He's complaining about $6.2 million being spent over a whole year to
accomodate people who want to ride their bikes as transportation when the
U.S. is spending almost $4 billion a month to occupy Iraq, more than $130
million every day, $5 million every hour.


"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message
...
The Car vs. the Bicycle
by Raymond J. Keating



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

July 9, 2003

Living in a prosperous, market economy offers countless benefits. In the
U.S.,
that most certainly includes widespread ownership of automobiles.

Indeed, one of the striking differences I've noticed over the years
between our
nation and many undeveloped, non-market economies is that our roads have
lots of
cars and trucks, while many of these other countries have lots of
bicycles.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against bicycles for competitive,
recreational and exercise purposes. However, as a primary mode of
transportation, they most certainly leave a lot to be desired. The fact
that
people in this country can afford to buy cars or SUVs, and don't have to
peddle
bicycles to work and the store is a good thing.

However, for more than a quarter century, some in the environmental
movement
haven't seen things this way. They hold that the automobile is an evil
polluter
and consumer of natural resources. These greenies would like to see many
more
of us riding bicycles around town and to work.

Unfortunately, even when Republicans are in charge of Congress such goof
ball
ideas receive attention. Consider the energy bill that passed the U.S.
House of
Representatives in April. The legislation includes some positive items,
such as
opening part of ANWR to exploration, reducing some regulatory obstacles
to
drilling on certain federal lands, and repealing the Public Utility
Holding
Company Act of 1935, which had disassembled economical energy operations
and
hampered future integration. There also are many counterproductive
measures,
including a boatload of subsidies and mandated expansion of the use of
ethanol.

The bill also would establish the "Conserve by Bicycling Program" under
the
Department of Transportation. This program would set up "10 pilot
projects .
dispersed geographically throughout the United States" and "designed to
conserve
energy resources by encouraging the use of bicycles in place of motor
vehicles."

The program would "use education and marketing to convert motor vehicle
trips to
bicycle trips," "maximize bicycle facility investments," and the National
Academy of Sciences would conduct "a study on the feasibility of
converting
motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips."

The study would evaluate the pilot projects, and "determine the type and
duration of motor vehicle trips that people in the United States may
feasibly
make by bicycle," of course factoring in issues like weather, land use
and
traffic patterns, "the carrying capacity of bicycles" and "bicycle
infrastructure." In addition, the report would "determine any energy
savings
that would result from the conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle
trips"
and perform "a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle infrastructure
investments."

All of this for a mere $6.2 million, at least to start. Who knows how
much more
will be spent down the road. After all, bicycle infrastructure costs
money.

The next time a politician proclaims that government has been cut to the
bone,
just think of this federal bicycle program, which also would require that
state
or local governments pick up at least 20% of the cost for each pilot
project. I
can hear politicians in the states declaring what a bargain this would be
as
local taxpayers would only have to foot a mere one-fifth of the total
cost.

If some people want to peddle a bicycle to their jobs or to go shopping,
that's
their business. But no sound reason exists for the government to be
using
taxpayer dollars to promote bicycles over motor vehicles. Government
conservation efforts certainly don't make any sense, as the market is far
better
equipped to gauge the proper level of conservation through prices. The
environment is not an issue, as automobiles run cleaner than ever before.
A
program like this is just a wasteful sop to a small number of
environmental
extremists.

When it comes to modes of personal transportation, it's better to let
consumers
decide if they want to drive or peddle to work.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------


This column may be reprinted with appropriate credit.



_______________
Raymond J. Keating is chief economist for the Small Business Survival
Committee,
and co-author of U.S. by the Numbers: Figuring What's Left, Right, and
Wrong
with America State by State (Capital Books, 2000).



http://www.sbsc.org/LatestNews_Actio...de=CyberColumn