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

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

ridereport.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 170 posts

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

#101

Post by brailsafe »

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…

I've never really thought cost per mile is very useful, because it favours commuting by car and long distance travel. The more you drive, the lower the cost. I probably spend more per mile on transit, but I can't really compare it because the expenditures are quite heterogeneous. I could factor in the cost of shoes, but car drivers also have shoes, they just don't use them for walking as much. They might also own a bike, but that's rarely factored into transportation methods for car owners. Likewise I only use the train once a week or so; per mile it might be higher, but yearly it's nothing.

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

#102

Post by lotsoweiners »

convolvatron wrote: post #74
komali2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a cyclist for the last 15 years I get this. At the end of the day you gotta keep to what you think will keep you alive. I can't be sure of the exact mechanisms or whether I'm observing behavior correctly, but a strategy that seemed to be shaking out in SF is cyclists aggressively standing up for our rights, by for example one person blocking cars from making illegal rights while the rest of the bicyclists rode alo…

that thing where they stop and insist you cross first even though they have the right away really bothers me. it takes longer for both of us and creates a really uncomfortable ambiguity about whether they are actually going to start. I've just started going up on the sidewalk and dropping a foot to make it clear I'm just not going to cross...or turn if it makes sense I guess its not as bad the mission post pandemic.…

Yes. As a full time driver and part time pedestrian if someone in a car tries wave me on while I'm on foot I literally turn around and walk in the other direction until they get the hint. Drivers need to practice traffic right away instead of chivalry.

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

#103

Post by Spivak »

chitowneats wrote: post #72
rainsford wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I think people mistake city planning where 12min Car / 55min Bus / 2hr Walk / 30min Bike is “driving culture” where so much noise is made about encouraging people to not drive while doing nothing and covering your ears when it comes time to make not driving viable.

I would love to give up my car, we went down to one because wfh but there is no chance in hell we could go zero. We don’t even have a bus route down my street and I live in an area that is entirely dense apartments. The closest one is a mile walk to the nearest main road with no sidewalk.

I decided to check my friends who live across down and it’s 20m by car, impossible by bus (Google just gives up), 6 hrs walking, and 1hr30 biking.

I swear it’s “we tried bike lanes, what else do you want?”

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

#104

Post by lotsoweiners »

avianlyric wrote: post #39
j_walter wrote: post #16

Honestly this is not great efficiency. While getting more people of the road is great, the CO2e avoided per dollar is magnitiudes less than what can be done at the private company level. $4.77M for 2,040 MT CO2e reduced/avoided yearly My company was able to install a abatement unit that reduced >4,000 MT CO2e yearly for ~$150K. We are doing many more of these, but the cost is way better on a per lb level than this wa…

Has it occurred to you that e-bikes provide greater benefits than just CO2 reduction? They also reduce congestion by removing car journeys, they reduce amount of road infrastructure that needs to be built, they reduce the cost of maintaining road infrastructure (e-bike cause effectively zero damage to roads), they reduce healthcare costs by improving rider fitness. In short, for a government getting people on e-bikes…

Sure but do they actually?

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

#105

Post by toddsiegel »

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 live in Denver, near the streets the parent commenter posted, and I agree with those comments.

I do not know why the parent commenter chose those streets, nor what knowledge they have of the city, but if they posted 1000 more links it'd be more of the same.

Denver is not even trying. The landscape is completely dominated by cars, and utterly hostile to humans. The Mayor and City Council pay only lip service to making Denver more bike and pedestrian friendly, but little meaningful work has been done. Money has been spent, and things have been done, but none of it impactful.

In the 10 years I have lived in my house in central Denver, I cannot think of a single project, within a mile radius, that the city has planned and completed[1] that has made me feel safer as a cyclist, or pedestrian[2]. And I live in the densest part of the city, where these projects should be happening.

We even have a Vision Zero program, which is a joke. With the exception of the pandemic, traffic deaths continue to rise.

> Since Vision Zero was implemented in 2017, traffic fatalities have increased every year, except 2020, which saw a significant decrease due to stay-at-home orders and people working remotely. In 2021, traffic fatalities reached an all-time high with 84 deaths, surpassing Denver’s 2019 record high of 71 people.

This includes pedestrian deaths.

Source: https://denverite.com/2023/02/17/denvers-getting-money-to-st...

And road safety aside, bike theft is out of control in Denver. I only take my bike to do errands if I know I lock it up where lots of eyes will be on it, during daylight hours.

That all said, I am happy if the incentive program is paying off. Let's see. Maybe the city got it right. I remain skeptical, for now, given how hostile these streets are.

[1] - During the pandemic they closed 80% of the roads in Cheesman Park and have not reopened them. I am glad the city has stuck with it since it has completely transformed the feel of the place. I truly love it, more than I did before. But they did not plan this. It was a fortunate accident.

[2] - For context, my wife and I share one car, and otherwise we walk or I bike. My wife does not bike. She is afraid to, and I do not blame her.

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

#106

Post by d_sem »

Scubabear68 wrote: post #33

Just today I saw a crazy e-bike kid cruise down a major highway, going back and forth between the north and south lanes on the shoulder at intersections, narrowly missing several tractor trailers. And when I am in major cities I am regularly almost run down by scooter people. What are the stats on injury rates on these things?

Your anecdote mistakes electric motorcycles with e-bikes. In the USA, there are three legal classes of ebikes; with the fastest class having max legal speed of 28mph.

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

#107

Post by chitowneats »

toddsiegel wrote: post #105
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 live in Denver, near the streets the parent commenter posted, and I agree with those comments. I do not know why the parent commenter chose those streets, nor what knowledge they have of the city, but if they posted 1000 more links it'd be more of the same. Denver is not even trying. The landscape is completely dominated by cars, and utterly hostile to humans. The Mayor and City Council pay only lip service to maki…

That's a terrible part of Denver. I agree. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Why would you ever lock your bike outside anywhere in the U.S.? NYC is no better. It's actually worse out East in my experience. That's a separate issue. One exacerbated by the naive views of liberal voters.

You live in the remnants of the Wild West. Millions of poor Central Americans are pouring across the border and setting up shop in your backyard. What do you expect? You are never going to get European city living unless you move to Europe.

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

#108

Post by wonder_er »

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 live in Denver, and find the bike infrastructure to be criminally inadequate.

The same is true for the road infrastructure, but the bike lanes are set up to ensure that there's a continuous stream of dangerous and complex interactions where bicyclists would be effortlessly killed by a driver.

I ride a scooter around the city full time, like a small motorcycle, and it's so fast and easy and convenient.

I used to bike around the city but will never go back to biking.

heres a cool litle project showing where ive ridden in denver (and the world)

https://josh-strava-heatmap.herokuapp.com/

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

#109

Post by acdha »

Spastche wrote: post #94
acdha wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

According to their data the cost of financing is $658/annually out of $10k total. I assume you’re thinking used cars will reduce depreciation, but it won’t go to zero and even if it did you’d still be looking at less than half of the total cost since a used car still needs gas, tires, parking, and you’d have more in repairs. Cars are just expensive.

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

#110

Post by wonder_er »

lotsoweiners wrote: post #99
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…

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.

Cars is not how people want to get around in Denver.

Mindlessly repeating this fact does damage to the psychology of every single person that earnestly wishes that they didn't have to drive.

A huge fraction of people dislike driving.

Of course, lots of people have to get around, and most of them don't want to die accidentally, so the systemic pressure creating drivers is immense.

American road networks have been managed in a way that should be labeled criminal.

Urban renewal in the '50s and '60s was used to destroy ethnic neighborhoods for the emotional well-being of politically powerful white people.

The reason everyone drives today is because of the ethnic cleansing (via road networks) being conducted by white people in the '50s.

The roads are already devastatingly congested.

To act like American mobility networks are fair, or reasonable, or functional is something like gaslighting at a population level than anything else.

Post reply on HN