Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips • Hacker News Board

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#91

Post by chitowneats » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

zachkatz wrote: post #86

chitowneats wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denver is trying. But they have so far to go. I wish them luck and success. The driving culture is strong.

Here's a random main street in Denver: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7322582,-104.9861576,3a,75y,... Or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7356145,-104.9873758,3a,75y,... ...or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7383571,-104.9929042,3a,75y,... You can click around to pretty much any street in the city, and 100% of the space is dedicated to cars. A complete bike network that enables mass cycling…

If you're clicking around on random streets in Google Maps, it's clear you have no actual knowledge of the city. It's far less dense than any place you are comparing it to. Paris has been inhabited by city builders for thousands of years. Denver for about 150.

It has such an uphill battle against its historical context as a Western U.S. mining town. Before that, the area was sparsely populated by Native American hunter-gatherers. You're not even pretending to consider the starting point.

Why not compare it to places like Salt Lake City, or Boise? Cities that actually have some similarity to it terms of population and historical development.

I encourage everyone to disregard the comment I'm replying to. It's totally ridiculous. Peak HN big-brain BS.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#92

Post by akira2501 » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 2:56 AM UTC

simonsarris wrote: post #5

Not mentioned in the summary but super relevant to understand what they are talking about: > After nine months, the City had spent $4.7 million to provide vouchers to 4,734 Denver residents [for ebikes and equipment to ride in the winter] I'm a bit skeptical of some of this data: > 65% of Ride Report's Ride App users were riding at least once daily, and 90% were riding weekly. In the report, it mentions the Ride App…

No need to be. You missed the line from the white paper:

● The Denver Ride App pilot launched on June 1st and ran for 3 months ● Our sample size consisted of 70 riders across 12 of the 19 participating local bike shops ● Collectively, these riders logged over 3,500 ebike rides and over 15,000 miles during the pilot period

The rest of their data is extrapolated from this "sample." Which is probably, given all the other hitches and processes involved in a potential rider even getting to this point is really a "self-selection funnel."

Oh.. and the app was iOS only.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#93

Post by kal_lamar » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:04 AM UTC

asciimike wrote: post #60

JPKab wrote: post #31

I'm a huge fan of programs like this, but one thing that cities like Denver (especially Denver) need to be wary of are things that actively worsen bike commutes over time. I live nearby, and one of the things that is a frequent topic of conversation is how dangerous certain bike trails in Denver are due to assaults and muggings. This is a new phenomenon, and there are bike trails in Denver I wouldn't go near on an ex…

Denver resident who routinely rides bikes on those trails--mind providing some citations on those so we can know where to avoid? I've never had issues with folks in underpasses while running/biking (mostly early morning hours or commute hours), but could imagine there being issues at different times.

made an account just to comment. i commute in from the highlands to rino about 3/4 of the year and do a bunch of trips to littleton or golden when not work commuting. used this program last year to get an e-bike and have been absolutely loving it (when there isn't ice or snow on the ground).

most full on pedestrian trails are genuinely great, especially when helped by higher traffic. i do, however, avoid my most direct route into work at night. on the south platte trail from cuernavaca park to 29th is legitimately a scary stretch. mind you i'm a 6'1 225lbs guy..

denver really is trying, and they've come a long way! i'd love to see some improvements on vehicle calming and better cycling right of way on the neighborhood bikeways, but the highest priority issue has to be biking trail connectivity.

that was a very long winded way to give you a single half mile stretch answer..

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#94

Post by Spastche » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:10 AM UTC

acdha wrote: post #32

liquidise wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that yearly cost figure derived? I can't imagine it is repairs, gas, tolls, registration and maintenance alone.

AAA has very similar figures with a breakdown. Depreciation is a lot but not everything: https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/2022-You...

used and self financed costs out a majority of those costs

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#95

Post by HyperSane » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:14 AM UTC

aimor wrote: post #46

d_sem wrote: post #4

When you factor in the reduced capital costs, carbon emissions, noise pollution, traffic, wear on infrastructure, health benefits, etc of electric bicycles the opportunity cost of car ownership over e-bike adoption is tremendous. The average cost of owning a car in 2022 is $10,728 per year: a figure which blows my mind.(edit: Source bankrate.com, the top hit on google) As a personal anecdote, my household has gone fr…

I previously looked into the average cost per mile of car ownership, after hearing the IRS values it at 58.5 cents/mile, and came up with this breakdown ($7,605/yr): "The average vehicle costs $40k, is owned for 11 years, gets driven 13k miles per year, burns 25 mpg, gas costs $3/gal, insurance is $1500 per year, and the vehicle needs $900 per year in maintenance and repairs." The Bankrate estimate seems high, but no…

This is why I drive a 2002 Saturn despite making $140,000/year.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#96

Post by ultrarunner » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:19 AM UTC

chitowneats wrote: post #91

zachkatz wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a random main street in Denver: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7322582,-104.9861576,3a,75y,... Or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7356145,-104.9873758,3a,75y,... ...or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7383571,-104.9929042,3a,75y,... You can click around to pretty much any street in the city, and 100% of the space is dedicated to cars. A complete bike network that enables mass cycling…

If you're clicking around on random streets in Google Maps, it's clear you have no actual knowledge of the city. It's far less dense than any place you are comparing it to. Paris has been inhabited by city builders for thousands of years. Denver for about 150. It has such an uphill battle against its historical context as a Western U.S. mining town. Before that, the area was sparsely populated by Native American hunt…

I suspect the comment you encourage others to disregard is pointing toward intentions and the implementation of design. What about the age of a city dictates that there is a point it must choose to dedicate 100% of available space to cars? Amsterdam wasn't as navigable by bicycle only 20 years ago.

I live in Phoenix, which is even more sprawled than Denver. I have a grocery store less than a mile from my house, and a bike path almost all the way there. Unfortunately, that path leads through an unlit and flooded underpass, through a flooded drainage canal, then ends with a stretch of grass and a guardrail to a 6-lane 55 mph road. They're so close, but there has to be an intention to complete the job. So far the powers that be intend only to serve cars. I hope that continues to improve in Denver (and elsewhere!) but sprawl and age aren't great excuses for clear choices.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#97

Post by chitowneats » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:24 AM UTC

ultrarunner wrote: post #96

chitowneats wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're clicking around on random streets in Google Maps, it's clear you have no actual knowledge of the city. It's far less dense than any place you are comparing it to. Paris has been inhabited by city builders for thousands of years. Denver for about 150. It has such an uphill battle against its historical context as a Western U.S. mining town. Before that, the area was sparsely populated by Native American hunt…

I suspect the comment you encourage others to disregard is pointing toward intentions and the implementation of design. What about the age of a city dictates that there is a point it must choose to dedicate 100% of available space to cars? Amsterdam wasn't as navigable by bicycle only 20 years ago. I live in Phoenix, which is even more sprawled than Denver. I have a grocery store less than a mile from my house, and a…

Yet another person who's never been to any part of Denver outside downtown. The bikeability of Phoenix is atrocious. The two cities are not even comparable in this regard. Denver, like most places in the U.S., discovered bikeability in the last couple of decades. Meanwhile, Phoenix has maintained or even exacerbated the status quo. Denver has invested tens of millions into becoming a denser, more bikeable locale. It also elects politicians who campaign on and further this goal. The same cannot be said for Phoenix.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#98

Post by SauciestGNU » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:26 AM UTC

rainsford wrote: post #37

d_sem wrote: post #4

When you factor in the reduced capital costs, carbon emissions, noise pollution, traffic, wear on infrastructure, health benefits, etc of electric bicycles the opportunity cost of car ownership over e-bike adoption is tremendous. The average cost of owning a car in 2022 is $10,728 per year: a figure which blows my mind.(edit: Source bankrate.com, the top hit on google) As a personal anecdote, my household has gone fr…

I'd also argue the potential savings and advantages of e-bikes are undervalued because the bike infrastructure in even the best US cities isn't particularly great. I've spent a fair amount of time in Denver, and while there are some good spots and ongoing improvements, the bike infrastructure in the city is honestly a lot worse than you might expect. Better bike infrastructure would almost certainly increase the e-bi…

I'm an outlier because I've been a bike commuter for over 10 years, but I recently bought myself an e-bike and one of the things I noticed is that it helps me cope with the poor cycling infrastructure where I am. It's really expanded the routes I feel safe taking in my city versus my "acoustic" bikes.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#99

Post by lotsoweiners » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:27 AM UTC

zachkatz wrote: post #86

chitowneats wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denver is trying. But they have so far to go. I wish them luck and success. The driving culture is strong.

Here's a random main street in Denver: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7322582,-104.9861576,3a,75y,... Or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7356145,-104.9873758,3a,75y,... ...or another one: https://www.google.com/maps/@39.7383571,-104.9929042,3a,75y,... You can click around to pretty much any street in the city, and 100% of the space is dedicated to cars. A complete bike network that enables mass cycling…

Of course they have most of their space dedicated to cars because that is how people want to get around in Denver. Denver is a sprawling metro with around 50 days of snow per year. I'm all for bike lanes but if you start trying to create traffic congestion by taking away more of the streets from cars you will lose elections because you aren't appealing to the masses.

Re: Denver’s e-bike subsidy program produced more new riders, fewer car trips

#100

Post by ultrarunner » Fri, Mar 03, 2023, 3:27 AM UTC

lostmsu wrote: post #59

flyingpenguin wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of public real-estate we dedicate exclusively to enabling peoples usage of their private property in the united states (and to lesser extents all other countries really) is absolutely absurd. I have considered just walking slowly in random lanes of traffic while in downtown areas recently. On what grounds do you need thousands of acres of space? Speed limits should often be 4-5mph and space usage should be…

How would you deliver furniture and maintenance machinery to your place?

These arguments always follow the same pattern:

>> I don't want to be brutally killed by a car on unsafe infrastructure

>> Oh yeah? Well how are you going to have a refrigerator delivered or get your sick grandmother to the hospital?

I'm not sure why. Maybe it's just hyper-logical thinking that it has to be all-or-nothing and implemented solely by force. But man, grandmothers and refrigerators are going to be just fine if we stop giving cars priority over people. Maybe better.