Thursday, July 2, 2009

Should "cyclists" pay road tax?

A Portland company called Webtrends has paid for ads on Trimet MAX trains, with the question "Should cyclists pay road tax?" in an effort to generate traffic to their site and clearly intending to start up the "cyclists" vs. "drivers" thing that was really burning hot last year.

I hate to dignify this with a response, but if we don't put some logic out on the internet, their results are going to show "Portlanders think cyclists should pay road tax" - and who knows where that will lead.

So, here's the actual story. First of all, the terms "cyclist" and driver" are divisive and imply a false dichotomy between people. In Portland, most people who would be termed "cyclists" in this discussion own and operate cars, with which they pay gas tax for the gas they use. You might as well say that pedestrians should pay an extra road tax for the sidewalks they use. Drivers don't use them, so why should they have to pay to subsidize the sidewalks? It's a ridiculous argument, how can you categorize pedestrians and drivers? They're the same people. Same deal here.

Secondly, the reason there is a gas tax, is because it is a limited resource that is going to run out one day. We want to limit the amount people use it, so it will be around longer. When people use it less, that's a good thing.

Thirdly, according to the Federal Highway Administration, 92% of the funds that pay for local roads come from property, income and sales taxes. Not surprisingly, none of those have anything to do with what form of transportation you use. Everyone pays those.

Fourthly, more people cycling means less traffic congestion, which means better for people driving, less gas used, less pollution.

Fifthly, cars tear up roads quickly. It's been shown over and over that the highways in America are hugely subsidized by taxes, which means that I pay for highways and roads all over the country - and that a huge amount of money and effort go in to maintaining those. Bicycles do almost no damage. So, if I mostly ride a bike, I'm paying from my income and property taxes for damage other people are doing to the roads. If I'm driving, I'm paying for the damage I'm doing. How is that not fair?

Sixthly, more people riding bicycles make conditions better in the city for everyone - calmer streets, safer streets, quieter streets, better air quality, fewer health problems, better work performance, the list goes on and on.

Ok, so in case this is sounding like a tirade against cars, that's not my intention. I simply want to make the point that it's ridiculous to say that "cyclists" - whatever that even means - should pay an extra road tax. Everyone pays the same taxes everyone else pays for the services that are provided to society. The question "should cyclists pay a road tax?" is just an invalid question on all levels. Cyclists are not a definable group, or if they are, they are very very small group, and even still, they already pay road tax.

*edit* - based on comments that have been left on news media sites (KATU, Oregonlive, etc), it is clear that this question is giving people the opportunity to blast their opinions without listening to anyone else, it is having an inflammatory effect, and I don't think the comments people have left saying "this could make it more dangerous for bikes to be on the road" are entirely un-truthful. Based on some of the comments, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people commenting decided to buzz some people on bicycles a little closer, make life more difficult for them, scare them a little, until they decide to "pay up." Thanks, webtrends.

9 comments:

John in NH said...

agreed, i think the issue is people tyring to find things to tax, cyclists do not use many resources, nor put a strain on the traditional road infrastructure so sure tax them but seriously its pennies on the dollar for the damage they do. i would eventually like to see a small tax/fee on new bike sales that go to state organisations to help with cycling infrastructure and development, if it was accountable and tied to cycling work, i think many cyclists would be in favor of it. but again what we really dont need us the us vs them mentality that this advert seems to present.

2whls3spds said...

Tax by weight of the vehicle...$2 a pound annually sounds about right to me! ;-)

Aaron

Eva said...

Thanks for this! I haven't seen the bus ads (yet), but I'm glad to see some logic no matter what inspired it.

I like John's suggestion of a small tax/fee going to a state cycling org. Cycling infrastructure helps everyone -- those riding bikes, those driving, and those walking -- because it helps keep traffic flows clear and separate and harmonious.

portlandize.com said...

I think the biggest thing to point out here, is that "cyclists" and "drivers" are not mutually exclusive groups of people. They are the same people. Very nearly everyone who rides a bike drives. There is no desire to put extra taxes on "pedestrians" because they use all this infrastructure that "drivers" don't use. What's the deal with "cyclists"? They're all basically the same people.

Charlotte said...

I agree with Aaron, and have proposed binning in 20 pound increments, or whatever, so that children's bikes are below weight for tax, and adults forced to ride Walmart bikes aren't unfairly penalized. Beyond that the tax works out to $2/pound for everyone, rounded down within the bin. Works for me, fair and equitable, and reflects actual wear to the resource.

Adron said...

Road use fee of $2 a pound annually sounds about right to me too!

But seriously, if we funded roads the way we funded airports & railroads we could kill two problems with one effort. We'd drastically decrease driving (because it would cost significantly more) and make more efficient means vastly more attractive.

...and really, it more closely would relate the demand to actual free-market economics...

bet ya didn't think of that perspective. :)

nathan said...

answer:
of course they should?
and so they do.

amirite?

She Rides a Bike said...

I don't have a problem w/ paying taxes and have never felt over taxed. However, I wonder if the original question of whether or not cyclists should be taxes is simply coming from the "they're trying to take my car away from me crowd"? I find it peculiar that there is a segment society that seems to view my personal decision to save money, take part in lowering carbon emissions, and add built-in exercise into my daily life is some sort of threat to their freedom to own a car. As if a socialist (so what!) conspiracy. Fine whatever, I am a socialist but taking away people's cars is not on my political agenda. Making life a little more livable and affordable is. I've heard the same sort of negativity with respect to public transit. Weird.

portlandize.com said...

The thing I don't understand, is how people feel that "cyclists" (which really is a loaded term) are somehow freeloading on "motorists" (which is another loaded term) hard-earned money.

I mostly ride a bike, which means I do less damage to the roads, but I do drive some, and I pay gas tax for the gas I use, and I pay property and income taxes that pay for most of local roads.

Just because I simply use fewer resources does not mean I'm freeloading, thanks. It means I'm being responsible.

You make a good point too about people feeling threatened - and I think they really do in some cases, like "cyclists" (again, what does that even mean?) are out to take everyone's cars away.

Don't worry everyone, we're not trying to take your cars away, just trying to live life the way we enjoy and feel we should live.

Post a Comment