Time for Seattle Cyclists to Pay up?

[Fairweather]

Normally I don't like new taxes, but this seems like the perfect opportunity for those who ride to share the burden. Were it not for that "Critical Mass" fiasco a couple months ago, I'll bet this idea wouldn't have a prayer...

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008474326_opin07jimvesely.html

[murraysovereign]

OK, just for the sake of argument - will pedestrians be next? After all, there's a Hell of a lot more sidewalks than there are bike paths - why should all those people walking all over the place get a free pass? I say we make 'em pay for their own damn sidewalks, maybe through some sort of licensing system, or how about toll sidewalks in heavily used areas?

 

And kids' play equipment in parks - when's the last time I rode a swingset? Why should my taxes go to pay for that stuff? Let's license the kids to pay for all their slides and teeter-totters and monkey bars.

 

And grass - all those guys throwing frisbees around at the park? All that grass is surprisingly expensive to plant, irrigate, fertilize and mow. Pay up, or STAY OFF THE GRASS!! dammit.

 

And then... oh man, the sky's the limit...

[Fairweather]

OK, just for the sake of argument - will pedestrians be next? After all, there's a Hell of a lot more sidewalks than there are bike paths - why should all those people walking all over the place get a free pass? I say we make 'em pay for their own damn sidewalks, maybe through some sort of licensing system, or how about toll sidewalks in heavily used areas?

 

And kids' play equipment in parks - when's the last time I rode a swingset? Why should my taxes go to pay for that stuff? Let's license the kids to pay for all their slides and teeter-totters and monkey bars.

 

And grass - all those guys throwing frisbees around at the park? All that grass is surprisingly expensive to plant, irrigate, fertilize and mow. Pay up, or STAY OFF THE GRASS!! dammit.

 

And then... oh man, the sky's the limit...

 

I hear what you're saying, but in Washington State sidewalks are built/maintained with property taxes paid by homeowners and businesses or mitigation fees paid by developers. In fact, in the town where I live I recently had to shell out $1100 to rebuild the sidewalk that passes in front of my house because it was being uprooted by a tree that the town had planted in the right of way. So I'm not sure your argument works well. But you're right...where does it stop? Don't forget--motor vehicle drivers are paying for those bike lanes, and those cyclists still require energy to move from point A to point B. Chances are that energy was grown with the help of carbon-based fuels.

[tvashtarkatena]

OK, just for the sake of argument - will pedestrians be next? After all, there's a Hell of a lot more sidewalks than there are bike paths - why should all those people walking all over the place get a free pass? I say we make 'em pay for their own damn sidewalks, maybe through some sort of licensing system, or how about toll sidewalks in heavily used areas?

 

And kids' play equipment in parks - when's the last time I rode a swingset? Why should my taxes go to pay for that stuff? Let's license the kids to pay for all their slides and teeter-totters and monkey bars.

 

And grass - all those guys throwing frisbees around at the park? All that grass is surprisingly expensive to plant, irrigate, fertilize and mow. Pay up, or STAY OFF THE GRASS!! dammit.

 

And then... oh man, the sky's the limit...

 

I hear what you're saying, but in Washington State sidewalks are built/maintained with property taxes paid by homeowners and businesses or mitigation fees paid by developers. In fact, in the town where I live I recently had to shell out $1100 to rebuild the sidewalk that passes in front of my house because it was being uprooted by a tree that the town had planted in the right of way. So I'm not sure your argument works well. But you're right...where does it stop? Don't forget--motor vehicle drivers are paying for those bike lanes, and those cyclists still require energy to move from point A to point B. Chances are that energy was grown with the help of carbon-based fuels.

 

The TOWN payed for YOUR section of sidewalK? YOU should have had to shell the money out, as you would have been required to do in Portland or Seattle proper. It's YOUR section of sidewalk in front of YOUR house uprooted by YOUR tree that YOU bought when you paid for the property. "Oh, I never noticed that beautiful full grown street tree that just happens to add $15,000 (national average) to the value of my property". Perhaps you should sue the builder of your home for putting in wiring and plumbing that would later have to be updated ("I couldn't have known!"), or your parents for not bestowing upon you a better genetic makeup. The injustice of it all!

 

Boy, you just want everyone else to pay for your shit, don't you? But you can't be blamed; that's the prevailing attitude in rural America, subsidized by cities to the tune of 7:1 on a per tax dollar basis.

 

 

Edited December 16, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[HappyCamper]

I will try and get a couple personal biases out there first - I commute by bike in Seattle. But I also think there are some hysterical types among the Critical Mass crowd. And perhaps a degree of smugness too amongst the general cycling population - although the smug types are mainly the those that drink soy-mochas after riding 5 miles in their racing bikes to their closest free trade espresso joint, as opposed to the scruffy, maligned commuter types.

 

Anyway, I think the idea of taxing cyclists is not a good idea and Vessley should have researched his opinion more carefully. You know, like maybe one of his reporters might have.

 

I could blather on and on about the economics of it, but the bottom line is that in the City of Seattle, the majority of the road funds come from property taxes. I live in the city, own a home and yet use the roads in a less damaging way than cars. I also have a few cars registered (the horror!) and probably kick in for the roads through that. I also think Vessley's idea that buckets of dough are being spent on cyclists may warrant further review - they have painted a few lines here and there.

 

Outside of the city, the same argument can be made (percentage of gas tax spent on roads is not as high as people think).

 

Vessley should have come at it from a numbers standpoint instead of just firing off ill-informed bits, although I think the numbers do not lie.

 

My fear is that a call to tax cyclists might get supported by state and local governments, not because they think that cyclists are over-using the resources (they probably know the reality), but because they think the voting public can be led to think that cyclists are over-using and will back the government's revenue increase. What government would say no to a tax increase backed by voters?

 

I suppose I could also go on about how we should encourage more people to commute and such: less gridlock, Blah blah blah, global warming, blah blah blah.

 

 

But mainly, I hate the idea that one more aspect of my life could be subject to some kind of registration.

 

Quick Edit: While I know this is in spray - maybe not spraying on this post is a good thing. I think Fairweather has expressed a prevalent opinion. My goal is just to throw out the facts and prevail upon people to leave my bike alone and untaxed - maybe I am wrong - I do not think I am, but I sure as heck am not going to shoot the messenger. Although I am kind of torqued that Vessley would throw out some half-baked notion and people believe it since he is ostensibly a news guy.

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2008 by HappyCamper

[ivan]

in theory, doesn't the city save a lot of money by building bike lanes instead of car lanes? seems like you're helping the city reduce its overall expenses by riding your bike, and therefore ought not be messed with.

[tvashtarkatena]

In reality, bike commuters reduce pollution, traffic congestion, land wasted on parking spaces, and energy consumption, all of which benefit the entire population.

 

FW's viewpoint on any issue can be summed up in three simple words:

 

ME ME ME.

Edited December 16, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[Hugh Conway]

nice to see Fairweather coming back to his fascist/socialist roots!

 

Make heavy trucks pay the lions share; they do the lions share of damage. Especially the overweight ones you converafucktards refuse to regulate

[max]

I'm a regular bike commuter.

 

I'm pro bike fees. I don't know how to do it, but I'm into users contributing to infrastructure.

 

I always imagine the tax would bikes more into the process.

 

I also forget how lazy most americans urbanites are. MOst people would probably just get rid of their bikes.

 

 

Edit for clarification:

 

1. Items two and three are contradictory. I'm pro taxation (although I think we already pay our share in property and sales taxes), but I also realize that taxing bikes would probably get less people riding. Not goood.

 

2. When I say "urbanites are lazy", I'm obviously generalizing that they are more absorbed in the assessories of life (going ot the gym, working out, going out at night) and unwilling to exert effort to live. I'm not talking about fitness or health. I'm talking about fixing their own cars, cutting their own grass, doing their own maintainance, etc. Perfect example: farmers.

Edited December 17, 2008 by max

[Hugh Conway]

in theory, doesn't the city save a lot of money by building bike lanes instead of car lanes? seems like you're helping the city reduce its overall expenses by riding your bike, and therefore ought not be messed with.

 

more bikes = fewer cars = lesser demand for roads = lesser road construction

 

facts such as this are of negligible value when you can "stick it to the hippies"

[tvashtarkatena]

I'm a regular bike commuter.

 

I'm pro bike fees. I don't know how to do it, but I'm into users contributing to infrastructure.

 

I always imagine the tax would bikes more into the process.

 

I also forget how lazy most americans urbanites are. MOst people would probably just get rid of their bikes.

 

UM, you don't get people to do more of something by charging them more. As for urbanites being lazy, I challenge you to find more out of shape people than in rural America. Woah, Nelly. Guess which community's inhabitants walk more miles per year than any other? That's right, you didn't guess it: New Yorkers.

Edited December 16, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[lI1|1!]

OK, just for the sake of argument - will pedestrians be next?

 

Not before they start charging cats if they drive.

 

 

[AlpineK]

As pointed out, trees on your property add value to your property. I'm not talking about timber value of the tree. I appraise trees occasionally for their landscape value following guidelines set up by Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers.

 

Using current values a 20" diameter at breast height (4.5' above grade)red oak can add up to $21,000 your property. Their are individual site factors that reduce this figure, but still it can add quite a bit of value.

 

In addition you may want to read this document Why Shade Streets (pdf) Tax money spent on paving is saved by trees. Like all objects (your car) there are expenses for maintenance, and a certain amount of risk you accept by owning them.

 

As far as bike lanes, doing stuff to reduce traffic on the streets benefit everybody. So it seems like a legitimate use of money.

[Stefan]

Bike trails are like parks.

 

More people use them on weekends than during the week.

 

With his opinion, I guess we would need to tax people who visit parks.

 

Imagine a tax to use Green Lake.

[HappyCamper]

I really think it is a question of resource allocation:

 

If cyclists represented 10% of the road population, then you would want to see them contribute 10% of the infrastructure costs. Maybe less than 10% to incentivize the riders.

 

My slightly informed hunch is that most cyclists are contributing dollars well over and above the cost of their use.

 

Local roads substantially paid by property taxes. Federal highways by federal funds (income tax). State gas tax isn't a gigantic funder of infrastructure. Most cyclists own cars and pay registration and gas tax anyway.

 

Where is the big resource allocation for bikes? Paint, which arguably is something that had to be done anyway when the city repaints the lines for the roads.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Trees also clean the air, take up carbon, reduce the necessity for irrigation, provide free and effective air conditioning for your home, and drop leaves; the best composting raw material for your garden. Add to that increased habitat for birds and other wildlife, which makes for a healthier garden and more beautiful and satisfying environment.

 

They do drop leaves and branches into your collection of 'parts vehicles' that grace your front lawn, however, and so constitute a nuisance in the final balance.

[Off_White]

If you ask me (and I'm primarily a rural driver), bike commuters ought to be paid, not taxed.

 

Sure, some bike riders are arrogant assholes, unlike drivers eh? If only we had an attitude tax, folks on this board would really have something to complain about.

 

 

[Gary_Yngve]

Fairweather, you are completely ignorant on this topic.

 

Local roads are mostly paid by property taxes, business taxes, and sales taxes.

 

Roads like 405 and 520, which I cannot bike on, are mostly funded through gas taxes.

 

As a cyclist I already pay for the roads I ride on; furthermore I damage them less than if I drove a vehicle. In other words, I am already paying more than my burden.

 

Most cyclists have drivers licenses and many own cars (and pay corresponding fees).

 

Furthermore, the details of taxation (bicycle vs bicyclist, kids, mountain bikers, etc.) just don't add up.

[ivan]

but should we tax the bikers' .50 caliber machine guns while enroute to the renton granite crags to crack-bolt their latest sick project?

[STP]

If you ask me (and I'm primarily a rural driver), bike commuters ought to be paid, not taxed.

 

The amended version of the $700(?) billion financial bailout bill contained a commuting reimbursment amounting to $20 per qualified commuting month within a tax year.

[ashw_justin]

I see nothing wrong with asking the primary users of new infrastructure to contribute directly to its funding. Unfortunately, this piece doesn't make any attempt to trace the funding for motorized and non-motorized transportation projects, so it falls short of really proving that bicyclists are getting something for nothing, or that "everyone else" is paying for nothing in return.

 

In fact in the latter case it is easy to argue that there would actually be an incentive for the single-occupancy vehicle commuter to fund bicycle, bus, and rail projects. For every additional person who uses one of the above instead of driving, the SOV driver receives a benefit--their commute is shorter, parking is easier, etc. So if the city is taxing the SOV driver to pay for non-SOV driver transportation, this fee could be seen as a value assigned to that benefit. Then the question is not whether or not the city should fund alternative transportation, but how much the average SOV driver is willing to pay for "everyone else" to ride the bike/bus/train.

 

On another note, the case for bicycle licensing by analogy to that for drivers is weakened by the smaller relative harm to the public posed by improper bicycle use vs. improper automobile use. Cars are heaver, move faster, are loaded with explosive and toxic chemicals, etc etc--are simply far more dangerous and burdensome on the public than bicycles are. Quantitatively, the material and social costs of bicycle misuse are far less severe.

 

But this is not to say that there could not exist some fair implementation of taxation, licensing, and insurance for non-motorized transport. Whether or not it is necessary, or whether the requisite bureaucracy would be justified is a more realistic question. One small consolation might be that this could further confirm the legitimacy/entitlement of non-motorized travel on city streets. Screaming about 'lawless freeloading bikers crowding my roads' would become even more senseless.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bicycles pre-dated cars; the right to use right's of way by cyclists is much older than it is for cars. One might argue that cars intrude on cycling, not the other way around.

[Crux]

With my "commute" about the city today I felt true appreciation for the many paved routes that made transport upon my road bike a practical way to go, despite the freezing weather and icy roads.

 

Upon the Shoreline-Seattle Interurban from the Heights to the lanes crossing over Aurora to the bike route going east around Greenlake; then down Ravenna, The Ave, and the Burke Gilman -- all these demure highways empowered my day as gifts of civilization, a civilization I inherited, and a civilization to which I contribute.

 

As the day went, these bike-ways made for brisk travel, despite the various icy patches that compelled an altered technique to the end that my ass stayed on or above the saddle and off the shredding pavement. Yet even the ride upon the streets, crowded with cars that carried holiday shoppers by the hundreds, working commuters by the thousands, and fair weather bicyclists not worthy of count, imparted to me a feeling of freedom and physical exhilaration as the cars went by the visual wayside like so many pieces of roadside litter and my lungs sucked up the liters of oxygen required to utilize fuel of entirely renewable content. Meanwhile, my breath took in the concomitant doses of partially burned hydrocarbons -- pollutants that neither I nor motorists paid for, for we are at once free to pollute without paying a commensurate price for the damage we do.

 

This freedom to pollute brings up a point: Whenever James F. Vesey, the rolly polly excuse for an Editor at the Seattle Times, wants to discuss user fees for my lungs, I'll be happy to oblige. He need only refrain from shoving his car's tailpipe down my gullet long enough get out of his car and talk with me like a gentleman. On the street. Beside a bicycle. Where I live.

 

Happy holidays.

[Fairweather]

In reality, bike commuters reduce pollution, traffic congestion, land wasted on parking spaces, and energy consumption, all of which benefit the entire population.

 

FW's viewpoint on any issue can be summed up in three simple words:

 

ME ME ME.

 

Yes, as in "me work, you don't".

[Hugh Conway]

Yes, as in "me work, you don't".

 

class envy for those who don't have to work is so cute