this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2026
30 points (96.9% liked)

Bicycling

3221 readers
22 users here now

A community for those who enjoy bicycling for any reason— utility, recreation, sport, or whatever!

Post your questions, experiences, knowledge, pictures, news, links, and (civil) rants.

Rules (to be added on an as-needed basis)

  1. Comments and posts should be respectful and productive.
  2. No ads or commercial spam, including linking to your own monetized content.
  3. Linked content should be as unburdened by ads and trackers as possible.

Welcome!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
30
Reverse traffic pyramid (mastodon.green)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by mapto@feddit.bg to c/bicycling@lemmy.world
 

За да подобрим живота в нашите градове, тези приоритети трябва да бъдат управлявани.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You're telling me that 140 people driving from New York to California is more efficient than 140 people taking a single 737?

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If they share 35 cars, yes.
If they each drive their own cars, no, it's close, and depends on what cars they drive.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Shared rides is a step above on the pyramid.

Grim what I can tell it's not really close. At least for "average cars" and "typical commercial airlines".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

this represents 28 g of fuel per kilometer, or a 3.5 L/100 km (67 mpg‑US) fuel consumption per passenger, on average.

Now take into account that CO2 released at altitude is twice as bad as on the ground, since it absorbs all sunlight before part of it gets filtered out by the atmosphere or reflected by clouds.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

I hardly think that's relevant. CO2 doesn't stay where it was released.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere lags the concentration found at Earth's surface as mixing from the lower to upper altitudes usually takes days to weeks.

https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/107/concentration-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-from-earths-mid-troposphere-2002-to-2013/

We're talking about yearly averages and decades of warming. Days to weeks is very short by comparison.

[–] mech@feddit.org 1 points 19 hours ago

You're right, I misremembered. It's not the CO2 that has a higher effect when released at altitude than on the ground.
It's Nitrogen Oxides, water vapor and soot.

"In 1999, the IPCC estimated aviation's radiative forcing in 1992 to be 2.7 (2 to 4) times that of CO2 alone − excluding the potential effect of cirrus cloud enhancement.[6] This was updated for 2000, with aviation's radiative forcing estimated at 47.8 mW/m2, 1.9 times the effect of CO2 emissions alone, 25.3 mW/m2.[7]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation#Factors