It was brought up in another thread how " Cars aren't a particularily efficient transportation system. People value them for the sense of individual control they offer, but as society has adapted to the presence of cars it's gotten very inefficient: gridlock, sprawl, oil wars... "

I fear there will always be some form of vehichle which alleviates actual physical exhursion --- that by nature, our culture here in the Western World is far too reliant on technology to evolve/retrograde "back" to Human Powered Vehichles. I would LOVE to find my fears dead wrong in another 20 or 30 years !

It was then brought up "A society re-engineered without private cars (compact, walkable, lots of public transport, cabs for the wealthy...sort of like a universal Manhattan) would actually be much more efficient. "

I personally think we need lots and lots of education in our schools, and thats a start. Somewhere on this forum I saw a saying "a movement begins with one person" (or some such thing)... that means WE the cycling advocates might consider volunteering educating in the schools? Get the youth excited about alternatives !!! Make a documentary film !!!!

I'd like to bring up the subject for discussion, just how we passionate cycling advocates *can* begin to influence the masses in this direction.

Lets talk about ideas to be proactive if we can? Who will start?

From an individual's point of view who only looks at the immediate impact to them they are effective and efficient in all but the most densely populated areas.
Al

The problem is not that they are inefficient, it's that they don't scale.

Cars work well many places -- there are huge parts of the United States that were essentially uninhabited until the advent of the automobile -- but when density reaches a critical level they become impractical. That's why private automobile ownership is rare in places like New York or Tokyo, and motorized traffic moves no faster in central London than oxcarts did in the middle ages. Right now the Washington, DC area is going through a shift, as all of a sudden the traffic has reached the level where the automobile is no longer a reliable way of getting around. People are moving back into the city and exploring other ways of getting around; cycling has become quite popular. Traffic has much more impact on people's behavior than the price of gas.

Really the question is whether people are willing to live a higher densities. If the everyone in the US lived the way people in Manhattan do -- 67,000 per square mile -- we could put all 300 million of us into less than 5,000 square miles, or about the size of Connecticut. That could be a circle with a radius of 40 miles; you would be within a days bike ride of everyone in the country!

I have no doubt that such an arrangement would be far gentler on the planet. But I can't imagine people voluntarily doing it any time soon.

While I live in Manhattan, I doubt most Americans want to live in a universal Manhattan. The desire for a front and back yard and space is too great.

I really like this attitude--meeting the masses where they are and engaging them in disucussion. I quite often see it happen that "alternative lifestyle" (not talking sexuality things here) groups form their own little "outside of the mainstream" community that doesn't meaningfully interact with the masses--rather it just yells at the masses and puts out an air of arrogance. This idea by the OP is a very proactive approach and one that thinks long term. As for me, I'm intentionally moving further away from work (I need more separation between my personal life and my work life--right now I live 1/2 mile from the office and live with coworkers) and I'll be bicycle commuting. I've got people questioning me, but they'll see how it works. I'm inviting my friends to join me on rides and even buying up bikes at yard sales that they can use after I fix them up. As for a suggestion to get started--start with your own network of people you know and work from there. Some can get you into schools, workplaces, etc.

YOU have as have I,in my Peak Oil & Cuba threads, opened discussions on this topic. IMO the most
important thing is to discuss this topic often , and openly, with as many people as you can to start
the process of "thinking about it" in your peers.

Humans don't like sudden change but they don't mind it one bit when it's "their idea to change"

Keeping the topic on the front burner and in peoples minds is what's important and hard to do. Just keep
talking & sharing ignoring all the nay sayers and jerks who try to shout you down because either "we"
re-write our furture or it will be written for us. One thing is certain.....the future will NOT be the same
as today.

So I invite you, and all others who care, to join me in discussions about what, how & where we will all
find an oil free sustainable future.

I think this phrase (the transportation pyramid) ought to be driven into every schoolchild's skull and tatooed on one of thier hands:

If you can't walk it, bike it.
If you can't bike it, ride (a train/bus to) it
if you can't ride it, drive it
if you can't ride or drive to it, take a boat to it
if you can't float there, fly there.

this one needs a little polishing, but the idea is to enculturate the idea of preferring the lowest energy transport method available to the task. (flying is for those who don't know, the most energy expensive method of transport)

oh, and @tightwad: mas uno por Cuba! (+1 for Cuba) I'm not saying they've got things perfected politically, but they're definately the best example of how to survive peak oil.

Well, in most major urban areas, cars are inefficient transportation. You can tell that by seeing the traffic congestion in most of your larger cities during the morning and evening rush hours. I live 18 miles away from my place of employment...it should not take me 50 to 75 minutes to get to work by car...but, Monday through Friday...when you add thousands of other vehicles on the streets I travel on...it does. The few times I went into work on Saturday or Sunday, it takes 15 minutes. At least in America, it is considered economically feasible and worth the time and "conveinence" for people to make such a commute (or to commute a distance 3 times mine) by car.

I'd hate to sound pessimistic here...but, the fact is, alot of Americans are obese and lazy to the point that they would not be able to live without a car, and wouldn't think twice about riding a bike to work or using a bike to haul stuff/run errands. IMO the only thing that will change habits and lifestyles re: bicycle use is when gasoline reaches price levels of $4-$6? a gallon or when enough people start realizing that its cheaper and healthier to ride a bike instead or dropping close to a grand per month on gasoline. Another thing IMO that must happen is for obesity to become less mainstream...because it IS part of mainstream American culture now. More people need a "coming to Jesus" moment re: their weight and lifestyle...that will get people on bikes. Healthy skinny fit people, or people with a drive to become a healthy skinny fit person do things that will maintain themselves as; or become; a healthy skinny and fit person...riding a bike can be part of that.

Re: education, again, IMO...thats a lost cause. Get the middle schoolers out of the sex education and ethnic sensitivity courses and put their fat politically correct a$$e$ back into PE where they belong! I mean cripes...there are reasons why little Johnny is tipping the scales at 250 pounds when he's 10! You think he's going to want to ride his bike to school?

Ask and you shall receive.

People will switch to riding a bike when it's more convenient to ride than drive. It's as simple as that.

Or they'll force their elected officials to spend their tax dollars wisely to change the environment around them so they can drive everywhere. People are great at adapting the environment to suit them, not vice versa.

HUH!! Tell me you're kidding!! Nobody with a lick of sense can honestly believe this!!

Then again.......maybe you're right.

However..........

https://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/share

Actually...we've (practically) already done this with the US interstate system, but amusingly it wasn't initially developed for the sake of allowing private citizens to drive anywhere. The interstate is in fact, a nice little gift from the military-industrial complex, developed to aid in transporting military equipment wherever, whenever.

What we've got to do is convince people of the truth: private transportation by automobile is unnecessary and inefficient for 90%+ of the population. By the time you add all the economic subsidy (between employers, manufacturers and the government) the cost per person per car is just ridiculous. I think we need to package this in a form people can understand and start shoveling it to them by the ton.

Thats not quite accurate here.

People in Tokyo have a car, they just dont drive it. Why? Because they are and marketeers dream. People pay over $1000.00 a year to insure a little Nissan that drives less than 3000K a year! What a bunch of bone heads!

When they do drive, its the weekend (AKA Shumatsu Driver/Weekend Driver) so, they get in the car for a trip to the beach, only everyone else thought of this, so 16,000,000 vehicles are on the expensive highway sat in 25KM long traffic jams all the way there and all the way back. Oh the joys of motoring and personal freedom

If automobile ownership in NYC is so rare, why's it so hard to find a parking spot for my car?

I'm sure if you just leave it running the 'valet parking attendants' will take care of finding a place for your car

It already is more convenient to ride a bike in many places. Only a fraction are willing to do so. In my experience people are more likely to take up walking than cycling, which is quite possible for many trips/commutes in many cities and smaller centres.

The simple fact is: it's won't happen. Just take a look at all the whining that goes on in the popular press about fuel prices for example. People are complaining everywhere that driving costs too much, but nobody stops driving. They go to ridiculous lengths to minimise the cost within that capacity -- such as trying to fill up the tank when and where they might save a few cents. Some might consider public transport as a last resort, but nobody talks about cycling. It's becoming more and more apparent everyday that the only people who will even consider transportational cycling are those who are riding recreationally already, or have some inherent desire to ride a bike.

I really don't see this changing one bit -- ever. Even when peak oil hits, cars will simply move onto other fuels. The technology is there now, the only reason they persist with oil based fuels is because they are currently cheaper than any of the alternatives. Already here in Queensland we've seen a push to use Ethanol (a by-product of sugar cane, which is grown widely here) in fuels in an effort to reduce the cost. Whether it works, who knows? In the long run they won't have much choice if the price of oil keeps rising. The motor vehicle will never disappear, it will just get more expensive. Perhaps one day we'll see fuel for cars being grown by farmers where food is now grown. That's when things could get really messy.

i don't know, the concept of "improving the land" is pretty ingrained into culture, even with the development of the conservation/preservation movements.

Are there any documentaries about the utilitarian bicycle lifestyle?

I think the real reason isn't that people are just too stuborn about biking, but rather that they seriously just don't see it as a viable option. If some guy's car was broken in Manhattan, it would be an obvious second choice to public transport. If the same thing happened in Ann Arbor (semi urban) that would be a second choice that might come to mind to the guy after a few minutes or so of panicky thinking. In more suburby places it probably comes to mind (at least for semiupper middle class and above) much much later after you've worried for 10 minutes about how you will get anywhere without your car.

Now take this and make it into a bike situation - Manhattan would have the guy thinking of biking (if this guy is open to that stuff) probably just minutes after public transport (or even before). Ann Arbor? Probably biking would be thought of by 20 percent of the population and only after half an hour of "what the hell can I do!!!". Suburbia? Less than 5 percent will recognize the bike as a valid form of transport.

They simply don't have the bike in their mind as something that can be used for transport, so that is why they keep on using cars. It doesn't fully occur to them.

Most people I know can't believe that I actually like my 3.5 mile commute to school when the temperature is under 50.

Yeah... Case in point.

5 percent bike commuters in the transportation mix would be enough to bring about many good infrastructure changes. I'd take 5 percent in a heartbeat.

THIS is exactly what happened in Cuba when their oil supply stopped!!

This also speaks to the paridigm that has been engrained in the the minds of millions of car drivers.
Many car owners would "like" to get rid of all the grief and expense of car ownership but they , for
the most part, don't have enough public transportion to allow them to stop driving.

What many don't understand that they can go "car-light" to "manage" their car expenses wiser but
many just are to damn spoiled to even consider any hardship no matter how small.

All that said.....The only way you will get North America out of cars is to price fuel out of their reach.

Ways to cut 3% from your fuel bill and more........

https://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/share

www.neighborhoodbikeworks.org