3 ms·

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

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".
lmm 4y ago
> Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. But only car drivers get to dump their vehicles there. If street parking was open to motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians leaving their luggage then I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that argument. > 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. All of which still adds up to much less than the land value you're taking up, generally. > 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. Where I live cyclists are very happy to pay for decent parking, and public transit users already pay for every journey (in contrast to drivers who pay some flat costs but don't pay any extra for using city center roads, which creates the wrong incentives).
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > But only car drivers get to dump their vehicles there. If street parking was open to motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians leaving their luggage then I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that argument. This is silly and factually incorrect. First of all, you can park your motorbike on a street (and maybe even your bike, I really don't know). More importantly, just because one particular public resource is reserved for a particular purpose doesn't make it "not public" nor do we expect users to pay for it. For example, public schools are still "public" and we don't make families pay to send their kids there, instead the whole public pays whether or not they use those schools. Similarly, we don't charge pedestrians to use sidewalks despite that motorcycles aren't permitted to use them. Same deal with bike lanes--cyclists aren't charged for them, the whole public pays for them. > All of which still adds up to much less than the land value you're taking up, generally. I would imagine it's a little bit less (considering it's a public resource and the public pays for some of it), but meters can run $8/hour whereas an off-street parking space is often ~$300/month in downtown Chicago (or so it was a few years ago when I lived there, not sure what has happened with inflation). Of course, not all streets are metered and meters don't run around the clock, so it's not a super easy calculation. In whichever case, cyclists are may a much lower share for their use of bike lanes, and that's fine--it's a public resource and the public should pay for it. > Where I live cyclists are very happy to pay for decent parking But are they happy to pay for use of the bike lanes like you're proposing cars do for use of street parking? The point is that no one wants to pay to use a public resource. > public transit users already pay for every journey (in contrast to drivers who pay some flat costs but don't pay any extra for using city center roads, which creates the wrong incentives) I'm not following your point about incentives--it's not like public transit users pay more during rush hour. And drivers could pay more to use the city center roads ("congestion tax"), but that's generally considered regressive because it effectively reserves city center driving for people who can afford the congestion tax.

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".

lmm 4y ago

> Well, they are public streets, which suggests that everyone pays for them. But only car drivers get to dump their vehicles there. If street parking was open to motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians leaving their luggage then I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that argument. > 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. All of which still adds up to much less than the land value you're taking up, generally. > 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. Where I live cyclists are very happy to pay for decent parking, and public transit users already pay for every journey (in contrast to drivers who pay some flat costs but don't pay any extra for using city center roads, which creates the wrong incentives).

throwaway894345 4y ago
> But only car drivers get to dump their vehicles there. If street parking was open to motorbikes, bicycles, and pedestrians leaving their luggage then I'd be a lot more sympathetic to that argument. This is silly and factually incorrect. First of all, you can park your motorbike on a street (and maybe even your bike, I really don't know). More importantly, just because one particular public resource is reserved for a particular purpose doesn't make it "not public" nor do we expect users to pay for it. For example, public schools are still "public" and we don't make families pay to send their kids there, instead the whole public pays whether or not they use those schools. Similarly, we don't charge pedestrians to use sidewalks despite that motorcycles aren't permitted to use them. Same deal with bike lanes--cyclists aren't charged for them, the whole public pays for them. > All of which still adds up to much less than the land value you're taking up, generally. I would imagine it's a little bit less (considering it's a public resource and the public pays for some of it), but meters can run $8/hour whereas an off-street parking space is often ~$300/month in downtown Chicago (or so it was a few years ago when I lived there, not sure what has happened with inflation). Of course, not all streets are metered and meters don't run around the clock, so it's not a super easy calculation. In whichever case, cyclists are may a much lower share for their use of bike lanes, and that's fine--it's a public resource and the public should pay for it. > Where I live cyclists are very happy to pay for decent parking But are they happy to pay for use of the bike lanes like you're proposing cars do for use of street parking? The point is that no one wants to pay to use a public resource. > public transit users already pay for every journey (in contrast to drivers who pay some flat costs but don't pay any extra for using city center roads, which creates the wrong incentives) I'm not following your point about incentives--it's not like public transit users pay more during rush hour. And drivers could pay more to use the city center roads ("congestion tax"), but that's generally considered regressive because it effectively reserves city center driving for people who can afford the congestion tax.