3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

confidantlake 4y ago
Public transit users do pay more during rush hour, at least where I live. The metro has rush hour and non rush hour fairs.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  Huh, never heard of that before.
lmm 4y ago
> 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. Public resources should be for public benefit. Sometimes there's a legitimate public interest in something that only a subset of the population uses directly - e.g. there's a general public interest in having children raised well, it's something that even people without children benefit from. When public money is spent on something that mostly benefits the rich or the middle-class, pointed questions are and should be asked about that. And I don't think there's any general principle that public resources are always free to use. Public transport is generally charged for. Publicly funded museums and art galleries are free in some cities but not in others. Public sports facilities are almost always paid, at least for private individuals to use (they might be used for free by a municipal team or club). Even stuff like getting a copy of your tax records often costs money. > 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. It seems a little unfair to compare drivers' parking to cyclists' road use. Where I live there's virtually no street parking (for bikes or cars), everyone pays for parking, and no-one pays for road use (except for expressways). If we were talking about replacing paid car parking with free bike parking then I can see how that might be seen as unfair, but that's not the issue AIUI. > I'm not following your point about incentives--it's not like public transit users pay more during rush hour. Public transit does cost more during rush hour in many places. More to the point, congested lines or lines that use a lot of expensive land tend to cost more, whereas there's no equivalent for roads. > 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. Right, and this I think is the real issue; people see attempts to make drivers pay their fair share as regressive because they assume driving as the default. Whereas at least in the city, being able to afford a car at all puts you well above the bottom.

confidantlake 4y ago

Public transit users do pay more during rush hour, at least where I live. The metro has rush hour and non rush hour fairs.

throwaway894345 4y ago
Huh, never heard of that before.

lmm 4y ago

> 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. Public resources should be for public benefit. Sometimes there's a legitimate public interest in something that only a subset of the population uses directly - e.g. there's a general public interest in having children raised well, it's something that even people without children benefit from. When public money is spent on something that mostly benefits the rich or the middle-class, pointed questions are and should be asked about that. And I don't think there's any general principle that public resources are always free to use. Public transport is generally charged for. Publicly funded museums and art galleries are free in some cities but not in others. Public sports facilities are almost always paid, at least for private individuals to use (they might be used for free by a municipal team or club). Even stuff like getting a copy of your tax records often costs money. > 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. It seems a little unfair to compare drivers' parking to cyclists' road use. Where I live there's virtually no street parking (for bikes or cars), everyone pays for parking, and no-one pays for road use (except for expressways). If we were talking about replacing paid car parking with free bike parking then I can see how that might be seen as unfair, but that's not the issue AIUI. > I'm not following your point about incentives--it's not like public transit users pay more during rush hour. Public transit does cost more during rush hour in many places. More to the point, congested lines or lines that use a lot of expensive land tend to cost more, whereas there's no equivalent for roads. > 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. Right, and this I think is the real issue; people see attempts to make drivers pay their fair share as regressive because they assume driving as the default. Whereas at least in the city, being able to afford a car at all puts you well above the bottom.