Portland’s Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) says bicycle riders pay more than their fair share to use the roads, so they shouldn’t be asked to pay more. How do they figure? According to them, 83 percent of Portland cyclists also drive a car, so they pay gas taxes. That’s like saying, “I paid for this hamburger, so why are you also asking me to pay for French fries?”
“If bicycle riders paid a fee proportional to the damage they cause on roads,” says a BTA infographic, “it would amount to a few cents a year.” Okay, no problem with that.
But they aren’t satisfied to do little damage while sharing the road with cars. They also want one-fourth or more of the lanes of existing roads rededicated to the sole use of cyclists. Who paid for those lanes? Not cyclists, at least not from riding their bicycles.
Kamagra Fizz is actually a cutting-age remedy that can help a man improving erectile http://appalachianmagazine.com/category/featured/page/72/?filter_by=featured sale cialis functions and getting back to normal sexual life. We will take you through these generic cialis steps in this section. Health conditions that are associated with erectile dysfunction brand cialis 20mg discount here are many. Reasons why chocolate is good for your heart is good for your discount pfizer viagra health. Cyclists also point out that cycling is growing faster than driving in Portland. Unfortunately, that was last year’s news. The Census Bureau reports that, between 2011 and 2012, the number of Portland-area commuters driving to work grew from 607,077 to 639,983, while the number of people who cycled to work shrank from 23,478 to 22,758. Perhaps it was raining the day the census takers called in 2012.
The census numbers are affirmed by the Portland Business Alliance, which the share of downtown commuters who cycled to work declined from 11 percent in 2011 to 9 percent in 2012. Though there were more commuters than in 2011, the number of bicycle commuters declined from more than 9,600 to less than 8,100 while the number of auto commuters to downtown jobs grew from 42,000 to nearly 45,000.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) also challenges a portion of BTA’s infographic that makes it appear that 37 percent of the money the state spends on roads come from income taxes and other general funds. In fact, only 0.3 percent of ODOT’s budget comes from general funds–and that money is spent on transit, not roads.
The Antiplanner supports bicycle boulevards–turning side streets in to through bicycle routes by reducing the number of stop signs and other impediments to steady travel–and I concede that bike lanes on existing streets seem to boost ridership by creating an illusion of safety, even though I’m not convinced they truly increase safety. But such boulevards or lanes can be added without reducing the capacity of streets to move autos. Until cyclists are willing to pay a lot more than a few cents a year for the use of the roadways, they shouldn’t expect more road space to be dedicated to them.
Should they pay?
No. Local roads are paid for by property taxes, not the gas tax.
One secret principle of modern government that so many people fail to understand is that if you find a public resource to be of great value to you, then you SHOULD WANT to pay a user fee for that use. Hunters and fishermen figured that out in 1937 and supported the Pittman-Robertson TAX ON THEMSELVES that led to decades of government policy extremely favorable to their interest.
Cyclists for some reason never figured that out. They will spend $1000+ for a bike and clothing but then want to pay nothing for a place to cycle.
Government agencies get what they get from the general funding, but they pay special attention to any funding that comes directly to them. Even if 95% of their funding comes from the general funding, they will always covet the marginal 5% that comes to them from a special source.
The user fee for local roads is the property tax. Every homeowner, renter, business owner pays it, and in return we provide a universally accessible network of roads/sidewalks (and now also bike lanes in some places).
You don’t have to be in some sort of special group to pay support for use our transportation network – you just have to not be homeless.
“Cyclists for some reason never figured that out. They will spend $1000+ for a bike and clothing but then want to pay nothing for a place to cycle.”
Well, when they buy all that stuff in Seattle, they pay nearly 10% in sales tax, which in this scenario is $100+. State and local government spends a percentage of sales taxes on roads. Therefore, when bicycle owners purchase their bikes and equipment and clothing and repairs, they pay for their use of existing roads.
Although it’s hard to see that taxes pay for roads in Seattle. Our roads were ranked 12th worst in the US by a recent study, which found 45% of our roads in poor condition. This costs the average driver $600 a year in repairs. Not only must it also cost bicyclists, I simply can’t imagine biking down the nearest arterial in the rain (which lasts for months) while dodging massive holes and cracks and avoiding the two torrents washing gravel down the road. The City of Seattle neglects roads for transit, and we all pay the price.
I have no problem with bike riders using the existing roads for free, but once they start demanding bike paths, signs, green boxes, trail, special signals, special rules and amenities. etc .
That is when they need to start paying extra, for the amenities they demand.
SPRAWL hit the nail on the head. Taking away roads from others is far different from saying that you can share the roads because you pay taxes too.
In the “progressive” world, taking away from one group to give something to the more-favored group seems to be the norm. If so many progressives didn’t drive foreign-made cars (and drove Chevys instead) the progressive leaders in our federal government would decree that only Government Motors cars (and bicycles) could use the roads.
Two more for this dead thread from this dead head city:
http://blogs.seattletimes.com/northwestvoices/2013/11/18/biking-is-risky-on-seattle-roads/
And whlile walking the dog in the dark last night, a biker flying down the arterial at maybe 40 mph hit the bump…not a traffic calming measure, mind you. Lucky he was on the left track. The right lead to an asphalt trench. Luckily he only let out a cry of relief….
Fix the roads first. Then MAYBE we can talk about adding amenities like bike lanes and street cars.
Sprawl:
Pedestrians demand exotic and costly amenities like sidewalks, curbs, tree lining, and crossing lights.
Should they be taxed for the their “special” use of the public roads also?
Other than for scooping up some federal and state funds, bike lanes as they’re normally implemented do not make sense. Or at a minimum, places that have laws specifying 3 feet of passing space contradict most bicycle lanes.
For example, Minnesota statute 169, section 18, subdivision 3 species that a car passing a bicycle must give at least 3 feet clearance. Why? They legislated it for safety. In the meantime cities go out and make bike lanes that are not consonant with this law.
Look at this picture for example, http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7109/7605686362_0a5d3cfa44_o.jpg. It’s taken at a traffic light. In the upper right of the picture you can see the double yellow lines for no passing. What you can tell less is the bike lane is inbetween a right turn lane and a the regular through lane. No car can drive past a cyclist on either side, that is pass, without coming within 3 feet of the cyclist. Yet the city slops one into that space? Why? It definitely wasn’t good engineering nor did it make life safer for cyclists.
Other than for scooping up some federal and state funds, bike lanes as they’re normally implemented do not make sense. … It definitely wasn’t good engineering nor did it make life safer for cyclists.
Totally on board with prk: we should be like the EU and have grade-separated bike lanes.
DS
“we should be like the EU and have grade-separated bike lanes”
Pay for it yourself. I’m retired and don’t bike.
Andrew
I live in a area that does not have sidewalks and many parts do not have curbs and it is a very safe and walkable neighborhood without street trees.
In the areas that have businesses, they provide sidewalks, like they provide parking lots, so their customers can get to their businesses. It is the responsibility of the property owners to provide sidewalks.
Also everyone is a pedestrian, once they leave their car, bike or step off mass transit etc.
sprawl:
Please tell me where is this area you describe with no trees or crossing signals and only private sidewalks, so that I may avoid it at all costs.
Also, far from everyone is a pedestrian. I spent years driving directly from my driveway to my parking spot in a covered garage at work, rarely if ever stepping foot in the public right-of-way, before I saw the light. Or perhaps you would like to describe someone’s movements inside their own homes as “pedestrian” as well.
Recognize that sometimes the government provides things for the public benefit without asking for users to pay because the cost of collection would exceed the revenue raised. So too for bike fees.