4 ms·

US bike infrastructure is not there. There's not enough places to park the bikes and it's not convenient to get around on them. Scooters are actually easier to

US bike infrastructure is not there. There's not enough places to park the bikes and it's not convenient to get around on them. Scooters are actually easier to get around on in cities, and a bike just can't replace a car in rural areas. Suburbs and small towns are set up for ebikes, but that's not gonna be transformative enough to justify the credit. You will end up with a generation deciding ebikes aren't worth it. The purchases will end up as a discount on toys that will end up in the garbage in 2 years. We need a multi-phase, 30 year plan to eliminate the need for personal cars. It's a hard problem to solve in general, but moreso in the US which is built for cars. More protected bike lanes need to be rolled out, bike racks expanded tremendously, park-and-ride options expanded, increased public transit. There's plenty of mobility needs that a bike simply can't replace that need new solutions, so funding for experiments, new businesses, etc will be needed. It requires funding, construction, passing of contentious city and county ordinances. It's a complex problem. There is no simple solution.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
Most cities in the US have plans like this, they're often called things like Vision Zero plans. The core problem is that electeds don't care. They'll cut funding to these programs whenever they can, drag their feet on implementation, use a single public comment to justify auto centric development, etc. It really just comes down to the electeds and what they vote for and apportion.
midoridensha 3y ago
Personally, I think it's hopeless, except maybe in certain localities within the US. Most Americans just like their cars too much and aren't interested in the lifestyle you're proposing, no matter how awful car-centric culture really is to live in. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more pro-car comments here in this discussion, but it's the middle of the night in the US right now so maybe that's why.
- Karrot_Kream 3y ago
  Millenials and younger are usually a lot more open to non-car-centric development. The problem is that most of the electeds who have the power to actually apportion budget to these projects (so generally state level representatives) are older, wealthier, and generally live in car-centric neighborhoods themselves. It also helps that most electeds get safe (usually guarded by staff), convenient parking at their office even if the seat of State or City power is in a high-COL neighborhood. For example, the recent efforts in the Bay to defund public transit were being pushed heavily by a State Rep based out of SF who lives in the wealthiest, most car-centric portion of the neighborhood. Despite his own constituents being against his position, there's nothing they can do but vote him out during the next election cycle.
  - midoridensha 3y ago
    Some people in those age ranges are more open, sure, but they're outvoted by everyone else, which is why those pro-car anti-public-transit "electeds" are there. At best, it'll be a generation or two until this changes and any significant progress is made in turning these places into walkable, bikeable areas (because you need to change all the zoning laws, and then knock stuff down and build more densely for walking and biking to actually be practical; no one's going to bike many miles every time they just want to go grocery shopping or whatever).

Karrot_Kream 3y ago

Most cities in the US have plans like this, they're often called things like Vision Zero plans. The core problem is that electeds don't care. They'll cut funding to these programs whenever they can, drag their feet on implementation, use a single public comment to justify auto centric development, etc. It really just comes down to the electeds and what they vote for and apportion.

midoridensha 3y ago

Personally, I think it's hopeless, except maybe in certain localities within the US. Most Americans just like their cars too much and aren't interested in the lifestyle you're proposing, no matter how awful car-centric culture really is to live in. I'm actually surprised we haven't seen more pro-car comments here in this discussion, but it's the middle of the night in the US right now so maybe that's why.

Karrot_Kream 3y ago
Millenials and younger are usually a lot more open to non-car-centric development. The problem is that most of the electeds who have the power to actually apportion budget to these projects (so generally state level representatives) are older, wealthier, and generally live in car-centric neighborhoods themselves. It also helps that most electeds get safe (usually guarded by staff), convenient parking at their office even if the seat of State or City power is in a high-COL neighborhood. For example, the recent efforts in the Bay to defund public transit were being pushed heavily by a State Rep based out of SF who lives in the wealthiest, most car-centric portion of the neighborhood. Despite his own constituents being against his position, there's nothing they can do but vote him out during the next election cycle.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  Some people in those age ranges are more open, sure, but they're outvoted by everyone else, which is why those pro-car anti-public-transit "electeds" are there. At best, it'll be a generation or two until this changes and any significant progress is made in turning these places into walkable, bikeable areas (because you need to change all the zoning laws, and then knock stuff down and build more densely for walking and biking to actually be practical; no one's going to bike many miles every time they just want to go grocery shopping or whatever).