In an unprecedented move, San Francisco voters surprised many last year by closing off two miles of a coastal highway to cars. This remarkable decision transformed the area into a vibrant public park for pedestrians, cyclists, and joggers. However, the fallout wasn’t without controversy. Recently, local residents voted to recall their city representative, who advocated for this transformation, pointing to an increase in side street traffic as a significant issue—despite data showing only marginal increases in commute times since the highway’s closure.
This situation in San Francisco reflects a pivotal moment facing cities across America. With the growing prevalence of electric vehicles (EVs) on the road, many officials may feel pressured to enhance infrastructure primarily designed for cars, thereby maintaining a status quo that elevates vehicles over people. In contrast, the electric bike (e-bike) market is experiencing explosive growth , surpassing even electric car sales according to some analyses. This shift raises a fundamental question: Should city planners double down on a car-centric model, or creatively redesign urban spaces to promote cycling and walking?
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds
Secure · Tax deductible · Takes 45 Seconds
Many cities and states across the U.S. are taking initiative to retrofit their existing infrastructure to better accommodate cyclists. Efforts include reducing vehicle speed limits, constructing dedicated bike lanes, providing charging stations, and ensuring that underserved communities are included in these changes. This evolution is substantial; regarding e-bike regulation, many areas had no regulations until the latter part of the 2010s, according to Leigh Ann Von Hagen, director at the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University. Von Hagen asserts, “All states have recognized the need for change.”
One of the key advantages of e-bikes is their accessibility to a diverse age range. Families can transport their children with sturdy models that feature ample storage. Professionals can seamlessly commute to work. Shoppers benefit from cargo options to carry groceries, while older adults—who may prefer not to drive—find e-bikes to be a manageable alternative. Von Hagen emphasizes the value of this concept with a personal story about her uncle in Tennessee who took up e-biking to avoid driving to the store.
Switching to e-bikes not only helps reduce carbon emissions—estimated to drop by around 12 percent depending on city metrics and adoption rates—but also encourages healthier lifestyles through increased physical activity. Furthermore, fewer cars contribute to improved air quality and public health. It’s essential to note that electric vehicles, while cleaner than traditional models, contribute their fair share of pollution through heavier brake and tire wear, leading to increased microplastics that spread into air and water, as discussed in environmental research.
While EV users face concerns about “range anxiety”—the fear of running out of battery before reaching their destination—e-bikers enjoy the opposite assurance. Older riders may shy away from conventional bicycles due to fatigue worries, especially when faced with elevating terrain. Nevertheless, e-bike ranges often exceed typical travel distances, alleviating these concerns. Jessica Bourne, an active travel researcher at the University of Bristol, notes that e-bike users frequently operate in eco or off modes on flat roads but tend to switch to maximum assistance when tackling hills, effectively ‘flattening’ their ride.
Interestingly, research shows that individuals using e-bikes accumulate as much physical activity as those opting for regular bikes, largely because e-bike riders tend to go longer distances. Thus, they expend more energy over time, with the overall benefit of decreased exertion per trip. Bourne states, “Once you consider their increased ride frequency and the durations traveled, e-bike users end up exercising more weekly than those using conventional bikes.”
Numerous studies affirm that e-bike users are substituting car trips with e-bike rides significantly. Data shows that improving bike-friendly infrastructure increases cycling; for example, New York City and Washington D.C saw a doubling of bike commuters between 2009 and 2014, a rise attributed to enhanced cycling facilities. Moreover, e-bike sales in North America doubled between 2018 and 2021, highlighting the e-bike boom. However, as e-bikes and e-scooter related injuries have also risen—mostly due to inadequate infrastructure—appropriate measures must be put in place to ensure rider safety.
Lands historically known for cycling dominance, such as the Netherlands, where the average citizen rides 680 miles annually, illustrate how supportive environments shape travel habits. Joost de Kruijf from Dutch Cycling Intelligence remarks, “In the Netherlands, bad weather isn’t an excuse; it’s all about the right gear.” Once a biking culture becomes the norm, it often transforms into a habit.
Nevertheless, e-bikes come with a significant price tag, often between $1,000 to $10,000, making them inaccessible for those who stand to benefit the most. Bourne explains that e-bikes would provide low-income individuals with greater job opportunities and assist young people seeking education outside walking distance. The issue of transport poverty is prevalent, particularly in areas where public transport options are limited.
Offering subsidies for e-bike purchases may serve as a viable solution. California’s previous initiative provided up to $2,000 for low-income purchases, albeit applications are no longer accepted. Similarly, Denver has implemented supportive programs. Bourne argues, “If supporting e-bikes is beneficial for the environment, it makes sense to extend subsidies as we do for electric vehicles.”
Research has indicated that both EV purchase incentives and e-bike subsidies can yield comparable effectiveness, each costing roughly a dollar per ton of sequestered carbon. However, e-bike incentives often come with additional social benefits. Unlike electric car programs, which may lead to greater driving frequency and increased congestion, e-bike uptake often translates to higher physical activity levels and less overall vehicle dependency. Interestingly, a report from British Columbia noted that recipients of e-bike subsidies increased their cycling by 25 miles weekly, reduced car miles traveled by 11, and lowered travel emissions by 17 percent annually. Denver’s e-bike program has eliminated an average of 170,000 vehicle miles each week as well.
Moreover, experts encourage cities to view bike share programs as extensions of public transit. Kendra Ramsey, executive director for the California Bicycle Coalition, describes the public benefit of facilitating point A to point B transitions without vehicle reliance, emphasizing the potential for public-subsidized systems akin to public transport.
In cities where bike share programs exist, the impact has proven beneficial. For instance, New York’s Citi Bike—operated by Lyft—serves over a million riders annually, integrating e-bikes and traditional bicycles into the city’s transportation framework.
However, making cycling safe and accessible extends beyond providing bikes. The infrastructure must evolve to accommodate faster e-mobility. Professor Greg Rybarczyk from the University of Michigan-Flint emphasizes the need for comprehensive driver education programs to foster understanding among both drivers and cyclists. He shares insights from a survey indicating that in Detroit—once synonymous with American automotive culture—many e-bike users feel unsafe due to poorly maintained bike lanes. Addressing road maintenance could significantly enhance safety for cyclists in areas beyond major urban hubs. Additionally, implementing secure bike parking and charging options is vital for increasing e-bike adoption. Noteworthy are initiatives from some organizations designing bike pods tailored for those lacking residential storage. Educational institutions are also starting to embrace e-bike parking solutions.
Importantly, the move towards e-bike-friendly cities does not necessitate eliminating car-centric infrastructure. Alex Bigazzi suggests that setting up protected bike lanes, which physically separate cyclists from vehicles, can parallel the functionality of traditional roads. Ideally, intersections feature staggered traffic lights that facilitate safe navigation for both modalities.
As city planners stand at a crossroads, the choice to invest in affordable, safer cycling improvements holds the potential to draw more people to biking. In contrast, continuing to expand car infrastructure risks perpetuating reliance on vehicles, with consequences that could undermine pedestrian and cyclist safety. Bigazzi points out that cities could develop nearly an entire cycling network for the price of upgrading just one or two freeway interchanges. Consequently, the cost-effectiveness of cycling infrastructure becomes evident, offering cities an avenue to foster sustainable mobility solutions.
