[Graeme]

Ride A Bike, Save $100 Trillion: The Global High Shift Report

Intuitively, people concerned about the environment have reasoned that riding a bike or taking public transit offer more ecological benefits than driving a car, especially when they’re traveling alone. Now the University of California and the New York-based international nonprofit Institute for Transportation and Development Policy have provided some heady numbers in their Global High Shift Scenario to back that statement up.

Released at a meeting today in advance of the September 23 Secretary-General’s Climate Summit in New York, the global high shift report (funded by the Ford, ClimateWorks, and Hewlett Foundations) says that public and private spending will drop by $100 trillion between now and 2050 if the world’s cities would expand public transportation, walking, and cycling as modes of getting places.

En masse, individuals willing to make this lifestyle change could cut carbon dioxide emissions from urban transport by about 40%, reducing CO2 emissions by 1,700 megatons per year in 2050.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

From the executive summary:

This report is the first study to examine how major changes in urban transport investments worldwide would affect urban passenger transport emissions as well as mobility by different income groups. It starts with the most recent United Nations urban population forecasts and the most recent model framework and forecasts used by the International Energy Agency (IEA) for global mobility modeling. The study extends these with new research on the extent of various urban passenger transport systems in cities across the world, as well as new estimates of the extent of mobility by non-motorized transport and low power e-bikes.

The study considers two main future scenarios: a baseline urban scenario calibrated to the IEA 2012 Energy Technology Perspectives 4° Scenario and a newly developed alternative scenario called “High Shift” (HS), with far greater urban passenger travel by clean public transport and non-motorized modes than in the Baseline and a decrease in the rates of road construction, parking garages and other ways in which car ownership is encouraged.

The study concludes that this High Shift scenario could save over $100 trillion in public and private capital and operating costs of urban transportation between now and 2050 and eliminate about 1.7 gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually – a 40 percent reduction of urban passenger transport emissions -- by 2050. This suggests one of the more affordable ways to cut global warming pollution is to design cities to give people clean options for using public transportation, walking and cycling. In recent years transportation, driven by rapid growth in car use, has been the fastest growing source of CO2 in the world. Transportation in urban areas accounted for about 2.3 gigatons of CO2 in 2010, almost one quarter of carbon emissions from all parts of the transportation sector. Rapid urbanization especially in fast developing countries like China and India—will cause these emissions to nearly double worldwide by 2050 without changes in policy and investments.

[Graeme]

Since many especially in developing countries like China and India do not own cars, it is cheaper to invest in public transport rather than purchasing cars and investing in car infrastructure. There is also additional saving in stopping deaths and health costs associated with air pollution. In short this appears to be the advice according to authors of the report but implementing it is another matter.

[AgentR11]

pstarr.. Its not really applicable to cite NYC. NYC is atypical in size, location, geology... Most cities will simply buy buses or surface light rail. Houston added a bunch of light rail in town; though I don't know if Houstonians are generally keen on the idea, even after all this time.

The bike thing is much harder though. We do have a bike thread here somewhere; but as someone that does bike for a substantial percentage of my purpose transportation, I kinda need to raise a cautionary note.

Roads in most cities here are actually really good for cycling, but they don't look like it. The problem arises in that advocates for "walkability" or whatever trendy thing of the moment, are mostly interested in the making it appealing, as opposed to enhancing safety and efficiency of biking. By doing so, the person that is new to the concept of a bicycle as serious transportation ends up using a bicycle in the same manner as they would walk, and about as fast; and thus, they try it, but won't buy in for daily commutes, grocery shopping, etc; because it takes too long to commute 10 miles by bicycle when they treat it like walking.

Thus, we end up with lots of NOTNYC places full of bike paths and road markings that are either completely useless, or used only as recreational/exercise venues.

If the same money were used on wider lanes or full shoulders when appropriate, drivers would be happier, bicyclists would be safer, and bicyclists would get to their destinations faster and more efficiently. I'm fortunate in my smaller city that the major throughways all have very wide right lanes, or full shoulders, I can bike to any location in town in minutes, and have a nice set of longer distance recreational destinations also accessible via wide lanes and/or shoulders. I have thousands of road miles and many years worth of experience doing this, I'm not just ranting aimlessly.

TLDR... Bicycling.. by spending on enticing facilities we end up crippling true useability.

otoh, funny wise, I'm going to be really annoyed if a bunch of wimps start crowding my bicycle drag strips (aka full shoulders) going 6 mph on a thing that looks like its out of the 1920s.

[Graeme]

Thanks Agent. Here are some comments made on this topic at the Greencarcongress site including reference to e-bikes. It's an interesting tussle between personal freedom and the public health directed by governments.

[AgentR11]

I do agree with you about the times a bike won't work out well. I'll personally confess to a strong dislike of being rained on; and I will use my truck to go places when its raining, even if it would otherwise be a perfectly reasonable bike trip.

OTOH, I can do the tools and probably could do the skillsaw, but I'd have to use a stronger rear touring wheel I think; and winter is definitely better riding weather than summer.

So I'd advise most anyone not to think of the bike as a complete substitute, but rather as part of an overall transportation package. I suspect I could easily end up keeping my truck, my bike, and get something like a Nissan LEAF. My bike would still account for the largest number of trips, and the truck of course handles the distance and/or cargo; while the passenger car would get used transporting other people, the odd 25-50 mile distance trips, or times when I just can't make the day's schedule work by bicycle (rare, but happens).

[ralfy]

When it comes to the environment, the problem isn't simply a matter of switching to bikes but the growth of cities and middle class conveniences.

[Graeme]

This is a discussion about what is appropriate transport for future cities where most of the world's people will live. It appears that public transport is cheaper but exactly what form that will take will depend what is suitable and affordable for each particular city. It doesn't necessarily have to be only bikes for all cities. Every form of public (and private) transport needs to be considered.

[SILENTTODD]

The Southern California Metrolink (commuter rail for L.A., Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange Counties in Southern California) has has added "Bicycle Cars" for those who use the rail to commute, but would like to use their bike to cover the distance between the station and their place of work. If your work is within 5 miles this is usually faster than waiting for a bus to complete the journey.

Until retiring last December from AT&T I had been living only a mile from my work location in Orange County. I have since moved 30 miles away to Corona California, but have thought if I had to commute from from here to that old location I would definitely use the Bike Car and my bicycle to get to work, save money, and get exercise! Plan on doing it this next week to visit friends at my old job.

[Graeme]

SILENTTODD, Thanks for your post. Here's more:

Bicyclists In New York City & DC Doubled In 4 Years

Washington DC and New York City have sprung to the forefront of a recent Census Statistics release. Each city has improved bicycle infrastructure and shown swiftly rising numbers of bicyclists. The cities have enhanced some networks of modern protected bike lanes, and bicyclists are using them as quickly as they appear. Census figures published recently show a doubled rate of bike commuting between 2009 and 2013.

Washington has a collection of protected lanes and painted lanes, and the expanding bicycle culture swiftly fills the lanes and paths with each addition and improvement.

People for Bikes notes: “Washington DC vaulted to 4.5 percent of commutes by bicycle in 2013, up from 2.2 percent in 2009. Among major U.S. cities, that estimate would place DC second only to Portland, Oregon as a bike commuting hub.”

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

CityDig: A Freeway for Bicycles? It Happened in Pasadena

From CicLAvia to a new comprehensive bike plan, Los Angeles has been imagining new ways to get around the city on two wheels. But perhaps nothing today matches the ambition behind a Pasadena millionaire’s turn-of-the-20th-century scheme: a bicycle freeway connecting the Crown City to Los Angeles.

Southern California was then in the grip of a bicycling craze. A dirt bicycle path ran from Santa Monica to Los Angeles, and clubs from Boyle Heights and Riverside regularly raced on dusty roads. Bicycling, it seemed, might be the future of local transportation. But the rutted roads, rugged terrain, and more than 400 feet of elevation change separating Pasadena and Los Angeles presented challenges to a cyclist traveling between the two cities.

Enter the California Cycleway. Winding along the dry bed of the Arroyo Seco, the nine-mile, elevated bicycle path would have soared up to 50 feet above the ground, eliminating at-grade crossings with roads and railroad tracks. A maximum grade of three percent would ensure a pleasant ride, and wooden railings with protective netting would protect riders from falls. With incandescent lights spaced two hundred feet apart, the route would be open both day and night. The brainchild of Pasadena mayor Horace Dobbins, the $200,000 project would be financed through ten-cent tolls collected along the route.

lamag

[Graeme]

San Francisco Places Huge Light Rail Order

The city of San Francisco has placed a massive order for 175 light rail train cars for $648 million from Siemens, with the option to buy another 85 reports Green Car Congress. This is one of the largest such orders in the history of the U.S., and it will give Bay Area commuters swanky new trains to take into work.

The Model S200 light rail train cars will be built in Siemens’ Sacramento, California plant, with the first units scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2016. With this order, one out of every three light trail or street cars in America will be made by Siemens, making them a leader in this continuously growing market. San Francisco has always been popular for its streetcars and Muni public transit system, and these 175 train cars are part of a widespread modernization program designed to make the system more user-friendly and energy efficient. The Model S200 train cars have features like regenerative braking and use LED lights that reduce energy usage by as much as 40% on a system that moves as many as 700,000 weekday commuters.

Not green enough for you? Well the factory where these train cars are being built applies to the Buy America standard denoting a certain amount of content come from domestic sources. Additionally, the Sacramento plant where the train cars are being built gets as much as 80% of its energy from a two-megawatt solar roof installation, saving an estimated 1,470 tons of CO2 emissions annually. From light rail to wind turbines to high-speed trains, Siemens is getting its green on.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Japanese Bank Offers $5 Billion To US For Northeast Maglev High-Speed Rail

The US may finally be on the verge of getting a new high-speed rail service in the Northeast, but it isn’t because of a change in policy, it’s simply because a state-controlled Japanese bank is offering up $5 billion in financing as part of a push to bring the maglev technology to the American market.

The specific aim of the $5 billion is to build a high-speed (up to 311 mph) maglev train route between Washington DC and Baltimore. The said route would — quite impressively — cut the travel time between the two cities down to about 15 minutes.

cleantechnica

[Graeme]

Maybe they could build above these structures. Here's an interesting concept where commuters get paid to cycle or walk.

“Reverse Toll” Paid To Pedestrians & Cyclists In Norwegian Town

Travelers with the lightest footprints, pedestrians and bicyclists, recently earned a boost in their pockets for their carbon-free travel in a small city in Norway. In Lillestrøm, around 10,000 NOK (€1,200) was handed out to pedestrians and cyclists. “Reverse toll money” was part of Norway’s ongoing European Mobility Week celebrations. The money reflected savings due to the health benefits of walking and cycling. Pedestrians and bicyclists gained the rewards for increasing clean, efficient transport in the city.

World Streets reports: “Cyclists received around €12, while pedestrians gained €11. Calculations carried out by the Norwegian Directorate of Health shows that active transport provides the state with a saving of 52 NOK (€6) per kilometer for pedestrians and 26 NOK (€3) per kilometer for cyclists. An average bike trip in Norway is 4 kilometers, providing a health benefit of 100 NOK (€12), while an average walking trip is 1.7 km, worth almost 90 NOK (€11).”

Eric Britton is enthusiastic and points out clearly: “This is not a light-weight, happy go lucky, feel-good idea. It is world class economics. Full cost pricing: All you have to do is run the numbers, and you can see where it is best to spend the taxpayer money.”

cleantechnica

[AgentR11]

If it was full cost pricing, the amount paid out would be linearly related to the distance cycled.