Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#491

Post by spodek » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:50 AM UTC

Tiktaalik wrote: post #436

Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…

Exactly. Electric vehicles is a tactic that works within a strategy of fewer cars. A strategy more vehicles, even if electric, will eventually result in more total waste.

A strategy of fewer vehicles works, all the better with a tactic of converting to electric.

Want to lower emissions? One easy, cheap way is to convert car lanes to bike lanes or simply remove them. Lots of other government subsidies worth removing too, especially to fossil fuel extraction.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#492

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

FDSGSG wrote: post #474

sudosysgen wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an SUV/crossover. Yes, it is too big. Cars got way too big since a few decades, especially in North America, and that is a huge part of why people feel that roads are too small.

Are you kidding? The Juke is smaller than a 1 series, smaller than a VW Golf and much smaller than a Prius. Even by European standards it's a tiny car.

By definition, if the streets feel too small, then the car you're driving is too big.

The Juke, while smaller in length than those cars, is wider than both the Prius (by a longshot) and the Golf. And ultimately it's width that matters for the feeling of street size.

Also, by European standards the Golf or the Prius isn't a tiny car, it's more or less average (though that's changing). Small would be a Polo, a Citroen C1, a Mercedes B-Class, etc...

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#493

Post by Retric » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:57 AM UTC

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Tiktaalik wrote: post #436

Switching to electric cars from ICE cars is continuing to do the wrong thing and make the wrong choices, but doing this wrong thing a bit better. It's still the same status quo, woefully terrible and unsustainable transportation model. Automobile oriented transportation doesn't scale, is a huge waste of resources, and perpetuates unsustainable, ultra expensive and resource intensive sprawling urban development patter…

In my experience, most people really do not understand how fundamentally unsuited cars are to solving urban (or dense suburban) transportation problems. Without really staring at the underlying geometry, it is hard for laypeople to understand that automobile-centric development patterns are by-and-large incapable of producing the kind of human-scale, dense, walkable areas that are (1) instinctively pleasing to be in,…

The issue boils down to roads and parking more than cars. Trees need sunlight, but cars don’t so roads work just fine segregated below street level away from pedestrians and inclement weather. It sounds expensive, but work out how expensive NYC’s above ground road network costs both in terms of land value and ongoing property taxes and you see just how pricy cheap roads end up.

Go 3D to segregate N/S traffic from E/W traffic thereby eliminating traffic lights and things really pick up. Of course it’s much easier to blame cars, but counties only have so many people you can actually build enough infrastructure to solve the root issues.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#494

Post by sergeykish » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

I've recently discovered Not Just Bikes channel [1], and can't recommend it enough.

He is Canadian, commuter, not a cyclist [2], yet he found that in Netherlands are the most livable cities, to the point he's decided to rise children there [3]. He answers all the critique raised in this thread. And describes how Netherlands achieve its goals - bike paths are on another level there, they are specifically organized on different routes [4].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0intLFzLaudFG-xAvUEO-A

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMed1qceJ_Q

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1l75QqRR48

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#495

Post by souprock » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:58 AM UTC

dmm wrote: post #395

BitwiseFool wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should be using the sidewalk instead.

Another thing to consider is that in many areas it's not legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk. Most sidewalks aren't appropriate for cycling. The exceptions I was describing are mostly found in big commercial developments, target, walmart, etc. Around me they tend to build wide sidewalks, well separated from the busy road. Here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/dat... But most s…

OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes:

Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding.

I'm not seeing the extreme danger here. It's not possible for a car to make a right turn because there isn't any car. The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone.

Urban adjustment: there might be a "walk button", and there is a chance that it is actually connected to a traffic signal. Cross only with the walk indicator active.

I don't see any reason why this should be illegal. It's far safer than the alternatives.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#496

Post by Dylan16807 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:59 AM UTC

supertrope wrote: post #374

monkmartinez wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do I carry my kids and groceries in +100F(38c) or nearly freezing weather?

Stay hydrated. Wear layers. Spend more time indoors. It's not like driving is a sweat free experience at 38C.

> It's not like driving is a sweat free experience at 38C.

It is if your car isn't a junker.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#497

Post by supertrope » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:02 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #496

supertrope wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stay hydrated. Wear layers. Spend more time indoors. It's not like driving is a sweat free experience at 38C.

> It's not like driving is a sweat free experience at 38C. It is if your car isn't a junker.

38C is very hot. You'll be sweating in 5 min. Parking garages are generally not air conditioned. Cars don't cool down from 50C quickly. The sun stills shines on you through the windows.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#498

Post by nine_k » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

digital-cygnet wrote: post #489

nine_k wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxis, small delivery vehicles, utility cars, cars and trucks for countryside use, and various trucks for city and highway use can all be electric, with all the benefits of EVs. If you want public transit be more popular, build denser cities. E.g. on Manhattan using the subway is a no-brainer, and you are rarely more than two (long) blocks from a subway station. In some more remote parts of Brooklyn, you often cannot…

There's a chicken-egg problem at play, though. We can't build denser cities because we need to build 4-lane roads and parking; we can't get rid of these roads and parking because people need cars because the city isn't dense enough yet. It's certainly solvable on the many-decade timescale by smart, consistent city and state governments, but it's going to be a gradual slog of incrementalism (e.g., see all the changes…

Indeed, two-wheeled electric transport is pretty great! It's a mix of EVs and bicycles proper.

These devices still need parking, even if they are as compact as a scooter or a bicycle (not like a motorcycle). Keeping them in an apartment is a bit uncomfortable, too, especially in a walk-in on 4th floor, since they are not exactly lightweight.

Electric skateboards are much more compact, but take more skill, and have a shorter range.

All this is totally solvable, but the problems first needs to be recognized.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#499

Post by digital-cygnet » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

fvdessen wrote: post #307

Cycling is not only good for the environment, but for cities in general. During the last confinement, when car traffic completely stopped, I realised that cars are the single biggest reason why living in the city can be unpleasant. People may not realise it consciously, but when they move out of the city, what they are looking for is a place with not as much cars driving around. Cars destroy cities by making a viciou…

This is something I've been musing over recently as well: cars really are responsible for much of what is unpleasant about city life. When people gripe about cities, their complaints are often around:

   * Noise. From where I sit, the only noises that filter into my apartment from the city are occasional laughs or shouted conversations from bargoers, loud trucks grinding gears on the avenues, or honking of desperate commuters

   * Lack of space. Basically every city block in the USA is surrounded on all sides by areas where, if you walk into them without your wits about you, you could be smashed by a multi ton vehicle. When streets are closed for street fairs or the like, the "lack of space" complaint often drifts away - the whole city is your space again. 

   * Danger. See above. There is of course also higher crime in cities, which I cannot find a way to pin on cars.

   * Grime/poor air quality - pretty self explanatory

I'm hopeful that, with the pandemic increasing interest in the outdoors and making cities have to work harder for their tax base (because WFH means they can no longer rest on the "you have to live here to get a job" that they've been reliant on), city governments and voters will realize how much can be gained by dialing back on car investment.

Re: Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

#500

Post by physicles » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 2:06 AM UTC

fishywang wrote: post #456

physicles wrote: post #447

As an American who has been living in China for some years, I don’t miss the car-centric lifestyle one bit. But I don’t see a viable path to wide adoption in the US, especially since your choice of transportation is now part of the fucking culture wars. For bikes to have real gains, you must somehow make cars less appealing. And while individual mindset is similar in China and the US — everybody really really wants c…

>There is bike infrastructure: not only are there decent bike lanes, but drivers are used to sharing the road with bikes You other description matches quite well to Beijing so I assume you are living in Beijing, but this one doesn't quite match from my experience. Yes there are technically "bike lanes", but Beijing drivers really treat them more like "ramps" that's use to get on and off the main road, or even "shortc…

Totally agree, drivers don't respect cyclists' right of way at all, and the bike lanes are often clogged with parked cars. But the bike lanes are still useful, and in places where a bike has to go into the road to go around a car, the cars _expect_ this. I don't have much good to say about the drivers around here, but they're definitely used to the road being filled with cyclists, e-bikes, and grandpas on their 三轮车.