3 ms·

Bicycles are indeed the most efficient mode of transportation, but shouldn’t we be taking into account the energy cost of the entire paved system of roads neede

Bicycles are indeed the most efficient mode of transportation, but shouldn’t we be taking into account the energy cost of the entire paved system of roads needed to facilitate that rolling efficiency in the first place? Paving a road with asphalt is pretty resource intensive.

bch 4y ago
Bicycles don’t need that, and it wasn’t made for them, so I don’t know why you’d charge “road cost” to the bicycle ledger when they’re such a distant second (at best) citizen on most roadways anyway.
- fanf2 4y ago
  Roads were originally paved for bicycles, before cars. https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/16/roads-not-built-for-cars-book https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/1... https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
  - googlryas 4y ago
    Maybe some roads somewhere were built for bicyclists, but I don't think you can generally say that when there are literally 6000 year old paved roads leading to Ur. Horse drawn carriages and wagons would benefit from roads and were probably much more common and important to business/transport than bicycles until the 20th century.
  - stouset 4y ago
    And what percentage of roads paved today do you suspect were done so primarily for the benefit of bicyclists?
ryukafalz 4y ago
Sure we should, but that’s the case for all transport modes. Remember that you can just pave the smaller amount of space needed for cycling down a street and not a full-width road. A cycle track uses less pavement than a roadway thanks to being narrower, and probably lasts longer too due to less damage from heavy vehicles.
- joshlemer 4y ago
  And doesn’t need to be built to the same standard of strength as a roadway that must carry trucks etc. In fact a dirt path is enough for a bike.
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    It is but it's a lot less comfortable to ride on, and that makes a difference for longer distances. (They also have the unpleasant tendency to become mud when it rains.) But ultimately sure you can usually get around on a dirt path.
cf 4y ago
The real cost is in the repaving and that's much more a property of weight of the vehicles. Bike infrastructure is significantly cheaper to create and maintain compared to nearly any other vehicle.

bch 4y ago

Bicycles don’t need that, and it wasn’t made for them, so I don’t know why you’d charge “road cost” to the bicycle ledger when they’re such a distant second (at best) citizen on most roadways anyway.

fanf2 4y ago
Roads were originally paved for bicycles, before cars. https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/16/roads-not-built-for-cars-book https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2013/apr/1... https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/ https://roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/
- googlryas 4y ago
  Maybe some roads somewhere were built for bicyclists, but I don't think you can generally say that when there are literally 6000 year old paved roads leading to Ur. Horse drawn carriages and wagons would benefit from roads and were probably much more common and important to business/transport than bicycles until the 20th century.
- stouset 4y ago
  And what percentage of roads paved today do you suspect were done so primarily for the benefit of bicyclists?

ryukafalz 4y ago

Sure we should, but that’s the case for all transport modes. Remember that you can just pave the smaller amount of space needed for cycling down a street and not a full-width road. A cycle track uses less pavement than a roadway thanks to being narrower, and probably lasts longer too due to less damage from heavy vehicles.

joshlemer 4y ago
And doesn’t need to be built to the same standard of strength as a roadway that must carry trucks etc. In fact a dirt path is enough for a bike.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  It is but it's a lot less comfortable to ride on, and that makes a difference for longer distances. (They also have the unpleasant tendency to become mud when it rains.) But ultimately sure you can usually get around on a dirt path.

cf 4y ago

The real cost is in the repaving and that's much more a property of weight of the vehicles. Bike infrastructure is significantly cheaper to create and maintain compared to nearly any other vehicle.