Thursday, May 19, 2011

Bike to Work...

And They're Off by paynehollow
And They're Off, a photo by paynehollow on Flickr.

...to school, to church, to play, to shop...

Tomorrow, we in Louisville celebrate Bike To Work Day and it is a good day to recall that, as Grant Peterson noted, the bicycle is "rideable art that can just about save the world."

An astounding claim, but not a hyperbolic one, I'd suggest.

It's also a good time to recall how important bicycles were at least for a small part of our history. Here, I'll quote from a fine essay from the American Studies website at the University of Virginia...


Amongst the bicycles most important, and perhaps most enduring, legacies is its effect upon women's issues; indeed the mark the bicycle left upon gender relations in the 1890s is difficult to underestimate. One must remember that the America of years past was one of rigidly defined gender roles, with distinctly separate spheres of activity for men and women. The distinctions between the sexes were certainly as rigidly defined as ever in the years leading up to the 1890s--the years we popularly refer to as the Victorian era.

However, as the 19th century came to a close, women were gradually making headway into the male-dominated public sphere, through increased roles in education, social and political organizations. Perhaps as a response to the seemingly increasing potential for equality amongst the sexes, men begin to more and more delineate themselves in terms of physical prowess. Cycling, then took its natural place amongst football, baseball, and other male dominated spheres of activity. One can imagine the indignation, often expressed in terms of health or morality, that many a male felt when the woman was shown to be just as adept at handling the cycle as her counterpart.

Simply put, the bicycle allowed for movement into new spaces, literally and figuratively. The woman of the 19th century who had been given little opportunity to cultivate or express her autonomy now had a vessel with which one could not only develop autonomous power, but do so while leaving behind the old reliance upon men for travel. It's easy to see then, why Susan B. Anthony, women's rights advocate and future star of an ill-fated dollar, was to say that the bicycle had "done more to emancipate women then anything else in the world"...

Rational dress aside, the bicycle, despite being heaped with scorn by outraged men, was consistently trumpeted by progressive women as a tool for increased freedoms. Indeed, many feminist tracts of the day frequently invoked the bicycle as a metaphor for increased self-control... the author of Bicycling for Ladies, Maria Ward, bluntly notes that "Riding the wheel, our powers are revealed to us...".

Ride or DieIt is precisely this sort of attitude, empowerment coupled with visions of an increasingly egalitarian future, that angered many men greatly. Simply put, the woman on wheels was a threat to the well ingrained system of practical inferiority that men had been taking advantage of for centuries, and outraged men were quick to point to the bicycle as a threat to the social order. The cycle, it was argued, would disrupt the delicate sphere of the family unit by allowing the woman to travel beyond her previous limits without the surveillance of a knowing husband nearby. The younger woman, too was vulnerable to a bicycle induced lapse in morals, for it allowed her to stray farther a field with members of the opposite sex during courtship.

The leveling effect acheived by the woman on the bicyle was so great that the coming of the automobile and subsequent demise of the bicyle can be though of as a major step backwards for women's empowerment.

So, take an historic stand. Ride a bike. Save the world.

37 comments:

Alan said...

Once we move, I'm looking forward to being able to bike to work. With any luck, we'll be able to meet our goal of getting rid of one of our vehicles that way.

John Farrier said...

Simply put, the bicycle allowed for movement into new spaces, literally and figuratively. The woman of the 19th century who had been given little opportunity to cultivate or express her autonomy now had a vessel with which one could not only develop autonomous power, but do so while leaving behind the old reliance upon men for travel.

This is what cars do, too. Unlike public transportation and rail service, the car allows the individual to have far greater autonomy over personal movement.

Politician X wants me to go to Y at time Z, and provides a bus (with money seized from me) to do so. Because I have a car, I can ignore him, and have greater (but not absolute) freedom over when and where I go.

There is a reason why politicians (e.g. Biden) love trains so much. The individual cannot determine when and where a train goes; he must simply acquiesce to the decisions of others. This, to the politician, the proper attitude.

Dan Trabue said...

John...

Politician X wants me to go to Y at time Z, and provides a bus (with money seized from me) to do so. Because I have a car, I can ignore him, and have greater (but not absolute) freedom over when and where I go.

To be fair, "Politician X" already seized your money - AND the money of those who don't even drive - to pay for roads that let you go where you want. It all involves "seizing money" (ie, taxing the People for the People's needs). And, in addition to seizing money for roads, Politician X and all those drivers have also seized clean air and water. They also have "forced" those with asthma and other sicknesses into their homes. They also have created situations where children and others aren't as safe walking/biking places in a healthy manner.

To be sure, autos have also provided some additional freedoms, I'm not discounting that. The difference between cars and bikes though, is that while cars provided some additonal freedoms, they simultaneously imposed a loss of freedoms and did so to a degree that has not proven healthy.

Finally, that's one of the great freedoms of bikes that even cars can't provide: Walking and biking can take you just about anywhere you want to go, WITHOUT the great costs imposed by the personal auto. In that way, walking and biking have it all over busing and riding the train, as well as using cars.

Fair enough?

Dan Trabue said...

Good luck with that, Alan.

John Farrier said...

To be fair, "Politician X" already seized your money - AND the money of those who don't even drive - to pay for roads that let you go where you want.

Those can be sold.

But I get your point. Again, I'm referring to greater rather than absolute freedom.

The difference between cars and bikes though, is that while cars provided some additonal freedoms, they simultaneously imposed a loss of freedoms and did so to a degree that has not proven healthy.

Please elaborate.

Someone off-topic (so ignore it if you think it will lead the conversation astray): another similar technological development was the development of the personal firearm. As Marko Kloos said in a magnificent essay:

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Few things are as glorious as formerly and currently oppressed people, such as women, gays, and African Americans, peacefully bearing arms in self-defense.

John Farrier said...

Correction: "Someone" should read "Somewhat".

Dan Trabue said...

I got the "somewhat," but I'm not sure to what "those can be sold" refers.

As to elaborating on what freedoms are restricted by the increased presence of freedom-giving cars, I'm speaking of what I've already referenced.

By everyone driving to the extent they do (or even more, if we encourage/subsidize it even more), that results in increased toxins in the air and those pollutants result in many days a year where thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of asthma suffering children and adults are forced indoors.

Driving is a self-reinforcing negative behavior. Because of sprawl, it becomes ever more important to have a car. Because of driving, it becomes ever more important to drive instead of walking/biking for safety's sake. These are limitations of freedom, not enhancements.

If you admit to a potential employer that you don't have a car, oftentimes, it restricts your opportunities to get that job.

Those sorts of restrictions on freedom are what I'm speaking of. And that's not even beginning to touch on the limits/problems that a car-dependent/fossil fuel dependent culture today harms our children's future in a world where we CAN'T all drive cars in the manner we do because they run on a finite fuel source. We have built our culture on a premise that won't last more than a hundred years (more likely, that won't last more than 25 years). THAT'S gonna hurt someday.

Dan Trabue said...

John, I'm curious what you think of recent proposals to tax drivers per mile? Currently (all along, really, but even moreso lately), gas taxes are not enough to pay for our infrastructure so we've been subsidizing drivers with free roads - roads that everyone are paying for out of general funds, including the poor and others who don't have "the freedom" of cars.

There are proposals being considered now to charge a per mile tax so that drivers are pulling their own weight and receive at least less in free tax dollars. What do you think of that approach?

Dan Trabue said...

As to your gun point, I have no great opinion. I have lived and walked urban "violent" streets for most of my adult life and never needed a gun to "equalize" things. The whole gun-as-defense argument sounds like a mostly fear-based approach, but if someone wants one (or a can of pepper-spray) to make them feel safer and "equalized," they're free to do so. Hopefully, they'll weigh the benefits and detriments to that approach and do so only as informed and trained people, if they opt for that route.

I don't think there's a corresponding moment in history where "gun-as-equalizer-for-women" rivals the historic oomph of "bikes-as-equalizer," but that's just one man's opinion.

John Farrier said...

By everyone driving to the extent they do (or even more, if we encourage/subsidize it even more), that results in increased toxins in the air and those pollutants result in many days a year where thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of asthma suffering children and adults are forced indoors.

Okay, I get that.


Driving is a self-reinforcing negative behavior. Because of sprawl, it becomes ever more important to have a car. Because of driving, it becomes ever more important to drive instead of walking/biking for safety's sake. These are limitations of freedom, not enhancements.

If you admit to a potential employer that you don't have a car, oftentimes, it restricts your opportunities to get that job.


Only in the same way that the rise of indoor plumbing makes daily bathing normal -- and therefore fairly mandatory. Try getting a job now while bathing only once a week, versus a century ago.

As for sprawl, it is beautiful. It allows individuals to have more space. Compare, for example, the cost of a quarter acre plot in downtown Louisville with the outskirts of the city.

Cars also permit people to have greater choice over their own communities. Who do you want to associate with? If your only meaningful social contacts must be within bike range, you have fewer options than those with a car.

Granted, people who can't afford cars have, as a relative but not absolute measure, fewer choices than those who do. But the solution is more cars, not fewer.

Those sorts of restrictions on freedom are what I'm speaking of. And that's not even beginning to touch on the limits/problems that a car-dependent/fossil fuel dependent culture today harms our children's future in a world where we CAN'T all drive cars in the manner we do because they run on a finite fuel source. We have built our culture on a premise that won't last more than a hundred years (more likely, that won't last more than 25 years). THAT'S gonna hurt someday.

Yes, I've read the predictions that the world will run out of oil in 1980. We'll just have to burn that bridge (for fuel) when we get to it.

John Farrier said...

John, I'm curious what you think of recent proposals to tax drivers per mile? Currently (all along, really, but even moreso lately), gas taxes are not enough to pay for our infrastructure so we've been subsidizing drivers with free roads - roads that everyone are paying for out of general funds, including the poor and others who don't have "the freedom" of cars.

There are proposals being considered now to charge a per mile tax so that drivers are pulling their own weight and receive at least less in free tax dollars. What do you think of that approach?


I like the idea. Why should someone who doesn't use the roads pay for them?

Dan Trabue said...

Your gun idea did remind me of another cost, by the way...

When we moved to the Personal Auto for Everyone solution, one side effect was that our streets/sidewalks were emptied of pedestrians. One side effect of that was that it then became easier/more likely to get assaulted on abandoned urban streets. Better than ANY gun "protection" is the presence of a crowd. Safety in numbers, and all that.

With the removal of pedestrians from our streets, we paved the way for increased thug activity on them instead, INCREASING, once again, the "need" for cars ("I can't walk to school, you'll have to drive me..."). That has been a HUGE cost to society and a detriment to our freedom.

Added to that example is the fattening of America. When everyone HAD to get around by their own power, they did so, by and large. That enforced some daily exercise. It is the lack of daily exercise that is harming our health and hampering our happiness/liberty, and again, at a cost to society.

Two more good examples of how cars LIMIT our freedom, at the same time they improve it. It is, it seems to me, a net loss, though, when you add up the costs and loss of liberty that came with that "increase" in liberty.

Glad to hear that you are supportive of the mileage tax. It seems like a relatively reasonable idea. I'm DEFINITELY in favor of motorists paying their full way, so that the costs of driving are factored in more accurately. One problem that libertarians might have, it seems to me, is with the gov't "knowing"/tracking how many miles you drive, which is why I was wondering what you thought. Do you know what the "mood" of libertarians is, in general, on this issue? Or is it on their radar, yet? What did they say at your last SuperSecret Libertarian Overthrow/Ayn Rand Appreciation Society meeting?

Alan said...

"What did they say at your last SuperSecret Libertarian Overthrow/Ayn Rand Appreciation Society meeting?"

*snicker*

Dan Trabue said...

John...

I've read the predictions that the world will run out of oil in 1980. We'll just have to burn that bridge (for fuel) when we get to it.

I suspect you're being deliberately flippant here and not suggesting that basing an entire world's economy largely on a vanishing resource is not something that should be ignored until it's gone, right?

To be fair, the predictions that we'd "run out" of oil in the 80s came largely true. The actual predictions (at least the ones I'm familiar with) were along the lines of Hubbert's predictions...

In the 1950s the well known U.S. geologist M. King Hubbert was working for Shell Oil. He noted that oil discoveries graphed over time tended to follow a bell shape curve. He supposed that the rate of oil production would follow a similar curve, now known as the Hubbert Curve. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that production from the US lower 48 states would peak between 1965 and 1970.

...most people inside and outside the industry quickly dismissed the predictions. As it happens, the US lower 48 oil production did peak in 1970/1. In that year, by definition, US oil producers had never produced as much oil, and Hubbert's predictions were a fading memory. The peak was only acknowledged with the benefit of several years of hindsight.


energybulletin.net

Which is to say, the predictions weren't of "running out" but of "easily accessed oil production peaking," meaning that, from there on out, oil would/will be less easily accessed/more expensive and INCREASINGLY more expensive.

Finite resources HAVE to run out, by definition, if we keep consuming them. Basing a global economy on the assumption that cheap energy/petrol will always be available is a recipe for disaster, as would be basing the economy on cheap energy petrol OR some unknown entity that our genius will (perhaps, or maybe not) deliver.

Is that a fair statement with which you can agree?

John Farrier said...

Dan wrote:

I suspect you're being deliberately flippant here and not suggesting that basing an entire world's economy largely on a vanishing resource is not something that should be ignored until it's gone, right?

Yes, I was being a bit flippant. And although I respect that you've taken an effort to elaborate on this point of view, we've gone round and round about this a few times before. I think that we're pretty much at an impasse on this issue. I'd rather shake hands with you and call it a day on this particular subject, if that's all right.

Dan Trabue said...

A'ight.

Marshall Art said...

"Why should someone who doesn't use the roads pay for them?"

Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters. Also, for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro? If one's company does not necessarily move product, what of those companies with whom THAT company does business? Could any of them be productive and profitable enough to employ the same amount of people without the use of roads to extend their business's reach beyond their immediate area? We all benefit from roads being paid for by local, state and federal taxes, whether we use any of them or not.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing, as far as biking to work goes, should one move every time one changes jobs so that they are within walking or biking distance? If one is laid off because of a bad economy, and that can happen repeatedly, how can that be justified financially?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters.

...which could get by much more easily and presumably come closer to saving more citizens' lives IF the roads weren't congested with all those personal motorist vehicles.

Still, it's a point: There are other uses for roads besides personal use.

for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro?

Actually, they could do so more efficiently and cheaply by rail and barge, seems to me.

We all benefit from roads being paid for by local, state and federal taxes, whether we use any of them or not.

This is true to a degree. AND it's true that we all have deficits as a result of roads and personal autos. The great bulk of the reason for the great expense and expanse of roads is due to the Every Car in Every Garage approach to transportation.

For instance, IF we were all getting by on bikes, we'd still benefit from "roads" but those roads would cost a tiny fraction of the expense of roads built to accommodate 100 million drivers (or whatever the number is). I forget the exact price difference, but it's something like $50,000/mile of bike lane VS $5 million/mile of highway.

The point is, the vast network of roads built the way they are exists to accommodate personal motorists, and they should pay their own way and not be subsidized by general tax dollars and certainly not subsidized by the poor and others who don't even drive!

That would be an example of a REGRESSIVE tax.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall...

as far as biking to work goes, should one move every time one changes jobs so that they are within walking or biking distance?

It depends on how much personal and societal energy independence and environmental sustainability is to them.

IF a person decides they just HAVE to live on a remote island in the ocean, then they will rightly claim, "I HAVE to have a helicopter to get to work!" The question is: Why live on a remote island? Can the world survive everyone living in that manner?

IF energy independence and sustainability are important values to you, IF you believe that the personal auto as norm is not sustainable and will ultimately cause much more harm than the temporary good justifies, THEN you make the decision to live a life in such a way as to be able to work and live sustainably.

That generally means that you live in a place where you have work options in a relatively small circle (it's not hard to do at all if you're in a city, seems to me) OR that you find ways to work out of home/near home as the norm. It's not really that hard IF it's a priority to you.

If it's not a priority to you, then no, it's not worth it to you.

I think, as always, the Golden Rule is a good measure: Would we be pleased if everyone lived as we are living? Would we SURVIVE if everyone lived as we are living?

John Farrier said...

Marshall wrote:

Because personal use does not equate to persnal benefit. Think emergency vehicles for starters.

This problem can be solved with user fees.

Also, for those who bike to work, do you think your company can do without roads to move product to and fro? If one's company does not necessarily move product, what of those companies with whom THAT company does business?

Dan's company can pay for its road usage on a subscription or a per-use (e.g. per axle, per mile, per ton, etc.) basis.

Could any of them be productive and profitable enough to employ the same amount of people without the use of roads to extend their business's reach beyond their immediate area?

You're assuming that roads would not be built without the government forcing people to pay for them. That is: you're assuming that transportation is inherently unprofitable.

John Farrier said...

Dan wrote:

The point is, the vast network of roads built the way they are exists to accommodate personal motorists, and they should pay their own way and not be subsidized by general tax dollars and certainly not subsidized by the poor and others who don't even drive!

That would be an example of a REGRESSIVE tax.


A regressive tax? This is an interesting perspective, and I'd say that you can make a good case for it: poor people can't afford cars, but are forced to pay for roads used by people richer than themselves.

John Farrier said...

This is confusing. I've published a comment twice, and both times it's vanished. Blogger is still screwy.

Well, anyway Dan, I responded to your comment that begins with "Your gun idea did remind me of another cost, by the way..." at some length. I'm afraid I won't have time to type it out again.

Dan Trabue said...

I don't know what's up with blogger. It's been acting especially screwy lately. Anyway, your post came through to my email both times. Here is John's Missing Post:

Dan wrote:

When we moved to the Personal Auto for Everyone solution, one side effect was that our streets/sidewalks were emptied of pedestrians. One side effect of that was that it then became easier/more likely to get assaulted on abandoned urban streets. Better than ANY gun "protection" is the presence of a crowd. Safety in numbers, and all that.

With the removal of pedestrians from our streets, we paved the way for increased thug activity on them instead, INCREASING, once again, the "need" for cars ("I can't walk to school, you'll have to drive me..."). That has been a HUGE cost to society and a detriment to our freedom.


This is an interesting line of thought, but I'm skeptical and would like to see some evidence to support the claim.

Added to that example is the fattening of America. When everyone HAD to get around by their own power, they did so, by and large. That enforced some daily exercise. It is the lack of daily exercise that is harming our health and hampering our happiness/liberty, and again, at a cost to society.

1. Isn't it wonderful that we live in a nation where poor people are fat? Never before in human history has such a state of affairs prevailed.

2. Are we unhealthier? Fatter, for sure. But if we're unhealthier, lifespan should have decreased, rather than increased.

3. Is there a cost to "society"? If you find the libertarian mind puzzling, I suggest this blog post which attempts to address how libertarians (in general) conceptualize "society".

4. I'm curious about how you define the term "liberty" in this context.

Glad to hear that you are supportive of the mileage tax. It seems like a relatively reasonable idea. I'm DEFINITELY in favor of motorists paying their full way, so that the costs of driving are factored in more accurately. One problem that libertarians might have, it seems to me, is with the gov't "knowing"/tracking how many miles you drive, which is why I was wondering what you thought.

This could be a huge problem, although the government seems to be well on its weigh to tracking our movements.

Do you know what the "mood" of libertarians is, in general, on this issue? Or is it on their radar, yet?

It's not on my radar, at least. Most of the people I read focus more on privatizing roads rather than charging user fees. That, at least, could alleviate some government surveillance problems.

What did they say at your last SuperSecret Libertarian Overthrow/Ayn Rand Appreciation Society meeting?

The meeting didn't happen. We couldn't all agree on when and where to have it, and no one had the authority to simply make a decision.

Marshall Art said...

I think you're still missing the point. How do you calculate the benefits of roads to those who do not use them? I suggest that they are greater than can be easily tallied.

You also seem to fail to realize that those most able to use them are also likely among those paying the lion's share of revenues to all levels of gov't. The poor are almost exempt from taxation and the wealthy and corporations account for most taxes paid. In some communities, such as the one in which I was raised, a large industrial and commercial presence accounts for most of the taxes so that property taxes are very low in comparison to neighboring communities.

In addition, charging a fee to all users would necessarily result in higher costs passed on to the very consumers you think will benefit.

Roads are infrastructure, a primary responsibility of gov't. Far better than your idea would be to find more efficient and cost-effective ways to maintain roads. A local county (or township or community---I can't remember which) has moved to a new type of substance for use in salting the roads during winter. The cost of the substance is cheaper and is supposedly more effective in the purpose of melting snow and improving traction. AND, it is supposed to be better in terms of less corrosion of the streets and vehicles. This entity has saved a large sum of money by the switch.

One can say that on the most basic level, that users are already paying for the roads by virtue of the extra gas they use and the massive amount of tax per dollar spent on each gallon, so that even if all a person is doing is burning gasoline, driving for pleasure with no destination but the return portion of the trip home, they are paying for the privilege of doing so. Most people, however, are going somewhere and usually spending money in the process, so sales taxes are added to the equation.

But even those who don't drive benefit by virtue of not only emergency vehicles, but the movement of goods and services. How do you think the tires on your bicycle got to the bike shop? By bicycle? I don't think so. How about the shoes you wear when walking instead of driving? Did they get carried to the shoe store a few pair at a time?

Furthermore, and I'm still checking into this as time allows, being in the trucking industry, I have heard debate on the whether or not rail is truly more cost effective and environmentally safer. But even so, once the goods get to the end of the line, they need to be transported to their final destination.

As for barges, there are only so many waterways that can accomodate that mode of moving freight. And what of the impact on the waterways themselves in terms of traffic and pollution?

John Farrier said...

Marshall wrote:

But even those who don't drive benefit by virtue of not only emergency vehicles, but the movement of goods and services. How do you think the tires on your bicycle got to the bike shop? By bicycle? I don't think so. How about the shoes you wear when walking instead of driving? Did they get carried to the shoe store a few pair at a time?

Dan would pay for his indirect road usage. After all, the shipping company will pass its road use costs onto the bicycle shop, which will in turn pass the cost onto Dan. So Dan is hardly being a free rider.

Marshall Art said...

Then what's the point? Either way, Dan pays. Either through taxes or the higher costs to products he buys due to the costs of roads paid for by the manufacturers of his purchases. Roads are as much a shared benefit as a strong military.

Dan Trabue said...

The points are...

1. such an approach would help end motorist welfare.
2. it would help people see ACTUAL costs (something approaching actual costs) for driving a personal auto, not artificially low prices
3. which in turn would serve as incentives to individuals and society to find healthier, more sustainable solutions that fit within their/our budget, ie, to live within our individual and collective means.

Among others.

A free market can't operate well if such detrimental expenses are hidden/subsidized/pushed off on future generations.

Marshall Art said...

"A free market can't operate well if such detrimental expenses are hidden/subsidized/pushed off on future generations."

And how is this happening? Because future generations might have to use tax money to repair public roads? Is that your argument?

The term "motorist welfare" is lame to the extreme. I've already explained how they pay their share and that they do so to a greater percentage than most who don't use roads but still benefit by their existence. This is just a goofy environmentalist wackjob complaint. Since such infrastructure is the responsibility of gov't, it would be far better to eliminate spending on that which is not. There is plenty of that for sure.

John Farrier said...

Marshall wrote:

Then what's the point? Either way, Dan pays. Either through taxes or the higher costs to products he buys due to the costs of roads paid for by the manufacturers of his purchases. Roads are as much a shared benefit as a strong military.

But, as Dan wrote in response, the free market more efficiently allocates prices than government mandates.

Perhaps Dan will pay more as a result of user fees. Perhaps less. But it will be a more accurate reflection of the market because Dan will be able to choose to pay those fees, or not. If Dan is simply taxed -- that is, the money is taken from him with or without his consent -- then he is deprived of any choice at all.

As for the military, here I deviate from more extreme libertarians and say that it is a core function of government. I've heard various schemes for privatizing the military, and they don't seem remotely feasible. But we already have toll roads. Privatizing roads, or charging user fees for government-owned roads, has already demonstrated some success.

Marshall Art said...

But the point, John, is that roads are a case where gov't involvement is appropriate because of the shared benefit that exists whether one chooses to recognize that benefit or not. Communities, villages and cities are all planned out, not privately, but communally. The roads are a part of what a community needs to flourish and by flourishing, everyone benefits. Where the roads are placed are also a gov't function.

I would also point out that as we can see in the attending picture above, bikers are using the roads in question. Are bikers going to riding on peopel's lawns or on those places that are unpaved? Are walkers going to be walking only in the dirt on the sides of the roads? Sidewalks only go so far and need to be maintained as well. Not everyone walks on sidewalks, so will we charge to use them as well?

Alan said...

It isn't just roads, BTW, but all the infrastructure that is required for suburban developments that is rarely (if ever) actually paid for in its entirety by the folks who buy houses in those developments.

So, in addition to the cost of driving from some place far away from their workplace, there's the additional cost of development of those subdivisions.

For example, in our little community, a developer put in 300 new homes in a subdivision, which required streets, sewer, water, sidewalks, street-lights, and capacity in the school system, increased capacity on the town waste-water treatment plant, increased capacity on the town water pumping station, increased capacity on our reverse-osmosis filter plant, etc. Their property taxes will not cover all of that new infrastructure, so we all pay for the fact that these folks chose to buy a new house rather than one of the many existing ones on the market. Even people living "greener" in high density apartments and condos in town are paying for all that additional infrastructure through city property taxes.

I don't have a problem with their making the choice to live in McMansion land, but I'm not thrilled with having to pay for it when increased density downtown wouldn't have required such a high cost.

Anyway, just pointing out that roads are only one cost here.

Wow, we're all such libertarians in this conversation!

(Well, except for MA, who is, interestingly enough apparently a socialist when it comes to roads.) :)

Marshall Art said...

It is not socialism to expect that the state, that is, we the people, pay for that which is meant to be the responsibility of the gov't. That's called doing their job as was originally intended.

Alan said...

Where does it say anything about building roads in the Constitution?

The government building roads is unconstitutional.

:)

John Farrier said...

Article 1, Section 8, clause 7.

Alan said...

That only says post roads. :)

John Farrier said...

That's true.