Food For Thought?

[PotomacCyclist]

It’s already possible to torpedo the freeloader claim without adding a bike tax. Any cyclist who pays other taxes (income, general sales, etc.) is already helping to pay for car/bike/pedestrian infrastructure, at the federal and state levels. At the same time, cyclists do not destroy infrastructure the way that heavy trucks, buses and cars do.

I’m neutral or moderately anti-bike tax. Tax policy is often used to promote certain behaviors and favor specific transactions (such as the home mortgage deduction and charitable deductions). Many local governments have a stated goal of promoting multimodal transportation, especially alternatives to single-occupant car driving. A bike tax would directly contradict such goals.

I doubt the new Democratic administration in Richmond would pass such a tax (unless there’s a secret car promotion agenda I’m not aware of). The D.C. mayor has had a mixed record on bike policy but I don’t think he would push such a tax either. I don’t think Arlington or Alexandria would do so. I don’t think they should, especially since transportation funding in Virginia is now only loosely tied to gas consumption. Car drivers pay relatively little for total infrastructure spending under the new funding scheme.

If they want to be smart about it, they should target the users who cause the most damage to roads and bridges. That would be large trucks and tour buses. (Metrobuses cause a lot of damage too, but the local governments aren’t going to tax Metro, since it’s a gov’t-run operation.)

[bobco85]

While the article seems to be trying to stir the pot, if there were to be any sort of bicycle tax in this area one particular condition would have to be fulfilled every winter: the trails would have to be clear. Of course, since different trails are under different jurisdictions, all would have to cooperate in order for the tax to be fair, and… …um… …well, you can just imagine how well THAT will go!

If they were looking to increase revenue by doing something like this, I would find it acceptable to have a small $5 tax on bicycle purchases like the $4 one in Colorado Springs. That would generate some revenue without having a big impact on bicycle sales (you’d be paying way more in sales tax, anyways).

[mstone]

Exactly: cyclists already pay more in sales tax, sales tax goes into the general fund, the general fund pays for roads, no freeloading…

[ebubar]

I posted the same article over in commuting (shame on my lack of reading of other topics!). I found it interesting, not as an idea to actually do, but more as an indicator that such a tax is stupid and would never pass. The only way I would/could understand a one time bike fee, or some kind of yearly bike registration fee would be if ALL the funds were guaranteed to go to paving my bike trails (e.g. Georgetown Branch perhaps), clearing my trails on snow days, actually creating properly safe bike lanes with bike traffic lights and giving me bike lane connections linking the trail network with bike lanes that don’t appear and disappear in random places.

[Drewdane]

@PotomacCyclist 72734 wrote:

It’s already possible to torpedo the freeloader claim without adding a bike tax. Any cyclist who pays other taxes (income, general sales, etc.) is already helping to pay for car/bike/pedestrian infrastructure, at the federal and state levels. At the same time, cyclists do not destroy infrastructure the way that heavy trucks, buses and cars do.

@mstone 72744 wrote:

Exactly: cyclists already pay more in sales tax, sales tax goes into the general fund, the general fund pays for roads, no freeloading…

In my experience, those arguments, while accurate, have exactly Z-E-R-O traction with drivers. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Being able to say “My (insert bike-specific revenue stream here) pays for my use of our shared roads” would be a concrete, direct example to use with those people.

[mstone]

@Drewdane 72750 wrote:

Being able to say “My (insert bike-specific revenue stream here) pays for my use of our shared roads” would be a concrete, direct example to use with those people.

No, it wouldn’t. It’s a fallacy to think that people who are angry haters are going to listen to that specific rational argument as opposed to some other rational argument. So why pander?

[PotomacCyclist]

@Drewdane 72750 wrote:

In my experience, those arguments, while accurate, have exactly Z-E-R-O traction with drivers. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Being able to say “My (insert bike-specific revenue stream here) pays for my use of our shared roads” would be a concrete, direct example to use with those people.

That hasn’t been my experience. I know that I’ve at least gotten many people to really start to think about the issue when presented with those facts. I also try to address the strange comment by some that cycling is somehow dangerous to other people, while they don’t give a second thought to the widespread danger from car drivers. (Car drivers in the D.C. region kill someone almost every day. All cyclists combined result in a death every year or two. No such traffic death is good, but it’s laughable when some claim that bikes will make streets more dangerous to others.) This gets to the matter of basic respect for the value of human life. If someone says these stats don’t matter, then that makes them no better than a thug or someone who facilitates thugs who kill.

I also go for the personal responsibility angle, although I try not to get too direct or overbearing with this. Depends on how the discussion is going and who is participating. I tie this into the health and pollution elements. Many trips (a third or 40%?) are relatively short, just a mile or two. And yet, most people drive a single-occupant vehicle to make that trip. This creates additional traffic congestion, pollutes the air, and contributes to the sedentary lifestyle of the driver. (Not all drivers are sedentary, but it’s no secret that an enormous percentage of adults do lead sedentary lives.) That lifestyle leads to obesity and is usually correlated with poor nutrition practices. The result is greatly increased healthcare costs, twice as high on average than an active person of the same age. Those costs are passed along to other people, either through higher health premiums for others, higher taxes, or both. This also helps explain why U.S. healthcare costs are so much higher than in almost every other industrialized economy (although there are other reasons too).

I do recognize that even non-drivers do benefit from the fact that transportation keeps the economy running, and that truck deliveries benefit anyone who shops for groceries and goods (which is basically everyone). I will acknowledge this on some discussions. But I quickly add that this doesn’t mean that 100% of trips should be by car or truck. Some people ask what the solution is. I try to get to the point that when people have knee-jerk reactions against any spending on bike/pedestrian infrastructure, they are helping to enforce a car only mandate on others. That bike enthusiasts and advocates do not want every single person to bike all the time, that they only want to make it a reasonable alternative for the many people who do want to bike, to work, for errands, for recreation, and so on. This gets to the idea of personal choice and freedom.

Do these arguments convince everyone in every situation? Of course not. But if it gradually gets more and more people to think through the issues, then it’s useful. It helps to steer the discussion and debate toward facts and away from emotional prejudices based on “I’ve always driven everywhere/everyone drives everywhere” attitudes. I don’t pretend to fix all of the problems in every discussion, but I think it’s useful to keep on bringing up facts and making solid points in a thoughtful but firm manner.

[nosrednaj]

How about using any bike purchase tax to fund a employees for the Fairfax County bike program? We’ve fought to not have budget cuts include bike programs/employees so here is a way to pay for itself. Co Springs raised 125k so if you do the math…..Fairfax could raise 250k. That would fund two people and ongoing could purchase bike counters etc. I don’t think it should be used to build infrastructure….let the other taxes pay for that just like roads/sidewalks/trails etc. It’s far easier to keep funds if you can show sustainability and the source of funds is constant etc…. Think dog license…..do those funds support dog catcher and the animal shelter?

[lordofthemark]

Bike purchase tax? I just bought a bike in Virginia. $500 bucks – so I paid the Commonwealth over $25 in sales tax on it. Yes that’s a sales tax, but in Va the gas tax is now a sales tax. I think my sale tax is my appropriate contribution as a cyclist (I also pay taxes as a motorist, and general tax payer) to state expenditures on transport.

What I would support is biking advocates pointing out the amount of sales tax revenue derived specifically from sales of bikes, parts and accessories.

Of course specific pieces of infrastructure should be built based on cost benefit analysis, not on arguments about “subsidies”. Arguably folks with non standard commute times heavily subsidize folks who drive at rush hour (since road widening, new interchanges, and other congestion relief projects are mostly driven by peak hour congestion) but no one really worries about that (at least not to the point of supporting the solution of congestion charges).

[lordofthemark]

@nosrednaj 72820 wrote:

How about using any bike purchase tax to fund a employees for the Fairfax County bike program? We’ve fought to not have budget cuts include bike programs/employees so here is a way to pay for itself. Co Springs raised 125k so if you do the math…..Fairfax could raise 250k. That would fund two people and ongoing could purchase bike counters etc. I don’t think it should be used to build infrastructure….let the other taxes pay for that just like roads/sidewalks/trails etc. It’s far easier to keep funds if you can show sustainability and the source of funds is constant etc…. Think dog license…..do those funds support dog catcher and the animal shelter?

The point of the bike program will be to encourage new riders. Why should someone who has ridden for years, and, say, is only riding recreationally on the W&OD, be interested in things like growing bike share, etc. The County will do that to reach its goals in terms of sustainability, making the County attractive to younger people, supporting more urban style development, etc. Its not a favor to existing cyclists, I think.

The problem with bike licensing (one of the problems, anyway) is that the community of bikers is too diverse. Do you require a license for every little kid riding on the sidewalk? You could require it for on street only – but then why exempt folks on trails (the costliest infra?) and what about kids riding around in cul de sacs. Require for use on trails – but we have kids on training wheels on the same trails used by commuters, folks training for races, etc. And why do I need a license for a bike, but not say a jogging stroller? A skateboard? Roller skates?

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 72825 wrote:

The point of the bike program will be to encourage new riders. Why should someone who has ridden for years, and, say, is only riding recreationally on the W&OD, be interested in things like growing bike share, etc. The County will do that to reach its goals in terms of sustainability, making the County attractive to younger people, supporting more urban style development, etc. Its not a favor to existing cyclists, I think.

The one thing that contributes the most to making cycling safer is having more cyclists. Leaps and bounds ahead of anything else a jurisdiction has tried. So someone who has ridden for years should support efforts to get more butts on bikes, because it makes cycling safer for everyone. It is a favor to existing cyclists.

[Terpfan]

Two thoughts on these sort of taxes.

One, you have to presume the “dedicated” fee/tax will be used for the “dedicated” purpose. I don’t buy that premise at all. Local jurisdictions have bad track records with “dedicated” spending. Not to mention that even if they did spend that money on trails/cycling infrastructure, who is to say they wouldn’t do the million dollar bus stop equivalent for one random cycling item?

Two, you have to presume they will raise this fee/tax as they see fit to fund “dedicated” (as they define dedicated) items. It’s typically cyclical where they receive some money, spend too much and then say they need more tax revenue to support whatever fee/tax it is. People can argue over the why or the merits of the spending choices, but ultimately whatever the fee/tax starts at, is unlikely to be the lowest place it stays at.

I figure I pay a host of fees and taxes already: sales, income, cell phone, cable/internet, property (even if you rent, it’s built into your price), fuel taxes (when we drive our one car), licensure fees to court, boating license fee, park fees for certain parks I visit, tolls, various DMV fees, et cetera, et cetera. I have not seen any of them ever decrease and I don’t expect to.

I also figure some drivers aren’t going to want to share the road with me because they’re egotistical aholes. I could tell them the sky is crapping $100 bills and they would say I’m somehow obstructing their way home. It’s a never-win scenario unless you get them to feel defenseless against similar people, ie, for them to ride a bike and experience it themselves. Even then, some people just don’t care.

Long amount of writing to say I see little upside and plenty of downside to a bike tax.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 73185 wrote:

The one thing that contributes the most to making cycling safer is having more cyclists. Leaps and bounds ahead of anything else a jurisdiction has tried. So someone who has ridden for years should support efforts to get more butts on bikes, because it makes cycling safer for everyone. It is a favor to existing cyclists.

I specifically mentioned someone riding recreationally on the W&OD who is likely barely impacted by the safety in numbers effect (since she is impacted by auto traffic only at the road crossings) and is on an already heavily used facility.

I agree that for those of us who do bike on the roads, increased numbers of cyclists is a good thing that will increase safety. I do not agree that that effect is the principle motivation local govts have for increasing bike mode share (which instead are reduced auto congestion achieved relatively cheaply compared to road widenings or transit, improved air quality, and the economic development benefits of being perceived as bikeable places) nor that it justifies charging existing cyclists for programs to increase bike mode share.

[dasgeh]

I specifically quoted the part of your posted that said established recreational cyclists shouldn’t be interested in encouraging more cycling. I think that attitude is misguided. I think more cycling makes all cycling safer – even your hypothetical guy who only bikes on the w&od because it crosses roads – and if the forum is to believed, drivers at those crossings aren’t always safe (and possibly for other reasons).

I don’t support the tax either, but I do think all cyclists benefit from programs that get more butts on bikes.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

[jabberwocky]

@Terpfan 73211 wrote:

I also figure some drivers aren’t going to want to share the road with me because they’re egotistical aholes. I could tell them the sky is crapping $100 bills and they would say I’m somehow obstructing their way home. It’s a never-win scenario unless you get them to feel defenseless against similar people, ie, for them to ride a bike and experience it themselves. Even then, some people just don’t care.

Long amount of writing to say I see little upside and plenty of downside to a bike tax.

My feelings too. Basically, I think the issue is that the whole “cyclists don’t pay their fair share!!!!11” thing is an excuse, not a rational argument. Even if some sort of tax system was enacted, those people would simply latch onto some other excuse to be a dick to cyclists.

And obviously, cyclists already pay far more then their fair share already, since we pay all sorts of taxes, roads aren’t sustained through gas taxes alone (far from it, in fact) and the reason roads are so goddamn expensive to build in the first place is they are sized and designed for the largest vehicles that use them (cars and trucks). The wear and tear that a cyclist puts on a road is immeasurably small compared to what even a compact car does to it (to say nothing of trucks and larger cars and SUVs do).

[Author]

Posts