5 ms·

The problem is that drivers consider practically any changes to the status quo to be “punishment”. Replace several street parking spaces (in a neighborhood with

by seoaeu 4y ago

The problem is that drivers consider practically any changes to the status quo to be “punishment”. Replace several street parking spaces (in a neighborhood with hundreds of spots) to put in a bike lane? Punishment. Cut ten minutes off bus travel time by installing a dedicated bus lane, at the expense of a minute or two extra for car traffic? Punishment. Make drivers pay money to store their cars on public streets? Punishment

throwaway894345 4y ago
I guess what I had in mind was stuff like "removing one of three highway arteries in the third largest US city thereby pushing tons of traffic onto side streets (where pedestrians and cyclists are) and removing all of the bus routes that depend on said artery just to spite drivers". > Replace several street parking spaces (in a neighborhood with hundreds of spots) to put in a bike lane? Punishment. Drivers in general aren't going to object to a particular bike lane, although obviously drivers who park on that block probably will (and understandably so). Also, "with hundreds of spots" isn't significant if there are hundreds more drivers than spots in that neighborhood. > Cut ten minutes off bus travel time by installing a dedicated bus lane, at the expense of a minute or two extra for car traffic? I don't know. I would be open minded if you could convince me that the bus lane is actually going to move more people (yes, the capacity is greater, but that doesn't guarantee that the throughput will be greater, for example if there aren't enough buses running to saturate capacity or if the buses aren't full or etc). > Make drivers pay money to store their cars on public streets? Punishment Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. But at least in my major city, we do pay to park our cars on public streets, once in the form of a city sticker, once through taxes, and (in many cases) again through meters. We could talk about drivers paying more for parking, which will of course be unpopular among drivers, but it's not like cyclists are going to line up to finance bike lanes nor are public transit users likely to support a rate increase to finance improvements to buses and trains. Everyone wants the public to pay for the infrastructure they use, but public financing of infrastructure they don't use is less popular.
- Karrot_Kream 4y ago
  > Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. Right but if the street only pushes for a single modeshare is it really a public street or is it a street for that modeshare? > once in the form of a city sticker, once through taxes, and (in many cases) again through meters. Right and transit users/cyclists pay the same road taxes that motorists do and also pay per transit trip. Motorists just pay for a gas tax in lieu of a transit trip. Importantly, motorists are payed a hefty subsidy by the Federal Government for any highway project but transit projects are not. Moreover this piece of funding does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone who does not drive or use a bus. > but it's not like cyclists are going to line up to finance bike lanes nor are public transit users likely to support a rate increase to finance improvements to buses and trains ... Who do you think are advocating for these new bike lanes and transit lines? So it's unclear to me where your cynicism of: > I don't know. I would be open minded if you could convince me that the bus lane is actually going to move more people comes from. If anything it's more indicative of the parent's opinion that drivers perceive any change in fees to be punishment.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Right but if the street only pushes for a single modeshare is it really a public street or is it a street for that modeshare? I mean, I don't think anyone would dispute that sidewalks are a public resource even though I can't drive my dirtbike on them. Just because a public resource has a designated use doesn't make it private or otherwise less-public. > Right and transit users/cyclists pay the same road taxes that motorists do and also pay per transit trip. Where on earth do cyclists pay per trip? Anyway, I pointed out that drivers pay for street parking (contrary to the parent's implication that they do not), and you're refuting that with "cyclists and transit users also pay for their transit" which doesn't actually address my claim. In other words, arguing that drivers pay for street use doesn't imply that users of other modes of transit don't pay for their transit. > ... Who do you think are advocating for these new bike lanes and transit lines? Advocating for new lanes and lines is not the same for advocating that those new lanes and lines are financed by cyclists and public transit users exclusively. This seems like it should have been obvious... > So it's unclear to me where your cynicism of ... comes from. If anything it's more indicative of the parent's opinion that drivers perceive any change in fees to be punishment. Well, as I explained above, just because someone votes against dedicated transit lanes doesn't mean they're perceiving them as "punishing drivers". For example, intuition suggests that they reduce the overall throughput of a street (at least in Chicago, buses aren't running at capacity, so increasing the bus capacity isn't obviously going to increase street capacity, especially at the cost of a lane). So absent information to contradict my intuition, I would vote against a proposal for a dedicated bus lane on the basis that it seems like it would reduce the throughput of a street, not because I perceive it as "punishment".
bluGill 4y ago
One bus lane or bike lane won't make a difference and isn't worth doing both need very extensive investment before you get enough different that they are worth using. Sure you make the bus take 10 minutes less, but if I can drive in 20 minutes 1 hour 35 minutes isn't better. The above times were from a real trip that I once looked up making by bus. Good service is hard and expensive, I don't know how to get there, but most partial measures are not big enough to be worth the bother.
- lovich 4y ago
  The bus taking 10 minutes less is multiplied by the number of people taking the transit. Boston only added in a handful and it drastically improved traffic as it also made the buses more reliable instead of getting stuck in traffic. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any sort of data that backed up cars over buses as a more efficient transit system other than people comparing their personal trip time as equal or greater in importance than everyone else having transit times reduced
  - bluGill 4y ago
    The only thing that matters is individuals, all however many (million) live in your city. I never made any claims that cars are more efficient. I only claimed that most tranist expansions are too little to make a significant difference.
    - lovich 4y ago
      And improving the transit system helps many more individuals than trying to improve car speeds in a city. That's what I mean. You cant compare car time to bus time you have to compare total man hours saved
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > I don’t think I’ve ever seen any sort of data that backed up cars over buses as a more efficient transit system other than people comparing their personal trip time as equal or greater in importance than everyone else having transit times reduced I think some of that is because public transit is unsexy, so people come out with dubious comparisons or at least ones which misleadingly appear to support a pro-public-transit conclusion. For example, I saw a study that showed that a dedicated bus lane has a far greater capacity than using the same lane for car transit. I completely believe the finding, but people pass share it around as evidence that dedicated bus lanes are a no brainer; however, this ignores that buses are rarely capacity constrained so adding a dedicated bus lane would likely decrease the throughput of the street even though the capacity increases (of course if more people start taking the bus as a result, then maybe the throughput could increase?). I want public transit to work out, but my experiences with public transit and driving in Chicago make me realize that public transit has a long way to come (not only with respect to all of the unpleasantness of public transit, but even with sheer convenience--driving in Chicago is much faster, I can bring my dog and more easily transport other things, etc). I'm not sure it's feasible for most people to do without owning a car, but we probably can get to a world where people need to use their car less, and we can also work on improving car transit too. Work on city/suburb design that encourages cars to take highways rather than city streets, continue making cars safer and lighter, etc.

by seoaeu 4y ago

throwaway894345 4y ago

I guess what I had in mind was stuff like "removing one of three highway arteries in the third largest US city thereby pushing tons of traffic onto side streets (where pedestrians and cyclists are) and removing all of the bus routes that depend on said artery just to spite drivers". > Replace several street parking spaces (in a neighborhood with hundreds of spots) to put in a bike lane? Punishment. Drivers in general aren't going to object to a particular bike lane, although obviously drivers who park on that block probably will (and understandably so). Also, "with hundreds of spots" isn't significant if there are hundreds more drivers than spots in that neighborhood. > Cut ten minutes off bus travel time by installing a dedicated bus lane, at the expense of a minute or two extra for car traffic? I don't know. I would be open minded if you could convince me that the bus lane is actually going to move more people (yes, the capacity is greater, but that doesn't guarantee that the throughput will be greater, for example if there aren't enough buses running to saturate capacity or if the buses aren't full or etc). > Make drivers pay money to store their cars on public streets? Punishment Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. But at least in my major city, we do pay to park our cars on public streets, once in the form of a city sticker, once through taxes, and (in many cases) again through meters. We could talk about drivers paying more for parking, which will of course be unpopular among drivers, but it's not like cyclists are going to line up to finance bike lanes nor are public transit users likely to support a rate increase to finance improvements to buses and trains. Everyone wants the public to pay for the infrastructure they use, but public financing of infrastructure they don't use is less popular.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago
> Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. Right but if the street only pushes for a single modeshare is it really a public street or is it a street for that modeshare? > once in the form of a city sticker, once through taxes, and (in many cases) again through meters. Right and transit users/cyclists pay the same road taxes that motorists do and also pay per transit trip. Motorists just pay for a gas tax in lieu of a transit trip. Importantly, motorists are payed a hefty subsidy by the Federal Government for any highway project but transit projects are not. Moreover this piece of funding does absolutely nothing to benefit anyone who does not drive or use a bus. > but it's not like cyclists are going to line up to finance bike lanes nor are public transit users likely to support a rate increase to finance improvements to buses and trains ... Who do you think are advocating for these new bike lanes and transit lines? So it's unclear to me where your cynicism of: > I don't know. I would be open minded if you could convince me that the bus lane is actually going to move more people comes from. If anything it's more indicative of the parent's opinion that drivers perceive any change in fees to be punishment.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Right but if the street only pushes for a single modeshare is it really a public street or is it a street for that modeshare? I mean, I don't think anyone would dispute that sidewalks are a public resource even though I can't drive my dirtbike on them. Just because a public resource has a designated use doesn't make it private or otherwise less-public. > Right and transit users/cyclists pay the same road taxes that motorists do and also pay per transit trip. Where on earth do cyclists pay per trip? Anyway, I pointed out that drivers pay for street parking (contrary to the parent's implication that they do not), and you're refuting that with "cyclists and transit users also pay for their transit" which doesn't actually address my claim. In other words, arguing that drivers pay for street use doesn't imply that users of other modes of transit don't pay for their transit. > ... Who do you think are advocating for these new bike lanes and transit lines? Advocating for new lanes and lines is not the same for advocating that those new lanes and lines are financed by cyclists and public transit users exclusively. This seems like it should have been obvious... > So it's unclear to me where your cynicism of ... comes from. If anything it's more indicative of the parent's opinion that drivers perceive any change in fees to be punishment. Well, as I explained above, just because someone votes against dedicated transit lanes doesn't mean they're perceiving them as "punishing drivers". For example, intuition suggests that they reduce the overall throughput of a street (at least in Chicago, buses aren't running at capacity, so increasing the bus capacity isn't obviously going to increase street capacity, especially at the cost of a lane). So absent information to contradict my intuition, I would vote against a proposal for a dedicated bus lane on the basis that it seems like it would reduce the throughput of a street, not because I perceive it as "punishment".

bluGill 4y ago

One bus lane or bike lane won't make a difference and isn't worth doing both need very extensive investment before you get enough different that they are worth using. Sure you make the bus take 10 minutes less, but if I can drive in 20 minutes 1 hour 35 minutes isn't better. The above times were from a real trip that I once looked up making by bus. Good service is hard and expensive, I don't know how to get there, but most partial measures are not big enough to be worth the bother.

lovich 4y ago
The bus taking 10 minutes less is multiplied by the number of people taking the transit. Boston only added in a handful and it drastically improved traffic as it also made the buses more reliable instead of getting stuck in traffic. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any sort of data that backed up cars over buses as a more efficient transit system other than people comparing their personal trip time as equal or greater in importance than everyone else having transit times reduced
- bluGill 4y ago
  The only thing that matters is individuals, all however many (million) live in your city. I never made any claims that cars are more efficient. I only claimed that most tranist expansions are too little to make a significant difference.
  - lovich 4y ago
    And improving the transit system helps many more individuals than trying to improve car speeds in a city. That's what I mean. You cant compare car time to bus time you have to compare total man hours saved
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > I don’t think I’ve ever seen any sort of data that backed up cars over buses as a more efficient transit system other than people comparing their personal trip time as equal or greater in importance than everyone else having transit times reduced I think some of that is because public transit is unsexy, so people come out with dubious comparisons or at least ones which misleadingly appear to support a pro-public-transit conclusion. For example, I saw a study that showed that a dedicated bus lane has a far greater capacity than using the same lane for car transit. I completely believe the finding, but people pass share it around as evidence that dedicated bus lanes are a no brainer; however, this ignores that buses are rarely capacity constrained so adding a dedicated bus lane would likely decrease the throughput of the street even though the capacity increases (of course if more people start taking the bus as a result, then maybe the throughput could increase?). I want public transit to work out, but my experiences with public transit and driving in Chicago make me realize that public transit has a long way to come (not only with respect to all of the unpleasantness of public transit, but even with sheer convenience--driving in Chicago is much faster, I can bring my dog and more easily transport other things, etc). I'm not sure it's feasible for most people to do without owning a car, but we probably can get to a world where people need to use their car less, and we can also work on improving car transit too. Work on city/suburb design that encourages cars to take highways rather than city streets, continue making cars safer and lighter, etc.