Oregonian: Moving Beyond a Gas Tax - Sam Adams has sealed the case for the city to create a new utility fee for transportation

And so the usual discourse continues...

Streets were built for horses, not cars. And they were paved for bikes. Cars used pre-existing infrastructure in most cases (freeways are an exception, but neither bikes nor horses are allowed on freeways in Portland).

Sure, let's get cyclists to pay for roads - let's also get motorists to pay for their auto emissions, water pollution from leaked fluids, noise pollution, and all of the other hidden costs of the cars. Motorists simply do not pay their fair share. At least with cyclists, the costs are obvious and straightforward.

BTW, we could stripe bike lanes on every road in the city and it wouldn't amount to more than a few million dollars. I don't see how the money spent on bicycle projects comes anywhere near dealing with a $471 million backlog in street maintenance.

each TriMet bus chews up the roads equal to 22,000 cars (information directly from Sam’s office).

I'd love to see the full communication behind that statistic ... but taking your numbers at face value, they are in the ballpark of automobiles. TriMet reports an average number of 32 bus boarding rides per vehicle hour (142 for rail). Assuming a bus operates at least 12 hours per day on average, that's 140,000 boardings per year. (That's an assumption -- if anyone knows the average number of vehicle hours per bus, please let us know.) How many automobiles serve 140,000 boardings per year, or anywhere near that ballpark?

Lets be sure to keep in mind how these numbers are generated for Tri-Met. In order to make MAX appear like less of a tax payer funded failure there has been a drive to divert all bus riders to MAX, then back to busses on their commute. Any cross (or to downtown)town trip will require a ride on two busses to a transit center, then max, than back on a bus. You can't take a bus anywhere anymore. This artificially inflates MAX ridership numbers ... it makes me cringe when I hear "Ridership is up!" as if Portlanders have a choice. But for the sake of argument, let’s be conservative and say that you only took two busses and a train ride to get to your destination that only 46,000 boarding’s.

Curtis wrote: there has been a drive to divert all bus riders to MAX, then back to busses on their commute.

The numbers do not show this. Over the past 20 years since the first implementation of MAX, there ratio of boarding rides to originating rides has remained relatively constant. (Originating rides count complete one-way journeys, regardless of whether transfers are involved. Boarding rides are count how many people step onto a transit vehicle, regardless of whether it is the first stage in a journey or a transfer.)

If masses of transit users were indeed being forced to make transfers, then this ratio would have changed dramatically over the past two decades.

Curtis, do you actually *ride* Tri-Met?

I've been riding from NE Portland, Milwaukie, Oak Grove, and Sunnyside (in Clackamas, not the Portland neighborhood) to various destinations all over metro Portland (including Wilsonville) and I rarely get to ride MAX - it's limited in its destinations. I ride busses, and almost never more than 2.

That doesn't change the fact that Tri-Met needs to improve its service, especially in the non-peak hours, but the problems you speak of have never existed for me.

Granted, if you're a regular rider, your experience may be entirely different.

Curtis - wow, what are you smoking?

I've moved 14 times in the past 3 years (various Portland locales), and never have I been more than a 25 minute bus ride from downtown. I never take transfers either, unless I have to get to a destination in the burbs... and then never more than 1 transfer.

The only time I ever take MAX is from downtown to the Lloyd Center, even though I live a 1/2 mile from a MAX station.

A follow-up to the above guesstimate of 140,000 boardings per year. If we divide those 140,000 boardings by Terry's stated figure of a bus doing 22,000X the damage of a car, that's about 6.4 boardings per day for the car. A number of cars do achieve that level of use each day, but does the average car? In any case, that puts buses squarely in the ballpark of automobiles in terms of road damage.

Over on another blog just yesterday there was a discussion about whether government agencies should pay one another various fees that the private sector pays, such as gas taxes or weight-mile taxes, or whether that's just moving numbers around without really changing the amount of money spent.

I actually think it would be a useful exercise if TriMet and other agencies did pay a gas tax (or an equivalent lump sum), if only to provide a clearer picture accounting-wise, and to make it easier to answer issues such as Terry's as to whether buses are disproportionately damaging roads (or not paying for the maintenance) in relation to private automobiles.

Bob,

The calculation “one bus chews up the roads the roads equal to 22,000 cars” is directly from Sam’s office, not a figure I invented. Sam brought it up at yesterdays hearing, and I confirmed the number with Roland before I left City Hall. Other statistics aside, the points I have been making related to the Street Maintenance Fees residential charges are simple ones for the purpose of achieving tax equity.

All of us use roads differently in part because one vehicle size or type, and or one method of transport does NOT fit individual needs. Not everybody wears size 12 army boots. Would you be willing to charge for trips generated based on their level of importance? One example might be an unnecessary recreational bicycle trip would be charged at a much higher rate than a heavy truck making a delivery or a business person making a sales call traveling in is his/her own SUV with a load of samples. Another example would be TriMet charging a low fare for a trip to work or the doctor, and charging a much higher fare for an unnecessary trip to the theater. Yet this is exactly what is being proposed with the Street Maintenance Fee discount program, except it attempts to charge fees based on the vehicle used rather than the importance of the trip.

All people generate trips directly or indirectly; be it by motor vehicle, transit, bicycle or walking on sidewalks. All consumer goods are transported over roads at one time or another. Therefore, all households benefit from good roads and must be charged at an equal rate. The costs of motor vehicles are paid for by their individual users and owners while the extreme cost of transit vehicles and infrastructure continues to be paid for by the taxpayers. That requires all discount privileges and immunities (except for low income) be eliminated. I can not emphasize this enough: THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE IS A USER TAX, NOT A SOCIALISTIC MEANS TO DICTATE HOW PEOPLE TRAVEL OR WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING THEY LIVE IN!!!

Furthermore, all the money raised from the Street Maintenance Fee ought to go only for street repair and maintenance, not for special privilege sugar daddy funds for additional bicycle and transit subsidies. Motorists and motor freight carriers already pay their share of user taxes through the gas tax, registration and license fees, and the weight mile tax on larger commercial vehicles. Equity requires that transit users also directly contribute to roads through the farebox and that bicyclists also be taxed separately and directly, specifically to pay for the costs of specialized infrastructure the other modes of transport do not and can not use. Anything less is socialism and not the freedom of democracy that built this city and country

Terry, two questions - one: What about necessary bicycle commuting trips, as opposed to unnecessary recreational ones? How would you value those?

Two: Why should a commercial truck have a discounted rate, when it does 96,000x more damage to the road than a car, and approximately 92,000,000 times more damage to the road than a bicycle?

Thanks for your input

Bob R. I'd love to see the full communication behind that statistic ... but taking your numbers at face value, they are in the ballpark of automobiles. TriMet reports an average number of 32 bus boarding rides per vehicle hour (142 for rail). Assuming a bus operates at least 12 hours per day on average, that's 140,000 boardings per year. (That's an assumption -- if anyone knows the average number of vehicle hours per bus, please let us know.) How many automobiles serve 140,000 boardings per year, or anywhere near that ballpark?
JK: There you go again, picking arguments out of thin air.

The statement was “each TriMet bus chews up the roads equal to 22,000 cars”

The average Trimut bus carries 9 people. The average car carries 1.2 (your number).

Translating to people: cars: 22,000 x 1.2 = 26,4000
Buses: 9
Based on passengers, the bus does 2933 ( 26,400 / 9) times a much damage as cars. Just another reason that transit users should pay more.

Drive a small car, save money, energy and the road.

Stop Sam’s Tax: No Billions for Bikes, buses and bubble curbs

Thanks
JK

JK says: The average Trimut bus carries 9 people.

Care to assign a time or mile figure to that?

As I said already, TriMet reports an average number of 32 bus boarding rides per vehicle hour.

That means for each hour a bus is on the road, it picks up an average of 32 riders.

How many cars do that for each hour they are on the road?

When Terry said that a bus does as much damage as 22,000 cars, he did not state the important qualifying values to let us know how passengers-miles, boardings, time, anything were factored into that number (if at all), so I clearly said "I'd love to see the full communication behind that statistic" before taking a guess at what the numbers meant.

You've chosen to interpret Terry's numbers in the most pessimistic way possible. That's fine, but that's just your opinion. Without knowing the true calculation that came up with the "22,000 cars" figure in the first place, there's only so much that can be done. I think I've taken a more realistic approach than you, but I could be wrong.

If we are to interpret the numbers your way, that would suggest a single bus driving (for example) up Grand ave. from Burnside to Multnomah does as much damage in that single short trip as 22,000 cars passing down that same lane all day. If you want people to believe that, you'd better come up with some really solid numbers for such an initially outlandish claim.

Bob R. JK says: The average Trimut bus carries 9 people.
Care to assign a time or mile figure to that?
JK:: Whole system, whole year average FROM TRIMET:
Total 2006 Bus Vehicle-miles: .........26,336,856
Total 2006 Bus Passenger-miles: ...236,736,000
Do the math: 236,736,000 / 26,336,856 = 8.99 passengers per vehicle
From: busmaxstat.pdf – DebunkingPortland.com/Transit/Docs/busmaxstat.pdf

Bob R. You've chosen to interpret Terry's numbers in the most pessimistic way possible. That's fine, but that's just your opinion.
JK:: I just took the statement at face value, since its meaning is clear (not to say that was the intended meaning, just that a clear meaning does exist.). That you have trouble with it is probably due to you dislike of hearing the truth about how bad transit is.

Bob R. If we are to interpret the numbers your way, that would suggest a single bus driving (for example) up Grand ave. from Burnside to Multnomah does as much damage in that single short trip as 22,000 cars passing down that same lane all day.
JK:: That is pretty much what how that statement reads. That is also consistent with things that I have heard from road experts - cars do very little damage to modern roads.

Bob R. If you want people to believe that, you'd better come up with some really solid numbers for such an initially outlandish claim.
JK:: I’ll let you. But it does ring true. There is a reason that they are replacing the asphalt paving with concrete at many bus stops and it isn’t because cars are stopping there.

No Billions for Bikes, buses and bubble curbs

Thanks
JK

A follow-up:

If JK is right, suppose a car traveling 1 mile does 3 cents of damage to the road. By his interpretation, a bus traveling 1 mile, just once, causes $660.00 of damage. If that bus has an average speed of 15 miles per hour, that's nearly $10,000 of damage per hour! In a 16-hour service day, that lone bus could rack up $160,000 in damages before it even returns to the garage.

Why, you can just see the roads crumble into dust and vaporize every time a bus goes by, and the crews following right behind laying down new pavement before the next bus gets there...

I've never seen such an argument in favor of running transit on steel rails instead of pavement! Light Rail could save us $billions every few days, by JK's standards.

Bob R: If JK is right, suppose a car traveling 1 mile does 3 cents of damage to the road.
JK:: BAD NUMBER, BLATANT ASSUMPTION ALERT! That number is laughably high. I have heard a number of traffic experts say that cars do PRACTICALLY NO DAMAGE to modern roads. It is the heavier vehicles like trucks and buses. Remember a bus is well over 10 times the weight of a car and road damage is probably an exponential function of weight.

Bob R: by JK's standards
JK:: Not my standards, just a plain English reading of the claim for which you were coming up with convoluted interpretations to cover up how bad transit really is.

You know, this is a pretty good case for asking Trimet to cough up a few tens of millions for roads annually.

BTW, Bob why do you keep defending the indefeasible:
* Cars are cheaper than transit (less than 1/3 the cost)
* Small cars use less energy than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
* Small cars emit less CO2 than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.
* Cars usually are faster than transit.

BTW, high density causes congestion and costs more than low density.

Light rail costs too much, does too little.
No Billions for Bikes, buses and bubble curbs

Thanks
JK

JK, wrote: "BAD NUMBER, BLATANT ASSUMPTION ALERT!"

Cars are cheaper than transit (less than 1/3 the cost)

Your numbers have been widely and repeatedly debunked. (Hint: It depends on the type of trip and length of trip, city vs. rural, external costs, etc. Things you dismiss as "nits" but which are in fact, significant.)

Small cars use less energy than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.

So is it fair to say you supported the recent increase in CAFE standards?

Small cars emit less CO2 than transit, so public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.

You've stated many times and in many forums that transportation CO2 emissions are not a pollutant and not relevant to climate change. But you now say "public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars" in relation to CO2 emissions. Have you changed your stance?

(Also, your energy/CO2 figures have been repeatedly debunked, and even by your own figures published on one of your several web sites, electric rail transit uses less energy than cars.)

Cars usually are faster than transit.

Usually, yes. Nobody that I know expects transit to completely replace automobiles. Transit is good for certain types of trips in certain corridors. This isn't an either-or situation. Have you not heard people speak of a "multi-modal" transportation system? The modes can be complementary, not in competition with each other.

BUT WE DIGRESS ...

Let's get back to the cost of cars and this supposed 22,000 figure, which (according to Terry and JK) states that a bus does 22,000 times the damage to roads as do cars.

ASSUMPTION ALERT: For the purpose of this exercise (and because Terry and JK still haven't provided the basis for the calculation of this 22,000 figure in the first place!), I'm going to assume a typical mid-size car (instead of a larger car, truck or SUV), and then use the same standard for buses that JK has asserted.

Starting with the car... how about a popular mid-size American sedan, with the smallest engine available: The 2008 Chevy Malibu, 4cyl. 2008 EPA Ratings: 22mpg City / 30mpg Highway / 25 Combined.

Source: Edumnds.com and FuelEconomy.gov

Now, transit critics have often asserted that the gas tax should not be increased because current taxation levels would support needed roadway capacity improvements and regular maintenance if the taxes weren't "diverted" to transit and "non-road" projects like stormwater runoff, curb extensions, etc.

Let's give those critics the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME that 50% of all gas taxes collected are pure waste, and that the other 50% covers actual maintenance costs.

The Federal gas tax is 18.4 cents, 24 cents for Oregon, for a combined 42.4 cents. 50% of that is 21.2 cents.

The example Chevy Malibu's combined city/highway MPG is 25mpg. That means, using the 21.2 cent figure, that the Malibu generates 0.848 cents of our hypothetical "non-waste" gas tax every mile.

Based on this intentionally low-balled figure which makes things VERY favorable to the automobile, a bus which does 22,000 times as much damage would cause $186.56 of damage to the road PER MILE.

In Fiscal Year 2007, TriMet drove buses a total of 25,794,420 vehicle miles.

Using the $186.56 per mile figure, that means that, according to JK's methodology, TriMet buses caused $4,812,206,995 of damage to metro-area roads in FY2007.

That's right (using all-caps because JK likes to use them): FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION. _BILLION_ __BILLION___ (!!!) dollars in one year.

That's right, according to JK, Portland-Metro area roads are disintegrating to the tune of FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS --- EVERY YEAR! --- just because TriMet drives these buses around.

Right.

Sure.

JK, this doesn't begin to pass the smell test.

Just like your low-balled numbers for automobile cost-of-ownership, this 22,000X nonsense is just that.

$4.8 billion per year indeed.

Whatever.

Sorry I had to SHOUT ... but you just can't seem to let go of the ridiculous.

Bob R.: Your numbers have been widely and repeatedly debunked.
JK: No they haven’t, you just keep bringing up irrelevant little nits because you are blindly supporting failed transit.

Bob R.: So is it fair to say you supported the recent increase in CAFE standards?
JK: No. The government has no business dictating to people without a really good reason. Al Gore’s lies are not a really good reason to get people killed (per Brooking Institute study of the previous CAFÉ). Of course getting people killed never seems to be a problem for progressives if it furthers their fantasy agenda (except bike riders.) Light rail kills people at over two times the rate of cars, but progressive keep pushing it.

Bob R.: (Also, your energy/CO2 figures have been repeatedly debunked, and even by your own figures published on one of your several web sites, electric rail transit uses less energy than cars.)
JK: You seem to have missed the qualifier (appropriate when we are discussing social engineering alternatives): SMALL cars, not the average car. Small cars, particularly hybrids, beat mass transit. You know that - why do you keep denying it? As a public policy matter, pushing people to sam ll cars would save more energy and be more likely to succeed. But that would not feed Portland’s developers’ massive subsidies to build future ghettos at all of the toy train stations and bus stops.

Bob R.: Cars usually are faster than transit.
Usually, yes.
JK: Thank you.

Bob R.: BUT WE DIGRESS ...
Let's get back to the cost of cars and this supposed 22,000 figure, which (according to Terry and JK) states that a bus does 22,000 times the damage to roads as do cars.
JK: Actually, that came from Sam. Why do you have to distort its origins?

Bob R.: I'm going to assume a typical mid-size car (instead of a larger car, truck or SUV) .....Starting with the car...if the taxes weren't "diverted" to transit and "non-road" projects like stormwater runoff, curb extensions, etc.... Let's give those critics the benefit of the doubt
JK: Notice the carefully constructed “straw man”?

Bob R.: That's right, according to JK, Portland-Metro area roads are disintegrating to the tune of FOUR POINT EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS --- EVERY YEAR! --- just because TriMet drives these buses around.
JK: Now he uses his straw man to deceive us!
Aw, come on, Bob. you don’t begin to pass the smell test. You are writing pure rot.

Take a break, contemplate a world without transit - with only happy people, of all income levels, able to go where they want, when they want, at low cost, with low energy consumption and thus low pollution in a car. For those few unable to drive, there is door to door service supported by the millions saved by not feeding wasteful, government monopoly, mass transit. That is the real ideal world, not some high density rat hole served by overpriced toy trains created because of massive campaign donations by those that profit from it.

Thanks
JK

JK reverses himself so quickly that speed limits were probably violated:

First, he argues twice in a row that "public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit." His words, not mine.

Then, when I ask him if that means he supports increased CAFE standards, he replies:

"No. The government has no business dictating to people without a really good reason. Al Gore’s lies are not a really good reason to get people killed"

Regarding the assertion that a bus does 22,000 times as much damage as a car, which JK vigorously defended, he now backs away slowly saying, "Actually, that came from Sam. Why do you have to distort its origins?"

JK, it came here indirectly via Terry, who said: "TriMet bus chews up the roads equal to 22,000 cars (information directly from Sam’s office)."

I immediately stated that I want to see the full communication behind this, but Terry has been silent.

The number is incomplete, for reasons that I have expressed.

Even giving the statement the benefit of the doubt and taking it to have the meaning that YOU interpreted, the numbers just don't add up. At all.

If you (or Terry for that matter) want to back away from the assertion now that your interpretation isn't holding up, that's fine, but don't act like you didn't loudly advocate that assertion less than 24 hours ago.

Take a break, contemplate a world without transit - with only happy people [...]>

Now JK believes that if transit goes away, everyone will be happy. Wow.

Bob R. First, he argues twice in a row that "public policy should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit." His words, not mine.
JK: I stand corrected. Make that "public policy, if we must have one on this subject at all, should be directed at getting people into small cars, not transit.”

Bob R. The number is incomplete, for reasons that I have expressed.
JK: Then I’m sure you will bludgen us all witht he correct version as soon as you can contact Sam. Actually I see you posted this at 10:15 - you’ve has lots of time to contact Sam’s office -what did they say?

Bob R. Even giving the statement the benefit of the doubt and taking it to have the meaning that YOU interpreted, the numbers just don't add up. At all.
JK: Just used a plain English interpretation of the statement as relayed by YOU.

Bob R. If you (or Terry for that matter) want to back away from the assertion now that your interpretation isn't holding up, that's fine, but don't act like you didn't loudly advocate that assertion less than 24 hours ago.
JK: What the hell are you talking about?

Bob R. Now JK believes that if transit goes away, everyone will be happy. Wow.
JK: I’m just guessing that we could save money and serve people better with a different system. One based on freedom and choice with government handouts ONLY for the needy, instead of 80% support for every transit user.

Thanks
JK

JK:

I’m sure you will bludgen us all

What the hell are you talking about?

I’m just guessing

Take a break

Now he uses his straw man to deceive us!

Of course getting people killed never seems to be a problem for progressives

There you go again

Ohhh, you have been listening to too many bureaucrats

Are you saying that is it NOT “appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations”

you commie, I’m probably more liberal than you are

Typical progressive: attack the messenger when YOU HAVE NO FACTS.

I do understand though, you have to keep people distracted

I’ll bet you didn’t actually read it.

How about getting rid of the trees that hide pedestrians and widen the lanes back to a safer level

You are full of it

Huhh?

You are not allowed to make sense on this blog.

you are just another twit

I REPEAT PROVE YOUR CHARGE OR SHUT UP!

Do you really believe this crap

You are strictly a botched attempt to appeal to emotions.

Prove it or shut up!

That is a lie and you know it you twit.

Your current path will haunt you.

There is little hope for Portland until we start making decisions based on facts instead of emotion and toy train salesmen.

This is a real opportunity for you to actually learn something.

connected streets which increase crime.

As to peal oil, we will never run out of oil - it is just basic economics.

Aw, come on - we are adults here.

I see you ran out of rational arguments again?

I am mainly guilty of being realistic

Thanks Bob.

JK

"Drive a small car, save money, energy and the road."

Or, you could forego the car and ride a bike, thus saving even more money, and more energy, and extending road life beyond that which even the smallest of cars can hope to accomplish. An added benefit is that oxygen-breathing life forms everywhere will thank you for it.

An added benefit is that oxygen-breathing life forms everywhere will thank you for it.
JK: But what about the CO2 breathers who are being starved as the CO2 levels dropped 10 fold over millions of years?

The earth may be on a runaway carbon sequestration cycle that will end life on earth due to all carbon being locked up in fossils.

Liberate carbon for life.

Thanks
JK

Mr. Parker, I've tried for days to figure out how you are arriving at the conclusion that cyclists don't pay taxes. That being what I take away from everything I've seen you say. You are very careful to avoid using this exact language, but try as you might, that is exactly what you assert.

I don't own a car. By an extension of your own logic, I shouldn't have to pay anything for the maintenance of Portland's transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, I pay rent, and I'm sure my landlord is paying Oregon State Property tax. Property tax ends up in the general fund which, in turn, finances infrastructure, right? I'm sure that Commissioner Adams' new taxes are going to end up coming out of my pocket too. As does the gas-tax, even though I don't drive. Do you think the frieght-stakeholders magnanimously pay gas-tax for me, or do you suppose that they pass that expense on to me at the consumer level?

You've just spit-shined an ancient, defeated, pointless argument. That argument is the same one being had over single people funding schools. Or non-motorists paying for roads. The whole constituency benefits from the public-right-of-way. My guess? This is why they call it public.

Consider. The hardest you seem to be able to get that baby to spin is, "Bike specific infrastructure.". Your use of jargon is a blade that cuts both ways, it would seem, because that is a very specific statement. One for which you should be able to produce numbers, and not just condescending rhetoric.

The reality is, that some of the numbers you allege cover the cost of only a single, 'improvement', are actually closer to the cost of about everything that is being considered. For the record, that doesn't seem excusable as a mere coincidence. Again, bias, spin, whichever you like.

If you want to collect anything from cyclists, I would like you to explain how it would be done. Anything. If you would like, we can create thousands of new jobs with the City, County, and State, with the implementation of so much as a tire-excise tax. Each of those people will likely gross $3-$4K a month. That would certainly be good for the economy. We could then impose a $100 tax on every bicycle tire sold, and recoup some of that, ahem, other expenditure, to the tune of exactly precious little.

So we disagree on that, but I am still with ya. These, 'improvements to the bike infrastructure', do cost money, and any money spent on them is a waste. Add to that the idea behind most of these improvements, as dictated by the so-called cycling community, is to attract novice, and often incompetent, bicyclists to our streets. Our entire State budget isn't going to come close to making anyone safe from anything. As a free person living in a free society, I prefer to mitigate my own risk, and focus on my interaction with strangers who are tacitly trusting me with their life.

Paint on the road, some silly sign-age, and signaling, isn't going to do much. Nor do they cost all that much. However, 'Bike Boulevards', are a disastrous idea. If you think those speed bumps everywhere are stupid, you'll get a kick out of bike-boulevards. Plus, bike-boulevards come with the added bonus of getting bicycles of the roads, that they pay taxes for, and out of everybody's way. "Good little cyclist, you go ride on the sidewalks now.", isn't going to sit very well with me. All I've heard, for most of my adult life, is, "Same road, same rules."

Oregon Revised statute says (814.420) that bike-lanes are intended to be mandatory. No one is saying it yet, but I imagine cyclists are going to be banned from most of the public right-of-way, pretty soon. Cycling special-interest is playing right into their hands, so to speak. What cycling special interest fails to realize is that I have never seen a bike path put down anywhere that pedestrians don't end up screaming about, until they get to use it too. Plus, there is the question of added enforcement. Writing tickets cost a hell of a lot more than they collect, you know?

What cyclists will then have to look forward to, is having pedestrians call the shots, where it was once motorists. By endorsing Commissioner Adams' many green solutions, you are creating automobile congestion, are decreasing access to public right-of way that cyclists currently enjoy; and allowing the implementation of Nanny-State ideals. It is not up to the city what any of us spend our money on. They are there to keep things moving, not to so much as even imply that anyone change their lifestyle. That is pure Orewell you nit-wits.

Vance Longwell: Mr. Parker, I've tried for days to figure out how you are arriving at the conclusion that cyclists don't pay taxes.
JK: Try this:

I have a car. I pay property tax, car registration, gas taxes. None of this gives the legal right to drive a motor bike on the road - that requires payment of user fees FOR THAT VEHICLE.

Why would anyone think it is different for bicycles?

Thanks
JK

I'm in the same boat. I dumped my car years ago, because I never drove it.

But if you even think of trying to collect a user tax or fee on bike tires... get real! $100 tax on a $10 bike tire? This puts the exotic car tax to shame!

I'll just order my bike tires online from California, Washington, or wherever.

I'm just SO sorry to sink holes into your ridiculous proposal... there just would be no way to specifically target bicyclists with a tax, unless you created a state (or nation)-wide requirement for bicycle testing and licensing. And... I have yet to see any state-issued bicycle riding manual. That alone should set you back a few hundred million, for the creation of a new Department of Cycling, replete with a few hundred administrators, a new licensing system, and offices in every community in Oregon to handle testing and licensing of bikes.

This could be the new Homeland Security Department! Just imagine the possibilities... we could ban all cyclists under the age of 16 in the state of Oregon, unless they have comprehensive and liability insurance! Good luck trying to get it all to pay for itself, though.

Here's a related idea: we could tax poor people to make them stop being poor! Say... $100 a day for public use of sidewalks for panhandling and sleeping.

^ For those of you who are slow or just don't get it, I am being highly acrimonious and sarcastic in the previous post. However, if you don't get it, I'm not even going to try to explain it.

I have the same licensing you do, Mr. Parker. Right here in my wallet. Paid the same price for it that you did, as a matter of fact. I had to pass the same test too. So you are calling for additional licensing for cyclists? Plus you would have cyclists held to a higher standard of revenue allocation than motorists? That is to say that the licensing fee collected by the state doesn't even come close to the cost of issuing it in the first place.

What about kids? Are you now going to assert that children should obtain a driver-license to ride a bike? What about casual users that rent bikes from some of the new consumer services proposed? Additionally, the proof of registration you seem to envision just, 'hanging from a bicycle', you know doing that will void a manufacturers warranty, don't you? Plus, you are talking about something that the DOT likes to study before deployment, who's going to pay for all that?

Same goes for registration. What delusion are you suffering from that allows you to believe that registration fees even come close to the cost of a license plate, let alone the hundreds of civil-service salaries it takes to get one on the front of your MBA? That's fantasy. Licensing and registration fees only mitigate the cost of production, they don't eliminate it. Therefore, anyway you cut it, you are talking about raising everyone's taxes.

I don't pay gasoline tax, because I don't use any. Much the same as you not paying a tobacco, or alcohol tax if you don't consume those products. If gasoline tax is being used to implement additional bike-infrastructure, that's misappropriation, not inequity. As you so readily demonstrate to everyone, taxes are used, sometimes, to punish society for certain things.

In fact, if that's the way you want to play it, my bicycle does zero damage to the road surface. Since your car does exponentially more damage, shouldn't I be expecting a refund? Tell you what, you keep what I, as a cyclist, owe you for gas tax, and you refund what you owe me for tearing up the roads in your car, k? If you could magically equalize the tax burden, that'd leave me paying the same to use a bike on the road, as motorists do. How is that equitable?

Bike infrastructure is something neither you nor I want to see. You argue that it imposes an unfair tax burden on motorists. I think that's hogwash. I argue that these infrastructure additions do nothing, and are therefore not needed. Paying any amount of money, for anything not needed, is just bad business.

If you own a bicycle, this proposal is the end of times. You are being removed from the public right-of-way, the one you pay taxes to support; and get shoved off onto sidewalks, and jogging paths. Don't let this happen. Oppose bike specific infrastructure because it is useless, and will further segregate cyclists from motorists. Oppose it because the message to the city should be, that if you want to drive a Tractor-Trailer to and from work, that is your right. Hell, oppose it because of some made up tax-inequity, it doesn't matter, just don't let them do it.

Vance,

My wallet is not big enough to have the license (plates) on my car fit in it. Besides they are required to remain on the car so Sam can focus his red light cameras in on them. You either must have a big wallet or have found some way to shrink the plates. However, to my knowledge bicycles have not had to be licensed in Portland since 1899. When I refer to licensing bicyclists, I am suggesting that bicycles have a visible and identifiable license plate attached to them. For clarification, I am also referring to only taxing bicyclists for them who are 18 years of age and older, not kids. Furthermore, since the gas tax I pay subsidizes bicycle infrastructure, I am suggesting the bicycle license (plate) and registration fee be slightly higher than for a car to make up the difference.

If I am deciphering the spending breakdowns for the Street Maintenance Fee correctly, Sam wants to spend over $24 million for bicycle boulevards. Now that is a horrific price when a little paint and some fifty dollar a piece signs could accomplish the same results. And that was just what I suggested, a few years back or so when the proliferation of bike lanes was commencing on major arterials. It only took a decade or so after spending all that money for the bike lanes, for Sam and his bicycle buddies to see the wisdom of my suggestion. Now if Sam could only see the wisdom of spending less of the taxpayer’s money on them while also implementing a bicycle tax.

Terry - so what happens if an adult needs to ride their teenager's bike to run to the store?

Also, where are you getting your $50 signs? Please tell the city, so we can reduce spending. A street sign of any size costs at least $300 including manufacture, transport, installation and labor.

Vance - I appreciate your concern about the loss of cyclist mobility, and I will vigorously oppose any attempt at the local, state or federal level to reduce bicycle access to the street network. I don't think that bike boulevards harm that access, however - nor do bike lanes. Separated paths would, but so far I don't see the city advocating them.

I haven't seen Adams' poll regarding this issue, but I have seen the KOIN poll (currently at the bottom of their home page.)

The KOIN poll, like many web polls run by TV stations, is entirely unscientific and only represents the views of people who happened to visit the web site and feel strongly enough, one way or another, to cast a vote. Barely qualifies as entertainment, certainly doesn't qualify as representative of public opinion. The "results so far" graph doesn't even tell you how many people voted. It would be 6,000, 60 or just 6. Hard to tell.

Sam’s Town Halls and his stacked deck stakeholder committee were not scientific either. They were more like a gathering of the preconceived bicycle babble chorus supporters with a few dissenters. The silent majority still vote by driving their cars daily

The "silent majority" also apparently elected Sam Adams and the rest of the city council, by voting with their votes. Perhaps an enterprising candidate will run against the street maintenance fees in this November's council/mayoral elections, so as to rally the support of this silent majority.

I mean this is an interesting tax hitting water users for road repair? WHat's the connection ...

The fee goes to a variety of road-related issues, including pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and therefore benefits more than just car owners. Further, there are discounts available for people in various circumstances, including those who do not own a car.

The use of the sewer bill is an imperfect compromise, but it avoids creating a completely new (and costly) bureaucracy -- there is a very good overlap between property owners in the city and water/sewer ratepayers in the city. It's not perfect, but it's practical.

"The use of the sewer bill is an imperfect compromise"

OK, so you are alright with a single-preson living in a condo with one water meter paying the same as a 60-unit apartment, also with one water meter, for this road tax. It makes no sense.

I replied to your other comment a few minutes ago ... the ordinance provides for differentiating the actual number of residential units. Your scenario doesn't apply, so don't worry about it making "no sense".

I'd feel perfectly fine if this came up for a public vote. However, I also don't expect every proposal coming out of the city council which raises fees to go to a public vote. We do elect these people to make decisions about day-to-day issues like this.

I'm confused, where did I state every proposal should be voted upon? This is a novel, first-time tax they are trying and will be the prototype, if scucessful, for similar taxes. I really think it needs to have public vote.

"I believe if you use the excuse that bike riders pay other taxes and shouldn't have to pay a special bike tax, then car drivers should be able to say they pay othre taxes and shouldn't have to pay a special car tax."

Except that cars damage the infrastructure at a much greater rate. Cars should bear a greater tax burden, and transit a greater burden that that (per vehicle). The greatest per-vehicle burden should be borne by the trucking industry. A single 18-wheeler does as much damage to the road as 96,000 automobiles.

We can debate infrastructure and taxes all day. The facts of the matter are: most of today's roads are already paid for by prior taxes - retroactively back-taxing people for using services that they may or may not have used is as unfair as any current real or imagined situation. More importantly, only a small fraction of the cost of a road or bridge is encompassed by its construction - the maintenance and repair of that infrastructure dwarfs its construction cost. Since that is the case, it's clear that the only fair tax is one based on the relative damage done to that infrastructure by each individual vehicle.

"Except that cars damage the infrastructure at a much greater rate. Cars should bear a greater tax burden"

OK< no argument, however, we have incurred expenses for bike-specific improvements that solely benefit bikes like dedicated lanes, storage, bridges, etc. Since we are all in this together, is it too much to ask bike riders to contirnute aomething/anything? You did say greater, not the total, burden, after all.

Steve, I don't have a problem with the concept of cyclists paying for cycling-specific infrastructure per se - but I can't see a practical way to do it. A licence & registration system would cost as much or more to administer as it would bring in. A tax on consumables like bicycle tubes could be avoided by ordering online. The public right-of-way is intended for all modes - I think the cost of the total public ROW should be paid for equally by all taxpayers. Abolish the gas tax, fund the roads either equally from each taxpayer (not preferred - it hurts the poor) or through a progressive tax (part of the income tax perhaps - I don't know, it'd need to be discussed to see what is the best method).

I agree with Mr. Parker that forcing one mode to pay for another mode is inherently unfair. I agree with Mr. Longwell that bicycles have an equal right of access to the road. I believe that Bike Boulevards are a good thing - to an extent (like freeways). All roads should be open to cars, all roads should be open to bikes - road design should encourage bike traffic to tend towards Bike Boulevards and car traffic to tend towards freeways and major arterials. But neither mode should be prohibited from any street.

We probably need to get rid of the bike lanes - studies show them to be unsafe, they irritate drivers, people park or drive in them anyway, and the police have neither the money nor the inclination to enforce them. Better to just leave the rightmost lane on any street wider than the norm, to accommodate slow-moving traffic and allow faster traffic to safely pass.

The public right-of-way is meant for the entire public. The entire public should have access to it, the entire public should pay for it. I'm really starting to think we need to stop the use-specific taxes, because all they seem to do is create division and argument. Also, we're all pedestrians, 80% or more of us drive, and 40% or more of us ride a bike at least once a year. It's either that, or base the fees on damage done to the road, in which case bikes will pay next to nothing (bike wear is indistinguishable from weathering) and commercial trucking will bear the lion's share of the cost.

One nitpick - "bike only" infrastructure frequently isn't. If it's separated from the roadway, it's invariably "multi-use", which means all nonmotorized modes have access. And in any case, infrastructure which separates bike from cars in many cases gives benefits to the cars as well. As an example, look at the new bridge over McLoughlin in Milwaukie - that bridge allows Springwater Trail users to cross 99E without having to negotiate the intersection at Ochoco, or Tacoma St. This allows traffic to move more freely on Tacoma / Johnson Creek and 99E, and reduces the number of accidents. That benefits everybody, not just cyclists, skateboarders and pedestrians.

Matt Picio: Steve, I don't have a problem with the concept of cyclists paying for cycling-specific infrastructure per se - but I can't see a practical way to do it. A licence & registration system would cost as much or more to administer as it would bring in
JK: Ohhh, you have been listening to too many bureaucrats who have never worked outside of the government. Just about any mail order business would drool at the opportunity to sell 10,000 little plates at $50 each. Bet I could do it for under $5 per sale, leaving $20 for the city and $25 for me. Of course someone else may want to bid a little more for the city and take a lower cut. But the city’s position is to not even try. Typical.

Thanks
JK

I agree that companies would line up to produce the plates, but that's not the most significant cost - you need to pay for the people who do the licensing (even if you use existing DMV resources, you're now utilizing them at a higher rate, meaning more hours, more delays, etc), you have registration mailing costs for notices, late notices, etc - you have court fees, you have enforcement costs, the cost of administering the program, data entry and database programming costs, etc, etc. The ancillary costs go far beyond the mere cost of the little plates.

Mr. Karlock, I respect your opinion but I believe that you underestimate the expenses associated with the programs you advocate. (that doesn't mean I think they're without value - I'm merely saying it's not as simple or easy as your posted opinion appears to imply)

Here's a link to a Portland Business Journal article from august which gives more info about the poll, but not complete figures or the polling question. It was a professional poll done by the firm of Davis, Hibbitts & Midgall:

http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2007/08/20/daily31.html

No, RedFlyer, the Portland Business Journal online poll does not have more credibility than the KOIN poll. In fact, the PBJ even says so right on the page: "This poll is not a scientific sampling, but offers a quick view of what readers are thinking".

(By the way, the KOIN poll, and the results, seem to have disappeared from the homepage.)

Fortunately, the Davis, Hibbitts & Midgall poll mentioned in the PBJ article I linked to was not a self-selecting online survey.

Mr. Longwell, I am aware of ORS814.420. Since I was not a commuting cyclist before it was enacted, I was unable to oppose it then. I am completely against further restriction of the public right-of-way against cyclists, but adding cyclist-specific infrastructure, though it may become a justification for such restriction, does not in itself constitute such a restriction.

I have read your blog, at least the last 6-7 posts. Excellent work. I don't agree with you on several points, but I respect them. Fortunately in this country, we are not required to agree (and I hope we never are). In large part due to your writing, my opinions towards a separate infrastructure are shifting - especially since there is no practical way to build such infrastructure to serve all the destinations cyclists might wish to travel to. There is no reason why we should build one, when one already exists.

The core issue here is what makes the time/convenience of one of us more valuable than the time/convenience of any other of us? The answer, of course, is "nothing". The exclusion or restriction of cyclists rights to the road network in effect argues that the convenience of motorists takes precedence over the mobility (at all) of cyclists - and clearly it does not.

Thanks for your post - as I said, I don't always agree, but I appreciate the fact that you take the time to articulate your views, cite your sources, and ask the questions that others don't want asked.

Let me clarify. I was unable to oppose making bike lane use mandatory because I was not a resident of the state when the statute was enacted in 1983, nor when it was amended in 1985.

Now that we know bike lanes don't make the roads safer, perhaps it's time for the legislature to revisit that statute, and remove the restriction? I'm willing to work on getting someone arranged for the 2009 session.

In Eugene, the University of Oregon registers bicycles in case of theft (voluntary register). They make you put a giant sticker with an ID# on the frame, so if it is stolen (and it will) and recovered by the police (not likely), the Eugene police can track down the owner. You can't remove it very easily, obviously - all the messenger wannabes would obviously be pissed to have a giant sticker on their $3,000 one-speed bike.

Just FYI. I think this is a really stupid idea.

Mr. Vance, if indeed it is Adams' goal to get bicyclists off the public ROW, then he is failing miserably.

Every day I see more and more cyclists using streets that I personally consider suicide - ie, Burnside during rush hour, MLK, even Powell Blvd. Cyclists are appearing on streets where you would never see them before - are high in auto traffic - and lack bike lanes.

If a poll is not conducted with a truly random cross-section of the population, it doesn't tell us anything useful, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, about where people stand. Web-based polls with a self-selected respondents are therefore useless TO EITHER SIDE OF A DEBATE. Why can't you get that?

The Adams poll was conducted by a firm in the business of conducting scientific polls. That being said, it would be far more useful to see the actual questions and methodology (how about a link, any Adams office staffers know where we can see this?) to understand what potential biases may have motivated particular answers, but it's still a long way ahead of silly web polls.

"The Adams poll was conducted by a firm in the business of conducting scientific polls."

It would be nice to see the methodology behind the poll, but my suspicion is like hearings (where we usually have a higher proportion of people in city govt appear especially the daytime ones) and his 89-person group (all selected to agree with Mr Adams), that there is some bias.

I mean even the KOIN poll was simply would you pay $5 more for fixing bridges which is about as easy a YES as you can get. It didn't mention dinking with water bills or having no guarantee the $5 would actually fix bridges and it still lost.

"I mean even the KOIN poll " ...

Yes but the KOIN poll is statistically useless. I wouldn't tout it if the results turned out the other way, either. It is only a representation of A) people who happened to visit their web site and B) the subset of those people who noticed the poll and C) the subset of those people who cared enough to vote in the poll.

That tells us nothing about their demographics. It doesn't even tell us if they're from Portland. Polls like that exist for entertainment purposes only (if your idea of being entertained is voting in unscientific polls where the results aren't correlated to anything real.)

I would wager the sign is $50. 90 minutes to drive there and install it, at ~$15/hr = $22.50/person on the crew (I'd assume 2, for a total of $45). Add another $5 in gas, and an equivalent amount to account for insurance & maintenance, and we're in the vicinity of $110. I'm probably forgetting some costs, but the price of a stop sign is probably about half the figure I tossed out. Larger signs probably would hit $300, and that may be where I pulled the number from (the $300 figure was originally from Michigan, so there are other factors that may not come into play in Oregon)

My original point is that the sign costs are definitely more than just $50, and that the entire cost needs to be taken into account.

Oh, and transit will never come close to paying for itself - it will always need to be subsidized. I agree with the subsidy, because our roads cannot handle the extra volume required to accommodate all of those people in automobiles in addition to what they already carry. More lanes, and more roads are simply not a viable option. The cause of congestion in Portland is growth, and simply put, we need to minimize and eventually halt growth altogether.

Infinite growth with finite land area is not only impractical, but impossible. We should stop pretending that it is possible, or that any level of year-on-year growth is sustainable (by definition it is not), and work at convincing Metro of that fact.

Our metropolitan area is already at 2 million people. At the rate we're growing (including Vancouver), we'll be the size Seattle is now within 30 years. Do we want that, and all the problems that entail from being that size? I don't - do you?

Well said.

They've already gobbled up two City of Portland B.E.S. trucks with massive sinkholes. Rich irony.

My prediction: a water and sewer repair EMERGENCY! Followed quickly by a new tax to protect OUR CHILDREN from being swallowed by sinkholes.

If we tax water and sewer users to fix our roads, can we put up toll booths on roads and bridges to pay for water and sewer repairs? Seems fair to me, in a Weird Portland kind of way.

Water and sewer bills should be left alone. I agree with the comment that affordable housing depends on affordable heat, light, water and sewer. A homeowner on foot does not necessarily need to use the streets, and should not be burdened. If there is to be a road tax, let it stand alone, and be directed at road repair. Period. Let it be paid by those who use the streets with fuel-consuming, licensed vehicles in the city as a fee at the time of registering a car or bike, and/or when getting new license tabs.

Sharon, how do you think homeowners get their groceries? Or other goods & services - those are delivered by truck. FedEx doesn't have to drive on SE Harrison, for example, unless a homeowner on that street orders something. Are you saying that because that homeowner is on foot that he or she does not use the streets?

You forgot the real CoP motto:

"What's in your wallet?"