Cycling is ten times more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities
Cycling is ten times more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities
Active travel can help tackle the climate crisis earlier than electric vehicles – even if you swap the car for a bike for just one trip a day.
Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars were electric now, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world’s fossil fuel car fleet.
The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years. Tackling the climate and air pollution crises requires curbing all motorised transport, particularly private cars, as quickly as possible. Focusing solely on electric vehicles is slowing down the race to zero emissions.
I don’t doubt this at all.
But it’s going to be 10 degreees Fahrenheit on my way to work tomorrow.
Public transit that doesn’t double my commute time is what’s going to get me to stop driving. Not a bike.
Why Canadians Can't Bike in the Winter (but Finnish people can)
Tens of thousands of people cycle year round in Montreal.
Tampere has improved a lot in the last few years in terms of cycling infrastructure, I now commute by bike all year round, even when it was under -23°C for two weeks at the beginning of this year.
There could definitely be more improvements as segregated bike lane coverage can sometimes be a bit patchy still.
I'm surprised NJB didn't bring up the point of slush that much, but studded tires might help solve that problem, and this issue is tied up in poor winter maintenance of bike paths. The scariest part for biking in places like Toronto is the potential to slide out into vehicle traffic.
The other day I was going over snow dumps up to my knees like taking a BMX track in a commuter bike...
-12.2 °C
It's not strictly speaking impossible to bike in below-freezing temperatures, although I'll concede that it's definitely not as fun as it is in spring/summer/autumn-conditions. It requires winter tyres and dressing approximately the same as for comparable winter sports, with more emphasis on warmer dressing for the extremeties. Hands in particular are very exposed when riding in winter, doubling up the gloves is a wise choice.
Note that winter biking doesn't have to replace every trip to be useful - I don't commute by bike in the current conditions, as transit is just a much better alternative during this season. I still use my bike to go shopping and for some other trips, further supporting the possibility of not having to own a car.
But it’s going to be 10 degreees Fahrenheit on my way to work tomorrow.
So what? It was like 13 °F here in Atlanta a few days ago and my wife biked to work anyway. And that's in the South, where we're not used to it!
If she can deal with it, you have no excuse.
This is a very simplistic solution to a really complicated question. I say this as a cyclist myself.
Cycling is great for short commuter trips. But it doesn't replace long trips at all, not practically anyway.
Cycling, while great for your health, consumes extra calories that you wouldn't otherwise have to expend. That extra food has its own carbon footprint. Depending on your diet and where it comes from, that extra carbon footprint can actually be quite significant.
Cycling reduces congestion. No argument there.
Even if you cycle, you are probably cycling to local stores that have their merchandise driven in on big trucks. It's still probably more efficient this way, but far from net zero. Remember that the environment you live in is still mostly powered by gas guzzling equipment. That equipment will need to be electrified.
And that's my point. Cycling is not a one size fits all solution. It is one piece of a much bigger puzzle.
Cycling is great for short commuter trips. But it doesn’t replace long trips at all, not practically anyway.
Depends on what "long trip" means. 20km? 50km? 500km?
Sure, a bike isn't ideal for "long trips", but it's easily integrated into other forms of public transportation, which is also better for society than having more EVs.
Sure, a bike isn’t ideal for “long trips”, but it’s easily integrated into other forms of public transportation, which is also better for society than having more EVs.
You nailed it. I'm mostly WFH, but twice a week, I have to go into the office which is ~110km away. Fortunately, there's a train between the two cities and the station is 750m from the office, so it's a nice 10min walk. My home, on the other hand, is 3.5km from the station and that walk takes 45min even if I'm booking it. On a bike, it's a reasonable 12min ride.
Honestly this, 100%.
My bike can easily get me to & around the nearby city, no problem at all. Bulky shopping? Not an issue, I have pannier bags.
Long distance trips though? Absolutely no chance. They require some planning and pre booking bike spaces on the long distance train, mainly because our public transport has been turning into a mess. It's been on a steady decline with prices on the increase, and its not really an attractive option anymore.
I won't be giving up my bicycle, but I have eaten the forbidden fruit and started learning how to drive, since it's the only alternative to bridge the ~200mi journey between here and the people I care about. I dislike it a lot, and it's actually quite stressful being behind the wheel, compared to just relaxing on a bus or train. Even riding on my bicycle is much less stressful.
As an avid bicyclist who tried their best to live car-free: it's easier said than done for anyone living in the US. I used to make 7 mile commutes to work, even in winters that could go below zero some days. It's doable, but it wasn't easy either. I completely sympathize with anyone who wouldn't want to bike in those conditions, even if a whole bunch of people do so in places like Finland.
But the worst part is the infrastructure. Motor vehicles dominate everywhere. Motorists are routinely hostile to bicyclists. Despite my best efforts to be safe, I've had multiple close calls and was once nearly rear-ended by someone who was going about 50 mph. Technically I did get hit - I had veered to the right just in time to feel the side of their car brush on the side of me. Miraculously suffered no injury, and only one of the support bars on the rear rack had been dented in.
Point is, unless the infrastructure changes, I would never expect others to switch to biking. It is dangerous.
Exactly, we should be pouring money into infrastructure, not electric car subsidies. Make cars less important and emissions will go down.
The only public infrastructure the US will fund is to prop up the military industrial complex and the car industry.
I love downhill mountain biking. There is no way I'd ever be biking in the road with cars. It's too damn dangerous. If you crash mountain biking, you are usually wearing armor and the crash is usually at less than 25mph and into dirt and bushes. Not quite the same in heavy traffic with people not paying attention :p
Big fan of rail networks though, and our city is taking steps to improve heavy and lighter rail options, even if it's not exactly perfect yet.
I'd love to see even more rail options in a euro-style circular rail network with multiple concentric rings, more pedestrian/bike/bus only roads, and a greater emphasis on public infrastructure investment (fun stuff like pools, parks, and stuff to get people moving).
... even if you swap the car for a bike for just one trip a day.
That's the real takeaway that I hope everyone can acknowledge.
Outside of long distance (50km+ each way) commuting, the majority of single-occupancy car trips tends to be super short distances (something like <5km).
Replacing those short trips can be fun, easy, quick, and could have a massive positive impact on society. We just need more people doing it. 👍
Totally agree with you! We’ve got the small digital sing posts in high cycle commuting areas that show a count of how many people have cycled passed that within a given time, I love riding past it and seeing the number go further up
We observed around 4,000 people living in London, Antwerp, Barcelona, Vienna, Orebro, Rome and Zurich.
There's the problem. These articles always come off sounding tone deaf to me, because they refuse to acknowledge the existence of people that don't live in big cities. There are a fuck load of people that don't live within a 15 minute drive of a grocery store. People that have multiple kids that go to school and have after school activities 10+ miles from their house. People that live more than 25 miles away from where they work.
I realize the authors might have good intentions, but when I hear articles that basically say "your EV isn't good enough, you need to ride a bike" I can't help but think "oooooh fuck off." Not everyone lives in a city. Not everyone wants to live in a city. An EV is the best option I have, so quit giving me shit for it.
Big cities have highes amount of cars per population. At least in my country.
more than 25 miles away from where they work.
I think you see the problem.
people live in cities though, here in sweden 82% of the population lives in an urban area, and HALF our population lives in the 3 major cities. Complaining about ignoring rural people is absolutely pointless as it's hugely more likely that anyone reading the articles is living within moped distance of their job.
Sure, but EVs are solving the wrong problem.
I live in a similar situation as you, about 25 miles from work, 3-4 miles to my kids school along busy roads, and about a mile to the nearest grocery store (not bad). For me, cycling makes little sense (I do it though from time to time) because there are no cycle paths where I need to go, they only go to recreational places.
People driving EVs doesn't solve the actual problem, which is cities designed around cars instead of pedestrians. What we need isn't more efficient cars, but more efficient ways to get around.
Think about where you live. Imagine a train connecting your city center to downtown, and cycle paths feeding into the train network. Replace some of the through roads with bus and pedestrian/cyclist-only traffic, and force cars to go around your city (i.e. no through roads). That way, you'd have two options to get to work/school/etc, on a bike/bus/train, or going the long way in your car. If the direct route (train) is competitive with the car, you'd probably take that option instead.
Getting people to ride bikes more isn't the end goal here, the goal is to show cities, counties, and states that there is demand for better transit, and that a shift away from cars is possible and even wanted. That's the goal here, not to use bicycles as the solution by itself and vilify cars. Cars will have their place, but that place should be at the outside of cities on longer trips (e.g. that 25+ mile commute, road trips, etc), not on grocery runs or whatever. If we remove a lot of the roads, we'll have space for stores closer to where people live. That's the goal.
Cycling, outside of the few separated bike trails, is a death wish in TX.
What do you mean? You can use the sidewalks that randomly end for no reason, use bridges with 3ft of space right next to the car lane, and oblivious drivers on their phones using the whole lane and some of the next.
It's Texas, so do what Texans do best: force others to recognize your space. Take the lane, or get something like this, up to you if you want to stick something sharp on the end :) But you may want to be armed if you go the more aggressive route.
And it is against the Law to ride a Bicycle on the Sidewalk here.
That's a car problem, solved by the removal of said cars.
Most of the south TBH. Even in my southern college town which was actually designed around bike infrastructure, I had to stop because I kept getting hit.
But what if I fart a lot during
I specifically go bike riding to work out the farts, only problematic for those you leave in your dust (or fart)
For context: The environmental impact of PRIVATE JET travel can be over 1000 times more than other travel modes. Aviation produces just under one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually, accounting for 2.5% of global CO2 pollution.
Yeah, I’ll just haul my kids around on an electric bike when it’s 20 degrees F (-7 C) with a windchill around 0 (-18 C), which also coincides with EVs getting absolute shit range because current batteries hate holding charges at that temperature. Also, I drive a 20 year old vehicle with 190,000 miles that I paid $3000 for 6 years ago or so. EVs and even E-bikes cost a whole lot more than that without the utility.
On top of that, calling vehicles that contain lithium batteries “zero-carbon” is laughable. The mining, refining, and manufacturing process in itself is an environmental disaster. I agree we need to find new modes of transportation powered by methods other than burning coal, natural gas, and dinosaur juice, but we don’t currently have the solution to this problem.
EVs getting absolute shit range because current batteries hate holding charges at that temperature
That's blatantly false and shows just how little you know. The reduced range is due to the heating (both cabin and battery) performed. You don't even need to heat the battery, but it will perform better when warmer.
There is no significant waste heat on EVs like the ~70% there is on ICEs, so the energy for heating cannot be passively recovered but has to be actively spent. If you disabled all heating (which is obviously not feasible), the reduction in range would be significantly less.
The reduced range is due to the heating (both cabin and battery) performed.
Right, so they still get reduced range in the cold. I now understand the “why” part of it.
You don’t even need to heat the battery, but it will perform better when warmer.
Except that in extreme cold like the region gets where I live, apparently you do actually need to warm up the battery if you want it to take a charge.
As for Tesla, that’s a non-starter for me. Even setting aside my feelings about their CEO, the build quality isn’t something I’d accept anyways even if there was an option that was viable in my case.
The bottom line is that the cost of entry, lack of an option that comfortably carries 5 people and a large dog, and the lack of charging infrastructure (in my area at least) are barriers that most people don’t want to, or can’t deal with.
I do agree that we need an option to phase out ICE vehicles, but we’re just not there yet for a whole lot of people.
Manufacturing electric cars generates a bit more emissions than internal combustion cars, at least now while the technology is relatively young. Last time I read about it, an internal combustion car would catch up and pass the electric equivalent in emissions in a couple of years of normal use.
I’m not against electric cars. One just doesn’t exist that meets my needs currently.
Let the exploitation-class cycle to Davos.
honest question is it practical to shop for 4 people using a bike? how do we get around the need to move things? i,guess if you had an e bike and a trailer it could work?
There are many ways to make that work, and what happens is usually a combination of one or more of these factors:
- Living/working a short distance away from a grocer, so it's a quick trip that can happen any day of the week
- Having a grocer in the commuting route such that a quick stop doesn't really add any extra travel time to your day
- Shop for the next week or two of groceries instead of buying a lot of things in bulk for the month
- Forego big wholesale purchases like getting 3 month's worth of toilet paper at once for big savings
- Having a cargo bike or at least some extra pannier/baskets to increase capacity
Using an e-bike helps, but I wouldn't say it's as big of a factor as those above. I don't have one, don't think I will any time soon.
I'm good with having 1, 2 and 3. I still get wholesale stuff at a discount, but I get those delivered to my place instead. The delivery fee is offset by purchasing in bulk. But for everything not wholesale, I get it sorted with a 15 minute detour on my way back from work once a week. This is all pretty easy to make it happen, but only because I live somewhere (Vancouver downtown) that has a decent urban fabric and passable cycling network.
When I did groceries with a bike I just used a backpack and made more frequent trips. I think it was practical because going more frequently meant I had more fresh foods and could get just a thing or 2 to utilize other things I already had on hand. It also helped get in a little extra exercise. Granted, this was shopping for 2 and not 4.
Moving things is still probably going to require a car but that's more of an edge case and not a daily thing.
idk man i think there is a hell of a lot of families that need regular groceries who work full time. I don't think you could call this an edge case.
In the Netherlands they use bikes like these with a large cargo area that can carry goods or even kids. And you can get them in electric too. I live in the US and I've been considering getting one, but I live in a downtown-ish area which is much easier than suburbia.
https://www.amsterdam-bicycle.com/product-category/cargo-bikes/
I grew up in village (population ~3000, 0.85 mile²) and as a kid, the local butcher, greengrocer, post-office/local shop, two small grocery stores and an offlicence (package/ABC store) had literally everything you could need.
By the time the year 2000 rolled around they had been driven out of business by supermarkets that were 3x further away.
This isn't a solution but just a reminder that things were very different and it wasn't that long ago.
Comes back to one of the biggest problems in USA: urban planning / zoning. No grocers etc in your neighborhoods is yet another factor in car dependance.
