you account for insurance and registration and maintenance, etc.
I live in a hilly area and got an e-bike exactly for some of these monsters. I love it. Makes me feel like a kid again. I'm not out of shape by any means but I'm 60 lbs heavier then I was and it's just not feasible unless I train for that purpose which I'm not trying to do. I just want to enjoy my bike ride at a leisurely pace.
Now my biggest issue is where I live isn't exactly bicycle friendly. Sucks when you can't really move to the side for cars to pass and when the sidewalks are all skinny and uneven.
Additionally all the cars are just noisy as shit. I can't even enjoy the ride unless I take side roads which is impossible to always do to get where I want to go.
Lastly, a lot parks around here only allow bicycles on the road and not on paved paths.
Pisses me off. Like where am I supposed to go? I just want to ride my bike around from destination to destination and enjoy nature and seeing people out and about.
There are plenty of people who bike in Seattle. Ebikes make it achievable for most people. Also, there are tons of cities that are flat. Why isn't Austin or LA as bike friendly as Amsterdam or the Hague? Hills aren't the problem.
Ebikes have really helped flatten things out in my area. I see plenty of couples in their 70s and 80s tooling around.
However they're not cheap, and I think there should be tax incentives for buying them.
In Canada I've seen some places advertising a 500$ rebate for ebikes.
In BC it's up to $1400 scaling with income!
I completely agree with the incentive, and in some countries there are.
For instance in France, there are government helps for buying ebikes.
Id say the car-centric city design is a huge factor as well. At least in the US, most large cities had electric trains, and we tore it down for parking lots. Fixing that problem would be incredibly daunting.
Id say a good step would be to have high speed rails that go between major cities, coupled with bringing some of those electric trolleys back. As a Michigander, I think a good line would be Detroit -> stops along I96 -> Grand Rapids -> Benton Harbor -> More stops along 131/I94 -> Chicago.
That's why bikes have gears. You should be able to go up any reasonable hill with a bike that has more than one gear.
E-bikes are another option, but not a necessity.
The great news is that infrastructure to make cities more walkable and bikeable is actually really cheap. Like, compared to car infrastructure that can move a similar amount of people it's nothing. It's mostly an issue of political will to actually build the stuff.
Cool. Now how do we make winter more amenable to cycling?
See chapter 5: 'Second: proper winter maintenance'.
wear more clothes
Here's the thing. Everyone will bike like the Dutch and the Dutch will bike even more. It's not a question of "if." We are already past peak oil. There will only be more wars and more climate change. Those who survive will be relying on bikes because petroleum won't be an option anymore and electric cars are not a real solution. Cities will become more dense, suburbs will decay, in all likelihood huge parts of the US will completely collapse because life will be impossible without cars. We know petroleum is finite and there is no other technology that will replace this.
We can prepare by rolling out infrastructure now, or we can just keep going and crash as hard as possible in to a wall. No matter what we do, we're going to stop using gas. I hope we do it on our terms rather than waiting for tons of people to die before we fix it, but I honestly don't have a lot of hope. But hey, some people are starting to wake up so maybe we can keep that going and save millions of lives.
I agree we're probably past peak oil, but i think i disagree a bit on cities becoming more dense - i think video conferencing and remote work put much less impotus on people to congregate like we once did, and yes that likely will mean more strain on the roads, but i also think the electric cars will be more like a spreading out of electric storage and transmission than 100% used for transportation. (Again due to increasing popularity of remote work) having a store of electricity will be posh and help guard with the rolling brownouts due to climate change and terrorism interrupting the grid.
It’s an interesting scenario, but why count out electric cars?
Because there isn't enough lithium in the entire solar system to actually support everyone using electric cars at least with current technology. Even with projected advancement this won't happen. We're going to need better batteries using different materials. We'll probably get to a point where renewables will supplant the current tech but it's going to be rough.
Also, it is very important to understand that we have probably been in the first stages of collapse for a while now. About 30 years. We just haven't really noticed because the rot is uneven and even as societies collapse they still often continue to progress for some time in various ways. It's just now becoming evident because it can no longer be ignored.
As for bikes, it won't be so bad. We're adaptable creature and we'll find a way to make it work. Cities will get denser and greener, but with less cars they will become quieter and more welcoming places. Public transit options will begin to become viable for the majority of people once again. There's some hope that necessity will help drive a better future. If there is one thing humans are good at, it is adapting to their conditions.
Thanks for the detailed response! I agree with you with your thoughts on trajectory of society. I don’t have enough knowledge about earth lithium deposits to know if your statement about electric cars is true, but I was genuinely curious on your reasoning.
But that would require a small amount of effort. Seriously though I get some cities aren't bike friendly (they could be though) but worked in a city that was pretty great for bikes. Small/medium sized manufacturing plant with a bunch of rednecks and almost all of them lived within 5 miles. Of course they were crying like hell when gas skyrocketed and other than me there was 2 people that biked. I think the best part is a good chunk drove gigantic trucks.
From the article:
Dutch people cycle an average of 2.6 kilometres each per day. If this pattern was replicated worldwide, the study suggests, annual global carbon emissions would drop by 686 million tonnes. This mammoth figure exceeds the entire carbon footprint of most countries, including the UK, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia.
I think a lot of people see “cycle like the Dutch” and think it means we must all abandon all other forms of transportation. Instead this article says if every nation’s national average for cycle miles traveled per day was at least 1.62 miles, we could greatly curb our carbon emissions. 1.62 miles is a very achievable goal in my mind. It doesn’t necessarily mean every individual must reach that amount per day (unless I’m misunderstanding), it just means the average overall. Others may go more, others less. Others could forgo it entirely, opting instead for walking, public transit, electric car (if it’s the only option), or a combination of all four. I’m certain that not every single person in the Netherlands rides a bicycle, either. We need people to understand this and push for increased safety and funding for alternative forms of transit, so that people can choose to do so safely. Especially in sprawling countries like Australia, Canada, and the USA.
This would only be possible if the urban places really migrated to this kind of system since it isn't entirely feasible in certain places of the US.
For instance I grew up in the US South, specifically in farm country. The closest grocery was 30 minutes away by car. School busses took an hour or more from pickup to dropoff. No one in those kinds of communities are going to stop using a car for biking or public transport because it would take way too long to complete tasks. Switching to electric cars is theoretically a good idea, but we don't currently have enough infrastructure to support it (and these places in the South definitely don't). Plus, there are places still on coal and gas for energy, so by increasing their energy needs, you are essentially increasing that much more environmental damage. (I am not against electric cars btw, just see the pros and cons.)
On the other hand, where I live now is a suburb of a huge metro that has groceries, schools, and healthcare everywhere. It would be completely possible for us to use only public transport and/or biking because the community is more dense. These are the places that really need the push for more environment-friendly services, which would decrease our destructive tendencies enough for those places who can't jump on this to catch up.
Totally get that. I grew up in a place much like the one you describe here, in the deep south too, even. My town had a population of ~300, and our commute to school and grocery stores took roughly the same length of time. That said, we did still have a school bus. If we didn't, we probably would have been home schooled, just due to the commute. Given the large amount of people living in that town over age 70, I can imagine the benefits of say, a bus that took people to the grocery store and back. It would be life changing for some people in that town, and could occur if we allocated funds to improve public transit/alternative transportation nationwide.
But no, I don't see these communities going all in on bikes, obviously not. Luckily, we aren't really talking about these communities. At least not primarily. 80% of our population is in cities, and we should be fixing things there, not in rural areas where the changes don't make sense. A person in this thread mentioned being from a rural town in the Netherlands, and how they had bikes, but still used their car lots of the time. I think we can both agree, no one with any serious political power in the Netherlands is coming to take rural citizen's cars away. We can instead focus on improving climate costs in other ways in rural areas, like shuttle buses for the elderly, like I mentioned. Or, for example, improving access to local agriculture with CSA's or farmer's markets, creating classes teaching people how to grow their own food, replacing appliances that rely on gas and coal with more climate friendly alternatives (possibly through government buy backs to make this feasible for people with low income), and yes, replacing ICE cars with electric cars (an overhyped technology for sure, but one that actually makes sense for this population). The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars today, but we also didn't have gas stations on every corner when ICE cars first started selling. That will all come in time, and will come faster if people demand it.
I live in a mid size US city now with bike trails that can take me to the suburbs and back in an hour or less. We have light rail and buses that can do the same. This sort of infrastructure could be improved to be more protected from drivers (in the bike lane sense) so that more are encouraged to ride it. The public transit here could be made more affordable (transit paid by tax instead of upfront fair) so that people use the public transit over cars or even ride sharing. This type of public transit/bike infrastructure could be applied to many many more American cities. Unfortunately, cities like this are the exception, not the rule, for our country. I think that's a shame.
Tl;dr - I don't think we disagree. This is overwhelmingly a solution for the cities and suburbs, where most Americans live. There are lots of things we can (and have to) do to fix climate change. Bicycles shouldn't be a golden hammer, but they are a very underutilized tool that can help fix this problem.
We're absolutely on the same page! I am hoping there is more incentives created for the electric bike movement for urban areas. Some states are successfully adopting and pushing through rebates for those who purchase one, so hopefully this inspires other states to do so as well. I think ebikes are much more friendly for people to use since they're not as daunting for longer journeys.
Completely agree. Right now, I think a lot of people are interested in trying ebikes but the cost for some is too high for something that people aren't familiar with. The ebike rebates should help, I hope.
I was in Copenhagen for a layover and left airport to go for lunch and a beer. I HAD to go get a beer. I have beer all over the globe.
Anywho....as I enjoyed the beer, it was fascinating to watch the bike lanes. Seperated from cars, own light controls...so many people. Cambridge and Boston are making improvements for sure.
You can ride a bike to work or the store around here, but you'll be walking home. Bikes are way too easy to quietly steal.
Bicycle theft is also a problem in the Netherlands, but they still do it. There are also lots of people not in the Netherlands who bike to work and don't have their bikes stolen.
That's not the problem. The problem is car culture.
In the Netherlands they have functional bike parking, which makes it a lot harder to steal bikes. They also use wheel locks, which are much harder to cut without damaging the bike. There are also sites like bike index that let you track your bike serial number in case it gets stolen. If you use bike index and your bike is stolen there's actually a pretty good chance it will be returned. Also, if you buy a bike check it on bike index first to see if it's stolen.
Oh we're doing the anti-bike thing? Fun! Riding a bike to work for me would take 3 hours. Not everyone fits in the same mold.
Yes, certainly. Beyond just talking about bikes most new urbanists are trying to encourage walkable cities and transit oriented development. Walkable cities, which also tend to also be bikable, are cities designed like they were a hundred years ago, where it's possible and even encouraged for most people in the area to be able to walk between home, work, dining, entertainment, shopping, and recreation.
Transit oriented development is urban planning that locates the above destinations in proximity to public transit stops. Furthermore public transit is prioritized above car traffic through the use of separate rights of way so that when car traffic backs up the public transit is not delayed.
When you add more lanes to accommodate more car traffic on a road that gets too many cars, you attract more car traffic until that road is just as congested as it was before. But this induced demand works both ways. If you add more walking and bike infrastructure that's actually usable and feels safe to get from where you are to where you want to go you're more likely to walk or take a bike. If taking the bus or train is faster, easier, cheaper, etc than driving a car a lot more people will take that transit.
Left LA in 2018.
went from a 10min bikeride (1.25hr workout) to a 3-5hr commute because "promotion"... now I don't even have a license, i run my 70 seat restaurant via cargo bike just fine (only meats, beer/wine delivery).
went from a 2-3hr drive to the beach (++ parking fees) to 5 min bike, 10 min walk to one of several beaches.
multiple mountain hiking trails within 20 min, bus/train with regular service etc.
We could not be happier in our little slice of socialist hell....
I live in a tropical country... I would love to cycle to work but (i) roads are a living hell and (ii) it's hot and humid af and i look like I fell into the ocean after a 20-minute ride.
(i) is fixable with good infrastructure, (ii) isn't :(
Are you in SM by any chance?
I like this idea in principle, but the annual CO2 emissions for 2018 was about 35 billion tons. This makes the drop barely even impact our total production, let alone be enough to stop global warming.
It's still a worthy goal, but we'd be better off focusing on bigger wins, where even a few percent of carbon reductions would dwarf this number (or pushing for both).
This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it's a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn't feasible. I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.
We need high speed trains between cities with a car for storing bicycles
I think we need electric trains across the whole country and into the arctic and territories. Encourage more eco tourism. We can barely access northern Ontario much less the territories. This would require nuclear power, and as a byproduct, tritium which is needed for next generation fusion reactors. We could become the next Saudi Arabia.
Count me in!
This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it’s a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn’t feasible.
It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of bike trips in the NL are intra-city, not inter-city. Quoted from "Cycling Facts 2018", released by the NL government:
Of all trips involving a distance up to 7.5 kilometres, one-third are made by car and one-third are made by bicycle.
Of all trips involving a distance ranging from 7.5 to 15 kilometres, 70 per cent are made by car and 15 per cent are made by bicycle.
Between 2005 and 2015, the use of bicycles in first-mile transport to the main Dutch train stations (top 16 of embarking and disembarking passengers) has increased from 36 per cent to 44 per cent.
Bicycle use for last-mile transport also shows some (slight) growth: from 10 per cent in 2005 to 14 per cent in 2015. This upward trend has been boosted by the introduction of rental bicycles for season-ticket holders: in 2008, such rental bicycles were used for 0.5 million rides, versus 1.9 million in 2015 and an impressive 3.2 million in 2017.
It doesn't really matter how much non-city is between your cities, you can bike in town and use public transport for long distances. If the infrastructure has been invested in.
I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.
Yes, that's key!
Although the practicality is questionable, I think the takeaway is that we will have to rethink mobility and dense environments with good cycling infrastructure will be the most sustainable ones. Public transportation which is great too, also requires a certain density to be feasible.
The practicality isn't questionable.
Of course there are outliers and places/people it wouldn't work for but the vast majority should be absolutely fine.
Even if it's not practical right away, that's just a reason to vote to put people in charge who would make it practical and convenient.
It's also possible to join a non-profit that engage with the public and local governments to make bicycle-friendly infrastructure happen.
It is questionable though in most states in the US atleast. Not sure how someone who lives a 20 minute drive from the nearest town in the middle of nowhere is supposed to ride a bike around. The whole world isn't urbanized
You're right that currently it's hard many places in the US thanks to suburbs, terrible zoning, car focused laws and so on.
But it's not like biking itself is the issue here, it's that you are in dire need of better infrastructure, zoning, public transport and laws.
Again this is semantics. But this isn't true. Look at the entire state of WV or any state that is mountainous. Unless magically millions of people get in much better shape there isn't an obvious solution. I'm all for better infrastructure and public transport.
If could enable this 80% to use bicycles and public transportation we'd experience a massive shift in public health, energy efficiency and reduced emissions...
Yep, I'm not debating that point. I'm 100% in favor of doing that. I'm asking about solutions for everyone else. This debate is usually framed as "all we need to do is" when that isn't the case for everywhere or everyone. Just diving into it a little bit more.
Yeah a solution for the remaining 20% would be great, but we (the US) are not even addressing the urban 80%. I live in the SF Bay Area. It's incredibly dense here, yet riding a bike is impossible/suicidal. It takes me 20 minutes to get to work by car, but 2 hours by bus. This needs to be fixed first before worrying about small town Montana.
There will always be trips and distances for which a car is the best option. It's fine to take a car then. The call is to take a bike when a bike is feasible, which is way more often than currently. Not for all people, but for a whole lot.
Then different solutions can be put in place in these places and/or you start with cities and figure out the country side later.
I think the bigger issue you have in the US is the sprawled neighbourhoods, I'm not sure how you can get back from that, maybe recreate small centers in the middle of them.
What are the different solutions? Genuinely asking. Seems like a large aspect to skip since it represents the majority of the US LOL
As someone who once HAD to commute for a 45 minute car ride to work... not all commutes work with this. Public transit can help with a lot of those, but unless we rezone and rebuild most cites for shorter commutes, it won't replace all cars.
The Dutch drive, too, they just tend to cycle for shorter trips. No one serious is seriously saying 'replace all cars' as a solution for the foreseeable future
I am totally for more cycling… but imo from a policy perspective in most cities we just need more public transit and maybe some more bike lanes in areas they could help.
This is right. I desperately want to cycle places and take public transit, but in Los Angeles, things have been built with such distances that this often means 2+ hour trips if not done by car. Cities need to rezone and re-prioritize for better public transit in a lot of areas to reach this vision.
Portland, Oregon has bike racks on their buses. It's entirely possible, with appropriate infrastructure, for people to combine cycling and public transit in order to get from point A to point B efficiently without a car.
Yeah, it's way more a problem with urban design in my opinion. In a lot of parts of the US, including where I'm at, a lot of cities are just... One road. Maybe two. You just continue to add stuff to the road and then become surprised when traffic happens and then it's time to try (and fail) making more roads. It's a city on a stick. Being a cyclist means risking your life to ride near the side of a street where there is no sidewalk and praying to God people can see you. And then every single commute is much longer than it needs to be.
I do not like it... but a car is the only reasonable option for cities designed so poorly.
Is that why they are trying to kill their farming industry?
As a Dutchie, I can only agree. I do have to say the road infrastructure in a lot of countries will have to change too to make this feasible... I have been to Edinburgh, Scotland last week and it feels completely suicidal to ride a bike there, barely any bike lanes and a very big dislike towards cyclists.
If anyone wants to know more about how we do roads in the Netherlands, I totally recommend Not Just Bikes
I do question how this statement of carbon emissions reduction holds up with the large change towards electric bikes, but electric scales better to green energy then cars I guess.
During 40 years, everything has been done for cars.
But it's ridiculous to use a 5 persons transport (car) for only one person.
The ecological problem is not only thermal vs electric, it's also cars versus 2 wheels transport
Transportation and electric power are 38% and 33% of co2 emissions in the US respectively.
Not really sure how well bikes would work where I live. The winters are harsh, and its steep hill after steep hill.
Its surprising how well bikes can work in harsh winter conditions, if the infrastructure is well build. Not just Bikes has a video on Oulu in Finnland that does this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=1s
E-bikes can definitely solve the hill problem. As for staying warm, there’s the option of bundling up in some winter rated clothes. Think clothes for skiing or winter hiking, etc. I’ve even seen jackets with usb rechargeable heaters inside of them that motorcyclists use, though I haven’t tried that myself.
Well, i commute by bike in northern austria. All year. About 500m of climbing per day. Weather is solved by clothing. Icy roads are solved by studded tires.
As a bonus i pretty much can eat a lot of crap without gaining weight ;-)
A valid concern. Bikes are good for fair weather and close proximity. Not all of the world is set up for this. Trains and busses have been around for a long time and can help reduce emissions and work in bad weather. Trains could require costly new infrastructure but busses can use existing roadways. The big goal should be to move away from cars. Ten people on a bus use less emissions then 10 cars on thier own.
Out of curiosity, could you clarify "close proximity"? Because I certainly agree a bike is not viable if you are in the countryside. However having switched to bicycling and no longer driving my car recently, it has shrunk the world around me far more than driving ever has.
Can you expand on that? What do you mean bicycling shrunk the world, it seems counterintuitive?
Understandably so, I think haha. But for me, abandoning my car has made me actually realize distances in my city. Relying on a car, I barely even considered the distances I was traveling, and how necessary or not they were. I was more concerned about where I could park the thing than how far I was traveling just to do errands. But on a bicycle (and just walking), the first thing I do is consider the route, and distance, and I came to realize a lot of the distances I thought are best driven are... extremely walkable, or bikeable. And the distances that are a little far for a bicycle (in my current shape), I questioned why I even need to go that far. Especially if you're in a city, there are a ton of businesses everywhere, it was easy to look for and find closer alternatives.
So I guess for me personally, it really helped me contextualize the distances I was actually traveling, and helped me more concretely view my city and what's around me, compared to just driving through liminal spaces until I reach whichever destination I was headed towards.
Ah, it's like it allowed you to view where you lived at a new scale. You previously viewed it at car scale, now viewing it at human scale.
Absolutely, that is a far more eloquent way to put it! It's very freeing in it's own way.
I had the same experience, biking made me appreciate travel over distances I can't bike. It really is very eye opening.
Bikes + trains (or even a bus, if bike racks are on them) are such a great combination for traveling between cities (or even countries if you’re in Europe, I suppose)
Agreed. they are so expensive let alone bad for the environment.
Problem is so many civic gov'ts have mandated that transit MUST be self-sustaining and profitable without any investment. My own city's ideology is like this and our transit is one of the worst in Canada. I've stood in -40C waiting for a bus that just doesn't show up. :/
When the weather is nice you could ebike.
e-biking RULES. You don't even have to pedal if you don't want to, the throttle works just fine (although it eats your battery life if you don't augment it with pedaling)
This kind of e-bike is not allowed (or it is, but with big caveats, more akin to motorcycles) on public European roads. Regular ebikes can't have a throttle and are heavily restricted on top speed (20 to 25km/h depending on the country. Can go faster but you're not helped by the motor over that speed).
There is a very impressive set of reasons why we could and should encourage less CO2 intensive forms of transport, indeed many actions. However, these arguments always seem to me to take the pattern of picking the extreme example of whatever good we are hoping to achieve and then implying that everyone else could easily make the switch. There is always a wide and natural variety in things and this is true for differences between nations too.
Extreme examples used like this often just end up making a bigger divide between people because the discussion misses all of the important differences that constrain choices and shape outcomes. We just end up talking from our own perspectives and experiences rather than exploring the complicated and difficult questions of how we can produce localised and regional responses to CO2 emissions drawn from fossil fuels.
Riding bikes really isn't very extreme
lol, no not like that.
Extreme case, as in, when the modal value is a 4% uptake with an SD of 0.5, then picking something with a 73% uptake is an extreme case.
Don't put the burden on people. Cities worldwide are hostile to cyclists and even pedestrians.
It's a chicken and egg problem, unfortunately. Cities won't improve conditions for cyclists if they only see car traffic and people will avoid cycling under bad conditions.
You know what, you're right.
This is EXACTLY the problem.
I was speaking with city planners for a project they were working on (proposed road widening) , and every time I brought up the need for cycling infrastructure in certain areas, they would say something like "not enough cyclists use that route", and I'd always follow up by saying "because that route is too dangerous or inconvenient without cycling infrastructure."
The addage "if you build it, they will come" applies completely to cycling infrastructure.
They aren't all the same. See, of the 20 most bike friendly cities, the top 4 are in the Netherlands.
Which of course is because they have started to invest in excellent bike infrastructure decades ago, and made it a priority. So it isn't really putting the burden on people. I wouldn't expect people to bike in a hostile environment. But I hope we create friendlier environments.
It would also help if expensive private jets and yachts had to pay to offset their CO2 emissions. Oil industries and others need to pay for their pollution too and certainly can't claim government money as they pollute.
It's kinda insane how many cruises there are that don't even really make any stops. Just giant inefficient hotels. I feel like there has got to be a set of incentives to get rid of the majority of these a hotel with a no phone policy (or located somewhere remote) would replace 90% of the appeal.
Yeah right, keep putting this problem on "everyone" because those bigger poluting companies can do nothing to change their course of action.
I think this shouldn't be read as an individual call to action as in 'everyone has to do their part and start cycling'.
Rather, it should be a call for governments to support a changing traffic and transportation infrastructure.
It's a chicken and egg problem. No one cycles because cycling infrastructure sucks, so politicians don't care about cyclists so cycling infrastructure sucks. To break the pattern we need to soften things at every link of the chain. That means going somewhat our of our way to cycle and to pressure politicians to improve things.
Personally I am currently I the process to moving to a more walkable city where I will be able to cycle to do most chores. It will increase my commute dramatically but I don't go in every day and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make in order to be free of my car. I tried biking in my current city but it was simply too dangerous. I was having near collisions weekly.
Aside from emissions, cycling is also healthier, safer, more pleasant for everyone else.
I see it less of a question of "where to put the blame?" as more "in what environment we want to live?".
Cycling puts also less money in the pockets of bigger polluting companies, and you can still blame them on the ride for all the good reasons.
When are these idiots (journalists/editors) going to learn that messaging matters? 690 million tonnes? Yeah, sounds like a lot. No context for that number in the headline which is all most people read.
Perhaps instead of listingn only statistics and pretending that laypeople care, help people see what that would mean for them personally. Get them invested in the idea. Help plant the seeds and allow them to come to the conclusion that things should change. It's like someone saying the government spent a billion dollars on something. Sure, that's a lot of money, but the vast majority of people have no real concept of what a billion of something even is.
It's a damn shame that the us isn't more bike friendly. I would kill to have a public transit system that didn't suck, but unfortunately,l unless there is a massive change, I don't see car usage going anywhere.
Don't worry, when gas becomes $100/gal in the next decade or two the US will become really bicycle friendly.
Cycling is cool but that's small-fry compared to if we all went vegan (or even just vegetarian)...
While I'm a card carrying bike nut and plant-based eater, I feel we can make more of a difference encouraging people to do things that are less all in.
Work commute too far right now? Maybe start replacing the small car trips with bike trips.
Veganism unthinkable? Maybe try a meatless day or two a week.
Something people can wrap their heads around, and after trying, realise they haven't died.
I'm not a vegan but, are there really people who eat meat 7 days a week?
I live in regional Australia, there are people who eat meat every meal.
Does it not get boring?
I'm not the one to ask, I don't eat meat.
While I'm also a card carrying bike but and plant-based eater, I think that in many places the answer is also better public transport. When I lived in a big city, busses, subway stations, trams, etc were always 5-10 minutes away, both walking and waiting for the next one.
I live in a smaller town now of ~40,000. However, only ~13,000 live in the actual "town", roughly 20 minutes of walking. The rest of the people live anywhere from 10-60km away. Grocery stores can be anywhere from 10-30km away. Iove biking into work when the weather is nice, but it also snows six months out of the year. Even for a "small trip", you're looking at 20km round trip in hilly terrain to the nearest anything that isn't a neighbor. Busses exist, but out in the countryside they'll come twice around 6am and then twice around 6pm, and none at all during weekends. So if you're not working in the middle of the week, you're SOL unless you're prepared to spend 12 hours in town.
It's also a chicken and egg problem though, everyone has a cat because public transport isn't great. But public transport isn't great because there's no demand, because everyone has a car.
This issue is definitely not only in my town, 70% of the country is dotted with small towns like this and the same issues. Not everyone is physically capable of biking 20km on a summers day, let alone in -20°C on a half meter of snow, so they have almost no choice but to drive.
I live in a town of about 20,000. The adjacent regional centre (80k people) is about 35km away. We're the opposite of snowy, we have highs in the mid 20s here right now in the dead of winter, high 30s to mid 40s with high humidity in summer. I bike commuted to the regional centre for years, but again, I'm aware I'm a bit extreme.
Agreed better public transport is also important. We're lucky, our buses run about hourly throughout the day, you are a bit screwed at night.
The luxury! It's been a bit of an annoyance for us since we moved out of the town center and into the countryside... If we want to have a night out with drinks involved, either gotta book a taxi or have a nice friend to drive us (or one of us just doesn't drink, but that sort of defeats the purpose of us going out for drinks together...)
The culture here is also just more car-centric. If I bike to work, which honestly is downhill almost all the way, all my coworkers look at me like I'm some Olympic athlete. Like cmon, it takes less than 40 minutes, it's not exactly impressive.
Vegan (or even just vegetarian) is cool, but that's small-fry compared to if we just stopped having freaking kids.
Well... I mean I'm not having kids either, but someone has to to continue the species, nobody needs to eat meat.
Why?
"Willful extinction" is not a productive way to end climate change.
You won't convince people, so it's DOA, but it's also philosophically weak in the face of alternative views. Alternatives which also theoretically have humans in them and don't obliterate the environment exist, meaning you are on the back foot here to justify an anthropocentric philosophy.
"Why do you think people should exist?" Can be an interesting discussion, but as an argument it's not a great one.
I don't have to. Birth rates in the developed world are plummeting.
And unless I'm mistaken, you are the one trying to convince people right now.Edit: I was, in fact, mistaken.Birth rates are plummeting to maintain what will probably be around 13 billion. That's wildly distinct from willful extinction.
I... What? You made a post saying people should do x, I responded. Yeah we're both trying to convince people of a thing, I'm not sure I see how that is actually relevant.
Birthrates are not plummeting to zero, if thats what youre implying. As people get more educated, they tend to have fewer kids. No one is considering having "fewer" kids because of the childs lifetime GHG emissions
There's nothing inherently bad about eating meat. We've been doing it for 100s of thousands of years. It's that there are too many freaking people. I judge people way more when I see them with offspring, then I do their dietary consumption.
I'm doing my part. The life of one person creates so much waste and pollution.
And that is microscopic compared to levying massive fines on businesses that don't go carbon neutral and passing global laws to protect the amazon and MESS UP any government that toys with it.
And that is nothing compared to corporate emissions and air travel, but the internet LOVES telling you that how you live your life is wrong for moral reasons or due to some panic.
I say this as a chef that's generally vegan friendly. We gotta stop blaming each other when we're a drop in the bucket compared to big business. They got you attacking other people so they can do what they want with impunity.
Totally agree with your sentiment, we wasted so much time putting the pressure on the individual when the real culprit was Industry, there is no argument whatsoever there. That being said, the Agriculture Industry (food production in general) does account for a hearty chunk, about 25%, of all worldwide emissions, and that is without doing calculation for "land lost" costs, i.e. the reduction in forests we took by having agricultural industry there instead, and the emissions those forests could have negated.
Food is a serious driver of climate change. Meat, but especially beef, is the worse food in terms of the cost we pay in overall emissions. Moreover, half of ALL agricultural land in use is for pasturing animals. Beef being eliminated as a food product would incredibly help climate change and meet emission goals much faster. This video does a great job at summarizing the problem, is a generally reliable channel for informative mini docs, and provides a huge list of sources you can review there.
Yes but not everyone lives in a flatland like the dutch do, I believe I could fully transition to a bicycle if cars weren't the top priority on my city, but I know many friends that live in parts of the city that are basically mountains.
Ebikes are definitely the answer. Much easier to ride up hills and very accessible for regular people to start riding. Plus they are significantly cheaper than cars when you account for insurance and registration and maintenance, etc.
I live in a hilly area and got an e-bike exactly for some of these monsters. I love it. Makes me feel like a kid again. I'm not out of shape by any means but I'm 60 lbs heavier then I was and it's just not feasible unless I train for that purpose which I'm not trying to do. I just want to enjoy my bike ride at a leisurely pace.
Now my biggest issue is where I live isn't exactly bicycle friendly. Sucks when you can't really move to the side for cars to pass and when the sidewalks are all skinny and uneven.
Additionally all the cars are just noisy as shit. I can't even enjoy the ride unless I take side roads which is impossible to always do to get where I want to go.
Lastly, a lot parks around here only allow bicycles on the road and not on paved paths.
Pisses me off. Like where am I supposed to go? I just want to ride my bike around from destination to destination and enjoy nature and seeing people out and about.
There are plenty of people who bike in Seattle. Ebikes make it achievable for most people. Also, there are tons of cities that are flat. Why isn't Austin or LA as bike friendly as Amsterdam or the Hague? Hills aren't the problem.
Ebikes have really helped flatten things out in my area. I see plenty of couples in their 70s and 80s tooling around.
However they're not cheap, and I think there should be tax incentives for buying them.
In Canada I've seen some places advertising a 500$ rebate for ebikes.
In BC it's up to $1400 scaling with income!
I completely agree with the incentive, and in some countries there are.
For instance in France, there are government helps for buying ebikes.
Id say the car-centric city design is a huge factor as well. At least in the US, most large cities had electric trains, and we tore it down for parking lots. Fixing that problem would be incredibly daunting.
Id say a good step would be to have high speed rails that go between major cities, coupled with bringing some of those electric trolleys back. As a Michigander, I think a good line would be Detroit -> stops along I96 -> Grand Rapids -> Benton Harbor -> More stops along 131/I94 -> Chicago.
That's why bikes have gears. You should be able to go up any reasonable hill with a bike that has more than one gear.
E-bikes are another option, but not a necessity.
The great news is that infrastructure to make cities more walkable and bikeable is actually really cheap. Like, compared to car infrastructure that can move a similar amount of people it's nothing. It's mostly an issue of political will to actually build the stuff.
Cool. Now how do we make winter more amenable to cycling?
YouTube: Not Just Bikes - Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)
See chapter 5: 'Second: proper winter maintenance'.
wear more clothes
Here's the thing. Everyone will bike like the Dutch and the Dutch will bike even more. It's not a question of "if." We are already past peak oil. There will only be more wars and more climate change. Those who survive will be relying on bikes because petroleum won't be an option anymore and electric cars are not a real solution. Cities will become more dense, suburbs will decay, in all likelihood huge parts of the US will completely collapse because life will be impossible without cars. We know petroleum is finite and there is no other technology that will replace this.
We can prepare by rolling out infrastructure now, or we can just keep going and crash as hard as possible in to a wall. No matter what we do, we're going to stop using gas. I hope we do it on our terms rather than waiting for tons of people to die before we fix it, but I honestly don't have a lot of hope. But hey, some people are starting to wake up so maybe we can keep that going and save millions of lives.
I agree we're probably past peak oil, but i think i disagree a bit on cities becoming more dense - i think video conferencing and remote work put much less impotus on people to congregate like we once did, and yes that likely will mean more strain on the roads, but i also think the electric cars will be more like a spreading out of electric storage and transmission than 100% used for transportation. (Again due to increasing popularity of remote work) having a store of electricity will be posh and help guard with the rolling brownouts due to climate change and terrorism interrupting the grid.
It’s an interesting scenario, but why count out electric cars?
Because there isn't enough lithium in the entire solar system to actually support everyone using electric cars at least with current technology. Even with projected advancement this won't happen. We're going to need better batteries using different materials. We'll probably get to a point where renewables will supplant the current tech but it's going to be rough.
Also, it is very important to understand that we have probably been in the first stages of collapse for a while now. About 30 years. We just haven't really noticed because the rot is uneven and even as societies collapse they still often continue to progress for some time in various ways. It's just now becoming evident because it can no longer be ignored.
As for bikes, it won't be so bad. We're adaptable creature and we'll find a way to make it work. Cities will get denser and greener, but with less cars they will become quieter and more welcoming places. Public transit options will begin to become viable for the majority of people once again. There's some hope that necessity will help drive a better future. If there is one thing humans are good at, it is adapting to their conditions.
Thanks for the detailed response! I agree with you with your thoughts on trajectory of society. I don’t have enough knowledge about earth lithium deposits to know if your statement about electric cars is true, but I was genuinely curious on your reasoning.
But that would require a small amount of effort. Seriously though I get some cities aren't bike friendly (they could be though) but worked in a city that was pretty great for bikes. Small/medium sized manufacturing plant with a bunch of rednecks and almost all of them lived within 5 miles. Of course they were crying like hell when gas skyrocketed and other than me there was 2 people that biked. I think the best part is a good chunk drove gigantic trucks.
From the article:
I think a lot of people see “cycle like the Dutch” and think it means we must all abandon all other forms of transportation. Instead this article says if every nation’s national average for cycle miles traveled per day was at least 1.62 miles, we could greatly curb our carbon emissions. 1.62 miles is a very achievable goal in my mind. It doesn’t necessarily mean every individual must reach that amount per day (unless I’m misunderstanding), it just means the average overall. Others may go more, others less. Others could forgo it entirely, opting instead for walking, public transit, electric car (if it’s the only option), or a combination of all four. I’m certain that not every single person in the Netherlands rides a bicycle, either. We need people to understand this and push for increased safety and funding for alternative forms of transit, so that people can choose to do so safely. Especially in sprawling countries like Australia, Canada, and the USA.
This would only be possible if the urban places really migrated to this kind of system since it isn't entirely feasible in certain places of the US.
For instance I grew up in the US South, specifically in farm country. The closest grocery was 30 minutes away by car. School busses took an hour or more from pickup to dropoff. No one in those kinds of communities are going to stop using a car for biking or public transport because it would take way too long to complete tasks. Switching to electric cars is theoretically a good idea, but we don't currently have enough infrastructure to support it (and these places in the South definitely don't). Plus, there are places still on coal and gas for energy, so by increasing their energy needs, you are essentially increasing that much more environmental damage. (I am not against electric cars btw, just see the pros and cons.)
On the other hand, where I live now is a suburb of a huge metro that has groceries, schools, and healthcare everywhere. It would be completely possible for us to use only public transport and/or biking because the community is more dense. These are the places that really need the push for more environment-friendly services, which would decrease our destructive tendencies enough for those places who can't jump on this to catch up.
Totally get that. I grew up in a place much like the one you describe here, in the deep south too, even. My town had a population of ~300, and our commute to school and grocery stores took roughly the same length of time. That said, we did still have a school bus. If we didn't, we probably would have been home schooled, just due to the commute. Given the large amount of people living in that town over age 70, I can imagine the benefits of say, a bus that took people to the grocery store and back. It would be life changing for some people in that town, and could occur if we allocated funds to improve public transit/alternative transportation nationwide.
But no, I don't see these communities going all in on bikes, obviously not. Luckily, we aren't really talking about these communities. At least not primarily. 80% of our population is in cities, and we should be fixing things there, not in rural areas where the changes don't make sense. A person in this thread mentioned being from a rural town in the Netherlands, and how they had bikes, but still used their car lots of the time. I think we can both agree, no one with any serious political power in the Netherlands is coming to take rural citizen's cars away. We can instead focus on improving climate costs in other ways in rural areas, like shuttle buses for the elderly, like I mentioned. Or, for example, improving access to local agriculture with CSA's or farmer's markets, creating classes teaching people how to grow their own food, replacing appliances that rely on gas and coal with more climate friendly alternatives (possibly through government buy backs to make this feasible for people with low income), and yes, replacing ICE cars with electric cars (an overhyped technology for sure, but one that actually makes sense for this population). The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars today, but we also didn't have gas stations on every corner when ICE cars first started selling. That will all come in time, and will come faster if people demand it.
I live in a mid size US city now with bike trails that can take me to the suburbs and back in an hour or less. We have light rail and buses that can do the same. This sort of infrastructure could be improved to be more protected from drivers (in the bike lane sense) so that more are encouraged to ride it. The public transit here could be made more affordable (transit paid by tax instead of upfront fair) so that people use the public transit over cars or even ride sharing. This type of public transit/bike infrastructure could be applied to many many more American cities. Unfortunately, cities like this are the exception, not the rule, for our country. I think that's a shame.
Tl;dr - I don't think we disagree. This is overwhelmingly a solution for the cities and suburbs, where most Americans live. There are lots of things we can (and have to) do to fix climate change. Bicycles shouldn't be a golden hammer, but they are a very underutilized tool that can help fix this problem.
We're absolutely on the same page! I am hoping there is more incentives created for the electric bike movement for urban areas. Some states are successfully adopting and pushing through rebates for those who purchase one, so hopefully this inspires other states to do so as well. I think ebikes are much more friendly for people to use since they're not as daunting for longer journeys.
Completely agree. Right now, I think a lot of people are interested in trying ebikes but the cost for some is too high for something that people aren't familiar with. The ebike rebates should help, I hope.
I was in Copenhagen for a layover and left airport to go for lunch and a beer. I HAD to go get a beer. I have beer all over the globe.
Anywho....as I enjoyed the beer, it was fascinating to watch the bike lanes. Seperated from cars, own light controls...so many people. Cambridge and Boston are making improvements for sure.
You can ride a bike to work or the store around here, but you'll be walking home. Bikes are way too easy to quietly steal.
Bicycle theft is also a problem in the Netherlands, but they still do it. There are also lots of people not in the Netherlands who bike to work and don't have their bikes stolen.
That's not the problem. The problem is car culture.
In the Netherlands they have functional bike parking, which makes it a lot harder to steal bikes. They also use wheel locks, which are much harder to cut without damaging the bike. There are also sites like bike index that let you track your bike serial number in case it gets stolen. If you use bike index and your bike is stolen there's actually a pretty good chance it will be returned. Also, if you buy a bike check it on bike index first to see if it's stolen.
Oh we're doing the anti-bike thing? Fun! Riding a bike to work for me would take 3 hours. Not everyone fits in the same mold.
Yes, certainly. Beyond just talking about bikes most new urbanists are trying to encourage walkable cities and transit oriented development. Walkable cities, which also tend to also be bikable, are cities designed like they were a hundred years ago, where it's possible and even encouraged for most people in the area to be able to walk between home, work, dining, entertainment, shopping, and recreation.
Transit oriented development is urban planning that locates the above destinations in proximity to public transit stops. Furthermore public transit is prioritized above car traffic through the use of separate rights of way so that when car traffic backs up the public transit is not delayed.
When you add more lanes to accommodate more car traffic on a road that gets too many cars, you attract more car traffic until that road is just as congested as it was before. But this induced demand works both ways. If you add more walking and bike infrastructure that's actually usable and feels safe to get from where you are to where you want to go you're more likely to walk or take a bike. If taking the bus or train is faster, easier, cheaper, etc than driving a car a lot more people will take that transit.
https://youtube.com/@strongtowns
Then we are mostly talking about other people. Most car trips are so short in distance, they could easily be done by bike.
Left LA in 2018. went from a 10min bikeride (1.25hr workout) to a 3-5hr commute because "promotion"... now I don't even have a license, i run my 70 seat restaurant via cargo bike just fine (only meats, beer/wine delivery).
went from a 2-3hr drive to the beach (++ parking fees) to 5 min bike, 10 min walk to one of several beaches.
multiple mountain hiking trails within 20 min, bus/train with regular service etc.
We could not be happier in our little slice of socialist hell....
I live in a tropical country... I would love to cycle to work but (i) roads are a living hell and (ii) it's hot and humid af and i look like I fell into the ocean after a 20-minute ride.
(i) is fixable with good infrastructure, (ii) isn't :(
Are you in SM by any chance?
I like this idea in principle, but the annual CO2 emissions for 2018 was about 35 billion tons. This makes the drop barely even impact our total production, let alone be enough to stop global warming.
It's still a worthy goal, but we'd be better off focusing on bigger wins, where even a few percent of carbon reductions would dwarf this number (or pushing for both).
This may work in the Netherlands, but in my country (Canada) where it's a 2 hour drive to the next city, it simply isn't feasible. I do, however, wish that my city was much more bicycle friendly and we had easier and cheaper options for bikes that could be enclosed from the weather.
We need high speed trains between cities with a car for storing bicycles
I think we need electric trains across the whole country and into the arctic and territories. Encourage more eco tourism. We can barely access northern Ontario much less the territories. This would require nuclear power, and as a byproduct, tritium which is needed for next generation fusion reactors. We could become the next Saudi Arabia.
Count me in!
It's probably safe to assume that the vast majority of bike trips in the NL are intra-city, not inter-city. Quoted from "Cycling Facts 2018", released by the NL government:
It doesn't really matter how much non-city is between your cities, you can bike in town and use public transport for long distances. If the infrastructure has been invested in.
Yes, that's key!
Although the practicality is questionable, I think the takeaway is that we will have to rethink mobility and dense environments with good cycling infrastructure will be the most sustainable ones. Public transportation which is great too, also requires a certain density to be feasible.
The practicality isn't questionable.
Of course there are outliers and places/people it wouldn't work for but the vast majority should be absolutely fine.
Even if it's not practical right away, that's just a reason to vote to put people in charge who would make it practical and convenient.
It's also possible to join a non-profit that engage with the public and local governments to make bicycle-friendly infrastructure happen.
It is questionable though in most states in the US atleast. Not sure how someone who lives a 20 minute drive from the nearest town in the middle of nowhere is supposed to ride a bike around. The whole world isn't urbanized
You're right that currently it's hard many places in the US thanks to suburbs, terrible zoning, car focused laws and so on.
But it's not like biking itself is the issue here, it's that you are in dire need of better infrastructure, zoning, public transport and laws.
Again this is semantics. But this isn't true. Look at the entire state of WV or any state that is mountainous. Unless magically millions of people get in much better shape there isn't an obvious solution. I'm all for better infrastructure and public transport.
According to the 2022 Census 80% of US population lives in urban areas.
If could enable this 80% to use bicycles and public transportation we'd experience a massive shift in public health, energy efficiency and reduced emissions...
Yep, I'm not debating that point. I'm 100% in favor of doing that. I'm asking about solutions for everyone else. This debate is usually framed as "all we need to do is" when that isn't the case for everywhere or everyone. Just diving into it a little bit more.
Yeah a solution for the remaining 20% would be great, but we (the US) are not even addressing the urban 80%. I live in the SF Bay Area. It's incredibly dense here, yet riding a bike is impossible/suicidal. It takes me 20 minutes to get to work by car, but 2 hours by bus. This needs to be fixed first before worrying about small town Montana.
Yes, but even in the US, most trips are so short in distance, they could easily be done by bike.
There will always be trips and distances for which a car is the best option. It's fine to take a car then. The call is to take a bike when a bike is feasible, which is way more often than currently. Not for all people, but for a whole lot.
Then different solutions can be put in place in these places and/or you start with cities and figure out the country side later.
I think the bigger issue you have in the US is the sprawled neighbourhoods, I'm not sure how you can get back from that, maybe recreate small centers in the middle of them.
What are the different solutions? Genuinely asking. Seems like a large aspect to skip since it represents the majority of the US LOL
80% of Americans live in urban settings
As someone who once HAD to commute for a 45 minute car ride to work... not all commutes work with this. Public transit can help with a lot of those, but unless we rezone and rebuild most cites for shorter commutes, it won't replace all cars.
The Dutch drive, too, they just tend to cycle for shorter trips. No one serious is seriously saying 'replace all cars' as a solution for the foreseeable future
I am totally for more cycling… but imo from a policy perspective in most cities we just need more public transit and maybe some more bike lanes in areas they could help.
This is right. I desperately want to cycle places and take public transit, but in Los Angeles, things have been built with such distances that this often means 2+ hour trips if not done by car. Cities need to rezone and re-prioritize for better public transit in a lot of areas to reach this vision.
Portland, Oregon has bike racks on their buses. It's entirely possible, with appropriate infrastructure, for people to combine cycling and public transit in order to get from point A to point B efficiently without a car.
Yeah, it's way more a problem with urban design in my opinion. In a lot of parts of the US, including where I'm at, a lot of cities are just... One road. Maybe two. You just continue to add stuff to the road and then become surprised when traffic happens and then it's time to try (and fail) making more roads. It's a city on a stick. Being a cyclist means risking your life to ride near the side of a street where there is no sidewalk and praying to God people can see you. And then every single commute is much longer than it needs to be.
I do not like it... but a car is the only reasonable option for cities designed so poorly.
Is that why they are trying to kill their farming industry?
As a Dutchie, I can only agree. I do have to say the road infrastructure in a lot of countries will have to change too to make this feasible... I have been to Edinburgh, Scotland last week and it feels completely suicidal to ride a bike there, barely any bike lanes and a very big dislike towards cyclists.
If anyone wants to know more about how we do roads in the Netherlands, I totally recommend Not Just Bikes
I do question how this statement of carbon emissions reduction holds up with the large change towards electric bikes, but electric scales better to green energy then cars I guess.
During 40 years, everything has been done for cars. But it's ridiculous to use a 5 persons transport (car) for only one person. The ecological problem is not only thermal vs electric, it's also cars versus 2 wheels transport
Transportation and electric power are 38% and 33% of co2 emissions in the US respectively.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2022/58566-fig1_emissions-sector.png
Passenger vehicles are 58% of co2 emissions of all transportation in the US.
https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/images/full-reports/2022/58566-fig4_emissions-type.png
Electricity generation breaks down as: Petroleum (crude oil and natural gas plant liquids): 28% Coal: 17.8% Renewable energy: 12.7% Nuclear electric power: 9.6% .
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3#:~:text=About%2060%25%20of%20this%20electricity,%2C%20petroleum%2C%20and%20other%20gases.
Not really sure how well bikes would work where I live. The winters are harsh, and its steep hill after steep hill.
Its surprising how well bikes can work in harsh winter conditions, if the infrastructure is well build. Not just Bikes has a video on Oulu in Finnland that does this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU&t=1s
E-bikes can definitely solve the hill problem. As for staying warm, there’s the option of bundling up in some winter rated clothes. Think clothes for skiing or winter hiking, etc. I’ve even seen jackets with usb rechargeable heaters inside of them that motorcyclists use, though I haven’t tried that myself.
Well, i commute by bike in northern austria. All year. About 500m of climbing per day. Weather is solved by clothing. Icy roads are solved by studded tires.
As a bonus i pretty much can eat a lot of crap without gaining weight ;-)
A valid concern. Bikes are good for fair weather and close proximity. Not all of the world is set up for this. Trains and busses have been around for a long time and can help reduce emissions and work in bad weather. Trains could require costly new infrastructure but busses can use existing roadways. The big goal should be to move away from cars. Ten people on a bus use less emissions then 10 cars on thier own.
Out of curiosity, could you clarify "close proximity"? Because I certainly agree a bike is not viable if you are in the countryside. However having switched to bicycling and no longer driving my car recently, it has shrunk the world around me far more than driving ever has.
Can you expand on that? What do you mean bicycling shrunk the world, it seems counterintuitive?
Understandably so, I think haha. But for me, abandoning my car has made me actually realize distances in my city. Relying on a car, I barely even considered the distances I was traveling, and how necessary or not they were. I was more concerned about where I could park the thing than how far I was traveling just to do errands. But on a bicycle (and just walking), the first thing I do is consider the route, and distance, and I came to realize a lot of the distances I thought are best driven are... extremely walkable, or bikeable. And the distances that are a little far for a bicycle (in my current shape), I questioned why I even need to go that far. Especially if you're in a city, there are a ton of businesses everywhere, it was easy to look for and find closer alternatives.
So I guess for me personally, it really helped me contextualize the distances I was actually traveling, and helped me more concretely view my city and what's around me, compared to just driving through liminal spaces until I reach whichever destination I was headed towards.
Ah, it's like it allowed you to view where you lived at a new scale. You previously viewed it at car scale, now viewing it at human scale.
Absolutely, that is a far more eloquent way to put it! It's very freeing in it's own way.
I had the same experience, biking made me appreciate travel over distances I can't bike. It really is very eye opening.
Bikes + trains (or even a bus, if bike racks are on them) are such a great combination for traveling between cities (or even countries if you’re in Europe, I suppose)
Agreed. they are so expensive let alone bad for the environment.
Problem is so many civic gov'ts have mandated that transit MUST be self-sustaining and profitable without any investment. My own city's ideology is like this and our transit is one of the worst in Canada. I've stood in -40C waiting for a bus that just doesn't show up. :/
When the weather is nice you could ebike.
e-biking RULES. You don't even have to pedal if you don't want to, the throttle works just fine (although it eats your battery life if you don't augment it with pedaling)
This kind of e-bike is not allowed (or it is, but with big caveats, more akin to motorcycles) on public European roads. Regular ebikes can't have a throttle and are heavily restricted on top speed (20 to 25km/h depending on the country. Can go faster but you're not helped by the motor over that speed).
There is a very impressive set of reasons why we could and should encourage less CO2 intensive forms of transport, indeed many actions. However, these arguments always seem to me to take the pattern of picking the extreme example of whatever good we are hoping to achieve and then implying that everyone else could easily make the switch. There is always a wide and natural variety in things and this is true for differences between nations too. Extreme examples used like this often just end up making a bigger divide between people because the discussion misses all of the important differences that constrain choices and shape outcomes. We just end up talking from our own perspectives and experiences rather than exploring the complicated and difficult questions of how we can produce localised and regional responses to CO2 emissions drawn from fossil fuels.
Riding bikes really isn't very extreme
lol, no not like that. Extreme case, as in, when the modal value is a 4% uptake with an SD of 0.5, then picking something with a 73% uptake is an extreme case.