jtr1962
Flashaholic
Rather than hijacking the thread about gas mileage to further discuss the future role of human-powered transportation, I thought the topic deserved its own thread. For a long time it's been obvious to me that we as a society have overused mechanical transportation to the point that it's now working against itself. Why do I say this? Take a look at our larger cities. Here we took a huge amount of expensive real estate to use for wide boulevards where motor vehicles can cruise at speeds of 30 mph, 40 mph, sometimes even more. In order to safely allow these speeds we needed to install what amounts to an instrument flight system-namely traffic signals. Back when cars didn't travel much over 15 or 20 mph, human reaction time allowed negotiating intersections without any intervention. As speeds increased, it became apparent that we needed to give right-of-way to only one street at a time. Hence, the traffic signal was born. Furthermore, traffic signals were sometimes used to allow safe passage for pedestrians crossing. Now all of this was good for a time because people could now travel faster, and yet be safe at the occasional intersection.
Fast forward to the present. Traffic volumes and speeds have increased to the point that cities have hundreds or even thousands of signalized intersections (NYC has over 12,000). Ironically, as the number of signals has increased, their safety value has decreased because motorists tend to take them more casually. That's not the primary issue, however. The issue is that despite wide streets, high cruising speeds, and an inordinate amount of space devoted to motor vehicles, you often have average travel speeds of no more than 10 or 15 mph. In fact, in much of Manhattan you're doing good to average even that. The very devices needed to keep motor vehicles from colliding with each other (and not very successfully, I might add) have bought average speeds down to what a less than fit cyclist can manage. In fact, quite often a person on a bike can handily beat a person in a car.
The question then becomes one of why spend all these resources to enable motorized transport when the primary point of doing so-namely increased speed of travel, is no longer possible? It's a question which we're finally asking. Some places such as the Netherlands are already worlds ahead of us. It's no secret that for many trips within a city a bike is faster than anything else. What is just being realized is that human-powered transportation in general has huge potential to do things we once thought could only be done with motorized transportation. Many car trips are the driver only. Many of those trips are fairly short. That's what we're going after now by putting more bike infrastructure in places like Manhattan. It's a start, but we need more.
Let's first consider two issues working against greater use of human-powered transportation. Safety is the biggest one. Mixing cars and bikes really isn't a good idea. You need to physically separate cars from bikes for safety reasons first and foremost. The second problem with mixing cars and bikes are the aforementioned traffic signals which are ubiquitous when you have many cars. By definition, human-powered transportation is incapable of starting and stopping with the frequency traffic signals would dictate. Moreover, doing so can cut average speeds by a factor of three or more. End result then is cyclists tend to ignore traffic signals, particularly in places where there are lots of them. This is often one of the reasons traveling by bike in cities is faster than car. Nevertheless, it would be far better to build bike infrastructure where cyclists can legally keep in motion for many miles, instead of illegally hopping through red lights when they can. This is exactly what is being done in the Netherlands with the so-called bike superhighways. NYC could do the same by leveraging existing grade-separated highways and railways, plus joining the gaps with elevated structures. Doing this, a strong cyclist could ride 10 miles from the outer boroughs into Manhattan in 30 minutes, handily beating any other travel option.
But wait, it gets even better. Ever hear of the Varna Diablo? This vehicle reached over 82 mph at Battle Mountain, and covered over 56 miles in an hour on a closed course. Granted, in its present form it wouldn't be suitable for commuting, but it gives us some idea of the potential for human power should we choose to develop it. Imagine a human-powered vehicle which could comfortably maintain 40 or even 50 mph. Imagine that we have suitable infrastructure for it to run at those speeds most of the trip. Suddenly many trips which seemed to "need" motorized transport no longer do. Remember that the same vehicle which holds 45 mph with concerted effort can also be ridden at only 30 mph if one doesn't wish to arrive at work sweaty. Even cruising at only 30 mph means you can handily beat current motor vehicle travel times in many places. Human-powered transport doesn't mean being relegated to the pokey 12 mph you might do on an upright traditional bicycle. Moreover, a fully enclosed, aerodynamic vehicle better shields the rider from the effects of weather, allowing use all year round.
OK, I know we can't replace motorized transportation entirely, but to me it seems with the right vehicles and right infrastructure we can replace a huge number of trips with human power. This is especially true in areas where there is so much motor traffic that it's now working against itself. The ancillary benefit of using less motor vehicles is that we can now repurpose the space formerly used for travel lanes or parking. And in cities which can't afford to build subway, a much cheaper network of elevated bikeways might end up serving pretty much the same purpose-allowing you to travel rapidly across the city at average speeds rivaling what most subways do. For those for whom pedaling fast might not be possible, you could use a small supplementary battery-powered motor to allow them to keep up with everyone else.
In my opinion human-powered transport could change everything. We just need the political will to build the necessary infrastructure.
Fast forward to the present. Traffic volumes and speeds have increased to the point that cities have hundreds or even thousands of signalized intersections (NYC has over 12,000). Ironically, as the number of signals has increased, their safety value has decreased because motorists tend to take them more casually. That's not the primary issue, however. The issue is that despite wide streets, high cruising speeds, and an inordinate amount of space devoted to motor vehicles, you often have average travel speeds of no more than 10 or 15 mph. In fact, in much of Manhattan you're doing good to average even that. The very devices needed to keep motor vehicles from colliding with each other (and not very successfully, I might add) have bought average speeds down to what a less than fit cyclist can manage. In fact, quite often a person on a bike can handily beat a person in a car.
The question then becomes one of why spend all these resources to enable motorized transport when the primary point of doing so-namely increased speed of travel, is no longer possible? It's a question which we're finally asking. Some places such as the Netherlands are already worlds ahead of us. It's no secret that for many trips within a city a bike is faster than anything else. What is just being realized is that human-powered transportation in general has huge potential to do things we once thought could only be done with motorized transportation. Many car trips are the driver only. Many of those trips are fairly short. That's what we're going after now by putting more bike infrastructure in places like Manhattan. It's a start, but we need more.
Let's first consider two issues working against greater use of human-powered transportation. Safety is the biggest one. Mixing cars and bikes really isn't a good idea. You need to physically separate cars from bikes for safety reasons first and foremost. The second problem with mixing cars and bikes are the aforementioned traffic signals which are ubiquitous when you have many cars. By definition, human-powered transportation is incapable of starting and stopping with the frequency traffic signals would dictate. Moreover, doing so can cut average speeds by a factor of three or more. End result then is cyclists tend to ignore traffic signals, particularly in places where there are lots of them. This is often one of the reasons traveling by bike in cities is faster than car. Nevertheless, it would be far better to build bike infrastructure where cyclists can legally keep in motion for many miles, instead of illegally hopping through red lights when they can. This is exactly what is being done in the Netherlands with the so-called bike superhighways. NYC could do the same by leveraging existing grade-separated highways and railways, plus joining the gaps with elevated structures. Doing this, a strong cyclist could ride 10 miles from the outer boroughs into Manhattan in 30 minutes, handily beating any other travel option.
But wait, it gets even better. Ever hear of the Varna Diablo? This vehicle reached over 82 mph at Battle Mountain, and covered over 56 miles in an hour on a closed course. Granted, in its present form it wouldn't be suitable for commuting, but it gives us some idea of the potential for human power should we choose to develop it. Imagine a human-powered vehicle which could comfortably maintain 40 or even 50 mph. Imagine that we have suitable infrastructure for it to run at those speeds most of the trip. Suddenly many trips which seemed to "need" motorized transport no longer do. Remember that the same vehicle which holds 45 mph with concerted effort can also be ridden at only 30 mph if one doesn't wish to arrive at work sweaty. Even cruising at only 30 mph means you can handily beat current motor vehicle travel times in many places. Human-powered transport doesn't mean being relegated to the pokey 12 mph you might do on an upright traditional bicycle. Moreover, a fully enclosed, aerodynamic vehicle better shields the rider from the effects of weather, allowing use all year round.
OK, I know we can't replace motorized transportation entirely, but to me it seems with the right vehicles and right infrastructure we can replace a huge number of trips with human power. This is especially true in areas where there is so much motor traffic that it's now working against itself. The ancillary benefit of using less motor vehicles is that we can now repurpose the space formerly used for travel lanes or parking. And in cities which can't afford to build subway, a much cheaper network of elevated bikeways might end up serving pretty much the same purpose-allowing you to travel rapidly across the city at average speeds rivaling what most subways do. For those for whom pedaling fast might not be possible, you could use a small supplementary battery-powered motor to allow them to keep up with everyone else.
In my opinion human-powered transport could change everything. We just need the political will to build the necessary infrastructure.
