Bikes and electric scooters can very well supplement public transit, at least for the "last mile". Cities like Paris and Amsterdam have very good public transit, but biking is still popular, even in wind, rain and cold. People bike in freaking Oulu, Finland, even with the snow and cold.

It's a perfectly viable supplement to good public transit.

It’s the heat that is the problem. That’s why you’re only able to cite mild to cold cities as doing this successfully.

It’s currently about 95F and humid every day where I live (mid-sized US city). I start sweating the moment I step outside. Add 10-15m worth of physical activity and I’m a disgusting smelly mess for the rest of the day. I hate that I live in a place that is car centric. But bike travel is not realistic here either even though most places I go to are easily within biking distance.

We have to collectively realize that the competition we’re up against is a private, quiet, climate controlled box with a built-in entertainment system that takes you directly from point A to point B reliably and on demand. Oh and a nationwide set of infrastructure built to accommodate it. People will absolutely pay a premium (both in $ and time sitting in traffic) as a trade off for those features. Additionally an enormous chunk of the market does not believe (or at least believe enough to care) that it matters for the climate. Environmentalism as a selling point for public/bike transit will never be effective on ~50% of the market.

The solution has to literally be better than cars in order to win. And cars have a lot going for them, to the point where most people have implicitly built their entire lives around the ubiquity of car availability. Transit advocates don’t seem to “get” this. We’re not asking people to change their mode of transit, we’re asking people to change their entire way of life for an alternative that they don’t believe (and may be right about) is better

You could ride an electric scooter between two climate controlled garages for ten minutes or a couple miles without getting disgusting. In many U.S. urban areas the garages and scooters already exist, it's "just" a matter of setting aside dedicated lanes and popularizing it.

I can, and do, use electric scooters reasonably often.

As a northern European, I can confirm. The nearest train station is a 10 minute bike ride from my house. From there the rest of my commute is a breeze. If I was to drive I'd be stuck in traffic much longer. And it's nice to get some fresh air to start the day. Only problem is the few months of snow.

I believe you that your commute is fine but I think you don’t understand how much Americans love convenience. How do I work a McDonalds drive through into that trip? Can yon get bikes with cup holders for a 32 ounce beverage?

Of course it’s not just Americans. I’ve got southern German friends who love the American car centric lifestyle.

> ...but biking is still popular, even in wind, rain and cold...

The frame of the comment is quite vulnerable to survival biases though - if the transport has taken a step back from cars then the people who stopped travelling will not be visually observable.

Although I do think car-first cities are a plague and it'd be better not to have them.

Sure, that works very well for European cities where moderate temperatures are the norm. For the heat of Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico? For the freezing temperatures in Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota? You would quickly die.

Furthermore, our cities are simply bigger and more spread out. You’ll counter by saying we need denser, more walkable cities even though we obviously can’t just tear down our cities and start from scratch.

I bike all year long in Sweden, it's doable with the right gear and clothing. And I'm not even originally from a cold country, I'm Brazilian, living here for 7 years and used to bike in the heat of Brazil as well. This is a cop-out...

> it's doable with the right gear and clothing

It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

Just because you can find a weird amish guys who insists that riding a horse is great, doesn't make that a good way of transportation, or something that we should start doing more.

> It's doable, but it's also the most time consuming and impractical way of transportation, compared to the other options, so therefor it's bad.

My connection to the center of Stockholm takes 45-60 minutes counting the time to-from stations, I bike the same distance in about 40-45 minutes. I get some exercise, I get to bike to any street I want to in more-or-less the same amount of time. It's bad for you, so just swallow that as a personal opinion but don't come with sweeping statements that "it's therefore bad", this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

I prefer the bike than the great public transportation here for any trip where I won't be carrying more than what my cargo backpack can carry.

I don't agree with the logic of your statement ("it's not perfect for me so therefore bad"), also coming after biking infrastructure is a very weird hill to die on...

> this is totally subjective to one's level of discomfort and/or laziness.

Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this. There are a million ways to do exercise and sports, and to spend your life and time and energy. Just because someone doesn't like cycling like you, doesn't make them lazy. That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it. Doesn't matter what you personally like.

> That's an unbelievably self centered and arrogant viewpoint.

> My logic is that cycling is bad because 1. it's not powerful and 2. it's sensitive to the weather, and 3. most people don't do it.

> Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad. The whole point of our society is to transcend this.

Pretty self-centered I'd say.

This doesn't mean that we should construct infrastructure that actively discourages cycling. The argument isn't "let's force everyone to cycle". It's "let's make cycling so safe and convenient that the ones who would like to do it can do so without risking life and limb jostling in the same lanes as SUVs the size of Abrams tanks."

Let's prioritise what makes for actually efficient transport, and which most people will use, and not prioritise inefficient transports that only a few enthusiasts are using.

"Being forced to do activities that are uncomfortable and strenuous = bad"

Think you might find that your biology disagrees somewhat, there. Try sitting in a bathtub 100% of your life and see what happens with your health.

Yes, yes, being forced is bad. But it does help against laziness :)

You also have cities on the coasts (especially west) with weather very compatible with biking. Also no need to tear everything down, just add a few floors and shops at the ground level on existing houses, with maybe larger sidewalks. As long as shops are not all required to be concentrated along a big non walkable road it will work.

> For the heat of Texas, Arizona, Florida, and New Mexico? For the freezing temperatures in Minnesota, Alaska, and North Dakota? You would quickly die.

The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

> even though we obviously can’t just tear down our cities and start from scratch.

You don't have to. Reclaim the roads/stroads by building in the middle and leaving a single one-way lane on each side.

> The majority of people commute by scooter/moped in Jakarta, so it's clearly doable in climates as hot as those you mention.

Yeah and the majority of people in Dhaka where I’m from walk everywhere. The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience? Are cars even conceivable with a population density of 76,080 per square mile? If cars are impossible in such a city then it doesn't matter whether they're impoverished or not.

> Would people in Dhaka prefer cars or just a better walking and public transit experience

Nobody wants to walk or take public transit in that heat and humidity. Especially not with two or three kids, or carrying tiffin containers of leftovers after a dinner party. My family members who came over from Dhaka to the US moved to places built around cars as soon as they could afford it. My cousin just moved to Texas (after studying in Queens) and is loving all the open space, the houses with pools, etc.

Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably. Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

Having climate-controlled walkways or more comfortable transit options specifically for people with kids should be available in every city, "impoverished" or "third world" or not. The world certainly has the resources for it.

> Walking in heat and humidity is unpleasant but the climate and population are what they are so you work with what you have.

Bangladesh has about the same population density as the Houston metro area. So it would be totally possible for most people to have cars and houses if it became an advanced service economy.

> I can't speak for all environmentalists but I'd like people to live pleasantly wherever they like if they can do so sustainably.

It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

> Probably most Dhaka residents, like most people anywhere, would prefer to stay in their home city and country if possible, just improved. In any case giving everyone in the world a Texas-sized house and pool is not on the table no matter what until we invent personal fusion generators and matter replicators.

I think that's an accurate reflection of what people's end goals are, yes. Using technology to increase the standard of living, just as in western countries.

> It's not really up to environmentalists in the first world.

We are also predominantly complaining about people in the "first world" disregarding the environment due to minor convenience and unfortunate economics.

(But we only have one planet for now, and as things are, nobody is entitled to a free pass to be environmentally irresponsible anymore.)

> The true goal of urbanists and environmentalists is for us to live like we’re impoverished people in the third world.

Indeed, when you bike to work you're mimicking truly impoverished people like Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark.

Sometimes I wonder if aggressively pro-car anti-bicycle people ever tried using a bicycle seriously...

I once told my dad, who grew up in a Bangladeshi village, that my wife and I were going to a fancy restaurant that churns its own butter. “Why would you churn your own butter,” he asked. “You can buy butter at the store.”

Similarly, biking to work does not make you impoverished. Having to bike to work, or living in a society where most people bike to work, strongly suggests you are impoverished.

Your dad has a point about butter, but would the transport equivalent of not having to churn your own butter not be to have others chauffeur you around, rather than driving yourself? Or, if we think of it as highlighting mass manufacture efficiency, taking public transport?

In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

> In Denmark at least, most people bike to work, so the latter part is at least objectively false.

In case anyone is curious, the following PDF provides some statistics on this issue: https://trimis.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/project/docu...

Tldr: 20% of commuting trips are by bicycle, 13% by public transport, and 60% by private car/van. Of all travel miles, 5% are by bicycle, 10% by public transport, and 77% are by car/van.

Oulu has temperatures go below -30C and has a healthy cycling culture.

For heat, it will depend individually. Personally I've biked at +35C and it was fine until i stopped due to the wind/movement refreshing.

The commenter did already address the temperature part of your concern already, but this should be helpful: https://youtu.be/Uhx-26GfCBU

I have biked year round in Minnesota for my commute since I was a child, not dead yet decades later.

So much of the Internet these days is Americans explaining why their collapsing system will never be fixable. It makes me sad.

Where do you see bicycles in Paris?

Literally everywhere? Quais, bd Sébastopol, Grands Boulevards, Rivoli, Bastille are places you can barely cross due to the amount of bicycles.

I've also biked and seen others on the Maréchaux, through all arrondissements. Same in the Petite Couronne suburbs, and i have friends living in faraway places that have well bike parkings at their train stations.

Concur. I remember sitting jet-lagged in a cafe at the Place Bastille watching all the cyclists go by. I was impressed by the guy who cycled with a phone to his ear, until I saw the woman with a phone to her ear and a cello on her back.

Three weeks ago I walked from Opera to Eiffel tower and while there were some cyclist it was only a few and nothing compared to like the netherlands.

Why is it not practical for most business and personal purposes? I cycle to work (on an e-bike) every day and so do most people I know

Too hot, or too cold, or too rainy. The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most) happen to be located in a temperate climate where it is almost never too cold, nor too hot, nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Those are just two cities in two countries but you're ignoring Spain (Barcelona, Seville), France (Paris, Lyon), England (London), Italy where there are pretty extensive plans in cities like Milan, Germany which would be perfectly fine for cycling, ditto for the Nordics, and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold. Also cities in NA like Montreal which are dramatically expanding their cycling network and already have fairly good ridership on the protected routes.

Yes, in places like Montreal they face a lot of opposition from car owners who literally seem to ignore that the only reason you can drive in heavy snow is because the snow gets cleared by pretty major logistics networks.

I've rarely been to a city that couldn't be a good cycling city at least for huge parts of the year, even if not a complete solution - does anyone who is pro-bicycle argue against extensive and effective public transport?

> and people also cycle a lot in Finland despite the cold

Yeah and how much is this exactly? Even with perfect cycling infrastructure it's something like 12% of trips. Go to finland or sweden in the middle of the winter, observe the bike lanes and see for yourself how much they are used. Hint, they are largely empty, which comes as no surprise considering how obviously impractical and uncomfortable it is. And they cost a ton of money in maintenance.

> And they cost a ton of money in maintenance.

A lot less than the roads for automobiles, and I regularly use the bike lanes in Sweden during all seasons and have no issues with that despite being originally from a warm country.

What a weird rant to come after bike lanes because "they are expensive and just virtue signalling", jesus.

It doesn't matter if you regularly do it, most people do not. We live in a democracy and we should not spend tax money and public space to accommodate for a small minority of enthusiasts who like to be inefficient, despite our whole society motivating us to do the opposite.

Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.

> Bike lanes are like gym memberships, people like the idea and buy into it, but in reality they are too lazy, and don't have the time to actually do it. And it just ends up being a waste of money on duplicated infrastructure, because you still need to cover 100% of the capacity in public transport for the rainy days.

This was me before an ebike. I now use it absolutely every day, when the weather allows.

None of this is fact, and it's funny you think it's the people who are pro-bicycle who are in fact the lazy ones, not the people who choose to drive literally everywhere.

You surely need some numbers to back up this argument somehow...

> Too hot, or too cold, or too rainy.

Or too windy. And more importantly, it's too slow and have limited range. Bonus point for also being the most boring mode of transportation since you can't talk to your friends or use your phone.

You want to spend more time being stuck in traffic? Ok then cycling is a great choice.

> The Western European cities that are oftentimes given as positive examples (I’m thinking about Copenhagen and Amsterdam most)

Cycling in these cities are probably related to tourism more than anything else. When you have time and you are flexible, sure cycling works well. If you are pressed for time and you need to be places regardless of weather, not so great.

I'm from a northern european country, have cycled in all weathers, winter etc, and I think it's one of the most pointless wastes of tax money and inducing unnecessary hardships on people with problems that are already solved much better. All for virtue signalling.

> you can't talk to your friends or use your phone

You've obviously never casually biked. In NL you very frequently see teens riding with 3 people next to each other talking, and while you're not allowed to hold phones anymore, you can easily do hands-free phone calls if you wanted. A lot of people have earpods for music or podcasts in.

> In NL you very frequently see teens riding with 3 people next to each other talking

That's illegal and dangerous.

> you can easily do hands-free phone calls if you wanted

No you can't because of the wind noise.

If you think it isn't rainy in those locations... Amsterdam gets about 35 inches of rain a year vs 25 inches in London - plenty damp enough. Don't forget the canals often freeze up yearly or so in Amsterdam too, so it can be pretty cold there, and due to wet air feel pretty vile - but people still cycle as it is easy, fast and cheap.

No, it doesn't get rainy, rainy, you don't get half of the city flooded in just 30 or so minutes [1], most of the times it's just a drizzle that's manageable with a decent raincoat.

[1] https://youtu.be/Ve-oExiwq_0?t=92

That's a strawman. Intense weather like a flooded city that would stop a car would of course stop a bike, but you're either stuck at home or stuck outside regardless of what you do. The only relevant weather is common weather you would have no issue with in a car (or would not allow you to do remote work that day).

It should also be noted that many Europeans have cars but bike in medium to good weather. I take the car in hail or snow for example, but bike as much as a car otherwise as I physically and mentally feel better after biking, I reduce pollution and I save money. Wins all around.

London https://youtube.com/shorts/Pvjm3NvJaWI?feature=share

Amsterdam https://youtu.be/1twXqpsDUIQ

- but a way, let's go back to what you said: Nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Have you lived in either of those countries?

Raincoats work when you are walking, and the rain comes from above, but not when you are cycling, because the rain comes from the sides, and below.

It's really complicated to cycle in the rain, especially in cold winter rain. You have to have specialised clothing that will both keep you warm, and be waterproof. Special gloves, insulated rubber boots? And you still get sweaty underneath at the same time.

How do you cover your helmet? Your face? Have fun taking a shower in freezing water three times a week for 6 months of the year, ice bucket challenge on the way to work. I hope you don't mind those extra sick days.

It's not that complicated, you need a rain jacket, waterproof pants and you are already 90% there. If you want to be more comfortable if you are biking longer than 30-45 minutes in bitter cold before freezing (5C or less) it can be sensible to have insulated shoes but it's not a requirement at all, I usually don't wear any weatherproof shoes during spring/fall in Stockholm, rainy and windy around 5C or less and experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes after a 45-60 minutes commute on a bike.

It's really not an issue if you just get used to it, every time I read similar comments to this I can only think of a picky child complaining about relatively minor issues, and mostly they are imagined ones by people who never really had to/tried to bike during these conditions...

It is an issue to have your hands, feet, head and face soaked in freezing water for 45 minutes.

> experienced no issues having a change of socks + shoes

Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.

It doesn't matter if you can find some person who likes it, the vast majority of people will optimise for practicality and efficiency, because that's what our society revolves around.

Building bike lanes is the easy part, the hard part is coming up with the extra time and patience for people to put up with a longer and more uncomfortable commute.

> Oh so now you have to carry extra shoes and socks all the time, "no problem" lol. You can just go into the subway and all of these issues disappear, and you will get to your destination faster, so cycling is bad in comparison.

I already have a backpack when biking, a change of shoes and socks is a non-issue, I don't know why this would be a problem for you but yes, if you are looking for "maximum convenience" instead of a balance of trade-offs.

Again, it's not faster for me to take the subway, the subway doesn't have infinite capacity, crowding during rush hour is a thing. There are issues with any mode of transportation, fighting against bikes and biking infrastructure is definitely the strangest position I have seen someone take.

I don't understand if you are just a contrarian or if you really believe that investment in biking infrastructure is an issue for transportation in dense cities... If so the only argument I read boils down to "it's not super convenient and hence is bad and no one does it". I don't see reality in that argument.

Yup, you want and can optimise for practicality, biking infrastructure is definitely not holding that up. Now trying to argue that biking is "bad" is way out, biking is bad for your constraints, I know tons of people who bike everyday in northern Europe and have no issues with it.

Not sure exactly what your point is... We shouldn't invest in biking infrastructure? Because... It's "bad" for your convenience constraints?

Biking is not convenient/practical enough therefore not enough people will do it to justify large investment. This is why billions for a subway station make sense while parking spots and bike lanes would be way better utilized as restaurant patios in dense cities.

Most dutch people own a raincoat and -pants for biking, you put it over your clothes and remain dry. They cost maybe €30. No-one wears a helmet, nor do you need to.

Most Amish people just ride a horse and it's just fine. Yeah so what, it's obviously impractical and we have better options.

The amount of adult dutch people who cycle to work in the rain is a small minority.

> but people still cycle as it is easy, fast and cheap

some people do cycle, but most people do not, because there are other options that are easier and faster.

> nor do you get pouring rain all that often.

Have you been to Copenhagen?

Or is your definition of "pouring rain" one that only includes Category 5 hurricane levels of downpour?

I see autonomous EV's as the public transit that could change everything...and not until then.

Your unsubstantiated claim is, no surprise, false.

A bike is perfectly practical for most business and personal purposes and I live in a city which demonstrates it.

I do everything by bike, except when the weather is really bad or I'm going really far away, when I use public transportation.