Bike/Electric scooter + public transport is a peak mobility, but public transport isn't even built for that :(
post
Working from home is the best. Not everyone can do it, but those who can, should be allowed to. Return to office isn’t for us, it’s for them.
Working from home is the best.
Very difficult to build class solidarity when you're atomized to the point of not even seeing one another's real faces.
You don't have to do that at work. You can do that at the library, bar, farmer's market, etc. In fact, I'd rather do it with people near where I live, instead of people that share the other end of my commute.
You don’t have to do that at work.
:-/
The place you spend half your waking hours?
You can do that at the library, bar, farmer’s market, etc.
Do you have a job?
Do you have a job?
I don't currently. Are you hiring computer programmers? I've got 20+ applications sent out via Indeed, but I haven't found one yet.
Even when I was employed, I still visited the library, a few bars, and the saturday farmer's market. While I don't think visiting the bar is necessarily a must, you really should participate in your local library and farmer's market. Connecting to your community is important.
I get why you're digging at them, but there was a period in my life I went to the bar after every workday. Now I have a child. But back then, that's just how I met new people and socialized. Now I... just don't really meet new people. Maybe I'll start meeting other parents soon when it's kindergarten time, but that's about it.
I think this depends most on what kind of city you live in. I had an 8 minute walk from office to bar, and a 4 minute walk from bar to home. And the bar was on the way anyway.
It's also collectivizing the solution rather than expecting us each to address the problem on an individual level that doesn't change the status quo one iota.
Where I live there is 0 public transport. I charge my EV with my own solar panels. So I think I am okay.
You are way better than the average car owner but it still takes a lot of energy to build an electric car. For the environment it would be even better if the batteries are used in buses and electric bikes, then more people can transport themselves with less pollution.
Of course, but they're doing the best they can.
Next step would be attending city/town hall meetings, and slowly advocating for more and more public transit over time.
The dream of coast-to-coast public transit, the likes of which we saw before WWII, is still possible
You're assuming a city / town.
In the US and for those that live outside of municipal boundaries and that live in unincorporated regions, lots of states have "townships" that are the default local government below county-level. Municipal corporations like towns and cities replace townships.
Still, those townships have local governments that can be engaged with politically.
And then there's counties in the US which act as the local government overseeing townships, etc.
People's political activism doesn't have to start and end in towns/cities.
Do the have a local government capable of building effective municipal transport?
They might be able to put a bus on that takes half a day to cover all the scatted houses, but nobody is going to use it.
A bus network is a good first step, yes.
And why all the pushback against political action? You're giving off doomer vibes.
No not doomed. I'm just tired of people thinking that public transport works in every situation.
People live in different places, and have different needs. I live where there's very good public transport and yet my commute would be 4x the time and 10x the cost if I had no option but to use it. People who live in rural areas will never have good public transport as the practicalities don't make sense.
So I still see a need for private transport. I just want it to be as clean as possible.
Depends if they need a car. My bro is in a city with about 7 public transport options within 200 metres walk and has 2-3 EVs
You shouldn't live there.
So I take it you are personally funding his new home? How generous of you.
Fortunately nothing you say is relevant or should be taken seriously because there's a .ml after your name. It's not possible for you to have a meaningful opinion.
Lol different post same thought-terminating bullshit
Lol! You're so mad that you're bringing old comments. This is hilarious. You .ml users really are all brain dead. You're blocked now but please stop helping fascists get into power just because the Russian propaganda machine is telling you to. So fuckin sad honestly
Sure, if ignorance is your preferred tool, I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise.
Yes but much less profitable.
What about electric public transit? EV buses are becoming quite popular in Korea.
The nearest major city to me has had electric buses since 1940. There are power cables overhead and poles that link the bus to the grid. No need for expensive flammable batteries that need extensive charging.
As long as they're being purchased as a replacement for buses that are either at the end of their life or being donated to smaller communities, then sure. This said from the perspective of an American whose city, state and federal governments refuse to fund the public transit that we already have. (╥_╥)
A lot of cities were designed around cars. In Cities Skyline you can just bulldoze entire neighbourhoods and completely change the roads and transit. Unfortunately in real life you can't easily bulldoze people's homes, and transit networks can take a decade to build.
Global warming is a problem now, and perfect is the enemy of good enough. We know EVs aren't the ideal solution, but it's important part of a solution that involves improved transit, better quality of life in dense population centers AND EVs for neighbourhoods that were built in a car-centric past. Maybe in 100 years the suburbs won't exist and there won't be any need for cars, but if we wait 100 years to have perfectly designed transit friendly neighbourhoods we'll all be fucked.
But I have to be together with people!
I'd rather drive my bike to work.
Walking/biking > public transportation > used EV > used IC with decent fuel economy > new EV > new or low fuel economy IC.
Like ~15 years ago I heard peter singer saying that the emissions from the lifetime use of a car were lower than those from making it, so you should only ever buy a second hand car.
That was before widespread EVs though.
I often wonder how long you have to use a 2nd hand gas car for, before the emissions outstrip those of making a brand new EV.

threeish years apparently, given you run it on green electricity.
Something is screwy with the power generation part of that graphic, or the person who made it is basing it on a country that doesn't have much wind or solar power.
In the UK there are cheap tariffs for overnight electricity because of all the wind power.
If you're in America, you're pretty much fucked for green transport in any case. Canada has some great trolly bus and underground public transport because of all the hydroelectric power. My home city has only been buying electric buses for a long while now.
since it's in tonnes of CO2 equivalent over the entire life of the vehicle it's most likely very smoothed out.
Like I say, there's no way those wind turbines cost anywhere like as much co2 to build and maintain as those oil rigs, oil tankers and oil refineries. Not even close. Not even comparable. This has to be US data from some state with no solar or something. Graph is screwy.
i'm confused. you say "those wind turbines" but we're talking about loads, not generators. on average, the world has less than 15% of its energy needs met by renewables.
incidentally, the us has the second most intstalled solar capacity of any single country, about 2/3rds that of europe.
wind turbines seem to average at 10kg CO2eq/MWh over their lifetime, but since they are not "plannable" power you always need something else to meet demand. if that something else is a gas peaker plant (490kg CO2eq/MWh), you're screwed emissions wise.
Edit: Here's a chart of the total CO2eq for the different regions of the world. using the 2021 EU number of 235g/kWh, 26 tonnes of total charging emissions would require you to fully charge a 2021 polestar 2 standard range 26 000 000g ÷ 235g ÷ 64kWh ≈ 1728 times, which would give the car a lifetime of between four and sixteen years, depending on your driving style (lower end you charge it every day, which is not realistic, higher end you charge once or twice a week). if we use the 2021 world average of 369g, that gives us 1101 full charges, or 3-10 years depending on driving style.
A small point Re the EU average, you're including a bunch of countries that don't have as much wind power as the UK, and there's a world of difference between peak CO2 for peak electricity at teatime and early evening and CO2 for charging the car overnight when the electricity is cheapest exactly because it's greenest and there's so much wind power overnight (in the UK).
From your Forbes article:
Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar.
So I don't see how the carbon cost of generating that electricity can be so much higher than the carbon cost of petrol which is surely even higher than natural gas which doesn't require refineries, when it's actually about 2% as much over the lifetime of the equipment.
Like I said, graph is screwy. Someone in the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you to think that electric is greener. It's a lie. It's FUD. Stop parroting it.
your first paragraph makes no sense. yes the eu includes more countries than the uk. it's a connected market.
these stats are by polestar and rivian, as it says in the thing. if you have better sources, give them to me.
check my followup post.
it’s a connected market.
The UK isn't even in the EU, and different countries certainly have different energy mixes anyway.
if you have better sources, give them to me.
I literally quoted your own sources! I followed the links and I read them. Didn't you? I quoted them back to you. What a weird comment.
The UK isn’t even in the EU, and different countries certainly have different energy mixes anyway.
there's a huge mass of cables connecting the uk to the eu. energy you use is never "from" a single source, it's from wherever it's generated, which means it's from the eu grid. i don't even know why the uk is in this conversation?
I literally quoted your own sources! I followed the links and I read them. Didn’t you? I quoted them back to you. What a weird comment.
i did. i used the actual numbers presented by the sources though, rather than the predictions.
I wanted to double-check my numbers so i found a reddit thread asking people how often they charge their cars, and tried to extract info from it using mistral (so take it with a grain of salt. it gave sources but i managed to close the page after screenshotting).
transcript
User: how many times a week do people in this reddit thread charge their cars on average? https://old.reddit.com/r/electriccars/comments/1c0ucpg/ev_owners_how_often_do_you_charge_your_ev_and_how/
Mistral: In the Reddit thread you linked, most EV owners report charging their cars about 2–3 times per week on average. Many users mentioned plugging in their EVs at home whenever convenient, often overnight, rather than waiting for the battery to run low. Some charge daily out of habit, while others charge every few days depending on their driving needs and battery range. The majority have access to home charging, which makes frequent top-ups easy and convenient.
Charging Frequency (from user comments):
- About 30–40% of users charge daily, often overnight at home, regardless of battery level.
- Another 30–40% charge 2–3 times per week, usually when their battery drops below a certain range (e.g., 100 miles or 50%).
- The remaining 20–30% charge less frequently, such as once a week or only when needed for longer trips.
Typical Charging Behavior:
- Many users set their charge limit to 60–80% for daily use to preserve battery health.
- Some Tesla owners (especially with LFP batteries) keep their cars plugged in most of the time, charging to 100% without issue.
- Users with shorter commutes (e.g., <50 miles/day) often charge every 2–3 days, while those with longer commutes or less efficient EVs charge daily.
Range Added per Charge:
- Short Commutes (<50 miles/day): Many users add 50–100 miles per charge, often charging every 2–3 days.
- Moderate Use (50–150 miles/day): Users in this group typically add 100–200 miles per session, charging daily or every other day.
- Longer Trips or Less Frequent Charging: Some users add 150–300 miles, charging once a week or as needed.
Summary Table (Based on Thread Comments)
| Miles Added Per Charge | Frequency Mentioned | Typical Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| 50–100 miles | Common | Short commutes, 2–3x/week |
| 100–150 miles | Very common | Daily commutes, overnight charge |
| 150–300 miles | Less common | Long trips, weekly charging |
Inference: Most home chargers add enough range to cover their daily driving, rarely letting the battery drop below 20–30%. The data is sufficient to infer that 50–150 miles per charge is the norm for regular use.
User: how about car models? are there enough mentions of which model people drive that we can figure out the average number of kWhs used per capita from the added range and the size of the battery of the mentioned models?
Mistral: The Reddit thread does mention several specific EV models, and we can use their battery sizes and the reported range added per charge to estimate average kWh used per person. Here’s what we know:
Commonly Mentioned Models & Battery Sizes
From the thread, the most frequently mentioned models include:
- Tesla Model 3 (Standard/Long Range): ~50–82 kWh
- Tesla Model Y (Standard/Long Range): ~60–81 kWh
- Hyundai Kona Electric: ~39–64 kWh
- Chevy Bolt: ~65 kWh
- Ford Mustang Mach-E: ~68–98 kWh
- Nissan Leaf: ~40–62 kWh
Reported Range Added per Charge
- Most users add 50–150 miles per charge.
- A few add 150–250 miles (usually for longer trips or less frequent charging).
Estimating kWh Used per Charge
Using the EPA efficiency ratings (miles per kWh) for these models, we can estimate kWh used per charge:
| Model | Battery Size (kWh) | EPA Efficiency (mi/kWh) | Reported Range Added | Estimated kWh Used Per Charge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla Model 3 (LR) | 82 | 4.1 | 100–150 miles | 24–37 kWh |
| Tesla Model Y (LR) | 81 | 3.8 | 100–150 miles | 26–39 kWh |
| Hyundai Kona | 64 | 3.2 | 50–100 miles | 16–31 kWh |
| Chevy Bolt | 65 | 3.6 | 50–100 miles | 14–28 kWh |
| Ford Mach-E (ER) | 98 | 3.0 | 100–150 miles | 33–50 kWh |
| Nissan Leaf | 40–62 | 3.0 | 50–100 miles | 17–33 kWh |
Note: Efficiency varies with driving conditions, but these are reasonable averages.
Average kWh Used per Charge (Per Capita)
- For 50–100 miles added: ~15–35 kWh per charge
- For 100–150 miles added: ~25–50 kWh per charge
Most users fall in the 20–40 kWh per charge range, depending on their model and daily needs.
User: using the data on this page https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-2025/emissions can we create a table for how much emissions each car would produce while charging in the listed regions? use the 2021 number.
Mistral: Here is a table estimating the CO2 emissions per 100 km for common EV models when charged in different regions, using 2021 CO2 emissions per kWh data from the IEA and typical battery sizes and efficiencies:
CO2 Emissions per 100 km for EVs by Region (2021 Data)
| Region | CO2 per kWh (g) | Tesla Model 3 (15 kWh/100 km) | Hyundai Kona (17 kWh/100 km) | Chevy Bolt (16 kWh/100 km) | Ford Mach-E (18 kWh/100 km) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| European Union | ~250 | 3.75 kg CO2 | 4.25 kg CO2 | 4.00 kg CO2 | 4.50 kg CO2 |
| United States | ~380 | 5.70 kg CO2 | 6.46 kg CO2 | 6.08 kg CO2 | 6.84 kg CO2 |
| China | ~550 | 8.25 kg CO2 | 9.35 kg CO2 | 8.80 kg CO2 | 9.90 kg CO2 |
| India | ~700 | 10.50 kg CO2 | 11.90 kg CO2 | 11.20 kg CO2 | 12.60 kg CO2 |
Notes & Assumptions
- CO2 per kWh (2021): EU ~250g, US ~380g, China ~550g, India ~700g.
- Energy use per 100 km: Based on EPA/real-world efficiency for each model.
- Calculation: (CO2 per kWh) × (kWh per 100 km) = kg CO2 per 100 km.
Key Takeaways
- EU and US: Lower emissions due to cleaner electricity grids.
- China and India: Higher emissions due to coal-heavy grids.
- Efficiency matters: More efficient cars (like the Tesla Model 3) emit less CO2 per km, even in high-emission regions.
User: data from polestar and rivian lifecycle analyses in 2021 estimates that over its lifetime, the electricity used by an "average" electric vecicle produces a total of 26 tonnes CO2eq. using the data we now have, can we estimate lower and upper bounds for the age of the mentioned models where they would have "produced" 26tCO2eq in different regions?
Mistral: Let’s use the kWh per charge and CO2 per kWh by region from our earlier tables to estimate how many years it would take for the mentioned EV models to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq from charging alone, based on typical charging habits.
Recap of Key Data
- kWh per charge (typical): 20–40 kWh
- CO2 per kWh (2021):
- EU: 250 g
- US: 380 g
- China: 550 g
- India: 700 g
- Charging frequency: 2–3 times per week (104–156 charges/year)
Calculations
1. CO2 per Charge (kg)
- EU: 20–40 kWh × 0.25 kg = 5–10 kg CO2/charge
- US: 20–40 kWh × 0.38 kg = 7.6–15.2 kg CO2/charge
- China: 20–40 kWh × 0.55 kg = 11–22 kg CO2/charge
- India: 20–40 kWh × 0.70 kg = 14–28 kg CO2/charge
2. Annual CO2 from Charging
- EU: 5–10 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 520–1,560 kg CO2/year
- US: 7.6–15.2 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 790–2,371 kg CO2/year
- China: 11–22 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 1,144–3,432 kg CO2/year
- India: 14–28 kg/charge × 104–156 charges = 1,456–4,368 kg CO2/year
3. Years to Reach 26 Tonnes (26,000 kg) CO2eq
- EU: 26,000 ÷ (520–1,560) = 17–50 years
- US: 26,000 ÷ (790–2,371) = 11–33 years
- China: 26,000 ÷ (1,144–3,432) = 8–23 years
- India: 26,000 ÷ (1,456–4,368) = 6–18 years
Note: These are rough estimates based on charging habits and grid emissions, and do not include manufacturing or other lifecycle emissions.
User: let's see how they change with different charging frequencies.
Mistral: Here’s how the years to reach 26 tonnes CO2eq change with different charging frequencies (1x, 2x, 3x, and 4x per week), using the same kWh per charge (20–40 kWh) and 2021 grid emissions:
Assumptions
- kWh per charge: 20–40 kWh
- CO2 per kWh (2021): EU 250g, US 380g, China 550g, India 700g
Years to 26 Tonnes CO2eq by Charging Frequency
| Region | 1x/week ( 52 charges/yr) | 2x/week (104 charges/yr) | 3x/week (156 charges/yr) | 4x/week (208 charges/yr) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EU | 34–100 years | 17–50 years | 11–33 years | 8–25 years |
| US | 22–66 years | 11–33 years | 7–22 years | 5–17 years |
| China | 15–45 years | 8–23 years | 5–15 years | 4–11 years |
| India | 12–36 years | 6–18 years | 4–12 years | 3–9 years |
User: what's the average scrapping age of vehicles in the listed regions?
Mistral: Here’s the average scrapping age of vehicles in the regions you asked about, based on the latest available data:
Average Scrapping Age by Region (2021–2024)
| Region | Average Scrapping Age | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| European Union | ~12–17 years | EU average is 12.3 years; some countries (e.g., Greece, Estonia) average 17 years. Newer cars are found in Luxembourg (~7.9 years). |
| United States | ~12.6 years | As of 2024, the average age of cars and light trucks on the road is 12.6 years, with scrappage rates around 4.5–4.6% per year. |
| China | ~10–15 years | Most passenger vehicles are scrapped after 10–15 years, though policies are pushing for earlier scrappage of older, more polluting vehicles. |
| India | ~15 years | The national scrappage policy targets vehicles older than 15 years for mandatory scrapping, with incentives for voluntary scrappage of private cars over 15 years. |
my takeaway is that, if charged three times a week, which seems to be common, most ev's get to 26tCO2eq before being scrapped no matter their location.
The graph fails the plausibility check of "does using fossil fuelled car pollute about the same as EVs" and the graph trying to make out that they do. I too can ask AI questions, but I think AIs are full of shit. Here it is anyway, and the fossil fuel cars are getting a free pass for ALL the CO2 emissions during generation, which as per my other comment, are about 50 times higher assuming that oil extraction and refinery isn't actually better than natural gas:
CO2 Emissions Comparison
Assumptions
Electric Vehicle (EV):
- Average energy consumption: 20 kWh/100 km (or 0.2 kWh/km).
- Carbon intensity during overnight charging: 75 gCO2/kWh. Petrol Engine:
- Average emissions: 150 gCO2/km (this can vary based on vehicle efficiency). Diesel Engine:
- Average emissions: 120 gCO2/km (again, this can vary based on vehicle efficiency).
CO2 Emissions Calculation
Electric Vehicle (EV)
Energy consumption per mile:
- 1 km = 0.621371 miles, so 20 kWh/100 km = 20 kWh/62.1371 miles = 0.321 kWh/mile. CO2 emissions per mile:
- 0.321 kWh/mile×75 gCO2/kWh=24.1 gCO2/mile.
Petrol Engine
CO2 emissions per mile:
- 150 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=93.2 gCO2/mile.
Diesel Engine
CO2 emissions per mile:
- 120 gCO2/km×0.621371 miles/km=74.6 gCO2/mile.
Summary of CO2 Emissions per Mile Vehicle Type CO2 Emissions (gCO2/mile) Electric Vehicle (EV) 24.1 Petrol Engine 93.2 Diesel Engine 74.6
Conclusion Charging an electric vehicle overnight on a greener grid results in approximately 24.1 gCO2 per mile, which is significantly lower than the emissions from petrol engines at 93.2 gCO2 per mile and diesel engines at 74.6 gCO2 per mile. This comparison highlights the environmental advantages of EVs, especially when charged during times of high renewable energy availability. If you have any further questions or need more details, feel free to ask!
i've provided mistral with sources and asked it to summarize them, then do averages on those summarisations. i've not just asked it to pull data from wherever (except the scrapping thing). i too think ai's are full of shit, but i can go back and check because i provided the data.
the assumptions made in your text give a gCO2/kWh figure of about half the IEA's, where's that from? also, the emissions numbers of your fossil fuels engines are way off. assuming a fuel consumption of 10l/100km, the number for a petrol car would be 230g CO2/km rather than 150. also you're mixing your units a lot.
Yeah, like I say, AI is shit. Quoting it as an authoritative source is crazy, and AI is surprisingly bad at arithmetic.
The graphic is screwy. It doesn't pass plausibility test. Somehow the carbon cost of generating green electricity is far higher than the carbon cost of extracting oil and refining it. Someone's adding in a whole bunch of CO2 for manufacturing and installing some wind turbines but not for oil extraction machinery and oil refineries. Just the sheer quantity of steel alone isn't even comparable.
So no, you can chatgpt your argument as much as you like but you can't convince me that the cheapest greenest wind overnight electricity I power my EV with somehow took more CO2 by quite a margin than the oil extraction, oil tankers and oil refining that my neighbour's diesel car does. That's so backwards and obviously incorrect and I don't know why you persist with entertaining the idea.
that's not what my argument was at all, and not what the graph showed. anyway this gave me enough anxiety that i'm done
I only objected to the graphic because it makes obviously screwy claims about power generation, somehow concluding that electricity is more polluting than double that of oil extraction, refinery and transportation, which is clearly false unless you're in America or somewhere else that aggressively refuses to invest in wind and solar, despite onland wind being the cheapest form of electricity. The rest of the thread is you pointlessly trying to defend the absurd conclusion of the misleading graphic that it doesn't matter whether you buy a polluting car or not. It does.
My advice for everyone: Next car, buy electric for the planet's sake and the sheer joy of driving that brings (turn off spongy acceleration gasoline emulation mode), and buy second hand for your wallet and the planet's sake.
Don't believe the FUD around EVs; stop repeating the lies that the petrochemical industry is pushing so hard.
Well, there is a good chance the data is distorted for fossil interests. It's from 2021 too!
2025 vehicles are miles ahead! (Literally).
They have those solid-state batteries that charge in 5 minutes. There is the lightyear prototype that was insanely expensive...but it could run for decades given optimal light, and 40km/h or bellow speed with it's solar panels.
source is polestar and rivian, as noted in the graphic.
solid-state batteries are not yet viable at vehicle scale.
lightyear went bankrupt in 2023.
Oh, nice....
That's what I get for forgetting we live in Warhammer 2k
We could always stop doing that.
I got a 2019 used nissan leaf in 2020 (the lessee didn’t like it), but it looked new. My coworkers tripped over themselves to tell me that the production of a vehicle is worse for the planet anyway. Then, when I explained that it was used, they all responded that the electricity was probably dirty anyway. I charged it at the company garage or at my town’s public spots, both of which were solar powered.
You always get FUD about EVs from people who don't like the idea that they might be responsible for unnecessarily harming the planet and their neighbours through their actions and would far rather believe that you're just as bad as them. It's BoTh sIdES but for polluters.
My old petrol car consumes 4.5L/100km. New Hybrid EVs consume 4.5L/100km because it takes a lot to move the heavy hybrid system.
Solution: I use public transport a lot unless I can't. That's my hybrid mode of transport.
Public transport is always king but you are also supposed to plug in the hybrid vehicle.
Also they're blatantly not comparing like for like.
For example, the Toyota Yaris has a petrol-only version that get 4.6 to 5.8L/100km, whereas the (non-plugin) hybrid version of the exact same car gets 3.8L/100km, so all this guff about "it takes a lot to move the heavy hybrid system" is clearly FUD.
My friend’s work is over an hour from his house by public transport—if public transport is working, and it’s a weekday. If it isn’t working well, if it’s late, if it’s a weekend or holiday, then it’s closer to two hours (or more).
It’s 15 minutes max by car.
And he lives in a place with good public transportation.
Until we improve how public transportation runs, so that it really is designed around how people need to get from A to B, cars are going to be the more popular choice.
I really hate that shit. To suburbs? Sure, that's acceptable cox public transportation prioritizes high density areas.
To city to another city and public transportation takes double of driving? That's bad design. Infrastructure that prioritizes cars no matter the population density is not sustainable, whether that's shown as car traffic or massive deficit to keep roads maintained
Yes but that is never going to happen without putting restraints on the auto industry, which puts big money into preventing public transit from being built, and if its already exists, to destroy it.
Car culture is killing us. I get you're trying to be pragmatic but more is necessary.
Bikes combined with public transit usually cut down those times massively. And to ask---good, or good by usa standards? Cities in Germany or japan are impressive with how fast you can get places by train.
Also-- people being unwilling to trade a bit of convenience in exchange for a better world is a major part of the problem. I got off my car and started biking for everything, and it was easy. More people could easily do the same. Combined with trains, I can go very far.
No, it's not good public transportation. Good public transportation is faster and cheaper than a car. That's terrible public transportation, just because other places are even worse it doesn't mean that one is good.
If its 15 mins by car it's likely a gentle 30 mins ride. A small vespa or motorbike has to be better than a car for that sort of distance - we need to avoid thinking car is the only private transport solution
That doesn’t work when the weather in the winter is always below 0c
Yes, it does. Don't be a naysayer when you haven't tried it; it isn't as daunting as it seems
It does for me (southern uk) but to be fair doesn't often go beyond - 5 and.im driven by something more powerful than environmentalism - cheapness! :)
Edit: I see you said constant below freezing, yeah fair point, that would tip the balance
I know people that cycle all year round and where I live it is decidedly colder and snowier than that all winter.

top 94 comments