View Single Post
  #8  
Old 03-25-2011, 11:39 AM
scdurs's Avatar
scdurs scdurs is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: West Hazel Dell, Vancouver, WA
Posts: 117
Default

The pie-chart you reference below deals with funding of State and Federal highways. City and county roads typically get far below the quoted 35% of their funding from the gas tax. One study in Seattle showed that .44% of 2009 Seattle street funding came from gas taxes. (http://www.publicola.net/2010/08/31/...for-the-roads/)

Check out these articles:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/46570
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/free.htm
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09...ould-be-unfair


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
What's your take on those, vja4Him?

Registration fees to make such a program self-supporting, along with general inconvenience and lack of benefit to the bike owner, are too high for many (most?) bicycle owners to participate voluntarily, and enforcement isn't practical. That's been the case with nearly all places that have tried such programs. San Jose is a recent example that stopped bike registration.

Home owner's insurance, and I think some renter's policies, cover liability for bicycle collisions. Damage due to bike crashes tends to be low, often below any insurance threshold. I don't see big societal problems of damage caused by bikes, as there are with uninsured motorists.

Most bicyclists (all people, really - bikers, drivers or other) already pay taxes for roads. On a wear-and-tear or per mile basis, bikes pay relatively even more.
Reply With Quote