[Spivak]

Nobody actually disagrees with this take, but here's what happens. This has happened now three times in my hometown.

1. Some Politician: We need to invest in public transportation.

2. Planning Commission: Okay but it's geographically infeasible to blanket the city in busses, the only thing that is going to work is a rail system to cover the long distances and have busses to cover the last mile.

3. Sounds great! Let's put together a proposal.

4. Politician: Hahahahahahahaha we can't afford that. Also people will riot if we eminent domain literally thousands of homes.

5. Politician: What if we just added really annoying bike lanes to like 3 roads that will sit there empty because a dedicated lane wasn't what was stopping people from riding their bikes?

6. Planning Commission: But that won't actually he....

7. Politician: LOOK AT HOW WE'RE INVESTING IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!!1 MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. GREEN. ENVIRONMENT.

Like good lord if they would actually commit to more than just some symbolic non-solutions I would volunteer to swing a hammer to lay tracks.

[OldManRyan]

Why is it geographically infeasible to expand bus service in a city? Most medium to large US cities are designed with a grid system which would fit more buses perfectly. My city recently expanded one of the main roads to 6 lanes when they could easily done a BRT instead.

[ryukafalz]

> Politician: What if we just added really annoying bike lanes to like 3 roads that will sit there empty because a dedicated lane wasn't what was stopping people from riding their bikes?

Three dedicated lanes won't be what was stopping people from riding bikes (in most cases) but a network of them sure would increase ridership.