va_cyclist

Where are all the mass transit options? Light rail, electric buses, etc. I'd rather see the money invested there.

Machka 

EXCELLENT point!!! I have LOVED the cities I've visited which have an established mass transit option. Take Paris, for example ... from my limited experiences there, touring around without a motorized vehicle, I'd say that a person would have no need to use a vehicle there ... the train system was very, very good, and they allowed bicycles on it with no problems at all.

donnamb 

Thank you. And when that day arrives, and we can no longer transport things like food and pharmaceuticals, people like me, who are dependent on daily medication to stay alive, will die. I know it's idealistic, but perhaps my not using a car will forstall that day - by about six hours or so.

*cough

just for the record we won't use all the oil, it will just become uneconomical to extract any.

donrhummy

That's covered in the last option. All cars are outlawed in cities except for buses, taxis...so the only thing left is public transportation and bikes.

donrhummy

One funny thing about that though (and this is a random aside), Paris has some of the most polluted air in all of Europe.

donrhummy

I know they have this in China (and it works REALLY well there, I've ridden in it and trust me, without it, bikers would be killed by the hundreds there - drivers are crazy in China!) and I think England has it too, but not sure.

oilfreeandhappy

I chose the 50% of commuters by bike, because I think some of the others will progress naturally with that base.

DavidLee

50% of the commuters switch to bikes, then maybe I'll get some quality racks to safely lock my bike up to.

Viggen Ed

Hrm, tough call. The concrete bike lane separation may be extreme, but it could be pretty nice if it compared to the bike lanes found in Amsterdam. They have right of way over pedestrians ( I almost got taken out there walking across a bike lane before I knew what was goin on.... Woulda probably deserved it, too..)

Imagine how many more people we could employ with human-powered Mack Trucks

It'd give whole new meaning to the UPS bicycle team.

Job ads: I'm personable and torquey, can spin up to 100+ rpm, but I'm happiest at a bit lower pace.

MarkS

Here's a stretch of road with it in So. Cal.

wsexson

Why?

wsexson

I'm not sure if it represented well in that pic or not, but I don't like the looks of it at all. The "bike lane" is only on one side of the road. How do you avoid obstructions and debris in the lane? It looks like you are trapped in between a curb and a speed bump that runs parallel to traffic.

cerewa

As I see it, there's a chance that the demise of petroleum-powered vehicles won't stop the most important stuff from getting around. For good or for ill, when the price of energy gets high enough, people are almost certainly going to demand nuclear power plants in a big way. And apparently biodiesel can be produced for far less energy than is used producing it.

I don't think it's entirely ridiculous. Although in addition to buses, I think they ought to allow large vehicles like semi trucks and construction vehicles as long as they're used for a legitimate purpose.

Honestly, in congested city centers, single-occupant cars are not exactly giving us a huge amount of societal benefit as compared to how things were before cars were common.

Chris L

Agreed. I know that I feel much safer mixing it up with the cars than on some poorly constructed and undirectional bike path.

As far as the options go, I'm not sure any of them are realistic. Building dozens of bike paths isn't going to happen in most cities because of the cost to local government of resuming the land. Banning cars and the like won't happen because there just aren't enough votes in it. Personally the best idea I've heard is the one from London about charging people to bring a car into a city centre. This, at least, holds people accountable for the external effects of their transport choices.

CommuterRun

Like Chris L said, it won't have public support. Not only will it not have support, but there will be so many people fighting against it that a measure like this would never pass and no politician would ever support it unless he/she wanted to face a recall election. Even if it could be passed, the current infrastructure of mass transit in any American city couldn't support all the new riders. Look at the mass transit system in Tokyo, one of the best on the planet, they can't move all the riders during rush hour and they've been in place and working on this problem for decades. One measure they use is to hire "packers". These aren't like ushers who may suggest, "Please, sit here." The packers actually, physically pack people onto the trains. The physical pushing and shoving would never be accepted here, in our litigatinous society, even if the guy were just doing his job. The difference between the Japanese and Americans is the attitude of social responsibility. The Japanese accept something as a way of life when Americans would riot.

Even if a measure like this did pass, not all the cars could be banned. There would have to be loopholes, like Cerewa said, for people that use their cars for work or work from their cars, people that provide goods and services, and for the people that live in the city who have cars. Others would use these loopholes to their advantage, even if they didn't have a legitimate reason.

My parents-in-law live in mainland Japan. One thing they have over there that might work here is a program in place at the company where my father-in-law works. Mass transit fees are subsidized by the company. If an employee drives their car to work it causes the company to loose money and is grounds for dismissal. In other words, if you drive to work instead of taking mass transit, you're fired. That's an idea that I like.

I don't know what that company's policy is on bicycle commuting.

I also like the idea of charging a toll, for everyone, across the board, no exceptions, to drive into a city, but in America this wouldn't stop anybody from driving. It would just give them something else to complain about.

My wife tells me her uncle works for Tokyo Metro Line. Yesterday they carried 120% of capacity. This isn't just seats, but also includes designated standing room. Americans wouldn't stand for this. For the Japanese, it's a way of life.

patc

Such a defeatist attitude! One step at a time. Some cities (e.g. London, England) have already passed measures to decrease car use downtown. These steps can be implemented gradually, while simultaneously improving transit and well as cycling and pedestrian facilities.

Roody

Before you can live it you have to dream it.

In 1900, automobiles were an impossible dream. There was almost no infrastructure suitable for them, they were much too expensive for the average person, and they didn't even work very well. Of course, within less than 20 years all that had changed, and autos had become much more than a dream (well, nightmare might be a better word in this context). So, first you had dreamers, like Ford, Olds and Benz. Then you had new economic realities that made their dream feasible.

When it comes to bicycle transportation, we are the dreamers. We are free to give our dreams any shape we like, and dreaming is never a waste of time.

However, anything we dream will become real only if the economic and social realities change enough to allow it. Many of us see the dwindling supplies of oil as a changing reality that favors our dream. I sure hope we're right!

donrhummy

I agree! You shoot for the floor and that's all you'll reach. Shoot for the moon, and you might get to the top of a mountain. ;P

CommuterRun

Dream away, but while you're on your next commute count the number of bicycles and motor vehicles you see. Compare the numbers and consider which way popular opinion, and therefore votes, are going to go.

Now when gas gets over $8 a gallon, things might start to take a turn.

Oh yeah, and when cars are not allowed in the city anymore, consider how much nicer it was outside the city. Before the green space and farms were a giant parking lot.

cyclezealot

The closest to my feelings is every car must become half its size and also, gas mileage must Double, as well. Actually, I'd prefer methods to also reduce traffic congestion. Guess, that means switching to mass transit or bikes. Wonder the effect of everyone riding bikes on congestion for me on the bike path.

rajman

Probably the most feasible and inexpensive option is just allowing an increase in housing, retail, and workplace density in urban areas.

My personal favourite is HWP - housing without parking. Land grants/subsidies would make this even better, but just allowing construction of large numbers of units with no accomodation for parking would still save car-free citizens some of the infrastructure costs for cars that they are bearing now. In my neighbourhood there are several small scale apartment buildings that have large, empty parking lots (the people who live in them either can't afford or don't care to own cars). Free these people from the carrying costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars of unused land - why should they pay for it?

If we build significant numbers of HWP units on major transit arteries (near subways, LRT systems, and frequent bus routes), in areas that have many retail options, we will effectively create a population of car- free citizens.

In many established north american cities (I am currently residing in Toronto) there are significant numbers of this type of construction (predating common car ownership). Build more - let people choose to save money, and give them an option.

It doesn't have to be apartments either - townhouses or detached houses can also be built without parking - giving more space to the residents and more safety for their children. I'm not saying that these residences not have car access, just build it so that there is very limited parking space (deliveries, taxis,garbage collection, Fire dept and Police dept. all need access).

The beauty of the system is a) it provides affordable housing b) saves money for residents, and c) frees up urban land for other uses. No coercion would be required, just individuals making choices to save money. People who choose to own cars are not required to buy the units, and people who choose not to have cars reap the savings from their choices.

The main problem is that city planners and ratepayers groups refuse to believe that high density housing can be built without causing traffic and parking issues. According to the zoning rules my street should legally have over double the parking spots it has now (most of the houses are 90-110 years old on my street). However, the worst parking issue we have faced is having to park a block away.

What do you guys think?

CommuterRun

I like this idea. Japan already does this and I'm sure other Asian nations do, too. This leaves the option strictly up to the prospective tenant. Need a place to park your car? Live somewhere else.

In fact the wife tells me (she's from Japan and keeps up with goings on over there) that more Japanese in metro areas are opting to not own a car. They use the massive mass transit system for day-to-day living and rent a car if they need one to travel. Much like a lot of members of this forum espouse.

While there are a lot of places in the U.S. where this wouldn't work. Like here, almost no mass transit system. I think it would work in large metro areas, increasing housing density and decreasing sprawl which would result in increased green spaces.

donrhummy

I like this idea too but I wonder if bike-only lanes that are really and safely separated from car traffic and pedestrians would have a positive influence on the # of cyclists.

LandLuger

Who have you been listening too? I gained between 3 and 4 MPG simply travelling 55MPH instead of 65MPH in my 2000 Chevrolet--now sold thank goodness! The overdrive in my wife's Nissan compact will remain locked up all the way down into the low 30's further increasing the savings at 45MPH vs. 55MPH.