EVs already have escape velocity in Norway to replace ICE cars, and incentivizing more walking and cycling not only promotes more efficient modes of short distance travel, but makes the population healthier.
Over reliance on cars kills us slowly via lifestyle degradation.
Just because our lifespan is getting longer doesn't mean that something in our society and environment isn't contributing to our premature death.
If our lifespan average starts at 30, and then 10 years later, the average becomes 40, doesn't mean we eliminated all factors causing us to live shorter lives.
If in a span of only 10 years the average lifespan rose by 10 years, it means you'd eliminated most of the factors causing the population to live shorter lives.
Relatively less than it could be when compared to other countries with less wealth per capita.
The US is the wealthiest large country per capita, and yet we aren't the healthiest or longest lived. What's all this wealth for if poorer people are living better and longer lives?
Traffic accidents are among the top causes of death in the US. Many diseases are also caused by a sedentary lifestyle (not walking enough), among other things caused by the car.
don't disagree but a big part of this is we've gotten so good a preventing a lot of the other causes of death these have increased to fill the gap. Also, I'm definitely not sedentary, but absolutely hate walking. They're not orthogonal.
It is my understanding they are insulated and heated/cooled as needed; the performance loss from being cold is much larger than the energy expenditure to heat the cells to an optimum temperature.
Around where I live, we have several weeks of -15C - -25C (5F - -13F) every winter. No worries for the EV owners, they just need to charge a bit more often as they need to heat the interior of the car, too... (Not being afforded the dubious luxury of simply utilizing the waste heat from the engine, as I do for the time being in my diesel...)
Outside of Oslo the infrastructure is built with car reliance deincentivizing cars and incentivizing walking and bikes won’t make much difference. Instead they should be making public transport more attractive. Walking and biking is not exactly ideal in harsh weather.
Norway is not Netherlands. Try biking in -20 C and go shopping for a family on a bike. Where I live bike paths are not regularly cleared they can get icy and dangerous. Public transport is the way to go. Biking can complement when and where possible. I say this as a person who commutes to work with bike everyday.
I have seen this video and in the examples he gives they clear the bike paths. Where I live when it snows it’s just impossible to bike. In heavy snow it’s like biking on the sand. And sometimes when the temperatures fluctuate there is black ice I have to worry about. Some bike paths get salted but not all so it’s not a safe continuous ride at least for my commute.
The primary point of the video, is that when adequate infrastructure and servicing (plowing and de icing) exists, very cold, harsh weather doesn't decrease bike ridership.
In the example city, Oulu Finland, they see a consistent 22% ridership all the way down to -20C, because they incentivize cycling with well designed and maintained infrastructure.
So what? Maybe it's because those people who only have a bike don't have any other means to get around? You need to look at different reasons before jumping to conclusions.
> And sometimes when the temperatures fluctuate there is black ice I have to worry about. Some bike paths get salted but not all so it’s not a safe continuous ride at least for my commute.
there exist winter tyres for bikes, that have spikes - ideal for ice
Sounds like a chicken or the egg issue to me. Why are the bike paths unmaintained? Because they aren't used as often as in a country like the Netherlands. But how can we increase biking in Norway if the roads are unmaintained?
The only answer is radically changing the way we view walking in biking in cities. They are the base of all transportation, and we should treat them as the most important mode of transport for that reason. If we do that, maybe Norway will plow their bike paths. Maybe California will drop their obsession with adding "just 1 more lane" to their freeways. Maybe high-speed rail could become a thing in the US as it is in so much of Europe.
Also, keep in mind that The Netherlands has a population density some 20 times that of Norway, while being largely, uh, flat, which lots of Norway definitely isn't.
There's no doubt maintained bike paths would make cycling more viable, and in the cities great progress have been made in that respect, from what I can see.
However, for a significant part of the population, that simply isn't much of an option as roads and bicycle paths alike are used by such a small (relatively speaking) number of people that keeping both maintained basically would ensure we all worked with maintaining the network!
Population density across the whole nation can be misleading, because we're summing wild area, rural area, and urban area. What matters more is the amount of supportable infrastructure a given area could support, which is the population density for that specific area.
From what I googled, Norway's urban population is about 83%, so cycling infrastructure should go a long way.
It also shouldn't be terribly expensive to support rural cycling infrastructure either due to the lack of wear and tear that such infrastructure experienced compared to roads for cars and other vehicles.
I cycled to work for 3 years in Paris. Cycling on fresh snow isn't so dangerous, but on ice it is as you won't be able to brake. Also, cycling by -20°c is a very uncomfortable experience and increases a lot your chances to die if you fall and pass out.
Last, cycling, especially in winter, is good if you're able-bodied, but it leaves out people with disabilities, which makes a sizable amount of the population if you take aged people in the mix.
I agree with OP that in general, a good public transportation system is the first step toward better cities with less cars. Bikes can play a role, but can't be the solution for everything.
To put it in perspective for US folks, -20 C is -4 F. It's manageable, including ice, with studded tires. With that said, I don't push it on my friends. I'd rather encourage them to make riding in nice weather a habit before taking the plunge. Also, there's more to it than even cold and ice. The roads become effectively narrower due to piled up snow. It gets dark during commuting hours, making it more dangerous if car traffic is involved. Road salt makes a mess of bikes, so it helps to have a dedicated winter bike that can take the brunt of it.
Getting a car started in those conditions is time consuming as well. Then you sit in a cold car freezing your ass off while waiting for it to warm up.
On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
I've been out riding in -42°C (mostly just to prove I could), and at those temperatures I started running into mechanical problems.
The metal of different components shrank at different rates, and my fork was binding up in the headtube, and the freewheel loosened off such that the ratchets wouldn't always connect with the pawls, causing slippage.
> Getting a car started in those conditions is time consuming as well.
Not if you have a garage or a remote startup function in your car. This is what you're going up against proposing that people cycle in freezing temperatures.
> On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
That's the same as using the outdoor pool in an aquapark in winter, which I enjoy doing because... there's almost no one there at that time of the year!
-20C is simply not that common in most populated areas (it’s lower than the average daily winter temp even in somewhere like Novosibirsk) and you can plan around it.
If that's the video I'm thinking of, it's referencing Finland, where people bike all year because the bicycle infrastructure is well maintained.
Try driving in -20 on unmaintained roads, and you'll find the same thing as your current statement about biking. The temperature is largely unrelated to the infrastructure's useability
I used to do it that way. But then I got narrow studded tires. They cut through the snow down to the surface and then grip it if it's icy.
Admittedly not the cheapest type of tire around. Last I checked a good brand name was going for $175 new. I found a "used once" set on eBay for a lot less.
if you want narrow studded bike tires they're nowhere close to that much. A quick search found decent pizza cutters starting as low as $25/each. If you want studded fat bike tires you're gonna spend $400 for a set.
The narrow ones are fine for a little wet snow but suck once you get more than a few inches of dry powder or downtown slop. You're way better to go for flotation then.
when you are 80 years old and frail you'll have to bike too? I do love people who comment by assuming everyone is going to be forever in top health to bike.
The last time I visited Amsterdam, I was surprised by how old a lot of the riders were.
That said, when I am pushing 80 years old and if I have health issues, I can imagine that I would want an e-trike. That sort of vehicle solves for the issues of stamina and balance.
I don't know that I would ever consider traveling on a micro mobility device to be something I "have" to do. If I ever get to the point that I really can't do it regardless of equipment, I imagine I would feel a sense of loss.
> Outside of Oslo the infrastructure is built with car reliance deincentivizing cars and incentivizing walking and bikes won’t make much difference.
To me this reads like "Cars have won, give up on walking and biking in your cities."
That's just not a solution. Just because car lobbyists have successfully ruined nearly all US cities and a good amount of European ones doesn't mean we just sit down and continue to let it happen. I agree public transport is a huge part of the way forward, and I even agree that walking/biking in harsh weather isn't exactly ideal, but we can't let the most simple human ways of existing in cities (walking and biking) go to the wayside just because car companies want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods. Want to walk in the snow? Put on some boots and wear some layers with a scarf and a hat. Want to walk in the heat? Wear a hat, sunscreen, and a light shirt and pair of shorts. It's not _that_ hard.
Have you been in Norway? The weather can be harsh, the Norwegians are some of the best in dealing with it in the world, but covering large parts of Norway with public transport is difficult.
I used to bike in Bergen, Norway in the winter and it can be really dangerous - I saw many accidents even from the locals.
Norway outside of Oslo is largely very mountainous and not very densely populated . Maybe an e-bike could be a reasonable option during summer but you still have the rest of the year..
> It's not _that_ hard.
Yes it is, for most people given the condition. Implying that they are too lazy etc. it’s just not helpful.
> want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods
Conspiracy theories are generally not that useful. Cars are objectively the superior method of transport in low density areas (there is no use in denying that)
> To me this reads like "Cars have won, give up on walking and biking in your cities."
Please consider that not everyone lives in a city with all amenities at walking distance. The countryside exists. We should not abandon those living there.
It simply means that most of Norway (In the area sense, not population) simply is too sparsely populated to support any meaningful form of public transport, and for large parts of the year the weather is sufficiently disagreeable that walking or biking either is out of the question or means getting dressed for the occasion, which adds considerably to the time needed to get somewhere, particularly if kids are involved.
I am sure some advances could be made - say, utilizing smaller buses and perhaps make them go out into the boonies only if someone had notified the bus company that they wished to take the bus - but for the most part, when the population is evenly and thinly distributed over a large-ish area with shoddy weather, the car is king for transport.
Walking in the snow is one thing, walking on ice in -20C/-4F while wind gusts threaten to topple you quite another; that being said, people are quite eager to use bikes whenever the weather is agreeable-ish - it's just that the car is the viable fallback plan when it is not - not public transport.
> Instead they should be making public transport more attractive
Indeed, and the article itself agrees with you - the headline is deceptive. Without any specifics, the actual quote from the transport minister is about improving intermodal transport, saying "We must make it more attractive to travel by public transport, cycle, and walk."
Bah, I'm not sure I'd even call Oslo the most walkable city in Norway. It's perfectly possible to live in smaller cities, or even outside cities, without a car.
I visited one of the supposedly ugliest cities in Norway this summer, Alta in Finnmark. It got its reputation because appatently during the reconstruction after the war, they couldn't decide which of the small population centres in the municipality they should locate public functions to, so they put them in the middle. So it was an unusually car-centric city.
What I found was that this reputation is either grossly exaggerated, or is no longer true. The grid is maybe spacier than we're used to in Norway, but they have a huge pedestrian plaza in the middle and you can walk to anything you'd need in the city centre. They even seem to have great pedestrian/bike paths all the way out to Hjemmeluft, and there was nice public transport. I'd happily live there without a car. Looking at the real estate prices, though, it seems lots of other people are happy to live there too, harsh weather notwithstanding.
it all depends on your lifestyle. A big piece of my reason to live is being able to get out in the woods or get to a dark sky site and sit out under the stars. People crowded places are not good for me from a mental and physical health perspective.
Living in or around city spaces raise my blood pressure to unsafe levels. It only takes living a couple weeks in a quiet place to bring my blood pressure come back down to healthy levels. It doesn't matter how much I walk or bike in a city. No amount of exercise or stress management techniques brings my blood pressure back down.
I will continue to live at edge of cities because I do need some of the medical services found in them but, living in them, well that's saying I'm ready to die.
Either this article is contentless compared to the press release or the press release itself is just based on platitudes.
Don't fucking “incentivize” alternatives to the five-seater. Architecture it. Make more of the urban area car-free.[1] Make other modes of transportation superior except for things like emergency care.
Am I holding my breath for cheap bus fares and actual bikelanes? Not exactly. The usual fare is to keep maintaining and upgrading the road network with only automobiles in mind and then act surprised when people keep choosing the mode of transporation that the infrastructure was built around.
Cheaper EVs was a nice way to pander to the middle class. There is less of a reason to pander to people who either don't own a car or can't afford the more expensive (at least back then) EVs. That's why there is less of a chance to see cheaper bus fares.
> EVs already have escape velocity in Norway to replace ICE cars, and incentivizing more walking and cycling not only promotes more efficient modes of short distance travel, but makes the population healthier.
> Over reliance on cars kills us slowly via lifestyle degradation.
Many people who work in Oslo can't afford to live in Oslo (I'm sure many can relate). Then they get stuck in traffic for hours a day because many others, you know, live outside of the bikeable/walkable core. Commuting home from perhaps a sedentary job. Then this gets labeled as a matter of lifestyle. What the hell?
It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. If the living space is architected the way it is, people will gravitate towards the most convenient method to access it (cars). If you prioritize re-architecting you will find it difficult to move people already invested in the depreciating asset which is their vehicle, out of it. At the same time they won't move out of their car until the other transportation options are, if not equally, at least somewhat close to convenient. So basically you need to tug a little on both sides, have fewer people using cars, then it's easier to make changes that affect those cars in favor of greener transport architecture, cycle and repeat.
> Norwegian Transport Minister Jon-Ivar Nygard said in the statement:
> "Electric cars give us greener transport, but they also have a clear intermodal competition with public transport in urban areas. We must make it more attractive to travel by public transport, cycle, and walk."
I don't find that statement anywhere though, but that's from the article. I think that means they're working on doing something about it, but haven't reached any proposals yet.
This is hypocrisy Norwegian economy is heavily driven by oil industry. Instead of planning to phase out oil they just makes these ineffective policies. People are going to buy big electric cars even with VAT.
I know but people still need cars and they will buy it even if it costs twice as much. When public transportation is not convenient and reliable there is not really much choice.
people will continue to take cars whenever cars are faster than public transit. Compare your travel route options on Google maps. My partner commutes about 20 miles to work and driving takes 45 min to an hour and 1/4 depending on time of day. even though we live a mile and 1/2 from a major train stop, it would take her an 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 hours to use public transportation to get to work.
until public transit fixes the time inefficiency problem, it's fighting an uphill battle.
That’s not exactly true. When the Russian gas stopped the adoption of renewables accelerated in Germany and other places in Europe. If oil is phased out people will adapt. Most of Norwegian oil customers are in Europe so switching to renewable energy and phasing out oil is doable. Instead Norway wants to explore oil in the arctic.
Why would the Russian gas situation have done that? The natural gas from Russia was used for power plant generation, and electricity prices skyrocketed, since Germany doesn't have its own sustainable electric supply.
Norway on the other hand has more oil than it could ever use, as well as hydropower.
People forget hard-learned lessons all the time. Doesn't mean the lessons aren't true, or that people didn't learn them at the time, just that we're bad at remembering things when it's convenient to forget them.
That did little to offset the decades of German madness of transitioning to Russian gas in the first place, and closing nuclear power plants while building more coal ones.
Phasing out oil in Europe will make people "adapt" by outsourcing the remaining industrial production to Asia. The conflict (not necessarily military) with China imminent, and weaning off Chinese imports will be way more difficult than Russian ones, especially when you're deindustrialized.
No they don't. Consumers will go for the cheapest way to get what they want. End oil subsidies and alternatives become more attractive. Tax oil and they come more attractive still. Ban it and they'll look to bikes.
And yes, of course Norway can decide to phase out oil production.
> Norway doesn’t decide to phase out oil, consumers do.
A yes, "it's YOUR fault, YOU should be ashamed, bad consumer !"
It's not the industries or governments job to plan and regulate things, it's the people's job, of course. It's like going to the doctor for a cancer to be told "sorry we can't do anything the cancer wants to keep growing, we can't use chemo the cancer didn't approve it sorry" lmao
There's actually a Norwegian show about Norway getting invaded and occupied by Russia, with support by the EU, because they decided to stop producing and exporting fossil fuels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied
There was a great article a few years back relating oil from modern Norway to opium from the British in China, forcing them to sell a toxic product the British would never allow their own people to consume.
Hypocrisy? They're not allowed to improve in other areas just because they sell oil? What in the world are you on about? This is not what hypocrisy is.
Yes it is hypocrisy because Norway claims to be a green country ignoring all the emissions from the fossil fuel industry and the oil and gas exported. They use these petty schemes and policies to project themselves as green while the big issue is ignored.
Which they absolutely are doing, but it's difficult to provide public transport anywhere else than the big cities when only about 2% of Norway is inhabited. The price of public transport is not what's keeping people from using it, but the fact that many people live outside the big cities and have to travel to them for work. Depending on where you live, commuting to the city may be very unwieldy. Oslo has been building out more train tracks recently which make travel time much quicker for a lot of people living outside the city.
As someone who loves to bike and hates to walk why would you prioritize one over the other? You're entire prescriptive approach is a big problem in making any improvement. How about "try to do anything other than drive by yourself in your car?"
It's the principle for building environment. At some point everyone is Pedestrian, so env should be built to make walking as safe and nice as possible, including getting most of the things you may need with a short walk and safety. Next is bike for things that are a little more far away or for last mile trips. Next is public transport for long distance, next is cars for ppl that really need them or a willing to pay more. It's a priority piramide for creating good human centtic city design
The prescription is more about an ultimate target that is aligned with making mobility as efficient and low footprint as possible.
For each mode we need to think: does it work if 10 bln people do this for centuries into the future?
Even a mechanical bike has a non-trivial impact (its manufacture needs recyclable raw materials and energy, it needs paved paths etc).
What you are suggesting is the least possible action in the current circumstances - which is fine very short term but not a full plan how to incentivise people.
On the juicy question of bike vs walk I would say it depends on the weather :-)
* Watch politicians/millionaires flying their personal jets to event avenues wasting within hour the equivalent of CO2 you personally can save by choosing to make life difficult and dangerous for yourself and your family for years!
Fuck that.
> EV is seen as a savior for economies and urban structures that are not viable to start with
EVs are pushed because it's where the money and lobbies are. It's the "business as usual but clean™" option. Companies keep making bank, people keep their lifestyles, &c.
People (want to) believe in it because it's the 0 effort solution
I can’t even imagine that here where I live. My neighbourhood has sidewalks, which is nice because all the adjacent ones don’t. To go downtown in this little town in winter you have to risk a treacherous steep hill covered in ice and snow that never gets cleared and it’s actually dangerous
Yes, it's amazing how bike advocates view the world as a homogenous place.
Where I live it's 90 degrees or higher, and humid in the summer, and can be sub-zero in the winter. It's also quite hilly -- flat and level riding is the exception. I'm not riding a bike any substantial distance in those conditions, regardless of paths or lanes.
The real game changer is a helmet with a full face visor. Also I am warmer on a scooter than a bike due to the fact that I'm not moving my legs "pumping" air in and out of my clothes.
I found that on an electric scooter with a full helmet I was totally warm at high speed into icy wind coming off the sea. Warmer than say just standing outside for a few minutes with a hat and scarf but my face not covered.
Standing on one, but really I think the main point is you aren't peddling. My legs would absolutely freeze riding a non-electric bike, each rotation of the peddles as your knee flexes all the warm air is forced out of your pants and then cold air is sucked in as you straighten your leg at the bottom. At least this was the case for me with jeans. I would do ~25mph on a fold-up type scooter in the same weather, just adding the full visor helmet, and didn't feel even slightly cold.
This isn't a problem with biking in Finland in the winter.
Bike lanes are plowed and/or compacted multiple times a day during heavy snowfall. Albeit it isn't really that hilly but more than weather, the main constraint is having a city willing to actually maintain biking infrastructure.
I lived on a mountainside in Norway. The amount of people that slipped and slid down on our roads was much higher than I could have imagined. That was people that lived there all their lives, let alone me trying to cycle.
I live in a similar climate, and while I don’t know what constitutes a “substantial distance,” I will commute and run errands in either of those extremes.
On those days it’s a little less fun than the other 95% of days, but still feasible. And even I didn’t brave those extremes, 95% of days biking is a lot more than 0%.
It's a myth that people can't ride bikes in cities that experience exceptionally hot or cold weather. They can, and do, it's just that the cities need to fund infrastructure to make those things more comfortable and enticing.
For heat specifically, you need trees covering sidewalks and bike paths. Also the materials you build sidewalks and structures with contribute to this, and if you can then adding some evaporative cooling via fountains or ponds is a great idea too. For more ideas: https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/heat-island-cooling-strategi...
The heat island effect is real, and it's only going to get much much worse in cities that refuse to work to fix it.
Do you live in a place that regularly reaches 100 degrees in the summer? No amount of shade or water is going to be enough to persuade me to go outside at 5pm, much less commute home on a bike.
Or commute to work - getting to work drenched in sweat or soaked in rain isn’t a reasonable thing to expect people to do. Most offices don’t have showers or reasonable places to change clothes.
Yep, I live in Nevada. I also live in a part of my city that has a lot of trees and water, and it makes it bearable in the summer to ride or walk around
In Tel Aviv Israel it is normally 90 or higher and humid. A large portion of the locals commute to work with bike or e-mobility devices. Most offices have bike rooms and showers.
its great that they're incentivising public transport. Does anyone have any numbers comparing carbon emissions from a population using green public transport vs using electric cars vs using gasoline cars?
I live in Norway now (ex US)
(BTW: One of the world's biggest producers of oil and natural gas (fossile fuels))
It is a country with winters filled with slippery ice at least in the south,
and lots of steep hills up and down up and down.
The ER stats for broken hip bones and other injuries during the winter is high.
The ice is a much bigger factor than cold or snow when evaluating walking or biking
It is possible to bike all year round.
But very few people do it.
and I think for good reason.
I did it for 2 years and I am never doing it again.
Yes you can get studded bike tires and they help but no.
Politicians here keep talking about Norway as if we are Spain.
(With enough global warming from the fossile fuels produced perhaps?)
Let us be good for the environment and walk and bike everywhere.
Like they do in Amsterdam.
Meanwhile public transit in Oslo is good, and well used.
But the buses and trains are stuffed like sardins in a can.
during rush hours.
I wish they would stop spending major money on constructing bike paths
and allocating more and more of the road to bikes, and instead invest heavily
in improving and expanding public transit.
Since it is useful for nearly all of the population all year around.
Since Norway is investing heavily in EV busses, the trains are electric
as are the trams, increasing the number of busses, allowing people to breathe
in rush hour would not have any noticeable impact on emissions.
I would rather see many more lanes for public transit only than the same
space being built for bikes only.
With a population of 700.000, the capital Oslo,
seems at most 3.000 brave bikers during the winter.
(less than 0.5%)
This is easy to calculate since the city have signs
that measure the number of bikers that pass them
24h a day.
There is a Finish town that the newspapers like to
cover in how people ride their bikes there all year
around. Joensuu.
""Meet the bike-loving Finnish city that keeps pedaling even in the snow""
It is blessed by being flat, by having a youngish
population, and a consistently below freezing winter.
(Which means much less of an ice problem).
Even there only 7% ride their bikes in the winter.
Since Oslo will remain outstandingly non flat, and
be covered in ice during good parts of the winter,
I dont see the advantage of spending on bike
infrastructure over public transit.
I biked to work every day for 4 years in Whitehorse, Yukon. (~61 deg North). It was -40 for a couple of months a year, plenty of ice.
Whitehorse actually has the highest rate of bike commuters of anywhere in Canada, though that is likely just because everyone there is nuts about the outdoors.
Studded tires were great, and I loved riding. It was more fun in the winter than summer.
> I wish they would stop spending major money on constructing bike paths and allocating more and more of the road to bikes, and instead invest heavily in improving and expanding public transit. Since it is useful for nearly all of the population all year around.
They are, though. That’s where most of the money goes.
All the trams are being replaced with higher capacity trams. Additional trams are being purchased as well. When this process is finished, Oslo will have doubled the tram capacity.
A new metro tunnel is in construction between Fornebu and Majorstua, which will greatly reduce the need for buses on that stretch (it’s one of the most active public transit routes).
The metro signal system is being replaced as well. When done, subway trains can travel closer to each other, increasing capacity on the same infrastructure.
When it comes to bikes. Bike infrastructure is cheap. Most of the bike lanes come at the expense of roads to regular cars, not other public transport. It’s also become more popular with electric assist on bikes to help with the uneven terrain and, sadly, winters are only getting shorter.
Bikes are becoming more popular. But most of the money, and people, are still going to public transportation.
I cycle like 1,000 miles a year, in UK, and last winter broke a few bones. Not sure I am doing that again.
I feel cycling advocates get some strange tunnel vision, we can have other mobility solutions. Perhaps one that is more stable on ice. Current EU law is stupid - if it has pedals, it’s a bicycle even with 4 wheels, but a small scooter is an illegal motorised vehicle.
> I feel cycling advocates get some strange tunnel vision, we can have other mobility solutions.
In my case it's because we already have decently good public transit in my area, but next to no cycle infrastructure. So I advocate mostly for the latter.
That doesn't mean I don't think public transport is important too, they're a great combination - I cycle to the train station near me all the time! Public transport tends to have a last-mile problem and cycling is a great way around it. The two are additive.
I feel like we're going to look back on the past ten years of EV hype the same way we look at the big tech/social media rise of the obama years -- why were we so completely in the throes of this silver bullet, seeing no downsides to a different set of trade offs...
Certainly, there can't possibly be downsides to replacing mechanical bits with electronics that are fragile in their own ways and harder if not impossible to repair, also the batteries will make cars much heavier, the momentum that much deadlier, that damage greater and more expensive, not to mention the extreme computerization that's already reached the front page here recently regarding how much data car manufacturers and dealers collect and their inevitable attempt to milk another cash cow by moving from car ownership to car rentership.
I get the sneaking suspicion this is part of a ratcheting strategy for state prohibition of private ownership of any means of transportation for common people. Calling these policies sumptuary laws probably wouldn't fly nowadays I suppose.
141 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 226 ms ] threadEVs already have escape velocity in Norway to replace ICE cars, and incentivizing more walking and cycling not only promotes more efficient modes of short distance travel, but makes the population healthier.
Over reliance on cars kills us slowly via lifestyle degradation.
[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/life...
I'm guessing it trends similarly for other countries.
EDIT: Not that I'm against walking and cycling (I don't own a car). But to say that this is causing less lifespan...
If our lifespan average starts at 30, and then 10 years later, the average becomes 40, doesn't mean we eliminated all factors causing us to live shorter lives.
The US is the wealthiest large country per capita, and yet we aren't the healthiest or longest lived. What's all this wealth for if poorer people are living better and longer lives?
However, the bucket has a hole which is releasing water at a rate of one drop per second.
The water level is nonetheless rising. If we plugged the hole, it would rise more rapidly.
Around where I live, we have several weeks of -15C - -25C (5F - -13F) every winter. No worries for the EV owners, they just need to charge a bit more often as they need to heat the interior of the car, too... (Not being afforded the dubious luxury of simply utilizing the waste heat from the engine, as I do for the time being in my diesel...)
In the example city, Oulu Finland, they see a consistent 22% ridership all the way down to -20C, because they incentivize cycling with well designed and maintained infrastructure.
So what? Maybe it's because those people who only have a bike don't have any other means to get around? You need to look at different reasons before jumping to conclusions.
there exist winter tyres for bikes, that have spikes - ideal for ice
The only answer is radically changing the way we view walking in biking in cities. They are the base of all transportation, and we should treat them as the most important mode of transport for that reason. If we do that, maybe Norway will plow their bike paths. Maybe California will drop their obsession with adding "just 1 more lane" to their freeways. Maybe high-speed rail could become a thing in the US as it is in so much of Europe.
There's no doubt maintained bike paths would make cycling more viable, and in the cities great progress have been made in that respect, from what I can see.
However, for a significant part of the population, that simply isn't much of an option as roads and bicycle paths alike are used by such a small (relatively speaking) number of people that keeping both maintained basically would ensure we all worked with maintaining the network!
From what I googled, Norway's urban population is about 83%, so cycling infrastructure should go a long way.
It also shouldn't be terribly expensive to support rural cycling infrastructure either due to the lack of wear and tear that such infrastructure experienced compared to roads for cars and other vehicles.
Last, cycling, especially in winter, is good if you're able-bodied, but it leaves out people with disabilities, which makes a sizable amount of the population if you take aged people in the mix.
I agree with OP that in general, a good public transportation system is the first step toward better cities with less cars. Bikes can play a role, but can't be the solution for everything.
I grew up with winters occasionally reaching -30°C and the logistics of walking (and cycling) in such an environment are simply time-consuming.
On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
I've been out riding in -42°C (mostly just to prove I could), and at those temperatures I started running into mechanical problems.
The metal of different components shrank at different rates, and my fork was binding up in the headtube, and the freewheel loosened off such that the ratchets wouldn't always connect with the pawls, causing slippage.
Not if you have a garage or a remote startup function in your car. This is what you're going up against proposing that people cycle in freezing temperatures.
> On a bike it takes about as long to get the blood flowing, and once acclimatized the ride can be quite nice.
That's the same as using the outdoor pool in an aquapark in winter, which I enjoy doing because... there's almost no one there at that time of the year!
We have a climate crisis, an obesity crisis, and also a mental health crisis, and bikes serve to alleviate all those things.
Stuff like morals and good citizenship: people just don't seem to value these things anymore. That's tragic, and also catastrophic.
Try driving in -20 on unmaintained roads, and you'll find the same thing as your current statement about biking. The temperature is largely unrelated to the infrastructure's useability
Admittedly not the cheapest type of tire around. Last I checked a good brand name was going for $175 new. I found a "used once" set on eBay for a lot less.
The narrow ones are fine for a little wet snow but suck once you get more than a few inches of dry powder or downtown slop. You're way better to go for flotation then.
when you are 80 years old and frail you'll have to bike too? I do love people who comment by assuming everyone is going to be forever in top health to bike.
That said, when I am pushing 80 years old and if I have health issues, I can imagine that I would want an e-trike. That sort of vehicle solves for the issues of stamina and balance.
I don't know that I would ever consider traveling on a micro mobility device to be something I "have" to do. If I ever get to the point that I really can't do it regardless of equipment, I imagine I would feel a sense of loss.
To me this reads like "Cars have won, give up on walking and biking in your cities."
That's just not a solution. Just because car lobbyists have successfully ruined nearly all US cities and a good amount of European ones doesn't mean we just sit down and continue to let it happen. I agree public transport is a huge part of the way forward, and I even agree that walking/biking in harsh weather isn't exactly ideal, but we can't let the most simple human ways of existing in cities (walking and biking) go to the wayside just because car companies want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods. Want to walk in the snow? Put on some boots and wear some layers with a scarf and a hat. Want to walk in the heat? Wear a hat, sunscreen, and a light shirt and pair of shorts. It's not _that_ hard.
I used to bike in Bergen, Norway in the winter and it can be really dangerous - I saw many accidents even from the locals.
> It's not _that_ hard.
Yes it is, for most people given the condition. Implying that they are too lazy etc. it’s just not helpful.
> want us to believe they're bad or unsafe transportation methods
Conspiracy theories are generally not that useful. Cars are objectively the superior method of transport in low density areas (there is no use in denying that)
Please consider that not everyone lives in a city with all amenities at walking distance. The countryside exists. We should not abandon those living there.
I am sure some advances could be made - say, utilizing smaller buses and perhaps make them go out into the boonies only if someone had notified the bus company that they wished to take the bus - but for the most part, when the population is evenly and thinly distributed over a large-ish area with shoddy weather, the car is king for transport.
Walking in the snow is one thing, walking on ice in -20C/-4F while wind gusts threaten to topple you quite another; that being said, people are quite eager to use bikes whenever the weather is agreeable-ish - it's just that the car is the viable fallback plan when it is not - not public transport.
Indeed, and the article itself agrees with you - the headline is deceptive. Without any specifics, the actual quote from the transport minister is about improving intermodal transport, saying "We must make it more attractive to travel by public transport, cycle, and walk."
I visited one of the supposedly ugliest cities in Norway this summer, Alta in Finnmark. It got its reputation because appatently during the reconstruction after the war, they couldn't decide which of the small population centres in the municipality they should locate public functions to, so they put them in the middle. So it was an unusually car-centric city.
What I found was that this reputation is either grossly exaggerated, or is no longer true. The grid is maybe spacier than we're used to in Norway, but they have a huge pedestrian plaza in the middle and you can walk to anything you'd need in the city centre. They even seem to have great pedestrian/bike paths all the way out to Hjemmeluft, and there was nice public transport. I'd happily live there without a car. Looking at the real estate prices, though, it seems lots of other people are happy to live there too, harsh weather notwithstanding.
Living in or around city spaces raise my blood pressure to unsafe levels. It only takes living a couple weeks in a quiet place to bring my blood pressure come back down to healthy levels. It doesn't matter how much I walk or bike in a city. No amount of exercise or stress management techniques brings my blood pressure back down.
I will continue to live at edge of cities because I do need some of the medical services found in them but, living in them, well that's saying I'm ready to die.
Don't fucking “incentivize” alternatives to the five-seater. Architecture it. Make more of the urban area car-free.[1] Make other modes of transportation superior except for things like emergency care.
Am I holding my breath for cheap bus fares and actual bikelanes? Not exactly. The usual fare is to keep maintaining and upgrading the road network with only automobiles in mind and then act surprised when people keep choosing the mode of transporation that the infrastructure was built around.
Cheaper EVs was a nice way to pander to the middle class. There is less of a reason to pander to people who either don't own a car or can't afford the more expensive (at least back then) EVs. That's why there is less of a chance to see cheaper bus fares.
> EVs already have escape velocity in Norway to replace ICE cars, and incentivizing more walking and cycling not only promotes more efficient modes of short distance travel, but makes the population healthier.
> Over reliance on cars kills us slowly via lifestyle degradation.
Many people who work in Oslo can't afford to live in Oslo (I'm sure many can relate). Then they get stuck in traffic for hours a day because many others, you know, live outside of the bikeable/walkable core. Commuting home from perhaps a sedentary job. Then this gets labeled as a matter of lifestyle. What the hell?
[1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/byutvikling/bilfritt-byliv/
They're simply reducing subsidies to EVs, which will only be slightly less heavily subsidized compared to ICE vehicles.
Anyone from Norway know what they're doing for walking and cycling that isn't in the article?
> "Electric cars give us greener transport, but they also have a clear intermodal competition with public transport in urban areas. We must make it more attractive to travel by public transport, cycle, and walk."
I don't find that statement anywhere though, but that's from the article. I think that means they're working on doing something about it, but haven't reached any proposals yet.
It's not "they", it's winter. If you don't move, you're frozen. And soon dead. So no EV - have to walk. Or cycle. Or public transport.
Somehow the residents of Oulu find a way to cycle in winter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhx-26GfCBU
> If you don't move, you're frozen.
Good thing cycling and walking involve moving.
until public transit fixes the time inefficiency problem, it's fighting an uphill battle.
The world needs 100 million barrels a day.
We are at peak coal too.
https://www.iea.org/news/global-coal-demand-set-to-remain-at...
Norway on the other hand has more oil than it could ever use, as well as hydropower.
Because the countries are realizing how relying on foreign oil and gas makes them vulnerable.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/how-t...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
But hey, feel free to make it up as you go. Most of the time people won’t call you on it.
I’m not a Donald Trump fan so I won’t be posting his warning about depending on Russian gas.
So, please don’t insult us with statements that are clearly silly:
“Because the countries are realizing how relying on foreign oil and gas makes them vulnerable.”
Sure, just hope you don't freeze to death while "adapting"
Phasing out oil in Europe will make people "adapt" by outsourcing the remaining industrial production to Asia. The conflict (not necessarily military) with China imminent, and weaning off Chinese imports will be way more difficult than Russian ones, especially when you're deindustrialized.
And yes, of course Norway can decide to phase out oil production.
A yes, "it's YOUR fault, YOU should be ashamed, bad consumer !"
It's not the industries or governments job to plan and regulate things, it's the people's job, of course. It's like going to the doctor for a cancer to be told "sorry we can't do anything the cancer wants to keep growing, we can't use chemo the cancer didn't approve it sorry" lmao
Here is an article about the issue https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/17/norway-u...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...
Observation and exclusion of companies: https://www.nbim.no/en/responsible-investment/exclusion-of-c...
Then, there's no need to continue offering an incentive - because behavior was successfully changed.
how exactly are they boosting that? They should really be making public transport better and cheaper throughout the country not just Olso.
* Walk Else
* Take Bicycle Else
* Take Electric Bike or Fixed Track Public Transport Else
* Use Electric Automobile or Bus Else
* Use Fossil Fuel Automobile or Airplane
Subsidies, incentives etc must align with this flowchart. EV is seen as a savior for economies and urban structures that are not viable to start with
- Carpool
- Bus
- Train
But I think whenever carpooling is effective it probably means even more effective public transport is feasible. E.g. minibuses.
For each mode we need to think: does it work if 10 bln people do this for centuries into the future?
Even a mechanical bike has a non-trivial impact (its manufacture needs recyclable raw materials and energy, it needs paved paths etc).
What you are suggesting is the least possible action in the current circumstances - which is fine very short term but not a full plan how to incentivise people.
On the juicy question of bike vs walk I would say it depends on the weather :-)
Or [standing] electric scooters.
EVs are pushed because it's where the money and lobbies are. It's the "business as usual but clean™" option. Companies keep making bank, people keep their lifestyles, &c.
People (want to) believe in it because it's the 0 effort solution
Where I live it's 90 degrees or higher, and humid in the summer, and can be sub-zero in the winter. It's also quite hilly -- flat and level riding is the exception. I'm not riding a bike any substantial distance in those conditions, regardless of paths or lanes.
I found that on an electric scooter with a full helmet I was totally warm at high speed into icy wind coming off the sea. Warmer than say just standing outside for a few minutes with a hat and scarf but my face not covered.
Bike lanes are plowed and/or compacted multiple times a day during heavy snowfall. Albeit it isn't really that hilly but more than weather, the main constraint is having a city willing to actually maintain biking infrastructure.
On those days it’s a little less fun than the other 95% of days, but still feasible. And even I didn’t brave those extremes, 95% of days biking is a lot more than 0%.
For heat specifically, you need trees covering sidewalks and bike paths. Also the materials you build sidewalks and structures with contribute to this, and if you can then adding some evaporative cooling via fountains or ponds is a great idea too. For more ideas: https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/heat-island-cooling-strategi...
The heat island effect is real, and it's only going to get much much worse in cities that refuse to work to fix it.
It is a country with winters filled with slippery ice at least in the south, and lots of steep hills up and down up and down. The ER stats for broken hip bones and other injuries during the winter is high.
The ice is a much bigger factor than cold or snow when evaluating walking or biking
It is possible to bike all year round. But very few people do it. and I think for good reason. I did it for 2 years and I am never doing it again. Yes you can get studded bike tires and they help but no.
Politicians here keep talking about Norway as if we are Spain. (With enough global warming from the fossile fuels produced perhaps?) Let us be good for the environment and walk and bike everywhere. Like they do in Amsterdam.
Meanwhile public transit in Oslo is good, and well used. But the buses and trains are stuffed like sardins in a can. during rush hours.
I wish they would stop spending major money on constructing bike paths and allocating more and more of the road to bikes, and instead invest heavily in improving and expanding public transit. Since it is useful for nearly all of the population all year around.
Since Norway is investing heavily in EV busses, the trains are electric as are the trams, increasing the number of busses, allowing people to breathe in rush hour would not have any noticeable impact on emissions.
I would rather see many more lanes for public transit only than the same space being built for bikes only.
With a population of 700.000, the capital Oslo, seems at most 3.000 brave bikers during the winter. (less than 0.5%) This is easy to calculate since the city have signs that measure the number of bikers that pass them 24h a day.
There is a Finish town that the newspapers like to cover in how people ride their bikes there all year around. Joensuu.
""Meet the bike-loving Finnish city that keeps pedaling even in the snow""
It is blessed by being flat, by having a youngish population, and a consistently below freezing winter. (Which means much less of an ice problem).
Even there only 7% ride their bikes in the winter.
Since Oslo will remain outstandingly non flat, and be covered in ice during good parts of the winter, I dont see the advantage of spending on bike infrastructure over public transit.
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2021/01/22/meet-the-bike-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/feb/0...
Whitehorse actually has the highest rate of bike commuters of anywhere in Canada, though that is likely just because everyone there is nuts about the outdoors.
Studded tires were great, and I loved riding. It was more fun in the winter than summer.
They are, though. That’s where most of the money goes.
All the trams are being replaced with higher capacity trams. Additional trams are being purchased as well. When this process is finished, Oslo will have doubled the tram capacity.
A new metro tunnel is in construction between Fornebu and Majorstua, which will greatly reduce the need for buses on that stretch (it’s one of the most active public transit routes).
The metro signal system is being replaced as well. When done, subway trains can travel closer to each other, increasing capacity on the same infrastructure.
When it comes to bikes. Bike infrastructure is cheap. Most of the bike lanes come at the expense of roads to regular cars, not other public transport. It’s also become more popular with electric assist on bikes to help with the uneven terrain and, sadly, winters are only getting shorter.
Bikes are becoming more popular. But most of the money, and people, are still going to public transportation.
I feel cycling advocates get some strange tunnel vision, we can have other mobility solutions. Perhaps one that is more stable on ice. Current EU law is stupid - if it has pedals, it’s a bicycle even with 4 wheels, but a small scooter is an illegal motorised vehicle.
In my case it's because we already have decently good public transit in my area, but next to no cycle infrastructure. So I advocate mostly for the latter.
That doesn't mean I don't think public transport is important too, they're a great combination - I cycle to the train station near me all the time! Public transport tends to have a last-mile problem and cycling is a great way around it. The two are additive.
Me and my smug "Told you" will be waiting.