The story: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced what he called a "sea change" in transportation policy. On his blog, he wrote, “People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.”
My first thought: I love it. Though biking is not prudent where I live or work, I have enjoyed it in the past and I recognize it as a viable and practical mode of transportation for many people.
The benefits: We easily recognize payoffs for making biking more friendly. First, it is healthy, definitely healthier than sitting in a car. Second, it conserves fuel and even a high-end bicycle is far less costly to purchase and operate than an average economy car. Third, it is much more environmentally friendly. Fourth, bikers relieve congestion on roadways – automobile congestion, that is.
The problem: Building new bicycle and pedestrian paths will cost money. Ideally, for safety reasons, the paths will share minimal amounts of space with highways, but that means buying more land. Another option is creating bike lanes on current roadways, but the District of Columbia managed to spend $100,000 doing that for no more than eight blocks; applying it on a broad scale will be big bucks.
Compounding the problem: Do we need to say it? Our nation and most of our states, counties, cities, schools, businesses and families are broke. Many, beginning with our nation, are deeply in debt.
Making the dream a nightmare: Pushing this idea is the secretary of transportation, whose department in March 2010 issued a statement saying, “Every transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their transportation systems.” It also said the secretary “has the authority to withhold approval for projects that would negatively impact pedestrians and bicyclists under certain circumstances.” That’s a scarily vivid depiction of heavy-handed federal administration of power.
Funding the nightmare: From what source do transportation departments receive much of their money? Fuel taxes, of course, along with vehicle registration fees. Pedalers and pedestrians will not buy fuel and some might eliminate an automobile from the family motor pool. Hence, funding for road building and maintenance decreases.
I said this story symbolized my fears for our country.
Most of us really do want to have it all. Many of us conclude we deserve it all. Then, we extend that everyone deserves it all – “It’s the American way.”
No, the American way is that everyone should have a chance to achieve ... earn ... his or her dream.
My 3-year-old grandson started crying this weekend because he wanted Grandma, not Papa, to play a game with him. I tried to explain to him (and I like to think I saw some understanding, though not acceptance) that people sometimes do not get what they want.
What I fear is much of our nation has a 3-year-old’s mindset. All people should have what they want ... and the government should make sure they get it.
I sincerely wish we could have a comprehensive hike-and-bike system. Maybe we can more easily pay for it if we return to simpler, less expensive highway construction, for example. There are so many places we spend or overspend money we shouldn’t, but if we continue to finance lifestyle improvements just because we deserve them, we will all be biking and walking to jobs where we work for overseas bosses.
(c) 2010 by Steve Martaindale
4 comments:
Steve, can I withold my taxes and sue under ADA because I can't use this moron's transportation system?
I don't think a strategic initiative to incorporate biking and walking into transportation is akin to a needy 3-year-old, Steve.
There is certainly a fine line to walk between the feds and the states when it comes to power. The fed overreaches, for sure, but the states sometimes need a kick in the ass. It's not practical where you live ... but what about Dallas? It's horrible when it comes to walkability, let alone bikability.
Just like the energy policy, we need a wide spectrum of measures -- more bikes, more public transportation, building up and not out, etc. We live in a society, and sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
For example, it's probably only a matter of time b/4 governments start cracking down on things like fast food. About a third of this country is obese. And it's costing us all money. Do we just let people eat themselves into an unhealthy state and then "bail" them out? Shouldn't they have some responsibility to society? But do we want to legislate health? Probably not, but people are generally stupid and lazy ... so what do you do?
I know the anti-federalists out there would freak if the government started messing with their happy meals. But some of these same people are quite happy to tell somone else what they can do with their bodies when it comes to abortion.
In the end, we're all hypocrites to our cause.
Well, Peter, you made me re-read what I wrote for fear something had been changed. I said bike/walking trails would be great for many reasons (I listed your health argument and included fuel conservation and operating expense). However, you failed to address the one issue I was writing about. The bike trails are representative of the many things to which we feel entitled -- a list to which we seem determined to add new programs. The answer I'm seeking: how do we pay for all of this, particularly considering we're already deeply in debt? Again, I'd love to have them, even out in the country where we live, but, where's the money coming from?
How do “we” pay for all this? The same way “we” have paid for everything for the past 80-90 years – by printing more “money.” Of course, this is only a temporary solution – one that is already stretched at the seams (here) and coming apart in many places (see a handful of European economies).
As long as this country consists of two variations of collectivist groupthink I don’t see a solution. On one side there’s a clamoring for domestic entitlement programs like healthcare and endless welfare, with every good and/or service suddenly transformed into a “right” – defended by people who have no clue where rights really come from. On the other you get blind support for an insane (but sacrosanct – don’t dare question it) militaristic foreign policy that includes invading and occupying countries in the name of democracy, maintaining 700+ military bases in over 140 countries, and billions in foreign aid in the name of “defense.” Who’s gonna blink first? Everybody, probably.
You’re right about debt, Steve. Very few seem to comprehend the staggering debt Washington D.C. has incurred and imparted to people who aren’t even born yet. The two sides mentioned above will fight over a dwindling pool of tax revenue until the middle class either has enough and revolts (my hope, but unlikely) or is destroyed (much more likely). Peter is right about the general population being “stupid and lazy.” Forget finding the answer; most people aren’t even aware of the questions.
Headaches over whether to emphasize motorized or non-motorized transportation might be thought of as the good old days before long. It’s become increasingly more likely that we’ll all be concerned with learning useful words and phrases in Mandarin.
(Sorry to be so negative. At the end of the day I sincerely hope I’m just a kook who is wrong about all this.)
Post a Comment