That seemingly innocuous question, printed on an ad-wrap affixed to the exterior of some light-rail cars (as well as posted inside), has irked Portland's "bicycle community". The bike activists claim that the ad perpetuates the idea that bikes "don't belong" - a nebulous term, at best.
Why they find the question so threatening remains unclear. Portland recently opened a brand-new $3 million bridge over busy S.E. McLoughlin Blvd., and plans are in the works for a new bridge over the Willamette River that will carry only light rail trains, buses, and of course, bicycles. Wherever road improvements are made (admittedly, a pretty rare event in Portland), it's a given that the improvement will include bicycle lanes.
Who pays for all of this? Currently, only drivers do. It seems clear that if cyclists are allocated special lanes of pavement, special bridges, and other amenities, then they should pay something toward the costs of construction and maintenance - but to bicycle advocates, that's an heretical concept. As one advocate puts it: "I don't think the company knew they were stepping into something that was a sensitive topic but I also think it's up to the community to let them know that it's maybe not a good idea to perpetuate this sort of thing, especially in Portland where there are a lot of bikes on the road."
Why it's not a good idea is not elaborated, though it's illustrative of the pervasive mindset among bicycle riders, which can be summed in two words: "We're Special". Many, if not most, seem to believe that the rules of the road should not apply to them. They seem to believe that they have a right to ignore traffic-control devices, to hop up onto a sidewalk when they find it convenient to do so, and to impede vehicular traffic when they find it convenient. They further seem to believe that they have a right to special amenities, as noted above.
Many bicycle advocates note that they already pay their share, because they also own a car and simply choose to ride. This argument is specious on its face; akin to boat-owners claiming that they should not have to pay any additional fees because they purchase fuel to run their motors.
Bicycle riders aren't special; they aren't some gift to us from God. They consume resources, and the question of whether or not they should pay in order to defray the costs of providing those resources is legitimate.
Besides the fact cyclists pay taxes that go for roads, whether they drive or not, the fundamental principle is that the public highways are just that. PUBLIC. Someone visiting from Washington BY CAR is not specially taxed just because he didn't pay taxes in Oregon. Someone on the sidewalk doesn't pay a special fee for that privilege. We have a road system and, except for toll roads, it's not really a user fee system at all. As we all know, the government will suck money out of us any way it can under any pretext it thinks we'll buy.
More troubling, you're proposing to tax a small minority (cyclists), to pay for keeping them segregated in inferior facilities; foisted on them by do-good liberals, facilities that are more dangerous for them than the general roads, and that many would prefer to do without. THAT, my friend is merely a real mild version of the line of thought that had jews getting charged for their transport to the camps and blacks getting taxed to pay for "colored only" water fountains.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend none of that counts. Unlike cars, bikes are ridden by kids. Kids' bikes are ridden by adults. Many cyclists own several bikes. People steal other peoples' bikes at a much greater rate than they do cars. Many people that have bikes never ride on a public road. Many people, perhaps including yourself, have bikes hanging from the garage ceiling they ride once in a blue moon. Such schemes have been tried in the past and have always failed miserably. Are you nothing but a closet Democrat to try the same old impractical, failed tax approach one more time?
However, you have hit on one nugget I would really support wholeheartedly. If most cyclists are constant lawbreakers, it ought to be pretty simple to raise gobs of money with a solid enforcement campaign. Why not use this as the starting point? While we're at it, there's probably some money to be sucked out of scofflaw motorists as well.
Posted by: Steve A | July 04, 2009 at 07:20 PM
Interesting, Steve. While we may quibble about whether or not cyclists who own cars pay for roads, the fact of the matter is that they do not pay for special bike lanes, nor for the $3 million bridge I mentioned, nor for the other amenities provided specifically for cyclists.
While it is true that somebody visiting from another state by vehicle is not required to pay any tax or fee toward road use, it is also true that reciprocity is at work: they pay taxes and fees in their respective states which are supposed to be dedicated to road maintenance and improvement, just as Oregon motorist taxes and fees are supposed to be dedicated.
The problem is that many of our dollars for road maintenance and improvement are diverted toward special lanes, special bridges, and other amenities geared strictly toward cyclists. If cyclists have special needs, then they should contribute to the costs associated with affording those needs. Presently, in Oregon, they don't.
While you are quite correct in noting that these are public roads, it's important to understand that the costs of maintaining and upgrading public roads come from funds raised via fuel taxes, licensing, and registration of motor vehicles. Cyclists pay nothing, yet demand (and all too often receive) special consideration.
In regard to your line about bike theft, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I agree that theft of any property is wrong, but it must be admitted that many cyclists that fall victim to theft have made the act comparatively easy.
When I ride to a destination, I lock the bike and remove the front wheel. I've never had a bike stolen. Whoa! What did I just let slip? Yes, I have bikes. Yes, I ride. Yes, I believe that we should pay our fair share. No, I don't believe that the excuse that "well, I pay for a car" is legitimate.
As I noted previously, many, if not most cyclists ignore traffic-control devices, and feel free to ride up on a sidewalk and then back into a traffic lane at whim. This is irresponsible behavior which only contributes to the schism between drivers and cyclists.
A solid enforcement campaign may, as you suggest, slow it down. However, enforcement simply will not occur.
Bikes are special.
Posted by: Max | July 04, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Restricting myself only to YOUR comments:
I'm a cyclist and I don't want to pay for all that dangerous, nanny state stuff either. I'd be happy to opt out of that tax instead and substitute a placard that says "don't blame all that stuff on me, I only ride on real roads." If you'll reread my comment, I did not make the claim that cyclists were entitled to anything by virtue of keeping a car in the garage. They pay taxes that help support roads even if they never set foot in a motor vehicle, but that isn't what gives them the right to USE those roads - they're PUBLIC.
The principle of reciprocity's got nothing to do with it, and it's NOT a user fee system. If it were, a Hummer with studded tires would pay more than the same Hummer without. And people from Alaska would pay more since their taxes are less. Pretty soon, everything would be so complicated that we'd all be moving to Idaho.
Your third paragraph, same as the first.
The point about bike theft is that it's only one of myriad reasons attempting to actually collect such a tax would be problematic. It wouldn't be quite as bad as attemting to license shoes for sidewalk users (another special facility), but it'd be bad enough to fail miserably, as it has in every single jurisdiction that has EVER tried it. Los Angeles just recently repealed their own failed law. I thought it was only liberals that liked to enact unworkable tax laws. Although I note you failed to deny my suspicion that you are a closet Democrat.
Last two paragraphs. Don't lay other peoples' sins on me. That went out with the limeys over 200 years ago, as of today to be exact. What's more, don't blame me if Oregon is unwilling to enforce its own law. THAT is a reflection on all of us as citizens, not a reason to exploit a small minority.
Posted by: Steve A | July 04, 2009 at 09:37 PM
A few facts to frame further discussion. According to the Oregon Environmental Council (somewhat suspect, but it's getting late),40% of road revenue sources for Oregon cities & countys come from property taxes & special assessments, general fund transfers, land sales & rentals, hotel/motel taxes, state government receipts other than state highway fund, and federal government receipts other than federal highway fund.
A cyclist with no vehicle further pays via the cost of those parking lots factored into every purchase he makes, with their associated taxes. He also pays the gas taxes on the trucks that deliver stuff to the stores he shops at.
See why they're PUBLIC roads? Just kill the worse than worthless feel-good facilities and let's forget all this tax & tax stuff.
Posted by: Steve A | July 04, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Steve,
I agree to an extent with the last line: kill the worse-than-worthless feel good facilities.
After nearly two years, it appears that they've finally completed "improvements" to Oleson Road between S.W. Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway and S.W. Hall St. After laying down fresh gravel and pavement, they began methodically digging up sections of the center of the road. They installed irrigation systems, soil, and many plants, then put curbs around all of that.
They also spent thousands of man-hours installing native plantings along either side of the "improved" roadway. My guess is that these "improvements" - which contribute absolutely nothing to the free flow of traffic along the road - drove up the overall project costs by several hundred thousand dollars.
The resulting road is still a two-lane road, with in some spots, a left-turn lane added - and of course, nice, wide bicycle lanes on both sides.
In the small midwestern town where I grew up, they had a wheel-tax. Motor vehicles and cyclists paid each year, and the funds were used for actual improvements to roads. Of course, times were different: theft was virtually nonexistent; as a rule, the only times we locked the house was when we left for an extended period of time. We never locked our bikes to fixed posts, and they were never stolen. People paid their wheel-tax every year, and roads were kept in good repair.
These, of course, were likewise public roads.
Posted by: Max | July 05, 2009 at 01:19 PM
Your argument, however, falls short: everybody pays gas taxes for the trucks that deliver stuff to stores, just as everybody who shops at the stores pays for the property taxes, utilities, and salaries of the people who work in the stores.
Car owners just pay more. They pay for licensing and registration, as well as for permission to drive the vehicle. They pay gasoline taxes (soon likely to be replaced with a mileage tax).
Cyclists pay none of these.
They don't even need a license to ride (which is a pity, as that would provide an additional tool for getting the idiotic ones off the road).
People who ride motorized two-wheel vehicles pay these fees, but bicycle riders don't. Now, you might think that a guy who rides a Vespa takes up as little space as a guy who rides a Trek, but the Vespa rider can't use that fancy $3 million bridge - nor will he be able to use the planned new bridge over the river.
Cyclists, however, will have free use of both.
This isn't about being a "closet Democrat" - a claim you made that I simply felt was unworthy of pursuit - it is, rather, about the fundamental conservative principles of responsibility, of helping to pay for what you use, and not coming to depend upon "free" "entitlements".
Why does it cost more to register a Hummer than a Prius? Although you argue that it's not a user fee system, I disagree. Moreover, if there is no user fee system in place, why do states bother with weigh-stations for commercial trucks? Obviously, as trucks are assessed fees based upon the number of axles and their weight, a user fee system must be in place.
As I've mentioned before, from an ecological standpoint, a hummer is much more "environmentally-friendly" than is a Prius. Yet Prius owners receive a tax credit, while a Hummer owner not only receives no such credit, in many cases he pays more to register the vehicle. I suggest that these examples demonstrate that a user-fee system is in effect (though in increasing cases, it is ideologically driven, rather than based upon actual cost of use).
Posted by: Max | July 05, 2009 at 01:20 PM
This returns us to the fundamental issue in the original post: should cyclists pay some form of user fee toward support of the infrastructure afforded them? Although they presently do not, I see no substantive case for continued exemption.
Posted by: Max | July 05, 2009 at 01:23 PM
Nor is there a substantive case for exemption from wheelchair-bound users not to pay a fee for their infrastructure. Ditto for pedestrians. Ditto for people that want to use city parks, or the public bathrooms therein. Ditto for people that want to read library books.
You're advocating starting down a very slippery slope - at the end of it, we'll be paying for everything a la carte, as well as what we're paying for currently. While I'm glad to hear you're not a closet Democrat, I don't share your trust in our friendly State to accurately assess the true "user" costs to society on these things.
Perhaps, however, you aren't quite so trusting as you suggest - you do recognize that the so-called "user" fees for the Hummer versus the Prius are out of whack. What makes you think it'd be less ideological with MORE user fees? As I recall, some conservative type said something along the lines of "any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take everything you've got.
A FAR better solution is to kill all the dimbulb, worse than useless infrastructure foisted off on cyclists, along with similar pig trough spending (AMTRAK, anyone?), and we can probably agree that the appropriate residual user fee is not worth the effort to collect.
Now THOSE are fundamental conservative principles of not coming to depend upon "free" "entitlements". Start with the spending. While Max seems reluctant to admit it, that's where it HAS to start.
Posted by: Steve A | July 05, 2009 at 07:29 PM
Actually, Steve, I'm not "starting down a slippery slope", as you suggest. The slope is already there, we're already on it, and I'm just suggesting logical outcomes. All in the interest of "fairness", of course. I've looked up the term, and have noticed that it can be found between "face" and "fart" in most dictionaries.
Actually, I don't trust state bureaucrats to get much of anything right, but as we have a user-fee-based system (at least in part), I see no valid reason to exempt cyclists. We can pick nits all we want, but the fact is that cyclists are specifically given perks in Portland that do not apply to others. They should pay a share, as I did back in the day.
While I share your view that we would all be better served by killing off "all the dimbulb, worse than useless infrastructure" (and their attendant bureaucrats), it's safe to say that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.
I'm not at all reluctant to admit that spending is the problem. Governmental agencies never shrink, and in fact demand ten percent increases every year. Until we can get the agencies whittled down, nothing will change. And as long as cyclists are considered sacred cows, they have no reason to get involved.
This is a hallmark of Leftist politics: create class divisions based upon "appropriate" paradigms - such as giving Prius owners tax breaks, encouraging cyclists to expect and to demand "free" infrastructure, and the like - reward "goodthink", punish "badthink".
It's purely ideological, not rooted in science nor economics. My view is of course the polar opposite: government and their bureaucrats have no business intruding into citizen life to the extent that they feel free to provide rewards to those who conform to their ideological biases, while punishing those who disagree.
In this atmosphere, I take the position that cyclists should not be exempted from the fee stucture.
Posted by: Max | July 05, 2009 at 09:18 PM
In reality, you're right, and modern technology makes it practical to charge tolls for those that want to use special bridges, dedicated paths, bike lanes and such. That would also demonstrate the degree of real demand for such things, as opposed to the "that's cool" factor that seems to govern such choices nowadays.
Really, it's not much different than the concept of toll roads. To keep the costs down, I suggest these things NOT be run by our friendly neighborhood governments, but by competent professionals. I'd even be willing to chip in my taxes a bit to let the joggers use the things for free. Have the bicyclists that want such things buy a "toll tag" and fasten it to their helmet. Any scofflaws could readily be discouraged with a "high vis" dye spray and collected at leisure by the bicycle police. I'm not sure exactly how you avoid spraying cars whose drivers have a fondness for the bike lanes, but I'm sure that could be worked out so that they pay their fee without wasteing dye.
Do we agree?
Posted by: Steve A | July 07, 2009 at 09:17 PM
LOL, Steve! The high-vis dye spray is a higher-tech implementation of the concept that Gallagher promoted some years back, in which he advocated giving everybody dart guns and a supply of "stupid" - sticker darts. You see somebody being an idiot, like driving in a bike lane or driving over a bridge with the left turn signal flashing, you just pull out the dart gun and shoot a stupid sticker onto their car.
If a cop sees you have 3 of them, he pulls you over and writes you up a ticket for being a dumb*ss. It could work for cyclists, too, I guess....
"To keep the costs down, I suggest these things NOT be run by our friendly neighborhood governments, but by competent professionals."
Well, ya! That whole term, "competent professionals" pretty much excludes government.
I have to say, though, that when I'm trying to drive over the Fremont bridge behind some idiot with his left turn signal flashing along, I really don't have any desire to whip out a dart gun and nail 'em with a "stupid" sticker.
I keep hoping they'll actually make the turn....
Posted by: Max | July 07, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Max writes:
"I keep hoping they'll actually make the turn...."
Do you wait up for Santa on Christmas Eve as well?
Posted by: Steve A | July 10, 2009 at 06:18 PM
Actually, Linus and I sit in the pumpkin patch each year....
Posted by: Max | July 10, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Speaking of which, I would certainly be willing to pay a hefty fee and take stringent licensing training in order to be able to legally carry, and responsibly be trusted to properly use one of those dart guns with the "stupid" stickers.
Posted by: Steve A | July 12, 2009 at 06:07 AM