Some things are easier to change than others - and the really hard things often don't require money, but a change in people!
Edit: Sorry for the shitty OP, I should have known better than to post in a hurry.
It reads as if the population is primarily responsible for combating the climate crisis, while industry and government are off the hook because money has little effect.
What I actually meant to express was that technological adjustments that only cost money are easier to implement than changes to people's habits. Perhaps this is a naive idea because it assumes that there is the political will to make these investments and that the industry is forced to cooperate accordingly. Addressing the climate crisis requires many changes, and economic profitability must be secondary. But achieving this is perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments society requires.
Public transport and bikes require the exact same thing: density, mixed use and paying attention to walksheds.
A lot of the US is suburban sprawl with Euclidean zoning. Neither public transit nor bikes work well there now by design: there's long distances between destinations. A bus that drops you off at a Walmart parking lot isn't all that useful unless you want to go to Walmart. A bus that drops you off in front of a dozen businesses is way more useful.
Parts of that are solvable. For example, mixed use zoning, and pedestrian paths that cut through the mazes of residential cul-de-sacs. It's much easier to bike to a corner store or pub that's .5km or 1km from your house than one that's 5km.
It requires massive political will to build something closer to traditional streetcar suburbs rather than modern car-dependant suburbs.
Yes, that really only works for people in cities and suburbs, but most people live in cities, small towns and suburbs and not on a rural farmstead.
No. In many places people live mostly in rural areas. Even suburbs are cities in comparison to suburbs. It depends on the country of course. In mine, at least half the people live in truly rural areas, and they need a car for groceries, doctor, school or about anything actually.
When half the people can't use bikes, it's not a realistic solution. That is all. Even if 10% of the people would fit this solution it would be a dramatic politic problem. Here, it's about half the people. It's not 1km. It's between 5 and 20 for basic stuff. I am not exaggerating. I'm talking about France today.
In the US, 80% of people live in metro and micropolitan areas, and only 20% of people are truly rural.
Bikes are never going to be the solution for everyone, or for every trip. What they can be, though, is an 80/20 solution. Particularly in combination with public transit.
That is to say, bikes can be a large part of the solution for the average person, even if the general solution still requires electric cars for the last 20%
I firmly disagree that bikes are the best solution for cities. Public transports are far better in cities than anything else. In cities with bikes you also have the problem of thefts btw.
I don't think you'll find anyone who suggests that bikes as a single mode of transportation is the solution.
No single mode of transportation is the solution. The solution isn't "subways". The solution isn't "busses". The solution isn't "trams". Or "cars".
Instead, in cities, the solution is a mix of modes. Sometimes that's using one mode locally and a different mode to get across the city. Sometimes that's multimodal trips - taking a bike to the train then biking the rest of the way, for example.
Bikes are particularly good at solving the "last mile problem", which public transit is pretty lousy at solving. That's why, if you go to train stations in the Netherlands they have bike garages. Because trains and bikes are better than trains without bikes and bikes without trains.
And again, bikes won't solve the last km problem, for the reasons I gave already.