Bike Taxes?
Posted by: ScottNov 19 2008, 7:09 am
Bike Taxes. It’s no surprise that friends and foes of cycling are raising the money issue. For years cyclists have sought more money for facilities, safety and accessibility across our state. At the same time, cycling critics never fail to argue that cyclists don’t pay their fair share.
At the BTA, we know that’s not true. But we also know that investments in cycling lag behind investments in autos and other forms of transportation. We’re fighting to change that.
BTA will always be vigilant in protecting and promoting cycling and the rights of cyclists. We’re also tireless in our efforts to win more investments in cycling infrastructure, education and enforcement.
This legislative session will be no different.
Once again the BTA remains at the front lines of cycling advocacy. We’ll be ready and waiting to evaluate proposals to tax bikes or that do anything to affect cyclists. We’ll also be advocating for more spending on the things cyclists need.
In that vein, we are eager to talk about the wide range of possibilities for increasing critical investments in bikes and biking. We’ll be at the forefront of the fight to ensure that any measure that raises transportation fees or directly taxes cycling are cost-effective, fair and efficient. We’ll also be working across the board to ensure that existing money for transportation is spread more equitably and that cyclists get their fair share.
In other words, we remain your staunch advocate; your eyes and ears in Salem; your boots on the ground in the Capitol. We will fight for you and your interests and we will keep you informed every step of the way.
As sure as the rain falls during an Oregon winter, proposals will be placed on the table to raise money from and for cyclists. Cyclists can’t afford to ignore the debate. We can’t bury our heads in the sand and simply say “no” without evaluating the pros and cons of every legislative proposal that affects our fellow cyclists and us.
We’ll be your watchdog. We’ll fight for you and cyclists across the state to win the investments we need. We won’t agree to bad proposals and we won’t ignore the good ones.
Stay tuned to our website and watch your email inbox. We’ll be in touch. In the meantime, if you have questions about bikes and the legislature, contact Karl Rohde, BTA Government Affairs Director.
I understand wanting to be at the table in Salem, but participating in a bike tax scheme of any kind will do Oregonians more harm than good because it completely undermines the major argument in favor of investing in bike infrastructure: the fact that it's a money-(and planet-) saving public good.
1. Once such a tax was in place, there'd be political pressure to limit bike spending to the amount paid for by the tax, as a user fee, which would mean either raising the tax (and increasing the disincentive for bike purchases) or insufficiently funding bike infrastructure. But bike infrastructure is a public good that transcends the bike users. Everyone, including drivers and anyone who enjoys cleaner air, fewer climate changed induced disasters, less car gridlock, etc. benefits from bike spending, and therefore it should be paid for by everyone, out of general revenues. A bike tax fund would make that politically difficult.
2. It legitimizes the false argument that bikes don't pay their way. In reality, every time a bike trip replaces a car trip, the public saves money.
3. A bike tax creates a disincentive to cycling and therefore to sustainable transportation. We should be taxing the things we don't want (carbon) and subsidizing the things we do want (alternatives to carbon). If anything, bike purchases should be subsidized, not taxed.
4. Like any sales tax, a bike tax is regressive and disproportionately affects poorer people — a major reason why Oregonians have repeatedly rejected sales taxes for decades.
Please devote our resources toward making the case cogently that not only do bike riders pay their fair share, but also that the return on investment in bike spending (in dollars, reduced climate change, quality of life, reduced auto gridlock, etc etc) far outweighs the initial investment. Include statistics to back it up. Make the argument so clear and concise that it'll fit in a letter to the editor of any local newspaper. Run it on the front page of the BTA website.
I'm not reflexively anti tax and would willingly, even eagerly pay more taxes for national health care, sustainable energy intiatives, poverty reduction and more. But this tax is bad economics, bad politics, and bad environmentalism.
If BTA signs on to any bike tax agreement or fails to vigorously oppose all of them, I will not be renewing my membership.
Can you share what plans are currently in progress to increase the 1% allocation of transportation funding from the 1971 bike bill to something more reflective of the bicycle mode share target?
Is there a new bike bill in the works that will include a larger allocation?
Is there state-wide target for mode share like the city of Portland has?
Aweful. I can't imagine any other advocacy group floating the idea of a tax specifically targeting their own membership. Like Brett, I will not renew my membership if the BTA fails to oppose a bike tax.
A bike tax would make sense only after bicycle infrastructure is subsidized at the same rate as the non-freight automobile infrastructure. Until such time a bike tax is not an option. I'm not a BTA member because I don't think they effectively support cyclists.
David: Stand For Children regularly supports bond measures and levys that provide increased funding for children and schools. That's just one advocacy group that I can think of off the top of my head that seeks taxes that specifically target – and benefit – their membership. It's not ideal, the system should do a better job of supporting groups that deserve it the most, but until that happens, I don't think it's a good idea to sit and wait for that paradigm shift while our infrastructure goes to hell.
A tax on bike is like a surcharge on home insulation…absurd. There should be a rebate on bikes, not a tax. Bikes are the solution, not the problem.
a, your example involves general taxes for the benefit of a specific group, it is the exact opposite of what the proposed BTA tax represents. Lenny hit it right on the head: We should tax the problem, not the solution.
That's right, a, SFC is not advocating taxing the children themselves, or taxing only people with children.
Bike tax? You have got to be kidding! I ditto Bret and Chris's comments on membership.
Do we tax pedestrians so they can have sidewalks, crosswalks, and running/walking trails? It seems like bicycles fall under the same ethic as pedestrians: cheap transportation, encouraging exercise (thereby reducing potential health costs), reducing CO2 emissions and pollution, reducing roadway congestion, and more face-to-face interactions among the public. We need to support bicycles as a transportation solution, keep them accessible to everyone (including those with low income), and keep them free from arbitrary bike taxes.
Bravo rachel!
I agree with all the comments against a tax. I wont reiterate everything everyone has already said, just saying I agree.
Also there are many people such as myself that own a car and a bike and a home. When do the taxes end? I know the answer to that, but lets not put another burden on bike owners. I should ride my bike more, a tax definitely doesn't encourage that.