Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 764 posts

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

#511

Post by eloisius »

dheera wrote: post #509
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…

> We also found that the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one day a week cut their carbon footprint by 3.2kg of CO₂ – equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10km, eating a serving of lamb or chocolate, or sending 800 emails. This is interesting, but might it be possible that at least some those cyclists ate 1 more serving of lamb (or other high-carbon meat) or chocolate than they norma…

Anecdotally, I eat 3 meals, about the same as anyone, but I’m probably less prone to diseases of affluence than I would be if I drove everywhere. I’d wager that most Americans have a couple hundred extra daily calories in their budget that could safely be spent commuting by bike.

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

#512

Post by nightski »

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,…

How many people want to live in dense cities without any means of escape? It sounds miserable to me.

But I live in a really small city (< 250k) and drive maybe 3-5k miles a year (mostly to our cabin in a neighboring state) and bike a LOT. It's kind of ironic I am pretty far from your utopian dense dream yet largely living it.

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

#513

Post by 908B64B197 »

zip1234 wrote: post #503
digital-cygnet wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Step 1: stop subsidizing car travel. Make automobile owners pay their way--to include negative externalities such as noise and pollution.

Problem is: automobile owners chose their houses with these subsidies already accounted for in their budget. Remove them and suddenly it's impossible for them to stay in their home.

Oh, and they can't move closer to the city center: removing the subsidies just made houses that are centrally located impossible to afford for them.

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

#514

Post by Tade0 »

I've downloaded the study on which the premise of this article is based and, as usual, it's assumed that the energy needed to move a bike has no carbon footprint, while in reality it has.

Specifically on an European diet(~1.5-2g CO2/kcal) a cyclist is responsible for ~27g CO2/km, which is not negligible and puts cycling on par with public transport.

I don't believe cycling to be a solution here. It's said that 25% of trips in the Netherlands are currently done by bike, but what is left out is that, according to this study(2012):

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441647.2013.80...

50% of trips are still done by car.

Looking at distance traveled it's 75% cars and 8% bicycles.

That's after decades of changes in infrastructure to accommodate cyclists.

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

#515

Post by 908B64B197 »

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,…

Love the explanation. But what about adding some underground parking?

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

#516

Post by aBioGuy »

jrussino wrote: post #38
aBioGuy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two little kids. I also own an electric cargo bike. It has replaced over 2,000 car miles in the past year. I can bike to the grocery store, with two kids, and come back with a week's worth of groceries.

Which bike? I also have two little kids and would do this in a heartbeat if I felt that they could be reasonably safe.

Tern GSD

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

#517

Post by analog31 »

supertrope wrote: post #371
analog31 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the most striking feature of the Dutch solution is that it's not a type of bike, but a transportation system developed over a span of years within a specific niche of climate, terrain, population density, and so forth. Cargo bikes came after the system was already up and running. Moving any specific component of that system to another niche might help a little, and I'd welcome any progress, but is not a s…

People keep hoping for a technological solution to housing and transportation but the real answer is a big cultural and political shift toward apartments and walkable cities. On second thought that may be a heavier lift than self-driving cars.

Indeed, and it's also at best a long term solution. Bikes are something that can appeal to individual agency: I can get a bike and start riding tomorrow. I can't build an apartment building.

Actually, it would be my 6th bike, but that's its own problem. ;-)

I'm spoiled by where I live now, a 25 minute easy bike ride to my workplace, a similar ride for my spouse, and within walking distance of shops. It's really a lifestyle changer.

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

#519

Post by aBioGuy »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #46
aBioGuy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two little kids. I also own an electric cargo bike. It has replaced over 2,000 car miles in the past year. I can bike to the grocery store, with two kids, and come back with a week's worth of groceries.

So it replaced 2000 miles. If the average person puts 10k-15k on a car, it sounds like you only used it on a few little trips around the neighborhood. You're making my point for me. I'm not saying bikes don't work. I'm just saying that there are many times that they don't work. And it sounds like you're a bike lover and even then, you couldn't replace 8k-13k a year of car travel. And I'll note that you're using an el…

Well the car has about 1000 miles in the same time frame. A second (non electric) bike has about 1500 miles. More importantly I was seriously considering replacing the car (it is quite old) but with the cargo bike the car gets used so infrequently now it doesn't seem worth it. Plus if the car does go down we can replace it at a leisurely pace.

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

#520

Post by aBioGuy »

xhkkffbf wrote: post #46
aBioGuy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two little kids. I also own an electric cargo bike. It has replaced over 2,000 car miles in the past year. I can bike to the grocery store, with two kids, and come back with a week's worth of groceries.

So it replaced 2000 miles. If the average person puts 10k-15k on a car, it sounds like you only used it on a few little trips around the neighborhood. You're making my point for me. I'm not saying bikes don't work. I'm just saying that there are many times that they don't work. And it sounds like you're a bike lover and even then, you couldn't replace 8k-13k a year of car travel. And I'll note that you're using an el…

The e-bike (pre COVID) would do about 2-3 24 mile trips a week. Plus the local trips. The other 1-2 days were a regular bike. That's a lot of rush hour miles removed from the road.
Post reply on HN