311–320 of 756 posts
I don't believe I have ever encountered a moped in the wild, and I've never even seen an e-bike (literally would not be able to describe what it looks like to you if you paid me, other than "a bike with two wheels and a handlebar, I assume").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
throwing money at urban problems does not necessarily have a great track record, and NYCTA has had lots of issues with corruption when they do have money to spend. Id be pretty skeptical that giving them a lot of money would mean you can hop on a train in 5 minutes at 2 am, it wouldnt even be cost effective to run that many trains at odd hours. Cars are terrific for this use case, however. NYC cops have like a billio…
Somehow the argument against more money for infrastructure is never levied against freeway expansions.
"Throwing Good Money After Bad Car Infrastructure - Wonderland Road" - on the road widening project of Wonderland Road in Toronto.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such an interesting comment to me because it gets so much right on how to motivate ditching cars. If you were funding a campaign to eliminate cars to reduce carbon emissions I think you would meet with widespread resistance. If you promote an idea of a higher quality life that is possible w/o cars and explore that - in the end I think you'd end up removing many more cars than the first approach.
I think the root cause is further up the chain of casuality. People need cars because they live in the suburbs, they live in the suburbs because they have children, they want to raise children in more square footage than the urban housing stock offers. Notable exception being Tokyo Ironically, if you look NYC in the 1910s, kids used to play baseball in the street because it wasn't yet overrun by cars, suddenly not en…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've identified a problem: public transport in some places sucks. But then veered away from the obvious solution: invest in it to make it not suck.
throwing money at urban problems does not necessarily have a great track record, and NYCTA has had lots of issues with corruption when they do have money to spend. Id be pretty skeptical that giving them a lot of money would mean you can hop on a train in 5 minutes at 2 am, it wouldnt even be cost effective to run that many trains at odd hours. Cars are terrific for this use case, however. NYC cops have like a billio…
and even with fairly poor mass transit system - it's still is incredibly good by American standards.
I moved from NYC an hour north, to be more isolated than the "impersonal big cities". I barely know any of my neighbors - because there are no sidewalks and everyone is forced to drive for anything.
Car dependence kills people, kills communities and reduces your QoL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
at a micro level that's probably true, but from a public policy perspective, I'm willing to bet that regular bikes effect to increase fitness probably saves more carbon in the long run (healthcare is pretty calorie intensive).
Most ebikes you have to pedal to make them go. Some just push the throttle, but most are motor assist but if you don't pedal you don't go. As such most ebikes give the same fitness benefit but let you go faster (read farther). My ebike almost forces me to work harder than the regular bike as because it is heavy it feels like it doesn't coast as nice as the regular bike, and so I'm pedaling more. (part of this is prob…
This is simply not true. A pedal-assist bike will go faster with the same amount of W put into the pedals, yes. But will people put in the same amount of W if 60 % will get you to your "target speed"? I doubt it. And then you get less health benefits for the same distance traveled.
On my 8 kilometer commute I average 150 W. Not because I use it as exercise. That's just where I find my comfortable level of output. Every time I've ridden on ebikes I've put in much, much less effort. I'd be surprised if I put in even a third of the energy. That's great if you just need a mode of transport. Bikes are practical, efficient, and planning for them improves cities. Even ignoring the potential health benefits. But claiming that a pedalassist bike gives the same fitness benefits just doesn't pass the smell test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
nothing about living in a city or riding a bike instead of driving a car is "elitist". elitism is using a vehicle that has an average annual ownership cost of $12000 and takes up a parking space everywhere you want to go.
I don't think GP claimed living in a city or riding a bike was elitist. I think the claim was that imposing solutions that only work in cities as if they work for everybody is elitist. And, speaking for myself now, it's important to remember that, in many contexts, living in the city is a luxury that many cannot afford without greatly diminishing their current standard of living. Outside the city, housing is cheap. Y…
It's also not happening because we're a bunch of flower loving hippies. Instead it's pure economics and practicality. Faster, more enjoyable, and cheaper that both cars or public transport.
Electric transportation with appropriate infrastructure is more practical.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: building the future around cars of any kind is completely unsustainable. We cannot reproduce the rates of rich world car ownership in the developing world without mass catastrophe (raw materials/labor needed for construction and maintenance, raw materials/labor/space needed for roads and parking lots, literal tons of waste--batteries, tires, steel, plastic, foam--, energy ne…
That's very elitist. Not everyone lives in large cities with whole mass transit systems or works the usual 9-5. Even in large urban areas it's tricky to get around past a certain time. I remember working unexpected shifts and later staring at closed metro stations, having to walk in the rain to get home. No thanks. Also, some people like cars. Deal with it, i'm not ditching for an e-bike or whatever. An electric moto…
I don't think it's really about taking away peoples choices, just mostly about policy impacts.
Currently car ownership and sub/exurban housing are subsidized in various direct and indirect ways. If policies changed and other things were emphasized instead, you could still choose to live in the same way, it would just be more expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is such an interesting comment to me because it gets so much right on how to motivate ditching cars. If you were funding a campaign to eliminate cars to reduce carbon emissions I think you would meet with widespread resistance. If you promote an idea of a higher quality life that is possible w/o cars and explore that - in the end I think you'd end up removing many more cars than the first approach.
It's a positive vision of where society can go rather than having to sacrifice and buckle down. Do people not remember riding bikes as kids? Riding a bike is _still_ fun. It never stopped being fun. Now you can do that and get to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
throwing money at urban problems does not necessarily have a great track record, and NYCTA has had lots of issues with corruption when they do have money to spend. Id be pretty skeptical that giving them a lot of money would mean you can hop on a train in 5 minutes at 2 am, it wouldnt even be cost effective to run that many trains at odd hours. Cars are terrific for this use case, however. NYC cops have like a billio…
throwing money at the NYC subway seems to have a generally great track record (albeit one featuring less efficiency than throwing money at other global subway systems). NYC could not function without it.