Cycling is more important than electric cars for reaching net-zero cities

You need:

- physically separated bike lanes wide enough for safe overtaking, with a gap between them and a parking lane that protects cyclists from open car doors and people leaving the car from cyclists

- an actual network of bike paths instead of vanity paths

- redesigned intersections that are safe for cyclists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection)

- bicycle storage infrastructure in apartment blocks (not everyone has a suburban garage)

- bicycle storage infrastructure in office blocks

The trend has already started. E.g. in Germany, some cities prohibit older Diesel engines within city limits.

This has lead especially commuters of low-wage jobs quickly being forced to buy a new, more environmentally-friendly car (and their Diesel car just lost a lot of value in the market), so they have no option other than switch to gasoline engines - which are usually OLDER cars than they used to be with WORSE pollution statistics.

Buying a new car is not affordable to them. Public transportation is a lot better than in the US, but still will not solve the issue completely, and where it is a viable alternative, it's expensive both in time consumption and in money spent.

With a new law that was meant to lower pollution (and the jury is still out on if the goal was achieved, as during the corona crisis, pollution sank overall), we've created worse conditions for the underclass and lower middle class.

This is how you destroy support for ecological policymaking. If you want a better world for yourself and your children, you cannot achieve it by making it worse for others and the present.

I live in Vancouver proper and rarely drive. The city has done a pretty good job on the bike routes; I can get to nearly anywhere in Vancouver within a 30 minute bike ride from my home turf of Mount Pleasant. I think forcing parking lots under ground and limiting parking spaces has been great for the city! It is definitely a trend with new buildings to have limited parking options. My workplace office houses about 60 people but we only have 4-5 parking spots which incentivizes alternate transit modes. Having limited parking options means that many people at my work live local to the office and either bike or walk to get there, which I think is awesome!

Ultimately the city of Vancouver cannot grow out anymore therefore we need to grow up without increasing the amount of traffic on the roads. I think the key to limiting traffic on the roads is to build dense walkable communities connected by solid transit options.

Regarding solid transit options: I think the city desperately needs a broadway skytrain all the way to UBC and a skytrain line which goes from metrotown straight west down 49th avenue connecting with the canada line at oakridge and ultimately terminating at UBC.

Going east-west in the city kind of sucks right now and most of the crappy buses to ride on are east-west due to overcrowding.

It's true, but it's not so simple.

Imagine that you live in Italy, where only 24% of the population lives in cities with a population equal or larger than 250 thousand people.

Half of Italy is not flat and it's very hard using the bicycles to move, unless you are already expert and even for bikers (as in motorbikes) it's challenging going up and down the hills and mountains and usually they go in group.

Paradoxically around Milan (and in the city) they use bikes a lot, but it's also one of the most polluted areas in Italy because they also use cars a lot to move from or to Milan and other large cities, mainly to go to work or it's trucks moving goods.

You can't replace them with bikes.

You can't replace them with trains either, because regional trains are already at full capacity and Milan public transport already moves 800 million people/year (fun fact: the Milan public transport company ATM also operates the Copenhagen's subway).

Being on flat lands surrounded by high mountains also means that there are no regular winds cleaning up the air, so paradoxically biking is more dangerous for your health.

23% of the Italian population (13 million people) lives in cities with a population between 20 thousand and 59,999 people, the majority of towns in Italy (20% - 1,509 of them) have a population between 1,000 and 1,999 people and host 2.5 million people.

Those are the areas where they can't give up on cars, they have no alternatives, they have to use it daily for every activity: from groceries to work, school, church, etc.

They are usually near highways or heavy traffic roads, because many people move daily to go to larger cities for work, but also the areas where biking it's more of a challenge.

So it's a combination of long distances (people live away from cities because housing it's much cheaper), geography and older population.

I present you a sample of the area where my parents come from.

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2681540&l=it

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2510258&l=it

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2510257&l=it

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2253636&l=it

https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2129996&l=it

> that is actually pretty good by global standards in the US

Citation needed.

From a European perspective, it is not my impression that the local democratic system is good in any US city.

But that could be my filter bubble, we only heard bad things because people shout the loudest about bad things.