It's hard to drive what I don't own.

How does your neighbor no longer needing a vehicle, stop you from owning one you do need?

And talking subsidies, my city burns through $150 million annually to build out 400+ miles of bike lanes that 3% of the population use. (Actual stats published by the city)

Car infrastructure is measured in billions. Infrastructure that is used by 100% of the population can still be less cost-effective, if its costs are great enough. Spending 100 billion so that everyone can drive makes no sense if everyone as a whole can only afford 80 billion.

Diverting at least some resources then, so that at least some people can get where they need to go for less, only makes sense.

At least part of the problem is cultural momentum. Even as more cost-effective ways to get around are built out, people will continue to drive because it is what they are used to. The benefits of shifting transport systems also have a severe lag time because a complete transit system is built over decades, not months.

150 million a year is nothing, no shit it's only useful to 3%. That number only reaches the nineties of cities like Amsterdam when you've been doing it for generations. The same was and is true for cars.

but understand when you try to pinch casual drivers, you got us too

Not in my city. Getting around in a car is better than ever. In fact, getting around using every possible mode of transport available is better than ever.

This policy can't reduce casual vehicle use without harming workers.

Then it's bad policy, and your local planners don't know how to change things efficiently. But the cities where it works for everyone LITERALLY EXIST. I live in one.

It is extremely easy for planners to spend money on half-measures that only make things worse, as is happening all over, but that isn't a reason to stick with something the math proves is broken.