As my daughter lives in Bellingham, WA, I thought I'd share an interesting letter to the editor sent in response to a previously published opinion piece in the local paper. I'll try to track down the original piece and post it later.
Parker Snowe 140 Park Place Media, PA 19063-2036 Tel: (610) 565-4542 (h) Tel: (215) 898-5012 (w) Fax: (215) 573-3783 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I can remember, and remember more than I have seen." - Disraeli ----Original Message----- From: Gene Myers Sent: None To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FW: BIKEWWU: Moderated Message Here's my 2 cents sent to the Herald. -Gene RE: "Cyclists don't contribute to road costs, so should get out of way," April 4 The right to use streets is not in principle based on having paid to use them. Streets are in concept public goods. The exceptions are toll roads, which are often under-utilized. The result is economic inefficiency: large resources spend on a road few actually use. Economists have long realized this is not desirable, and so certain things (roads, water supply systems, and until recently power supply systems) are considered public goods. The concept is that we pay for them collectively and use them in common, subject to rules that reduce conflicts among users. This forms part of the justification for why cyclists have a legal right to use the streets. But, let's consider the proposition of streets as quasi-private goods for which users pay. How to structure those fees? Rationally, they should be apportioned according to how much building and maintenance cost is incurred by each class of vehicle. Heavy trucks would pay a vary large proportion, large private vehicles the next, followed by small cars, motorcycles, etc. Last would be bicycles. Frequency of use would have to be factored in (practically difficult except on controlled-access tollways). If, in addition, all the subsidized costs of motor vehicle use were included in the price, chances are the net effect would be an increase in bicycle use. For the latter reason, this system has appeal. Under the current circumstances, where some roads are over-used because they _are_ freely available to motorists, it would be efficient and desirable to pay people to bicycle, because it would traffic congestion, reducing a negative side-effect of the public good system. The public-good system has the virtue of reminding us to consider others, rather than feeling entitled. People are not "cyclists" or "motorists." Car or bike is just a transportation choice. The people who use bikes are of nearly all ages, physical conditions (there are bikes for the paraplegic, for example), and certainly every social class, race, political persuasion, etc. Many if not most also own and drive cars. That person on the bike (or in the car) may be your neighbor, an attorney, someone's grandmother, brother, or offspring, a minister, a retail worker who just served you... some person with whom you not only share the road but also other concerns in life and about town. If we remember this, it'll be easier to put ourselves in the other person's shoes, and consider what we can do to accommodate each other's needs. Gene Myers ******************************************************************** Gene (Olin E.Jr.) Myers, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Environmental Studies Huxley College of the Environment Western Washington University 516 High Street Artntzen Hall, MS 9085 Bellingham, WA 98225-9085 ph 360.650.4775 fax 360.650.7702 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the Bicycle Coalition of the Delaware Valley list named "bike." To subscribe or unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
