I was enjoying an all-too-rare hour of listening to Jason Lewis the other day.
I was driving through the teller line at the bank, when he chimed in with an oldie but goodie: “Bikers don’t pay taxes”.
And the teller looked at me, perplexed, when I shouted “you are wrong for two reasons!”.
First: I do pay taxes. City and county taxes. Some of which go to paying for bike lanes – the odd strip of asphalt around the lakes, and a stripe lane on the occasional street. Not every street mind you; one street about every mile or so, generally, usually not the high-traffic ones. (And by the way – Minneapolis’ re-work of Hennepin and First Avenue North, putting the bike lane between the parking lane and the curb? Reekingly stupid. It smacks of equal parts revenue generation plan and green-über-alles arrogance). While there may or may not be state transportation dollars mixed in there, I most certainly do pay taxes for them.
Now – in their infinite wisdom, the powers that be decided not to make bike paths a user-fee-based system, paid for by tolls or bike licenses or whatever. Got any ideas? I’m down with ’em – although we all know it’ll just mean more property tax revenues for government to spend. But that’s a larger problem on which we all agree.
Second (ironically, inasmuch as I was in a car when I thought this): Like 99% or more of bikers, I pay gas taxes. I drive. Six months or so a year, though, I commute by bike (as well as all sorts of recreational riding). For longer trips, or trips where I have to haul groceries, I drive.
And you can ask any engineer, but five five-mile trips cause more road damage than one 25-mile trip; the longer trip is likely to be on the highways (which my gas taxes pay for), with fewer starts and stops and turns, the kind of thing that wears down roads. So since a higher percentage of my gas-tax-generating car travel is longer, more efficient, less-damaging trips, while for half the year most of my short-hop trips cause no damage to roads at all (because I”m on a bike!), the state taxpayer is actually getting less damage per gas tax dollar out of me, the driver who bikes a lot, than out of someone who drives all of the equivalent mileage.
By the way – while I drive, I buy less gas – which means less demand pressure on the market, which lowers the price for the rest of you.
On all counts, you’re welcome.
Well said. I’ve read that vehicle induced road damage goes as somewhere between the square to the fourth power of the weight on each tire, more or less. If we assume the lower end, a fully loaded semi inflicts about 28,000 times more damage per mile thana bicyclist of 200 lbs, and a small passenger sedan of 3000 lbs inflicts about 225 times more road damage.
In other words, the applicable tax would be (given current gas tax of 40 cents per gallon of gas) about a penny every 150 miles, or a dollar every 15000 miles.
I’m guessing almost all cyclists pay a lot more in the sales tax on the bicycling supplies they need to go all those miles. I’m sure I do.
Well, this past month I certainly have.
Thought about a few ways to do bicycle user fees, but I can’t think of anything feasible.
You could tax parts that degrade with use, but, consider inner tubes as an example, that would create an incentive to perform less maintenance, or just buy parts out of state.
Licenses would have all the burden of the enforcement apparatus that drivers’ licenses have, creating an equivalent disincentive to ride, and bicycle ridership is usually pretty low to begin with.
Tolls would be quite difficult because most places you can ride you can also work, which makes that business model impractical.
“(And by the way – Minneapolis’ re-work of Hennepin and First Avenue North, putting the bike lane between the parking lane and the curb? Reekingly stupid. It smacks of equal parts revenue generation plan and green-über-alles arrogance).”
Unbelievable!
I pay the gas tax, the tire taxes, the license fees, etc. But then again my bikes are Harleys. (wink)
Please provide the formula for how the bike paths are paid for by bicyclists.
Is it similar to how the snowmobile trails are paid for with dedicated funds from snowmobiling? NO. But thanks to snowmobiling the bicyclists have some trails to use. 8)
Hennepin doesn’t have parking downtown. The right lane is just wide and bikes share the right lane. it works pretty well. 1st Av N needs to switch to the same system. The parking needs to go.
Mitch, why don’t you book Jason on your show and go mano-a-mano?
As a blank statement, “Bikers don’t pay taxes” is wrong. However, I am sure you would agree that bike paths take a heck of a lot more to build and maintain then amount of taxes collected from bike riders who use these paths. In other words – they are subsidized.
“Mitch, why don’t you book Jason on your show and go mano-a-mano?”
Well, I suspect a bit of growing up might be needed, at least on this subject, as Mitch has already noted:
“I noted at least once that “Jason Lewis is the host I’d like to be when I grow up”. “
….
“In other words – they are subsidized.” – jpa
Precisely.
Game. Set. Match.
So get ride of the bikes and add a lane to a freeway so they can drive? Maybe knock down a building for additinal auto parking? I’m pretty right wing, but when I see a guy on a bike, I think that is one less car on the road.
K-Rod; as conservatives, do we really want dedicated taxes for every expense that government incurs–whether the “beneficiaries” want it or not? Let’s do some thinking about this for a minute. Do we really want a legion of actuaries poring over every perceived impact of everything we do?
Count me out of that one.
Really what we have here is two different issues; should bicyclists pay for damage incurred on roads, and should bicyclists pay for Oberstar’s bike paths.
As one who actually commutes on two wheels without the help of gasoline, count me as one who is profoundly unimpressed with most bike paths–it is a rare one that actually goes anywhere in any coherent way. As such, I’m reluctant to endorse the taxing of innocent bicycle commuters for the benefit of those who can go out into the nowheres to ride for fun.
Never mind one interesting fact about these bike paths; given that many are simply rebadged railroad right of ways, it might actually turn out that turning them into bike paths saves public money by removing the need to clean up the creosote-filled gravel there.
Bikers don’t pay taxes
Sorry for chiming in late on this discussion… I can only guess he meant that, unlike gas taxes n license fees that go directly to road maintenance, cyclists don’t have any (many?) direct-to-infrastructure taxes/fees. Exceptions exist, of course (trail use fees, etc.).
But what about local/city taxes and assessments to homeowners for road maintenance? Everyone (auto drivers n cyclists n walkers) benefits from those, right?
Since I don’t have any exact figures on trail maintenace costs or the amount of taxes n local assessments that are directed to road maintenance, I can’t say how much cyclists are truely subsidized.
If I had to pay a use fee for cycling I would definitely pay it; however, I’m guessing that would deter many people from cycling. A use fee for cycling by families out for an easy ride with their families would be a very tough sell…
“Got any ideas? ”
I’ve got six boats that require bi-annual license fees. 3 toy kayaks, 2 canoes, and a small fishing boat. To cross country ski on state trails, I have to buy an annual pass, or ski at a private park. But, I can ride my bike on an expensive trail system like the Luce line with it’s $20K map kiosks without any additional costs. It doesn’t make much sense. I’m not a big fan of a new tax, but people should pay for what they use.
A system similar to boats could be used so that bike path riders could help with the cost of bike paths.
Chuckles, just share the road. I know there are knuckleheads on both sides, but can’t we all just get along?
I seem to recall a time in my youth when bicycles were licensed, with a sticker that had to be attached to the bike.
I seem to recall a time in my youth when bicycles were licensed, with a sticker that had to be attached to the bike.
Silly Master – while boats are a privilege of the wealthy, bike is a right!
“while boats are a privilege of the wealthy”
I thought boats were mandated in this state.
I think a lot of you are still missing a major point; that many cyclists aren’t using the Oberstar bike paths due to where they ride and why they ride, and even if they do use them, aren’t terribly impressed by the $20k (or whatever) kiosks that the government types put there.
Bike registration? My goodness….again, aren’t we conservatives here? Ya know, people who think that if the state governs less, it’s doing OK? Again, do we really want a larger army of government nannies telling us what we can, and cannot, do?
boats are a privilege of the wealthy
Nah, the cycling lobby is just more well-heeled….
Bubba, I generally agree. (but wear and tear on the road, let’s not go there) And you are right, we really don’t need more laws, rules, and regulations.
The point is that those bike paths are subsidized by non-bicyclists.
Lewis was right and Mitch is wrong.
Unfortunately there are bicyclists that ride up on that high horse and tarnish the whole crowd… and then there are the bicyclists that do it to save mother gaia… not to mention those critical massholes…
As re bike registration; there’s a tradeoff between privacy/regulation and the principle of paying with user fees.
As to the idea that non-bikers subsidize bikers? Well, no more than non-snowmobilers subsidize that dangerous hobby (especially in health insurance rates when drunk snowmobilers ride into trees all freaking winter long).
And let’s forget for a moment about the Oberstar Trail. I’m mostly talking about urban bike lanes. I’m a taxpayer (and a more conservative one than most on this blog, to say nothing of my city), one of many taxpayers who ride a lot in my city; since I pay my fair share of taxes (maybe more), I don’t think a four foot lane on low-traffic roads a mile apart is especially excessive.
Here’s a little hint, KRod; putting things in bold doesn’t make them more serious or correct.
K-R, I don’t know about that; again, you factor in what many/most of those bike paths used to be, and the cost of cleaning those up environmentally if you don’t put a cap of gravel and sometimes asphalt on them, and making those old railroad beds into bike paths might end up being far cheaper than the alternative.
Unfortunately there are bicyclists that ride up on that high horse and tarnish the whole crowd
So what?
I mean, KR, rejecting the notion of “guilt by association” is a big part of conservative ethics.
“Well, no more than non-snowmobilers subsidize that dangerous hobby”
Wrong again, Mitch. Those trails are paid with dedicated funds from snowmobiling. There is even a formula. The governor attempted to steal those funds generated by snowmobiling and put them into the general fund. Constituents’ responses caused Mr. Pawlenty to change his mind. 8)
Here’s a little hint, Mitch; putting things in your blog doesn’t make them more serious or correct.
….
“drunk snowmobilers ride into trees all freaking winter long”
Mitch, what were you saying about “the notion of “guilt by association”…” 😆
….
“I don’t think a four foot lane on low-traffic roads a mile apart is especially excessive.”
I don’t either.
Mitch, what were you saying about “the notion of “guilt by association
Exactly!
Peevee uses that certain word, if she were only here… Hahahahahahaha
“there’s a tradeoff between privacy/regulation”
Privacy? Seriously? You want to ride your bike anonymously?
Regulation — Yes, this is the issue. I really wish I didn’t have to license a 9 foot 6 inch kayak, when an 8 foot 6 inch kayak doesn’t require a license. Even with the online payment systems, it’s a pain in the ass to keep everything current, and to remember to put the stickers on the right boats.
While we are coming up with some method to make those(us) darn bikers pay their fair share, let’s see if we can apply it to all those people who traverse by on my sidewalk. They aren’t paying the assessments to maintain it. They get to use it for free! Maybe a tax on shoes? A shoe license?
Nah, the cycling lobby is just more well-heeled….
loofa, that would be “well-wheeled”
They aren’t paying the assessments to maintain it.
Yes, but you can fight at your local city council meeting not to put up a sidewalk. If it’s already there when you bought a house – well, caveat emptor. It is a local issue. However, why should somebody in Rochester pay for a bike trail in Grand Marais?
Loren, I don’t have a sidewalk; one thing I will say is, Get Off My Lawn.
Pingback: The Cramdown | Shot in the Dark