A morning accident at Mill and 12th Street |
Over the
last year here in Oregon, we have heard various voices call for a special
bicycle tax or license fee to be imposed, statewide. The rationale for this
seems to come from the belief that government-funded bicycle infrastructure is
an enormously expensive luxury that those who use it should pay for. It has a
beautifully straightforward logic to it, admittedly: Pay as You Go.
Once the
details begin to come into focus, however, its luster fades.
Aside from
the well-known fact that such taxes/fees are largely unenforceable and thus
hopelessly idealistic (they have been tried before and didn’t work very well,
and I don’t see that many more enforcement dollars going to such an effort
today), there is the reality that bicycle infrastructure is a tiny, tiny
percentage of the outlay we make for road funding, and that if autoists had to
pay for what it truly cost to build and maintain their infrastructure, we wouldn’t be able
to take our cars out of the driveway or garage.
Similarly, the wear-and-tear on roads or other surfaces from bikes is nominal, and many of the bike lanes and other infrastructure put in by municipalities are so poorly-sited that they go largely unused, anyway, so those costs could be done away with by not putting them in the first place.
In other words, the argument collapses after a while, turning into generalized frustration with taxes, traffic, a supposed "free lunch" enjoyed by others, and the corner into which we have painted ourselves in Salem and many other cities.
However,
once we start talking about such revolutionary ideas, the conversation usually
devolves into name-calling and belittling. I’m sensitive to this, because I am
a cyclist, pedestrian, and also a motorist at various times. I try to remind myself
that it doesn’t pay much to get into such childish screaming matches with one’s self, let alone others.
What makes
the issue more focused for me is something like what I came upon a few days ago
as I was cycling to church. An accident had occurred involving a minivan and a
pedestrian crossing traffic island (this isn't about blame; I don’t know how it happened, and I don’t know if
anyone was seriously hurt—my prayers were and are with those involved).
The vehicle's front end was pretty badly mauled, but the island’s warning light/solar power generating
station didn’t come out of it too well, either. A lot of people were working on
the aftermath just then. After I ascertained that there wasn’t anything I could
do about this situation, I got to
thinking….
When a
vehicle hits such public infrastructure, someone has to pay for the
said-infrastructure’s repair. When a motorized vehicle does the hitting, those
costs are likely much higher than when a pedestrian or a cyclist smacks into
something. While I don’t know exactly who does the paying in such situations (whosever “fault” it may be), do cyclists or pedestrians passing by such things
ever say to themselves: “I bet that driver isn’t going to have to pay for that damage and those people’s
time to fix things up again, but I'll have to pay for it in my taxes, even though I'm not responsible at all!”
Perhaps such
people do exist, but they can’t be many.
We have been trained to think about
such expenses as part of the cost of having roads, cars, and public access. But it doesn't have to be so. This accident and its aftermath were hardly free, to anyone. If we are going to have a pay-your-way society, we need
to wake up to what that would really be like: the many “free lunches” enjoyed
by privileged groups would disappear, much to their chagrin. They might even be surprised who they are.
The true
costs of transportation infrastructure are enormous, and we are all on the dole
to one degree or another in this arena. The deeper issue here, to my way of thinking, is exactly
what sort of community or society our
transportation policies encourage.
The location of this accident brought this up in another way. The recent construction
of several serious pedestrian crossings in Salem (and this was one) has significantly helped
rein-in autoist entitlement here. I use them often when cycling, and they have really helped, what with all the traffic-calming and warning sign/light features on many of them. This is a good thing: drivers are,
after all, in possession of what amounts to a weapon in a collision. But, there’s
more to these crossings than just safety.
Such
amenities also encourage more foot-traffic and a more human-centric experience
of downtown. Many of these crossings are certainly very well used, revealing
pent-up demand (often by younger people, seniors, and folks with special
needs). They are helping to bring Salem—gradually—in line with the kind of
community the rising generations desire—and to which they will move. It would
be very costly to ignore such trends in our nation, simply repeating old
slogans and re-living childhood memories of auto-centric suburban nirvanas that
were never quite what they appeared, anyway.
Too often,
the simple bottom-line cost (whether truly represented, or not) is used as the
clincher in transportation and urban planning arguments. But, there are many
ways to measure cost, and only when we learn to factor in more of the total
picture will we be able to assess what is going on in a given situation
correctly, or in a way that leads to progress rather than stubborn denial.
No comments:
Post a Comment