I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous. A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.

As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

> I'm well aware of the technical distinction between "libre" and "available." I should have said that Cassidy's belief is more in line with "libre," rather than gratuitous.

Did you mean "gratis"?

> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking. It's admittedly weak, but it's something to consider.

That's not just weak. There is no right or freedom that entitles one to public parking. There's nothing "libre" about public parking.

> As for your support of the network effect, it's not the government's position, by executive decree, to encourage change. They are representatives of the people, and to that end should cater to the majority, with the judiciary acting in its role to protect the rights of the minority.

It most certainly is the government's job to encourage change. The role of the government is not simply to be the enforcer for the masses. A large part of the government's job is to maintain a prosperous nation. Sometimes that requires change that the majority doesn't necessarily support. There are probably relatively few meaningful things that the government does with the support of >50% of the population. Rather, there are a lot of things that please some significant minority of the population. e.g. Bob gets a new connection between two major roads, Joe gets a new bike lane, Sue gets lower taxes on groceries, and Mallory gets a Hybrid car subsidy.

> Considering your bus example, I admittedly have no understanding on how bus routes (or for that matter, bike routes) work. Certainly there's empirical research suggesting that the route would be used, but the trade off is that adding a new bus route does not result in taking away something else (aside from resources, but resource allocation is entirely different).

Public land use is an exercise in resource allocation. The idea that parking should take priority over bike lanes is an opinion. It comes down to estimating what will be best for the city, both short and long-term.

> A viable argument could be made that decreasing parking spaces infringes on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private parking.

A viable argument could be made that governments which don't provide free helicopter rides infringe on an individual's liberty by pushing them more into private helicopter services.