"With governments at all levels hurting for revenues but faced with huge infrastructure bills, Times columnist James F. Vesely argues it's time to impose a license fee for bicycles. Cyclists have benefitted richly from projects that have blazed trails throughout the Puget Sound but have not had to pony up themselves."
The argument here is, bicyclists should "pay up" for their use of public infrastructure: roads, lanes, trails.
I think I've read somewhere that we already do... through income taxes and sales taxes.
Doesn't really seem fair, when cars have so much more impact on the "commons"... why punish people for going the healthier route both for themselves and the local environment?
On the other hand, bicyclists should pay some kind of use fee. There is no free lunch, and maintaining roads is not done by Santa Claus.
Jordana G. says:
I actually don't have a huge problem with paying a bicycle tax. It is true that we benefit from public works on roads and trails, no?
Chris W. says:
We should pay bicyclists to ride.
Cyclists do not damage the road like motor vehicles do by driving on them, bicycles reduce congestion, produce zero emissions, improve the health of the rider and surrounding people thereby reducing the burden on our health care system, make virtually zero noise, require minimal parking space, use no gas thereby reduce our need to spend money on oil wars, are available to everyone, and to top it all off we pay the same property taxes as a motor vehicle driver. Bikes dont even need 90% of the improvements to bikeways that are done for motor vehicles. A Multi Use Trail (MUT) is plenty good for a bike (No toxic oil byproducts required).
Encourage the vehicle we all prefer people to choose...the bicycle...pay bicyclists to ride and charge motorists the true costs of their filth belching, road crushing, resource wasting, noise making, illness & obesity producing, space hogging, special facility requiring death monsters.
Pay cyclists to ride (period) Its a great investment!
Adam W. says:
All this talk about punitive measures - why do we need to think of fees for drivers as punitive? The current proportion of revenue for roads that goes towards cars versus those that goes towards biking is staggering. And while streets do need routine maintenance regardless of who uses them, heavily trafficked streets require much more maintenance because there are 2,000+ pound vehicles on them all day - not because of 200 pound bikes.
I guess you are welcome to think of these fees as "punitive," but to me that just seem plain old fair.
Ken O. says:
this thread reminds of the whole airlines making XXL people buy 2 airline tickets debacle...
Ken O. says:
cars and heavy trucks damage pavement far more than a pedestrian or bicyclist will.
that's why a fee per miles driven AND a fee for the weight of the vehicle driven seems the most fair to me. it's based on actual use.
when no one else is driving and everyone is biking/walking, we can think up new taxation schemes...
my income taxes pay for road building. if i drive very little or not at all, i am subsidizing car makers and their customers - private automobile drivers - with "free" ways. simple as that. of course, our grocery food and internet purchases come in on 18 wheelers too.
how were roads first built? bicyclists argued for the first paved roads in the late 1800s in the United States. this "paved the way" for cars to become more popular.
bikers cause less traffic congestion by being SMALLER. so car drivers should appreciate people who walk and bike.
finally tho unrelated, most streetcar accidents are caused by CAR DRIVERS crashing into the streetcar. google it.
bicylists are IN NO WAY getting a free ride. check where income tax and sales tax receipts go.
greg what car do you drive?
Weil E. says:
When the street cleaners actually start cleaning the bike lanes rather than push the dirt into them, I'll consider this journalism more than travesty.
Greg I. says:
Well I'm no logician, but in my dictionary "punitive" and "fair" don't contradict each other. Indeed, in a just world, every punishment would be fair. But I assume that what want to indicate is that you think it is fair to impose a punitive tax on cars. If that is your claim lets see, if it is justified.
Seattle, from its own website, aims to be the "most bike friendly city in the nation".
http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/bikemaster.htm
It has a host of funded initiatives to improve bike infrasturcture, safety and promote bike use. (Exactly the things I reference in my post, no less). But, and here is the odd thing, bicyclists as a specific targeted group, even thought the measures aims at improving only their lives, have paid for none of it. The costs have been borne by motorists and the public at large.
Now, no where is there a precedent for the free use of road space. Even riders on a public transit system can expect to pay several hundred dollars a year to travel. And, of course, cars pay taxes on gas in addition to buying parking passes and paying registration fees. So instead of cyclists, as a group, stepping up to the plate and admitting ok we slow traffic, have special lanes, depend on various pieces of infrastructure to facilitate their chosen transport, and so on, you propose handing them a free ride because they have less costs than cars. The thing is, in admitting that they cost less you are conceding that they cost something, and given the fact that cyclists as a group pay nothing under the current system, it is totally baffling that you think that more of the same is 'fair'. Until cyclists as group pay something, or stop desiring infrastructure, the current system is as unfair as it gets. There is no possible way for there to be a system more unfair than one group shouldering 100% of the burden for the other.
James E. says:
Well...."cost" is always a funny thing Greg. Depends how you measure it, right? Stands to reason that riding a bike is more healthy than driving in a car...let's give that the benefit of the doubt. So, less drag on society for health care costs, lost days at work due to illness, etc. When a city invests in bike lanes, or trails, or parks, they are considering a lot more than just a mode of transport. I ride a bike, and I drive a car, I like the extra lanes, and I can tell you that I sure pay a lot of taxes which in part go to these roads and bike ways. So, I think your argument it too simplistic Greg. In terms of a punitive tax on cars...we all do suffer air pollution and congestion, and we do "pay" for that in many ways, how do we capture this "expense" that we all have to incur? For someone who just rides a bike, they carry the burden of this cost as much as or more than an auto driver, while doing nothing to cause that pollution.
Greg I. says:
Actually I think its your argument that depends on an overly simple picture of the benefits and burdens.
Lets start by noticing that the cyclists, as well as suffering some costs associated with car use, also enjoys tremendous benefits. I assume he wants a quick response time from a fire department or ambulance, that he enjoys goods and services that must be brought into his community from elsewhere, that he sometimes takes a weekend trip into the country and so forth. None of the benefits can be practically gained in a car and truck free society.
Now it is true that the drivers realize one additional benefit - speedy and comfortable transportation - but they certainly pay dearly for it in gas taxes, car taxes, parking permits and even traffic tickets (I don't know why police mostly ignore cyclists' flagrant law breaking).
So far so good. We have a basically fair system because the additional benefits the driver enjoys are matched by additional costs.
But this fails to occur in the cyclists' case. No doubt we all breath (a little) easier and enjoy the lessened congestion brought about when some drivers make the switch to cycling. And I suppose fewer sick days and lower health-care costs might have some discernible benefits as well. But these are goods everyone enjoys because some choose to cycle.
But cyclists also get one huge additional benefit - dedicated lanes and infrastructure that make biking viable and even enjoyable. But here there is no additional costs that are incurred by the cyclists as means of paying for that benefit. The totality of those costs are foisted on the population as a whole and that is unfair. If you get additional benefit and you lobbied for that benefit you should pay for it.
If society is forced to fully subsidize every choice a person made that could lead, indirectly, to less sick days or lower health-care costs then I have some receipts for gym membership, camping and hunting trips and a home water filter I'd like to submit.
James E. says:
Greg, it's surprising to me how you take my words and jump to ridiculous conclusions. Nowhere in my argument did I say "...a car and truck free society" and again, in your final thesis "...if society is forced to fully subsidize every choice a person made..."
Further, you seemed to miss my central point, which is that we need to consider total costs, both those real in $ terms, and those qualitative, hard to measure points...in a holistic view Greg. That means, you can't just pick your favorite peev...bikers don't pay cash for bike lanes...and make a well-reasoned discussion around it, that is actually meaningful in the greater context of bike lanes, and city living for that matter.
But I'm guessing your main intention here is to be argumentative, and to be right. And that's very interesting because this is exactly what is so wrong with public discourse today. There is no real discussion, there are only POVs. Smart people can make any POV be"right." I don't think that is the intention, at least for me, of SustainLane. So while you are entitled to present your position, bike lanes should be paid for by bikers, I maintain mine, society as a whole benefits in ways that are not measured directly in dollars, so it is a fair system that provides much good to the population, both for bikers and non-bikers.
I believe the point of discussion is to learn, not to "win." That was for debate class in high school. I'm always interested in hearing different perspectives, but at the end of the day, bully tactics that are either designed to insult, humiliate, or in other ways put-down other people's views because yours are superior, is part of the larger problem in society today.
Greg I. says:
I fail to see how the conclusion that bikers should be taxed for the infrastructure they use could be construed as 'ridiculous'. I took the argument to be advanced on the basis of fairness. And, to be sure, while there were two rhetorical excesses thrown in, I think my point stands. Simply read "None of the benefits can be practically gained in a car and truck free society" as "None of the benefits can be practically gained without the infrastructure of roads". This makes it obvious that the cyclists you claim 'doing nothing to cause that pollution' in fact depend on others to pollute for them in moving their goods and services around and providing government service. My last point too just carries, to its logical conclusion, the thought that indirect contribution to increased work days or cleaner air merits government subsidy. If you think this conclusion unfavorable to your position, critique my logic or better qualify your statements.
But I must caution you against adopting the 'its all just a POV' attitude toward argument. This is deeply dangerous, as once this move is advanced as legitimate it quickly turns on those who deploy it. The green movement must be fact based and there are facts about what is fair and what is not, what is unjust and what is not. To deny this is to abandon any hope of resolving differences except through sheer force. If a pugnacious attitude is the flaw in contemporary discourse, the tendency to lapse into feel-goodism and relativistic views of truth is the Achilles heel of the green movement.
My argument is simple. There are two classes of road user; those that use it directly and pay more to do so and those that benefit indirectly and so should share some costs. So too will there be two classes of people who enjoy benefits from bike lanes. By parity, those that derive the greater benefit (cyclists) should shoulder the greater share of that burden.
I believe my position can take into consideration all the benefits you mention.
Patrick S. says:
Although I personally feel that I have paid my share in Federal and state income tax, regional tax, city income tax (in 2 cities), and property tax to cover my share, I would be glad to pay a fee relative to my impact. Let's see - I pay $35/year for car tags here in Ohio. From what I hear, the impact my car makes on the road is directly related to its weight. My car and I weigh together around 3500 lbs (to make the math simple) so I pay a penny per pound per year for road tax. Let's assume that the value I derive from riding my bike on a city street would be the same as what I receive from driving my car - i.e. I get to work, the library, or the grocery. Given that the combination of bike and me weighs around 225 lbs, I think it is a good deal to pay $2.25 / year for my bicycle tag. Sure, I didn't count my contribution to the road fund due to my fuel tax. However, when I buy a Nissan Leaf in 2 years that contribution will be zero anyways so I can discount it.
Now, what would I get for my $2.25? Education for the car drivers so they don't try to kill me when they get frustrated due to my not having a bike lane to ride in? Or maybe upgraded storm sewer grates that aren't designed to grab my front wheel and flip me? How about street cleaning of the debris that tends to fill up the curb area where I ride my bike? If I could get that for $2.25/year I'd be happy to pay.
So, when are they going to propose taxing pedestrians? All those pounding feet should have to pay up too.
Adam W. says:
Party on Patrick!
Greg I. says:
Patrick,
I think the more relevant issue is impact in terms of dollars spent on the infrastructure you are making use of. After all, the issue is not how much should bikers pay in general, but, instead, how much should bikers pay in King County. This is especially pertinent, given that as a result of their successful lobbying efforts cyclists now have millions of dollars in infrastructure in Seattle which is solely devoted to making their life better. And now they have the audacity to complain when a government, dealing with falling tax revenue, asks them to step up to the plate and fork over fees for the construction they demanded.
I think you have to admit this changes the equation quite a bit.
In Ohio, I imagine, there is no dedicated infrastructure given over to cyclists and so, perhaps, there it doesn't make sense to employ this kind of tax.
But note, just as I was cautioned against taking on overly narrow view of the costs and benefits you too should be warned. There are a great many things that contribute to the safe use of roads, for all of us, which is not directly impacted by vehicle weight. For instance you use the signage and signals to the same extent as heavier vehicles, you enjoy the vigilance of the police, the presence of crews to salt the roads and sweep the streets. None of those benefits is directly related to the weight of the vehicle so those costs will not be reflected in a simplistic view of costs that only deals with repaving.
The fact is impact is measured in sheer numbers. By itself a big SUV is as negligible on an unused road as a bike is. The problems come when there are hundreds of them. So too the impact of any single cyclist is negligible, but taken in the thousands they have to be accommodated somehow.
In fact, if anything could be seen as the lesson of the green movement it is that minuscule costs add up over time. With that said I'm shocked by how much resistance I am getting to this idea.
Patrick S. says:
I agree that people who use a service need to pay for it. I would, however, take a different tact than trying to license bicyclists. After all, where do you draw the line on who should and shouldn't be forced to buy a license? Does everyone have to buy one? How do you enforce it if people refuse? How old do you have to be before you have to have one? Do I need to have insurance to ride my bike? Will this impose standards on what could be considered a bike? How far does the city’s jurisdiction end?
Licensing also conveys an official air to the whole process that a city may not want to take responsibility for. For instance, if I have a licensed vehicle I should be able to ride it everywhere other licensed vehicles are allowed. Does that mean I can ride my bike on the freeway? Can I take up a whole lane for myself? After all, I paid to be there so I have the same rights as a car to the road. What about enforcement of aggressive driving laws, especially against bicyclists?
I think there are better ways to fund these kinds of pro-bicycle improvements. Minneapolis took advantage of significant Federal grants when they built out their bike infrastructure. Did they get it perfect? No – but it works.
Another way to fund these improvements is to have the bicycle purchasers pay for it as a sales tax on every bike-related purchase in the geographic area. This is similar to what many states do to support hunting, fishing, or hiking resource developments. They can also build secure bike lockers for the bicycle commuter to use. Paying to keep your bike in these lockers would create profits that could then be funneled back in the relatively inexpensive capital development costs of the bicycle infrastructure.
I firmly believe that implementing a bike-friendly infrastructure has more to do with minds than wallets. The costs are relatively low..You just need to overcome the widespread resistance of car drivers to sharing the road with anyone else.
Greg I. says:
P,
Actually I'm in favor of a lot of the things you mention. I would like some regulation about what counts as a bike, especially a road worthy bike. And I have been a long time advocate of riders being forced to carry insurance. Given the way many cyclists disobey the law I can think of no better way to recoup the damage that results from reckless cyclists forcing motorists into dangerous or damaging situations than insurance. (In fact, the other day I saw a cyclist blow a ride light which resulted in the motorist who stopped in the middle of a left turn to avoid hitting him getting broadsided by the oncoming traffic. The cyclists continued on his way!)
There is no need to mandate that a license to cycle would permit every cyclists access to every right of way. A driver's license doesn't allow me to drive on a hiking trail nor should a bike license allow use of the highway. And we could just make the licensing a state level issue which would mitigate your jurisdictional concerns.
No maybe Minn was able to use federal grants to secure merely ok bike infrastructure. But Seattle aims to be the most bike friendly city in the nation, I'm not sure you do that by charging lock up fees (esp when bikes can be locked to a signpost). And while it might be possible to recoup fees from an enhanced sales tax that might create an incentive to just shop on the net. So for my money, and because I am interested in a more heavy handed cycle regulation I think a licensing fee, with insurance, is the best way to go.