It is just semantics, to a point. But its also important. Because if you do what ijmorlan is doing and pretend that direct usage fees are all that matter you get to logical conclusions like:
"My observation was about people who are in effect complaining about the public funding for public transit, implicitly saying the 40% (probably higher in Manhattan where the discussion was) should be 100%, without even noticing that the equivalent number for the road network is 0%."
This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways. Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.
ijmorlan is effectively telling a bunch of people they're getting something for free when a lot of them are paying a lot for it and then he wonders why nobody wants to have a discussion with him about it.
"My observation was about people who are in effect complaining about the public funding for public transit, implicitly saying the 40% (probably higher in Manhattan where the discussion was) should be 100%, without even noticing that the equivalent number for the road network is 0%."
This is a silly way of looking at the issue - because, again, drivers are paying for the road in other ways. Its really disingenuous to compare user fees directly between public transit and road networks while ignoring that the road network has a much bigger user base and those people are funding it through their taxes.
ijmorlan is effectively telling a bunch of people they're getting something for free when a lot of them are paying a lot for it and then he wonders why nobody wants to have a discussion with him about it.