Hillsboro Mayor says tax from “bicycle community” needed to pay for climate change goals

Hillsboro Mayor
Jerry Willey.

Hillsboro Mayor Jerry Willey is concerned that some measures being considered by our region to reach Oregon’s climate change goals are too expensive and that it’s time to ask “the bicycle community” to pony up to pay for some of them.

Willey’s comments came during the Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) meeting on Wednesday where representatives from around the Portland region discussed Oregon’s climate change policies, which call for a reduction in GHG emission levels to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020 and a 75% reduction by 2050.

“When we add three feet to each side of the road for a bicycle path we’re adding a significant cost to the amount of the road… I don’t see anything addressed in here as to what is the responsibility of the bike community to participate in that.”
— Mayor Willey

Metro news reporter Nick Christensen covered the meeting. He said the discussion Wednesday focused on how cities would implement regulations and policies to reach those goals. “Anxiety about the new targets,” he wrote, “was palpable.”

Mayor Willey expressed concern that the new policies put too much burden on cities. “Let’s do some modifications to this,” he told the commitee, “so we can do something that’s feasible to accomplish and not overly expensive.”

Willey went on to express concerns with how cities would pay for implementation of new, transportation-related policies like improving transit, charging more for parking (and removing parking) in downtown Portland, and building more infrastructure that encourages bicycling.

Below is a transcript of his comments (emphasis mine):

“… We all aspire to have more bike lanes and certainly more bike and pedestrian streets; but who pays the cost of that? The cities do. The cities pick up 100% of the tab on that which is supplemented from gas tax revenues which are declining and from other sources that are also declining; and nothing, from actually, quite frankly, the bicycle group.

There’s nothing in here that addresses, how do we get the bicycle community to start participating in that… And I know that’s probably threat words but we all have to deal with that at some point in time. When we add three feet to each side of the road for a bicycle path we’re adding a significant cost to the amount of the road and the cost to maintain that road, and I don’t see anything addressed in here as to what is the responsibility of the bike community to participate in that.

It’s just like the electric car people are not going to be paying gas tax and they’re looking at taxing those folks a fee for that, for road participation. It’s the same concept to me. And I’m a bicyclist, so, you know, we all gotta’ help with this.”

Listen to the audio clip below:
[audio:willey_atMPAC.mp3|titles=MayorWilleyMPAC]

Willey also called proposals to limit and charge more for parking in downtown Portland “draconian.”

Read the full report from the meeting on Metro’s website. You can also download a recording of the meeting here.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car owner and driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

174 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Marcus Griffith
Marcus Griffith
12 years ago

Anyone else tired of this factually incorrect and logical flawed cliche? Seriously, there’s more facts to support a beard tax to pay for a law enforcement improvements than Willey’s idea of taxing bicycles to pay for transportation improvements.

Have you seen the outrageous crime rates the “bearded group” has for everything from theft to assault? When was the last time you saw a meth addict with a clean shave? I tell you, law enforcement improvements are needed and those scofflaw bearded elitists don’t pay for the police services they use.

gregg woodlawn
12 years ago

Tell him what you think:
City of Hillsboro
150 E. Main Street
Hillsboro, Oregon 97123
Phone: (503) 681-6219
Email the Mayor
Term expires: January 2013

q`Tzal
q`Tzal
12 years ago
Reply to  gregg woodlawn

Contact the Mayor by email:
http://www.ci.hillsboro.or.us/CityCouncil/EmailTab.aspx

Select option to send to (.) Mayor.

matt picio
12 years ago

This is ridiculous – “3′ for a bicycle path” – well, first off, that’s not a path, nor even a bike lane – that’s a shoulder, and it should be present on all roads to start with. A bike lane is 4′ minimum and 6′ preferred. A bicycle path is separated from the roadway, and is also used by pedestrians.

So, to get this straight – the Hillsboro mayor thinks that to meet GHG targets, the city should charge the only user group actively helping the city to meet those targets. Also, he thinks they should pay for improvements to roads that don’t even meet minimum standards for bike facilities, and which should be included as part of complete streets anyway – and that cyclists, which subsidize current road infrastructure disproportionate to use, should pay an additional amount.

Good luck with that.

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago
Reply to  matt picio

Depends on the state. 6′ is the minimum width in Oregon.

bArbaroo
bArbaroo
12 years ago
Reply to  matt picio

Matt, I thank you for being able to articulate such a succinct and rational response to a totally irrational proposal.

Lee
12 years ago

“The cities pick up 100% of the tab on that”

So, where do the cities get their money? Fortunately, their budget is online.

4000 Property Taxes $35,799,455

Jonathan, can you get confirmation from the Mayor that Hillsboro “bicycle group” residents don’t pay property taxes?

MIke
MIke
12 years ago
Reply to  Lee

So with that line of logic, drivers should stop paying all those gas taxes? They do pay property taxes after all.

rider
rider
12 years ago
Reply to  MIke

Your gas tax only pays for maintenance of the roads not new construction. Your car puts wear and tear on the roads per mile, so yes continuing to pay gas tax (which is essentially a per mile by weight tax) is reasonable.

LDA
LDA
12 years ago

Did you borrow this article from The Onion?

Nick
Nick
12 years ago

I would be thrilled if we raised income or property taxes to build some truly sustainable streets. Everyone pays those taxes.

Brad
Brad
12 years ago
Reply to  Nick

No! Let’s get serious about a sales tax that provides dollars for the state. As a home owner I am sick and tired of having my taxes jacked up everytime somebody wants something. I made sacrifices and saved my down payment. I put roots down in a community. I am happy to pay a fair amount of taxes for services neither my family nor I use. Just stop using my moderate success and commitment to being a permanent part of my neighborhood as an ATM for state expenses, especially when government still taxes my home at 2008 value when it is worth far less than that at current market prices.

You want a tax that hits everyone regardless of how many shelters, advisors, write-offs, and tax lawyers they can afford? Then look at a sales tax. All raising income and property taxes does is hurt the middle class. The rich can afford to avoid them, the truly poor are generally exempted and don’t own real property.

Nick
Nick
12 years ago
Reply to  Brad

Every tax is unfair in some way. You don’t like property taxes. Other people don’t like sales taxes. I personally don’t care what form the taxes might be. I just want a better transportation system, and I’m willing to pay for it.

007
007
12 years ago
Reply to  Nick

Nick, do you live in Portland? And if you do, are you a millionaire? I’m worried if we’ll be able to pay our property taxes when we retire. They’re already over $5K per year for a 1200 sq ft house with a smaller lot than the typical Portland 100×50 lot.

Re: this Hillsboro mayor story, we bike riders didn’t cause global warming (i refuse to use the palatable for ignoramuses term “climate change”) so why are we supposed to foot the bill?

Dave
12 years ago
Reply to  Brad

Brad, renters pay property taxes as well (unless their landlords are stupid). It’s not just homeowners who have to pay more when property taxes are raised.

eljefe
eljefe
12 years ago
Reply to  Dave

This is a myth that economists have thoroughly debunked. Landlords charge whatever the market will bear, which is unrelated to their costs.
Here’s a detailed and wonky explanation:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0311cleveland.html

Daniel Miles
Daniel Miles
12 years ago
Reply to  eljefe

…And if those landlords can’t cover their tax burdens with the prices the market will bear, they get out of the business. We’re not seeing that happening on any grand scale, therefore everyone pays property tax.

matt picio
12 years ago
Reply to  Brad

Brad – we all pay those taxes, not just home owners. Renters pay them through increased rents – the landlords pass that amount along to the renter – landlords who don’t – don’t stay landlords for very long. The tax comes out somewhere, whether it’s income, property or sales.

Personally, I’d rather see it in the income tax, with a return to a more progressive taxation structure – but I don’t think that’s likely to happen since those most impacted have the most money with which to fight it.

Oliver
Oliver
12 years ago
Reply to  Nick

I would also be thrilled, but only if the burden was equitably applied. Everyone pays some of those taxes, some people much less. Unfortunately do to some of the property tax limitation schemes that the folks of Oregon were conned into supporting, property taxes are no longer market based for oversized and/or ultra-luxury properties.

Fritz
Fritz
12 years ago

Dear Mr. Willey, don’t build 3′ on each side for me, just give me the lane. Thanks.

Thomas Le Ngo
12 years ago
Reply to  Fritz

That line of thinking is sure to win points for the bike community.

Peter W
Peter W
12 years ago
Reply to  Fritz

And we wouldn’t need those 3 feet* if the roads weren’t filled with giant f***ing metal death machines.

*: Three feet is rather small for a bike lane, no? Does this guy really ride a bike?

El Biciclero
El Biciclero
12 years ago
Reply to  Peter W

“Does this guy really ride a bike?”

Not on any regular basis if he is implying that 3′ is enough space for a “bicycle path“.

Mike
Mike
12 years ago
Reply to  Peter W

Happiness is a warm death machine.

daisy
daisy
12 years ago

Thank you for that. Do not consider any of the tax I spend on gas when I use a fuel dependent vehicle as being my contribution from the cycling community.

Stating you are also a cyclist toatally assures me that you have the base level of competency that is required for your job.

Good luck.

Michael Wolfe
Michael Wolfe
12 years ago

So much wrong with this… I don’t even know where to start.

* As everyone here already knows, bicyclists already subsidize the hell out of automobile infrastructure. Even those of us who don’t drive pay payroll taxes, property taxes, development fees, and income taxes. And we do so out of proportion to our impact on the roads.

* Shorter Willey: Greenhouse gas remediation is expensive. Bikes are a cheap fix to the greenhouse problem. Therefore, we should make bicycling expensive! Jesus, where did they dig up this retrograde mouth breather?

* Here’s a radical notion: bike lanes aren’t for bicyclists. Not any more than bus turn-outs at bus stops are for transit. They’re just there to get us out of the way of cars, and to prevent automobilists from murdering people at an unacceptably high rate. If there were fewer cars, or at least some other reasonable restraint on motor vehicles’ propensity to carom off everything else on the roadway, there’s no reason cycling would need any special infrastructure.

john
john
12 years ago
Reply to  Michael Wolfe

Couldn’t agree more.
And my property taxes are already draconian ! I am sick of paying high taxes so that people can zoom around in cars/trucks, ruin expensive infrastructure (or demand more!), and pollute my family (eg CRC insanity).

I am all for free market and free enterprise, but when it is at the expense of human health and life, when it is killing us and poisoning us, this un-american, un-patriotic (on so many levels! ) car based lifestyle needs to be limited or at least better alternatives highly encouraged, promoted and seen as good.

michweek
michweek
12 years ago
Reply to  john

It’s the free market that got us here. It obviously ain’t working for the majority of us. “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind o thinking we used to create them.” – Albert Einstein

Another Doug
Another Doug
12 years ago
Reply to  michweek

No, it is not a free market that got us here. It is a market in which motor vehicles and the roads for them are heavily subsidized by the rest of us. The right wingnuts love to point to free market economics as the basis for sprawl and this country’s auto-dependance. We have anything but a free market when it comes to transportation choices.

pfarthing6
pfarthing6
12 years ago
Reply to  Michael Wolfe

Here here!
Yes, why don’t more cage-heads figure this out? The bike lane is not for me, it’s for you, b/c you don’t know how to drive or share the road without risking somebodies life.

As well, most of us cyclists have cars and so pay gas tax, registration fees, and property tax as either owners or renters. We pay quite enough to support the car oriented infrastructure. And b/c we want our money used a bit differently than it has been, like to encourage low impact transportation that is accessible and healthy for all, we have to pay more????? WFT?

007
007
12 years ago
Reply to  Michael Wolfe

You have a point about bike lanes serving to get us out of the way, but I find that more often than not, bike lanes allow me to freely keep moving forward, passing the drivers while they are stuck in traffic.

mikeybikey
mikeybikey
12 years ago

illogical, but i’m less concerned about his ideas about bicycle taxes and more concerned about his classifying Portland’s attempts to limit and charge more for parking as draconian. I think Brookings released a study sometime ago showing that the best policy decision a city can make in order to encourage a shift to alternative transportation is to make parking an expensive and scarce commodity. Its this kind of thing that reveals he (and other folks in important positions) are engaging in magical thinking when it comes to solving our energy, climate change and transportation problems.

Tacoma
Tacoma
12 years ago
Reply to  mikeybikey

“It’s this kind of thing that reveals he (and other folks in important positions) are engaging in magical thinking when it comes to solving our energy, climate change and transportation problems.”

True dat.

Ryan Good
Ryan Good
12 years ago
Reply to  mikeybikey

Check out Donald Shoup’s book, The Hidden High Cost of Free Parking- it shows pretty plainly how much “free/cheap” parking actually costs.

Jack
Jack
12 years ago

Feel free to point out any error in my reasoning, but it seems like the people who are already doing a great deal to tackle climate change should not be asked to pay more to achieve climate change goals.

Should we put a tobacco tax on nicotine chewing gum? How about a health care tax on gym memberships?
Better yet, let’s put a corn subsidy tax on all food that does not contain high fructose corn syrup.

Maybe it would make more sense to put an extra tax on people who are doing nothing to tackle climate change. Add a tax for residents who’s gas and/or electric bills are in the top 25 percentile. Add a tax for drivers who’s fuel consumption is in the top 25 percentile. Add a tax for people whose vehicle’s mpg is in the bottom 25 percentile.

You don’t get change by discouraging the change you’re after! Mr. Willey needs a logic consultant.

BURR
BURR
12 years ago
Reply to  Jack

exactly!

Sam
Sam
12 years ago
Reply to  Jack

Jack, explain to me how I am supposed to service my client in Astoria at 9am and then be at a presentation at noon in Portland then see 5 more customers that day all on a bicycle? So I should be taxed based on my job requirements (driving)?
What do you do for a living? Use a computer? You should be charged a per minute tax because of the electricity used, the heat generated, and the energy used to run all internet companies and servers your activities online interact with.
And what about beer and coffee? I think we should tax both of these items 10%. Do you know how much heat, energy and water it takes to run just one small coffee shop? Not to mention how much waste is created with each cup poured!
Most everyone’s reasoning here makes me think that if someone isn’t living a life just as you do, punish and tax them because they are bad, evil, rich, metal killing machine driving, anti bike people!
Bikrahm yoga folk should be charged a tax for the above average energy used to heat the room. What? They use more than the average yoga studio, right?

I see natural awakening being delivered in a range rover that gets 10 miles to the gallon! How is that green?

And how is it everyone let’s this comment roll of the tounge so easily? “tax the rich, they can afford it.”
that can only be believed a couple more times before the
“rich” become middle class and well, you know all too well that the middle class can’t afford to pay anything

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago
Reply to  Sam

The tax structure in this country is incredably regressive as it stands right now, with the working class paying the majority of the burden while corporations and the top 2% (ie, those who make $200,000+/year) pretty much skate.

This is me playing the world’s saddest song on the world’s tiniest violin. If you don’t want to pay your fair share for a society that gave you your fortune, do the rest of us a massive favor and move to Somalia; I believe you’ll find the tax structure to be ideal to your situation.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  Sam

Sam, did you really read Jack’s post? Where do you see a call for “tax the rich?” I don’t see any. Your response actually supports Jack’s position. Computer users seek energy-efficient machines in part because of rising electricity costs. Coffee and beer drinkers make their choice to fully pay for each beverage they consume, and brewers aren’t giving it away below their costs. Hot yoga classes cost more than others due to the energy costs. As a car driver, why aren’t you paying for all the costs that your car use imposes? Why does your job deserve public subsidy?

El Biciclero
El Biciclero
12 years ago
Reply to  Sam

Alan is right–in all the scenarios you describe, you are talking about products that are sold on the so-called “free market” where the users of those products pay the full cost for the product. People don’t pay taxes on those products because Oregon doesn’t have a sales tax (talk about regressive…). If you actually had to fully cover the cost of the roads you use to get from Astoria to Portland and around town by paying tolls for every road that were proportional to the wear & tear you were putting on those roads, guess how much more you would be paying? (I don’t know–I’d be guessing, too–but since we know that gas tax and registration fees DON’T cover the costs, it would definitely be MORE than you are paying now). Be thankful that roads are socialized to the point that drivers don’t have to bear the full cost of driving. Also be thankful that oil companies receive tax breaks to the tune of $5 Billion per year so you don’t have to pay the full cost of gasoline. Driving is extremely expensive, but since the vast majority of citizens are addicted to it, government has seen fit to subsidize it to the point that it appears to be affordable to most people, but it is only made affordable by way of government assistance that comes at the expense of everyone–drivers and non-drivers alike.

pfarthing6
pfarthing6
12 years ago
Reply to  Sam

Duh. If I turn my computer on, the electricity I use is metered and I pay monthly. When I buy coffee, all the energy and effort required to brew that coffee has been calculated and I pay even more than that so the makers can swing a profit.

So then, are you suggesting that you’d be willing to have a meter installed in your car and pay for the miles you log? Sounds like a good idea to me, but I doubt you’d do it.

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago
Reply to  pfarthing6

Not a meter on my car, no. But there’s another way to accomplish the same thing with less intrusion into privacy, and it works well. It’s called PikePASS, and it works well.

pat h
pat h
12 years ago

Wow. “Let’s tax an activity that should be encouraged.” what logical thinking. Maybe we should tax activities that CAUSE global warming…

Pliny
Pliny
12 years ago

Two quick thoughts on this stupidity.

1.) If the idea is to convince people to get out and ride instead of drive, charging extra in taxes is not an incentive.

2.) If you actually start taxing cyclists for infrastructure, they’re going to start demanding a lot more than a 3′ afterthought.

are
12 years ago
Reply to  Pliny

i am not asking for anything except for motorists to leave me the hell alone. let’s quantify that as a budget line item.

Oliver
Oliver
12 years ago

It’s discussions like this that make it so trying to remain politically engaged sometimes.

Making reasoned, informed responses to this clown’s arguments is predicated on the assumption that his statements were made in good faith. It’s not just that they are false, or that he’s regurgitating discredited ideas. The problem is that he knows that it’s untrue, unreasonable and unfair, and yet he’s expecting( and getting) a dialogue from the community about them. Responding to him, and all others like him is essentially ‘feeding the trolls’.

Pliny
Pliny
12 years ago

Pliny
2.) If you actually start taxing cyclists for infrastructure, they’re going to start demanding a lot more than a 3′ afterthought.

Er… taxing them specifically for bike infrastructire. We’re all still paying gas, income and property taxes (even if rent, it’s being passed on to us)

justin
justin
12 years ago

There may be some amount of truth to what he is saying (small amount). current transportation funding is heavily paid for by non-user fees (no news there), but i don’t think that should be an excuse for those of us to ride bikes or walk to be eternally exempt from user fees for infrastructure. if a fair system were established that taxed infrastructure users fairly (with some excess for those that can’t pay – children, disabled, etc) i would be on board. i have no clue how this would actually work.

That being said, i think the mayor’s real goal here is to get some amount of tax for those that ride bikes and add it to the already unfairly collected transportation funds further penalizing the users that save the city the most money. This, i am definitely not okay with.

pfarthing6
pfarthing6
12 years ago
Reply to  justin

For taxes to be fair, they must apply equally and fairly too all, regardless if that revenue directly benefits any particular tax payer. The point of a tax is to benefit the community as a whole, which implies a diversity of interest, not all of which will be empathetic to each other.

What you are talking about is known as a “fee” where those who benefit directly pay directly, either individually or as a group.

Personally, I’d be all for that kind of fee structure instead of taxes. Those that use the services or those for whom the services are intended should bear the weight of sustaining those services. And if that were the case, the cost of owning and operating a motor-vehicle of any kind would be a heckuva lot higher.

And alright, bikes use the road and would pay too, but factor in the actual impact of bikes on the road way where a paved road would last 20 years before needing attention and only be 3-4 feet wide, and nothing but yield and direction signs were required ….well, I don’t think it would cost too much for the cyclists.

Marcello Napolitano
Marcello Napolitano
12 years ago

My Washington County and City of Hillsboro property tax pays for the road and road maintenance that the Hillsboro Major and other deadbeat drivers use, that should be paid by much higher gas taxes. When are drivers going to start paying their fair share?

kgb
kgb
12 years ago

What a complete failure. Does he have any idea how stupid he sounds? Everything he said is completely backwards and upside down with regard to the topic he is addressing. Since he says he is a bicyclist (note to Jerry if you want to not look like more of a fool, which I admit is a challenge for you at this point, try just plain cyclist) he must not pay any taxes and that is where he gets the idea that no other people who ride bikes pay taxes.

Pliny
Pliny
12 years ago
Reply to  kgb

The problem is that he doesn’t sound stupid to his target audience: drivers.

Tacoma
Tacoma
12 years ago
Reply to  kgb

“Does he have any idea how stupid he sounds?”

From time to time, during meetings at my job, I say things that don’t just sound stupid, they ARE stupid. But then the other people in the meeting say, “What?” and I think about what I just said. Then I have to say, “That was stupid, wasn’t it?”

I’m guessing that he has nobody to say “What?” or he really can’t figure it out when they do say “What?”

Bob_M
Bob_M
12 years ago

Does the Mayor not think we pay for climate change with every breath we take that filters motor vehicle exhaust out of the air?

Oh man this whole us/vs them thing get tiresome

stacey
stacey
12 years ago

We should really focus the discussion on buildings if we want to reduce GHG emissions. Yes, addressing the transportation piece of the pie is important too, but buildings cannot be overlooked if we want to meet our goals. http://architecture2030.org/the_problem/buildings_problem_why

AC
AC
12 years ago
Reply to  stacey

Yes, if GHG reduction is the goal then retro-fitting buildings is the way to go. And, improving the energy efficiency of buildings would probably be a lot easier sell.

007
007
12 years ago
Reply to  stacey

It should be well known by now that our bloodthirsty consumption of meat is the number one cause of global warming. The production of meat releases more greenhouse gases than industry and transportation combined. This is merely one story:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-greenhouse-hamburger

You can’t be a meat-eating environmentalist.

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago
Reply to  007

Except meat is found in nature. And it’s pretty hard (read: impossible) to be vegan and have a balanced diet, body mass, muscle, culinary taste…

Ryan Good
Ryan Good
12 years ago
Reply to  Paul Johnson

+1. I know plenty of vegans who will lecture me about eating meat while they are eating oranges grown in Florida, veggies grown in mega-acreage agribusiness farms in Southern California (irrigated with water from everywhere BUT SoCal), and tofu from soy that was grown on land that used to be virgin South American rain forest before it was bulldozed to plant thousands of acres of soy for tofu production. Dear Vegans- meat is not the enemy, corporate-industrial agribusiness is the enemy.

Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant…

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago
Reply to  Ryan Good

Why is this point so rarely made in the eastern and pacific time zones? Go to a grocery store in Tulsa and pick up any random dairy or produce item, and odds are it’s got a label for some independent farm that you could easily drive to in a day, with the notable exception of Tillamook cheese (which is, astonishingly, a LOT cheaper there than it is in Oregon, even with the sales tax!) and produce that isn’t native to, or grows well in, the southern plains.

Jim Hunt
Jim Hunt
12 years ago

Page 6 of the Hillsboro budget shows that County Gas tax only accounts for 1% of total taxes collected. Property tax (67%) & Local option tax (28%) comprises 95% of total tax revenues. So it would appear that Hillsboro residents pay for 95% of Hillsboro road construction & maintenance without visiting a gas pump or paying gas taxes.

Curious to hear why the Mayor appears to be misrepresenting the contribution of Hillsboro’s taxpayers?

Evan
Evan
12 years ago
Reply to  Jim Hunt

And what percent of their budget goes OUT to pay for a transportation system that almost exclusively serves cars? I’ll bet my grandmother it’s more than 1%.

brian
brian
12 years ago

Me no like tax. Me like car.

Dave
Dave
12 years ago

It costs a city as much as 1 MILE of highway to put in bike lanes and signage in total…Wow! Look it up! Bicyclists usually own vehicles and pay other taxes. Very few people actually go totally car-free. The cost in health benefit savings alone for people who stay healthy is more than enough to justify bike lanes.This is just more way to tax and make money using ignorant stereotypes. Should we then tax public transportation? Cycling improves congestion and quality of life for everyone and should be encouraged. Driving should be more heavily taxed if anything. Gas is twice as high in Europe…it is past time we did more to be responsible and not live like there is no tomorrow. Love all these quick fixes the politicians have to get re-elected and fill coffers.

9watts
9watts
12 years ago
Reply to  Dave

“Very few people actually go totally car-free. ”
about 1 in six households in Multnomah Co. (~18%). Not that few really.
But I agree with the rest of your comment, Dave.

Brett M
Brett M
12 years ago

What fantastic logic! We should pay taxes for the services we use, eh? Well, in that case, could you please refund me the portion of my property taxes that went to the school districts? You see, I don’t have kids, so I shouldn’t have to pay for those services. Once I’ve received that refund check, I’ll be happy to contribute it to bike lane construction since those are services I use.

JF
JF
12 years ago
Reply to  Brett M

I could not agree with you more!

Maybe they should also tax my poor grandma who does not drive or get out much at all anymore due to her age to help with these projects.

Halster
12 years ago

I saw this coming last year when, Tuesday after Tuesday Mr Mayor came outside after council meeting to visit vendors at the Tuesday MarketPlace. Week after week, he walked right by our booth at the plaza where we promote bicycle safety clinics and classes. Week after week, he would look our way and then walk over to another vendor. Just because you ride a bike sometimes doesn’t make you a cyclist, Jerry.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago

Are you now or have you ever been a member of The Bicycle Community?

(and where do I get a card to carry?)

Halster
12 years ago

3′ wide bike lanes?!?

are
12 years ago
Reply to  Halster

no, he is talking about a shoulder

Allan Rudwick
Allan
12 years ago

I’m fine with the 5$/bike fee idea at time of sale. It doesn’t have the high overhead costs associated with it that come with licenscing fees, etc. If that were collected, I think that this stupid argument would go away. Would there be another obviously stupid argument coming afterwards or would that be the end of the story?

NF
NF
12 years ago
Reply to  Allan

I’m with you… if we have something symbolic, maybe it will shut people up. On the other hand, it would still be a small drop in the bucket, and would come nowhere near paying for infrastructure projects. That would just be one more thing for people to complain about.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  Allan

Do you really think that even perfectly just distribution of wealth would end all “stupid arguments?” (I’m not saying that better justice isn’t worth arguing for, only that the argument will need to continue.)

If one segment of society is already unjustly burdened with supporting another segment, how will increasing their burden reduce the injustice?

NF
NF
12 years ago
Reply to  Alan 1.0

It won’t reduce the injustice, but it will be easier to explain. It’s more of a PR thing.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  NF

OK, I understand where you’re coming from but I still don’t agree. Some would call it appeasement (a loaded term) and it would not stop the yammering from the car-crazed set, at least not until it reached the same $43/biennial* rate of electric motorcycles. Even then there would still be many calls to keep bicycles completely separated from auto traffic, resulting in second-rate service to bike riders, and to fund bike infrastructure only with those registration fees. That would be a net loss for bikes and also probably for cars, as bikes would no longer be viable for some people who would return to driving, thus adding to congestion, street wear and the various externalized and unallocated costs of cars.

The problem is that we, as a society, have become dependent upon a system which we increasingly cannot afford, and which we have fooled ourselves into thinking it was affordable by hiding both the costs and the funding for the system. The solution is NOT further hiding the costs by spreading them over onto other systems (such as taxing bikes) but instead involves honestly assessing the true costs of cars and car dependency and then allocating those costs so that personal choices reflect responsibility for the real costs.

*Thanks for the new rates, A.K.

JF
JF
12 years ago
Reply to  Allan

Also, if we could guarentee that it would go toward bike infrastructure and not put into the general fund.

Halster
12 years ago
Reply to  Allan

And then, when we have to add that $5 to a $25 as is bike, that homeless person doesn’t have the extra $5, do we (Frans Pauwels Community Bike Center in Hillsboro) pay it?

Mindful Cyclist
Mindful Cyclist
12 years ago
Reply to  Allan

Maybe the $10 extra fee for all the “Share the Road” plates should simply go to building bike infrastructure.

Anne
Anne
12 years ago

I’m in favor of it. Let there be a small fee to “license” a bike when purchased or a small add-on tax when someone buys a bike in Portland or Hillsboro or Where Ever. I am going to be driving an Electric Car and I will have to pay a “Gas” tax to help maintain roads. I pay taxes now for schools that I have never used and school taxes for children I don’t have. Everyone should pay their share.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  Anne

People who ride bikes already pay their share. In fact, for the amount of road space they take up and the wear-and-tear on the roads their riding contributes, they pay more than their share. Read Whose Roads.

Halster
12 years ago
Reply to  Anne

Sales tax on bikes only!?!

Steve Brown
12 years ago

Funny how this type of logic seems to match up well with the $5 is too much for the Sellwood Bridge crowd in Clackamas County. Would also like to know more about his alleged bike riding habits. Rides to work?
OBRA member? Owns two fixies? Has bike rack on back of SUV to take bike to Sauvie Island? Has this guy read and understands transportation studies that shows more bikes easing urban congestion and helps businesses in clogged areas.

The Captain
The Captain
12 years ago

Okay fine I’ll pay my payment for my use, where do I drop off my one dollar bill?

As usual he completely forgets how much money bikes save, compared to having to add 8 lanes of traffic. A bunch of fat people not realizing they cost more than bike infrastructure with their lack of good health, oh what a surprise there! Quick go to the Taco Bell and get another burrito slammer!

Can I pay to seal off the highway route to Hillsboro? They can live in their futuristic paradise of car hell and never have to worry about “commie pinko” bikers ever again, and ironically subsidize car culture while declaring us freeloaders for the rest of their pathetic non-existence.

Tim Chevalier
12 years ago

Everyone should pay! …oh, except people who drive cars and park them downtown.

Dave
12 years ago

I just want to know what the “bike group” is and how they are not normal members of society like everyone else.

jeff
jeff
12 years ago

I just love when politicians don’t do their homework, but still feed the need to talk about issues they apparently know little about. Does Jerry want “the pedestrian walking group” to start paying their fare share of sidewalk expense as well?

Brett M
Brett M
12 years ago
Reply to  jeff

Amen. It’s about time for those blind folks to start paying for the audible devices on the crosswalk signals, too.

Eric on Blue Island
Eric on Blue Island
12 years ago

Jeanne Stewart, anti-bridgers in Clack, now this.

Be nice if the lies, costs, and cognitive dissonance got a thorough exposure in a real newspaper or actual TV broadcast in prime time. No slight to Mr. Maus and crew–I’m a former NWer now reading from the midwest and this is one of the consistently best resources in the country. However, my impression is that mainstream media in PDX and environs isn’t up to it.

But alas.

Good post, Jim Hunt.

E

eli bishop
eli bishop
12 years ago

how does he expect to reach “a reduction in GHG emission levels” by taxing the very thing that encourages that? seriously!

beelnite
beelnite
12 years ago

LDA
Did you borrow this article from The Onion?

NICE!

But seriously – I am sick to death of ignorant lawmakers. For NOT the last time:

Bike lanes are not for cyclists – they’re to move cyclists out of the lane and into a more vulnerable position so drivers can exceed the speed limit and endanger everyone and right hook and ACCIDENTALLY KILL cyclists.

Period.

If everyone shared the road and didn’t act like a jerk then we wouldn’t need “EXTRA” lanes.

Y’all said everything else. Thanks for readin down this far.

beelnite
beelnite
12 years ago

I think the “Bike Culture” is right over there next to the “Portland Bike Scene”. I guess that’s kind of the AAA of bicycles there… cept you don’t get a sticker or a card and no one’s around to fix your fixie except yourself.

wsbob
wsbob
12 years ago

“… When we add three feet to each side of the road for a bicycle path we’re adding a significant cost to the amount of the road and the cost to maintain that road, …” Jerry Wiley, Mayor of Hillboro, quoted in bikeportland article

Actually, adding three feet (it should be at least four feet.) to each side of the road for a bike path, helps avoid the expense, effort and massive, dubious consequences to the community as a whole, of adding additional 12 foot wides main travel lanes (to allow for motor vehicle usage.) to each side of the road.

Mayor Wiley, if at some time you happen to glance over to this story and comments in response…which is likely to be less expensive and more advantageous to the entire community; 8 feet width of bike lane or 25 feet width of main travel lane?

I have to drive sometimes, but dread peak commute hours in the motor vehicle. So instead, if I have to travel by vehicle somewhere during those hours, I either don’t drive, or…I take the bike, because it’s better traveling in the often substandard bike lane than it is in the packed to the gills main travel lanes.

Mayor Wiley, my having shared with you, this description of my modest contribution towards meeting future GHG emission levels, I encourage you to think about and tell everyone here whether you really think people like myself, as members of communities that rely on roads for travel, are not paying at least a fair, and perhaps even more than a fair share of paying for road infrastructure.

q`Tzal
q`Tzal
12 years ago

To somewhat explain municipality’s ration panic leading to irrational conclusions check out the chart at Sources of State Road Funding by the Uni of Iowa.
Short and concise in 8 pages it shows an informative chart on page 2 that shows that Oregon’s road funding comes from:
() Vehicle Taxes: 39.6%
() Fuel Taxes: 51.3%
() General fund: 4.0%
() Other: 5.2%

While I don’t agree with his conclusion he came up with it has been obvious to the state gov since 2001 that they have to come up with a new source of funding as peak oil reduces demand for petro fuels directly impacting available funding. Everyone is looking for a scapegoat; the process of electing people to office get people that are popular and not necessarily educated.
—————————————
For more current, 2009, numbers check out USDOT FWA page Highway Statistics 2009.
In particular Disposition of State Highway-User Revenues – 2009
Disposition of State Motor-Fuel Tax Receipts
Disposition of Receipts From State Imposts on Highway Users
Local Government Funding For Highways – Summary – 2008 : seems to show that local fund for road expenditures comes mostly from the general fund which everyone pays.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  q`Tzal

Re: http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%202006/roadfunding012307.pdf

I am sceptical of those numbers. Oregon vehicle registration is among the lowest nationally ($35/year?) and its fuel taxes are just a bit above average, so how do those figures end up so much higher than the national average?*

The UIOWA ICAN study cites http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/sf1.htm as the source of that data. That FHWA DOT data says:

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, 57% user fees and taxes means that 43% came from other, non-user fees and taxes in Oregon in 2004. That’s a big gap from the UIOWA numbers.

It should be very obvious that this argument is not going to go away, no matter how many times the logic is pointed out. It needs facts. I would really like to see a reputable organization put together a solid case using hard numbers from official government budgets for local and regional DOTs. BTA? PBOT? PSU? OSU? WSU? UW?

*That same UIOWA study said, “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.”

Also: http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

A.K.
A.K.
12 years ago
Reply to  Alan 1.0

Oregon is currently $86 for two-years for a standard vehicle with tree plates, plus $19/year in Multnomah Co. for us suckers who are paying for the new bridge. 🙂

http://egov.oregon.gov/ODOT/DMV/fees/vehicle.shtml

Susan Otcenas
12 years ago

Lots of energy here folks. Send these comments to the Mayor. Commenting here does little to let him know your opinion!

My letter, sent today:

Dear Mayor Wiley,

I am writing in regards to comments you made at Wednesday’s MPAC meeting. You stated your opinion that bicyclists should be charged in some way to help pay for bicycling infrastructure on our roadways. You suggested that cities receive “nothing, from actually, quite frankly, the bicycle group.” This statement is factually incorrect. While gas taxes do contribute to the maintenance of our roadways, the fact is that the vast majority of the funds to pay for the construction and maintenance of our roadways comes from other sources including property taxes, state and federal income taxes, etc.

It is further interesting to me that this statement was made during a meeting to discuss how the Metro region will meet the state’s greenhouse gas emissions targets. I would posit that a tax that *discourages* bicycling (an inherently clean, quiet and pollution free form of transportation) will not help our region meet these goals. Rather, it would be more beneficial to implement taxes and fees that discourage DRIVING, including higher parking fees, higher gas taxes, reduced speed limits, higher automobile registration fees, etc.

Respectfully,

Susan Otcenas
President
Team Estrogen, Inc.
21350 NW Mauzey Rd
Hillsboro, OR 97124

D. L. Grigsby
D. L. Grigsby
12 years ago

Someone in her article comments thanked Elly Blue for posting the pdf version of her report with the numbers. I couldn’t find it; do you know where I might be able to get a copy?

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  D. L. Grigsby

Blue refers to Todd Litman’s Whose Roads. It is an excellent piece and should be used as a model for additional studies in many cities including Portland, using the specifics of those city’s budgets and funds.

Kenji
Kenji
12 years ago

Yo B Ross- no more Cross Crusade in Hillsboro?

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago

I love his comment because there are many levels of utter stupidity. His basis for the argument is flawed, as is his suggested solution. Double-win.

D. L. Grigsby
D. L. Grigsby
12 years ago

A Proposal for a Bicycle Tax for Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure:
A roadway must be built to support the weight of the vehicles using it; therefore, most roads are built to handle semi-truck loads due to the dependence commerce has on them. For this discussion let’s limit our example to the wear and tear the average car in the USA would cause to the road; costs to society from the pollution, traffic wrecks and greenhouse gasses they emit notwithstanding.
The average weight of a car in the USA is about 4,000 pounds (without occupants) while my commuting bicycle, fully loaded (without rider) is, say, 50 pounds.
The fair and reasonable thing to do would be to tax a car or bicycle based on weight, since the heavier a vehicle is, the more wear and tear it causes to the infrastructure.
The question is, how much should be charged per pound of car or bicycle per year? 5 cents? 10 cents? I don’t know; but, let’s just say 5 cents for now.
For the car: that would come to (4000LBS)($ 0.05) = $200 per year weight based tax.
Now for my 50 LB bicycle:
(50LBS/4000LBS) = 0.0125 This is the scale ratio of bicycle to car.
(0.0125)($200) = $2.50 per year weight based tax.
Considering that all of the existing bicycle infrastructure in Portland only cost approx. what one mile of an urban four-lane highway costs, this seems more than fair. But, you know? I’ll kick in $10 per year…what the hell! The Automobile commuters would not even pay $5 per year for a new Sellkirk bridge!
This is a simplistic example since the actual cost of a mile of urban highway versus a mile if cycle track is not taken into account here (because I don’t know those numbers); but, that would probably be a better way to assess the proper tax a car or cyclist. If I were to venture an intuitive guess, that method would probably yield a much higher roadway tax on the driver than they are currently paying yearly for their registration, gas-tax, etc.

peejay
peejay
12 years ago
Reply to  D. L. Grigsby

DL:

Road damage and wear is related to weight, but not in a linear scale. Many people use the cube of the weight over each axle as a way to calculate the difference in wear on a road surface, although the AASHO uses a “Fourth Power Rule” for their calculations. Additionally, there are factors such as tire size and type, axle spacing, suspension issues, etc.

So, in your example, a 4000lb vehicle doesn’t do 80x more damage than a 50lb vehicle; it’s actually much, much more. Let’s try the third power. That would yield a 512000x difference between the two vehicles, but you did forget the weight of the driver, solet’s add 200lb to each, and the weight ratio is 4200/250, or 16.8, with a wear ratio of 4741. If you want to charge the owner of the car with a $200 tax, then it would be fair to charge the owner of the bike with a $0.04 tax. This is a fee I would gladly pay, although the administrative costs might make it inefficient to collect.

D. L. Grigsby
D. L. Grigsby
12 years ago
Reply to  peejay

I agree, they most likely do cause many times more wear and tear than cycles; but, I don’t know what that number is. I am just suggesting a method to go about it using a simple example so that the good mayor and his constituents can understand it. In any event, I think by proportionally linking the amount cyclist pay to the amount drivers pay, that in itself would keep the tax extremely low for cyclists since drivers voted down the measly $5 per year Sellkirk bridge tax, which only constituted only a portion of the total cost of that project. If, you actually compared and ratio from the costs of Bicycle to Automobile infrastructure, they would pay thousands more per year, as someone previously mentioned.

D. L. Grigsby
D. L. Grigsby
12 years ago
Reply to  D. L. Grigsby

BTW, I didn’t forget the weights of the driver or rider; I didn’t include them with the bike or the car so it is an equivalent comparison and is negligible compared to the weight of the car and the capacity of the road which is actually built to support large commercial vehicles; but, don’t dare speak of taxing industry and comerce.

peejay
peejay
12 years ago
Reply to  D. L. Grigsby

Not to be pedantic, but you can’t just subtract an equal amount (driver weight) from both the numerator and divisor of a ratio and have it come out equal. You saw that the ratio changed from 80:1 to 16.8:1 just by adding driver weight.

But yes, we’re in total agreement policywise: if the fee were proportional to the cost of use, it would hardly be worth collecting.

DK
DK
12 years ago

Uh…I’m a cyclist and I already contribute through my gas taxes. End of story.

Bike infrastructure is very nearly a “one-time” cost. While it’s not free to implement, their maintenence costs are little-to-nothing over long periods of time.

How about children on bikes? Are we going to start hustling them for their lunch money?

Get a clue.

davemess
davemess
12 years ago
Reply to  DK

We have to keep painting the bike lane lines back on the road though, due to studded tires!!

Oliver
Oliver
12 years ago

Add this to the list of my contributions: sweat equity.

BURR
BURR
12 years ago

If we are really serious about addressing climate change, we shouldn’t be adding three feet to both sides of every road to accommodate cyclists, we should be taking 10 feet away from motorists on both sides of every road to accommodate cyclists.

Kristen
Kristen
12 years ago

First off, I didn’t know that because I ride a bike I’m part of some “group”.

Secondly, I drive and own a home. I’m gainfully employed. Ergo, I’m paying taxes to the state for roads, through employment taxes, property taxes and the taxes on driving my car.

If Mayor Wiley will give people in the bicycle group a credit for taxes paid as car owners, home owners, and employed individuals (and, in some cases, employers), then maybe, just maybe, this idea may make sense, in a weird sort of way.

Additionally, imposing a fee or tax on something that helps you accomplish your goals seems like an inefficient way to accomplish your aim. But an efficient way to totally fail at reaching your goals.

Opus the Poet
12 years ago

A couple years back I did the numbers on bike v other modes using the AASHTO formula of the ratio of the 4th power of the most heavily loaded axle and the GVW of single-track vehicles (bicycles and motorcycles) and came up with a range of 1100 BU for a micro-compact car to 8000 BU for a luxury SUV, to 160,000,000 BU for a semi at the legal limit of 40 tons for interstate haulage. 1 BU = bicycle loaded to 350 pounds gross weight. And yes a legal limit semi does as much damage to the road surface in one trip as 160,000,000 bicycles riding single file. I don’t have the math to figure out how many more it would take if they rode 4 wide in the same tracks as the semi.

Paul Johnson
Paul Johnson
12 years ago

This guy doesn’t get that the car free community subsidizes motorists, does he?

Rollie
Rollie
12 years ago

I still say, not altogether unseriously, just stop paving, repairing and maintaining the roads altogether. No more budget shortfall! No need for taxes everyone hates. People seem to forget that when there’s a budget shortfall (expenses > income) there are TWO sides of the equation and TWO ways of dealing with it.

I suppose I’m venturing into a realm that’s pretty remote to most discussions even here on bp.o (and forget the mainstream media altogether), but I only want to plant the question in your mind: Why is more and more pavement always a foregone conclusion, something for which we “have to” find a funding source? Look around: It’s not 1950, with 25-cent gasoline and a road-building craze, it’s 2011, likely a couple years past peak oil production. When oil becomes scarce, are we going to wish we had paved more roads, or are we going to wish we had deployed our dwindling resources someplace maybe that would’ve helped us prepare for a much less automotive future?

It would be imminently smart to reframe questions like these, tiresome, time-wasting debates like these, not as “Gosh who is going to pay for all this pavement?” but “What are some better ways we could spend the money we have?”

AC.
AC.
12 years ago
Reply to  Rollie

And paving plus maintaining paved infrastructure has GHG consequences, too. How many bike rides does it take to compensate for those impacts, I wonder.

Robert
Robert
12 years ago
Reply to  Rollie

Rollie has a good point. Public policy ideally would be guided by a broad look at what we’re doing. However the way things are done, it turns into a big whack-a-mole game, dealing with the crisis of the day and putting out sound bites. Bah.

The discussion about payment according to weight and payment damage is interesting. If the decisions were made in any fair way then Jeff Bernard’s proposal to charge more (or ban) studded tires would pass by acclamation.

The analysis based on pavement damage leaves out an important factor–the cost of real estate. People in cars don’t want to give up a lane or a parking strip, they feel some kind of ownership of that space. To make a road wider means taking a slice from adjoining property owners. And ultimately, the best routes for long distance bicycle travel are already dedicated to other uses. We (or somebody) decided it was worthwhile back in the 1950s to rip up a lot of countryside and big slices of existing communities to put in interstate highways. Good luck getting that for bikes!