You must log in or register to comment.
Canada needs hundreds of thousands of kilometres in new bike paths and rapid transit lines.
Electric cars are still cars.
Edit: in hindsight, this was a super polarizing statement and I meant it mostly as hyperbole. Ultimately I want to see fewer cars on the road and have them replaced with bicycles, pedestrians and transit, but to do so means not just building new infrastructure along side existing roads but instead redesigning cities to the point where cars are no longer feasible.
That works for urban areas, but so much of Canada is rural. If I biked to work I’d need to leave like 3 hours before work started. And that doesn’t even address winter travel, good luck using your bike with a couple feet of snow.
So while foot/bike paths are important, we can’t just stop all car use. And EVs are much better if a vehicle is required, especially if powered by renewables.
There are 32 million Canadians living in the 152 census metropolitan areas, the smallest of which has a population of 11,000. The rural population can keep their cars, but the majority of people living in this country need to be given an alternative that isn’t just a fancy expensive battery powered car. Fewer cars on the road means less required parking which leaves more room for productive urban developments which further decreases the need for cars in the first place.
Hot take: Most people who live in rural places absolutely shouldn’t and we’d be better off societally if they’d all move to urban areas or densify their area in order to urbanize.
Some rural people are fine. My uncle lives about 20km outside the nearest town. He’s almost self-sufficient, grows or hunts most of his food, uses solar for electricity, real retire-to-a-cabin-in-the-woods type stuff. He goes into town maybe once every 1-2 months for supplies. That’s alright by me.
My parents, however, live a few kilometers down the road from him. They both work in town, and drive there separately more often than not because of conflicting schedules. Even on their days off, they’ll go to town for errands, or social events, or whatever. Sometimes they’ll do the 20km drive to town and back multiple times a day. If they do it three times, that’s 120km. This is ridiculous, harmful and unsustainable. I don’t have any statistics on this, but I’d be willing to bet most “rural” folks are like my parents. They’re actually urbanites who just happen to live rurally. If over half your life happens in town, you should live in town. Whatever reasons people have for wishing to live in a rural place should not outweigh the huge environmental cost of having to drive everywhere all the time. Not to mention the massive amount of resources and subsidies necessary to maintain car-centric infrastructure compared to literally any other type of transit.
The transition from rural to urban has been happening for the last 100 years and it’s going to keep happening.
But we can’t just ignore the 15-20% of the population who are currently rural and act like they can just move into a city and it would solve all problems.
If someone lives 20km outside of a city, they are barely rural.
I appreciate the desire to have better public transit whereever we can, but ignoring the existing realities isn’t helpful.
Sure I’d love to move to the city, but rent/costs are waay higher in the city. I couldn’t afford to move to the city, even considering the cost of gas.
I don’t thinka Ev are going to save us, but they give those wanting to make a change the option. That said if you can afford a fancy new Ev you likely have the available income to move closer so idk.
Edit: just wanted to say I agree with everything you said, just bring up problems with implementation for the sake of discussion :)
Sorry to hear that. All else being equal, home and travel costs should be cheaper in cities than in rural areas, not higher. Sounds like an economic incentive that should really be reversed.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Most of the people who come to visit Debbie Nightingale’s Ontario farm are lured in by a chance to get up close and personal with her herd of friendly goats.
“We have people who come on a regular basis because they know we have these,” Nightingale said, gesturing to the two-port EV-charging station she installed last year with the help of a federal tourism recovery grant.
As part of the federal government’s net-zero targets for the future, it is aiming for all new light-duty car and passenger truck sales to be zero emission by 2035, which will require a nationwide network of public charging ports.
“This is 100 per cent an industry thing, and I really don’t have a lot of patience for the argument — in particular from the auto sector these days — in the past couple of years about the government should do it.”
Retrofitting condos and apartment buildings to be EV friendly can cost anywhere from hundreds of dollars to thousands if the transformers feeding the complex need to be upgraded, said Olivier Trescases, a professor at the University of Toronto and a Canada Research Chair in Power Electronic Converters.
“Obviously, Toronto doesn’t have as many EV charging stations as they want,” said Ashling Evans, general manager of real estate at Amexon Development Corporation, the company behind Central Park.
The original article contains 1,247 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
people seem to forget about all that stuff before the charging port.