In a surprising move for car-centric America, San Francisco voters took a bold step last year by closing two miles of a coastal highway to vehicles, transforming it into a vibrant park for pedestrians, joggers, and cyclists.
Despite the park’s positive aspects, local residents expressed their frustration by voting to recall the city representative who advocated for this transformation, believing it contributed to a surge in traffic congestion on nearby side streets.
This incident underscores a national trend as cities grapple with the complex issue of urban transportation.
As electric vehicles (EVs) become more prevalent, city officials face a pressing choice: should they continue to prioritize car-based infrastructure, or should they pivot towards making cities more accommodating for cyclists and pedestrians, particularly as the popularity of e-bikes continues to rise?
While there has been an uptick in the number of electric vehicles on the road, cities across the country are beginning to embrace e-bikes as a more environmentally friendly alternative.
Governments are responding by lowering vehicle speed limits, constructing dedicated bike lanes, providing charging stations, and ensuring that underserved neighborhoods don’t miss out on these advances.
This rapid change is in stark contrast to prior years when e-bikes went largely unregulated until the late 2010s, according to Leigh Ann Von Hagen, director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University.
As e-bikes become more mainstream, they hold the potential to benefit individuals of all ages and abilities.
Parents can transport their children on sturdy models equipped with storage bins, workers can rely on e-bikes for commuting, shoppers can conveniently carry groceries, and older adults who may find traditional cycling daunting can confidently choose e-bikes for their travels.
Von Hagen shares a relatable anecdote: “I have an uncle in Tennessee who started riding an e-bike when he retired because he just didn’t want to drive to the store anymore.”
Adopting e-bikes can lead to significant reductions in carbon emissions—estimates suggest decreases of approximately 12 percent, depending on local e-bike adoption rates.
Moreover, enhanced cycling not only lowers pollution but also offers tangible health benefits through increased physical activity, which, in turn, contributes to improved public health due to reduced air pollution.
It’s essential to note that electric vehicles, though cleaner than traditional cars, still produce microplastics from their tires due to their heavier weight.
Conversely, e-bikers tend to face what one might call the ‘range anxiety’ that EV drivers experience; however, the issue is often reversed.
E-bike users, especially older adults or individuals with health conditions, might hesitate to try traditional cycling fearing they won’t have the energy to complete their journey, particularly on hilly terrain.
Fortunately, e-bikes typically have ranges that far exceed the average distance riders cover, often around six miles.
“When we do interviews with people, they will use the e-bike on eco, or even off, when they’re on flat terrain, and as soon as they get to that hill, they consistently report putting it up to the maximum,” explains Jessica Bourne, an active travel researcher at the University of Bristol in the UK.
Put simply, e-bikes allow riders to flatten their journey, making previously daunting routes feel more manageable.
And while one might think e-bike riders expend fewer calories due to the motor assistance, research indicates otherwise.
In fact, e-bike users often cover greater distances than those who opt for conventional bikes, therefore obtaining similar levels of physical activity despite reduced exertion per trip.
As a result, riders spend more time exercising and running errands overall.
Bourne elaborates, “Once you account for increased frequency and increased duration and distance traveled, they spend longer on the bike overall, so they’re actually expending more energy on a weekly basis.
“That’s why they have more potential to substitute for motorized vehicles.”
Indicating that the shift towards e-bikes is already significant, multiple studies reveal widespread car trip replacements with e-bike rides.
Evidence points to a cascading effect: when cities enhance their bicycle infrastructure, the number of people commuting by e-bikes and conventional bicycles can double, as seen in New York City and Washington, D.C. between 2009 and 2014.
Moreover, e-bike sales in North America have also doubled from 2018 to 2021.
However, this growing trend comes with its own set of challenges.
Increased e-bike usage has led to a rise in e-bike and e-scooter related injuries, primarily attributed to inadequate cycling infrastructure and safety conditions for riders.
Countries renowned for cycling, like the Netherlands, have demonstrated how the built environment significantly influences travel practices.
Joost de Kruijf, a travel behavior researcher at Dutch Cycling Intelligence, notes that in the Netherlands, biking is often seen as an everyday mode of transport, irrespective of weather conditions.
Invaluable lessons can be gleaned from such cycling-friendly environments, where daily bike trips become habitual for residents.
However, e-bikes still pose a financial barrier, with prices typically ranging from around $1,000 to upwards of $10,000, rendering them inaccessible for many potential users.
Low-income households without vehicles could unlock new job opportunities through e-bike access, allowing for greater mobility and convenience.
Younger individuals would similarly find educational opportunities become more accessible, particularly if they reside in areas lacking public transportation.
This challenge has been highlighted as ‘transport poverty,’ where inadequate transportation options hinder access to essential services and employment.
Bourne suggests one compelling solution: subsidize e-bikes.
Programs in California have offered financial incentives of up to $2,000 for low-income residents to purchase e-bikes, though they are no longer accepting new applications.
Denver has introduced similar support to promote e-bike usage.
“If it’s going to benefit the planet and it’s going to reduce the cars on the road, then why don’t we provide the subsidies for e-bikes, as we do for electric cars?” Bourne questions.
This disparity highlights a gap in the policy framework aimed at promoting sustainable transportation.
Notably, studies comparing rebates for EV purchases to those incentivizing e-bike acquisitions indicate similar effectiveness in terms of carbon reduction.
In British Columbia, both rebates cost about a dollar per ton of avoided carbon dioxide emissions, with e-bike incentives yielding additional societal benefits.
Conversely, electric vehicle incentives often unintentionally promote more driving, exacerbating congestion and leading to more sedentary** lifestyles.**
In a recent report, Bigazzi found that an e-bike rebate program in British Columbia resulted in recipients biking an average of 25 miles more per week while reducing car travel by almost 11 miles, cutting travel-related emissions by 17 percent annually and increasing physical activity by 13 percent.
Additionally, Denver’s popular e-bike voucher program has reportedly helped eliminate around 170,000 vehicle miles traveled per week.
These findings exemplify the transformative potential of citywide e-bike initiatives.
Experts advocate for considering bike share programs as integral parts of public transportation networks.
Kendra Ramsey, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, argues, “It really is a public benefit to get people from point A to point B without needing to park or drive a car.
“There is an argument that having some sort of public subsidy, like public transit does, could greatly increase the number of folks that are able to use those systems.”
Cities with successful bike share programs serve as promising models.
Citi Bike in New York, operated by Lyft, provides both e-bikes and traditional bikes, contributing significantly to the city’s cycling infrastructure with over a million annual riders.
However, simply increasing bike availability is insufficient; cities also need to create environments conducive to cycling.
Greg Rybarczyk, a professor at the University of Michigan-Flint, highlights the necessity of retrofitting infrastructure for fast-emerging mobility solutions like e-bikes.
Ensuring road safety extends beyond infrastructure; educating both cyclists and drivers on road rules remains paramount.
In Detroit, a historic epicenter of American automotive manufacturing, enthusiasm for e-bikes is growing.
However, a survey indicates that respondents feel bike lanes in the area are inadequately maintained, leading to unsafe conditions for cyclists.
Addressing such concerns requires municipalities to ensure that bike lanes are cleaned and well-maintained.
Amelia Neptune of the League of American Bicyclists emphasizes the importance of providing adequate charging and storage facilities for e-bikes.
As cities begin to implement bike parking solutions, some institutions are even offering e-bike parking options in their dormitories.
Crucially, enhancing cycling infrastructure doesn’t necessitate the elimination of car-oriented routes.
Bigazzi proposes the ideal scenario of creating protected infrastructure that separates bike lanes from vehicular traffic.
Such designs also call for synchronized movements at intersections where bikes and cars operate differently.
Cities stand at a pivotal crossroads: they can either invest in cost-effective improvements to enhance cycling safety—encouraging more people to adopt e-biking—or they can double down on automotive infrastructure to facilitate EV access, potentially worsening pedestrian and cyclist safety.
Bigazzi notes the stark contrast in expenditure: “Cities can build out almost their whole bike network for the cost of rebuilding one or two freeway interchanges.”
Ultimately, investing in quality cycling infrastructure is a relatively inexpensive yet effective way to bolster urban mobility.
image source from：sf
