In the UK, the average cycling trip seems to be between 3 and 6 miles: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics It's fine if b

In the UK, the average cycling trip seems to be between 3 and 6 miles: https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics It's fine if biking is not for everyone, but it is a great option for some people. If we can encourage more people to sometimes bike instead bof drive a car, that is positive. Even if we say that 1 mile is gold standard biking distance, surely there are people that live within 1 mile of a grocery or a restaurant. That is a very comfortable distance, as far as physical exertion goes, for many people. But, again, whenever cars and bikes are negotiating a shared space, it's dangerous, and a lot of people simply won't do it for safety concerns. Next, I agree that increasing density is a very good goal. I want that. But surely you must acknowledge how painfully difficult that has been to achieve politically in most places in the United States? I think we should keep pushing for denser towns and cities, but even when progress is made, it is gradual. The vicious cycle is that cars encourage more sprawl, and sprawl demands cars. Maybe the city council isn't going to budge on bringing housing and businesses to be dense enough for most things to be 1 mile of each other. But maybe bringing some stuff within 4 or 5 miles is more possible sooner, and if it is, we should take it. Increasing density a little bit now makes it easier to increase density a little bit more tomorrow, and a little bit more the next day. My last bit I want to share is ebikes really open up what is possible. Trips can be longer, the terrain can be hillier, and the exertion lower. The physical barriers to biking drop a lot. Costs are coming down, and are quite a bargain if one is able to replace a car with an ebike. The missing piece is infrastructure to support safe biking.