Wired mag story re e-bikes

[Steve O]

The US Needs to Do Better for Bikes

If the government is serious about solving climate change, it needs to treat bikes like car replacements and not toys.

https://www.wired.com/story/build-back-better-ebikes/

[Meh]

@Steve O 212775 wrote:

The US Needs to Do Better for Bikes

If the government is serious about solving climate change, it needs to treat bikes like car replacements and not toys.

https://www.wired.com/story/build-back-better-ebikes/

I kind of read that article as stating that e-bikes are specifically *not* car replacements – note points such as:

Quote:

Electric cars—while great!—don’t help create safe, walkable, and attractive neighborhoods.

What if the entire concept of suburbs was the real problem?

[mstone]

@Meh 213055 wrote:

What if the entire concept of suburbs was the real problem?

It is, for a number of reasons, but there’s zero ability to do anything about it.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 213057 wrote:

It is, for a number of reasons, but there’s zero ability to do anything about it.

I have been working on urbanism/yimby issues in Alexandria, both through a group I founded (Liveable Alexandria) (sic, I was typing fast when I created it) and my YimbyAlexandria twitter account. There are thousands of people in the national yimby/urbanist movements working on a range of issues, and they are starting to get real traction from coast to coast (hopefully not too late to help avoid climate disaster)

Everyone is entitled to their own emotional reactions to things, based on their own lived experiences. But if there are folks out there interested in changing our metropolitan fabric, I encourage them to not give up. If anyone is interested in specific places to get involved in your jurisdiction, ask me and I will try to refer you.

[EasyRider]

I wouldn’t call a 30% rebate “a pittance,” but like the writer, I really wish the tax credit applied to larger, more costly e-cargo bikes.

Sorry to sound conspiratorial, but what gives? Did the automobile lobby ask for the $4,000 limit so as to tamp down on the number of eligible e-cargo bikes, which in an area like ours really can compete with a car for schlepping children and groceries? If I understand the measure correctly, the rebate doesn’t count toward the first $4,000 of an e-bike’s cost, but applies only to those e-bikes that cost less than $4,000. It seems to me if cost was the only issue, a smaller, but more broadly applicable tax credit could have been devised instead of one with a cliff.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 213062 wrote:

interested in changing our metropolitan fabric

I think there is very little, if any, correlation between the metropolitan fabric and how fast greenfield suburbs get built outside of metropolitan jurisdictions. But anyway, that’s a topic better over a beer than a forum.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 213084 wrote:

I think there is very little, if any, correlation between the metropolitan fabric and how fast greenfield suburbs get built outside of metropolitan jurisdictions. But anyway, that’s a topic better over a beer than a forum.

As a citizen of Alexandria I have no direct say in regulation of the construction of greenfield suburbs (I do support carbon taxes at the federal level – and policies at the state level on transportation project priorities that I believe would help – though I am not hopeful about the latter in the short run, after our last election in Virginia) However as a citizen of a jurisdiction with fairly good transit, many job and activity centers, and good proximity to jobs in DC and Arlington, I can take action to make it possible for more people to live here in Alexandria (where there is certainly demand for housing, esp in walkable areas and areas close to transit) which would mean less pushing of people out to other areas. I can also advocate for the retrofitting of the less walkable/bikeable areas within our city limits.

I think these are good topics for a bike forum, actually. One reason I formed Liveable Alexandria was my sense that more narrowly focused bike advocacy was missing the point on many levels. But mainly I wanted to mention it to invite anyone interested to join one of the urbanist groups – I agree that we won’t solve the issues on this forum.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 213087 wrote:

less pushing of people out to other areas

IMO there’s less pushing than pulling. The metropolitan areas can’t compete with exurban greenfields on price per square foot of house (given current policies, which don’t in any way build the long term costs into the price of the house or the taxes). So many entrenched interests want that “cheap exurban housing” model that there’s no possibility of changing it in the US with the political system that we have. Making relatively dense and mixed use urban areas better is great, but it’s not going to fix the mess that is suburban America, or even really slow down its expansion–starting the cycle again in a new spot in the south or southwest is just so much cheaper and easier than making significant changes to existing communities. (“Relatively dense and mixed use” in this context includes much of what was then-suburban development in the DC area prior to the 70s–the old developments tended to still have some kind of a grid, or at least multiple ways in and out, walkable schools, etc, nothing like what’s going up today in Loudoun or PWC. Fairfax & Arlington mostly “solved” the growth problem by running out of space. Fairfax is now fighting the same sort of fights about turning its streets into expressways to the new outer suburbs that Arlington was fighting two generations ago, but with even less success in today’s state politics. The net result of that is that streets that were rideable in Fairfax 20 years ago have been VDOTed to 8 lane intersections of death, chopping the county into ever smaller islands where parents insist that the only safe option is to drive their kids to school across the street, putting more cars on the road and justifying another cycle of widening.)

Definitely better with a beer.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 213101 wrote:

IMO there’s less pushing than pulling. The metropolitan areas can’t compete with exurban greenfields on price per square foot of house (given current policies, which don’t in any way build the long term costs into the price of the house or the taxes).

I’m an economist. I believe in change at the margins. And that people make choices based on the costs and benefits of both alternatives. There are definitely people who would buy or rent closer in/closer to transit/more walkable if those alternatives were cheaper – they command a premium in part because of the multitude of restrictions on creating new supply. These include height limits, FAR limits, SFH only zones, limits on ADUs, abuse of historic districts, etc. Liberalize the restrictions > more supply > lower prices/rents and the added supply gets filled – often with people who instead would “drive till they qualify” (and sometimes with people who would “gentrify till they qualify – pushing out lower income folks)

I do not ask everyone to agree with me and I don’t want to give lists of literature citations, supportive organizatons, etc. All I want is for those who do agree with me to join me in my advocacy and not to be discouraged.

“It is not yours to complete the work, but neither are you free to refrain from it” Pirkei Avot (“Sayings of the Fathers”) 2:16

[Author]

Posts