Submitted by Terry Parker on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 9:57am.
PDOT employee said: “GTR is our only source of maintenance funds”
The very reason why the users of alternative forms of vehicle transport that also use roads should be taxed and help shoulder the burden.
PDOT employee: “Gas taxes are just that--taxes. They are NOT user fees.”
I totally disagree, gas taxes were designed as a user fee to pay for roads and only roads - the more you drive the more you pay. Today the fund has become all encompassing similar to what has happened to Social Security, a pay all for bicycle infrastructure, transit infrastructure, sidewalks and anything that can come under a loose definition of being associated with roads. It is only the political forces that continually want a piece of the gas tax for other than roads that make the disclaimer the gas tax is not a user fee.
PDOT employee: We do tax for alternative modes of transportation. TriMet's payroll tax.
This is a tax on business to “subsidize” an alternative mode of transport, not a tax on the users of the mode. Transit fares only cover 21 percent of just the operation costs of transit. Maybe there should be a payroll tax to maintain roads too so motorists as well as transit riders receive the same kind of subsidy.
PDOT employee; “The long term solution is more like a carbon tax, not a bike tax.”
Again I disagree. First the carbon tax would only make sense if the gas tax is TOTALLY eliminated. Otherwise it would be double taxation on the same users (motorists) and not broadening the tax base for transport projects. Second, a bicycle user tax absolutely makes sense, particularly when Sam and PDOTare so intent on spending oodles of money for specialized bicycle infrastructure (while not maintaining city streets) and City government is so intent controlling how people move about including attempting to move people out of their cars and onto bicycles. Furthermore, people pay a user fee to use municipal golf courses, to use tennis centers and some sports fields, for basic services like water and sewer, to pay for garbage recycling programs, to park their cars downtown and elsewhere – I could go on and on. It only makes sense that bicyclists also pay for the use of bicycle infrastructure. Sam and his bicycle buddies need to stop protecting their own special interests and require bicyclists to pay user fees to cover their fair share of transport funding. These are the people that need to open up and start accepting some financial responsibility for the infrastructure they want and use..
PDOT employee: “Terry you're wrong about Safe, Sound & Green discounts. Those are for businesses, not individuals”
If that were true, there would be no discounts on residential utility bulls for people that do not own a car, people that own a hybrid car and people that have a monthly transit pass, etc. – all of whom already pay less or nothing in transport taxes as compared average motorists who not only pay for roads, but who also subsidize the users of alternative forms of transport.
Re Missing the Point
PDOT employee said: “GTR is our only source of maintenance funds”
The very reason why the users of alternative forms of vehicle transport that also use roads should be taxed and help shoulder the burden.
PDOT employee: “Gas taxes are just that--taxes. They are NOT user fees.”
I totally disagree, gas taxes were designed as a user fee to pay for roads and only roads - the more you drive the more you pay. Today the fund has become all encompassing similar to what has happened to Social Security, a pay all for bicycle infrastructure, transit infrastructure, sidewalks and anything that can come under a loose definition of being associated with roads. It is only the political forces that continually want a piece of the gas tax for other than roads that make the disclaimer the gas tax is not a user fee.
PDOT employee: We do tax for alternative modes of transportation. TriMet's payroll tax.
This is a tax on business to “subsidize” an alternative mode of transport, not a tax on the users of the mode. Transit fares only cover 21 percent of just the operation costs of transit. Maybe there should be a payroll tax to maintain roads too so motorists as well as transit riders receive the same kind of subsidy.
PDOT employee; “The long term solution is more like a carbon tax, not a bike tax.”
Again I disagree. First the carbon tax would only make sense if the gas tax is TOTALLY eliminated. Otherwise it would be double taxation on the same users (motorists) and not broadening the tax base for transport projects. Second, a bicycle user tax absolutely makes sense, particularly when Sam and PDOTare so intent on spending oodles of money for specialized bicycle infrastructure (while not maintaining city streets) and City government is so intent controlling how people move about including attempting to move people out of their cars and onto bicycles. Furthermore, people pay a user fee to use municipal golf courses, to use tennis centers and some sports fields, for basic services like water and sewer, to pay for garbage recycling programs, to park their cars downtown and elsewhere – I could go on and on. It only makes sense that bicyclists also pay for the use of bicycle infrastructure. Sam and his bicycle buddies need to stop protecting their own special interests and require bicyclists to pay user fees to cover their fair share of transport funding. These are the people that need to open up and start accepting some financial responsibility for the infrastructure they want and use..
PDOT employee: “Terry you're wrong about Safe, Sound & Green discounts. Those are for businesses, not individuals”
If that were true, there would be no discounts on residential utility bulls for people that do not own a car, people that own a hybrid car and people that have a monthly transit pass, etc. – all of whom already pay less or nothing in transport taxes as compared average motorists who not only pay for roads, but who also subsidize the users of alternative forms of transport.