• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is why zoning reform (i.e. allowing higher density for better walkability/bikeability) is the single most important policy change to fight global warming.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      I live in an area where everything is roughly within a 10 minute’s walk. Groceries, pharmacy, universities, hospitals, etc. It is flipping awesome. And the light rail can quickly take you to other universities, jobs and (further out) the airport.

    • Tobberone@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      From an ecological viewpoint such zoning reforms have merits, but in the way we have done it so far, I question the social merits of such policies. The society must be about more than stacking people on top of eachother.

      From time to time we’ve seen very one-sided policies pushed (often with economical focus) and several years down the line we realise the issues of such policies. We can’t afford that at this point, we need to find policies that adress the full trifecta of areas to find our way forward sustainably.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        6 months ago

        You seem to be under several misconceptions:

        1. The force of these polices are applied in exactly the opposite of how you think they are. Zoning reform does not force “stacking people on top of each other;” it allows them the freedom to choose to live more closely together. Single-family exclusionary zoning is, in fact, the policy that curtails freedom the most by forcing everyone to live in only one type of housing whether they like it or not. Any property owner is perfectly free to build a single-family house in an area zoned to allow high density if they want; it’s the single-family zoned areas where their property rights are infringed.

        2. Low-density areas are objectively harmful to live in. Physical health is destroyed by the forced imposition of a sedentary lifestyle due to lack of walkability, and mental health is destroyed by the prohibition of convenient access to third places (i.e. forcing them to be miles away instead of interspersed within neighborhoods). To be very clear: this is not an opinion; this is a fact informed by studies showing that people’s health and happiness are measurably worse in car-dependent places.

        • Tobberone@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Allows them freedom”? From my viewpoint, that is straight up newspeak. Which is also a point to be made, our respective frames of reference is so diverse I’m hard pressed to think we would ever use the same language to describe any form of housing. Only in America is walkability a problem in low density areas. Presuming your definition of “low density” isnt rural, of course. And if we are rural, I have a hard time seeing how that can be defined as a sedentary lifestyle. Going for a walk is not usually a problem in those settings, either.

  • vividspecter@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Ebikes won’t replace a car for a lot of people, but they are often well-suited for shorter trips and the “last kilometre” – the distance between home and the nearest public transport.

    The last kilometre point is important too. Making sure there is secure bike parking and/or allowing bikes on public transport makes the whole thing more convenient and requires less planning in cases where you want to make mixed mode trips.

    • You’re comparing the price of a high end cargo ebike which can do large grocery trips with a low end motorcycle that cannot carry remotely as much. I fail to see how even a high end cargo ebike which costs less than most cars is a status symbol or priced for “silicon valley dorks”.

      If you want to find an ebike to simply take you from point A to point B, they can easily be found for nearly the price of a regular bicycle.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Some aren’t too bad. Juiced Bikes and Radpower bikes can be had (on sale, early spring) for as little as $1,100. Aventon sells e-road bikes for $1,000 on sale. Granted, you are gonna have to buy stuff like fenders for some. And right to repair for ebikes is pretty abysmal compared to normal bikes, brand dependent. But Radpower and Aventon have physical bike repair shops and partner shops, and Juiced has pretty standard components and a decent support window even outside of warranty (stuff like batteries being standard across almost the entire lineup, standard wheels, spokes, etc)

      If we had stronger right to repair laws, and more cities and towns put in protected bike lanes, you really can travel 20+ miles pretty comfortably.

  • tunetardis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    More than 95% of the two-wheelers are located in China, according to the IEA.

    Wow! What is the situation over there? Is it that fewer people can afford a car and opt for ebikes, that the infrastructure is more bike-oriented, or are there some other factors at play?

    • vividspecter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      They used to be an extremely bike heavy culture before cars too over, so maybe it’s just a return to old habits? China is also big on EVs too, so maybe they have just moved to electric in general.