National Bicycle Month | Rennes, France: a national model

May is National Bicycle Month.  I always try to do some entries then.  Sometimes I am more successful than others.  Here goes the first.

============

Years ago I did what I consider to have been at the time a best practice bicycle plan for a suburb, Baltimore County, in Maryland.  I wrote about the process here ("Best practice bicycle planning for suburban settings using the "action planning" method," 2010).  

Some of the key elements were: (1) creating a county-wide bicycle route network; (2) secure bicycle parking; and (3) support facilities such as repair services.  

 Plus bicycle wayfinding and map systems, teaching people how to commute and opportunities to try out biking without having to buy all the equipment first ("Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs"), and community promotion.

Sure we all know about cities in the Netherlands and Copenhagen as being best practice for bicycle ridership as a high proportion of total trips traveled, but many places in the US have a hard time grappling with best practice examples from large cities.

I wonder if Rennes, France is a model that is more graspable.  

Covid helped to push policies forward as people were less willing to be corralled on buses.  The city has best practice secure bicycle parking--free at transit stations and in conurbations, and for €40 per year for special bicycle garages in neighborhoods, a protected bicycle lane network in the city and suburbs, the Express Bike Network, "Reseau  Express Vélo." 

Bicycle sharing called LE vélo STAR that can be bundled with transit, and with options besides standard bikes--electric bikes, electric assist cargo bikes, and "longtail" bikes with a backseat child carrier--trailer and child seat rentals, etc.  

Of course, like most of these systems, at a certain price per year it makes sense to buy your own.  But it does offload security and parking costs.

Plus, repair cafes with both bike and food services, and community repair support through the area's bicycle promotion group.

Best practice bike parking in Rennes, France ("Rennes: The metropolitan area is trying out residential bicycle parking to combat theft," 20 Minutes).  It's branded C-Park, for the municipal parking system, which also offers the bike parking services (car sharing and EV charging too).

The news was announced discreetly, during a routine discussion on pricing for the new parking facilities at Hôtel-Dieu and La Courrouze. Adopted unanimously, the proposal put forward by Matthieu Theurier is nonetheless eagerly awaited by thousands of cyclists , particularly those living in apartments. In the second half of the year, four residential bicycle parking facilities will be created in the Breton capital.

Offered by subscription, these bike boxes will be installed in place of car parking spaces to provide a storage solution for cyclists who do not have a garage or a secure place to park their bikes. "The law requires co-owned properties to have a bike garage. But in reality, we know that this is not always possible. We wanted to offer a secure option for residents who don't have one," explains Matthieu Theurier, Vice-President of Rennes Métropole for Mobility.

... Access to these parking spaces will be possible through a paid subscription offered by Citedia via the Korrigo card. On Thursday evening, a rate of 40 euros per year was unanimously adopted by the Rennes Métropole council to launch this trial in the second half of 2022. "C-Parks like the one at the train station are free and will remain so . We will offer 500 additional spaces along the route of metro line B. But we needed a complementary offering," concluded Matthieu Theurier.

Metropolitan bike route network, Rennes ("In 2022, the Rennes metropolitan area's express bike network will move to the high plateau," Ouest France, "Express bike network in Rennes: these three towns are less than 20 minutes apart," Le Telegramme).  From the latter

The number of cyclists is already booming in Rennes, with a 50% increase in the city over the past four years, Valérie Faucheux, Deputy Mayor of Rennes in charge of mobility, told us . This is despite some users' concerns about road safety. The Express Bike Network helps to increase their sense of security on the sections concerned, since the deployment is "accompanied by appropriate signage to ensure the legibility and identification of these cycle routes: road markings with a white bicycle and blue chevrons, and directional signs."

Repair stands and air pumps (inflation stations).  The Rennes area uses participatory budgeting processes where citizens come together and prioritize items and issues which they want local government to fund.  

The network of repair stations is growing as a result of this program ("Even more bike repair and inflation stations!").

(I will say that in my experience in the US, these often get vandalized, and cities aren't good on keeping them in good repair.  It's one reason why I suggest they be placed outside transit stations, where they can be better monitored.  Plus, with electricity connections, you can also have air compressors for pumps.

Bike washing.  Not in Rennes, but there's a free bike washing station in the Avoriaz ski resort community, called Hakken, produced by a company called Wintersteiger, which even has a US branch in Utah.  They brand the equipment as Veloclean.

Repair cafes and a community bike shop (bike hubs) ("Cycle paths, repair workshops…: Rennes, the new cycling Eldorado?" "A Café Citron before getting back in the saddle?," "In Petite Rennes, "assisted self-repair" for cyclists on a budget," "At Ta grand-mère à vélo, a coffee while you study," OW).

Repair shops are flourishing With the increasing number of cyclists, bike repair workshops of all kinds are springing up: traditional or community-based, repair cafes where you can have a drink or a bite to eat while your bike is being serviced, and even self-service repair workshops. Like the Petite Rennes association, which has just opened a 250 m² open-access workshop in La Courrouze, where you can get free advice and, if needed, assistance (only parts, new or used, are charged).

Best practice bicycle promotion:  Bike House and Mobile Bike House (also (Destination Rennes).

When I was with a small group of sadly undercapitalized folks trying to sell bicycle sharing systems, I came up with the idea of a front end Bicycle Center promoting biking, tourism, cafe, etc., modeled in part on the headquarters for VeloQuebec in Montreal, with the bike repair support facility for the bike sharing system as the back end. 

Rennes' bike sharing does that, as part of the region's commitment to sustainable mobility .  From the webpage:

The Rennes 2020 Cycling Plan aims to develop cycling throughout the metropolitan area. The objective is a 20% market share. It relies on four main levers: speed reduction, network improvement, service enhancement, and cycling promotion . The Maison du Vélo (Bike House) plays a key role in this initiative.

Opened in November 2017, the Maison du vélo (Bike House) moved to its new premises on Place de la Gare in Rennes in October 2020. It offers a wide range of services for cyclists, both residents of the Rennes metropolitan area and those just passing through. It has become the go-to place for cycling information within the metropolitan area.

Electric bike rentals, a self-repair workshop, bike marking to combat theft, a cycling school, conferences, exhibitions… The program of activities is co-developed with various partners: associations, bike shops, Destination Rennes, and road safety organizations. A true hub for activities and information dedicated to cycling, the Maison du Vélo (Bike House) is also a permanent space for meetings, advice, prevention, and training on cycling.

They collaborate with area bike-related groups, and using a transit bus specially outfitted, the mobile bike house takes the services on the road, promoting bike sharing subscriptions and other programs ("What can be found in the mobile bike house that travels around the Rennes metropolitan area?," OF).

Conclusion: Cycling as a System. These examples show the value in having such services in house, rather than contracting them out, which allows for integration.  For example, a municipal parking system provides an enterprise platform that can also support bicycle parking and car sharing.

The Metropolitan government can provide services like a metropolitan scale bike path network and the Bike House and the Mobile Bike House, which over the course of the year, stops in most of the region's 43 individual jurisdictions.

Rennes the city can build its bike path network and provide other supports, centering and backstopping regional efforts.

It's a focus on creating a bicycle mobility system equal to the system that supports automobility, along the lines suggested in a past German Federal Bicycle Plan, from where this graphic is derived.

Toronto's parking system runs bike sharing, but they took it over once it was on the verge of failing. 

I've suggested that government parking systems could be the backbone of a metropolitan scale system of secure bike parking ("Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 2, building a network of bike facilities at the regional scale").  That the expense of e-bikes means secure parking is necessary to support widescale use ("If you're going to promote electric bikes at scale, there needs to be complementary investment in secure bicycle parking and charging").  

(Baltimore uses its parking garage revenue to support free transit on the Baltimore Circulator bus program.)

A number of cities have bits and pieces of this, but as my writings over the years indicate, an integrated system is way better.

-- "Extending the "Signature Streets" concept to "Signature Streets and Spaces," (2020, originally 2015)

-- "Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 1," (2017)

-- "Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 2, building a network of bike facilities at the regional scale," (2017)

-- "Why not a bicycle hub at National Airport?, focused on capturing worker trips but open to all," (2017)

-- "Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs," (2024, original 2015, updated 2020)
-- "Repeating b.s. about everything being about race and class: bike infrastructure in Washington, DC," (2024, earlier entries cited within)

-- "Denver and Rio Grande Rail Trail in Davis County, Utah: a great foundation, full of (missed) opportunity," (2022)

-- "World Bicycle Day is today: Ideas for making transportation cycling irresistible," (2022)

Electric vehicles sales surge in Asia: Gerschenkron and EV production in China

A BYD dealership in Phuket, Thailand.

According to Bloomberg "BYD Showrooms Are Bustling Across Asia After Iran Oil Shock," people are reacting to gas price increases resulting from the war with Iran by looking at buying electric cars.

Maybe the US too ("What to Know About Electric Cars When Gas Prices Are Surging," New York Times).  From the article:

In the United States, prices for new electric vehicles have fallen but still average $6,500 more than vehicles that run on fossil fuels, according to Cox Automotive. From a purely financial point of view, an electric vehicle makes sense for people who will save that much on fuel and maintenance during the time they own it.

The New York Times offers a tool to help people make that calculation based on local electricity prices and driving habits. But there is more to the decision than dollars and cents. Some benefits of electric vehicles are hard to put a price on, like the peace of mind that comes from not being at the mercy of geopolitics.

Alexander Gerschenkron was an economist who studied development economics.  

In "Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective," he makes the point that later developing countries have an advantage when it comes to adopting new technologies, because unlike legacy advanced economies, they don't have billions invested in older technologies.

Vintage Marathon Oil gasoline station in Miami, Oklahoma.

China (in many technologies) is a great example.  One is with motor vehicles.  While their development of the automobile industry started with gasoline cars, many built through joint ventures with then advanced car makers like GM and Toyota, the companies were able to adopt and adapt the technologies for the development of their own domestic auto industry.

But China, seeing fossil fuel as a legacy fuel and making them dependent on the world oil economy, moved to the development of electric vehicles (and solar power, although the country still burns a lot of coal and is adding coal plants, since they have large supplies of coal domestically sourced) ("Chinese BYD cars emerge as threat to automakers," Detroit Free Press).

BYD started making electric batteries before moving to cars.  More recently they've developed a fast charging system that allows cars to go up to 600 miles between charges--except to provide this at scale would require serious electricity transmission upgrades.

Now China is years ahead of the American auto industry, which is losing billions of dollars trying to compete in the electric vehicle market ("Carmakers Took a $50 Billion Loss on EVs," Autoweek). And they are an increasing force in global markets ("How America’s EV retreat is increasing China’s control of global markets," CNBC).

During the first Trump Administration, I remember the Economist writing about this ("America’s domination of oil and gas will not cow China"), and Trump's preference for coal ("Trump orders coal revival, but market favors natural gas," NPR) and oil, stating that in energy, China is the future, and the US is the past.  China is an electro-state and the US is a Petro-state ("The Petro States of America," Bloomberg). 

Foreign Policy Magazine develops this thesis further, ""How the Iran War Could Consolidate China’s Energy Dominance: Amid global oil and gas disruptions, China stands prepared for the electrostate era."

Petro states as a sub-national phenomenon.

Wind turbines operate at a wind farm near Whitewater, California. Renewables tend to be lower risk than oil projects, but they also tend to deliver lower returns. / Getty Images

I apply the concept of petro states at the sub-national scale as well--many states in the US are pro fossil fuels, and have hampered the development of alternative technologies ("Making oil is more profitable than saving the planet. These numbers tell the story," NPR).  

In large part, it's because excise taxes on oil and natural gas are a huge revenue source for states ("Congress gave a break to coal producers. Wyoming worries it’ll carry the loss," Wyoming Public Radio).  From the article:

Over the last 50 years, the state of Wyoming made bank from coal – billions of dollars to fund the government, schools, roads and parks. The state now has its own sovereign wealth fund thanks to coal.

Here’s how it works: When coal is mined on federal land, the mining company pays royalty fees. Half of those royalties go to the federal government and the other half goes to the state, and only Congress has the power to change that ratio.

President Trump’s GOP spending bill lowers those royalty fees for mining companies from 12.5% to 7% through 2034.

Or they continue to provide tax incentives for increased production ("Tax credit for huge oil producer raises questions about Utah board’s transparency," Salt Lake City Weekly) and other ways to promote production ("Supreme Court backs Utah oil railroad expansion, endorsing limited version of key environmental law," Colorado Public Radio).

For example, Oklahoma, with oil and natural gas interests (fracking especially) is fully committed to fossil fuels, but is toying with solar and wind ("As demand grows, Oklahoma considers its energy path forward," Daily Oklahoman).  Tulsa and Oklahoma City are home to many regional headquarters and a few national firms.

North Dakota ("Studies underscore oil and gas industry’s significant impact on North Dakota’s economy, communities").  Kentucky ("Heavy reliance on coal has eroded a KY economic advantage. Can Trump reverse the trend?," Kentucky Lantern). While New Mexico, which has a good producing section of the Permian Basin, and Pennsylvania--home to the nation's first oil well, but a center for fracking, are less committed.

It's the rare state, like California, pushing a sustainable fuel future despite historically having been a large producer.  Maybe the switch is due to significant drops in production ("As oil industry in California wanes, what will become of shuttered refineries?," Daily Breeze).

An oil pump jack stands near a field of wind turbines in Nolan, Texas. Oil companies are under pressure to pivot more swiftly toward renewable energy. Here's one reason why that's not happening so quickly: It's still incredibly lucrative to sell oil. / Getty Images

Texas is the mother lode of oil production in the US.  It is also a major wind power producer.  

Like the Trump Administration ("Trump Officials Weigh New $1 Billion Deal to Stop Offshore Wind Farms," New York Times), some pro-oil interests are working to deemphasize wind in the state's mix of energy sources ("The War on Wind Rages in Texas," Earth Day).

Originally the Humble Oil Building, named before Humble Oil and Refining Company was fully integrated in Esso (which later became Exxon, then ExxonMobil).  Now it's the ExxonMobil Building.

Texas is the big winner nationally as Houston is the center of the oil and gas industry.  For example, Chevron is moving there from California.  The company in various forms has been headquartered in the SF Bay region since 1879.  

Production and supporting services companies often relocate from regional centers ("The economic impact of Expand Energy moving headquarters from Oklahoma to Houston," News9 OKC), as the oil industry business cluster there continues to intensify.

US thinks it's doing better from war blowback than other nations

JD Vance bragged that the US isn't as impacted by the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz as other countries ("'Overseas' doing worse with petrol prices than USA: Trump's vice president," 9News Australia).  But it's a global economy ("Iran war will scar the global economy," Financial Times). 

Bloomberg notes the Administration is looking at the wrong impact, as oil is used in so many other products ("The White House Is Using the Wrong Oil Price for the Iran War"). 

Also see, especially the comments where I update with other articles, "Oil dependent economies are vulnerable at all times, but especially during wartime in the Mideast | From energy dominance to energy vulnerability."

Other countries will hardly look upon the US with favor.  The Toronto Star, "How can Canada protect itself amid a global energy crisis?," lists some of the effects on Canada.

A friend's brother runs a grain elevator operation in Montana, including the sale of fertilizer in large quantities.  He's getting stiffed on deliveries.

From the Star:

Yet Canadian consumers are hostage to a volatile world price for oil and gas. And the crisis extends beyond oil. 

• It is a threat to world food security with looming shortages of the natural gas and other key ingredients of fertilizer produced by Persian Gulf States. As they plant for this year’s harvest, Canadian farmers can choose to absorb higher costs for fuel and fertilizer or cut back and suffer lower crop yields. Either way, food prices, already high, will rise further. 
•  Options for protecting Canadian consumers include the cap on pump prices that has been imposed by South Korea and other countries. 
•  China is among major oil consumers that are curtailing fuel exports to hoard domestic supplies. Brazil is cutting federal taxes on fuel and will tax oil exports to offset the revenue loss. 
• The Philippines has mandated four-day work weeks to conserve energy. 
• Some Asia-Pacific factories are scaling back production to preserve fuel and spare themselves higher production costs. 
• In a worst-case scenario, there will be more factory slowdowns and shutdowns in the global supply chain. 
• If prolonged, that disruption will raise the price of Canada’s imports, risking a resurgence of inflation. 
• Canada would be self-sufficient in oil and gas if it chose to redirect a large portion of its exports to refineries in Central and Eastern Canada that rely on imported oil. That would require construction of an east-west pipeline.
• Canada could also build strategic reserves of oil and LNG readily available to Canadian refineries to keep fuel prices under control. Canada is the only G7 country without a strategic oil reserve to draw upon in times of crisis.
• One of the few certainties of the moment is that Iran can bottle up Middle East fuel and fertilizer supplies whenever it chooses after the current conflict ends. The Economist warned of further Iranian attacks on the world economy in coming years, saying that “disruption of energy markets will come and go with geopolitical tensions, especially if Iran concludes that it needs a nuclear weapon to be safe.”

Oil dependent economies are vulnerable at all times, but especially during wartime in the Mideast | From energy dominance to energy vulnerability

Gasoline prices here have gone up about 25% since the start of the War with Iran.  And Salt Lake has five refineries refining oil produced in Utah, Wyoming and near by states.

It's hardly news that oil is a worldwide commodity, and even though it is produced and refined all over, world prices are set in Europe and the US and factor in supply risk.

The War ("Why Escalation Favors Iran," Foreign Affairs).  From the article:

The strikes that have killed Iran’s leadership demonstrated tactical mastery. Tactical mastery, however, is not strategy. Iran’s retaliation—geographically broad, economically disruptive, and politically calibrated—aims to reshape the conflict’s structure. By widening the theater and prolonging the war, Tehran is shifting the contest from a battle of military capabilities to one of political endurance.

As in Vietnam, the United States may win most engagements. As in Serbia, it may ultimately prevail after sustained pressure. But in both cases, the decisive arena was not the initial shock of airpower. It was the politics of an expanding war.

The decisive phase of this war began not with the first strike but with the regional crisis that followed—air defenses activated across multiple capitals, airports suspended, markets jolted, and alliance politics strained. Whether this conflict is merely a contained episode or it becomes a prolonged strategic setback for the United States will depend not on the next volley of missiles but on whether Washington recognizes the enemy’s unfolding strategy—and responds with one of equal clarity.

Energy independence as a form of dependence.  Even though the US is now the largest producer of oil in the world, under the Trump Administration it has promulgated policy that prioritizes fossil fuels and diminishes renewable energy sources  ("Trump Returns to Gasoline as Fuel of Choice for Cars, Gutting Biden’s Climate Policy," New York Times, "The owners want to close this Colorado coal plant. The Trump administration says no," NPR).

The Administration is also all in on nuclear energy, which isn't a fossil fuel per se, but is an extremely expensive form of energy, not once a plant is open, but the cost of building fission facilities has bankrupted many firms over the years.

Even though renewable sources diversify the energy mix and reduce system vulnerability ("Trump order halts offshore wind projects for at least 90 days," PBS, "Trump administration quietly canceled the nation’s largest solar project," CNN, "Wind and solar power frozen out of Trump permitting push," Reuters)  For example, electric vehicles are much less dependent on oil as the base fuel for electricity generation.

The Administration calls this "Energy Dominance" but "Energy Dominance" can just as easily be robust and include non fossil fuels as part of the mix ("Energy Dominance or Renewable Resilience?," German Marshall Fund, "Power up! Why the US needs every energy source to stay dominant," ING Bank, "Donald Trump’s call for ‘energy dominance’ is likely to run into real-world limits," AP, "How Trump’s ‘Energy Dominance’ Agenda Is Dominating You With Dirty Energy," The Contrarian).

Plus US nominal control of oil in Venezuela and Canada ("Trump Now Has His Very Own Oil Empire," Bloomberg).

Let’s do the math. Start with the oil production of the US and add Canada. Then include Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, from Mexico to Argentina and everywhere else in between: Brazil, Guyana, Colombia. Like it or not, all of them are living under the “Donroe Doctrine” — an increasingly belligerent Washington’s sphere of influence over the Americas. Together they account for nearly 40% of the world’s oil output.

... Having de facto control of the Western Hemisphere’s petroleum wealth is a geopolitical game changer. For decades, US military adventurism was constrained by the impact of any war on energy costs. Today the White House has primacy over oil-producing allies and adversaries alike — whether it’s Saudi Arabia or Iran, Nigeria or Russia.

The US and China and global preeminence: Does it come down to energy policy?.  Another way to think of this is as looking forward versus looking backwards, a classic example of Alexander Gerschenkron's thesis that over time newer economies have an advantage in being able to invest in new technologies without incurring huge stranded costs.

China still buys a lot of oil, and they use coal powered electricity because of large domestic supplies.  But the focus on EVs is just one of China's green energy policies ("China, the climate superpower," "China, Energy and Climate: The Time has Come," special package, The Economist, "How China came to dominate the world in renewable energy," Washington Post).

As a slogan, “energy dominance” evokes images of the United States towering over the rest of the world, with prodigious production, as what Trump calls “a global energy superpower.” But the truth of energy dominance has nothing to do with empowering folks at home.

The administration has been rigging the game in favor of dirty energy — and giving fossil-fuel producers a license to dominate American consumers. In the process, Trump is boxing U.S. households out of cleaner alternatives and leaving Americans with less choice, higher energy bills, and an overheating climate.

Worse, by hobbling America’s green-energy industries, the administration is destroying jobs, even as it clears a path for China to dominate the next generation of energy production.

... A study out of Princeton University finds that Trump’s signature “Beautiful Bill” will reduce capital investment in our electrical system and clean fuels by half a trillion dollars over the next decade. It will also slash future solar capacity by about 140 gigawatts and wind capacity by about 160 gigawatts. (The Hoover Dam, by comparison, has a capacity of about 2 gigawatts.)

Plus the effect on jobs ("‘Deeply demoralizing’: how Trump derailed coal country’s clean-energy revival," Guardian).

Ethanol and other bad decisions.  Granted the US has some dumb policies.  One is the support of ethanol production as a feedstock for gasoline.  Unlike in Brazil, where the feedstock is used up sugar cane, here we spend money growing corn to convert to ethanol.  

Ethanol has less energy compared to gasoline.  So we're dedicating farmland to gasoline, which has a negative cost benefit.

And EVs primarily powered by coal and natural gas are less sustainable than those pow ered by renewables.

Ending EV tax credits forces the US automobile industry to double down on gasoline powered cars, while China and increasing Europe are shifting to EVs in substantive ways.  (Part of the concern in Europe is getting cleaner air--many of their cars are diesel, and comparatively high when it comes to polluting).

The Strait of Hormuz is extremely vulnerable.  While only 20% of the oil produced in the Mideast passes through the Strait, 80% goes to Asia, and 100% of Liquid Natural Gas to Europe, airplane fuels too.  Also 33% of fertilizers ("American farmers dealt new blow as Trump's Iran war escalates," Newsweek), and of course other goods.

That increases vulnerability across the globe, separate from the impact on the US economy, which isn't just on the cost of gasoline, but on farming, the transport of goods, the production of chemicals and other products, etc. ("Saudi Arabia Starts Oil Cuts as It Races to Reroute Exports" Bloomberg).

The lessons from the 1970s oil shock.  During the Israeli-Arab War and later in the decade, Middle Eastern Countries significantly raised the cost of gasoline, and took control of production and sale from the multinational oil companies.

I have often written that the US mobility paradigm is pretty much homogeneous in that it decidedly supports automobility and provides dribbles of support to other modes.  

By contrast, Germany, a leading car manufacturer (but not much of an oil producer), has a heterogenous policy.  It supports cars to the max, especially with its no speed limit autobahns, but recognizes cities are best served by transit, supports regional rail service despite its love of autobahns, and walking and biking--the Federal Biking Plan for the county is one of the best.

I contrast Denmark and Netherlands to the US in terms of response.  Not producing oil, and not having much of a car industry, Denmark and the Netherlands recognized that shifting to an automobile centric mobility paradigm made them vulnerable to cuts in supplies.  

An analogous example is how in the US, gasoline supplies are often interrupted during extreme weather events, leading to long lines and disruption in all sorts of activities, because people seemingly lack alternative ways to travel ("Oil dependence | The US as a Petro-state and gasoholic | and war").

Being poor before WW2 and for awhile after, the countries had been more walking (compact cities, no sprawl), biking and transit oriented.  They were giving this up in favor of the automobile as their economies became more successful.

Amsterdam.  Bike parking, lots of bikes, and transit in the background.

Not only cuts in supply but a significant raise in prices made their countries extremely vulnerable.  So they shifted away from the car and back to transit and biking in the development and transportation policies and practices.  

Unlike the US, which says transit and biking is okay, but primarily invests in automobility, they made their policies congruent with the new paradigm, for example significantly increasing gas taxes and car registration fees.  

Of course, the countries like others in Europe also refocused attention on energy efficiency in all elements of their economy.

The US: Still vulnerable to oil shocks.  By contrast, while the US did adopt some energy efficiency mechanisms, including mpg standards for cars, mostly the US focused on maintaining access to oil supplies.  

That meant refocusing military resources on the Mideast ("There are two winners in Iran. Neither one is America," Washington Post) and creating the Strategic Oil Reserve which bought and stored oil for use, holding it for sale when prices get "too high."  

A Permian Basin oil pumping station.

And increased production, which was was boosted on steroids in the late 1990s with the invention of fracking ("The economic benefits of fracking," Brookings, "How Has Fracking Changed Our Future?," National Geographic).  

Note that fracking has major environmental effects, the use of water, contamination of the aquifer, and air quality.

Article.  Another side of dependence.

But it didn't make the US less vulnerable to the fissures in the supply chain, not so much with access to oil, but in all the other ways an oil dependent economy experiences higher costs as increased oil costs make their way through the supply chain of various goods.

Life After Cars | US Metropolitan areas where 8% or more residents use public transit to get to work

One of the points I used to make wrt transit advocacy is that people needed to recognize that most of the US--92% of all trips involve a car--has no concept that a transit-centric mobility and lifestyle paradigm is even possible.  

This is why this graphic (via Reddit) is so compelling.  Sadly.  Because it shows how few areas of the country are at least somewhat transit-centric.  

I always say I was privileged to have lived in DC for 30+ years, where it is possible, practical, and frugal to rely on transit (even better when you add biking, walking, and the occasional car share) rather than having to own a car.  Not owning a car at the time supported $100,000 of our mortgage.

If I were healthy, and maybe with the addition of an electric bike, I probably could live car light, not car free, in Salt Lake.  But I am not strong enough yet to be able to use an electric bike, and I have scads of doctors appointments, occasional hospital stays, etc.

"Gasoline is up and GOP sees an easy target: Biden," Politico.

Like when President Biden proposed a federal excise tax holiday on gasoline when prices rose, advocates were quick to say, "no, instead make transit free."  When comparatively speaking, everyone drives, and they are more concerned about gas prices than transit use.

What I always argue is that it took 50+ years to build our automobile-centric transportation system, and while it shouldn't take that long to build up a sustainable mobility system, we need to take a variety of steps, including actively helping people take up bicycling and shift trips from the car.

-- "Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs"  2024

As some people say, "biking is the freedom that car television ads claim to provide."

This reality is why I didn't bother trying to track down a review copy of the book, Life After Cars: Freeing Ourselves from the Tyranny of the Automobile, which has received a fair amount of coverage ("‘Car Brain’ Is Making the US Unhealthy and Dangerous. EVs Won’t Fix It.," Bloomberg).  

I think it's great to think of a no car lifestyle as a thought experiment, a way to think about how you get around, and what you can change to do so without a car as much as possible.

But to argue seriously that it should be the policy of the land, given where we are now, is ludicrous and I would think, for most people is an argument that can't ever be taken seriously.

Note that I am pleased by recent various pro-sustainable mobility gains:

•  electric bikes are successful in shifting trips away from the automobile
• bike sharing systems in DC, New York City, and Toronto are having record years
• each year more and more people take part in Safe Routes to School programs
• coverage within SRTS programming about "bike buses" ("More Children Are Powering Their Own Wheels to School as Part of ‘Bike Buses’," Inside Climate News)
• the expanded use of cargo bikes as alternatives to the car 
• winter cycling promotion initiatives including a winter Bike to Work Day in many cities
• and that transit use is rebounding after taking a hit during Covid.

Last year's entry, "20th anniversary of the blog| Urban revitalization systems thinking's greatest hits: Part three -- transportation" has links to what I consider to be my best writings on transportation.

It is possible to shift people away from the car, partly by alternatives, partly by changes to urban form, and the creation of mixed use communities.

My ability to be mobile waxes and wanes depending on (if any) recent hospitalizations.  Before my last trip to the hospital, I was walking two miles per day and doing a variety of exercises.  I haven't worked back to that level, but I can walk a mile, better if split half and half.

Where I live that means I can walk one half mile east to a decent shopping center with a supermarket, Shake Shack, and various other retail in one direction, a little farther from that adds a dry cleaner, shoe repair and copy shop to the range.  

Walking west, another half mile, is a small group of businesses on four corners of a neighborhood intersection with a smaller upscale supermarket, drug store/apparel shop, two restaurants, and salon and light office (for awhile I saw a doctor as my PCP in an office above the direction).

In yet another direction is another grouping of shops, including where I get my hair cut (sometimes I spring for a razor shave too) where I walked to just last week.

There's a park in another direction.  And if I can walk a bit farther, a neighborhood library (more like 3/4 mile each way).

Again, it's a privilege to live in a place with access to all those amenities easily reachable by walking or biking.  (And by car, two major hospitals within 15 minutes, north and south of where I live, among other amenities.)

Again/2, if I could bike right now, I'd have access to a great deal more amenities, all in less than a 5 mile radius.  

And that's not even taking advantage of the light rail-based transit shed in the metropolitan area (it's not too proximate for me, the nearest station is almost 3 miles away, on the University of Utah campus).  Bus service isn't too bad, but degrades with distance.    If you're in the rail transit shed, you can live car light definitely, and depending on where you work, no car.

My hospital is 5.4 miles away, easily bikeable when I am healthy, not when I am really sick, but takes more than an hour transferring from one bus to another....

DC Strategic Bike Plan and survey

 -- Strategic Bike Plan webpage

(Since we still have our house in Ward 4, I felt justified in answering.) The survey is interesting because it's qualitative--asking questions which require written answers--rather than the usually rote-ness of multiple choice quantitative questions.

I forgot to mention e bikes as a game changer--I've come around this, getting more people to bike who wouldn't before, and/or to commute longer distances.

What about bike share?  The other thing there wasn't a place for is to ask questions of your own.  I think there needs to be serious research about "the overnight success of bike share"--not really, I'm joking.  It has taken 15 years, but now each month seems to have more bike trips than the year before.  

Why did this happen?  Expansion of the system?  I don't think so, it's hard a large number of stations to begin with.  Expansion to other communities?  I don't know, are there a lot of city-to-city bike share trips.  Just seeing it in action and testing it out?  I do think adding electric bicycles is one reason why use has increased, even if the pricing is by the minute, not by the trip.

The two big things I mentioned.

1.  Needing to be more focused on assisting people in making the transition to cycling for transportation.

-- "Revisiting assistance programs to get people biking: 26 programs," 2024

2.  The need for a secure network of bicycle parking, especially with the rise in use of expensive cargo bikes and electric bikes.

-- "Another mention of the idea of creating a network of metropolitan scale secure bicycle parking facilities," 2019

The question that wasn't asked: About equity and the provision of biking infrastructure in the low income areas of the city.  I actually get worked up about this.  I've argued with black community organizers about the value of biking to work, and they think bikes are toys not to be taken seriously.  

Plus, bike infrastructure has been positioned as a tool of whitey/gentrification.  Which has made take up harder.

Years ago I criticized a study that said since blacks didn't want the biking infrastructure it shouldn't be built.

-- "Urg: bad studies don't push the discourse or policy forward | biking in low income communities (in DC) edition," 2014

To me that's dumb, because the point of planning isn't really choice so much as it is optimality.  For reasons of health, economics, access to jobs, and joy, biking can be a lot more optimal and cheaper than transit, and of course, driving (not to mention the difficulty and cost of parking).

Anyway, there is writing out there implying that less infrastructure in black neighborhoods is a plot ("Bike lane distribution in DC is unequal. DDOT’s new bicycling plan could help," Greater Greater Washington).  It isn't.

FWIW, I plan to write about this, based on reading a couple books looking at equity issues in transportation (Reclaiming the Road: Mobility Justice beyond Complete Streets)and cycling (Cyclescapes of the Unequal City: Bicycle Infrastructure and Uneven Development).

As the now deceased professor Donald Shoup used to stay, it's best to help people who are already helping themselves.  It's a losing proposition to try to "force" infrastructure on people who claim they don't want it.  Sadly, that means they screw themselves.  That's been true in DC with both streetcar service and cycling infrastructure.

Earth Day is today

 The first Earth Day was on April 20th, 1970 ("Earth Day, Part 2: April 22nd," 2024).  How are we doing?

=======

Not well, with the Trump Administration.

Illustration: transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy.  Vox.

Coal power plant.  Wikipedia photo by Sam Nash.

1.  Repudiation of climate change science ("Earth Day 2025: How the Trump administration's policies will impact global decarbonization." ABC News).

2.  Promote a fossil fuel economy rather than a renewable energy paradigm.  During the first Trump Administration the Economist suggested this was a backwards rather than a forward looking approach ("America’s domination of oil and gas will not cow China").  This is a classic example of the Gerschenkron theory of economic backwardness being an advantage for later blooming economies as they can adopt the latest technology without worrying so much about sunk costs. ("New report details long-term challenges to US energy dominance," Midland Reporter-Telegram, "The road to energy dominance is not paved with coal," The Hill).  

Also see "Clean energy breakthroughs could save the world. How do we create more of them?," Vox.

From the second article:

Market forces have been phasing out coal for the last decade in favor of cheaper electricity sources. Coal’s decline has been steady, regardless of which party sits in the Oval Office. When President Trump took office in 2016, coal represented 30 percent of total U.S. electricity generation. By his first term’s end, and despite efforts to prop up the industry, that share had plummeted to 20 percent.

Adobe Images photo of a coal mining operation. 

A recent series of executive orders throw a federal kitchen sink at bolstering this energy resource, which markets deem uneconomic, while simultaneously declaring an energy emergency. But the White House cannot erase energy market realities by presidential fiat.

Executive orders cannot change the fundamental economics of coal-fired power plants, nor can they alter states’ authority over electric generation facilities, which Congress delineated in the Federal Power Act. The orders also will not bring new coal plants online within the next four years, because their time horizon from investment to build, interconnection, and operation is far longer.

3.  Trump Administration will disallow states from imposing regulations on American energy projects ("Trump’s New Way to Kill Regulations: Because I Say So," New York Times)

President Trump this week directed 10 federal agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — to implement a novel procedure to scrap a wide array of longstanding energy and environmental regulations.

He told agencies that oversee everything from gas pipelines to power plants to insert “sunset” provisions that would cause regulations to automatically expire by October 2026. If the agencies wanted to keep a rule, it could only be extended for a maximum of five years at a time.

Experts say the directive faces enormous legal hurdles. But it was one of three executive orders from Mr. Trump on Wednesday in which he declared that he was pursuing new shortcuts to weaken or eliminate regulations.

The article goes on to discuss how the regulatory process for creating rules works, and that Trump's order is counter to administrative law. 

4.  With an increase in the number of extreme weather events ("Extreme Weather and Climate Change," NASA), the Trump Administration is calling for an end of FEMA providing disaster planning grants to states ("Trump administration ends key grant program that helps communities prepare for disasters," AP).  From the article:

In a news release Friday, the Federal Emergency Management Agency said it was ending the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, calling the move part of efforts to eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse.”

“The BRIC program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA program. It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters,” the agency said in a statement.

In addition to ending the program going forward, FEMA said it was also cancelling all applications to the program from 2020 to 2023 and that money that was awarded as part of grants but not already distributed would be immediately returned to the federal government.

Not to mention the gutting of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency that includes the National Weather Service ("The costs of Trump’s NOAA science purge," Politico, "Trump administration has set Noaa on ‘non-science trajectory’, workers warn," Guardian). 

5.  End Environmental Justice Programs.  These programs address harms caused by the location of polluting firms in low income communities ("EPA to fire or reassign more than 450 staffers working on environmental justice, DEI" Washington Post).

6.  Defund National Parks.  Not only does this make visiting national parks more difficult.  Scientific research programs are being gutted ("Former rangers worry what Trump’s cuts will mean for Utah’s national parks," KUER/NPR).

7.  Increased cutting of trees in US Forest Service lands ("USDA Opens 59% of Federal Forest for Logging to Manage Fire Risk," Bloomberg).  Plus defunding the agency  and cutting science projects.  Given the increase in the geographic spread and virulence of wildfire, the cuts extend to personnel who respond to wildfires ("‘Crazy’: Forest Service cuts ignite fear, fury over wildfire risks," Politico).  

The Ocean County wildfire covered 8,500 acres and led to about 3,000 residents being evacuated, according to the New Jersey Forest Fire Service. Photo: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Wildfires in states are an increasing problem ("N.J. wildfire swells to 11,500 acres, could become biggest in two decades," Philadelphia Inquirer).

8.  Considering denying nonprofit status to environmental advocacy groups ("Trump Officials Weigh Earth Day Move Against Green Groups," Bloomberg) as it's already cutting grants to such groups without authorization from Congress ("EPA’s Decision to Scrap $20bn in Climate Grants Based on ‘Inaccurate, Politicized’ Claims, Says Grantee," Earth.org).

There have been weekly demonstrations at Tesla showrooms across the country, including damage to buildings and cars.

9.  Bonus: Elon Musk's destruction of government as a shock troop of Trump is harming the electric car producer, Tesla ("As Tesla profits plunge 71%, Elon Musk says he'll spend less time on DOGE," NPR).  Note even better than electric cars is not driving and...

10.  The Trump Administration is deemphasizing transit funding and multi-mobility transportation policies("States push to shift road funds to transit and bike projects as Trump threatens cuts," AP).  

The Administration is threatening New York State transportation funding because the State won't accede to demands that New York City end congestion pricing ("Trump official threatens New York governor over halt of congestion pricing," Guardian).  

The Administration also cut a planning grant to Texas for high speed passenger railroad service, calling it savings for taxpayers (press release).

This photo is actually from Canada.  X photo.

Most transit agencies across the country are facing massive cuts in service, because of federal disinterest in providing funds.

11.  Bonus: More generally, Republicans are pretty much against public investment and the concept of public goods ("Boebert wants to pull the brakes on federal funding for proposed Front Range passenger rail project," Denver ABC7 ).  During the Biden Administration plenty of Republicans took credit for projects in their districts that they voted against.

Earth Day, Part 2: April 22nd

Earth Day anti-pollution rally at Philadelphia Museum of Art. April 23, 1970. Philadelphia Inquirer Photo: Lou Zacharias.

What’s lost since Philly’s amazing 1970 Earth Week," Philadelphia Inquirer

According to the article, Philadelphia was the most active community participating in the first Earth Day in 1970.  They had so much participation they created "Earth Week."

2.  FWIW, I think that April should be "Earth Month," with Earth Day still celebrated on April 22nd.  It's hard to pack everything in one day.

3.  National Volunteer Week is Sunday April 21st to Saturday April 27th.  In Utah, some organization put together a flyer listing a variety of volunteer possibilities for the week.  

I think this flyer is a great model that is adaptable.  E.g., a parks department could list a week's worth of activities.  A library system.  Or an Earth Month.

In any case, I went to a tree planting event last year for Earth Day, and it ended up getting me involved in Friends of Fairmont Park.  So that's something about Earth Day too, it can be an entry point for people to become more civically engaged in their community.

4.  Community cleanups.  The Orange County Register reports that a "14-year-old aims to clean 5 beaches in 5 weeks; he’s no stranger to helping the environment."

Clean ups are a great way to get people involved in their community ("Every Litter Bit Hurts," 2005, "Community cleanups (and other activities) as community building and civic engagement activities," 2011).

DC has Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, set up as individual Single Member Districts, united within a particular geography.  

This is up from our DC house.  And that area, abutting Georgia Avenue and commercial businesses and the police precinct tends to be pretty dirty.

Most commissioners do a bad job with holding regular meetings.  I think they should do at least one per quarter.  I suggested to an ANC4C commissioner years ago that one of the meetings should be a community cleanup.  Looks like they're doing it.

FWIW, DC is 100x dirtier than Salt Lake.

5.  Recycling versus zero waste.  Yes, there are lots of problems with recycling ("Recycling in the U.S. Is Broken. How Do We Fix It?," State of the Planet, "Recycling Reality Check: Addressing the Recycling Problems & How to Fix Them," Upper Route) in particular plastic and glass.  

Ryan Hickman, 14, walks along the surt to collect trash on T-Street Beach in San Clemente on Wednesday, April 17, 2024. At 7-years-old Hickman made national headlines when he embarked on a project collecting recyclables and donated the money to Pacific Marine Mammal Center. (Photo by Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register/SCNG)

Ryan Hickman became concerned about the environment starting with recycling.  

So recycling is a good thing from that standpoint.  But now it should be more about zero waste.  Which is broader than recycling, getting back to the line of "reduce, reuse, recycle."

As people drink artisan products (e.g., craft beer, Kombucha) and as plastic replaces glass bottles, there is less demand for mass production bottles, hence less demand for recycled glass.  It happens in Utah that there is an insulation plant which uses glass threads, so glass is recyclable here.  That being said, a major firm estimates that only 10% of the glass here is recycled. 

Salt Lake City puts pro-recycling, pro-zero waste messaging on its garbage trucks ("Every year Salt Lake City puts new pro-environmental messages on its sanitation trucks," 2018)

It happens that an elementary school in Salt Lake, Indian Hills Elementary, is probably national best practice for a school, and they open their programs to residents.

But there need to be more regulations forbidding the production of products that are impossible to recycle.  The EU has addressed this issue for years.  The US, given its neoliberal approach and opposition to any sort of positive environmental regulation by a majority of Republicans means the US will lag for a long time.

6.  Special opportunities with multiunit residential buildings and offices/restaurants ("Reformulating building regulations to promote sustainability," 2016).  I made the point that DC could drive best practice forward by addressing this.

7.  Watersheds.  In places with streams, I recommend "Adopt-A-Stream programs.  We have a stream in Sugar House Park and we need to address it as an element of our future master plan.  The city did a plan in 2010 that still isn't fully realized.  It's pretty clean in our park, but the banks need to be stabilized.

In DC, I argue that Advisory Neighborhood Commissions abutting the Anacostia River should have a committee on Rivers and Watersheds.

8.  Expos and Festivals.  Two weeks ago, DC had a "Healthy Homes Fair" to promote pro-environment, pro-sustainability practices for the home.  That's a good thing.  But four hours is too short.

I've always been a fan of Montgomery County's GreenFest.  This year it's April 27th.

These type of events can also be entry points into citizen involvement.

9.  Urban neighborhoods, especially rowhouse neighborhoods, use less energy than suburban houses.

10.  Helping seniors do sustainable mobility.  This is a tough issue.  Washington Area Bicyclists Association has been sponsoring short expos for seniors to encourage biking and walking.

OTOH, as people get older their mobility can become more constricted.  E.g., I never thought I'd have to use a cane and can't bike (I hope this will change after my course of treatment but I don't know).

But encouraging the people to use sustainable modes when their mobility isn't constricted is a good thing.

11.  Electric motor vehicles sales dropping.  Electric motor vehicles are experiencing a serious fall off in sales ("E.V. Sales Are Slowing. Tesla's Are Slumping.," New York Times).  Although much of the drop is a cratering of sales by Tesla.  

Still, from the standpoint of "diffusion of innovation" (also see "Crossing the Chasm"), I am not surprised at all.  The early adopters have bought.  There are still too many pain points for an average person:

• The upfront cost of an EV is much higher than for a ICE vehicle.  Even with tax credits and a lot of times, tax credits aren't available
• Software problems with the vehicle
• Range is an issue, depending on how much you drive
• Charging in the field can be difficult.  Not enough chargers, expensive, and often broken ("Why America's EV chargers keep breaking," Politico).  Plus some conservatives are a* and block access ("‘Don’t be this guy’: Experts say electric car haters feel ‘threatened, inferior’," Drive).
• If you want to power up your vehicle at home you need special connections that also cost money.
• If you live in a multiunit building, maybe they don't have enough connections
• If you live in a rowhouse, what do you do?  (Some cities are working to create charging options in such neighborhoods)
• Cost and complexity of repairs
• Battery failure and high cost of replacement; Tesla voiding of warranty when using third party
• Poor quality of Tesla customer service

The point about the adoption of new products is that they are supposed to be easier to use, not harder.  Although traditional motor vehicles went through a similar technology improvement process in the 1900s-1920s.  The thing was a car then was so much better than a horse or transit for so many people that they could overlook the difficulties.  

Now people don't need to, so an electric vehicle needs to be competitive on that basis and it isn't.  Companies were smart to focus on high end buyers, who cared more about the environment or status,

and didn't mind the hiccups.  The mass market isn't so forgiving.

12.  But EVs aren't that great.  Electric bikes are better.  The problem with EVs is that they are what I call "next generation asphalt nation."  Sure they lead to less use of gasoline, in fact it is predicted that this year or next might be the peak of oil consumption, which will then start to drop off.  But they are often powered by coal, also natural gas, and sometimes wind and solar, when it comes to power generation.

With electric vehicles, people don't drive less, and remain dependent on automobility, and automobility and sprawl waste a lot of resources.

Electric bikes can extend the distance that people are willing to bike, especially for commuting.  And every trip shifted to an e bike from a car is a big plus.  An electric bike trip versus an electric automobile trip is significantly better for the environment ("The Environmental Impact of Bikes and E bikes," Environmental Protection, "Why aren’t more big bike firms tracking their environmental impact?," Guardian).

Carbon Dioxide emissions per kilometer

Regular car	Electric car	Regular bike	Electric bike
220 g/C0₂	160 g/C0₂	25-35 g/C0₂	21-25 g/C0₂

Not dissimilar to the pain points with electric automobiles, there are some pain points with electric bikes too ("If you're going to promote electric bikes at scale, there needs to be complementary investment in secure bicycle parking and charging"): 

• Cost
• Need for secure parking, especially because e-bikes are more expensive
• heavy
• charging 
• heavier bikes can be harder to transport within multiunit residential buildings up to the room, unless secure parking is provided

WRT cost, some cities and states have e-bike rebate programs.  Generally, they provide more support for low income users.  But the programs are oversubscribed.  No one seems to be addressing secure parking, which should be addressed regardless of e-bikes ("Bike to Work Day as an opportunity to assess the state of bicycle planning: Part 2, building a network of bike facilities at the regional scale").  And charging options beyond home are hit or miss.