Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by TomSwirly | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

TomSwirly

You are ignoring the big questions!

Will it improve everyone's life to have more cyclists and less cars?

How are we going to deal with the climate emergency without getting rid of cars?

> Would cyclists be able or willing to fund the construction?

Jesus, man. I'm not a parent, but I willingly pay for schools for children.

This perennial argument against any governmental spend at all has been debunked so thoroughly that at this point I believe that most who make it know it's wrong, and use it anyway.

View on HN

Undoubtedly building cycle paths would improve a couple of dimensions (less traffic, pollution etc.) but it would also cost something, I'm simply advocating a cost-benefit analysis, and pondering whether some kind of funding-by-the-users is possible (like happens for other vehicles: fuel duty, road tax, etc.)

What makes you think that these cost-benefit analyses are not being done by municipalities and related agencies all the time? Roads require upkeep and revision of their layout as a matter of course, or else London would still predominantly feature cobblestone roads suitable for broughams rather than SUVs.

Any action they take will 'cost something', even not doing anything (lack of repairs will cost you double in the long run).

Don't worry about 'funding by the users'. Cycling is a net-positive for population health and government goals (exercise as well as less congestion and pollution); by that logic users should be paid for riding a bike! Besides, most cyclists pay taxes already; or are you advocating charging pedestrians for the use of pavements as well?

Every time someone does one of these, the cost-benefit comes out so far ahead for cycling infrastructure it's not funny. The HS2 cycle paths cost-benefit analysis came out five times better than HS2 itself, despite the cost-benefit ratio for the hs2 cycle paths being rubbish for cycle infrastructure (most of HS2 is in less populated areas).

If you're serious about analysis then you could start by [reading this UK government report](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...) and it's references.

Or a study on the [danish cycling infrastructure investment](https://cyclingsolutions.info/cost-benefit-of-cycling-infras...)

> whether some kind of funding-by-the-users is possible (like happens for other vehicles: fuel duty, road tax, etc.)

Revenues from both go into the same general taxation pot, they're not reserved for funding roads. Incidentally, Tesla and other e-cars pay neither.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com