> It’s not just that it’s a big spend, but it’s a big spend on something 75% of people don’t use even if you did it.

Are we to take your word that 75% of the people won't use it? Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark show that if you build bike infrastructure, people will use it. And the health and environmental benefits are enormous.

And even if only 25% of the people use it, shouldn't they get 25% of the spend?

> Sure if you are young and live in San Francisco or New York City, this might seem reasonable. But for the other 80% of America, who are old enough that simply falling off of a bike could cause real injuries, or live somewhere not dense enough to really get anywhere this way, or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it (which is almost all but the biggest of them)

80% of the population in the US lives in cities. The median age is 39. So, no way 80% of the population fit your description. In cycling countries like the Netherlands and Denmark, even 80-year-olds cycle.

> or don’t want to ride a bike in the snow, especially in a city that may not be particularly great at removing it

Ask the Finnish how they do. They have no problem to cycle in the snow. You can change the way your city manages the snow.

> Cars may be environmentally awful, but they’re great in basically every other way,

1.3 million people get killed worldwide by cars every year. A multiple of that get maimed. I wouldn't call that basically great. If you count the time spent in traffic, you are wasting millions of lives more each year.

Electrifying has huge environmental costs. E.g. the Polestar 2 has a lifecycle cost (over 200.000kms) of 50 tons of CO2e compared to 58 tons for a Volvo XC40 ICE [1].

[1] https://www.polestar.com/dato-assets/11286/1630409045-polest...