Hmmmm, how about this idea? Does it make sense? Yes, it does. Think about it. The government gives tax breaks to hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, carpoolers, etc. But, do bicycle commuters get them? The bike is the most efficent transportation, best for the environment, so wh would we not get a break? Maybe, supply proof of bicycle commuting, and so on. Something to write your senator about, maybe just a harebrained idea that wouldn't even be close to working. But, hey, its worth a shot, don't you think?

I work for the city, and I get $25 per month if I commute by bike 80% + of the time. Commuting by foot will get you the same. I think the transit riders get more...

The question would be how does someone actually prove they are bike commuting. I remember reading some statistics last year indicating that ownership of bicycles has never been higher, yet the number of miles actually ridden is as low as it's ever been. Thus mere ownership of a bike wouldn't be a suitable criteria. It's just too open to abuse.

Personally I'd be changing the tax laws to eliminate the tax rebates that car commuters get. Mind you, don't expect it to make any difference anytime soon either way. The bicycle is by far the cheapest and most reliable way to travel now, yet so few people use it. I'm really not sure tax breaks would make any difference.

I've thought about this idea for a really long time.
I think it's a great idea, but the law would have to been opened up to those who use all alternate forms of transportation, such as walking, public transportation, car pooling, etc. You're right about the "proof" aspect. Any ideas? (obviously, having your bike parked outside the office is pretty good proof, of course).

There is also the opposite scheme. A user tax that drivers would pay. Funds would support improvements to bike trails. Yes, we already have the gas taxes people pay, but those mostly support highway improvements. The user tax would be a punishment tax, instead. For example, it could be applied when they bought their cars.

i think the idea is good... and while i agree in THEORY about taxing autos (or more properly as Chris says, removing the subsidies) i think these are politcally difficult ("user backlash", auto lobbies, etc)...

but i think the DIRECT rebates DO make a difference. i worked for a company (a natural gas company in Houston if you can believe that) who gave people like $40 a month for either car-pooling or taking the bus. for car-pooling they had to fill out a form stating with whom and when they car-pooled and have their supervisor sign it (like a time sheet). BUT this really worked, as it was HARD CASH that really makes people notice.

In Portland my company was not involved, but i think the city sponsored a program where the company had to volunteer and pay half the costs and employees would get rebates for alternate transportation (walking, bike, transit)

I think such a rebate program on either the state, local, or national level would be successful. the government would almost certainly "earn" this money back by saved costs on traffic, pollution, etc... and in the long term companies could save money by potentially being able to reduce parking (unfortunately at present most companies in the US are REQUIRED to build a certain number of parking spots when then build a building - horrible subsudy for cars that raises the cost of business for non-auto users!)

There's a bill pending that may be what you are interested in. It would be the owner of the business that would determine whether you rode, whether to voluntarily pay you for riding to work and then the business owner could request to be reimbursed from the govt for this payment.

Read more at this thread:

https://www.bikeforums.net/general-cycling-discussion/44862-will-government-pay-you-ride.html

This is not true. I work downtown, and most entities downtown do not have parking specific to their office, or if they do, it is only for the priviledged. Instead workers must make do with whatever is available, either privately-run lots, or public lots, both with fees. Typically, if an employee is paying for parking and there is at least some relationship between the lot and the employer (either they lease or own the lot), the employer is still picking probably half of the cost of the lot (either the lease price or the construction bond price that they may be paying off). Naturally, lack of parking deters a number of potential employees. If these downtown businesses (and in my case, government) got smart, they'd offer bike parking, showers, incentives, etc which might get the fence jumpers (those who'd consider bike commuting, but are uncomfortable with the "resources" at the office) to move ahead. Then of course that leads to the other thread..."Do bike commuters make better employees?"

Naturally, when space is available, businesses will build parking lots.

I'd much rather just see an increase in gas tax, mainly because it's much simpler. When you add rebates etc, and laws specifying specific modes of transportation, you're going to end up with a lot of complex law, meaning loop holes. Look at the fuel efficiency requirements on cars. Great idea, but what happens is people by SUVs/pick-up trucks that aren't cars, and we lose most of the advantage. Raise the price of gas and suddenly people become more interested in using less of it. Result: people will not buy SUVs etc because they can't afford the gas. Hybrid cars, buses, bikes, walking, etc all become more attractive. And there's no loopholes in a law like this.
Of course it'll never happen, but I can dream...

Tim

The current plan in London is also interesting: charge a siginificant daily fee ($8 in London) for driving your personal vehicle into the center part of the city (four square miles). This has been going on for about six months, and the decrease in traffic jams and accidents, and increase in bicycling and public transportation, seems encouraging.

Anyway, instead of paying less taxes for bike commuting, I'd rather see others pay more for not bike commuting (or walking, or taking public transport). This "one car for everyone" is simply costing much more than peope realize (health, air quality, obesity, road maintenance, landfills, oil dependence, wars, etc.)

I don't expect to see this in my lifetime. At least, not in the US.

It's best to wage a battle that we can win, getting subsidized for commuting to work.

[QUOTE=pdxcyclist]

Anyway, instead of paying less taxes for bike commuting, I'd rather see others pay more for not bike commuting (or walking, or taking public transport). [QUOTE=pdxcyclist]


They already are: Wear and tear, insurance, gas prices, BMV fascists, and all the stress that goes along with driving in inner-city traffic, getting zero exercise. The reason i ride everywhere is, for one, i don't have a car, everywhere i need to be is within 3 miles of where i live, i love riding, and i love the stress relief, exercise, and just plain feeling of biking. Sometimes i wish that i lived farther away so i could ride more...

Although the motorists certainly get a great deal of gov't subsidies (roads built, expensive wars to protect their already subsidized fuel supplies, etc.), the biggest subsidy that motorists frequently get from their employers is subsidized parking. At an average monthly rate of $150 in Portland (higher in many other cities I'm sure), a free parking space is worth 6x more that the measly $25 per month I get to ride my bicycle. And a parking space in the downtown area costs approximately $20K to provide, let alone maintain; and then there are the costs of the lost development opportunities associated with all the downtown property tied up for motor vehicle storage (parking). And this doesn't even include the costs of motor vehicle ownership. So, if you do a detailed analysis, I think that the economics of commuting by motor vehicle really suck all around, both for the individual and for society at large. I think it would be far less expensive to build a good transit system and let people ride for free, or to give everyone a free bicycle to ride!

hi Wiswell,
i am not an expert in land-use laws as they vary GREATLY across the US, and for DOWNTOWN areas you are probably correct. But MANY (and i think MOST) non-downtown (i.e. suburban) areas have building-codes that require estimated parking requirements to be met if a new building is built or a structure is improved/expanded (new permit). This is because if there is not sufficient parking for the employees and clients, then people will park on the street in the local community (i.e. take resident/local FREE city parking). In other words, the community requires the company to pay for the estimated parking costs that the consutruction will incur. in some ways this is good because the community should not paying for the parking costs of the business. BUT as the company is usually REQUIRED to built x number of spots based on formulas estimating their parking requirements (number of employees, square footage or whatever) the parking costs ARE REQUIRED and HIDDEN. Thus, a company has less financial incentive to encourage bicycle commuting because if they do, they still have to build and maintain the parking spots, just now they stand empty! There must be some kind of potential to REDUCE this number if the company commits to fewer drivers (i.e. the company states that only 60% of their employees/customers will arrive by car so they can built 40% less parking BUT are then required to implement a policy to make sure less than 60% drive - through car-pooling, transit or cycling incentives)

as i said, the business parking requirements vary and is generally not true in downtown areas where employees often have to pay for parking. i personally have NEVER seen employee pay parking in non-downtown locations - the parking is always FREE and more than sufficient (i.e. 7 parking lots and 2 full, 3 half full and 2 virtually empty)

i'm not sure of the current status or the exact details, but around year 2000 the city of Portland had an effort to RAISE the downtown parking costs to encourage more people to take transit (by "raise" i mean they tried to get rid of many subsidies provided by the city to give cheaper parking as this money was not well-used as it encouraged more drivers)

but my point is that there are many LAWS, POLICIES and RULES in place that ASSUME car commuting and these COST MONEY! we need to examine these for way to save money and encourage more efficient transportation.

Unfortunately, all this talk of how and who should get rebates or tax incentives is counter-productive to the big picture. It simply reinforces the governments belief that all of our money is theirs, and they should decide what special interests they give some stypen back to.

Clearly, the government needs some money to operate on, but a simple flat tax on individuals only, with no deductions for anything, is the only system that makes any sense.

Obviously, thats not going to happen.

Artie