Media reports say that a study from Carnigie Mellon has found that micromobility — a fancy word for electric bikes — can relieve traffic congestion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is largely based on wishful thinking.
Electric bicycles in California. Photo by waltarrrrr.
The study looked at 2014 travel data for Seattle and concluded that “18% of short trips in Seattle can be replaced by micromobility modes” based on the age of the people making the trip and their trip purpose. “If even 10 percent of short car trips during peak afternoon travel were replaced with micromobility,” reports say, it would reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by 2.76 percent.
Notice what they did there? “If even 10 percent. . .” The study didn’t find that micromobility would reduce congestion and emissions. It found that it could reduce those problems if people used it. As long-time Antiplanner readers know, I call this the MCU school of transportation planning because it is based on a fantasy world, not on the real world where most people drive because it is faster, safer, and more convenient than riding a bicycle.
Coincidentally, Seattle has been deluged with a month’s worth of rain in three days. If this is the result of climate change — and I’m not saying that it is but you know that some people are, including a co-author of the micromobility study — then who is going to be eager to ride around on an electric bike?
What the Carnegie-Mellon writers really want is complete streets, that is, converting four-lane streets into three-lane streets with bike lanes. That’s not going to reduce congestion; it’s going to make it worse, and added congestion means more fuel wasted and more greenhouse gas emissions. That’s why I prefer realistic transportation planning that is based on how people actually do behave rather than on how the planners wished they behaved.
The bit in this ballpark I’ve long found entertaining is that according to the American Community Survey 5% of Minneapolitans bike to work. According to their claims, there would’ve been 20,000 cyclists out there every day, mostly during rush hour.
You never saw that when the weather was nice in the summer. In the winter, it was a miracle if you saw a single cyclist all day.
where most people drive because it is faster, safer, and more convenient than riding a bicycle.”
Why is riding a bike so dangerous? Oh right they share the road….With gas as it is, are gap solutions really all that promising. Fact is, while I don’t believe in “Peak Oil” catastrophe, there comes a time where geopolitical aspects create shortages. The persistent belief gas will stay cheap,is “Wishful thinking” and it heralds what US foreign policy turned into in order to keep gasoline and oil cheap…..
People wont ride bikes? Europe did it, because they’ve been battling high gas prices and energy crisis since WWII…..it never went away. The average American consumes more than 3,600 calories daily – a 24% increase from 1961, when the average was just 2,880 calories, and 28% greater than Average Europeans but we don’t wanna burn off any.
Produced in Durham, N.C., by Organic Transit, the ELF is a cross between a bicycle and a car. It has three wheels, pedals, a solar panel, an enclosed cab, a carrier in the back and runs on a rechargeable battery. It does not use gasoline. Built with an e-Assist motor, it mitigates most of the struggle.
The reason bikes are so unpopular is bikes have no where to go to…Because planners adopt the “Dead Worm” neighborhood concept, that relegates neighborhoods to move via only one road. A dead end, begins on a feed road which feeds the highway. If you can bypass the highway you cut out traffic. I used to drive to work everyday using a back-road technique avoiding state route highway.
“People won’t ride bikes? Europe did it”
All of Europe? It is often repeated, but I’d like to see more details of what that looks like.
Weather and terrain make that untenable in the Atlanta area where I live for commuting.
I ride my bike for fun and exercise. Even a leisurely ride requires a shower afterwards here in the foothills.
Thinking of my short car trips: groceries, hardware store, kids — bikes are not serious transportation for adults.
https://organictransit.com/
Looks safe!
Insurance Institute for highway safety cataloged a total of 843 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2019. This represents a 3 percent decrease from the 868 bicyclist deaths that occurred in 2018. 16 percent since 1975. …..vs 36000 in car accident fatalities…..
And do it all without
Bumpers
Airbags
Seat belts
Crumple zones
Electronic stability control
Antilock breaks
Radar assisted cruise control
Those technologies weren’t invented to prevent deaths of pedestrians they were developed to ensure survival of the drivers.
The critical figure is fatalities per miles travelled. I suspect bicycles will look far worse by that metric.
I enjoy bicycling and to sometimes use a bicycle for transportation. However, even electrified bicycles are only going to play a minor role in transportation. To think anything else is really MCU planning.
Any claims of reducing greenhouse gases are meaningless without a cost per tonne of CO2 reduction. In the US we produce about 15 metric tonnes of CO2 per capita annually.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?locations=US
If the cost of CO2 reduction averages $100 per tonne reduction, this would mean a cost per capita of $1,500, or $6,000 for a family of four. This is a huge burden that is not politically possible at the present time. Fortunately, there are many much cheaper options for reducing CO2 production. For example, many cost saving strategies such as increased efficiency and better insulation save money and produce less CO2. See:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/a-cost-curve-for-greenhouse-gas-reduction
It is obvious that society should concentrate on the cheapest reduction strategies. Any claim of greenhouse gas reduction must come with a cost per tonne of reduction, or it is meaningless.
Another problem with many claims is the cost of time is not calculated. Transit advocates will claim figures like $15/hr cost of congestion. Therefore this same cost should be applied to the time saved by driving compared to taking transit, walking, biking, etc.
“If even 10 percent of short car trips … ” Two significant digits.
” … it would reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions by 2.76 percent.” Three significant digits.
Bad stats.
29% of US GHG are transportation related
In 2020, about 123.73 billion gallons (or about 2.95 billion barrels1) of finished motor gasoline were consumed in the United States, with an emissions rate of 20 lbs per gallon burned (1.23 Billion tons), even if 10% of short car trips only 2.76%………
“Even if 10% of short car trips”
Americans use 336 million gallons (a Billion dollars worth a day), So a reduction in car trips…..leaves a lot of money saved……..
”
Electronic stability control
Antilock breaks
Radar assisted cruise control
Those technologies weren’t invented to prevent deaths of pedestrians they were developed to ensure survival of the drivers.
” ~lazyreader
anti lock brakes, collision avoidance, et al absolutely make cars safer for everyone including pedestrians.