On Saturday, a two-year old child was separated from her father at a MAX station because the father was trying to load a bike trailer onto the train.
Here’s more from The Oregonian:
“Transit agency officials said Kevin James, 39, loaded the girl and his bicycle onto the northbound train at the Albina/Mississippi Yellow Line station about 3:45 p.m. Saturday. He then stepped off the train and to retrieve a bike trailer, TriMet said.”
“…this incident illustrates why bike trailers are not allowed on MAX, whether they are attached or not.”
— Colin Maher, TriMet
TriMet bike access planner Colin Maher says there’s “no indication” the MAX operator did anything wrong. The incident, Maher says, is a prime example why bike trailers are not allowed on MAX.
“Thankfully, the father, his child and his bike were quickly reunited,” Maher wrote via email, “but this incident illustrates why bike trailers are not allowed on MAX, whether they are attached or not… if a passenger gets off the train, there is no way to know they intend to get back on.”
TriMet’s bike policies are clear on this point, stating that trailers “cannot be accomodated.”
Maher says that with the summer season approaching, now is a good time to for folks to remember that trailers and tandems aren’t allowed on MAX. Also, as a general rule, Maher says, “It’s also a good time to remind parents to hold onto to your children when boarding and deboarding.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
when this happened a year ago (sans trailer) the train operator was said to be at fault. The train left the station with a child boarded but the adult was still folding up the stroller.
How is a bike trailer considered a different device than a stroller?
A bike trailer combo is a lot more complicated to load and takes up a lot more space than a stroller.
As much as I advocate bikes, I have to agree that bike / trailer combos don’t belong on light rail.
good question, especially since many trailers are also designed to work as strollers. But the logistics of getting child, trailer AND bicycle all on the train seems a little daunting. Reminds me of the wolf/sheep/cabbage thought puzzle…
The reason the driver was fired last year was not because he left the platform without the Dad but because he did not respond to the emergency call button pushed inside the train. MAX operators would never get filed because someone didn’t get on the train.
*HEADWALL*
Someone that can’t keep their foot in the door while loading their trailer is the reason NO trailers are allowed on the MAX?
My best guess is that Trimet is concerned about the space that both a bike AND a trailer would consume on the train plus the time it would take to bring both aboard. But I can only speculate. With rising fares and lots of what I would say is money wasted, Trimet should be careful with how they handle issues like this.
I just contacted Wweek asking them to make TriMet their Rogue of the Week. All of you please do the same. Welcome to the USA’s most bike-friendly city.
Yes, Trimet General Manager: Why is a raven like a writing desk? HINT: by logician standards of sound ( READ: not a trick) logic, it is.
More to the point, though, this is a case of Put a Bird on it Passive Aggressive Portland policy setting. The real issue here isn’t separation of children from parents. That’s the hot button.
The *real* issue is lugging primary personal vehicles onto even bigger modes of primary mass transportation intended to replace cars, and only to provide fractional support to bikes as a courtesy to the occasionally personal primary vehicle users.
There is no intended discrimination or limitation here for bikes: Bikes get as much consideration by numbers per train car (bike racks are where bikes belong on Trimet MAX) as space for wheelchairs. The number of use by wheelchairs is accelerating and so is use by bikes. But the MAX is not designed for bike trailers right now.
But as Portland biking grows, as we get leaner and greener, so do the numbers of bikes in the MAX. It’s good we are headed that way, but an unanticipated increase in the plan.
So, Trimet General Manager – just call it out. Trains are not designed for bike trailers… yet. And start planning for it.
Parents, plan you bike trips with the kids according, and petition and assist the city, state, and national planners to think about bike trailers and how to incorporate those.
Well said!
Why is a raven…?
“I haven’t the slightest idea.”
“Poe wrote on both.”
Others?
“[insert your answer here.]”
Skipping the fact that the origianl riddle was intended not to have an answer; there are many answers opined by the original author; because both are ‘nevar’ presented back first (the deliberate typo and pun was removed after the first printed edition), both produce flat notes and more recently, it’s awkward being caught having sex on either.
On a serious note, I’m less worried about door slamming than fitting a large bike trailer on a MAX during rush hour.
Yes, there is – as stated- a perfectly good and reasonable likeness to ravens and writing desks. Not lie, no trick.
Teresda’s remarks hit on what are some additional, likely reasons Trimet would rather not have bike trailers on the MAX. But…how about some specs for trailer dimensions; because while some of them are very big and cumbersome…taking up the entire width of the isle, others, such as the Burley Travoy that, last year was the subject of a story here on bikeportland…are comparatively modestly sized.
I’ve got a feeling that more and more people will be using bike trailers to haul things other than children. If the trailer is modestly sized, doesn’t take up a lot of room on the train, and helps Trimet customers with bikes from having to drive a car, the transit agency would be well advised to figure out ways to accommodate this type customer.
A stroller which is also a bike trailer is a non-difference, if you’re just pushing the bike trailer without a bike. I think they just don’t want to accommodate (1) the bulk of bike+trailer, nor (2) the resulting delay in loading the two pieces of equipment. TriMet’s clear lack of interest in evolving stinks. As the mode-split continues to shift toward more trips taken on bikes and mixed-mode (using bikes with transit), this will be an unavoidable obstacle. TriMet knows users very much need and very much already use MAX with trailers/strollers, and they’re just ignoring the elephant in the living room.
On the other hand, you have a very few people inconveniencing all of the others. Maybe it’s the selfish minority who need to evolve.
Only one in four family units include children. If we are going to evolve we’re probably gonna need to accommodate kids – the minority.
I just don’t see the problem. Not every anti-bike policy is automatically “wrong”.
Besides the separation issue, the primary issue is space. A stroller is takes up as much space as a bike, sure, but a bike/trailer combo takes up TWICE the space of a stroller – if not more. Max needs to move people, and their policy makes sense as long as space on Max is at a premium.
Should an operator look the other way when someone loads a bike and trailer on a mostly empty train that will likely remain mostly empty? Probably.
Should TriMet admit that the separation issue/concern is a red herring, and their primary reason for the policy is space? Absolutely – even if the policy is reasonable, they should be honest about why the policy is reasonable.
When we have bike-only Max trains (like we should have), obviously trailers should be allowed.
Yes, and time: the time the doors must remain open and the train remain stopped depends on how quickly passengers can load and unload themselves and their luggage (inc. bikes).
The primary issue is not the extra space a bike trailer takes up. Think about it… It’s a SAFETY ISSUE! Just think what could happen in case of an emergency evacuation. A loose bike trailer could become a tripping hazard, or (God forbid), it could become a flying missle inside the car if the train was involved in a high-speed accident. Back when all the trains had steps to climb, baby strollers had to be folded. I know because more than once I heard the train driver ask whoever got on with a stroller to fold it up, and the driver would always say a little joke about it being easier to fold the stroller if the child was removed first. Go Tri-Met!
Same consideration with wheelchairs and other kinds of strollers, luggage, etc., which are routinely brought on MAX. A stroller which is also a bike trailer is no different.
Not when it is attached to a bike – then it is a trailer. AND the “strollers” that convert to bike trailers are generally much larger than typical strollers (although there are some smaller ones).
As a parent – I cringe when I see people on MAX with the huge SUV style strollers. These are obviously people that are culturally impaired regarding transit – which pretty much describes Portland. For infants that can’t sit in an umbrella stroller – I carry them and use a chest pouch or sling or something. For toddlers and up its an umbrella stroller. If for some reason (taking toddler and 3 year old on a long outing) I need to use a larger stroller I opt for the economy -no bells an whistles model (without cup holders etc.) that is much more compact. Not all strollers are created equal.
Just today Boston is talking about banning strollers on buses: Stroller Ban on Boston Buses
Obviously, Paul.
And umbrella strollers are totally, totally useless for anything other than short-rage, short-duration, no-gear trips. They completely suck if you have a bag or other kid gear to carry, or any distance to cover, or hours out of the house. And if you’re strollering two kids, not just one? Bikes aren’t even the issue anymore. Parents, can I get an amen?
Actually, I think Tri-Met just needs to clarify, that the issues are “time to load” and “space.” The separation issue is just a special case of taking too long to load and instead of leaving a suitcase behind you are leaving a kid behind.
I also don’t think light rail should need to accommodate trailers. Light rail is designed to move people and accommodating bikes strollers and wheel chairs is reasonable as part of moving people. However, hauling freight or transporting large object is not. I don’t think light rail should be used to haul any more than a person can reasonably carry on-board in one trip.
Kinda think you’re onto something here:Two hands= a child (with or w/o stroller – and may the transportation gods be with a parent with several young children) and a bag OR a child and a bike. Trips to the airport that don’t accommodate your holding the hand of your child and not leaving either the child or any bag unattended highlight the expectations one should have of traveling on light rail. LIGHT RAIL.
As a parent of 4 kids who has traveled on mass transit with kids in several cities, and who regularly combines bikes and transit, I can honestly say I would be extremely reluctant to attempt combining bicycles and transit with kids younger than 9 or 10. It is challenging to manage 2 or 3 kids w/ strollers and hands needing to be held. I know it would not work for me to manage even one bicycle and one young child in a crowd even without getting on and off transit. As a parent I just wouldn’t attempt it.
Trying to manage a young child, a bike and a trailer on transit looks to me like poor judgment.
What if I keep my kids in the trailer?
This almost happened to me with my two year old when I was loading a couple of bags onto the MAX heading to the airport, but luckily I jumped onto the train before the doors shut. It wasn’t the fault of the bags (or the bike trailer), just a mistake that happens occasionally which we should try to minimize.
II am not advocating either viewpoint, but wanted to add my experience as another data point. The one time I traveled on MAX with a bike and trailer, I disconnected the bike while we were waiting for the train, and my husband loaded my bike and his bike on the train. Even with that help, I still needed additional help getting the packed trailer (child and camping gear) over the steep “step” from the platform onto the train. I was in full panic attack mode thinking we were all going to get separated. I guess I can say now that my panic was legitimate.
FYI – with the bike disconnected, it took up the same amount of space as a stroller or wheelchair.
Appreciate the extra data point- a second set of hands! 😉
the only way I would bring my toddler and bike trailer onto the train was to first fold the trailer and attach it to my bike rack… much in the same way they make you fold your stroller when you get on the bus… it just takes up too much space…
so fold your trailer, strap it to your bike, then board with just the one bike with your luggage (trailer) secured to it, and small child close beside you…
if you need to jump off the train for some reason it’s easy to pull the bike and trailer back out with you in one swift movement…
of course you may not be able to use the bike hooks on the train, which I can only do on the new trains anyway because my bike is a few inches too long… but most people don’t seem to mind if you’re bike is just standing there diagonally below the hook…
As a parent my child stays with me no matter what.
I would never think about loading my child, in a trailer or in a stroller, on the train then going back for bags or bikes or what ever.
+1
+2~ You would only separate me from a small child on light rail by prying apart my cold dead fingers.
If you use the wheelchair ramps there is more time and a delay on the closing doors.
Would Tri-Met policy permit a bike trailer w/o bike to be loaded inside bus?
the adult loads the bike, the kid pushes his trailer/stroller…problem solved. kids are lazy these days
sage, you are
It’s weak that Trimet is exploiting this situation as a justification for its policy, but I don’t think the policy is a bad one given the current layout of the trains. When we bring bikes onto trains, we’re already using 2-3 times the space of the average rider. The “greater good” matters here: fitting more people on the train is better for the city than each person being allowed to bring the kitchen sink onto the train. It would be fantastic if the trains could be large enough to seriously accommodate this, but until then, I just don’t see how a pro-trailer policy facilitates the big picture for providing the city with quality mass transit.
They could do it now, but they don’t… http://trailnrail.blogspot.com/2009/10/light-rail-bike-car.html
Do you see any trailers on that car? I certainly don’t, and no space for them, either.
.. and for heavens sake, Jay, a welding torch could modify for bike trailers in 20 minutes, give or take.
I could turn my street bike into a Tall-Electronic-Assist-Fixie-Cargo-Jousting bike in “20 minutes”, too. That doesn’t mean it’s practical.
Lengthening the bike-car would just mean more bikes being stored, not more space for cargo. Space is always a premium, and any space available goes to the most important uses, which trailers don’t fall into.
This belongs in the dictionary under the definition of “awesome”!
Actually, no. They can’t
MAX trains are already as long as they can possibly be, due to downtown’s short blocks.
Perhaps for full-length cars, yes. But that’s not the only option, as with the example I provided which is only 12 feet long, as opposed to a 95-foot-long standard (articulated) Max rail car (the four car types currently in use range from about 90 to 95 feet in length).
If you make them shorter, they will hold fewer people, and then you’re back at the same problem. MAX is starting to get close to capacity during rush hour across the steel bridge. There is no way they will go for shorter trains with bike trailers. Might be an option if they build a new tunnel for MAX downtown that can accommodate 4-car trains, though.
I don’t understand why people seem to think that this policy was instituted as a result of this incident. This has ALWAYS been Trimet’s policy, and it’s a good one. Bike trailers are bulky, and awkward. They take up a lot of physical space, and time to get on and off of a train, and the only reason it’s an issue is because a very minor few think that they’re entitled to a great deal more space than any other transit user.
+ 1 – direct and to the point
+2, seems the issue is that breeders don’t think about these things before they pop one out.
Obviously the issue here is children. They take up space, don’t pay fares and can be a missle if they aren’t properly stored.
I’m not bothered by the policy, which is fitting given the current facilities offered by TriMet. What bothers me is the total lack of vision, as communicated time and again in the press by TriMet, in neglecting what has proven to be a winning service in other parts of the world by fully integrating bikes with light rail for a true multi-modal solution. (repeat link from above http://trailnrail.blogspot.com/2009/10/light-rail-bike-car.html )
the kid should obviously be in a bike seat mounted behind the dad, and the dad should be sitting on the top tube while the max is in motion…the kid would never be removed from her seat, saving time and the threat of her running wild on the max…also, he should be squeezing the brakes tightly at all times while the train is in motion…riding up and down the isles is trick best left to circus monkeys on tiny novelty bikes…to provide some entertainment to the rest of the passengers, he should be steadying himself with one hand on the overhead bars or walls and pedaling furiously backwards as though he himself is generating immense power for the max train…his daughter would be yelling expletives at her lousy and weak kneed father as a drill sargeant does with new recruits fresh out of prison…this is the only way we can earn respect with the entitled business class that commutes to work sans bike
my mom would have been like, good riddance, that son was a pain in the ass, thanks max, and skipped away
or just ride your bike there instead of taking the train…
The real issue (IMO) here is whether or not strollers and trailers violate the safe passage made by the ADA act.
If they do not,and the train is not full, a properly folded and stowed trailer should be no question…..
A properly folded and stowed trailer would not violate personal space, nor the ADA act, nor Tri Met’s policies.
Personally, I’m amazed that I watched this story on 3 different news shows yesterday and not one pointed out that there was a bicycle involved.
Do you think the local outlets are waiting for juicier story to kick off their summer campaign against bicycle users, or that the opportunity to take a jab at public transportation was too rich?
Strollers are required to be folded up on TriMet, including buses and MAX! A parent bringing a stroller on MAX, but not folding it up would be reprimanded the same as a bike trailer. Note that I’ve never seen anyone written up for anything other than lack of fare, so I don’t expect them to do much…
I think this whole issue highlights how very family un-friendly our culture is and why most well-intentioned parents end up opting for car transit. In many other cultures I imagine other passengers likely would have helped out this father. Taking small children anywhere, even just to the grocery store, is a difficult logistical maneuver. Then you have to put up with the dirty stares from people if your child, say, starts crying in the middle of this maneuver. Dirty stares, crying child, safety of your child… it’s very stressful before we even start talking about bike trailers. Then people get on your case for even having a bike trailer. Sheesh. I’m taking the car.
Whoa, whoa whoa.. People are not going to intervene in a parent-child thing, when said parent is the some Super Dad right off of Portlandia with his bike and trailer and process to handle it all.
He didn’t ask for help, signaling people A) that he felt he needed help B) it was OK to get into his business.
And BWT- it being the MAX, all he may have had to chose from for help were the usual derelicts, drunks, drug addicts and anti-socials cruising the transit system.
Gee whiz. Subtle. Even China has a one-child policy. Enough with the “breeder”-bashing. Who else is going to raise smart kids to counteract all the morons out there?
OK, the above was a reply to a comment that has apparently been removed…it made reference to “spaying and neutering”.
In china, kids are doing kung-fu and pulling the adults around on trailers. That was then(or just the movies), and today they’re fat eating mcdonald’s and “westernizing” in front of the TV and internet. Kids all over the world are becoming doughy fat slobs. HTFU and teach your kids to become men. Even the girls should become men(metaphorically).
The whole “no trailers allowed” is just a convenient red herring for TriMet. The driver left the station without checking mirrors and ignored it when the parent pressed the stop button. The fact that there was a trailer involved is just a convenient point that lets TriMet place the blame on the parent.
If this is all true, then as we say on twitter> BOOM!
1. There is no “stop” button. There’s a door button, which only operates when the doors are openable and didn’t. (during cold weather, at night, etc.)
2. How’s the driver supposed to know that some dumbass father _willingly left the train with his child still on it_ just by looking in his mirror and seeing someone exit the car?
The whole thing could have been avoided with the proper use of a Dutch au pair, and they have could explained how they do cycling in Holland without so much self righteousness.
The attitudes here, for the most part amaze me.
If you ride a bike in Portand, it seems that it gives many the right to be arrogant regarding their own needs and ignorant those needs of people who may not ride bikes. Most of the roads we ride on, we (those of us with cars too) funded through federal and state fuel taxes, so most often on our streets, we are getting a free ride as it is, but yet, we still want to more for free.
Max should introduce a nice flat bed car, with a bike corral, and a car with soft lighting and leather seating, wifi and a juice bar, reserved exclusively for cyclists and their bike/trailer combos. If we pulled $50million out of the $660Million we got last year, it would be a breeze.
Leave no child behind (on the Max platform that is), and ride in style.
Could you be more specific about the numbers you refer to and include attribution for your sources? My research indicates otherwise and I’ve posted some of the sources on this forum.
-Could you be more specific about the numbers you -refer to and include attribution for your sources? My -research indicates otherwise and I’ve posted some of -the sources on this forum.
Taken from the University of Iowa 2006 study on road funding.
Funding Roads:
On average, states raise 38% of their road funds from fuel taxes and 22% from vehicle
registration fees. Bonds make up 18% and the remaining 22% comes from other taxes and tolls.
Dependence on fuel taxes range from a low of 5% in Georgia to a high of 69% in Arkansas.
Dependence on vehicle registration fees range from a low of 3% in Georgia to a high of 55% in
Kentucky. Thirty-seven percent of Iowa’s road funds come from fuel taxes (30th highest among
states), 34% from vehicle registration fees (10th highest), and 29% from the general fund and
imposts.
Sorry, but I do not see a significant part of road funding paid for by cyclists. Sure we pay some through bond measures etc, but the largest donor to building and maintaining roads comes from cars. If we had a proportional contribution, we would be paying hundreds per year to ride our cycles.
A $75 per year per bicycle license fee would be perfectly appropriate, and then we could say (with validity) that we are paying our share and demand our due.
To say that we can cut off half of the car accessibility on williams without paying a red cent in user fees is absurd.
Consider this:
1) The majority of Portland’s able- and semi-able bodied under-employed, low-income, and completely destitute citizens rely on bikes. Except for the rare exception, their bikes cost less than any annually fees levied. In fact, for the valuation of their vehicles, it would cost more to bill, let alone assess, than would be received.
2) Bikes don’t *have* to be ridden on road. Oh, yes, it’s true. You can ride your bike on almost any terrain. Plus you can’t ride it on highways and expressways. Taxes pay for those road pay for those, too.
3) And those pesky children again – the ones that don’t pay to ride mass transit and require so much attention: You going to tax a toddler… a grade-schooler… a high-schooler? You know, the majority of school-age citizens who ride bikes do so because they are too young to have a license. We are *totally* overlooking their use of a resource without contribution.
So, basically those truly dependent on bikes as a main transportation do so for the same reason the *rest of the freaking planet does* – they are either too poor or too young to be shaken down for even $75 a year.
A bike is not a car.
OK, so using the figures you cited*, 40% of road funding does not come from automobile-related sources. Do you think cars use more or less than 60% of road resources? I think they use more than that (much more) and hence are subsidized and have not just a “free ride” but are actually paid to use the roads.
Meanwhile, everyone (including bike riders) pays into that 40%, and bike riders who also own cars pay into the 60%. What fraction of road resources do you think that bikes use? If bikes use proportionally fewer resources than they pay into the system, would you still call that a “free ride?”
* http://www.uiowa.edu/~ican/Papers%202006/roadfunding012307.pdf
Come on guys, catch up.
The gas tax smokescreen has already been soundly discredited, too many times to count. Non-freeway roads are massively subsidized by all taxpayers–whether or not they drive–through non-auto revenues. Here are a couple references:
http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-for-bicyclists-would-be-unfair
http://publicola.com/2010/08/31/we-all-pay-for-the-roads/
Also consider this:
1. Everyone (cyclists included) pays into the roughly 40% of road funds (according to your “average” figures) that doesn’t come from motor-oriented fees.
2. There are many cyclists who own registered cars which they have a license to drive, but do not drive much. They are therefore paying into the (average of) 22% of “vehicle registration fees”, yet not at all getting their money’s worth for the amount they paid.
3. Everyone pays for the weight-mile tax levied on large freight vehicles; it is included in the prices of everything shipped by truck.
4. There are large expanses of some of the most expensive roads (freeways) from which cyclists are banned and get no use whatsoever.
5. The amount of road surface area required by a bicycle is far less than that required by a car.
6. The sheer amount of material required to build a road that will support the weight of a car or truck is vastly greater than that needed to support a person on a 20- to 50-lb. bike
7. There are no “pedestrian taxes” that pay for sidewalks, yet no one complains about the cost of those long runs of concrete and fancy signals. In fact, there are neighborhoods without sidewalks that complain bitterly and vociferously about it, demanding that sidewalks be built, and nobody brings up the notion that “pedestrians don’t pay their fair share”.
Motor vehicle drivers do definitely pay more for roads–about 2.5 times more, if we assume that drivers pay 100% in both auto- and non-auto-related taxes and fees and non-drivers pay only 40% (even though some of them have registered cars…). However, compared to other users, drivers of motor vehicles extract more than 2.5 times the usage of other users when we consider materials costs, damage done, and space used by cars.
Bike registration = “protection” money = punishment for reducing the number of cars on the road.
Funding for roads:
From University of Iowa:
http://www.uiowa.edu/~ican/Papers%202006/roadfunding012307.pdf
Oregon
39.6% Vehicle Tax (no bicycles there)
51.3% Fuel Tax (no bicycles there)
4.0% General Fund (bicyclists if they pay tax, pay in to this)
0.0% Bonds
5.2% Other
Seems like a $75 tax on cycles would be a fair way to actually demand our share instead of demanding our share of other peoples ‘money.
Harvey, despite being way off topic for this post, I have to point out that there is a lot of overlap between “people with bikes” and “people with cars”. So, yes there are bicycles there! Having just returned from DMV to pay for license renewal, I am about to go to a business meeting on my bike. These groups are not mutually exclusive. I feel like I pay plenty already. If I walked everywhere, would you want to tax my feet?
See also: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-09-27-why-an-additional-road-tax-for-bicyclists-would-be-unfair
So, do you think that bike riders use more than 9.2% of road funds? I don’t.
And, of course, bicyclists who also drive cars (the large majority of riders) do pay those car taxes you mention.
I have to question those 39.6% vehicle tax and 51.3% fuel tax figures (national average: 22.0% and 38.1% respectively). Oregon vehicle registration is among the lowest ($35/year?) and fuel taxes just a bit above average, so how do those figures end up so much higher than the average? The UIOWA ICAN study cites http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/sf1.htm as the source of that data. It’s a large chart of arcanely categorized numbers and frankly, I’m not up to trying to figure out those FHWA numbers for this post…anyone else?
To those of you who cite Elly Blue’s blog piece on grist.ort, I have to say that while it is a nice blog piece, it doesn’t offer much when it comes to the rigor of citing sources to back up its claims.
I think Harvey’s broader point is the “pay to play” argument, not the “pay per use” of scarce resources. As such, it can’t be answered with numbers alone. It is a philosophic argument about how to allocate political power.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/sf1.htm
Oregon 2004
HIGHWAY-USER REVENUES >>> 57.0%
– MOTOR- FUEL TAXES 385,463 >>> 32.2%
– MOTOR- VEHICLE AND MOTOR- CARRIER TAXES 297,253 >>> 24.8%
TOTAL RECEIPTS 1,198,718 >>> 100%
So, I am increasingly sceptical of those UIOWA ICAN 51.3% fuel tax and 39.6% vehicle tax figures, how they were derived and what they include.
Aside from being irrelevant to the funding of the roads we actually ride our bikes on, this study neglects the deficit that the Federal highway transportation fund has operated in since 2001. Not to mentioned that most of that highway funding comes not from gas tax but from diesel tax, and other taxes that the shipping industry pays for (that ultimately get passed to the consumer).
How much have the Federal and State gas taxes gone up since their inception? How much has road usage and the associated costs risen? If you can prove they’ve scaled together then I’ll put some stock into your argument.
And yeah, I drive too.
The UIOWA study referenced above only relates to state roads, which are for the mos part irrelevant to this discussion.