- the urbanites who want more space to walk, safer spaces to bike, and easy access to amenities without a car
- the suburbanites who want to be able to drive into city for dinner and a movie
I remain confused by the suburbanite argument, though. Is it really so arduous to either park near public transit and ride into the city, or drive to an underground parking garage in town and then walk to your destination? I would think everyone benefits from walkability and bikeability that makes cities quieter, cleaner, and cooler (thanks to trees and less car exhaust). Seems like folks who want to drive right to the front door of their destination can just stay in the suburbs instead of demanding that they drive their car right into the city.
I also thought that it's interesting to see certain luxury goods merchants -- I think the article called out pianos and furniture, specifically -- losing business as cars get harder to drive into the city. On one hand, it's unfortunate that a pedestrian-friendly city can't accommodate these businesses better. But the quoted attitude doesn't feel very productive: “Do you know much freight gets delivered [in the region] every year? Twenty million tons. Imagine how many cargo bikes that is.”
The basic math checks out to... roughly 300 million bicycle trips (at 300kg per delivery) to deliver all of that freight. Which doesn't seem totally insane? Especially when you compare it to the stated 700kg delivery weight of city-based delivery trucks, which means you still need >100 million truck trips to deliver all of that freight. Something like 9/10 orders can be delivered more efficiently by bike, according to the article, because parking is easier. Obviously you can't deliver everything by bicycle, but it seems counterproductive to rules bicycles out entirely because occasionally someone needs a Tesla delivered to their house.
Anyway, I'm still waiting with bated breath for a US city to swing in this direction. I'd move there in a heartbeat.