3 ms·

> 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 s

> 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".

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".