A Highlight of Bike Infrastructure Improvements

The good guys at Treehugger have an article highlighting a variety of bicycle infrastructure improvements. Their point is that there is a ton of press and coverage regarding new cars and new roadway facilities but very little regarding cycling infrastructure. They mean to address that lapse and cover five examples of recent infrastructure improvements in the US and abroad..

I am a huge fan of improving cycling infrastructure. The changes in Portland, OR and NYC have like a siren call to me. I keep finding my thoughts tending to wonder what it would take to move back to Portland or NY. My wife and I were car-free for 8 years and we are now car-light with one vehicle. I have used a bike to commute to work or school since 1984 with some periods where I used mass-transit instead or coupled with a bike. Any improvement in cycling infrastructure makes me quite happy. Cycling is easy to do, very efficient in terms of energy usage, and remarkably fast way to get places. Bikes take up very little space and are simple to park. The health benefits of riding are numerous and in my experience I feel more connected with my local community when I ride, vs when I drive through it.

I hope that more cities follow the examples of Portland, NYC, and the Netherlands.

Green America

One of the things we will hear a lot about is how we don't have money to spend to get ourselves well again. This is a load of crap but it will be the way the Republicans and Conservatives try to concern troll any plan to fix health-care or the environment. So I find this article very powerful. It talks about how the technology to reduce our emissions by 95% exists today and could be done with a combination of regulation and carbon pricing. It points out the roll of both regulation and smart carbon pricing rules. The summary from the article is a good read and also useful as a primer before reading the entire thing:

Making the unrealistic assumption of zero technical breakthroughs in efficiency or renewable technology, the total cost of a complete transition to 95 percent (or better) emissions-free energy in the U.S. would be about $1.7 trillion annually, if financed at 5 percent over 30 years. (There is no reason a 20-year build-out could not be financed over 30 years. It would provide paybacks for at least that long, and many aspects such as transmission lines and railroads would last 40 years or longer.) From a social standpoint, total paybacks would be $600 billion a year more than this, meaning in the 20th year, the economy would grow $600 billion more per year net than without such investments (not counting global warming reductions, but only immediate and short-term social returns.) Energy costs only, not counting possible fossil-fuel price increases or any social costs, would be about 31 percent higher in this scenario than under a business-as usual-scenario. However the particular subsidies I projected start at around $275 billion annually, average to $365 billion a year for the first 20 years, and peak at $475 billion annually in the 20th year. They drop back to $275 billion a year in the 21st year, as the renewable industries mature and can get by without further subsidy. The other $275 billion continues for another 10 years to pay back the green debt. These not only overcome most of the bottlenecks to phasing out fossil fuels, but they also compensate for what would otherwise be increases in energy costs.

I recommend you read the article and see for yourself. One of the things about the crises we are in right now is that we can't solve all of them without drastic actions on numerous fronts. Luckily it appears Obama is aware of that. Lets see how this plays out.