Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

Subscriber Post - This post was written by a subscriber.
Want to subscribe? Learn More »

The case against using gas taxes for bike infrastructure

Subscriber Post by A J Zelada on December 4th, 2015 at 4:09 pm

6175048141_311d91dda5_z

A gas station on W Burnside.
(Photo: C.M. Keiner)

Editor’s note: We’re highlighting this (lightly edited) BikePortlander post as a comment of the week. It’s a doozy, but it’s provocative. The author, A.J. Zelada, is a past contributor who has volunteered as a transportation advisor for Oregon and others.

Now that Black Friday came and went, I want you to rethink the gas-tax approach to boosting active transportation revenue.

I think the gas tax is a snake eating its own tail. It undermines the serious effort we need.

Yes we want every cent. Yes, We want to reduce the number of ‘cars’ that represent 50% of all car trips taken. We know that 50% of all car trips are 3-4 miles or less. Our message is generally that if you walk or bicycle 3 miles, you are going to be healthier. That was our goal in the past. It was also known that we need to attract even more people to our bicycling and pedestrian world and we need the perception of safety for that invitation with real protected lanes. Enough of 4 types of bicyclists, on to making the demographics of people being an active type that represents the vibrancy of our society not the sedentary automobile driver going a mile to pick up supper.

1. It doesn’t make sense to me to be taking from gas revenues for some thing that we want to reduce. It’s like investing in movie theaters so we can develop a grant to stimulate independent film makers. Who would do that? In Oregon, we are a declining driving population.

2. We need to build infrastructure. We can’t be making more bicycle lanes that sandwich bicyclists and turning automobiles at intersections. What dad or mom wants to be in between cars turning across their lanes with their kid in tow or on their cargo bike? It is not inviting and ratchets down the perception of safety for the novice bicycling parent & child.

3. Our economy is changing dramatically.

Let’s look at Black Friday.

Last year, it was predicted that 45 percent of all Christmas sales were going to be on the internet. Last year, internet sales were 49 percent of all Christmas sales. Money spent at internet sites increased by 8.3 percent last year.

This year, 15 percent of all the U.S. malls closed or are to close by Dec 31st, 2015.

Fewer people are driving to the mall. No one drives to the internet to buy Stuff. But guess who delivers those consumer items? Yes: Freight. So, our decreased driving society to buy Stuff will translate into increased goods being delivered by increased freight on the road.

If you were freight and saw this pattern, one could think: I need more money for roads, especially their maintenance. And: getting cars off the road means more efficiency for delivering shipped goods.

If you were an active transportation planner, you could make the realization that we need more than trickles of dollars every two years to create a real infrastructure.

If you were an active transportation advocate, it is easy thinking I want more of my share of the declining gas tax revenue. But the irony is that you will be facing a greater adversary than ever.

Gas tax carving pits user against user, making them fiercer adversaries. Even with support of the Oregon Transportation Forum’s suggestion of more gas tax revenue going to active transportation, one needs to look more deeply. Jump ahead two months after they initiated the increased percentage of gas taxes for active transportation and read all the letters against such a measure in the submitted committee notes. One realizes the chess moves against creating active transportation infrastructure with that increased tax revenue proposal.

The current debate about Matt Garrett is interesting in this Shakespearean drama. He was directed by Gov. Kitzhaber to appoint a multi-modal person on each Area Commission for Transportation. These people on each ACT should be saying, ‘we need to spend money on moving people in a safe manner, be it sidewalk, bicycle lane, transit, rail, etc.’ Matt executed this well and promptly.

But again this ‘oomph’ died as we lost a key player, the governor. We continue to be stuck arguing over declining gas tax revenue, which are nickels and dimes in couch cushions. We have no leader that says, “Infrastructure needs passion, political will, high level personnel with history & experience of active transportation in transportation development, and long term funds.”

Having a large multi-year plan similar to the Highway Defense Act of the 1950s or even ODOT’s OTIA bond measures of the past decade could provide a decade of money that creates an active transportation infrastructure rather than throwing a dry spaghetti-stick bicycle lane here and there each biennium.

Creating a bond measure that bundles all the sidewalk needs (400 to 500 miles in Oregon) over ten years will be much more efficient use of regions’ staff time than asking them to apply five times for 20 percent of each of the projects to complete 1/5 of their whole active transportation plan. Asking for a 1 percent increase to gas tax gives you $6 million to perhaps $10 million per biennium. And what does buy? The same old spaghetti bike lanes painted white with an inch by inch infrastructural development.

Does that make the new potential user more comfortable, safer or even invited? One does not often think about Black Fridays, gas taxes, and the sad state of our political will but it is an old soup. And a new year is coming.

For more details: http://72km.org/oatia.html

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan

73
Leave a Reply

avatar
26 Comment threads
47 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
28 Comment authors
dr2chaseq`TzalJeff BernardsMNBikeLuv9watts Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alex Reed
Guest
Alex Reed

AJ, what is your proposed funding source to service the debt resulting from the bond measure? A bond measure does not raise money on net – it promises future revenue will be used to pay for current projects. Especially with Oregon’s PERS difficulties, the overall state budget is going to to be under more stress in future years rather than less, even without adding substantial additional bonding to the mix.

Not that I think this is a bad idea, I just think it needs a little more development.

Robert Burchett
Guest
Robert Burchett

Wow. That was interesting! (Commenting mainly to drag this out into the light a bit) –Did anybody else read this?

not that Mark
Guest
not that Mark

Robert, I took you up on your dare and read it. Multiple times. And it is more of a gumbo rather than a soup. And vegetarian at that.

The author starts in the second paragraph talking about “we” and “our” and I have no idea who they mean. Are they representing some group? They don’t speak for me.

And then referring to the “the sedentary automobile driver going a mile to pick up supper” in a perjorative way. Well I’m middle aged and after bike commuting all week, driving to the store or yoga class does not make me a fat ass. It just means I’m getting old.

And what does all the mall talk have to do with Portland or Oregon?

Sure, internet sales are up. But many of us try and shop locally.

In their OATIA editorial they write; “We see a resurgence of people returning to city cores as they do not want to shop in big box stores but can shop virtually…” Is that even remotely true? People moving to the core to avoid big box stores and use Amazon prime? I thought people were moving to the core for a more convenient life style based on their values and because they like an urban core.

And also, “In my mind using gas taxes is not only investing in
movie theaters to feature more movies but is a snake eating its own tail.” This makes no sense at all. A movie theater investing in showing more movies sounds like a sound business practice.

Then I looked at their website and it looks like one person who doesn’t even live here. That probably explains the incoherency.

Since the weather is bad and I had to do laundry, it wasn’t a complete waste of time. I won’t hold it against you.

Allan
Guest
Allan

using money (wherever it comes from) on better biking infrastructure is a definite good for the forseeable future (at some point the network will be built out and additional projects will have a much lower return on investment than current priorities have).

relying on a declining revenue stream is a bad move. I think that was a point of the article, but we should still fight for every dollar we can get

John Liu
Guest
John Liu

That was almost TL:DR. Needs more editing.

Quick responses:

– Is gasoline consumption in Oregon really declining?. Sure, gasoline consumption per capita has fallen, but population has grown, so total gasoline consumption looks pretty flat. I’m eyeballing these charts for 1980-present.
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/transportation.cfm/state=ORcomment image

– Is there a reason to expect a significant decline in gasoline consumption in coming decades? Maybe – the state’s population could shrink, fewer Oregonians could drive cars, cars could get better fuel economy. Maybe not – the state’s population could grow, we could continue driving at almost the same rate, low oil prices could favor less fuel-efficient cars. Weighing the likelihood and magnitude of those factors, but I don’t see a reason to predict a big fall in gasoline consumption for at least the coming decade.

– Since gasoline consumption is pretty stable and looks to remain at least somewhat so, it looks like a pretty suitable thing to tax!

– Should we not tax gasoline, for fear of igniting opposition to active transportation spending?. I could see that opposition’s , if the increased gas tax is earmarked mostly for active transportation (peds, bikes). But it won’t be, and shouldn’t be. Oregon has a huge backlog of repairs and replacement required for roads and bridges. Let most of the increased gas taxes be spent there, and a small percent be spent on adding active transportation infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, crossings) to those roads as they are rebuilt. Even if that is just 5%, that would be far more money than is being spent on active transportation today. So maybe we should try again on the gas tax, and maybe our new Governor won’t get herself plunged into scandal and quit, paralyzing legislative agendas in the process.

– Instead of a gas tax, we are supposed to issue debt to fund active transportation investment over the next ten years?. How much are we taking: a billion dollars of debt? How will it be paid back? $1BN bond payable over 20 years is around $100MM of principal and interest payments per year, depending on interest rate). What public service budgets should we cut by $100MM for the next ten years, to pay for those sidewalks and bike lanes as well as pay interest?. Schools, transit, health, etc?. Why would you prefer to increase the state’s debt, make different public needs fight each other for money, and enrich bondholders, instead of increasing the state’s (gas) tax revenue?

Forum Law Group LLC - Bicycle Law
Guest

Not persuaded. Gas consumption correlates closely with wear and tear on our roads, not to mention the societal damage of CO2, particulates, SOx, NOx, air toxics, road deaths and dismemberment, oil wars and obesity. Only a tax can match price to the real cost. If revenue declines, that means it’s working. If necessary, raise it or mix in other revenue sources. Gas tax is regressive, but even that isn’t reason to price gas below its real cost. It means we should focus the revenue on infrastructure inequities: our high crash corridors, and missing crossings and sidewalks, to name a few. Don’t blame the gas tax for squabbling over revenue. The grabbers will grab no matter where the money came from.

Brian E
Guest
Brian E

Good stuff! Thanks

Based on my prejudiced observation,

In “Oregon” most of us vote “No” whenever there is a bond measure. We don’t even need to anything about it. We just vote “No”.

The closer you get to a population center the higher the % of “Yes” votes.

Isn’t the advantage of a gas tax is that it is in place and the rate can be inched-up locally or at the state level.

The gas tax also captures money from people who don’t buy gas directly. As the author mentions, the purchase from the internet is delivered by truck and that truck pays for gas. Same thing for a loaf of bread at your market. Consider all the vehicle miles involved with the development of that loaf. The workers in the field, Bakers at the factory, Delivery driver and the Grocer.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Let’s have this conversation again when driving has seen 20-30% declines over at least a 10-year period, or electric cars make up more than 10% of the market. Until then, the gas tax remains the simplest and best way to fund road maintenance and smart growth projects.

J_R
Guest
J_R

Once again we have someone spouting the “gasoline consumption is falling” myth. Yes, there was a dip between 2008 and about 2011, but it’s on the rise again – not quite back to 2008 levels, but definitely higher than it was in 2012.

Check the graph and statistics from the Energy Information Administration:

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MGFUPUS1&f=M

The potential or actual reduction in tobacco consumption didn’t stop governments from increasing the tax on cigarettes; why should we not also increase the tax on gasoline? Both have adverse side effects. We can accomplish some good stuff with increased revenues. “Good stuff” that is funded by tobacco revenues includes actions to improve health of children who never smoked. Why not fund sidewalks, transit, and other good transportation features by taxing gasoline?

Just because consumption of something might decline doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tax it. Does the decrease in people using land lines for telephone communication mean we should give up on that revenue stream?

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

Roads and streets being integral components of communities, it’s basically essential they be included in the design and construction of communities, regardless of to what extent people happen to use that infrastructure with motor vehicles.

The motor vehicle gas tax isn’t a stable source of income for community travel infrastructure, if the rate at which people travel by motor vehicles fluctuates…which it does. People continue to live in their communities whether they drive less or more. Accordingly, budgets for travel infrastructure, particularly where active transportation infrastructure is concerned, shouldn’t be overly dependent upon motor vehicle gas taxes.

The vision of how people travel within and beyond their communities today still doesn’t regard travel by foot and bike to be a particularly major means of practical travel. Communities today could be better suited for practical travel by foot and bike, if their infrastructure was thought of, designed, constructed and funded from this perspective.

Accomplishing that turn around in thinking though, seems to be a major hurdle. Out here in Washington County, west of Portland, there appears to be very little signs that many people are thinking of their road and street infrastructure from this perspective. So it is that well designed and located sidewalks and bike lanes, are a relatively low, low infrastructure priority, as is the funding for them.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon

Now is a perfect time to raise gasoline taxes. Gas is cheap cheap – less than $2/gallon in many locations. A 10 cent per gallon increase in the price would be fairly painless. At 20 mpg, that comes to $50 for each 10,000 miles driven. At 40 mpg, it comes to $25 for 10,000 miles driven. Even poor people will not be affected much.

In much of the USA, the speed limit on freeways is 80 mph – this imposes a larger price penalty than a 10 cent per gallon tax. The penalty is on the driver in higher gasoline costs as well as on the state in higher rates of damage to highways.

BUT what are the geniuses in Salem doing? Spending $millions on “studies” about taxing cars based on miles driven – which provide no incentive to buy cars with high mpg ratings. In this article is an example using a Prius and a Ford F150 pickup:
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/11/05/taxing-by-the-mile-not-the-gallon

The article admits that a Prius driver subsidizes the road usage of a Hummer. What the article fails to mention is that the F150 and the Hummer, and all other heavy vehicles, particularly trucks, do more damage to roads than lightweight vehicles. Thus, there is no line of thinking that can justify such a mileage-based tax (except on vehicles that use no gasoline) – but because the state has developed a large bureaucracy around this stupid idea the state WILL NOT let it die. YOUR Oregon government is encouraging use of low mpg vehicles which burn more fuel. Is this wise? If not, why do you vote for these idiots?

ed
Guest
ed

In reference to point #1: “It doesn’t make sense to me to be taking from gas revenues for some thing that we want to reduce. It’s like investing in movie theaters so we can develop a grant to stimulate independent film makers.”

Not sure why this is nonsensical to A.J. The concept of a “sin tax” makes lots of sense and is well founded and established. Our taxes on cigarettes and alcohol often goes to mitigate damages and costs society incurs by use (abuse?) of those products… and goes to pay for ways out of the usage. We don’t tax cigarettes and booze to “invest” in them; precisely the opposite. We know a higher price will discourage use AND fund the negative results of that use. It’s not a stretch at all to see gasoline consumption in similar vein, indeed its costs to society and the planet are arguably much larger. It’s eminently fair and reasonable that gas consumption should be made to both pay for the damage it makes and should finance sustainable alternatives to it.

The farce is our comically low gas tax rate. In more developed and mature countries (where gasoline cost is often double ours) much of that is tax. (do a quick check of gas prices just north of the border; a place with plenty of petroleum available) Users of motor vehicles are at the very least expected to not only pay their way (unlike heavily subsidized private vehicle use in the US) but also finance required infrastructure for alternatives. (mass transit, ped and bike infrastructure) If we actually practiced the “free market” we so insincerely worship and truly expected individuals to “pay their own way” gas in the US would be at least double or even triple the cost it is presently. $1 a gallon tax would begin to make a dent but of course it won’t happen.

Pete
Guest
Pete

I definitely appreciate Mr. Zelada’s thoughtful perspective – thanks AJ. I don’t agree with it though. I think many will agree that the gas tax is an inappropriate equation for funding equivalent wear and tear (it was originally flawed as it assumed linear wear correlation with weight/consumption, as well as steady state economics and automotive technologies). As a result, we’re now in a funding shortfall (at least perceived) when it comes to infrastructure repair and improvement, and looking for alternatives to increase revenue.

We’re at a unique juncture where we have bipartisan support (at least verbally) for a federal gas tax increase, along with low gas prices which are not forecast to rise any time soon. Funding for many bike/ped programs and infrastructure ultimately comes from the federal level, and this juncture is something I think we should all embrace (as drivers and pedestrians and bicyclists). What we really need to get past is the notion that using gas taxes for bike/ped infrastructure is not beneficial for drivers – quite the opposite is true! THAT is the myth that we must first move past with proper public education, and moving bike/ped funding away from gas tax coffers sends the opposite message.

Don’t be fooled – the currently proposed transportation funding includes significant chunks of money for many things entirely unrelated to fixing roads. People tend to think that’s the biggest chunk, but we’ve got high-speed rail, wireless automotive and railroad signalling, autonomous vehicle R&D, and new lighting technologies, to name a few categories. Bike/ped funding is a pretty small portion, and not nearly as competitive with the “filling potholes and adding lanes” chunk as the American public tends to believe.

Sure, people are driving to malls less, but VMT and fuel consumption correlate very tightly to one thing: impact on disposable income (or margin, for businesses dependent on such things). Further, Americans are easily persuaded to give up ‘bad habits’ with financial ‘penalties’: the bottle bill (originally) reduced litter dramatically, cigarette taxes have helped fund education and reduced American smoking to <20% of the population, and even local bag fees are encouraging people to remember to bring their reusable sacks to grocery stores. Increasing gas prices at the pump will not have the devastating effect on the economy that some wall street analysts would like you to believe, and our current state of low prices is the result of a global economic battle with our competition that will ultimately put many Americans out of work. There has to be a delicate balance, and my preference would not be for the cash subsidies that American oil companies have flat-out asked for.

Gas taxes are a less than perfect revenue source, but there are many reasons why they should be raised as soon as possible, and I think the 'pros' far outweigh the 'cons' right now.

Mark S
Guest
Mark S

If the major plan is to get more people out of their cars to use active transportation, then these people will need to live closer to where they work. The traffic disaster every weekday morning & night that is the I-5 commute between Clark County & Oregon (one example only) needs to stop. People’s expectations of being able to live in a nice house in the suburbs far from where they work will need to stop. Consequently, density in our city neighborhoods will have to increase. Single family houses will need to be converted to lots of apartments & condominiums.

When this occurs, the idea of more people using active transportation will be more realistic & there will be more room on the highways for the freight companies.

Dead Salmon
Guest
Dead Salmon
Mike Quiglery
Guest
Mike Quiglery

Let nature take it’s course. America doesn’t want to spend the money necessary to maintain its automobile infrastructure. So, let it collapse. Perhaps a natural catastrophe or two will hasten the process. Natural Selection doing its job. Don’t try to interfere. You won’t win.

Mike Quiglery
Guest
Mike Quiglery

I may (and probably) will be one of the losers. But what is a realistic solution to a country that can’t do anything about anything anymore? Cargo bikes to the rescue?

mark
Guest
mark

The bottom line is this. Cars bring all manner of destruction and pollution along with their minor utility. We are taxing ourselves (or rather lack of taxing) ourselves into insolvency by subsidizing the automobile well beyond the pittance it “pays”.

When cars stop killing and maiming bikers, stops destroying the planet and ceases to create a class of entitled citizens, we can cease using the pittance of tax the car produces for a true public good which is biking and walking infra.

Tax gasoline at the state level $1 a gallon. Feds can use their portion to distribute for the public good. States can use their $1 for whatever they think is important.

While we are at it, time to rip out I-5 from 205 to 205. Let’s rip out 405 as well. Repurpose to bus/train/biking/walking use.

dr2chase
Guest
dr2chase

Regarding road damage (which is somewhat correlated with costs), it scales very non-intuitively with vehicle weight and wheels. The damage is claimed to be, per-wheel, proportional to the cube of the loading on the wheel. I.e., if you believe in perfect weight distribution, it is the cube of the vehicle weight divided by the square of the number of wheels.

What this means is that excess weight hits you very, very hard. City busses do not score well on road damage. Carpooling helps, but not if you have to upsize the vehicle — 8 people in 8 Honda Civics do less damage than one Sienna minivan with 8 people in it. 32 wheels good, 4 wheels bad.

I made a spreadsheet, you can check my work. I sorted by “damage per cargo pound” and optimistically assumed that people weigh 150lbs (I weigh roughly 50% more than that, so this seems like wishful thinking to me).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oFeZd3CZJLysse-Y93rs2No2PhqS1B5Z6ESigpkOnsU/edit?usp=sharing

Just eyeball the exponents, there’s about a 50x jump in damage per pound from the “worst” bicycle (fat guy on a cargo bike) to the best automobile (4 150lb people carpooling in a Honda Civic).

If it needs more explanation, ask/complain, and I’ll see about adding some explanations. I added some links to data that I didn’t get from obvious places (like Wikipedia, or the MBTA Blue Book).

Clearly, we need hovercraft buses to reduce road damage.

BeavertonRider
Guest
BeavertonRider

It still seems to me that were our elected and appointed officials to actually exercise some level of fiscal restraint and judgment, we’d have all the transpo dollars we need . However, when we have local communities spending massive amounts on consultants that duplicate staff work and mashing in diversity and inclusion staffs into every local department and spending wild amounts of marketing itself and etc., etc., etc., well, that current revenue disappears quickly. When we have the federal government funding billions every year to support local/state activities local cowboy poetry festivals and SWAT teams for the Department of Education, well, yeah, of course, real government activities don’t receive proper funding.

I really don’t want to hear anything, at all, about gas taxes or transpo bonds until our local, state, and federal government eliminate the nonsense cluttering up their budgets. More voters ought to feel this way as this irrational spending means a) you have to enact more taxes to keep paying for an ever-expanding, ever-intrusive government; or b) deprive real, core government functions of the required funding levels.

I really am so glad that ou federal government pays for local petry festivals with Chinese money or seeing the City of Portland argue that it cannot properly staff a bike theft program as the City mashes multiple inclusion/diversity offices throughout several departments. Makes sense, eh?

But, yeah, we should ask for more gas taxes or new bonds because our local, state, and federal governments are so wisely, so efficiently spending our money now, right?

Before any expanded gas tax is enacted or a bond proposed, those advocating either ought to be requires to clearly demonstrated that all other jurisdictional spending is not only serving a proper government function, but that it also absolutely critical to remain in the spending pipeline. Otherwise, you ought to be ignored.

Jeff Bernards
Guest
Jeff Bernards

I prefer to call it a carbon tax and the funds used to promote low carbon transportation options, MAX, bus,bikes and walking. Taxing destructive behaviors is how capitalism is suppose to work. ODOT has borrowed to the point that a large portion of new money is paying debt, not building or maintaining any infrastructure.
The gas tax CARBON TAX- works,just raise it and watch all the positive things that happen like less driving, less C02 and money for C02 reducing infrastructure.
The article was short on new ideas.

q`Tzal
Guest
q`Tzal

I see some converging societal and technological factors:
() increased availability of “safer than human” self driving vehicles
() decreased cost of prior in line with Moore’s Law
() decreased Single Occupancy Vehicle use due to ease of use of self driving vehicles
() increased automobile insurance premiums for people that insist on driving manually
() prior factor further enticing automobile users to self driving systems.
() THE Preceeding leads to a continuing decline in per capita automobiles on the road in motion
.
() an increase in home delivery of most basic daily goods. Amazon Prime and similar grocery delivery services are finally seeing commonplace utilization after the DotCom Bust
() a single delivery vehicle the size of a FedEx or UPS parcel delivery van can easily displace from 5-100 individual SOV “errand” trips by the average person. Really depends on size of load: Walgreens prescription or CostCo dry goods haul for a family.
() then conversely companies that have been exclusively online like Amazon opening physical retail locations in dense urban markets.

At a certain point it almost makes sense for a big freight mover like Amazon or Walmart to run their own dedicated freight only Hyperloop system to move tiny expensive widgets from urban market to urban market and little self driving delivery vans (with a human that carries things to the door because that’s cheaper for now).

But I make no predictions other than this:
Short of a bolshevik revolution we are stuck with profit based corruption (Soviets had their own corruption too: maybe they were only human). Any thing that occurs will occur because it is a profitable business model. Home grocery delivery was not in the mid 90’s but is becoming so now; trends imply this will be more favorable.

Follow the money and you can see now and the future.

Mark
Guest
Mark

When the tax pushes gaa over 18 bucks gallon.. Then cars can have anything over 18.

MNBikeLuv
Guest
MNBikeLuv

Just a side note here, but at the Freewheel Winter Bike Expo that I attended this weekend, the BikeMN representative mentioned they were lobbying for a 0.5% tax on bikes and bike related services that

MNBikeLuv
Guest
MNBikeLuv

Just a side note here, but at the Freewheel Winter Bike Expo that I attended this weekend, the BikeMN representative mentioned they were lobbying for a 0.5% tax on bike equipment and bike related services that would go into a bike infrastructure fund. This would be above and beyond funding via other mechanisms.