Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardhatdan
Taking example x and applying it to case y is a false equivalency. It is cherry picking. If the conversation was, hey this works really well in the core, we should look at increasing this within similar core areas, then other than price, I would have no issue.
$1000/m for installing infrastructure on existing infrastructure is a ludicrous sum.
|
It is not a false equivalency. An integrated bike network gets used. Therefore an integrated network elsewhere would get used. If you disagree please provide tangible proof people living in "central areas" are fundamentally different than those in "outlying" areas. Mode of transport likely differs but that comes down to what otions are currently available. Induced demand works in many ways. It can induce people to drive more, it can also induce people to bike more, and so on.
And again the price is quite minimal. Especially compared to the billions that gets spent every year on can-centric infrastructure. Costs of this magnitude (100 million over 4 years) get spent on car infrastructure so often that they are not considered news worthy.
You think 1 million per KM is too much, what would be an acceptable cost in your eyes? Do you also considered the 1.8 billion spent annually on car infrastructure too high?
Also you don't really "install infrastructure on existing infrastructure", but rather rebuild the infrastructure in a new form. Your wording makes it seem less involved that the reality is.