There are reams of research to back this stuff up. There were massive reams of research to back it up 40 years ago. There are demonstrably better ways to do this. Why are we so fucking stupid?
There are reams of research to back this stuff up. There were massive reams of research to back it up 40 years ago. There are demonstrably better ways to do this. Why are we so fucking stupid?
Even in places with excellent public transport, there will be trips where cars are necessary, either because that specific public transit connection is atrocious (e.g. 10 minutes by car turn into 40+ minutes public transit), or you need to transport more than you can carry.
I don't own a car, and I suffer from their effects, but I do recognize their usefulness.
I was skeptical but I've run the numbers and sure enough, once you also factor in the time I spend working to pay for my car & gas I'd save quite a bit of time commuting by bike if my city could be squished closer together by removing most of the car-only stuff (gotta still have a few arteries for goods and for when you need to travel further, but you could cut out like 90%, easy—parking lots are so big, out in the 'burbs). IOW widespread private car ownership actually makes my life worse than if they were outlawed, effectively, and I'm not in the city core.
[EDIT] and my family buys cheapish cars and we make way over the median household income for our city—the math's way worse for most people here than it is for me.
It won't make you feel any better, but perhaps this was inevitable.
It’s kind of like asking, why do we take chemotherapy for cancer when it makes people so sick? Because it can sometimes cure cancer, that’s why!
This manifests itself in several ways:
1. Low-density sprawl. Without the auto, density would be higher and it'd be possible to get to wherever you need to be on alternate forms of transit (biking and public transit are much more viable)
2. Prioritization: Already in an urban (or higher density suburban) environment, at commute times, biking is barely slower than driving (in part due to congestion and parking overhead) on city streets. It'd actually be faster than driving is today if it weren't for infrastructure explicitly prioritizing cars (long signals, freeways and expressways blocking the shortest path, etc.)
If you did a "do-over design", with high-capacity electric batteries and smartphones, you could probably achieve mostly car-less, higher density cities (barring delivery and emergency vehicles) around (e-)bikes and public transit, with cars more used for leisure/travel or folks lacking mobility. Population would also be a lot more physically fit.
Many people also claim its not safe to bike in the city but this is also a symptom of designing the system around cars. If we simply dedicated all the roads to biking and only a few sporadic car-lanes it would be much safer to bike.
I could say the most important benefit is fundamental: none of your propositions change the fact that a bike will not shelter its rider from the weather, which around here, by some standards, is at best lousy for approximately half of the year (cold, damp or both to various degree). When I look at homes, or offices, I see a pattern. Do you not?
But in moderate places, e.g. the entire West coast of the US, I find it a non-issue to bike nearly every day
...and our hearts!
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/big-road-blues-pollution-high...
(This factoid from "Energy and Civilization A History" by Vaclav Smil)