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…
slush is a problem of bad snow clearing, if you don’t have snow on the bike paths then there will be no slush come warmer weather.
I watched the video and it had a huuuge hole in its argument.
It basically said one of the key issues is snow removal, then conveniently doesn’t mention how Canada gets more 4X the amount of snow than the Netherlands… Canada doesn’t remove snow as often cause there is more of it…
I live in Montréal. Commute by bike daily. And the city removes snow just fine. Even from bike lanes.
I had a similar experience in Toronto for the years I lived there. But Montréal is better at clearing bike paths.
The video points out that Toronto is not a good biking experience in the winter. Your probably the minority in therms of tolerating snow on roads.
Montreal has higher taxes allowing them to spend more. The whole small government philosophy is the crux of the issue and it effects a lot of things that would make this problem better like public transportation.
True about Toronto. But it’s also pointing out how Toronto gets much less snow than most of the rest of Canada (apart from maybe Vancouver). But it draws a lot of comparisons with Oulu, where it snows much more than Toronto (and Montréal) but they actually do snow removal well.
Montréal’s forte is the separated bike baths that zigzag across the city, creating a safe artery. And I’m not talking about Bloor, College/Gerrard or Davenport level painted stripes with broken barriers. But actual two-lane paths.
Toronto could have the same, at least as an artery kind, connecting the East and North East via Don Valley and Taylor Creek, West along the Humber. Alas there’s no winter maintenance for some reason on these pathways.
Maybe things will change under Olivia.
No I do agree that the video does provide a good argument that it is possible to fix. It’s pretty clear that with good, well maintained paths that more people will bike.
What I doubt is convincing Canadians that we need to spend a lot more building and cleaning up paths.
The video literally says it’s “laziness” whereas big infrastructure spending isn’t not attractive to North Americans. And their example of, “this one city figured it out” is not as convincing as “all of Europe figured it out”.
I remember vaguely an article from a few decades ago that claimed Montreal was the only Canadian city that at least tried to do snow clearing right.
Saskatoon, for example, is abysmal and always has been.
I once heard that property taxes would have to increase by a lousy $50/year to bring Saskatoon snow clearing up to Montreal standards. That’s when I finally realized that governments at all levels, as they are currently organized, are basically useless when it comes to figuring out how to best serve the population.
The video is about how people in Finland still cycle.
It used Finland as the best case scenario. The argument is not as strong when your comparing it with the best case. The average case would be the rest of Europe and they don’t get as much snow.
Canada gets more 4X the amount of snow than the Netherlands… Canada doesn’t remove snow as often cause there is more of it…
Your original argument is that Canada gets more snow than the Netherlands which is why it’s cycling infrastructure isn’t ploughed as much / isn’t as good. The video actually shows that Finland does deal with snow and many still bike.
Yet now you say Canada, a country that’s known to be cold and have lots of snow should be compared to the EU average instead of similarly cold countries. Why shouldn’t we compare Canada to Finland?
Yeah I actually made a mistake originally, I got the locations mixed up, my apologies.
But I personally don’t think Finland is a big enough example, at just 5 million, it’s a different ball game.
Having said that, I fully support my country (Canada) spending more money on infrastructure including better bike paths, but I have doubts it would work as well as Finland, we have way more suburbs.
I had this big comment, but just as I posted it my internet died. TLD±RW
I agree suburbs are hard to redevelop, we refocus cities to work for the people living in them, give suburbanites trains to cities and restrict cars. Which frees up space to allow for better winter cycle infrastructure.
Cool, what about those who don’t live within biking distance?
My work is 37 km of rural highway from my house. I biked it once years ago, took me 1h45m one way. Not a reasonable option.
Cool. What about all those people who live within 5km of where they need to go, and are generally alone in the car.
Just because it doesn’t apply to you in particular doesn’t mean you can’t support and champion a cause that would help in the grand scheme of things.
The comment I replied to implied that if people in Montreal can do it, why can’t I? I was merely addressing the implied accusation.
Besides, if you want a champion the guy making $40k/year isn’t it.
The billionaires got a lot of money to spend on transit and infrastructure and densification, but everytime this shit comes up somehow the guy who barely clears the fuckin poverty line is the one who has be a champion.
the guy making $40k/year isn’t it
Why not? Once regular people do environmentally friendly things, we’ve essentially won, because that means the environmentally friendly things is the most reasonable and cost effective things. As in, we’ve normalized the desired behavior.
Getting a billionaire to change isn’t going to work, that’s like trying to push a goat in the direction you want them to go. That hasn’t worked in the past, and it’s not going to start now.
Focus on where the efforts are most likely to actually have an impact. We should be improving mass transit, pushing cars outside of cities, and encouraging cycling. That will cut road maintenance costs, drastically reduce traffic, and improve the health of the average person. Let billionaires do what they want, let’s make cities something people want to live in.
If you’re still interested in long-distance commuting by bike, an e-bike is worth considering.
You’d likely get to work in “around” an hour with little effort. The cost savings from not having to buy gas for those distances would easily offset the cost of the bike + electricity used for charging.
Yes, biking 37km each way is pretty extreme. However, if you haven’t already, I’d suggest questioning whether you should be making some changes in your life. Using rough calculations for a fairly efficient & economical car ($0.25CAD/km for gas, maintenance, and depreciation), your commute is costing you $18.50CAD/day (more if you drive an SUV/Truck)! That means if you could move closer to work so you could bike, you could pay an additional $350/mo in housing and still be ahead. Or, you could look for a new job that pays $4,600/year less net (probably ~$6,500/year gross) and be ahead. And if you could give up your car completely, those numbers could more than double!!
It’s possible after reviewing the numbers, you’ll conclude that it’s not worth it to make any changes in your life, and that’s fine! Work in agricultural and other rural industries is important. It’s just that so many people aren’t even ware how much their 20min commute costs them, let alone what it costs their local government (roads aren’t cheap) or the environment in general.
I live with my mom. I cannot afford rent in the town that I work in, and the two other nearby towns require a car just the same as the one I’m in now.
I cannot afford to move.
When my mother dies I will likely become homeless.Once again, the problem boils down to the billionaires not paying people enough.
I agree that our capitalist society sucks. Your only choice is work within it or die.
You answered one of the questions and almost certainly
no rent + $350 < rent. You didn’t answer the other question and I see from another comment, you make $40K/year. Where I am in Ontario, that’s not much more than minimum wage ($16.55/h×7.5h/d×251d/year≃$31K/year). I’d highly recommend reviewing whether your pay and job satisfaction is worth what you spend on your commute!No, the commute and car ownership is literally cheaper than paying the extra rent.
My mom only charges me $500/month, last I looked rent for places that aren’t even comparable to what I have now were about $1500/month, and my car is costing me about $250/month. That’s a difference of $750/month, and my quality of life is way better.
What you’re suggesting is completely unreasonable for me.
However I admit that my comment about homelessness is likely wrong on further analysis. But it remains to be seen what happens with the housing market in the intervening years.
I think you misunderstood my comment. I was agreeing with you. If you’re staying with family, that’s almost certainly financially better than getting your own place. What I was saying is that you didn’t answer the second option: What if you got a job closer to home? You don’t have to answer it here, but I’d just recommend reviewing it by yourself.
If you make $40K/year, your 37km commute probably costs you ~15% of your net income. Getting a slightly worse paying job within biking distance of your current home could leave more money in your pocket.
You want me to live in neighboring city with all those twatheads, druggies, richers, shitty schools and terrible drivers? No thank you! - Anyone, anywhere lol.
Here in Nova Scotia, I’m not gear up to ride when slush is falling from the sky and the bike lanes don’t get cleared.
You’re literally describing the issue the video is talking about: infrastructure.
Infrastructure is only half of it. There’s also weather conditions that you really can’t ride in. Which happen quite a bit.
In ten+ years of winter cycling, I have found very few. The only thing that made me stop is freezing rain, and that happens rather rarely. There are conditions that would make me not what to drive too anyway. It’s not an actually valid point.
Must be nice to live where freezing rain doesn’t happen often.
How often do you get freezing rain where you are? Once a year? Twice a year? You’re basing an entire transportation policy on unlikely events isn’t particularly helpful nor insightful.
-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.
Ice, salt, snowbanks narrowing the road surface. I haven’t seen a bicycle in months and I understand why.
It’s definitely not as pleasant, and the required prep has led to a culture of not biking during winter conditions in many places.
Ice is often not a problem with studded tires - it can be, but it’s rarely been my primary concern when out and about. Loosely packed snow - the kind where you sink down a bit - has been far more problematic.
Salt is a double-edged sword in many ways. It will corrode your bike a lot faster, so being good about cleaning becomes more important in winter, and you might want to have a separate winter-bike for the purpose. Salt improves road conditions as far as bikes are concerned though, making it on balance a good thing for the winter biker.
Snow banks narrowing the road surface is also a bit problematic in some places, in particular where there is no bike infrastructure in place. Taking the lane can be necessary in some cases.
And on the flip side of things, I live in Florida and biking as a primary method of transportation in the summer is just insane.
I do bike for exercise in the summer and 15 minutes will leave me drenched in sweat needing a shower.
Token recommendation for an ebike. It’s awesome to be able to use a throttle on the scorching hot days, and lately I don’t really use the throttle since it’s cool
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.
How far is work for her?
Regardless of the weather, biking would turn a 25 min drive into an 1hr 25min ride. I’m already not gonna do that.
I agree with you that better mass transit is needed as much or more than bike infrastructure, but I want to check one of your assumptions.
I bike 9 miles to work every day in 38 minutes, the car trip is 20-25 minutes due to traffic. The key is an e-bike. I’ve put 3k miles on the bike and at this point it has paid for itself and then some. Cars are expensive to drive, maintain, and purchase. My wife and I share a car and I supplement it with an e-bike. Considering she was considering getting an expensive new car before we started sharing, we’ve probably saved $40-50k in the last 3 years by removing a car from the equation. (Cost of car, insurance, maintenance, energy use per mile).
E-bikes use such a tiny amount of electricity, I’ll probably only use two tanks of gas worth of energy in it’s lifetime, maybe less.
Over the course of the next 15-20 years, repeatedly buying and maintaining one less car will likely shave several years off retirement and the biking will keep me healthy in the meantime.
Edit: Like you I overestimated the burden of riding a bike before I tried to make it work. Now that I’m doing it, it’s almost entirely a positive outcome.
Now you’re just moving the goalposts.
“C’mon, just take an hour and a half to get to work”.
Notably, you didn’t answer the question.
Almost like this works for some and not others.
Cycling is not the solution. It’s infrastructure.
I would love a walkable city. But I can’t afford housing close to the city. The bus or train system isn’t strong enough or convenient enough. Our country are set up for cars. Housing prices are set up for people to drive further to live.
Have affordable housing near the places I work and I won’t need to drive. Stop blaming people for living their lives around a broken infrastructure. Stop cramming bicycles down our throats. We are not the problem.
We are not the problem.
Then what is the problem?
The infrastructure
And who built the infrastructure?
We did.
👉
“we” is used very liberally here. I had no say in the planning, implementation, or even the allocation of funds for the current infrastructure. In fact, most of it has existed since before I was born.
You’ve also been able to vote in a few local elections along the way, yeah? Where I’m at there are often candidates who champion bicycle infrastructure, and it’s not a new phenomenon. More often than not they’re mocked and not elected. I imagine my city isn’t unique in that.
So yea, WE are to blame.
Sure, I’m to blame for being outvoted. Thanks. Fuck you too.
It’s not a personal attack on your character. It’s fact. Grow the fuck up.
most of it has existed since before I was born.
I’m sure a lot of things existed before you were born.
There were also a lot of things that didn’t exist before you were born.
Change da world, my final message. Good bye.
I’m sick of people blaming the people. I’m sick of people trying to shove bicycles down our throats like THAT will fix the issue.
My comment was in response to the blaming of the people and pushing cycling as the solution. This article should be, how do we influence better zoming laws. How we do improve the city infrastructure.
We do vote. Every election cycle. We do what we can with our few voices.
The sooner we stop upvoting these shit articles the sooner we can fix the actual issue.
Yeah cars aren’t part of the solution at all
They certainly are, they just need to go around city centers instead of through. Cars make a ton of sense for longer trips (way better than an empty bus), they don’t make sense downtown.
Cars are just the “effect” of the “cause”. Vote in your local elections for better zoning laws and stop upvoting these shit articles that blame the people.
We won’t fix the problem until they are gone
I mean, with that logic, if 1/2 of the world population didn’t eat and just died, that would also fix the problem too. But that isn’t going to happen so your statement is as dumb as mine.
Put a ban in place for 2030 or 2035 and it will be fixed
If you don’t do that then everything will be designed with the existence of cars in mind
Even today they are building new roads, you go to a sub division and there are roads in front of every house
So people like me who can’t afford a job near my work have to ride a bicycle for 40 miles one-way for my work because someone in the past made home zoning impossible to scale the population growth.
Please tell me why I have to suffer and those fuckers who is camping in those expensive unattainable homes get to enjoy their home values?
Why do you want people like me to suffer more than I already do by having to drive 80 miles a day?
The point is you won’t fix that if there are cars
Why would you suffer from an issue that only exists because of cars if there weren’t cars?
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).
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.
Trains cycling and walking can do by far a huge amount of transport needs. Just look at Japan.
No one is saying it will fix 100% of all issues, they are just saying its such a huge part of it even if you took half the funding of cars and put it to bikes it would solve so so much.
Exactly. And if people cycle more regularly, cities will adjust infrastructure to accommodate them. And that includes more than just cycling infrastructure, but trains, buses, etc.
Ideally, we push to get that infrastructure done now to help build that positive feedback loop.
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.
… 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
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.
And it is against the Law to ride a Bicycle on the Sidewalk here.
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.
That’s because Texas was built wrong. The solution is to fix it, not push cars instead of bikes.
No one pushed cars. Kindly do not assume things no one stated.
I was speaking generally, not about the people in this thread in particular.
they literally ripped out the streetcars in a conspiracy and got a slap on the wrist fine. cars were absolutely pushed down out throats., why do you think it’s so hard to choose not to use one even if you want to?
Current time response to claim of pushing cars in this thread is in no way countered by discussing things that happened somewhere else a hundred Years ago.
I walk as much as possible in Texas, but I would never ride a bike. Seeing how drivers are everywhere I have lived here beat that notion out of me.
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.
That’s a car problem, solved by the removal of said cars.
I’m going to call bullshit, the biggest sources of emissions for logistics and transport aren’t consumers. It’s industry use, including airlines and sea freight.
Even if you don’t include sea freight, then passenger cars are still only 45% of total transport emissions.
The title is even very clearly worded as an opinion, with it being “important” being intentionally subjective language. Get some bicycles and shit, support cyclist infrastructure, but also definitely support electric rail, planes, and freight.
I don’t think electric planes are practical without some serious battery tech to get the weight down. I’m more interested in just reducing use of planes generally. So get high speed rail on land and slow down shipping a little and harness wind power where possible. Most things can take an extra week or so to arrive, and local logistics can use either hydrogen (collected using solar/wind power) or batteries.
Bro that was news like a year ago
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a41453056/eviation-electric-aircraft/
Not to mention there are also Hybrid planes since like 2011 with Boeing’s Diamond EA36 E Star or more recently the EAG’s 70+ seat hybrid plane announced in 2020.
The readily available technology aside, I agree the world could be run a lot more ethically and efficiently.
can carry nine passengers up to 250 miles…It’s not clear yet that this transition will be possible for much larger passenger jetliners, but short- and medium-range planes could make the switch with much less pain.
It’s an interesting proof of concept, but like EVs, it’s not going to scale well to larger vehicles. We need significantly better battery tech (e.g. maybe the solid state lithium batteries Toyota and others are working on) to make that a reality.
Hybrid aircraft are certainly interesting though, and I think hybrid in general is the way to go. Electricity is generally better at acceleration (i.e. takeoffs), and fossil fuels have lower weight per unit of energy so they’re better for sustained power (e.g. cruising altitude). I’m a huge fan of hybrid cars, and think they’re way better than EVs for transitioning. You don’t need to give up range, yet you get better fuel economy. However, my understanding is that we’re talking like 5% better fuel economy, not 30-50% as in cars, so it’s going to be a marginal improvement.
Lifting a bunch of heavy stuff into the air is always going to be more costly energy-wise than moving it along land. So we should be focusing on fast ground transportation instead of more efficient air transportation because we already have good solutions for ground transportation (high speed rail, bullet trains, etc) and just need to pay the upfront cost to get it off the ground (ha!). Aviation imo should be limited to things that need to be fast, and rail should be out main form of long distance transportation.
I think the only reason it isn’t being used at a larger scale is because airlines are finite and the big names on the industry would rather rely on time-proven machines built 30 years ago. Even if they only converted half their domestic fleets now: imagine the cost savings on decreased fuel costs associated with lower demand? Problem is, the cost of new planes doesn’t justify the savings over time, yet.
Maybe? I’m not an aerospace engineer, but everything I’ve read indicates that the weight of the batteries would prevent airplanes from transitioning because it would be too much of a trade-off. Hybrid airplanes seem promising, but I’ve seen numbers from 5% reduced fuel (not meaningful) to 40% or more (seems a bit too optimistic).
Better battery tech is coming (Toyota claims as early as 2027), so maybe that will improve the outlook for electric airplanes.
Even if we had better battery tech today, it would still take years for airplanes to incorporate it properly. So I think we should be building out better rail systems. We have that tech now, and we’ll want it even if we have electric planes.
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.
Yeah big cities have become unaffordable, especially when it comes to raising a family. The idea of paying twice my current mortgage payment for something a quarter of the size just doesn’t appeal to me.
An inconvenient truth
I hope we make driving into my city truly inconvenient.
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.
The article isn’t saying that your EV isn’t good enough. It is informing how to make public policy. It is a statistical report. Kudos to you for decreasing your emissions.
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.
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.
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.
Yes for fast charging (>50kW) the battery needs to be warm so it doesn’t get damaged, this goes for all EVs and isn’t Tesla-specific.
But yeah EV range is an issue for some, although not the vast majority. For most people, these issues are theoretical because they so rarely actually use their car in a way that they would encounter them. In reality it’s only an inconvenience they might encounter a few times per year, if at all. Most driving by far is done well within winter range of any EV on the market, if you have the ability to either charge at home or at work with “slow” AC charging.
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.
