I'd be OK with paying a $32/year for my bike registration *if* that money went into a separate fund that *only* funded improvements that benefited cyclists like protected left turns, bike lanes and safety outreach programs.
If it went into the general DMV fund, it'd smell more like a cycle-hater trying to discourage people from riding.
Clint Ecker
· 9 months ago
True! I would be willing to pay into a Fund that /only/ went towards improving the roads for the purpose of cycling. However, it kind of goes against my liberal socialist leanings! :D
Malcolm Tredinnick
· 9 months ago
Whilst I agree with you, Clint, I don't like your argument about payment already occurring due to simultaneous car ownership. Hopefully that becomes less and less of a case (and is it really true in cities, for example?). I ride a bike and I don't have a driver's license, for example. Trading car for bicycle should be being encouraged.
However, the proposal is stupid for more fundamental reasons. Motor vehicle registrations aren't the sole source of funding for roads. In fact, they're a minuscule portion. Federal and state funding in many countries comes from the general tax pool as well and those taxes are paid by everybody, not just car owners. It also comes from things like fuel excises, again paid by everybody, as they're built into the cost of good that rely on fuel to be delivered. I also contribute my fair share to vehicle registrations when I buy a bus ticket, for example. So non-drivers are already paying for drivers.
Is this guy also proposing that pedestrians pay a registration fee? I see many of them crossing the streets every day -- have even noticed it happening when I've visited Oregon -- and repair work being done that won't affect cars, but make things safe for pedestrians. Does he realise the extent of freeloading going on from those bipedal beings? Clearly hasn't done all his background research.
Finally, cars have also not paid a single penny towards maintaining roads. Car *owners*, however, have. Just like bike owners already do. So even more points off for failure to communicate using the English language.
Clint Ecker
· 9 months ago
This dovetails into Malcom's comments, and I typed all this out in a Google Reader comment but I thought I'd put it here too:
Well I think its only obvious that a biker riding the same amount of miles on the same road will cause a measurably less amount of wear and tear on the roads. If that damage were only linear in proportion to the weight of the vehicle you'd see an amazing difference. Cars weigh anywhere between 2000-4000 and probably much more for bigger SUVs. Average bike weighs 20-40lbs. That's anywhere between 100-200 times less damage. If you factor in that bikes are only two wheeled and those wheels are much thinner make much less contact with the road (in proportion to vehicle size and weight), there's undoubtedly even less damage caused by bikes.
As for traffic density, its pretty easy to mentally imagine why this is the case, but check out this awesome graphic demonstrating the % of a street required to transport the same amount of people via automobile, bus, and bike: http://www.treehugger.com/amount-of-space-requi... — It's pretty astonishing.
As for the root of all of this, the Federal Highway Admin tells us that 92% of the fund that go toward maintaining local roads come from property, income, and sales taxes. So yeah, we already pay all that.
"""Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs. Bicyclist pay no user fees so the entire 0.2 cents/mile comes from the general tax fund [clint: a fund that all cyclists pay into with sales tax, etc...].
What about motor vehicles? They impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees. The difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. So both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue. This is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund."""
"""But bicycles have such a low impact on the road that their subsidy is actually quite low--the general tax revenue subsidy for a cyclist who rides 5000 miles per year is only about $10.
Now let's do the math. Figuring a quart of Gatorade and a Power Bar for every 20 miles, my calculator tells me that to cover that 5000 miles the cyclist is paying at least $500 in food and so (at a 5% tax rate) $25 in sales tax. That sales tax covers the $10 road impact cost with change to spare."""
So ultimately, in nearly every measurable component, Bikers not only already pay for their share of use of the roads, they actualy overpay in most cases, AND if you work it out, less damage = longer lifetimes for infrastructre = even more cost savings in the future.
All Comments
If it went into the general DMV fund, it'd smell more like a cycle-hater trying to discourage people from riding.
However, the proposal is stupid for more fundamental reasons. Motor vehicle registrations aren't the sole source of funding for roads. In fact, they're a minuscule portion. Federal and state funding in many countries comes from the general tax pool as well and those taxes are paid by everybody, not just car owners. It also comes from things like fuel excises, again paid by everybody, as they're built into the cost of good that rely on fuel to be delivered. I also contribute my fair share to vehicle registrations when I buy a bus ticket, for example. So non-drivers are already paying for drivers.
Is this guy also proposing that pedestrians pay a registration fee? I see many of them crossing the streets every day -- have even noticed it happening when I've visited Oregon -- and repair work being done that won't affect cars, but make things safe for pedestrians. Does he realise the extent of freeloading going on from those bipedal beings? Clearly hasn't done all his background research.
Finally, cars have also not paid a single penny towards maintaining roads. Car *owners*, however, have. Just like bike owners already do. So even more points off for failure to communicate using the English language.
Well I think its only obvious that a biker riding the same amount of miles on the same road will cause a measurably less amount of wear and tear on the roads. If that damage were only linear in proportion to the weight of the vehicle you'd see an amazing difference. Cars weigh anywhere between 2000-4000 and probably much more for bigger SUVs. Average bike weighs 20-40lbs. That's anywhere between 100-200 times less damage. If you factor in that bikes are only two wheeled and those wheels are much thinner make much less contact with the road (in proportion to vehicle size and weight), there's undoubtedly even less damage caused by bikes.
As for traffic density, its pretty easy to mentally imagine why this is the case, but check out this awesome graphic demonstrating the % of a street required to transport the same amount of people via automobile, bus, and bike: http://www.treehugger.com/amount-of-space-requi... — It's pretty astonishing.
As for the root of all of this, the Federal Highway Admin tells us that 92% of the fund that go toward maintaining local roads come from property, income, and sales taxes. So yeah, we already pay all that.
Some more interesting things from this article: http://www.stlbikefed.org/Advocacy/Cyclistspayt...
"""Bicycles have a very low impact on the roadway. One study found that bicycles impose about 0.2 cents per mile in roadway costs. Bicyclist pay no user fees so the entire 0.2 cents/mile comes from the general tax fund [clint: a fund that all cyclists pay into with sales tax, etc...].
What about motor vehicles? They impose an average of 3.9 cents per mile in roadway costs while paying an average of 2.5 cents per mile in user charges such as fuel taxes and motor vehicle registration fees. The difference--1.4 cents per mile--comes from the general tax fund. So both bicycle and motor vehicle road use is subsidized from general tax revenue. This is fair, since both bicyclists and motorists pay into the general tax fund."""
"""But bicycles have such a low impact on the road that their subsidy is actually quite low--the general tax revenue subsidy for a cyclist who rides 5000 miles per year is only about $10.
Now let's do the math. Figuring a quart of Gatorade and a Power Bar for every 20 miles, my calculator tells me that to cover that 5000 miles the cyclist is paying at least $500 in food and so (at a 5% tax rate) $25 in sales tax. That sales tax covers the $10 road impact cost with change to spare."""
So ultimately, in nearly every measurable component, Bikers not only already pay for their share of use of the roads, they actualy overpay in most cases, AND if you work it out, less damage = longer lifetimes for infrastructre = even more cost savings in the future.