Advocacy & Safety - columnist calls for fees

The Province had a columnist write on a cycling issue today:

http://www.theprovince.com/Sports/Cyclists+should+have+safe+routes+free+ride/1121878/story.html

Cyclists should have safe routes but no free ride

Motorists pay taxes for road work and riders should, too Jon Ferry

It was the evening of Boxing Day, one of the worst times to be out and about. But I wasn't about to let a little snow stop me from testing the controversial suggestion that one way to help solve Metro Vancouver's transportation woes might be to make our roads more bicycle-friendly -- by taxing cyclists.

Except it wasn't really snow; it was freezing, sloppy soup. And we weren't in a heated motor vehicle. We were braving the elements outside the Vancouver Art Gallery, myself and four hearty cyclists out for a Critical Mass ride . . . one of those monthly protests that obstruct downtown streets and anger motorists, at least when hundreds of cyclists show up for them.

We chatted by the big Christmas tree and toasted absent riders. Then, at 6:15 p.m., the four were gone, pedalling hard up Howe Street. And I was left to ponder the mindset of the average Vancouver cyclist, not just those for whom it's an all-season, all-weather event.

Well, clearly many feel vulnerable on the roads. As New Westminster childcare worker Dennis Bibby, one of the Critical Mass riders, told me: "Right now, the bicyclists are just sort of sitting ducks."

Certainly, many motorists need to adjust their thinking toward cyclists.

Some bike riders, however, display a snotty, us-versus-them attitude toward car drivers -- which is likely to become even more divisive early next year as Vancouver city staff re-examine giving one or more lanes of the Burrard Street Bridge to cyclists.

It's a proposal that didn't find traction in the past. But in these eco-obsessed times, bicycling has become politically correct, and politicians have started pumping money into bicycling infrastructure.

Bicycling advocates, though, want more. And, strange as it may sound, I agree with them: The best way to discourage conflicts between cyclists and motorists is to provide bike routes that are safe, easy to use and don't block other traffic.

No, my beef with local cycling activists is not with their cause. It's that they tend to be all take and no give, and don't seem willing to pay for the privilege of riding on public roads, as motorists must do through a whole series of fees and levies.

My view is that it's time Victoria made cyclists fork over their fair share of road-related taxes -- starting with an annual licence fee of, say, $50 a year.

Bibby thinks it's too early to consider such a bike tax. It's under active discussion, though, in Portland and Seattle. And Seattle Times columnist James Vesely notes that we already license everything from dogs to boats: "Cyclists, known for their community spirit and exalted senses of self, should welcome this opportunity to help government support their activities."

Exalted senses of self? Yes, some Vancouver bicyclists do seem a bit high on themselves these days.

So taxing them might help bring them back down to Earth. Or at least it might earn them a measure of respect from a critical mass of tax-weary motorists.



I wrote a letter to the paper: (provletters@png.canwest.com)

Public roads are built on public land, for the public's use, and paid for with public funding.

Everybody pays for the roads whether used or not.

Not only do cyclists pay for the roads, they subsidize the health care sytem because cycling inherently improves health. Something motoring does not.




I commented on the website that maybe we should charge pedestrians to use the sidewalks too. They're pretty expensive!

I sent off another email to Jon (the writer)

here's his address if you want to too

jferry@theprovince.com

and from

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4P1zG_Wl_N4J:www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf+who+pays+for+the+roads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca


A.Two neighbors each pay $300 annually in local taxes that fund roads and traffic services. Mike Motorist drives 10,000 miles annually on local roads, while Frances Footpower bicycles 3,000 miles.

B. Household’s general taxes used for road related services. $300 each

C. Motorist user fees spent on local road (0.2¢ per mile) for Mike, $24 for Francis, $0

D. Total road system contribution (B + C) for Mike $324 for Francis, $300

E. Tax payment per mile of travel (B/A) for Mike, 3.2 cents for Francis, 10 cents

F. Roadway costs (cars = 5.6¢/ml, bicycles = 0.2¢/ml) for Mike, $560, for Francis, $48

Non-drivers pay almost the same as motorists for local roads but impose lower costs. As a result,
they tend to overpay their share of roadway cost

Link to the original article doesn't work...

put in the wrong url, should be right now

Motor vehicles tear up the roads, bicycles don't. Motor vehicles pollute, bicycles don't. Motor vehicles require huge structures and parking lots.

Local, state, and federal governments have been funding huge road projects for years, based on whatever money is available to them. You don't pay taxes on a car to drive it or taxes on a bike to ride it, you pay taxes on those things for owning a piece of property. You pay tax on gas just like you pay tax on anything else you buy, and the tax on gas is higher for the same reason cigarette and alcohol taxes are higher. They're a greater expense to communities.

2 letters appeared in response to yesterdays article today.

Both seem to support Mr. Ferrys opinion

Licensed to ride
In response to Jon Ferry’s call for bicycles to be licensed, we used to license all bicycles every year in Lachine, Que. The plastic plates and metal ties were bought at the police station. You would get a ticket for riding double, not having lights at night, cutting across traffic or not obeying traffic signs.
L. Cummings Surrey


Payback time
I am a 46-year-old single male who cycles. I pay federal and provincial income taxes, a very small portion of which goes to pay for road maintenance. A larger portion goes to pay to put your children through school.
So yeah, bring in a cyclist fee and make us pay, but while you’re at it, pay back to single adults the money we pay to put your kids through school. I estimate that’s about $30,000 for me.
Why don’t you take up the slack and pay for what you use?

The comments on-line seem to run counter to what the paper has printed.

I'm disappointed no one seems to have addressed the fact that motorists do not pay a share that covers their costs of using the roads. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, the fact remains it costs more money to build an maintain roads than a motorist pays.

Simplistically motor vehicle taxes pay for roads where bicyclists are prohibited such as expressways and everyone one pays for roads everyone is allowed to use.

Pay by the pound?
Driver with a 2000 lb car pays $300 a year.
30 lbs of bike pays about $5.
That's doable.

But....bikes get full rights. That means they get to take the lane even if it is just a two lane road, or there must be dedicated bike lanes that are properly designed and maintained. Mandatory bike racks where ever there is car parking. All roads made accessible to bikes, or prorate the fee.
And no grief from motorists.

My wife and like to visit downtown Vancouver at least once a year, and I like to bring my bike, ao I can ride through town. I wonder how they would make this work for visiting tourists?

My wife and like to visit downtown Vancouver at least once a year, and I like to bring my bike, ao I can ride through town. I wonder how they would make this work for visiting tourists?

We have lots of great riding all through the town.

Through Stanley Park, by the ocean at Kitsalano, Around UBC or up to SFU.

We have mountains to climb and flatlands all close.

I'm not sure what group would be the best to contact for details, but you could start asking with vacc.bc.ca

I've written in response to other comments/articles calling for fees: Go ahead and send me a bill. I'd like to see what my "road use" fee would proportionately be for my 15 pound bike compared to a car.

I think of this when bouncing/crossing a rut ridden road that looks like waves of an ocean after trucks have hammered it down...

For everyone's use: http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF

Thoroughly examines and debunks the pro-tax argument

^^^ good read. thanks

If the guy cannot even come up with original ideas for articles, he is not much of a threat.

He even notes the Seattle article that he copied.:twitchy:

For everyone's use: http://www.toronto.ca/budget2005/pdf/wes_translicensingcyc.PDF

Thoroughly examines and debunks the pro-tax argument

I sent that link to Ferry as well as that VTPI link in my email to him.

Wonder what he's thinking.

Did he know this before or does he care about what the reports say?

They printed a couple more letters today. Both sides of the argument were represented (and they printed mine):

_______________
Jon Ferry's notion that cyclists are free riders on the transportation system is at odds with reality. It is the vehicle owners who are subsidized by the rest of society.

Urban roads are funded primarily by municipal property taxes. Everyone pays property taxes, either directly through home or business ownership, or indirectly through rent. When other social, health and environmental costs are included, the public subsidy to motor vehicles is massive.

The attitude of "exalted senses of self" persists, but not from from cyclists and pedestrians. Rather, it comes from those who cling to the outmoded notion that our greatly subsidized road transportation systems exist only for the benefit of motor vehicles.
______________

I feel strongly cyclists should pay.

In the 1950s we had to register our bikes and pay $5 before we could ride on the road, so why not now? If they use the same streets with their own exclusive lanes then they should pay.
_______________

Public roads are built on public land, for the public's use, and paid for with public funding.

Everybody pays for the roads, whether used or not.

Not only do cyclists pay for the roads, they subsidize the health system because they're inherently healthier than motorists.
______________________

If user fees or licensing fees are to be introduced for cyclists why not extend this to vehicle travel? Pay-as-you-drive vehicle insurance is now available in a number of jurisdictions, but not in B.C.

This could be extended to vehicle road users through global positioning systems. Drivers could be billed monthly for actual road use. What a great way to lower property taxes!

(and they printed mine)

:thumb: :love:

In Toronto all roads open to cyclists (and some that aren't) are paid for ENTIRELY by property taxes.

Gas taxes and property taxes pay for freeways on which bicycles are prohibited.

We still get letters to the editor about "it's time cyclists paid there fair share".

:thumb: :love:

I once had someone say it must be a nice ego boost to get some recognition but for me it's more about the idea getting recognition. I wouldn't speak up if the idea had been addressed

It would be one thing to say cyclists should be addtionally taxed for improvements, but the columnist said that cyclists are getting a free ride and they should be taxed. The columnist has his facts wrong and most likely doesn't understand motorists are subsidized by people like those cyclists he suggests should be taxed.

I only hope the public has learned the facts of the issue.

+1 On getting the idea recognized, that is indeed a major hurdle, and kudos for being the messenger.

I once had someone say it must be a nice ego boost to get some recognition but for me it's more about the idea getting recognition. I wouldn't speak up if the idea had been addressed

It would be one thing to say cyclists should be addtionally taxed for improvements, but the columnist said that cyclists are getting a free ride and they should be taxed. The columnist has his facts wrong and most likely doesn't understand motorists are subsidized by people like those cyclists he suggests should be taxed.

I only hope the public has learned the facts of the issue.

Great job on setting the record straight.

I can't help but wonder though if his article is a symptom of a wider, deep-rooted frustration felt by a lot of people (drivers) in society.

If the automobile represents freedom in the North American mindset, just imagine having that whittled away by rising fuel prices, shaky economic forecasts and environment-friendly shifts in perspectives. I think the bulk of the car culture may feel threatened. And we are an easy target, even though the facts refute the allegation that we're getting a free ride.

If North Americans want to reinvent their love of freedom and the open road, they should head down to their LBS.

Great job on setting the record straight.

I can't help but wonder though if his article is a symptom of a wider, deep-rooted frustration felt by a lot of people (drivers) in society.

If the automobile represents freedom in the North American mindset, just imagine having that whittled away by rising fuel prices, shaky economic forecasts and environment-friendly shifts in perspectives. I think the bulk of the car culture may feel threatened. And we are an easy target, even though the facts refute the allegation that we're getting a free ride.

If North Americans want to reinvent their love of freedom and the open road, they should head down to their LBS.

+1 They're building a 18 mile $3 billion highway here and you should have heard all the complaints about making it a toll road "How are all the poor going to be able to afford driving to work?" Try and raise the gas tax to pay for more road expansion and congestion relief and again complaints on how are average people going to afford it? They don't like congestion and they don't want to pay to get it fixed. Me and my bike on the other hand love congestion, wave by by to the cyclists passing all those cars stuck in traffic.

+1 On getting the idea recognized, that is indeed a major hurdle, and kudos for being the messenger.


Maybe I do have an alterior movitve that's subliminal.

Maybe I'm trolling for a columnist position at a paper that has larger circulation?

:innocent:

Maybe I do have an alterior movitve that's subliminal.

Maybe I'm trolling for a columnist position at a paper that has larger circulation?

:innocent:

I've read your other guest articles. They were very good.

Having a balance in media, though difficult at times, can only be a good thing. If it also educates and removes ignorance and prejudices, then media is truly taking its responsibility seriously. And that is a noble goal that I think has been lost and/or corrupted over the years.

"The Province" used to have a regular commuter section called, "Getting There".

It had a regular columnist who was a cyclist.

The section disappeared after a few years. Newspapers always evolve. Or, de-volve.

How about motorists paying a 'pollution tax', and a 'road maintenance tax'. Also, cyclists could receive a 'tax credit', for reducing oil dependancy!

How much carbon you add or don't add should be a major part of the equation if it comes to that. Drivers calling on cyclists paying to shoulder the "burden" of road use really need to clue in to just how expensive the car REALLY is. I'll be more than willing to take my slice of property taxes and apply it to my cycling vs. a driver vis-a-vis road maint. Hell... my taxes might even go down.

How about motorists paying a 'pollution tax', and a 'road maintenance tax'. Also, cyclists could receive a 'tax credit', for reducing oil dependancy!

While cyclists have yet to recieve a tax credit in BC, motorists (and everyone else) pay taxes for road maintenance (motorists should pay more IMHO), and there is a carbon tax on gas.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2008/backgrounders/backgrounder_carbon_tax.htm

If the motorists are feeling tax happy, how about a special gas tax during ozone alerts?

If the motorists are feeling tax happy, how about a special gas tax during ozone alerts?

Sweet! :thumb:

2 more letters today.

In the latter, the writer displays his lunacy.

Licence lunacy

What lunacy this notion of requiring a licence for bicycles is!
Only our coastal rains could have a more chilling effect on the worthy goal of getting people out of their cars, up off their couches and onto their bicycles.

Eco-green nonsense

Is letter writer Lesley Ewing serious? Roads are not “funded primarily by municipal property tax” and no “massive” subsidy exists. What is massive is the tax burden put on gasoline, and the myriad of other taxes borne by motorists.
Would Lesley prefer the cost of groceries to multiply in order to cover this supposed “subsidy”?
Shame on The Province for printing such eco-green nonsense.

Jees.. should we look at a bail out for motorists too? :lol:

What kills me is there are people out there that truly believe they are over-paying for the use off the roads.

It almost makes me want to contact the guy to set him straight by sending him reports but I doubt he'd be able to read or understand them based on his letter.

Is letter writer Lesley Ewing serious? Roads are not “funded primarily by municipal property tax” and no “massive” subsidy exists. What is massive is the tax burden put on gasoline, and the myriad of other taxes borne by motorists.
Would Lesley prefer the cost of groceries to multiply in order to cover this supposed “subsidy”?
Shame on The Province for printing such eco-green nonsense.

This is not an 'opinion'. It is either a fact or a false statement.

The Toronto Star does the same thing... they seen compelled to print letters from people stating things that are absolutely not true.

Why would they do that?

I'm sure the paper just wants to stir the pot and get reaction to promote sales, but what bugs me most is that the piece and comments like this fuels ignorance and resentment towards cyclists

What kills me is there are people out there that truly believe they are over-paying for the use off the roads.I've always thought I was overpaying for roads. Even in town, roads are primarily designed for the loads generated by heavy trucks. A car produces almost zero load as far as most of our roads are concerned. I was somewhat surprised that a truck on the Pennsylvania turnpike pays 7 times as much as a car, but they are doing nearly 100% of the damage to the roadbed, so they are actually underpaying. One of the roads I ride on a lot has one block that is totally trashed, apparently from the high volume of city buses combined with poor drainage. I guess I can forgive the buses though.

The main local municipality around here has gone from an actively bike hostile police force to making some pretty nice bike paths.

I've always thought I was overpaying for roads. Even in town, roads are primarily designed for the loads generated by heavy trucks. A car produces almost zero load as far as most of our roads are concerned. I was somewhat surprised that a truck on the Pennsylvania turnpike pays 7 times as much as a car, but they are doing nearly 100% of the damage to the roadbed, so they are actually underpaying. One of the roads I ride on a lot has one block that is totally trashed, apparently from the high volume of city buses combined with poor drainage. I guess I can forgive the buses though.

The main local municipality around here has gone from an actively bike hostile police force to making some pretty nice bike paths.

This is an interesting topic, as it has come up in the Portland, Oregon area too. I have a couple of observations to make.


There is some "accomodation" made to bicycles in Oregon, with bike lanes, etc. Most of this comes from gas taxes here, I think.

What is it that causes roads to deteriorate. It is heavy trucks, and use of anti-skid devices on the roadway. Until recently, I could attribute a lot of wear and tear on the roadway to studded tires. These are used here all late fall, winter, and into spring (there are dates to remove them here). But much of the time, it's on bare pavement. This leaves the pavement with ruts where the asphalt has been torn away, and rounded rocks are showing (vehicle erosion?). Recently, we just dug out of a vey bad ice storm, and on my rides this week, I noted that the madatory use of chains on the cars has resulted in a lot of damage to the reflective markers on the roadway because the chains were used on bare pavement at times. These are now in pieces around the roads, and the gravel is still in the bike lanes, making riding in the bike lanes difficult. There is a lot of expense in winter to keep cars from sliding around.

Because of this, one letter writer here to the paper said that he would be very willing to pay a vehicle tax which included bycicles, at about $1.00 per pound per year. At a dollar per pound, bikes would be paying some $30-40 dollars a year. Cars would be paying $1,500 to $3,000 per year. That would seem to be about right concerning the damage to the roadways of each type of vehicle.

John

It's pretty rare for a story in this paper to get letters printed commenting on it more than a day or two.

A couple of more today:

Bike tax dreams

“Motorists pay taxes for road work and riders should, too” says Jon Ferry.
Oh, please, Mr. Ferry. I pay taxes on the car, which I drive as little as possible. We all know those taxes don’t go to keep up the roads. Instead the money comes from general taxation.
Now you suggest I should pay for the privilege of being a moving target to amuse car drivers, as I cycle on the street ?
Get real, man — there are no safe routes. Cyclists are bullied and victimized by drivers everywhere. We put our lives on the line with every inch that we pedal.
When the government works seriously at providing safe infrastructure for bicyclists, I might be happy to pay for the privilege of using that.
Until then, dream on.

Cycling paths needed

I’m encouraged by Jon Ferry’s support for improved cycling facilities. As Jon noted, providing people with space to cycle will reduce conflicts with motorists.
Cycling also leaves people with more money to spend in local shops and restaurants. Money spent on cars and gas mainly heads to places like Detroit and Alberta, with little local benefit.
Most cycling improvements are funded through property and income taxes, which cyclists also pay. Given the lack of investment in cycling over the last century, cyclists have not received their fair share of road improvements.
Over half of people own bicycles and use them at least once a year. If a person only rides a couple of times a year, a $50 licence fee is a bit extreme. For families, this would really add up if children had to be licensed. Tourists would also find it a bit much paying to ride.
Automotive licence fees mainly just cover administrative expenses and do not help pay for roads. It makes little sense to create a cumbersome bureaucracy to collect a bicycle licence fee.



I emailed the author again and asked him to address the fallacy of his assertion that cyclists get a free ride. I said it's one thing to have an opinion, but another to spread ignorance and fuel resentment towards people who help improve traffic flow.

I doubt if he will make any comments, but it's a test to see if he's someone who will be willing to stand corrected. If he doesn't address the point, how can anyone be sure that what he writes has any basis in reality? He has no credibility.

I'm a little miffed at the paper for not checking his column for facts. It loses it's credibility as well. A columnist is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own personal set of facts.

Cyclists have pretty much zero impact on roads and bridges. They impose no cost.

You could still tax them, but that would raise almost no money. Meanwhile, it would drive (pun intended) a few back into their cars, where they would crowd the roads and wear them down.

So taxing cyclists is pointless in the real world.

He failed the test.

No response. No commentary.

If his other opinions are as well founded as this one, what's the point of reading his columns for his opinion?

The Province had a columnist write on a cycling issue today:

http://www.theprovince.com/Sports/Cyclists+should+have+safe+routes+free+ride/1121878/story.html



No, my beef with local cycling activists is not with their cause. It's that they tend to be all take and no give, and don't seem willing to pay for the privilege of riding on public roads, as motorists must do through a whole series of fees and levies.

My view is that it's time Victoria made cyclists fork over their fair share of road-related taxes -- starting with an annual licence fee of, say, $50 a year.




I wrote a letter to the paper: (provletters@png.canwest.com)

Public roads are built on public land, for the public's use, and paid for with public funding.

Everybody pays for the roads whether used or not.

Not only do cyclists pay for the roads, they subsidize the health care sytem because cycling inherently improves health. Something motoring does not.




I commented on the website that maybe we should charge pedestrians to use the sidewalks too. They're pretty expensive!

I sent off another email to Jon (the writer)

here's his address if you want to too

jferry@theprovince.com

and from

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4P1zG_Wl_N4J:www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf+who+pays+for+the+roads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca


A.Two neighbors each pay $300 annually in local taxes that fund roads and traffic services. Mike Motorist drives 10,000 miles annually on local roads, while Frances Footpower bicycles 3,000 miles.

B. Household’s general taxes used for road related services. $300 each

C. Motorist user fees spent on local road (0.2¢ per mile) for Mike, $24 for Francis, $0

D. Total road system contribution (B + C) for Mike $324 for Francis, $300

E. Tax payment per mile of travel (B/A) for Mike, 3.2 cents for Francis, 10 cents

F. Roadway costs (cars = 5.6¢/ml, bicycles = 0.2¢/ml) for Mike, $560, for Francis, $48

Non-drivers pay almost the same as motorists for local roads but impose lower costs. As a result,
they tend to overpay their share of roadway cost

To reemphasize those points and others made since, cyclists are hardly all take and no give: cyclists give space back to the public by taking up a mere fraction of what a motor vehicle takes up. The more cyclists there are, the easier it is for motor traffic to actually travel.

More to the point, cyclists do not contribute to air or noise pollution nor cause damage to roads.

Cyclists, directly or indirectly, pay for the roads they ride on and are currently denied 90% of what they pay for, so of course they want more: they paid for it, they should have it.

So shall we start charging other people fees for all community facilities that are now free? All things being fair we should charge people to use basketball courts, tennis courts and sporting grounds. While we're at it why not charge the kids who play on the swing in the park. What about charging skateboarders for purpose built skateboard bowls (plus they ride on footpaths, better charge them twice)? What about pedestrians that walk on footpaths, don't forget to charge them. Oh, and what about disabled facilities like special ramps and railings and the special car parking areas close to the entrance of shops. Send them a bill too.

Do these fools that are trying to argue for a bicycle registration/licence actually think through at all about the subject before they send a letter to a newspaper? Obviously not. The newspapers allow inaccurate and misleading info to be printed because #1 they are too lazy to check sources/facts (wonder if they will be that lazy when someone sues them for libel?) and #2 controversy sells newspapers (which attracts more advertisers which means more income for the newspapers).

100% of the cycling tax will not be used for bile pathways (much o it will to onto bureaucracy) and even if it did, it still wouldn't be enough to pay for decent cycling lanes. Instead they should make theirroad spending more efficient and use that money to create safe cycling paths.

How much does it cost to put in sidewalks? Do they license people who walk on them? We should fight for shoe licensing as soon as bike licensing becomes the norm.

How much does it cost to put in sidewalks? Do they license people who walk on them? We should fight for shoe licensing as soon as bike licensing becomes the norm.
:thumb: