Charging stations for electric automobiles are useful to get people to switch away from environmentally unsustainable gasoline and diesel-powered cars. However, not all trips should be taken by...
Charging stations for electric automobiles are useful to get people to switch away from environmentally unsustainable gasoline and diesel-powered cars. However, not all trips should be taken by car. Millions of short trips taken every day by car (electric or not) could be taken by a far more efficient mode: an electric bike which doesn't weigh two tons and isn't six feet wide. They're an important complement to a car-centric transportation system. Unfortunately, governments are not investing in this infrastructure.
According to a new report from the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association, the federal government currently dedicates zero dollars to on-street docking stations for e-bikes and other micromobility options — or, more accurately, human-scaled modes — compared to a staggering $7.5 billion for shared and private electric cars.
And that omission, the report authors argue, is slowing the rollout of a critical mobility alternative without which we’re unlikely to curb the worst effects of climate change. Climate experts say that global city-dwellers must use a mode other that driving for at least 40 percent of the miles they travel by 2030 to keep transportation sector emissions under control, but Americans often rely on private cars and cabs even for short, safe journeys that many Americans could accomplish by e-bike — if there were only one around.
E-bike charging stations are seriously cheap. According to the article's graphic from the North American Bike and Scooter Association, $1 million allocated to EV charging could either create a charging network for 120 cars or 650 bikes and scooters. That's a big difference! Of course we don't need to stop funding electric car infrastructure, but human-scaled modes like e-bikes and e-scooters need governmental support too.
It wouldn't even be that hard. We just have to fund it:
Since only an estimated 20 to 30 percent of all micromobility hubs need to be electrified to adequately serve the charging needs of most operators, the report authors are confident that U.S. communities can rise to this challenge — because if they don’t, we’ll miss out of a once-in-a-generation opportunity reduce car dependency.
If it's so cheap, why should we (taxpayers) have to fund it? Oh is it because the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association wants free cash to support and legitimize their business...
E-bike charging stations are seriously cheap. [...] $1 million allocated to EV charging could either create a charging network for 120 cars or 650 bikes and scooters. That's a big difference! Of course we don't need to stop funding electric car infrastructure, but human-scaled modes like e-bikes and e-scooters need governmental support too.
It wouldn't even be that hard. We just have to fund it:
If it's so cheap, why should we (taxpayers) have to fund it?
Oh is it because the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association wants free cash to support and legitimize their business because they like to use images like this to represent their brand while the reality is closer to this or this, where they block pedestrian, wheelchair, and visually impaired access to sidewalks. And when cities crack down on their illegal law skirting use of public spaces for private businesses they just abandon their equipment and workers for the cities to clean up.
Seems odd to me that these micromobility companies with multi-billion dollar valuations need a government handout to provide "this incredibly cheap and valuable service" that they say we need...
I don't disagree that many trips don't need to be taken by car and something that takes up much less space than a car should be encouraged, but trying to frame it as one of the solutions to climate problem when they're dumping literal shit-tons of disposable e-waste on city streets is a hard pill to swallow.
It’s either charging infrastructure, showers in every building, or magically making bikes air conditioned. It’s too hot & humid for that without such affordances in the US.
It’s either charging infrastructure, showers in every building, or magically making bikes air conditioned. It’s too hot & humid for that without such affordances in the US.
To be fair, here in Germany a lot of shopping places have a few charging spots for e-bikes. It really helps a lot, since so many places allow you to charge the bike you can get very far on the...
To be fair, here in Germany a lot of shopping places have a few charging spots for e-bikes. It really helps a lot, since so many places allow you to charge the bike you can get very far on the batter.y
That's a good point I hadn't thought about. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I do not own an electric bike (yet) as I currently live in a place where riding a bike for transport is both nearly...
That's a good point I hadn't thought about. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I do not own an electric bike (yet) as I currently live in a place where riding a bike for transport is both nearly impossible because of lack of infrastructure (Texas) and a death sentence because of the drivers, near complete lack of bike lanes, respect for fellow humans, and right of way.
...but a quick google says the average electric bike has something around 20-30 mile range if letting the electrics do most of the work and that doubles (or more) if using pedal assist. 40-60 miles on a bike is a lot, I'm generally ticked if I have to do 60 miles in my car going around town running errands.
Exactly. I can't imagine many e-bike riders are commuting much farther than 5 miles, maybe 10 in a few extreme cases (I would totally be one of those weirdos riding 10 miles in the suburbs if I...
Exactly. I can't imagine many e-bike riders are commuting much farther than 5 miles, maybe 10 in a few extreme cases (I would totally be one of those weirdos riding 10 miles in the suburbs if I had a bike lane).
Honestly, it's a big lift to get Americans to bike a few miles as is. Americans are so culturally oriented around the car that most Americans just don't have the cultural template to relate to...
Honestly, it's a big lift to get Americans to bike a few miles as is. Americans are so culturally oriented around the car that most Americans just don't have the cultural template to relate to others who exert themselves to get from their start to their destination. An eBike makes their ride similar to a drive; eBike rides require low effort and little physical prowess.
Cars double park and stop where they're not supposed to all the time; the reason cars stopping haphazardly isn't as big of a problem is because the US has dedicated large swathes of its land to...
Cars double park and stop where they're not supposed to all the time; the reason cars stopping haphazardly isn't as big of a problem is because the US has dedicated large swathes of its land to parking. Cities like LA dedicate 14% of their total land area to car parking. Cities frequently mandate a minimum amount of parking to ensure that drivers have easy parking within reach. Scooters don't even have a fraction of this. Of course, if we're looking for existing solutions and not new policy, then the answer is docked bike sharing or parking spots for dockless scooters.
Several cities in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia have docked bikeshare programs. Many cities in the US have also only allowed a restricted set of companies to operate their dockless scooter shares.
The solutions here are pretty easy and I feel that it's a bit unfair that we hold scooters and bikes to a higher standard than cars, who also regularly park illegally and even drive without necessary paperwork despite having a much higher potential for harm.
The difference here is that all of those programs are government run, so it makes sense for the government to pay for bikeshare parking/charging. These are private entities using public spaces to...
The difference here is that all of those programs are government run, so it makes sense for the government to pay for bikeshare parking/charging. These are private entities using public spaces to run a for-profit business and then are asking for a government handout to put in charging infrastructure for them.
The line between "public" and "private" when it comes to roads and transport seems to me to be quite fuzzy. Roads are used mostly by private individuals with private infrastructure who can use...
The line between "public" and "private" when it comes to roads and transport seems to me to be quite fuzzy. Roads are used mostly by private individuals with private infrastructure who can use vehicles of varying geometries which put varying amounts of wear-and-tear on the infrastructure (for example, heavy cars are a lot more damaging of pavement than lighter ones) but are subsidized through a combination of taxes (often sales and property taxes) and user fees (the gas tax, which hasn't been updated for inflation in over 30 years.) Parking for cars is generally supported through parking mandates which end up being a tax on the developer to ensure that all projects being created have parking. BEVs and hydrogen gas charging already have tax budgets allocated toward them.
While I would love a world where private vehicles and private usage of resources was purely funded by the private owner or user, the system of transport the US already has is a deeply intertwined public/private affair. Given that, I see little reason to draw the line for scooters when we already accommodate the private automobile so much. I think it makes a lot of sense for governments to pass sensible regulations on scooter share companies, such as dedicated parking areas and huge fines and property seizure on failed compliance. My worry is that giving cars a lighter regulatory environment than scooters will just end up with the US leaning into its over-reliance on cars for everything.
Almost all road wear is due to heavy trucks, not cars and even cars on the heavy end do nothing compared to the 10 ton+ small commercial vehicles or the 20-40 ton commercial trucks. Roads are...
Almost all road wear is due to heavy trucks, not cars and even cars on the heavy end do nothing compared to the 10 ton+ small commercial vehicles or the 20-40 ton commercial trucks.
Roads are public places funded by taxes.
Sidewalks are public places funded by taxes.
Parking lots are private places funded by private money.
Parking mandates are a necessity as otherwise a developer would maximize floor space and let the surrounding neighborhood deal with the problem of parking.
BEV charging has been somewhat subsidized by taxes in order to allow longer distance journeys that are commonplace in a country this vast.
Automobiles are already one of the most highly regulated items in the country, from the color and placement of turn signals to the communication protocols of the ECU. Since scooters and electric bikes have near zero regulation and a little habit of spontaneously combusting, I don't think we're in any danger of them having a heavier regulatory burden than cars.
It's real simple. Electric bikes and scooters don't need tax funded long distance charging infrastructure as they aren't taken on long distances. They don't need tax funded charging stations peppered around cities as that is using public land for private entity with zero tax incentive to get return on that spending. If these micromobility companies want chargers in cities, then they should do the same thing as every other electric charging company, partner with private businesses for space to install it on private property. This won't happen because these companies want something for free and have nothing to provide for it as BEV chargers provide customers inside the private business while someone renting a bike to go a few blocks won't have a high likelihood to spend an hour inside the business spending money.
This is tangential to your comment, but automobile parking mandates are absolutely not a necessity. It is sometimes useful for municipalities to recommend specific amounts of off-street parking...
This is tangential to your comment, but automobile parking mandates are absolutely not a necessity. It is sometimes useful for municipalities to recommend specific amounts of off-street parking for a given development plot but not strictly require it. See experts Donald Shoup et al. for the staggering effects of excessive parking on cities. The High Cost of Free Parking (2005/2011) is an important and valuable read.
Most municipalities use minimum parking requirements that have no scientific basis in transportation engineering. They are based mostly on arbitrary guesswork and questionable math. There are as many as 2 billion parking spaces in the United States, most of which go unused because they are just not necessary. It does not take a scientific study to realize how parking requirements dramatically exaggerate urban sprawl (but there are several that show it!). Developers are aware that people in low-density areas rely on vehicles and will virtually always incorporate a reasonable amount of parking into their designs, according to the land use around them: developers provide parking where it's needed, knowing that including zero parking in an area that really needs it is a poor market decision. But automobile parking is not a human right. Owning a car is not a right. It should be self-evident that car-oriented societies are inherently inequitable: not everyone can safely drive, and cars are dangerous and highly spacious machines. Societies built around automobile use are inaccessible to non-drivers, including their choice to quadruple travel distances by enforcing unnecessary minimum parking mandates. In urban areas, where space is at a premium, we actually do need to allocate more space for human beings and less for vehicles. The amount of density sacrificed by minimum parking requirements and subsequent infrastructure and utility sprawl has been haunting municipal budgets for decades and continues to degrade quality of life for no good reason. The physical area taken up by cars is not sustainable financially or ecologically given their relatively poor per-capita transportation efficiency per vehicle-mile traveled. For reasons of sprawl, impermeability, and induced demand of driving, parking-oriented development is deeply environmentally damaging.
I won't argue that there isn't enough overall parking or that the mandates have any science behind them or that suburban sprawl isn't a huge issue, but to outright state that parking mandates are...
I won't argue that there isn't enough overall parking or that the mandates have any science behind them or that suburban sprawl isn't a huge issue, but to outright state that parking mandates are not a necessity is just plain wrong. Every single unregulated industry has proven they can and will maximize themselves at the detriment to all others. Give real estate developers the option to push the burden of parking (any parking be it car, bike, etc) on someone else and they'll do it. Don't mandate sidewalks and they'll happily build straight to the street to use every inch of property. It doesn't make good market decisions to poison your customers, but many an unregulated industry has done exactly that.
It does not take a scientific study to know this either, simply go to an area that is popular and was not built to have parking minimums and you'll see the issue constantly, my city has several where an older area has become popular and filled with businesses, parking that would allow each business to actually operate at capacity is non-existent and the overflow is a burden the neighboring residential streets must suffer. I lived in one of these areas and had the tremendous pleasure of dealing with it.
There are also places that simply do not work for biking due to environmental factors. There's a reason the highest bike usage places have either a history of being extremely poor/populous or extremely rich with robust public transit and a climate that allows manual mobility along with almost universally being small in comparison to the US. Arizona for example isn't going to become a bike-rich state if they demolish all the parking lots.
Nearly nothing is a human right, car parking, cars, bike parking, bikes, sidewalks, crosswalks, on and on. Not everyone can safely ride a bike either, these aren't points that prove your/their argument. And arguably there's more than enough space for humans already, they just really like to all congregate together causing problems of overcrowding and subsequent complaints about lack of space.
I can't comment on scooters or start-up-based programs, but several Canadian cities have city-operated bikeshare systems. The docking stations were originally used for accounting/fee purposes, but...
I can't comment on scooters or start-up-based programs, but several Canadian cities have city-operated bikeshare systems. The docking stations were originally used for accounting/fee purposes, but also keep the bikes in the right place. Pretty sure some of the bikes + docking stations have been recently upgraded for e-bikes/charging ports. The city also handles logistics (moving the bikes around to keep them distributed, repairs, etc.). From what I've heard, users' biggest complaint is that there aren't always enough bikes in the right areas at peak use (like rush-hour).
I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, just want to provide a counter-point that -share programs, if treated as public transpo infrastructure, can be successful.
If it was public transport I'd have zero problem with this and it'd seem like a no brainer to have charging stations. My problem entirely stems from the fact that these are private businesses...
If it was public transport I'd have zero problem with this and it'd seem like a no brainer to have charging stations.
My problem entirely stems from the fact that these are private businesses using public spaces to for profit while being grossly irresponsible about it and then having the gall to say the government should pay for their charging infrastructure.
Or rather, the charging infrastructure should not be owned by private companies afterwards. It was paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the taxpayer (via the government).
If it's so cheap, why should we (taxpayers) have to fund it?
Or rather, the charging infrastructure should not be owned by private companies afterwards. It was paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the taxpayer (via the government).
I think this is an underrated option. Have the government own and operate scooter stations and pocket the profits. Force a shared charging standard through these stations. Private companies can...
I think this is an underrated option. Have the government own and operate scooter stations and pocket the profits. Force a shared charging standard through these stations. Private companies can always compete. Generally the US government tends to be bad at creating capital intensive infrastructure, but scooter charging is mostly just running a few regular 15A circuits, which should be simple to build out.
Many local governments already do some kind of bikeshare program; I see them a lot around the nicer urban areas around LA, and I think I've seen at least one ebike version somewhere (though I...
Many local governments already do some kind of bikeshare program; I see them a lot around the nicer urban areas around LA, and I think I've seen at least one ebike version somewhere (though I can't for the life of me recall where it was).
Micromobility is a dumb term, but in a way I kind of think it's the future. Public transit would obviously be much better for a number of reasons, but with America's addiction to cars I think...
Micromobility is a dumb term, but in a way I kind of think it's the future. Public transit would obviously be much better for a number of reasons, but with America's addiction to cars I think having smaller vehicles, weather they are standing scooters, sitting scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, or just tiny cars, is a major improvement to the current paradigm simply because they are dramatically more efficient. Bikes and scooters are already a big part of existing public transport, given that you can fold up a scooter and take it with you to the bus and most of them have bike racks; they can be tremendously helpful for the proverbial (or in some cases literal) last mile of the trip.
That being said, I largely agree with @AgustusFerdinand's comment on this article. Roads do need to be made more friendly for people riding these kinds of devices, but public charging isn't super useful except in the case of these parasitic 'sharing' companies who should be paying for these charging stations themselves. Most of them have batteries that will last for more than long enough for your full day and can be charged at home, and I've never seen one with fast charging before; most of the time it takes hours for them to charge, so it's not something you'd do while you're eating at a restaurant or picking up groceries.
I don't own any electric bikes/scooters, though I was thinking of getting one to handle longer distances in transit deserts. While I'm happy to take my bike around, it has a practical radius of...
I don't own any electric bikes/scooters, though I was thinking of getting one to handle longer distances in transit deserts. While I'm happy to take my bike around, it has a practical radius of only about 10 miles (20 round-trip), and I'm a lazy SOB who can only deal with so many hills. I agree that a particular benefit is using it as the "last mile" for journeys otherwise taken on transit.
My experience with the bike-sharing companies is limited. Friends in my city have found local offerings useful in getting around. I prefer to walk most distances they would cycle, so I have not tried these. Last year I had the occasion to be in Italy and made use of some e-bikes there. The experience was pleasant and not what I would call "parasitic." There were dedicated charging racks near the train station, but not everywhere. However, the app had designated "parking" (?) spots all over the city that did not block foot/car traffic. They weren't really parking spaces as such, more just designated spots next to a tree or whatever. You were required to take a photograph of your rule-abiding drop-off or else I think you would be charged a fee. I don't know how they collected them to be charged: if by truck, that seems possibly wasteful. It would be more beneficial to have additional centralized drop-off points which happen to have charging so that the bikes are actually usable by the next person.
I don't think the profit margins on these products are immense, and electrical infrastructure still requires a non-trivial investment. Bike charging stations are cheap on a per-capita basis and relative to those for automobiles... but they are not necessarily dirt-cheap absolutely. We may need a non-trivial amount of underground work to make it happen. I suspect the issue of poor parking for these vehicles seems more a matter of (1) low fines for bad parking, which both the companies and the government could enforce (directly or indirectly), and (2) not that many dedicated charging racks to begin with. While I'm not one to advocate for car parking, a bike rack is comparatively space-efficient. Also, I'm not sure if competing companies have compatible charging infrastructure. While I get that they each have their own turf, it would maybe be better if this was standardized.
Charging stations for electric automobiles are useful to get people to switch away from environmentally unsustainable gasoline and diesel-powered cars. However, not all trips should be taken by car. Millions of short trips taken every day by car (electric or not) could be taken by a far more efficient mode: an electric bike which doesn't weigh two tons and isn't six feet wide. They're an important complement to a car-centric transportation system. Unfortunately, governments are not investing in this infrastructure.
E-bike charging stations are seriously cheap. According to the article's graphic from the North American Bike and Scooter Association, $1 million allocated to EV charging could either create a charging network for 120 cars or 650 bikes and scooters. That's a big difference! Of course we don't need to stop funding electric car infrastructure, but human-scaled modes like e-bikes and e-scooters need governmental support too.
It wouldn't even be that hard. We just have to fund it:
If it's so cheap, why should we (taxpayers) have to fund it?
Oh is it because the North American Bikeshare and Scootershare Association wants free cash to support and legitimize their business because they like to use images like this to represent their brand while the reality is closer to this or this, where they block pedestrian, wheelchair, and visually impaired access to sidewalks. And when cities crack down on their
illegallaw skirting use of public spaces for private businesses they just abandon their equipment and workers for the cities to clean up.Seems odd to me that these micromobility companies with multi-billion dollar valuations need a government handout to provide "this incredibly cheap and valuable service" that they say we need...
I don't disagree that many trips don't need to be taken by car and something that takes up much less space than a car should be encouraged, but trying to frame it as one of the solutions to climate problem when they're dumping literal shit-tons of disposable e-waste on city streets is a hard pill to swallow.
Also...why do you need to provide charging infrastructure for bicycles? How far are we expecting people to ride?
It’s either charging infrastructure, showers in every building, or magically making bikes air conditioned. It’s too hot & humid for that without such affordances in the US.
To be fair, here in Germany a lot of shopping places have a few charging spots for e-bikes. It really helps a lot, since so many places allow you to charge the bike you can get very far on the batter.y
Are they provided by the places of business or the government?
That's a good point I hadn't thought about. Now, I'll be the first to admit that I do not own an electric bike (yet) as I currently live in a place where riding a bike for transport is both nearly impossible because of lack of infrastructure (Texas) and a death sentence because of the drivers, near complete lack of bike lanes, respect for fellow humans, and right of way.
...but a quick google says the average electric bike has something around 20-30 mile range if letting the electrics do most of the work and that doubles (or more) if using pedal assist. 40-60 miles on a bike is a lot, I'm generally ticked if I have to do 60 miles in my car going around town running errands.
Exactly. I can't imagine many e-bike riders are commuting much farther than 5 miles, maybe 10 in a few extreme cases (I would totally be one of those weirdos riding 10 miles in the suburbs if I had a bike lane).
Honestly, it's a big lift to get Americans to bike a few miles as is. Americans are so culturally oriented around the car that most Americans just don't have the cultural template to relate to others who exert themselves to get from their start to their destination. An eBike makes their ride similar to a drive; eBike rides require low effort and little physical prowess.
Cars double park and stop where they're not supposed to all the time; the reason cars stopping haphazardly isn't as big of a problem is because the US has dedicated large swathes of its land to parking. Cities like LA dedicate 14% of their total land area to car parking. Cities frequently mandate a minimum amount of parking to ensure that drivers have easy parking within reach. Scooters don't even have a fraction of this. Of course, if we're looking for existing solutions and not new policy, then the answer is docked bike sharing or parking spots for dockless scooters.
Several cities in the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia have docked bikeshare programs. Many cities in the US have also only allowed a restricted set of companies to operate their dockless scooter shares.
The solutions here are pretty easy and I feel that it's a bit unfair that we hold scooters and bikes to a higher standard than cars, who also regularly park illegally and even drive without necessary paperwork despite having a much higher potential for harm.
The difference here is that all of those programs are government run, so it makes sense for the government to pay for bikeshare parking/charging. These are private entities using public spaces to run a for-profit business and then are asking for a government handout to put in charging infrastructure for them.
The line between "public" and "private" when it comes to roads and transport seems to me to be quite fuzzy. Roads are used mostly by private individuals with private infrastructure who can use vehicles of varying geometries which put varying amounts of wear-and-tear on the infrastructure (for example, heavy cars are a lot more damaging of pavement than lighter ones) but are subsidized through a combination of taxes (often sales and property taxes) and user fees (the gas tax, which hasn't been updated for inflation in over 30 years.) Parking for cars is generally supported through parking mandates which end up being a tax on the developer to ensure that all projects being created have parking. BEVs and hydrogen gas charging already have tax budgets allocated toward them.
While I would love a world where private vehicles and private usage of resources was purely funded by the private owner or user, the system of transport the US already has is a deeply intertwined public/private affair. Given that, I see little reason to draw the line for scooters when we already accommodate the private automobile so much. I think it makes a lot of sense for governments to pass sensible regulations on scooter share companies, such as dedicated parking areas and huge fines and property seizure on failed compliance. My worry is that giving cars a lighter regulatory environment than scooters will just end up with the US leaning into its over-reliance on cars for everything.
Almost all road wear is due to heavy trucks, not cars and even cars on the heavy end do nothing compared to the 10 ton+ small commercial vehicles or the 20-40 ton commercial trucks.
Roads are public places funded by taxes.
Sidewalks are public places funded by taxes.
Parking lots are private places funded by private money.
Parking mandates are a necessity as otherwise a developer would maximize floor space and let the surrounding neighborhood deal with the problem of parking.
BEV charging has been somewhat subsidized by taxes in order to allow longer distance journeys that are commonplace in a country this vast.
Automobiles are already one of the most highly regulated items in the country, from the color and placement of turn signals to the communication protocols of the ECU. Since scooters and electric bikes have near zero regulation and a little habit of spontaneously combusting, I don't think we're in any danger of them having a heavier regulatory burden than cars.
It's real simple. Electric bikes and scooters don't need tax funded long distance charging infrastructure as they aren't taken on long distances. They don't need tax funded charging stations peppered around cities as that is using public land for private entity with zero tax incentive to get return on that spending. If these micromobility companies want chargers in cities, then they should do the same thing as every other electric charging company, partner with private businesses for space to install it on private property. This won't happen because these companies want something for free and have nothing to provide for it as BEV chargers provide customers inside the private business while someone renting a bike to go a few blocks won't have a high likelihood to spend an hour inside the business spending money.
This is tangential to your comment, but automobile parking mandates are absolutely not a necessity. It is sometimes useful for municipalities to recommend specific amounts of off-street parking for a given development plot but not strictly require it. See experts Donald Shoup et al. for the staggering effects of excessive parking on cities. The High Cost of Free Parking (2005/2011) is an important and valuable read.
Most municipalities use minimum parking requirements that have no scientific basis in transportation engineering. They are based mostly on arbitrary guesswork and questionable math. There are as many as 2 billion parking spaces in the United States, most of which go unused because they are just not necessary. It does not take a scientific study to realize how parking requirements dramatically exaggerate urban sprawl (but there are several that show it!). Developers are aware that people in low-density areas rely on vehicles and will virtually always incorporate a reasonable amount of parking into their designs, according to the land use around them: developers provide parking where it's needed, knowing that including zero parking in an area that really needs it is a poor market decision. But automobile parking is not a human right. Owning a car is not a right. It should be self-evident that car-oriented societies are inherently inequitable: not everyone can safely drive, and cars are dangerous and highly spacious machines. Societies built around automobile use are inaccessible to non-drivers, including their choice to quadruple travel distances by enforcing unnecessary minimum parking mandates. In urban areas, where space is at a premium, we actually do need to allocate more space for human beings and less for vehicles. The amount of density sacrificed by minimum parking requirements and subsequent infrastructure and utility sprawl has been haunting municipal budgets for decades and continues to degrade quality of life for no good reason. The physical area taken up by cars is not sustainable financially or ecologically given their relatively poor per-capita transportation efficiency per vehicle-mile traveled. For reasons of sprawl, impermeability, and induced demand of driving, parking-oriented development is deeply environmentally damaging.
The Parking Reform Network has more resources on the subject.
I won't argue that there isn't enough overall parking or that the mandates have any science behind them or that suburban sprawl isn't a huge issue, but to outright state that parking mandates are not a necessity is just plain wrong. Every single unregulated industry has proven they can and will maximize themselves at the detriment to all others. Give real estate developers the option to push the burden of parking (any parking be it car, bike, etc) on someone else and they'll do it. Don't mandate sidewalks and they'll happily build straight to the street to use every inch of property. It doesn't make good market decisions to poison your customers, but many an unregulated industry has done exactly that.
It does not take a scientific study to know this either, simply go to an area that is popular and was not built to have parking minimums and you'll see the issue constantly, my city has several where an older area has become popular and filled with businesses, parking that would allow each business to actually operate at capacity is non-existent and the overflow is a burden the neighboring residential streets must suffer. I lived in one of these areas and had the tremendous pleasure of dealing with it.
There are also places that simply do not work for biking due to environmental factors. There's a reason the highest bike usage places have either a history of being extremely poor/populous or extremely rich with robust public transit and a climate that allows manual mobility along with almost universally being small in comparison to the US. Arizona for example isn't going to become a bike-rich state if they demolish all the parking lots.
Nearly nothing is a human right, car parking, cars, bike parking, bikes, sidewalks, crosswalks, on and on. Not everyone can safely ride a bike either, these aren't points that prove your/their argument. And arguably there's more than enough space for humans already, they just really like to all congregate together causing problems of overcrowding and subsequent complaints about lack of space.
I can't comment on scooters or start-up-based programs, but several Canadian cities have city-operated bikeshare systems. The docking stations were originally used for accounting/fee purposes, but also keep the bikes in the right place. Pretty sure some of the bikes + docking stations have been recently upgraded for e-bikes/charging ports. The city also handles logistics (moving the bikes around to keep them distributed, repairs, etc.). From what I've heard, users' biggest complaint is that there aren't always enough bikes in the right areas at peak use (like rush-hour).
I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, just want to provide a counter-point that -share programs, if treated as public transpo infrastructure, can be successful.
If it was public transport I'd have zero problem with this and it'd seem like a no brainer to have charging stations.
My problem entirely stems from the fact that these are private businesses using public spaces to for profit while being grossly irresponsible about it and then having the gall to say the government should pay for their charging infrastructure.
Ah, fair! I can't disagree with any of that. Sorry for missing the point of your original comment :)
No worries!
Bring on all the public transport options!
Or rather, the charging infrastructure should not be owned by private companies afterwards. It was paid by the taxpayer, it is owned by the taxpayer (via the government).
I think this is an underrated option. Have the government own and operate scooter stations and pocket the profits. Force a shared charging standard through these stations. Private companies can always compete. Generally the US government tends to be bad at creating capital intensive infrastructure, but scooter charging is mostly just running a few regular 15A circuits, which should be simple to build out.
Many local governments already do some kind of bikeshare program; I see them a lot around the nicer urban areas around LA, and I think I've seen at least one ebike version somewhere (though I can't for the life of me recall where it was).
Good counterpoints!
Micromobility is a dumb term, but in a way I kind of think it's the future. Public transit would obviously be much better for a number of reasons, but with America's addiction to cars I think having smaller vehicles, weather they are standing scooters, sitting scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, or just tiny cars, is a major improvement to the current paradigm simply because they are dramatically more efficient. Bikes and scooters are already a big part of existing public transport, given that you can fold up a scooter and take it with you to the bus and most of them have bike racks; they can be tremendously helpful for the proverbial (or in some cases literal) last mile of the trip.
That being said, I largely agree with @AgustusFerdinand's comment on this article. Roads do need to be made more friendly for people riding these kinds of devices, but public charging isn't super useful except in the case of these parasitic 'sharing' companies who should be paying for these charging stations themselves. Most of them have batteries that will last for more than long enough for your full day and can be charged at home, and I've never seen one with fast charging before; most of the time it takes hours for them to charge, so it's not something you'd do while you're eating at a restaurant or picking up groceries.
I don't own any electric bikes/scooters, though I was thinking of getting one to handle longer distances in transit deserts. While I'm happy to take my bike around, it has a practical radius of only about 10 miles (20 round-trip), and I'm a lazy SOB who can only deal with so many hills. I agree that a particular benefit is using it as the "last mile" for journeys otherwise taken on transit.
My experience with the bike-sharing companies is limited. Friends in my city have found local offerings useful in getting around. I prefer to walk most distances they would cycle, so I have not tried these. Last year I had the occasion to be in Italy and made use of some e-bikes there. The experience was pleasant and not what I would call "parasitic." There were dedicated charging racks near the train station, but not everywhere. However, the app had designated "parking" (?) spots all over the city that did not block foot/car traffic. They weren't really parking spaces as such, more just designated spots next to a tree or whatever. You were required to take a photograph of your rule-abiding drop-off or else I think you would be charged a fee. I don't know how they collected them to be charged: if by truck, that seems possibly wasteful. It would be more beneficial to have additional centralized drop-off points which happen to have charging so that the bikes are actually usable by the next person.
I don't think the profit margins on these products are immense, and electrical infrastructure still requires a non-trivial investment. Bike charging stations are cheap on a per-capita basis and relative to those for automobiles... but they are not necessarily dirt-cheap absolutely. We may need a non-trivial amount of underground work to make it happen. I suspect the issue of poor parking for these vehicles seems more a matter of (1) low fines for bad parking, which both the companies and the government could enforce (directly or indirectly), and (2) not that many dedicated charging racks to begin with. While I'm not one to advocate for car parking, a bike rack is comparatively space-efficient. Also, I'm not sure if competing companies have compatible charging infrastructure. While I get that they each have their own turf, it would maybe be better if this was standardized.