• Chestnut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    The more of this kind of small vehicle traffic we get the better supported it is. Safer traffic patterns, dedicated lanes, repair stores and vendors, etc.

    I think you’re also seeing some political organizing to that front, too. Cambridge MA has a biking advocacy group putting pressure on government to put in more biking infrastructure.

    Big car might have a stranglehold on big government but people paying attention to small local elections can make a big difference

    • admiralteal@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Constituency building is absolutely crucial to all of this and often underlooked. It’s a virtuous cycle. If you build useful and good infrastructure, people will use it, and the more people who use it the more people who will vote for it and demand it. It’s a big part of how car-centric urban design grew so fast and became so sticky in North America, and that same constituency-building is the best way to take streets back for people.

      Seeing people on bikes makes people think about biking. Even without the bike paths, being out and about your city on a bike is doing your part to build just a little more constituency for it. On top of it being good for your wallet, the climate, and likely your health.

      Now if only I could get the average local bike shop worker to stop being such a colossal gatekeeping prick about ebikes…

    • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, Cambridge, MA has done a lot. The last job I had there was on a newly renovated building and per city regs it had to have a full bike room and showers. I thought it was oversized but obviously welcome, but by summer it was over-full. Though the space could be much better used.

      That summer at one intersection I was stuck in congestion - bike congestion. There were 30 commuters ahead of me at the light on the way home - a light that 6 or 7 cars got through per cycle.

      It’s far from perfect, but just cross the river to Boston and it’s a different world, even though Boston has probably improved more than most US cities too.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    3 months ago

    This is why zoning reform (i.e. allowing higher density for better walkability/bikeability) is the single most important policy change to fight global warming.

    • Tobberone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      From an ecological viewpoint such zoning reforms have merits, but in the way we have done it so far, I question the social merits of such policies. The society must be about more than stacking people on top of eachother.

      From time to time we’ve seen very one-sided policies pushed (often with economical focus) and several years down the line we realise the issues of such policies. We can’t afford that at this point, we need to find policies that adress the full trifecta of areas to find our way forward sustainably.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        You seem to be under several misconceptions:

        1. The force of these polices are applied in exactly the opposite of how you think they are. Zoning reform does not force “stacking people on top of each other;” it allows them the freedom to choose to live more closely together. Single-family exclusionary zoning is, in fact, the policy that curtails freedom the most by forcing everyone to live in only one type of housing whether they like it or not. Any property owner is perfectly free to build a single-family house in an area zoned to allow high density if they want; it’s the single-family zoned areas where their property rights are infringed.

        2. Low-density areas are objectively harmful to live in. Physical health is destroyed by the forced imposition of a sedentary lifestyle due to lack of walkability, and mental health is destroyed by the prohibition of convenient access to third places (i.e. forcing them to be miles away instead of interspersed within neighborhoods). To be very clear: this is not an opinion; this is a fact informed by studies showing that people’s health and happiness are measurably worse in car-dependent places.

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Ebikes won’t replace a car for a lot of people, but they are often well-suited for shorter trips and the “last kilometre” – the distance between home and the nearest public transport.

    The last kilometre point is important too. Making sure there is secure bike parking and/or allowing bikes on public transport makes the whole thing more convenient and requires less planning in cases where you want to make mixed mode trips.

  • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    More than 95% of the two-wheelers are located in China, according to the IEA.

    Wow! What is the situation over there? Is it that fewer people can afford a car and opt for ebikes, that the infrastructure is more bike-oriented, or are there some other factors at play?

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      They used to be an extremely bike heavy culture before cars too over, so maybe it’s just a return to old habits? China is also big on EVs too, so maybe they have just moved to electric in general.