What a great insight on the missing middle. I also 100% agree with the opportunity of micro mobility. Even in very spread out Orange County, CA, my e-bike is a great tool. But until there is more good bike infrastructure only experienced vehicular cyclists will ride e-bikes.
I live in a city that's about 3k people per square mile, and it's pretty easy to get around by car other than a few traffic hot spots during rush hour, and a few parking hotspots scattered around town. I have an ebike and recently bought an e-scooter, but the issue I run into is that the weather is often pretty unfcomfortable, and it's just a lot more comfortable to take the car.
There's already a bit of a time and hassle penalty with micromobility (it's slower, have to lock your vehicle to something or it'll get stolen, and it's risky to not wear a helmet, which you then have to carry with you or finagle it onto your lock). There's a saying that "there's no bad weather, only bad clothing", but if you're donning and doffing a "deep sea diving suit"-type outfit, it only further adds to the time and hassle penalty, especially for a short trip.
What I find really surprising is that you currently can't buy a weather-protected vehicle (new, anyway) for less than about *twenty thousand dollars*. And chances are it will weigh a ton or two, and take up a whole parking space, and require an expensive insurance policy, and you'll need a license to operate it.
That seems like a huge "price umbrella" for someone to create something with wind and rain protection (and maybe even a heater) that's still vastly smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a car. The folks at Nimbus gave it a good effort, but ultimately ran out of funding. I think starting even lower-end (think "an ebike that's comfortable in a downpour" instead of "a motorcycle that's relatively safe") is probably the next thing for someone to try.
Great article on the transportation dilemma most cities are facing. There is an unclear threshold in which increased density begins to support walking/biking/transit as viable alternatives to driving. As cities grow and densify, traffic may get worse approaching that threshold. Selling the public on delayed benefits in the face of the immediate and obvious cons is of worsening congestion is a tough one that planners and politicians need to navigate. I think being honest about those trade offs is important.
Curious on your thoughts about transit funding. On your first chart, I’m guessing somewhere a tad to the right of the missing middle cloud is where funding for transit (sales tax increases etc) begin to win elections. Here in the Boise ID metro area, I think we’re still a ways from there as driving is still most convenient. But it’s densifying a lot right now and parking and traffic are pretty big concerns to the point of making people just start to scratch the idea of more robust transit. But we’re light years from funding and some state legislative action will have to occur to even allow local option sales tax etc.
"Our suburban areas are specifically designed to house large numbers of people who will drive everywhere for every trip, and they achieve that goal."
There is an important exception to design, though I cannot speak to subdivisions designed over the last few decades. Most subdivisions in the 20th-c were designed according to the Radburn idea that kids would walk to grade schools and local playgrounds, and they limited ingress and ingress to eliminate outside traffic. This is an important point of advocacy, since, ironically, subdivisions are designed to limit traffic and cities are designed to take on more traffic.
What a great insight on the missing middle. I also 100% agree with the opportunity of micro mobility. Even in very spread out Orange County, CA, my e-bike is a great tool. But until there is more good bike infrastructure only experienced vehicular cyclists will ride e-bikes.
I live in a city that's about 3k people per square mile, and it's pretty easy to get around by car other than a few traffic hot spots during rush hour, and a few parking hotspots scattered around town. I have an ebike and recently bought an e-scooter, but the issue I run into is that the weather is often pretty unfcomfortable, and it's just a lot more comfortable to take the car.
There's already a bit of a time and hassle penalty with micromobility (it's slower, have to lock your vehicle to something or it'll get stolen, and it's risky to not wear a helmet, which you then have to carry with you or finagle it onto your lock). There's a saying that "there's no bad weather, only bad clothing", but if you're donning and doffing a "deep sea diving suit"-type outfit, it only further adds to the time and hassle penalty, especially for a short trip.
What I find really surprising is that you currently can't buy a weather-protected vehicle (new, anyway) for less than about *twenty thousand dollars*. And chances are it will weigh a ton or two, and take up a whole parking space, and require an expensive insurance policy, and you'll need a license to operate it.
That seems like a huge "price umbrella" for someone to create something with wind and rain protection (and maybe even a heater) that's still vastly smaller, lighter, and cheaper than a car. The folks at Nimbus gave it a good effort, but ultimately ran out of funding. I think starting even lower-end (think "an ebike that's comfortable in a downpour" instead of "a motorcycle that's relatively safe") is probably the next thing for someone to try.
Great article on the transportation dilemma most cities are facing. There is an unclear threshold in which increased density begins to support walking/biking/transit as viable alternatives to driving. As cities grow and densify, traffic may get worse approaching that threshold. Selling the public on delayed benefits in the face of the immediate and obvious cons is of worsening congestion is a tough one that planners and politicians need to navigate. I think being honest about those trade offs is important.
Curious on your thoughts about transit funding. On your first chart, I’m guessing somewhere a tad to the right of the missing middle cloud is where funding for transit (sales tax increases etc) begin to win elections. Here in the Boise ID metro area, I think we’re still a ways from there as driving is still most convenient. But it’s densifying a lot right now and parking and traffic are pretty big concerns to the point of making people just start to scratch the idea of more robust transit. But we’re light years from funding and some state legislative action will have to occur to even allow local option sales tax etc.
I think Andrew Miller’s article here (https://www.changinglanesnewsletter.com/p/progress-and-public-transit-part-917) has a more developed and thoughtful take than I can fit in a comment. I like his ideas on transit funding.
"Our suburban areas are specifically designed to house large numbers of people who will drive everywhere for every trip, and they achieve that goal."
There is an important exception to design, though I cannot speak to subdivisions designed over the last few decades. Most subdivisions in the 20th-c were designed according to the Radburn idea that kids would walk to grade schools and local playgrounds, and they limited ingress and ingress to eliminate outside traffic. This is an important point of advocacy, since, ironically, subdivisions are designed to limit traffic and cities are designed to take on more traffic.