Technology

Really cheap bikes is the Dutch way, you buy it for 20€ from your local bike thief and when it gets stolen you get another one. It's a circular economy really.

As someone who would also love to do that, why don't more cities have public lockups? I worked at a place near downtown that had one for employees and it was amazing. I could bike to work ditch the bike and catch a bus or train and not have to worry about my bike while I was out.

And I would feel safe claiming that most Americans who might consider bikeped commutes rule it out because it is just not practical with our sprawling, idiotic suburban model.

Cars are what permit suburban areas to be practical; it was the rise of the car (and a few related technologies to a lesser degree, like the tram) that made the suburb popular. So, yeah, I think that it's probably fair to say that suburbs aren't well-suited to bicycle commuting, or foot.

But in general, people can -- well, in general; if you're a farmer or something that constrains you to live away from urban areas, no, but in general -- live in urban areas rather than suburban. I mean, we have cities, and there are built-up areas in those cities, and in general, if you live in the suburb of a city, you could live in the city proper.

But that's not the choice that people have generally been making. If we expected people to want to live in an urban environment, we'd expect to see apartment and condo prices in high-density areas constantly rising. We'd expect to see population on net shifting from suburbs into cities.

googles

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/demographic-and-economic-trends-in-urban-suburban-and-rural-communities/psd_05-22-18_community-type-01-03/

That shows that more people from outside the US entering the US move into an urban area than a suburban area. But inside the US -- and overall -- people have generally headed out of urban areas to live in suburbs.

That is, I don't think that the problem is that planners have failed to provide what the consumer generally wants. I think that the consumer has had the option, and has decided that he wants to live in a suburb with a car.

Also, I think that there's a question of whether this is US-specific or whether the US is just a leading indicator. My guess is that the world will likely tend to shift towards suburbs, absent some form of technological change. One tends to see urbanization globally -- that is, people move out of rural areas, as a smaller portion of a developed economy is involved in agriculture. But that doesn't mean that it's to high-density areas; that's inclusive of growth of suburbs:

https://environment.yale.edu/news/article/global-urban-growth-typified-by-suburbs-not-skyscrapers

To many people, the term “urban growth” connotes shiny new high-rise buildings or towering skyscrapers. But in a new analysis of 478 cities with populations of more than 1 million people, researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) found urban growth is seldom typified by such “upward” growth. Instead, the predominant pattern in cities across the world is outward expansion: Think suburbs instead of skyscrapers.

The article does mention India's zoning restrictions:

In contrast, in places where populations are growing but zoning is sometimes restrictive (India)...

I've read before about problematic Indian zoning laws that restrict heights of construction in Indian cities; that might legitimately be a case where people are kept from living in higher-density areas despite wanting to do so. But I'm skeptical that that is a dominant factor globally. If one removed height restrictions on construction in some cities -- take London, for example, where one has line-of-sight restrictions -- I can certainly believe that prices in the built-up areas would drop somewhat, and a greater portion of people would live in the city proper than is the case today. Fine, that probably makes sense. But are height restrictions the dominant reason that people don't choose to live in urban areas? Chicago has relatively non-restrictive height regulations, but it's seen outflow too. This article discusses it and finds a small amount of growth right in downtown, a lot of growth in suburbs and exurbs, and population loss in the area in between:

https://www.newgeography.com/content/003560-chicago-outer-suburban-and-exurban-growth-leader

The story was much different outside the core area. The balance of the city, where 93 percent of the people live, lost 250,000 residents – a loss greater than that of any municipality in the nation over the period – including Detroit. The losses were pervasive. More than 80 percent of the city's 77 community areas located outside the core lost population.

Thus, the core area boom is far more than negated by the losses in the balance of the city. The losses that were sustained in the area between the urban core and the outer suburbs and exurbs were virtually all in the city itself.

The overwhelming reality of metropolitan growth in Chicago, however, is that the outer suburbs and exurbs continue to capture virtually all growth. Overall, areas outside 20 miles from the core of Chicago gained 573,000 residents between 2000 and 2010. By contrast, the entire metropolitan area gained only 362,000 residents. As a result, these outer suburbs and exurbs accounted for 158% of the Chicago metropolitan area's population growth between 2000 and 2010. The core gains, city and inner suburban losses are illustrated in Figure 3.

That doesn't really look like what one would expect if people were really intent on living in higher-density areas.

Suburban areas are usually not linked to urban ones with corridors that support (e-)bikes, so you'd often need to literally construct a completely new set of bike-friendly routes to support them.

That electric motor decreases your delta with prevailing traffic substantially

People currently aren't commuting in from suburbs on 30mph residential roads, they're on 50-65mph highways. I live in the Bay Area, and there is not a good way to bike into the city currently from either the East Bay or from the North, both of which are where most of the actual suburban sprawl is. You'd literally have to get on BART if you're in the East Bay, because the Bay Bridge doesn't have bike or pedestrian pathways. And BART can't handle that many more riders; it's already a mess during rush hour.

stop building financially and environmentally unsustainable, ugly, unsafe cities

If your solution requires completely restructuring the way we build cities (how are you planning to change the ones already built), it's not going to work in any meaningful timeframe. Our current model of city planning evolved over the past hundred years. We don't have that long to move people to electrics.

Cities are not being designed the way they are (highly compact downtown area with majority of jobs) in order to cater to cars, they're doing it to cater to businesses. Rather than trying to get people to commute in a better way, we should be focusing on what we've already seen deal the most damage to urban business: remote work. That has removed, and will continue to remove, far more cars from the road each day than e-bikes will.

Not a bike commute: no commute.

I’d suggest that e-bikes have at least some advantage over traditional motorcycles in that you can take them onto public transport such as metro or rail. Or one might find easier parking for them at an enclosed stand af a nearby but out of walking range train station that helps you shave a bus and transfer off your commute in nice weather. The electric motor is definitely an advantage over unpowered bikes in convenience, and a major factor if one can’t or won’t shower when they get to work.

That being said i’d be amazed if it shifts the needle more than a percent or two at most. Proper show up and go metros take cars off the road by being so obviously better than having to find parking, but e-bikes don’t have the same end user benefits.

This is all to say nothing of rural areas, which often don’t have the density to support frequent transit becuse “why are we running empty buses, they aren’t turning a profit and that’s all that matters”, but amusingly most of farm country, at least in the US, was actually built around the idea that you would bike in to town if it didn’t require the cart. I mean it make that sane you would need to drop the 50mph limits on country roads down to 35 or so, and the sun will grow cold before any town politician survives trying that, but it was possible.

Yes, but that is not what are being sold now as electric mopeds/ scooters that account for e.g. the 9.7 million annual unit-sales in China. Fully-motorized mopeds are. Which just makes using the ambiguity of the category in order to lie about carbon offset achieved by e-bikes even worse. The accurate headline would have been to say that electric scooters have likely proven to be far better than electric cars, but instead the author chose to make it about e-bikes.

That an especially important distinction when talking about the US, because electric scooters can already navigate our car-centric infrastructure far better than e-bikes can, which means that we can shift people to those much more quickly than we can to e-bikes (which we don't have the infra to support an explosion of, since they need their own infra), and without the environmental re-construction costs to build that infra that would offset any gains for a LOOONG time.

I get that people wish we could shift to a European-like model of city transit, but we can't without some pretty major tradeoffs (and heavy drawbacks). Electric motorcycles/ scooters are much more feasible and practical for most individual commuters than e-bikes, and electric cars for families. Most people are either not willing, or not financially able, to have both.

they probably mean the e-bikes are also electric vehicles.

Who cares what it is? Just choose to trust