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

#551

Post by porb121 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:08 AM UTC

nightski wrote: post #512

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Some 30m people in Tokyo seem to be doing fine.

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

#552

Post by porknubbins » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:22 AM UTC

nightski wrote: post #512

digital-cygnet wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The no means of escape from NYC was what I could never handle (so got a bike, motorcycle, car and eventually just moved out) but there are many people who grew up in big cities for whom the endless concrete blocks is just the normal environment, though I think its kind of sad.

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

#553

Post by taurath » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:26 AM UTC

You need density, flat-ish terrain and often nice weather for mass cycling.

You can solve for density, but the other 2 aren’t in a cities control.

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

#554

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:28 AM UTC

s0rce wrote: post #19

vinni2 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t get it where is the emission coming from bicycle trips?

I guess you have to eat a bit more if you ride more, I certainly notice when I bike to work (5mi each way, 300ft climb) that I need to eat a bit more food. Certainly no where near the energy of a car though but its not zero. Assuming you want to maintain your weight.

It's interesting because the food you eat makes a big difference then on your commute. A diet high in beef or fresh fruit could actually make your commute WORSE than an electric car.

Biomass is not a particularly low emissions energy source.

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

#555

Post by dghlsakjg » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:32 AM UTC

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.

Just removing parking subsidies would be huge.

I lived in Vancouver, which is very transit friendly by NA standards.

In the residential Neighbourhood I lived in, most roads were 3-4 cars wide, and 2 of those widths were exclusively for parking private cars (parking lane, travel lane, possibly another travel lane, and another parking lane). The building I lived in had as much square footage for parking as it did for living.

Parking a car in was more or less marginally free(as in most North American cities). Using a city parking spot for anything else cost money, and was time limited. Renting a private parking spot was about $100/ month (due to building codes there was an oversupply of private parking in addition to the available street parking). Renting a bedroom the size of a parking spot was $500+/mo.

In other words, the city incentives were set up that a climate controlled parking spot for a car was significantly oversupplied, and cheaper, than a putting a human in the same space.

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

#556

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:34 AM UTC

CabSauce wrote: post #10

That's great. Assuming the following: - Your commute is sufficiently short - You have facilities to shower and dress at work - You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work - You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo - Weather is sufficiently good - You're sufficiently healthy

Yeah, I find the article has things 100% backwards.

If you live in a place where you don't need a car, then sure, I guess that might work, but the VAST majority of Americans do not. They would have to move somewhere else. There isn't enough housing in such places, so new apartments (and schools and stores) would need to be built. That takes time and emits a bunch itself. We don't have the time to empty the suburbs (and no chance it'd happen politically). So the fastest solution BY FAR is electric cars as we can decarbonize people where they are.

A lot of cycling advocates massively underestimate just how good electric cars are. (They also last at least 10 times longer than bikes, in terms of number of miles... including tires, etc.)

People want climate change to force solutions to other problems. But we didn't solve ozone depletion by getting rid of refrigeration or air conditioning. We did it by developing and using non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. There's no political will to do much else, except around the edges.

Absolutely, build better biking infrastructure. There are good reasons to do it. But electric cars and trucks are WAY more relevant to actually getting most of America off of fossil fuels in a politically and economically feasible way than telling everyone they have to bike, now. Technological solutions are more feasible than social ones.

(Also, all the inputs to an electric car CAN be decarbonized as well.)

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

#557

Post by dghlsakjg » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

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…

I agree: this seems like a very dumb statistic; I have nothing tangible to back this up (except the fact that I can arbitrarily fire off emails at 0 cost), but I have a sneaking suspicion that sending 800 emails has an essentially negligible carbon cost.

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

#558

Post by basch » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:40 AM UTC

flaque wrote: post #346

basch wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who wants a more bicycle like experience, it's better to set expectations beginning at $3k-4k. And as far as "longer range than a bike" that's more than likely untrue. The largest batteries, best motors, and most efficient mode might make it to 100 miles on a charge, but more realistic on more common models is 30-40 miles in a middle power mode. A 40 mile limit is less than you can acomplish on a non elec…

By range, I meant the amount a non-athletic person might use for commuting. Most people can easily go 20 miles on an electric bike, but have difficulty going 20 miles on a normal bike. Also Rad power bikes are in the ~$1000 range and are great!

RadPower are all hub motors and fall into that category of more scooter / motorcycle than bicycle. With enough sensors and computer smarts they can almost emulate mid drive bike type feeling, but it never quite gives you that bicycle first, motor second feel.

For people who want a bicycle for a bicycle and are going to use it, you may want to save up for a mid drive bike.

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

#559

Post by Robotbeat » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:41 AM UTC

There's been a kind of anti-electric-car trend of late pushed by some concerned by climate change. I think this is a massive mistake.

Electric cars are good PRECISELY because they don't require a lifestyle change. That means you won't get a massive pushback.

Because this can't be about just convincing the convincible, folks who already don't have kids and who live in cities. We need to actually transform all of America. Who mostly DON'T live in places where they could feasibly get rid of their car.

Electric cars are a miracle. Cleaning the grid we absolutely know how to do (the grid is 30% cleaner than it was a decade ago, and we've barely been trying). They allow us to electrify in-place. That minimizes the political constraints to climate action in a way that literally nothing else does.

But what I worry people will take from articles like this is that if they don't bike, they might as well just get a conventional car. This couldn't be further from the truth.

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

#560

Post by valzam » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 4:48 AM UTC

null_object wrote: post #470

lillecarl wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Stockholm, Sweden there's 36 cars to a 100 people, the rest use a combination of walking, cycling, electric scooters, taxis and public transport. There are still jams in Stockholm, but only for people who chose to ride by car, their problem!

> In Stockholm, Sweden there's 36 cars to a 100 people, the rest use a combination of walking, cycling, electric scooters, taxis and public transport. I can’t really tell from your comment whether you think this is a high or low number of people using cars(?) but I certainly hope you’re not trying to give the impression that Stockholm or Sweden in general is some sort of haven for cycling, because it’s a terrible cou…

The first time I went to Stockholm my expectation was for it to be very similar to Copenhagen. It could not be more different. The downtown highway area reminds me of some dystopian hellhole.