The Los Angeles Times supports permitting a single person driving a car to use carpool lanes, if the driver pays a fee.
The Times offers three arguments in favor of this policy change. First, it would bring in revenue for the government, which is badly needed. Second, “the new system would not only speed up commutes for the people paying to get into the carpool lanes but would ease traffic for those remaining in the other lanes as well (because the tollpayers wouldn't be there)." Third, “the money from the fees must be spent, by law, on transit or carpool improvements in the same corridor where the funds were generated . . . . And those improvements will benefit not only the people driving in the fast lanes, but those in the other lanes as well.” (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-carpool-20110317,0,15024.story)
The Times offers three arguments in favor of this policy change. First, it would bring in revenue for the government, which is badly needed. Second, “the new system would not only speed up commutes for the people paying to get into the carpool lanes but would ease traffic for those remaining in the other lanes as well (because the tollpayers wouldn't be there)." Third, “the money from the fees must be spent, by law, on transit or carpool improvements in the same corridor where the funds were generated . . . . And those improvements will benefit not only the people driving in the fast lanes, but those in the other lanes as well.” (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-carpool-20110317,0,15024.story)
These are consequential arguments that the change is justified because the likely benefits outweigh any possible detrimental outcomes, such as being unfair to people with low incomes and setting a precedent of imposing fees for services the government has a duty to provide equitably.
One way to analyze this conflict in moral reasoning is to first define the ethical presumption at stake, which in this instance is the duty of government to provide roads for travel that may be used equitably, and then ask: Should this ethical presumption be ignored by allowing a driver alone in his car, who does not qualify to use a carpool lane, to do so by paying a fee?
Reasonable persons might come to different conclusions. Yet, if we agree that a government has a duty not only to act equitably, but also to provide for the common good, then allowing carpool use for a fee seems more reasonable. For in "selling" a benefit the government also creates, without any additional cost, another benefit for those unable to pay the carpool use fee, in that an increase of cars in the carpool lane reduces congestion in the other lanes.
With hope . . . Bob
0 comments:
Post a Comment