The lowly bicycle could be a key to our long-term survival.
By Ryan McGreal
Published September 20, 2006
Thanks to the triumph of motorized vehicles over the past century, North Americans, who constitute some five percent of the world's population, consume fully a quarter of the world's energy.
The sprawl built environment that grew out of car use is the most wasteful arrangement in history, swallowing energy, materials, and farmland at a breathtaking rate.
Runaway sprawl, combined with the rise in biofuels production to power more vehicles, has driven the world's grain production into sharp decline, even as the number of people who need to eat continues to grow.
The car's insatiable greed for space has destroyed existing neighbourhoods and deformed new developments. Cars demand wide roads, deep driveways, two- and three-car garages, and vast expanses of surface parking, which pushes destinations so far apart and so compromises pedestrian infrastructure that it becomes difficult to walk or cycle anywhere.
At the same time, the displacement of space and proliferation of highways means commuting distances keep increasing, resulting in more time spent behind the windshield. Weary commuters, in turn, are more likely to eat unhealthy prepared meals and less likely to exercise.
This confluence of factors has stalled the rise in average life expectancies and caused a dangerous spike in obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and other so-called lifestyle diseases.
The colossal North American consumption of transportation energy, and the efforts of other economies to catch up, threaten to outstrip the oil industry's capacity to extract and refine petroleum fuels. With so much of our built environment already dependent on cheap, abundant fuel, a global peak in oil production could be devastating once production goes into decline.
Finally, the combustion of all that fuel is releasing carbon into the atmosphere at such levels that the planet's ability to regulate temperatures and water cycles is now compromised. This is already having myriad effects across the planet, and we can only expect this to continue as climate change alters our very seasons.
That climate change is taking place and influenced by human activity is no longer in dispute. In fact, thanks to some unexpected positive feedback loops, the change is accelerating faster than even pessimistic scientists had predicted.
What if someone invented a vehicle that had a long range and an average speed that matched cars in today's city streets, took up very little space for use and storage, operated in a variety of conditions both on-road and off, and provided phenomenal fuel efficiency?
What if that vehicle already exists? I'm talking about the humble bicycle, long considered a child's plaything in North America, but a possible key to our long-term survival.

Bicycles are not just children's toys (RTH file photo)
As Ted Mitchell recently demonstrated, "The bicycle is the most efficient form of personal transportation ever invented." He explains:
People of average fitness can achieve 20 km/h with an average power input of about 1/10 hp, or 75 watts. This level of exertion is minimal and can be kept up for hours.
Leg muscles are about 20 percent efficient, so a five kilometre ride consumes 80 kilocalories, or about one small apple. If you are wondering, this translates into a fuel efficiency of 595 km/l (1,400 mpg) of gasoline. Apples are renewable and clean; gasoline is neither.
Now there's a biofuel I can get behind.
Mitchell points out that in city driving, bicycles average close to the same speed as cars, since they have more available routes and avoid delays to find parking. Further, cars waste a lot of time racing from light to light. Bicycles often end up arriving at intersections behind cars, just as the light is turning green.
Unlike cars, which are major contributors to the rise in chronic disease, bicycles also provide a net improvement to health. Again, as Mitchell argues, "Cycling to work is all the exercise you will ever need. The risk reduction for heart disease and diabetes alone is worth billions of dollars, not to mention the myriad other benefits for which car slaves are experts in denial."
Bicycles are cheap to manufacture and cheap to maintain, and the savings can go toward offseting the inevitable rise in energy costs for home heating and cooling that will come with peak oil.

Cyclists at a Critical Mass bike rally. Hamilton has CM rides on the last Friday of every month, starting at Hess Village
Bicycles would improve the safety and comfort of neighbourhoods. Less massive, quieter, and slower moving than cars, bicycles are much safer for pedestrians than cars - especially when they ride on the road instead of the sidealk - and much less disturbing to passersby and neighbours.
With the aid of bicycles, it may be possible to continue living in suburbs that currently cater to cars. In fact, all that space would suddenly be an asset. Gaps between houses can become paths to connect those winding lanes, bringing destinations closer together and increaseing the choice of routes.
Because bicycles use so much less space than cars, garages can turn into apartments or stores, and parking lots can become sites for new multi-use buildings. Those suburbs deemed most likely to survive could gradually intensify into all that space currently set aside for cars.
Also, because bicycles dramatically extend the range that humans can travel, they can help to bridge the gap between today's car-dependent separation of uses and tomorrow's mixed adaptive reuse.
Conventional planning wisdom holds that the average person in a car-dependent development will only walk about half a kilometre, or the distance that an average walker can cover in five minutes. Where cars and "free" parking are ubiquitous, that is probably true. However, personal experience suggests that the average person's walkability index can shift as incentives and disincentives change.
For example, my wife and I went car-free for about six months a few years ago (we're "car-lite" today), and discovered that our sense of what constituted a walkable distance changed dramatically when we no longer had the luxury of jumping in the car and driving around the corner.
Today, I use a bicycle as my main mode of transportation, and when people ask why, I can honestly answer that I ride a bike because I'm lazy and pampered. No, seriously. It takes me about as long to ride to most destinations in the lower city as it would take to drive, and pedaling a bicycle is easy once you're in even moderately good shape. (Note: I am not in particularly good shape.)
It costs nothing in fuel or parking to ride a bike, I can always find a parking spot right next to my destination, and I almost always arrive in a better mood than when I left, since moderate exercise and fresh air are invigorating.
As an added advantage, bicycles grant mobility and convenience to older children and teenagers, who often depend on their parents to chauffer them everywhere or must rely on sporadic, inconvenient transit.
Bikes are not as practical for longer distance trips (although the definition of "long distance" changes once you switch from driving to cycling as your main transportation mode). In these cases, it makes sense to have a good public transit system.
The good news is that with all the available room left by today's car infrastructure, we would have plenty of space to create dedicated transit lines through the city so that bicycles and buses or trolley cars can coexist safely and peacefully. Since their range and uses are distinct, transit and bikes complement each other whereas transit and cars currently compete for space and for users.
The integration of bicycles and long-distance transit are even more compelling. Today, many commuters complain that train service is expensive and infrequent, but trains could partner with bicycles to their mutual benefit.
The catchment area for a bicycle-oriented train station would increase dramatically over mere pedestrian access. The station would no longer require a huge parking lot to accommodate commuters arriving by car, since bicycles take up so much less room. Each station could run very productively and conveniently, with trains at frequent intervals.
Through a combination of cargo trailers and child seats, trail-a-bike trailers or tandem bars, and various types of cargo storage, it is possible for a family to travel together by bicycle. However, it's not easy, and generally consists of cobbled-together, catch-as-catch-can arrangements.
With a little imagination, the basic design behind bicycles could move whole families around in a single, convenient vehicle that incorporates the advantages of cars without all the nasty side-effects. Imagine three- or four-wheeled family cycles with on-board seating for young children and even storage "trunks".
Bicycles can be modified for goods transport and delivery. Many businesses, especially outside North America, already employ bicycle couriers for correspondence, shipment, and food delivery. I've even seen a bicycle pulling a canoe on a trailer.
Just for a moment, set aside all the pragmatic "Yes, but" arguments and just imagine what it would be like to live in a bicycle city. People would have plenty to grouse about, of course, especially in winter, but it's not like the omnipresence of cars has made us happy. Far from it, as the evidence of road rage, stress, and chronic ill-health demonstrate so amply.
Compared to the noisome, dangerous, dirty, alienating car cities we have today, a bicycle city would literally be a whole lungfull of fresh air.
By jason (registered)
Posted September 20, 2006 11:10:40
I agree Adrian Especially in regards to bike lanes and moving up/down the escarpment. Some cyclists say we don't need bike lanes, but imagine if we decided that we didn't need sidewalks - pedestrians and cars all have to share the road way. in North America, we need bike lanes...on every street. incline railways, bike friendly stairs, bike lanes on the mountain accesses and bike racks on every HSR bus would make cycling a better option for cross-commuting the escarpment. The folks in International Village who developed the master plan for Ferguson Avenue also dreamt of bringing back an incline railway someday from Sam Lawrence park to the downtown area. That would be perfect for cyclists and pedestrians.
( Permalink )
Jason wrote, "imagine if we decided that we didn't need sidewalks"
In fact, some cities are doing just that, following a philosophy alternately called "naked streets" or "shared space". It's counterintuitive, but the argument goes like this:
Right now, drivers are so preoccupied following all the regulations and instructions on the street - lane markings, signs, lights, and so on - that they have little cognitive bandwidth left over to pay attention to the conditions of the road itself.
The naked streets concept removes all regulatory ephemera from the road - sidewalks, lane markings, turn lanes, signs, lights, signals, etc. - and frees everyone up to pay attention to each other.
It's an effective form of traffic calming, because the street becomes a bazaar of activity rather than a military march of conformity.
Big surprise: the idea started in Europe, the brainchild of Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman. It started in the Netherlands, and has been so successful that it's being tried in Germany and England as well.
Here are some links for further reading:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1105614487492 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/br... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_stree... http://www.resurgence.org/selection/boot... http://urbantransportasia.blogspot.com/2... http://www.smh.com.au/news/Unusual-Tales...
My favourite quote: "If you treat people like idiots they'll behave like idiots."
( Permalink )
By David Christiansen (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 09:39:40
( Permalink )
By Jonah (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 12:58:28
( Permalink )
By Ramond (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 14:33:28
( Permalink )
By leTwist (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 14:48:49
( Permalink )
Hi Ray,
The first people you should contact are your mayor and local councillor and lodge your support for a more bike-friendly transportation plan. Go to your city's website, look up their transportation manager, and do the same.
Then, find what organizations in your city are already trying to do this, and join them. In Hamilton, for example, I'd point you toward Trnasportation for Liveable Communities (TLC):
I hope that helps!
( Permalink )
By Hans (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 15:34:30
( Permalink )
By gcruik (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 18:10:39
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted September 21, 2006 18:46:23
I think this might be the fastest I've ever seen an article on RTH receive over 10 replies. Perhaps we are staring at our next 'Big Idea'. Last year the Spec ran the Big Idea series and tree planting won out as number one. Judging by the comments here and the comments I hear all the time in my neighbourhood, cycling seems to be another one of those issues that can be remedied for a very low cost and yet have a signficant impact. Contact your councilor and all mayoral candidates. No better time than election time to see where your candidates stand. Of course, at election time they all stand for everything that anyone suggests. Nontheless, get a written response and hold onto it as a friendly reminder you can pull out in a couple of years when nothing has changed.
( Permalink )
By Muildier (anonymous)
Posted September 21, 2006 20:23:22
( Permalink )
By 1101doc (anonymous)
Posted September 22, 2006 01:12:00
( Permalink )
By r03t (anonymous)
Posted September 22, 2006 02:19:48
( Permalink )
By commuter (anonymous)
Posted September 22, 2006 03:53:24
( Permalink )
By Roger (anonymous)
Posted September 22, 2006 05:33:33
( Permalink )
By oystercatchr (registered)
Posted September 22, 2006 11:43:39
I live in southern calif in a city with
population about 200 thousand.
Here is my thought to make bicycle travel safer. First designate all residental streets as one way for cars leaving the other half for bikes. Cars would be allowed to go across the bike lane to enter/exit residences, businesses but only when safe.
Bikes would use the other half of the street. Havent decided if bike traffic should be one way but think it would be best if one way as hard for drivers to deal with two way bike traffic.
Second change auto traffic speed to 15 mph or even less in residential areas. Note we could also facilitate smoother bike traffic by making stop signs one way only for just cars. Cars coming in from the side and needing to cross heavy bike lane traffic could be controlled by sensors.
I would like to expand these ideas or hear reasons why they wont work. Thanks
( Permalink )
By A Robot (anonymous)
Posted September 24, 2006 02:55:27
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted September 24, 2006 14:16:49
my tv died yesterday....no kidding.
good point about bike lanes. The best streets to ride on are the ones where I can keep up with traffic easily. that's why the 2-way conversions of James/John have been great in the north, but not too great in the south....still better than 1-way, but still catered to cars with timed lights etc.... James North, Locke, Ottawa St etc....are all good for cycling and none have bike lanes.
( Permalink )
By JDG (anonymous)
Posted September 24, 2006 19:25:57
( Permalink )
By Dumb Post (anonymous)
Posted September 24, 2006 20:57:03
( Permalink )
By Justin (anonymous)
Posted September 25, 2006 00:05:26
( Permalink )
Dear Dumb Post,
You make an excellent point regarding "market conditions". As it stands, all kinds of public subsidies exist to encourage driving over other modes, including "free" streets and highways, "free" parking at most destinations, "free" air pollution, and "free" massive military investments in protecting and subsidizing global petroleum assets.
The main premise of the Suburbia Project, of which this article is a part, is that with global oil production going into decline, it will no longer be possible to maintain the easy motoring infrastructure that has produced car-dependent suburban development.
What's not "feasible" is the notion that we can go on driving our cars in perpetuity. The point of this article is that bicycles are cheap, reliable, and extremely fuel efficient, and can form an important part of a post-cheap oil transportation arrangement.
( Permalink )
By Philip Emmi (anonymous)
Posted September 25, 2006 15:40:14
( Permalink )
By A Robot (anonymous)
Posted September 25, 2006 21:03:14
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted September 25, 2006 22:38:19
i'm sure Ford does know all this....they don't care.
( Permalink )
By brent (anonymous)
Posted September 27, 2006 14:32:58
( Permalink )
By crying wolf (anonymous)
Posted September 28, 2006 01:59:32
( Permalink )
By zippit743 (anonymous)
Posted September 28, 2006 09:54:29
( Permalink )
By jegarh (anonymous)
Posted September 29, 2006 10:41:51
( Permalink )
By jason (registered)
Posted September 29, 2006 10:51:09
a new milestone for RTH....as far as I can tell this is the first time we've ever had a story result in 30 responses. And this just within a few weeks. Cycling is obviously a hot-button issue. And it should be. Let's keep the momentum going regardless of what city, town or country you live in.
( Permalink )
By Rick Schrager (anonymous)
Posted September 29, 2006 23:08:11
( Permalink )
By pedalrev (anonymous)
Posted October 17, 2006 16:39:21
( Permalink )
By woodog (registered)
Posted October 21, 2006 11:51:55
In October of 2003 I weighed nearly 300 pounds, had a cholesterol level of nearly 400 points, was often depressed and suffered from sleep apnea. My doctor said that without medication for cholesterol I was in extreme danger for a stroke. He also suggested medication for depression and a machine for sleep apnea. I decided to change my diet and leave the car in the driveway and see if 'diet and exercise' might do it. If it didn't, I would go on the drugs, but before that, I would give 'diet and exercise' an honest try for a year.
It didn't take a year.
By August of 2005 I had lost 100 pounds and the cholesterol level was 159. I no longer suffered from sleep apnea and the depression had lifted. Another bonus was that my joints didn't ache as they had before.
When I consider the savings - no drugs to combat cholesterol or depression, no machine for sleep apnea other than my bicycle, no gasoline for the 15,000 miles logged in the past three years - work, grocery shopping, meetings at church - I would guess that I've had a significant financial incentive to use my bicycle for transportation.
In fact, I used to worry about my budget quite a bit, but these days the money last longer than the month does.
Even if global warming wasn't real (I believe it is real, and that manmade pollution is a major contributor)... but even if it wasn't real, and gasoline prices were REALLY low, and oil would last forever..
Even if all that were true, using a bicycle for the majority of transportation needs would still be the best idea out there.
I hope this article and others like it continue to resonate for quite a while.
( Permalink )
By dominic (anonymous)
Posted December 04, 2006 21:39:20
( Permalink )
By agree (anonymous)
Posted December 31, 2006 22:33:06
( Permalink )
Hi agree,
It's great to hear you're using your bike! Of course, your average speed will depend on a number of factors including your level of fitness, the road conditions, traffic, and so on, but once you get acclimatized to the ride, you should be able to do a 15 mile (24 km) ride in about an hour of solid but not exhausting cycling.
( Permalink )
By Shake Your Peace (anonymous)
Posted April 19, 2007 02:20:18
( Permalink )
By Tony (anonymous)
Posted July 15, 2007 05:05:23
( Permalink )
By Bogdan (anonymous)
Posted March 10, 2008 07:12:31
( Permalink )
By adrian (registered) - website
Posted September 20, 2006 09:07:43
Climate change will have one beneficial side effect: warmer, shorter winters remove or mitigate one of the main reasons people think bicycle transportation in Hamilton is unfeasible.
There's no doubt a bicycle-oriented transportation system can work. Travel to the Netherlands and you'll see it working, and winters get pretty chilly up there in Northern Europe as well. There is one main difference, however: the Netherlands is very flat.
Anyone whose travels regularly take them up and down the escarpment are going to tell you that bicycle transportation is unfeasible for them (I used to work on the mountain and I did bike some days, but man that stairway climb was gruelling, with my bike over my shoulder).
That's why we badly need city investment in making this form of transportation more viable. First, we need public transportation to embrace bicycles, by creating convenient places to stash them on buses (and on trams, if we ever get those back). And creating some bicycle 'elevators' that run up and down the escarpment would go a long way to helping out mountain residents who work downtown and vice versa.
Secondly, we badly need proper bike paths in this city. Any city I've been to where bicycle transportation is common has them, from Amsterdam to Montreal. Riding on the street is all well and good for the road warrior types - or just those who are young and fit and by themselves - but for bicycle transportation to really be workable in Hamilton, it has to work for everyone. That includes children on their own, parents with children in tow, and the elderly.
Believe it or not, the elderly in some countries really do zip around on the bike paths. But after surviving for decades, not many elderly are going to take their lives in their hands by battling traffic on King Street.
Please, Hamilton, make this city bicycle-friendly!
( Permalink )