News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.7K     0 
I remember when bicycles used to be affordable, now people are willing to fork out thousands just to shave a pound off the bike. E-bikes cost as much as scooters.
 
I remember when bicycles used to be affordable, now people are willing to fork out thousands just to shave a pound off the bike. E-bikes cost as much as scooters.
True. I still think there are lots of different price points and some used bikes for great prices, too.
 
E-bikes cost as much as scooters.
I was wrestling with this exact thing a while back and ended up building an e-bike. Given the choice between the e-bike and a scooter, I think the e-bike wins if nothing more than you can use bike lanes/cut through the river valley parks and don't have to fight traffic while only having 50cc to play with, plus insurance.

As an aside, there's a YouTube channel called Fortnine and the host made a point it's not that fuel efficient for a 3000lb car to move a single 200lb man without any cargo. That efficiency calculation gets real compelling when an e-bike only weighs 70lbs and requires minimal assist from you. E-bikes aren't cheap, but they can put a decent size dent in the need to pull a car out for commuting at least.
 
Just received an email from Michael Janz that 2023-26 budget is grim and includes no money for active transportation.
Anyone interested in attending a virtual meeting he is hosting on Monday Nov. 7 at 7pm can do so here:

 
Bike lanes are such a cheap investment and carrying huge ROI. We have to prioritize them this cycle! So quick and easy to create vs all other infrastructure types.

Exactly, and the city also has an important target (with environmental and economic implications) of transitioning to 50% of all trips as active transportation and public transportation combined as part of the City Plan. We need the infrastructure in place to support that. And with our population expected to grow significantly, we need other transportation options or vehicle traffic and congestion will get worse, commute times increase - not to mention all the parking spaces required.
 

d3510267-d4bf-2b0c-6f15-9e8147dc838e.jpg
 
Montreal has done a lot of work on their bike network, and one aspect I really like is that their primary network is treated as a form of urban cycling highway - designed to get people around quickly to places they want to go. If I had one criticism of Edmonton's bike plan (which I generally like), it would be that cyclists are too often shunted off to secondary roads that may not be fast or lead to where the cyclist wants to go.

Interesting that the article points out people who question priority given to cyclists in Montreal:
When is the Vision on the quality of our pavements?" one commenter tweeted in response.
 
For those wondering what $100 million to build the infrastructure over the next 4 years looks like:

Screenshot_20221216-131646_Samsung Internet.jpg


And once built it will easily be the most affordable, viable transportation option we can provide (other than walking).
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20221216-134739_Samsung Internet.jpg
    Screenshot_20221216-134739_Samsung Internet.jpg
    244.7 KB · Views: 103
For those wondering what $100 million to build the infrastructure over the next 4 years looks like:

View attachment 445649

And once built it will easily be the most affordable, viable transportation option we can provide (other than walking).

Can someone run the numbers for me on that? Quick and dirty I see 100 mil/ 4 years = (25 mil/yr)/~1mil ppl = $25/person/year?

I think it's important to be careful with the wording around this stuff as it is an option that many folks don't even have be it due to disability and many other valid reasons. Having a solid and safe bike network will certainly induce demand which is great for so many reasons, I just hesitate to get into arguments around using numbers as a justification as I don't think that is a winning argument in the end (but happy to be proven wrong).
 

Back
Top