2 ms·
I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so
by 1970-01-01 2y ago
I agree with everything you said except your first sentence. Why should people rightfully expect walking and biking infra to be paid for when it contributes so little to their economy?
- fwip 2y agoBecause human beings care about things that aren't the economy. Do you actually evaluate all public spending on this sole metric, or just the things you don't personally desire?
- 1970-01-01 2y agoCan you provide an example where road budget spending was overridden by public outcry and was completed to those expectations?
- prmoustache 2y agoFor a start because building infrastructure for cyclists brings more return of investment, happiness and health than infrastructure for cars.
- NegativeLatency 2y agoCul-de-sac style suburbs, stroads and other related development patterns are a net drain on the local economy. It’s not a sustainable pattern long term when infrastructure needs to be replaced or upgraded. And besides it’s really depressing to be so isolated and only get around in a little metal box.
- impendia 2y agoFor the same reason that people expect car infrastructure to be paid for: whether they are walking, biking, or driving, they are frequently traveling to some place where they will contribute to the economy. Walking is not merely some sort of hobby. It is transportation, a means of getting from one place to another -- often the most convenient and pleasant means. And transportation infrastructure certainly falls under the purview of local governments.