I am in the camp we need both infrastructure investments and bike subsidies in the short term. I think people will start demanding more Bike infra after they experience an ebike. And for much of suburban America utility biking without electric assist is really difficult due to terrain, climate or distance.
In America, money set aside to increase bike use would have to be spent on road and path improvement to undo the anti-bike infrastructure before spending much of anything on helping people afford the actual bikes.
The issue with bicycles is bad infrastructure and not price. You can easily get a decent new one for 1000€ and second hand they often can be had for nearly nothing. Unfortunatly most will not ride bicycles in car traffic for very real safety concerns. So it is much better to build proper protected city wide cycling infrastructure and promote it especially towards students.
Bad ones cost 300€ or even less, but they will not last. You really need to spend some money to get a good new one, but it will last a lifetime. Otherwise go second hand and as I said you can get good ones for nearly nothing, but they will not be up to date in terms of technology. Honestly second hand is the way to go anyway.
I think by getting more bicycles on the road will drive demand for better bike infrastructure. It will show people what they can do with the existing infrastructure and show where I can be improved. I assume it's cheaper to get more bikes out there then change infrastructure.
Stroads are streets that are designed like roads and in doing so, fail at being good at either one. They are too sprawling and hostile to be good streets, and they are too busy and complicated to be good roads. Stroads are inefficient, unsafe, expensive, and ugly.
This video introduces the concept of Stroads, and talks about why you will (almost) never find these kind of places in the Netherlands: because here all roads need to have a single purpose as either a motorway, connector road, or end-destination street.
The name “stroad” was invented by Strong Towns as a way to explain why road design in the US is fundamentally broken.
There is more to it, like modal filters, to create long pathways for reducing car traffic, while not stopping cycling and walking. That should fix most problems in the residential areas.
Actually allowing density around train stations. Denvers regional rail is pretty good, but nobody can really use it. However they are fixing it.
Creating alternative cycling and pedestrian infrastructure truely away from cars. Pedestrian zones especially in the city center. Those block cars fairly well and really create some great places.
Expand regional rail and light rail. Some large parts of the city lack decent public transport altogether. That is a great thing to redesign stroads. Take away two lanes for light rail. Add some trees and proper protected cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and then take away parking minimums. It does not turn a stroad into something truely amazing, but it would fix most problems. Especiall with allowing redevlopment of the parking lots into mid density housing. It will take decades to truely heal thou.
Could we subsidise all bikes and let people pay more for the “E” part if they so choose? How is an Ebike any better than a normal one? It has a more significant footprint behind it.
Problem is, if you subsidise anything the prices rise to match the subsidy. Perhaps tax breaks for bicycle and e-bike riders with enough degrees of separation that bike manufacturers and retailers don’t see it coming.
A couple of years back I saw some napkin math claiming e-bikes has a lower CO-2 impact than normal bikes or walking since power plants and motors are more effective than your body at energy conversion. Couldn't find the same source (and it was in my language anyways) but did find this (with a ton of other sites claiming similar things when searching)
Aren’t we supposed to be growing and eating local food in a solarpunk future?
Just finished reading @poVoq link, and it is a bit more detailed than the food footprint.
emissions of bike manufacturing. Researchers have calculated the greenhouse gas emissions caused by manufacturing an aluminum e-bike at 320 kg. [8] This compares to 212 kg for the production of an unassisted aluminum bicycle and 35 kg for an unassisted steel bicycle.
Thank poVoq. lowtech is the posterchild for most of what we are discussing.
I find it interesting you can get basically different results by focusing on singular points. I can’t imagine in the future there will be a strong mining industry still churning out batteries that fit every proprietary connector. Perhaps if the e-bike industry went open source and shared designs would be the best of both worlds.
A used, commonly found steel framed bike with nonproprietary parts, local carbohydrates, downhill both ways sounds like the perfect situation.
… and I’m deeply skeptical of that. Bodies use a lot of energy sitting still and when we do work it’s not all additional energy burnt.
On top, if you start bike commuting it’s not necessarily extra exercise in your day. For a lot of people it’ll be more a case of shifting how and when you get exercise. My commute’s up to 7 miles with some hills now and I am absolutely doing less physical work the rest of the time as a result. I’m getting a great amount of exercise and having shorter commute time and saving a lot of money and getting healthier. Perhaps I eat more as a result of doing this commute, but I don’t perceive it. I just eat the same meals at the same size as ever.
… and … I don’t remember the article justification for sure, but I seem to recall they were comparing the full lifecycle energy cost of the ebike, including ultimate disposal and reuse of motors and batteries. All in all, I frankly flat out don’t believe it, though I freely admit this mostly my gut feel.
tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
You can produce 28 aluminium bicycle with motors for the emissions of ONE Citroen C1 or 163 such bicylces for ONE Land Rover Discovery. The numbers for steel framed without a motor is nearly twice as high. It really does not matter what kind of bicycle you buy, as long as it lowers car usage it is a really good idea enviromentally speaking. Perfect is the enemy of the good.
Sure, but the point is that a ebike with a steel frame is more enjoyable to drive (important factor for wide adoption) and also more sustainable than aluminum frame regular bikes. And there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.
there is a reason why people are willing to pay extra for aluminum frames for regular bikes; the extra weight of a steel bike really makes a difference up hill.
It really doesn’t. The extra weight is about 1kg, 1.5kg max, on a total weight of 70-120kg, so around 1% to 1.5% lighter weight to get up hills. E.g. my inexpensive, 30 year old rigid steel mountain bike frame & fork is 7.5lb / 3.4kg. Tire choice and aero are much more significant than weight, typically.
People think the lighter bike is significantly faster, because it feels faster, because it has less momentum under you so surges forward when you pedal, but in reality it’s a tiny percentage. Also, bikes have been marketed on weight. That feeling is great, it’s enjoyable, so it’s not nothing, but it’s hugely exaggerated in people’s mind in terms of journey time or effort.
tl;dr: e-bikes with a steel frame optimized for cost are more sustainable that weight optimized aluminum bikes.
I’m not sure that’s the takeaway since they also talk about the multiple motor and battery replacements an e-bike needs over its lifespan undoing the initial lower emissions to manufacture, or how a well-built aluminum bike can last long enough to offset the higher carbon footprint compared to a poorly made steel one.
It seems the article is really pointing out that cheaply made bikes are the “problem”. Bikes need to be built better (ideally locally so that bigger repairs are then feasible) and have better, more universal serviceable parts. Get more people biking instead of using motor vehicles whenever possible, and stop making the “disposable” tier of bikes so that switch is even more impactful.
Add comment