Bicycle Expenditures with Some Context
Guest Author
From time to time, we ask city staff members and others to write on subjects on behalf of the office. For this article, we asked Paul Smith, a Planning Manager at the Portland Office of Transportation, to write about a recent budget analysis he performed on Sam's request. The findings are rather striking.
At one of our regular PDOT management meetings with Sam, he brought up how much flack he got from a small but vocal group of people who were seemingly incensed over the amount of transportation dollars PDOT invested in bicycle infrastructure improvements and other bicycle-related programs. These people often complained that automobiles and freight are getting the short end of the stick, and that those modes have needs that are not being attended to - while all the while, funds are being lavished on bicyclists.
While it may be true that there are many freight and automobile-oriented projects with merit that are still waiting in line for full funding, and while it is true Portland has much more extensive bicycle infrastructure than many other American cities, the amount of money the City of Portland spends that is bicycle-related is nonetheless a tiny fraction of PDOT's total budget. For the city staff involved in allocating the funds for transportation projects, this is pretty clear. But for many in the public and particular lobbies, it is not. And quite frankly, the city budget has never been broken down by transportation mode - until now.
Wanting to have some hard numbers to be able to present to the public and take a look at himself, Sam asked me to go through the entire PDOT budget - capital expenditures, maintenance, staff and all transportation programs - and find out how much money we were actually spending on bicycles and how much we were spending on freight projects. On this post, I focus on capital infrastructure investments. (Soon, I will look at all other costs for bicycle projects, too, do the same for all the other modes of transportation - automobile, pedestrian, and transit - and share those results on the blog as well.)
Despite how it may seem on the surface, this was not an easy task. When you are paving a road, how (and should) you differentiate costs associated to the design and pavement of bicycle lanes as opposed to that for transit or the automobile? You can read about my (conservative) methodology and take a look at the actual costs of specific projects in the memo I wrote Sam, available as a pdf document you can download here.
The main findings of my analysis: we are budget to spend about $3.5 million over a 5-year period (2007-2011) on bicycle-related capital improvements, though that estimate is a liberal one that attributes costs to bike lanes that would have been expended regardless - for instance, the cost of pavement in bicycle lanes was put into the "bicycle cost column," - even though that pavement would have been there as an automobile shoulder anyhow.
When it comes to freight-oriented capital improvement projects, the city will spend just under $50 million over the same 5-year period.
A brief summary: The biggest city expenditures on bicycles are probably bike lanes, which are simply a stripe of paint and not a huge cost to the city. On the other hand, freight projects include lots of overpasses and bridge replacements, which are pricey. When all is said and done, for every dollar the city spends on bicycle improvements, at least $14 are spent on freight projects.
There will be more to come on this issue, and you will see PDOT's budget broken down into other transportation modes soon.
- Paul Smith
You can take a look at PDOT's budget sources here, in a pdf document. 1 in 4 dollars comes from gasoline taxes, the rest from other sources.
Posted by Guest Author on April 20, 2006
(133) Comments | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
Filed Under Blog, Front Page, Office of Transportation, Transportation
Comments by site visitors
Paul,
Thank you for your brief discussion regarding bicycle amenities around town versus freight. So much of the time we pit bikes, pedestrians, commuters and freight needs against one another when it takes all of these to make a successful city. A concept that is getting popular around the country is to let private industry construct private bridges for freight needs, that service freight destinations directly and usually more effeciently than commuter corridors. Several examples have been implemented on the East coast and might be worth evaluating for Portland. Perhaps a new freight bridge would allow bike lanes on the St. Johns bridge?
Posted by: Robin Plance | Apr 21, 2006 7:47:53 AM
With blinders on, $3.5 million does sound like a lot of money. But the big picture does not only include current funding; it must include historical expenditures as well. When looking at the amount of money spent on bicycle (and pedestrian) improvements, one must also look at the amount of money that was spent historically on bicycle (and pedestrian) improvements and safety relative to those funds used strictly for motor vehicles. I think it is safe to say that one reason we don't see more people on bikes and on foot today is because those modes were historically not considered as meriting appropriate expenditures in the past. We are simply making up for a transportation system that until recently focused almost solely on cars. And by that measure, $3.5 million a year is a pittance. We must all remember that our transportation system is indeed a system consisting of many different modes. We must also remember that Federal, State and local DOTs are Departments of TRANSPORTATION, not departments of cars.
Posted by: Evan | Apr 21, 2006 8:28:04 AM
Paul,
Thanks for the numbers.
Please note that all the numbers are not included.
For instance, where are the costs for all of the signage that has gone up, apparently for bikes, that shows various distances to different sections of the city? Example: 3.9 miles to the Lloyd district. 2.3 miles to Mt. Tabor.
The motoring public, that pays for PDOT expenditures, have never been extended this courtesy. These signs are obviously aimed at bikes as they are too small to effectively read when driving a motor vehicle.
That is one cost that I am sure has been left out of the report. Are there more?
Also, is there a way to quantify the costs of air polution caused by traffic being stalled or slowed while waiting for bikes? Check out 82nd ave. during rush hour and see how many motor vehicles are forced to sit and idle while a bike is loaded on a TriMet bus. That does not even take into account the lost productivity caused while sitting in this traffic.
Also, shouldn't the cost of the ground that the bike lanes are placed on be considered a cost? Motorists bought and paid for this ground only to have it taken away, causing even more congestion for the motoring public (see the backups at S.E. 92nd and Powell Blvd., mainly on 92nd, during rush hour, where it used to be two lanes, as one example) so it could be given to a small segment that pays no fees to aquire or maintain this land.
Your report is a good start but it is not by any means complete.
Posted by: Pete | Apr 21, 2006 8:40:22 AM
Pete-
Signage costs are considered capital expenditures, so they were included in the analysis and are a part of the $3.5 million figure. In terms of capital expenditures, this analysis is very thorough. I should also add that the vast majority of signage on the road is for auto traffic, which I will try to touch on in my next post in this series of "budget by mode."
As for the costs associated with the air pollution of idling - that is potentially a fair cost to associate to bicycles, but only so long as we also attribute air pollution/idling costs to freight and auto traffic as well, and autos definitely create more traffic for themselves -and emissions- than do bicycles. That would be a much more difficult thing to measure, and at the end of the day, would probably be a little subjective.
I do know of a study that calculates the cost of a generic trip on a bicycle, auto, bus, etc. that takes into account pollution concerns, and I can see about posting that on the blog shortly. In this study, though, the cost of automobile pollution is attributed to automobiles, not bicycles - which on balance I have to say I think is fair. Holding emmission-free bicycles responsible for the emissions of other modes of transportation is at the very least quite a tricky endeavor.
Also, this figure does take into account the cost of bike lanes as a portion of the overall street. We looked at how much it cost to pave an entire street and attributed to bicycles the cost of the portion of the street they covered - even though by far the most expensive part of paving a road - the foundation - is designed for automobiles, not bicycles. In this sense, the cost of bike lanes are inflated and take into account costs that would have been expended anyhow for automobiles.
If you are looking for a market valuation of the amount of public right-of-way that goes to bicycle lanes, that is a problematic task for a couple of reasons. First, what I was measuring was capital expenditures, not property values. If I attempted that I would have to inflate the costs of all other modes, too, and property values would probably vary geographically and then you are opening a whole new can of worms. Second, as I noted above, that ROW would have been there anyway, probably as a wider (and vacant) shoulder.
Posted by: Paul Smith | Apr 21, 2006 9:33:46 AM
Paul,
I am definitely one of the group of outspoken individuals that continue and will continue to question the costs associated with bicycle infrastructure and related programs. I would however disagree with you in defining the group as “small” who questions these expenditures. Although those who vocalize the issue may be small, there is a large silent part of the population that also have issues with these expenditures. The group(s) who vocalize, demonstrate, commit civil disobedience, demand more and have Sam’s ear are also small as compared with to entire population of Portland.
I do appreciate your efforts to separate the numbers and thank both you and Sam for that effort. However as I recall, 3.5 million dollars is very close to the same amount projected for makeover of NW Flanders into a bicycle boulevard. Add to that other projects and proposed projects such as making room for bicycles on the reconstructed Naito Parkway, the proposed bike lanes on the Morrison Bridge, the widening of the sidewalks on the Hawthorne Bridge, any bicycle infrastructure that will be associated with a Sellwood Bridge fix, the Eastbank Esplanade, the Springwater Trail, the Tillamook Street bicycle boulevard, exclusive bicycle signalization at intersections in addition to all the other bike infrastructure, and your 3.5 million dollar annual amount figure seems low.
Whether or not your figure is low or high to me is not the real or entire issue. Although 3.5 million dollars is only a small part of PDOT’s budget, it is still a significant amount of money in anybody’s budget. With the exception of infrastructure constructed in urban renewal districts, the majority of the 3.5 million dollars still comes from fuel taxes assessed on motorists as a subsidy to bicyclists. To me that along with taking away motor vehicle lanes is the crux of the issue. Whether it is 3.5 million, 10 million or even ten dollars, the funds to pay for bicycle infrastructure should come directly from bicyclists who use the infrastructure. If this is “such a tiny fraction of PDOT’s total budget” as you put it, there should be no reason for hardcore bicyclists to oppose the idea of paying their own way by taxing themselves with a bicycle tax. The best use of your research would be for Sam to break that 3.5 million dollar figure down per bicyclist and then develop an appropriate method for bicyclists to directly pay for the government services they receive.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 21, 2006 10:11:24 AM
Paul,
What a great exercise! I agree with Jonathan that additional transparency about the costs of different transportation modes is a great thing. As Pete's comments attest, many motorists drive around amongst billions of dollars of infrastructure and still bemoan the pittance direct towards bicycles. Truly missing the forest for the trees.
I would like to point out that the expenditure variable is only half the equation. Just as often as motorists make claims of excessive spending, they claim that cyclists (and perhaps pedestrians too I suppose) do not “pay their way”. The basis of this is usually the idea that since cyclists do not pay fuel tax, they are in effect not paying anything for the amazing array of roads and improvements they use . . . I would like to see your office also say something about where the money comes from for the overall transportation portfolio . . . And what percentage of that is from fuel tax revenue.
After all that, then we can perhaps delve into the myriad, more hidden, health and economic costs of the American love affair with cars (and yes, I own and drive a car too).
Posted by: Ethan | Apr 21, 2006 10:16:26 AM
Paul - I believe Pete is erroneously attributing the source of all capital invested in local streets to gas tax revenues. I believe there are other sources of funding including property taxes and other general revenues. In any event, many bicyclists also own motor vehicles and contribute to the gas tax, as well. This gets down to the argument of who 'owns' our public roads and has a right to use them. Care to address this issue for us?
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 10:25:40 AM
Terry, you are only in the outspoken minority here in Portland . . . you could live amongst like-minded folks in great numbers in places like Sacramento, Los Angeles etc. They have really pursued your vision with great gusto in those places. "Fuel taxes" have paid for much more robust freeway systems and other auto-infrastructure improvements. I am sure the pesky problems you face here would vanish. It would rarely if ever be the case that your trip would be slowed by a cyclist. You would almost never see city outlays for bikes on a scale that would upset you so.
Posted by: Ethan | Apr 21, 2006 10:27:49 AM
Every bicyclist on the road is one less car causing traffic congestion and one more parking space available for those who must drive. A lot of die-hard motorists really don't appreciate this fact, let alone get it.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 10:36:52 AM
Gas Tax Revenue accounts for $50 million of PDOT's total $187 million annual budget, or about 27% percent.
Roughly 3 out of every 4 dollars PDOT spends come from non gas-tax funds. I will provide a link to information outlining this above.
Posted by: Paul Smith | Apr 21, 2006 10:48:12 AM
Repeatedly I'm seeing the claim that cyclists are somehow being "subsidized" by the system. I own a car, pay taxes and registration on it, fill it with gas, pay property taxes, ride MAX and pay my fare every month. I have certainly paid my fair share of the cost of infrastructure maintenance and improvement. I take offense to the idea that I am somehow "freeloading" on the rest of society because I decide to bike to/from work every day, saving gas, commute congestion and wear-and-tear on the roadways. The idea that motorists are having their land "taken away" by cyclists is pure hogwash. Taxpayers, not motorists, paid for that land directly or indirectly, and we all have the opportunity to use it. Given the breakdown per dollar of where the money goes, we're the ones "subsidizing" the motorists, considering the vast majority of funds are directed at the auto infrastructure we're not using on a daily basis.
Posted by: Joel | Apr 21, 2006 10:51:07 AM
It's worth nothing that in a recent PDOT budget survey given to the public and to PDOT maintenance employees, it was clear that maintenance workers do not put a priority on bicycle facilities.
Every time the question came up about prioritizing spending, the public overwhelming voted bike facilities as a high priority and the maintenence employees voted them a low priority.
I see this as a real problem within PDOT that I hope can be corrected.
Posted by: Jonathan Maus | Apr 21, 2006 10:53:04 AM
The first line in the above comment should read "It's worth noting.."
Posted by: Jonathan Maus | Apr 21, 2006 10:54:06 AM
There was a comment made about the numbers being low compared with certain expensive projects like the Hawthorne Bridge.
First, regarding that project in particular: the improvements made to the Hawthorne Bridge benefit pedestrians as well as bicyclists, and the entire project cost can't be attributed solely to cyclists.
Regarding these projects in general - large capital projects are typically amortized over a long period, sometimes as long as 20 years. A 5 million dollar project over 20 years is $250,000 per year. I'd be curious to hear from Paul what the amortization period is for those large projects.
Regarding bicycle improvements in general, a few points:
In Portland, as in most cities, carpooling is practically non-existant. One person, one car is the norm. A 14' lane can handle one car, versus 3-4 bicycles abreast. Every fewer car is less emissions, less noise, less wear and tear on the streets (lowering road replacement costs), and less traffic. Local cycling statistics show that the number of cyclists in Portland has risen with the number of dedicated bike lane miles in the city's bicycle network.
A bicycle on a road with bike lanes creates little or no delay for automobiles. 80% of all bicycle accidents occur on sidewalks and driveways - bicycles are proven to be much safer on the streets.
I find it strange that many of the same people who are so irritated at a bicycle interrupting their turn into a driveway or parking lot are only briefly annoyed by a slow or cautious driver doing the same. Within the city, many bicyclists are easily able to keep up with or even pass automobile traffic on downhill or level ground. Like it or not, bicycles are legal vehicles and are permitted by state law to use the same roadways as motorized vehicles. The bicycle improvements the city has constructed allow cars and bikes to share the road with a minimum of interference with each other.
A final note: Portland has been named the best bicycling city in the US. It's also been voted the best city in the US for walking. Pedestrian improvements frequently exceed bicycling expenditures, but I don't hear the anti-bike individuals complaining about that expense. Nor do I hear them complaining about the massive amount of money spent making transportation ADA-accessible. ADA also benefits only a small portion of the population, but it's not politically correct to talk about that.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 21, 2006 11:32:09 AM
Note - I'm not saying we should stop spending money on ADA, I'm saying that there are valid programs that we should continue to spend money on, like pedestrian and bike improvements. Just as no one would suggest cutting out ADA, we shouldn't cut out those programs either.
Cars are not the end-all, be-all of life. Driving is a priviledge, not a right.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 21, 2006 11:37:57 AM
So bicyclists get too much support, do they? How about considering the costs to society that the automobile actually is responsible for? Over 40,000 people die in car crashes each year in the US - how many are killed by bicyclists? Cars are responsible for a great portion of air pollution and its associated medical costs - how much air pollution is caused by the bicycle? And what about noise pollution, sprawl, inactivity, especially among youth (the US Surgeon General estimates that costs associated with obesity will eclipse EVERY other cost in the US within a few years), drunk driving, speeding, road rage, congestion and its costs to society in lost productivity and increased freight costs (and what about oil, war, power). Does gas really only cost society a few dollars a gallon? I don't think so! Let's get real, folks, you can pretend that your auto doesn't affect the rest of us, and that you are a fantastic driver, even after a couple beers, but the facts say otherwise. More bikes means less cars. Less cars on the street means less cost to society - end of discussion.
Posted by: Robert | Apr 21, 2006 11:38:24 AM
Thank you, Paul, for pulling this information together and shedding some light where it's sorely needed to clarify points in this debate. And thank you, Sam, for listening to your constituency and requesting some facts to help us refine our understanding of how much our transportation options truly cost. I look forward to future installments in this series, particularly any information detailing PDOT's funding sources.
Posted by: Clay | Apr 21, 2006 11:54:20 AM
If the anti-bike, pro car folks believe we(we being cyclists. I also should own a car, pay for tags, gas, I own a house and pay taxes)should pick up the 3.5 million dollar tab, I believe-
First, come up with a figure that shows the cost for the ammount of damage that would be done to the road if every cyclist in portland drove a car daily instead of riding.
Second, Come up with a dollar amount that would be lost in taxes if many of the companies that have moved to Portland because of things like being the most bicycle friendly city in america. Adidas, Salomon, Keen, to name a few.
Third, how about a dollar figure for the increase in health issues from pollution if every cyclist started driving a car.
Please kindly remove these figures from our bill.
You could also figure out how much longer it would take to drive around town if every cyclist started to drive. Arguing that a cyclist getting on and off a bus takes a few minutes from you could be the most asinine thing I have ever heard. If we didn't ride our bikes, it would take you a lot longer to get around.
Posted by: Ian | Apr 21, 2006 12:03:23 PM
Pete said: "Check out 82nd ave. during rush hour and see how many motor vehicles are forced to sit and idle while a bike is loaded on a TriMet bus. That does not even take into account the lost productivity caused while sitting in this traffic."
Pete, are you serious? I ride the bus often, and I have rarely seen the addition/removal of a bike to/from the bus bike rack take any more than 10 seconds. Usually, it doesn't take ANY additional time as the bicyclists know what they are doing and are often loading/unloading their bike at the same time that people are coming/going from the bus. I suggest you ride a bus for yourself and see how well it works. Besides, motorists have to stop all the time at things called TRAFFIC SIGNALS and STOP SIGNS. 10 additional seconds is not going to ruin anyone's commute, especially if they're looking beyond themselves and their immediate satisfaction.
You cite rush hour traffic as the example of an instance where bikes are responsible for backing up cars, which I find completely ludicrous. Rush hour traffic is caused by AUTOMOBILES - remove the bikers from the equation and add 10,000 more cars daily just to the downtown commute, and you get WORSE RUSH HOUR TRAFFIC.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 12:32:21 PM
Stephen, you raise a good point. About 2% of all work commuters commute by bike. 48% commute alone by car and 12% carpool. (2004 Portland numbers) That means that 30 times as many people commute by car as by bike.
One of the problems with traffic engineering is that when a system nears its capacity, very small changes in volume can severely impact its efficiency. In other words, if 100,000 people in the city work, and 60,000 of them drive cars, adding 2,000 cyclists would seriously impact the system. Instead of having roughly 54,000 cars on the road in the morning, we'd have roughly 55,500. Now that doesn't sound like a big increase, does it?
Here's the kicker - that's about 1-2 extra cars in the road segment you're currently driving in at any given time. Still doesn't sound like a lot, until you consider stoplights. When a system nears capacity, small changes in volume cause large changes in efficiency. If you are lined up as the last car in line in the left turn lane at a signal, and you just make it through before the light turns red, how will that affect you if there are 1-2 more cars out on the road where you are? You might not make the light, and have to wait 2-5 minutes for the next light cycle. Now let's say this happens at 2 or 3 intersections. You've added 4-15 minutes to your commute.
Now, these numbers are approximations - they're not accurate. That's not the point, though - it's the principle that's important. The more people we get out of cars and walking, rollerblading, skateboarding or bicycling, the better off we are traffic-wise.
And for those who say "why spend all this money for a small minority?" - Everyone is a minority. How many of us use the parks? The library? We fund those. They're not, strictly speaking, necessary for the survival of the community. What they do is make the community LIVEABLE. It's not enough to provide the minimum of services for the majority of the citizens. This other stuff is important, and before you shoot down something because it doesn't benefit EVERYONE, take a look at your life and how many things you *do* use that others don't see as a benefit, but which they pay for.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 21, 2006 1:27:45 PM
Matt: as road infrastructure is "near capacity"...how does the removal of one lane of vehicular traffic impact the system?
If the former vehicular lane is replaced by a bike lane, does that help or hurt congestion (when 60% of us commute by car)?
Posted by: Alice | Apr 21, 2006 2:22:17 PM
Poor little boys and their cars... so misunderstood, so mistreated. Maybe we should do an exaustive study on the true externalities of a car centered society vis-a-vis a bicycle centered society and proceed from there. My guess is that those of us with an ounce of sense will get outside to enjoy the fresh air and quiet neighborhoods of our new bicycle oriented city while those of us that are too fat to go anywhere under their own power will still be ranting and raving on commissioner Sam's blog. BTW, I own a car and a house and pay income taxes, and I think the budget for biking in Portland should be tripled. $3.5 million is not nearly enough.
Posted by: Ron Sporseen | Apr 21, 2006 2:43:25 PM
The City's traffic engineers rarely, if ever, remove travel lanes from roads that are already at or near capacity to add a bike lane. Their primary objective is still to move as many cars as fast as possible through the system. Travel lanes are only removed for bike lanes if the road in question has the reserve capacity available to do so. In most cases, all existing lanes are preserved and simply narrowed slightly to make room for the bike lane. The alternative, of course, is for the cyclists to ride in the travel lanes; so take your pick - cyclist in front of you in the travel lane, or off to the side in a bike lane?
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 3:41:25 PM
I'm putting together a brief article on the costs of traffic infrastructure and the contributions by cyclists, pedestrians, and motorists. Anyone with any specific figures not already mentioned (this thread has been very valuable) or contacts I could talk to, please post here with the info. Much appreciated!
Note in the document linked below, which is a cost / contribution analysis for North American traffic infrastructure, an example of a typical motorist and typical cyclist. The cyclist only cycles, the motorist only motors, both have about average income and miles travelled for their modes. The cyclist overpayed for infrastructure used by $252, while the motorist underpayed by $236.
http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
I'd like to find an analysis like this if possible that the info pertains to Oregon and Portland costs / contributions.
Posted by: Brian | Apr 21, 2006 3:45:12 PM
Incidentally, contrary to prevailing motorist attitudes and beliefs, cyclists ARE legally allowed to ride in the travel lanes in many instances, see ORS 814.430(2)(c), ORS 814.420(2) and (3)
http://landru.leg.state.or.us/ors/814.html
and the following:
http://www.stc-law.com/slowmoving.html
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 4:07:01 PM
Thanks, Randy:
As everybody is aware, if it's been approved by the Oregon Legislature, it's a 100% guaranteed effective way to die.
Don't let the laws of physics scare you away: the City of Portland can just vote to suspend those too.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 21, 2006 4:13:30 PM
Alice, what did you hope to accomplish with that post? Did you have a point to add to the debate, or were you just being glib?
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 4:38:58 PM
Stephen:
My point was simple: just because the law permits something (riding in vehicular traffic) doesn't make it reasonable or prudent.
We've all seen resonsible cyclists sharing the road, and we've also seen the idiot (sometimes sans reflective clothing or a helmet) shussing silently on the dotted line, weaving in and out of cars, going the wrong way on one-way streets, and blowing through red lights.
If you want to pretend you're a car, at least follow the vehicular rules.
Randy: your fear of getting run over by a car is well justified if you ride like you write.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 21, 2006 4:51:55 PM
Alice - the only motorists I fear are the ones that drive like you think.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 4:58:52 PM
You can't just nonchalantly pretend that all motorists are perfect drivers and that all cyclists are scofflaws. 99% of motorists violate the law every time they get behind the wheel by speeding, and I see more motorists running lights, failing to yield, and committing other violations on a daily basis than I do cyclists, by a long shot.
Motorists all seem to think that they are perfect drivers (which they are not), and that no cyclist has any credibility until all cyclists obey the law perfectly. This is what is know as a double standard, and I call BS on it.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 5:08:11 PM
Bicyclists know the risks and shoulder them each time they take to the road. You're right, being legal doesn't necessarily make it prudent, but you're wrong about it being unreasonable. It's perfectly reasonable for a bicyclist to ride in motor vehicle lanes when they are, legally, the same as a motor vehicle. What's unreasonable is the motorists who not only ignore the great responsibility they have by simply being behind the wheel of a car, but also endanger others (bicyclists, themselves and other motorists) by impatiently "shussing" (didn't you mean "schussing"? Does that mean you deserve to get run over, too, Alice?) around bicyclists when there's no room to schuss. I see far more idiots behind the wheel than I do on a bike seat.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 5:10:12 PM
The cycling scofflaws don't have the benefit of 4,200 pounds of metal, crumple zones, and airbags when they drive like Mario Andretti. The automobile scofflaws do. Is one more right or wrong? Perhaps not.
Is one more dangerous? You bet.
Having The Law on your side is little comfort if you're dead or irrevocably harmed.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 21, 2006 5:12:36 PM
Alice, your point is simply that cycling is more dangerous, which everone knows. Why do you keep bringing it up when it's obvious that you don't give a crap if every cyclist suddenly dropped dead? It just comes off as self-righteous posturing.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 21, 2006 5:18:16 PM
Paul.. thanks for the numbers, it's going to take alot of give and take to deal with this monster of America's mode of transportating itself into the future...It would be nice if the cyclist contributed a little dough to the pot and if some of the drivers pooled up...lest not forget formulating a new form of fuel... maybe the hemp...at least then we wouldn't have to send our youngest at the prime of their lives to go to some middle eastern country to get blown-up or blown away. In ending this....could you PLEASE ask the cyclist not to run the red lights....it could really cause a mess.
Thanks...tom
Posted by: Tom | Apr 21, 2006 5:24:28 PM
It's a very popular misconception in our society that bicycling is more dangerous than ddriving, but it just isn't so. Even with all the safety equipment, motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the US - motorists succeed in killing 40,000 + of their fellow motorists (and injuring countless others) each year, and these numbers are rising due to new in-car distractions like cell phones; whereas only about 700 bicyclists die on our nation's roads, incidentally also primarily due to being hit by motor vehicles.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 5:58:51 PM
Randy: if there were just as many bicycles on the road as cars, then your comparative analysis might mean something. Guess what: there are many more vehicles than bikes, so you would expect many more vehicular deaths. Perhaps you're garage is different, but that doesn't make it typical.
Also: the root of the danger when mixing cars and bikes is not how many transportation dollars each receive; rather, their relative weight, visibility, and speed.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 21, 2006 6:38:22 PM
You can wish the bicycles off the roads all you want, but it ain't gonna happen.
My point still stands, bicyclist have a legal right to be on the road, including in the lane in front of you; and, in such cases, the bicyclist has the right of way over the following or overtaking motorist. It is your responsibility as a motorist to slow down, yield to the bicyclist, and use the passing lane to go around, when it is safe to do so.
The fact that motor vehicles are larger, heavier and faster just means that their operators need to be that much more careful.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 7:12:44 PM
I understand all of your concerns yet this seems to becoming a power trip on all sides/the facts are that of course you get more exercise and save gas by riding a bike/ and cars do take up more space and people should car pool. The citys' infrastructure is aging every day thats whys PDOT needs the funds to help maintain the City. Lets quit all the bravado and move foward with the solution to this problem. Putting a bike in front of a car (physically) is just plain silly no matter what "THE LAW" states. We need to shift the focus of this issue from all the arguing to some sort of manner in which cars are occupied by more than one person and bikes have a safe place to travel.
Posted by: Billy | Apr 21, 2006 8:08:35 PM
SO YOU THINK CYCLIST HAVE IT BAD? TRY PATCHING A POTHOLE IN THE MIDDLE NE 15TH AND NE BROADWAY OR AT SE 82ND AVE AND SE POWELL BLVD OR SW CAPITOL HWY AT SW HUBER OR ON ANY OF OUR CITY STREETS AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY HAVING ALL THE OSHA REQUIRED WARNING SIGNS AND ALL THE OSHA REQUIRED SAFETY EQUIPMENT AND CONES AND EVEN TRUCKS WITH BLINKING YELLOW WARNING LIGHTS. THEN HAVE A CAR FLY BY AT 40+ MILES PER HOUR WITHIN FEET OF YOU LIKE YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...BUT OF COURSE THAT POTHOLE NEEDS TO GET FIXED.
AND AS FAR AS CYCLIST GO...THE CONSTRUCTION SIGNS THAT ARE PUT UP FOR WORK ZONES PERTAINING TO VEHICLES, (CARS, TRUCKS, MOTORCYCLES ETC...)
ALSO PERTAIN TO YOU!!!
Posted by: A Person With A Family | Apr 21, 2006 8:21:42 PM
It is totally hypocritical that in one breath hardcore bicyclists make the statement that because they own a car, they pay there fair share of transportation taxes, and then in the next breath, cars don’t pay their own way. It simply can not be both ways. Bicyclists are just looking for an excuse for a free ride in that same manner a large number of bicyclists feel they should not be required to follow traffic laws. Except for the license and registration fees, motor vehicle taxes are paid for with fuel taxes. In most cases, that means the vehicle is moving on a street, road or highway. When a car is just sitting parked, it is not contributing taxes to the transportation system even though the owner of the vehicle may be using a pedal pusher vehicle to get around on a street, road or highway. Therefore it is a misconception that just because one owns a car while using a bike is paying their fair share of taxes. Since there is no bicycle registration fee or license, no taxes on bicycles at all in Oregon, free pedaling bicyclists contribute zero for their government provided infrastructure.
In relation to what auto users pay vs road costs at the Federal Level, see the US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration on Public Roads at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm. Here is an excerpt from that document; “As a class, automobiles pay the same share of federal highway user fees as their share of highway costs, but pickups, vans, sport utility vehicles, and similar light trucks pay substantially more than their share of highway costs.”
Since both federal funding and most state and local funding comes from fuel taxes, motor vehicles subsidize bicycle infrastructure, no doubt about it, but only when their engines are running. The exception is in urban renewal districts where tax increment funding is often used for all kinds of transportation projects.
As for the Hawthorne Bridge, there would have been no need to widen the sidewalks if they were just used by pedestrians. The need to widen the sidewalks was solely created by bicyclists and therefore bicyclists should bear the costs. Motor vehicle lanes have been removed to accommodate bicycle lanes on SE 7th Avenue from Sandy south and NE 12th Avenue between Sandy and I-84. In addition, one westbound lane on the Burnside Bridge was removed to accommodate bicycles lanes. All three of these examples have created some added congestion to their respective streets.
The bottom line is the 3.5 million should be assessed to bicyclists, not other taxpayers.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 21, 2006 9:02:51 PM
Did you read the part where only 27% of local road costs are paid for by gas taxes, or are you just conveniently ignoring it?
We're all waiting to hear where the other 73% comes from, but I'm willing to bet a substantial portion comes from property, income and other taxes that everyone pays whether they drive or not.
Public streets are not just for motorists, they are for the use of the public, no matter how they choose to travel. You should quit whining and get over it.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 21, 2006 10:19:42 PM
HEADLINE: Automobiles more deadly than guns.
Should we ride our guns to work?
Randy: I just wish you weren't so "bike-centric"...you are so dismissive of unicyclists, skate boarders, and pogo stick riders. They pay taxes too!
If you keep ranting, people are going to think you are a Bike Nazi, or that you hate cars or something.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 22, 2006 3:44:25 AM
Please, please show me where I said I hate cars. Sharing the road is about motorists being more accomodating of bicyclists and other road users, and not about bicyclists getting out of the way of motorists, simply because cars and trucks are bigger, faster and more dangerous. Motorists simply do not have priority, that's all in your imagination.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 22, 2006 8:53:33 AM
You're starting to look disingenuous, Terry, still citing statistics and documents that have already been pointed out as not saying what it is you wish they said. As we've discussed elsewhere, that report only talks about user fee distribution. Just because you want it to say that user fees cover the entirety of road expenses doesn't make it even remotely so. The reason you're having difficulty finding alternate documentation to support your argument is because it doesn't exist. It doesn't exist because the premise isn't true.
If you think cyclists should contribute directly to cover some portion of the transportation buildout to which they have access, that's fine. But I do suggest you argue your point from sturdier ground.
Posted by: Clay | Apr 22, 2006 11:01:27 AM
I think the problem is not the expenditures themselves, but the fact that road projects often get overlooked so that bike, ped, and transit projects can get funded.
Most of the projects are not needed.
Is there ONE street in Portland with bike traffic so high that it might warrant a separate lane?
Is there ONE street in Portland (outside downtown) with ped traffic so high that it might warrant double wide sidewalks? Bubble curbs?
Now using the same logic, is there any streets or freeways with auto/truck traffic so high that might warrant more lanes?
My example: Division Street between 82nd and 181st has 4 traffic lanes though there is room for 6 (most cities have 6 on busy streets). Even in heavy traffic, 2 lanes are never used because they are painted as bike lanes. I have only ONCE seen the bike lane used properly (in 10 years). Why not re-stripe Division to accommodate 6 lanes for traffic, and have the bikes ride on the sidewalk?
This same scenario can be applied to 181st Av, 162nd Av, 148th Av, 122nd Av, Stark St, Glisan St, and Halsey St. All have enough room for auto/truck capacity but wasted on UNUSED bike lanes.
The “if you build it, they will come” theory does not work east of 82nd.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 22, 2006 12:35:42 PM
It's not always a choice between car infrastructure and bike infrastructure. Traffic planning and engineering norms have changed a lot since the old days when we thought that wider roads and more lanes would improve traffic flow. We've since learned that, in urban areas, building bigger roads (a) generally decreases rush hour congestion _only_ in the first few years (then it fills up again), and (b) hurts community livability (and often neighboring property values) with higher speeds and more noise.
My point is that there may be many reasons to not expand Division Street east of 82nd to six lanes. I'd very surprised if striping bike lanes was probably one of the major ones.
Traffic plannners and engineers are intelligent, trained people who understand our complex land use and transportation system and are trying to improve it. If they feel that bike infrastructure makes sense somewhere, and doesn't make sense somewhere else (there plenty of examples of _lacking_ bike infrastructure), I'll tend to trust they've studied the situation thoroughly and are making the best decision possible given the information and resources available.
Daniel
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 22, 2006 1:25:29 PM
So Alice, let's recap for the benefit of the Commissioner and his staff. Would I be correct in stating that your attitude towards bicyclists is one of seething resentment, and that you are unwilling, as a motorist, to share the road with bicyclists?
Posted by: Randy | Apr 22, 2006 8:55:16 PM
Randy:
I have no seething resentment: there aren't enough bikes on our public roads to bother me with any frequency.
The "I'm pedaling and can't slow down for stop signs" mentality is more dangerous to the cyclist than it is annoying to me. The same goes for the cyclist that can only manage 12 MPH on the (uphill) road with a 30 MPH posted limit, or the jerk who is weaving in and out of bumper to bumper traffic, just waiting to fly over his handle-bars when a car changes lanes ahead of him. Kind of reminds me of that a@@hole who blocked the Tri-Met bus and then turned around and sued them when a 60 year old man put his pansy-a@@ back on the sidewalk.
The pandering that local politicians engage in with the "screw the cars" faction of the Bike Nazis DOES bother me.
Like it or not, automobiles and buses (vehicular traffic) accomodate 98% of all asphalt commuters. To let the 2% (cyclists) impede traffic or flaunt their scofflaw pride ("critical mass") flies in the face of reason or well designed traffic management.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 23, 2006 8:23:56 AM
The bicycle mode split in Portland is currently around 4% to 5% - not 2% - and rising. In many close-in neighborhoods and districts it is even higher. Fully 14% of the vehicular traffic on the Hawthorne bridge today is bicycle traffic. State and city goals are to raise the percentage of the bicycle mode split to 10% or greater. Just because bicyclists are a minority doesn't mean they shouldn't have safe accomodation on our public roads. And motorists aren't perfect angels by a long shot, so it would behove you to quit pandering that tired double-standard. You really should spend a week or a month commuting by bicycle before passing judgement on something you know very little about.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 23, 2006 9:45:22 AM
I believe a 'fair' system of taxation to pay for construction & maintenance of transportation infrastructure should be based on a per-user fee.
By weight.
Perhaps we should set this at $1/pound/mile travelled. Therefore, a 150-pound person, if they wanted to walk one mile, would be charged $150 (to pay for the sidewalk).
That same person riding a 40-pound bicycle would be charged $190, due to weight (150# + 40# per mile).
That same person riding in a 4,000 pound car would be charged $4,150 per mile.
Of course, this does not take into account the fact that road wear works as a factor of 3 agains the axle weight; therefore, a car does thousands of times more damage to a road surface as compared to a bicycle. Pedestrians really hardly affect a road surface at all (may need repaving every few thousand years).
The numbers I threw out were merely an example; they might be 10 or even a 100 times lower. Used for illustrative effect. My point, however, is if there is some effort to equiatively charge users for road access, it should have some rational basis - ie, weight (equating to road wear) and distance traveled. This could be in lieu of gas taxes.
Violators, of course, would be immediately executed, or impressed into military service in Iraq.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 23, 2006 2:12:09 PM
By some of the 'logic' provided here, it would seem you believe that children, who don't work or pay taxes, should be banned from public parks, streets, and schools. All they do is leech on society.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 23, 2006 2:45:23 PM
If we could take a break for a minute from the bickering, insulting, and egos... there has been very little posted here about the actual sources and facts for travel infrastructure funding. Below are some resources I've looked at, or intend to look at more thoroughly. Anyone with any info about how to determine funding breakdown for Oregon infrastructure (sidewalks, highways, traffic signals, basically everything related to travel) or with info on who I could talk to about getting this information, PLEASE post here. Much thanks.
http://www.vtpi.org/documents/transportation.php
www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/janpr/cost.htm
http://www.ethanol.org/pdfs/gas.pdf
Posted by: Brian | Apr 23, 2006 4:03:05 PM
Well said Alice. It seems to me that some how bicyclists feel they are God’s gift to the environment and therefore above the law. I wonder how many of them drink bottled water, bottles made from petroleum products. It seems that bicyclists become color blind to traffic signals when mounted on a bike and show their intelligence by shouting obscenities, seemingly the only four letter words they know since they appear to become illiterate when reading the four letter word “STOP” on octagon signs. Bicyclists want privileged rights and immunities, and want to share the road with drivers, but not share the financial responsibility. When bicyclists do not get their own way, they act in a civil disobedient manner, demonstrate in mass and otherwise disrupt the orderly livability of others.
In Oregon property taxes do not pay for public streets and roads except on a tax increment basis only within urban renewal districts. Tolls have been charged to pay off some bridges mostly crossing the Columbia River. The only other method outside of motorist fuel taxes that is sometimes used is a local improvement district. That requires voter approval to form the district and is only used for a specific project. Federal funds and grants all come from federally imposed fuel taxes on motorists. Sometimes this money is dolled out to local governments prior to when the payment is do on a project. The money then earns interest which is also considered funding and applied as funding to the same project. The federal government usually only pays for a percentage of projects with local matching funds required. The Feds have paid as much as 80% on some transportation projects. The total all government tax rate on gasoline was about 19 percent of the cost nationwide prior to the recent spike in prices.
On the flip side, all I have heard is lip service about what bicyclists financially contribute to streets and roads. I have yet to encounter, or anyone posting on this forum has yet to produce any document from a reliable source or government entity that specifically lists the financial contributions bicyclists “directly” make toward the infrastructure they use. .
That raises the question “what if?” What if every Portlander used the bicyclist methodology and nobody had to pay for any infrastructure they used with in the City? Golfers could golf for free and sports teams would not be required to pay for permits to play on sports fields in City parks. There would be no charges at community centers or City swimming pools. None of those excessive sewer or rain water run off taxes could be charged by the City whereby I could flush my toilet for free. All parking downtown, including City owned garages would be free. And better yet, no gasoline taxes, so I could drive on the roads and only pay for fuel. I pay property taxes and income taxes too. Why shouldn’t I get all these services for free? Bicyclists are about the only group that requires an exclusive infrastructure that is assessed nothing or zero dollars to use it. A funding method paid for directly by bicyclist users that use bicycle infrastructure is long overdue.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 23, 2006 5:00:03 PM
Terry - Bicyclists are here to stay. Instead of criticizing, it would be much more useful if you offered some constructive solutions.
Bicycles will never require gasoline, so the gas tax is a non-issue.
Bicycle registration fees? They will cost more to administer than they will ever recover in revenue.
Don't like bike lanes? You have two choices: (1) separated paths, which cost many times more than bike lanes; (2) bikes ride in the motor vehicle travel lanes, motorists slow down and yield to bicyclists in the lane, as the law requires.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 23, 2006 6:22:53 PM
Randy -
Constructive solutions:
Since bikes are primarly for people who are too poor (or too young) to drive:
1. Spend the money that goes for bike projects on leasing these poor folks a car.
2. Outlaw bikes on busy streets to keep our kids safe.
A lot of bikers out there are meth addicts casing properties for scrap metal.
3. Do more about the meth epidemic.
For the bikers who do it for excersize:
4. Springwater trail, already built, no need for more $$.
For the 5000 additional cars on the road:
5. Restripe streets to their 6 lane glory.
And for the 100-200 or so do gooder bikers out there:
6. Get a life and get a car. You really think that by riding your bike you will save the planet or whatever your trip is? I have news for you: When most people drive by you they are laughing at you because no one looks good in spandex. No one.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 23, 2006 8:19:30 PM
The only thing Alice has said that makes any sense is that a cyclist running a stop sign is mostly putting themselves at risk . . . that is true. If she fiollowed her own logic though, she would see that the motorist who does the same (it happens countless times every day right here in Portland) with a 3-4,000 pound vehicle is truly a hazard . . . to cyclists it is true, but also to children (non-tax-payers as mentioned), pedestrians and even other mororists.
On the few occaisions when I have almost hit a cyclist or walker in my car I am always stunned at how easy it would have been to be a little more spaced out, have the stereo a little higher etc, and actually taken someone out. Beyond road-wear, funding and numbers, the fact remains that automobiles travelling at any speed above a crawl have huge potential to harm others. There is no escape from that simple fact. 40,000 dead a year . . . how many are crippled or seriously injured but live? I bet that is a huge number indeed. Anyone who wants to piss and moan about the bad bad bike messenger who ran a red light would do better to get REALLY angry the next time they see an automobile 15mph over the limit in a school zone, running stops signs in residential neighborhodds etc . . . things that can very possible kill and mame in a fraction of second.
At the end of the day, both terry and Alice's comments really boil down to a "might makes right" attitude. Terry tries selective use of statistics, Alice tries some Darwinian SUV-esque logic. The first is sad, the second is scary. Amazing that folks can live here in America's most liveable city and not gey why it has that reputation.
Alice, Terry . . . believe me your "way" has been tried in any number of American cities, and it has not produced communities I would want to live in. The larger roads and highways there are all at capacity too, no bikes around to blame for the bigger delays. Have you ever left Portland?
Posted by: Ethan | Apr 23, 2006 9:07:54 PM
After you're done whipping that straw man, Terry, please realize that no one has argued that cyclists are directly paying an infrastructure tax. And of course while you demand that cycling proponents produce documentation to support an argument they're not making, you continue to refrain from producing any facts that support your own position and insist on perpetuating the myth that auto-related user fees alone pay for the roads.
"The only other method outside of motorist fuel taxes that is sometimes used is a local improvement district"
Is that where the remaining 73% of PDOT's budget comes from, LIDs and license plats? Paul already pointed out that only 27% of their budget is covered by fuel tax collections.
"Federal funds and grants all come from federally imposed fuel taxes on motorists."
This remains totally false. For actual facts, take a look at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov
/policy/ohim/hs03/htm/hf10.htm
I've pointed you in the direction of this information before, so it's obvious at this point that either you're not interested in facts or you're just not paying attention to what anyone else is saying. CARS DO NOT PAY THEIR OWN WAY. The roads they travel upon and the fuel that propels them are heavily subsidized at every level, using funds appropriated through other means, collected from people who do not benefit from their existence.
Instead of arguing from a poisoned pulpit you should follow your own anti-freeloader logic and push for automobile and petroleum expenses truly to cover the costs of using them. Once you've accomplished that and have gotten rid of the billions of dollars of auto subsidies, then you'll have much more room to talk about the relatively tiny expense generated by creating bike infrastructure.
Posted by: Clay | Apr 23, 2006 9:30:30 PM
"What if every Portlander used the bicyclist methodology and nobody had to pay for any infrastructure they used with in the City?"
I am guessing the roads wouldn't wear down at the rate they currently do. They still would, of course - but we certainly wouldn't need as much of them.
Let's be theoretical here, so no cars are being driven in Portland. Not sure about trucks - we'll ignore them for now.
At that point, we would likely need a new funding source - a small VAT on new bicycles or helmets, for instance - to help pay roadway maintenance. There are some very high end bicycles that cost almost half as much as a new car that could probably garner some tax money.
Used bikes, of course, would be exempt. Not that you could even attempt to collect taxes from a $20 bike sold on craigslist, anyways.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 23, 2006 10:06:34 PM
Ethan:
actually, the fatality rate for 2005 was 43,000 - and for 2004, was 42,000.
There are approximately 1.5 million americans who are injured in car accidents per year.
=====================
Little bit of firsthand experience with car accidents. I live in NW Portland, on a not-very busy sidestreet near Lovejoy. We get some semis, dumptrucks, trimet vans and garbage trucks going down the street a couple times a day, but by and large, for a 4-way stop sign, things are quiet.
However, I probably see around 10 cars PER DAY (just when I am home) who run right through the stop sign - mind you, its a 4-way, so usually cross-traffic is stopped. However, it just irks me to see drivers blow right through a stop sign, especially when there are seniors and children constantly around my neighborhood.
Just a few weeks ago there was a nasty accident when 2 cars were T-boned because one of the drivers went right through a stop sign.
Interestingly, even on a bicycle, you have much better vision than in ANY car, SUV, or truck - its quite easy to see all around you and over cars. Bicyclists usually stand taller than a driver in a truck or SUV as well, unless its a very large one.
I'm also going to defend the act of running a red light: I am a bicyclist, stopped driving a car last year. I do own a scooter, however, and am a very safe driver - 10 years, no tickets or accidents.
Anyways, if a bicyclist stops at a signalized intersection, if there are no cars along with you, oftentimes the light will simply not detect you and will not change. You could stand there for an hour, and it will still be red. Similar problem with scooters, but less common. Therefore, I oftentimes treat them as stop signs.
Posted by: Justin | Apr 23, 2006 10:22:57 PM
Randy,
You asked for something constructive, here are a few suggestions.
First is the taxing issue. Here is my suggestion. All bicyclists 18 years of age and older would be required to have a license. The license would look similar to a motor vehicle license plate with large numbers on the front side, but much smaller in total size and issued to an individual, not a specific bicycle. The license would cost that same amount per year as a car license. Bicyclists would be required to display the license on their handle bars when riding on public right-of-ways. The cost for the bracket or clip that would hold the license would be the responsibility of the bicyclist, however since the license is issued to the bicyclist and not the bike, the bracket or clip could be used on any bike the bicyclist is riding thus making the license transferable from bike to bike. Temporary trip permits or licenses could be issued on a prorated bases for occasional riders. If a bicyclist was caught without a license showing, the citation would be the same dollar amount as driving without a license. The money collected from license fees would go into a bicycle infrastructure fund, but only if the Oregon Legislature repeals the one percent for bicycles in the transportation budget. If not, the money would go into the general transportation budget. I believe a conversation with Oregon motorists is in order on the idea of bike taxes. In 1899, Multnomah County had a bike tax which lasted for several years. Bicycles that did not have a license were rounded up by police. I here comments all the time, bicyclists should pay for bike lanes.
The second suggestion would require motorist or auto commuter representative on all transportation related citizen advisory committees. Currently citizen committees are ballyhooed as a cross section of the community, but while having business, freight, neighborhood, transit, bike and pedestrian representatives, no one directly represents everyday drivers and motor vehicle owners. While paying most of the bills through fuel taxes, motorists only receive discrimination and currently have no voice in early planning processes. This must be corrected.
Third, law enforcement needs more bicycle stings in the known areas where bicyclists routinely break the law. This would include looking for violations such as riding without headlights, running stop signs and traffic signals, and making illegal turns. If bicyclists start respecting the law in addition to showing respect to the cars, SUVs, trucks and busses that use the street, the stings would become unnecessary. Bicyclists should also drop all efforts that would allow bicyclists to supersede some traffic laws such as making stop signs yields for bicyclists only.
I think if bicyclists were willing to help directly fund bicycle infrastructure, obeyed traffic laws with no excuses as to why they shouldn’t, looked for compromises with motorists instead of always demanding only having it their own way, and stopped acting like vigilantes trying to force their life style on others, bicyclists would receive far more respect form the community.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 24, 2006 10:22:38 AM
Thanks for the info links Paul.
As for solutions, just distribute it according to $$ payers. If they really want to be fair put a check list on tax forms that say what do you want your logistics money to be spent on or split up between.
Roads, Bike Roads/Lanes, Rail, Light Rail, Highway, Busses, or "other".
I'll bet bikes get a bigger chunk than they already have!! Busses might lose out, but hey, people like rail/light rail not busses.
But anyway... thanks again for the links, I'll definately be studying up on these numbers.
Posted by: adron | Apr 24, 2006 11:43:58 AM
Terry - I appreciate your suggestions; discussing constructive solutions is certainly better than finger pointing and name calling. Thank you.
I have the following response to your suggestions:
1. Several of us have repeatedly pointed out that, according to Paul's numbers, only 27% of the funds for local roads comes directly from gas taxes / user fees on motorists. It would be nice if the sources of the rest of the funding were identified, in order to better determine the amount that bicyclists may already be contributing to the budget for local roads.
2. Bicycles have a much smaller physical and environmental footprint than motor vehicles, and are part of the solution to Portland's growing traffic issues, not part of the problem. Imposing fees on bicyclists that are commensurate to fees that motorists pay would, in my opinion, tend to discourage, rather than encourage, more people to bicycle. Any fees imposed on bicyclists would need to balance these issues.
3. Portland has limited traffic enforcement resources. In my opinion, in the interest of public safety, the city's traffic enforcement resources would best be focused on the those behaviors than entail the highest external risks. These are typically motorist infractions like speeding, red light running, and failure to yield, all of which I observe on a daily basis and are ubiquitous in Portland. While bicyclists running stop signs may be illegal and annoying, it seldom entails risk to anyone but the bicyclist performing the maneuver. Fines for bicyclists should be commensurate with risk, e.g. lower than fines for motorists.
4. Perhaps the city could do a better job selecting representatives for its citizens advisory committees, and perhaps not. These are generally volunteer positions for which citizens need to make a significant committment of time. Motorists are already well-represented on many committees by business and community interests, in large part because the majority of the representatives on any given project committee typically self-identify as motorists, rather than as bicyclists, regardless of whether they were specifically appointed to represent motoring commuters or not. Bicyclists on project advisory committees are typically in the minority, and usually comprise less than 10% of the committee members, approximately proportional to the bicycle / motor vehicle mode split on the street. Similarly, current spending on bicycle facilities is also approximately proportional to the bicycle mode split.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 24, 2006 12:04:43 PM
Terry-
"I think if bicyclists were willing to help directly fund bicycle infrastructure, obeyed traffic laws with no excuses as to why they shouldn’t, looked for compromises with motorists instead of always demanding only having it their own way, and stopped acting like vigilantes trying to force their life style on others, bicyclists would receive far more respect form the community."
Terry, you can say the exact same thing for motorists - replace "auto driver" every time you write "bicyclist," and you would capture the way most of us feel.
Cars break way more traffic laws than do bicyclists, with much deadlier consequences.
On top of that, cars certainly don't "pay their way" like you seem to want. The car has been heavily subsidized from the get-go with highways, oil exploration subsidies, and even letting car companies tear out transit systems that had already existed in cities.
If we go along with your tax plan, I sure hope you won't cry when we put a nice fat tax bill in front of you to pay for the disruption of climate change that you are creating.
Or for the medical bills of the increasing number of kids with asthma - which has been directly linked with car emissions. Talk with me then about "paying your way."
The fact that you selectively choose what modes will pay their way and forget that nearly 3/4's of PDOT's budget is NOT FROM GAS TAXES, BUT OTHER TAXES WE ALL PAY- just look at the pie chart they posted at the end of their piece - is evidence that you really just care about forcing your way of life on the rest of us and couldn't care less about how wrong you are on every point.
Posted by: LevelHead | Apr 24, 2006 12:10:24 PM
I just downloaded and reviewed the two .pdf documents that Paul has attached to the original post.
From Table 1 in the first attachment, it doesn't look to me like any gas tax money is going to the bicycle projects listed.
The second attachment has a detailed breakdown of PDOT's funding sources.
Thanks, Paul!
Posted by: Randy | Apr 24, 2006 12:17:53 PM
Terry's 1899 bicycle tax is an interesting tidbit. It has been so long that most motorists do not realize that the drive to pave streets in cities around the country came not from autos or even horse-drawn interests . . . it was for bicycles. As usual he is ignoring a key piece of information. Cirtical mass-type protest rides were common during the push to get paved streets . . and they were much much larger affairs than they are today.
Posted by: Ethan | Apr 24, 2006 8:36:19 PM
Ethan, good point. Auto-centric people want so badly to believe that bicyclists are the "vigilantes" of the transportation world that they forget the Good Roads Movement (started by bicyclists) that brought about Paved America in the first place. Sure, the auto industry - as it grew to prominence - joined in, but it was the wheelmen that got the thing rolling.
About Terry's idea for a bicycle licensing system: does he have a point about bicyclists paying a tax? Maybe he does. I actually think it's a good idea in theory, but I see one major hurdle: how do you separate a mode of transportation from a simple form of recreation? Simply put, would I get pulled over for not having a license if I'm simply riding home from Forest Park on my mountain bike? Could my family get pulled over for simply going on a ride on the first beautiful day of Spring? Where do you draw the line? Roads not only serve as transportation conduits, but they connect us physically to the world outside our home. You simply cannot regulate every use of them. It could be argued that autos, too, can be used for either transportation or recreation, so what's so special about bikes? To which I say that the amount of resources used, pollution created, and congestion caused for every inch of so-called "recreational auto use" negates that argument.
Not only that, but the idea that bicyclists should pay the same annual fee as automobiles is laughable. Terry: though I, too, appreciate your well-reasoned post, I just can't see a bike tax flying the way you propose. I think only at the point of sale could you make something like this work, but even then you've got the commuter/recreational use quandry.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 24, 2006 11:57:08 PM
In an attempt to clear things up related to moneys that go into the PDOT budget, I spoke with the City of Portland Office of Budget and Finance. This is my understanding of it of how the PDOT budget was explained to me. :
27 % GTR–Gas Tax Taxes on fuel paid by motorists
10 % GTR-Parking Revenue Parking fees paid by motorists
7 % Beginning Fund Balance Balance forward from last year
3 % General Fund-Streetlighting All property owners pay for streetlights
4 % Dedicated Revenues Dollars to PDOT from other City bureaus such as for when the street after it is torn up for sewer work.
03 % System Development Charges Money charged property owners and developers where transportation improvements are required associated with new construction and development. Mostly used in newly developed or redeveloped areas. Example a new big box retail outlet or an when undeveloped parcel of land is developed, these charges would apply.
7 % Assessments on Property Mostly used for sidewalks, when a property owner is assessed a charge for specific types of improvements or sidewalk repair made adjacent to the property
owned. This could also be a local improvement district such as how the brick sidewalks were paid for when the first Max line went downtown.
10 % Interagencies Similar to dedicated revenues, from other mostly City bureaus.
10 % Contracts Money for when PDOT does work for other entities such as PSU or Metro. It should also be noted the Metro transportation funds come from Federal Transportation dollars that come from taxes on fuel paid by motorists.
8 % PDC Tax Increment Funding only Used in Urban Renewal Districts
12 % Grants From State and Federal transportation dollars that come from taxes on fuel paid by motorists.
To break down the budget as to where the money initially comes from would be as follows:
49 % MOTORIST Paid
10 % Contracts – Mostly from MOTORIST paid taxes
14 % From other City bureaus (related to the work those bureaus are doing)
3 % From developers for new various mode infrastructure
7 % From property owners for sidewalk or other improvements adjacent to the properties charged
8 % PDC Urban Renewal Funds used for various mode infrastructure (including the Tram)
3.% General Fund dollars for streetlighting
7 % Balance forward form various sources including MOTORISTS
Added all up, motorists pay about 60 to 65 percent of the total price tag of PDOT’s multi-modal budget. Developers and Property owners only pay for improvements related specifically to the property owner or developer charged. Property taxes (that go into the General Fund) only pay for street lighting. Bicyclists are not shown to directly contribute any dollars to PDOT’s budget.
Therefore the following conclusions can be drawn:
Bicyclists through property taxes help to pay for street lighting.
Motorists subsidize all other modes of travel (including bicyclists).
Motorists could not subsidize other modes of travel if they did not pay their own way.
General property taxes do not pay for streets and roads, only streetlighting.
The only other funding PDOT will receive this coming budget cycle is a one time 1 million dollar payment form the general fund to replace aging traffic signals. Since most bicyclists ignore traffic control devices, I guess some of them could have a complaint here.
Furthermore, the PDOT budget does not reflect the economic value good roads and the motor vehicle has on our economy. I have been unable to obtain up to date numbers, but a few years back one in every seven jobs was tied to the automobile industry. Current numbers conclude the average automobile dealership alone employs 60 people. Therefore, one less car could possibly equate to one less job, or at the very least, making a contribution to jobs lost.
It should also be noted that PDOT percentages add up to 101 instead of 100 percent. The percentages were taken as posted on this site in December of last year. Maybe it is that fictitious one percent over 100 percent that bicyclists claim they pay. The budget person I spoke with confirmed that the majority of funding for City streets and roads comes from motorist paid gas taxes and motorist paid parking meter revenues. Additionally, motorist paid parking meter revenues also subsidize the downtown trolley.
Related to transit, it should also be noted that transit fares pay for about 20 percent of the cost of transit operations. This does NOT include payment for the roads on which Tri-Met’s busses travel. Much of Tri-Met’s budget comes from an employer tax related to the number of employees a business has, and from Federal Transportation Funding that is derived from motorist paid taxes on fuel.
Additional conclusions that can now be drawn with all the information provided:
Motorists subsidize transit.
Motorists could not subsidize transit or other modes if they did not pay their own way.
While transit users pay a portion of transit costs, bicyclists DO NOT financially contribute to bicycle infrastructure costs.
And one final comment for this post, there was no attempt on my part to leave out information about the 1899 bike tax. Ethan is correct in that the money derived from the tax was used for paving strips on streets for the benefit of bicyclists. That only supports my position that bicyclists should for the bicycle infrastructure they want today. I differ with Ethan in that the paving was done just for bikes. As an example, Sam Hill constructed the original Columbia River Highway for cars and trucks, (not bicycles) and portions of that great engineering task were paved. Furthermore, I was not a where there were demonstrations related to that 1899 tax. However, the probable difference between then and now (other than size) is the tone of today’s protests. I doubt that vandalism, civil disobedience and a motive to disrupt the users of other modes of travel was the primary theme in 1899.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 25, 2006 4:19:32 PM
Terry, your premise seems to be that you simply don't like paying transportation taxes for items you don't perceive that you directly benefit from as a motorist. Putting aside the discussion of whether or not you do or don't benefit from bicycling infrastructure (less cars on the road, bicyclists out of your way in the bike lane, for example), things don't always work in the simplistic manner you would like them to.
Think about what would happen if everyone had your attitude. I, for example, pay income taxes to the federal government. I know some of that money is being spent on a foreign war with which I disagree, but I pay my taxes anyway. As much as I'd like to, I don't insist that only those who agree with the war help pay for the war.
You apparently agree that spending a significant portion of 'your' gas taxes on our transit system has some benefit, but disagree that spending a much smaller portion of 'your' gas taxes on bicycling infrastructure also has benefit.
If you are paying any attention at all, you would notice that Portland has become a remarkable city for bicycling as a result of the city's investment in its bikeway network and its promotion of bicycling. The fact is that Portland now stands out as something of a bicyling mecca, compared to, for example, Los Angeles, Houston, or any other other major metropolitan area in America. This, in turn, is a major incentive attracting young, creative, educated people from around the country to our city, which grows the economy and benefits everyone. In my opinion (and, apparently in the opinion of the City Council), this is a very wise use of our transportation dollars, and is a part of the social contract we are all party to as citizens of Portland. Do you really want to turn the clock back on this, at a time when traffic congestion is only getting worse, oil prices are rising, and even the supply of oil itself is becoming more and more tenuous? I would hope not.
Finally, the federal and state grant and matching fund money Portland receives for bicycling infrastructure, regardless of its original source, is specifically earmarked for bicycle enhancements, which benefits everyone in Portland, whether they bicycle or not.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 25, 2006 9:03:13 PM
Randy-
Bicycle enhancements do not benefit me at all.
-I do not bicycle because I own a car.
-Bike lanes take up two whole lanes of many busy (and congested) streets. They go unused most of the time.
-Bicyclists in this area are generaly children too young to drive or meth addicts looking for property to steal. Children SHOULD NOT be riding on a busy street.
-The vast majority of bicyclists ride bikes because, for some reason, they cannot drive. That means they do NOT remove cars from the roads. At best, they help those who would otherwise be walking.
-The remaining bicyclists are so full of themselves that they become a hazard. They constantly ignore traffic control devices, cut in front of cars, and get in the way.
I would much rather my federal and state gas tax money be spent on expanding the road and freeway network.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 25, 2006 10:32:18 PM
"...The fact is that Portland now stands out as something of a bicyling mecca, compared to, for example, Los Angeles, Houston,..."
Randy, don't even attempt to compare the 30th largest city in the nation, Portland, to the second and fourth largest cities in the nation. Portland is less dense than LA and Houston and has completely different demographic and geographic issues. Moreover, the weather is the main factor in bicycle riding. LA has way more bicyclists per capita than Portland.
"...This, in turn, is a major incentive attracting young, creative, educated people from around the country to our city, which grows the economy and benefits everyone..."
Oh please!! What a crock. This the same B.S. used to promote the density and urban renewal myths.
FYI Randy, Portland's economy is lagging behind the rest of the nation. Our schools are under funded, we can't afford to keep crooks in jail or fund an adequate police force -- all because of this ridiculous sustainability and density idea. The social engineering perpetuated by the likes of you is ruining this city, not helping it.
I commute by bike 3x a week -- on roads with and without bike lanes. I've found most drivers to be courteous and careful. Removing car lanes for bike lanes is less safe for riders and a stupid idea.
Posted by: Chris McMullen | Apr 25, 2006 11:06:52 PM
Anthony, some responses:
"Bicycle enhancements do not benefit me at all."
I contend they do - but I won't repeat what's already been repeated plenty of times in this thread and others.
"-Bike lanes take up two whole lanes of many busy (and congested) streets. They go unused most of the time."
You may be right about lanes going unused much of the time, but so do some roads; does that make them unnecessary? Further, bike lanes are only 5' wide, whereas a typical auto lane is 10'-11' wide. Two bike lanes only make one auto lane, not two.
"-Bicyclists in this area are generaly children too young to drive or meth addicts looking for property to steal. Children SHOULD NOT be riding on a busy street."
I agree that children should not be riding on busy streets, but that's hardly an argument that's relevant to this debate. And isn't your generalization about the other bikers a tad insulting?
"-The vast majority of bicyclists ride bikes because, for some reason, they cannot drive. That means they do NOT remove cars from the roads. At best, they help those who would otherwise be walking."
This is completely false. Perhaps all the biking meth-heads you seem to be familiar with bike because they have no choice, but I work downtown and every single person I know (and there are a lot of them) that commutes by bike does so by choice. If you're going to make a generalizing statement like that, bring some facts.
"-The remaining bicyclists are so full of themselves that they become a hazard. They constantly ignore traffic control devices, cut in front of cars, and get in the way."
I'd be a nuisance to auto drivers too if I knew they considered me either a poverty-stricken meth addict, an idiot kid or just a general malcontent.
Terry:
It looks like you have yourself some ammo! Seriously, I appreciate your research into the budget numbers. I don't like looking at budgets, so I'll leave that to others more capable than I, but it looks like they do largly back your argument that motorists are paying for the lion's share of road infrastructure. But, following on Randy's post, I am curious what you have to say about what I'll call the "unfairness" issue, i.e. Joe Taxpayer contributes to plenty of services he sees no benefit from. Why pick on bicycling infrastructure when you actually DO see a benefit?
Further, as I wrote in my last post, I can't see a bike licensing system like the one you proposed working, due to the ambiguous nature of who should be licensed. I'm curious what you have to say about that, as well.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 25, 2006 11:27:03 PM
Stephen-
Who said anything about downtown? Downtown only makes up a tiny fraction of Portland's total land area. I live east of 82nd. An area where people drive BY CHOICE. An area where the majority of bicyclists are children, drug addicts, and/or people who cannot drive for whatever reason.
What works downtown does NOT work for other areas. There is so little foot traffic that the even smaller % of bicyclists can ride safely on the sidewalk.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 26, 2006 12:50:36 AM
When it comes to the whole smart growth/ density/ light rail/ trolley/ tram/ bike lane/ transit debate; the city is pretty divided.
Those who live downtown or close in tend to like the whole smart growth living, whereas, the people who live in suburban areas like the traditional, large lot, big box, SUV type living. Bike lanes are good with me if a good majority of people want them, and, they are a good investment.
What works in downtown does not work in other areas. A reason why the area east of 82nd should be turned into its own separate city, or at least have a district wide vote on a city council seat.
The first line of the new city charter should say: By no means will a regional authority (City of Portland via METRO) have any part of the planning process in this city.
Posted by: Anthony | Apr 26, 2006 1:02:32 AM
Anthony wrote:
"The first line of the new city charter should say: By no means will a regional authority (City of Portland via METRO) have any part of the planning process in this city."
That would be fine if you built a giant, vacuum-sealed bubble over Portland east of 82nd and Portland west of 82nd so that the two would have no affect on each other. In the real world, however, people cross 82nd every second of the day (along with their money, vehicles, emissions, and opinions), and that interaction is why regional planning is a necessity.
You can draw up all of the arbitrary jurisdictional boundaries you want, but that doesn't mean people will truncate their lives according to them.
Posted by: James Aslaksen | Apr 26, 2006 5:22:31 AM
Anthony:
I agree that a percentage of bicyclists are drug addicts, DUI suspended licenses, and the poor.
That said, the majority of bike commuters don't fit into those categories.
From the above posts, I have learned the pro-bike lobby is comprised of self-righteous, "don't tax me" anti-automobile extremists.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 26, 2006 7:27:09 AM
Anthony,
Do you really think people who bike downtown only bike WITHIN downtown? Downtown (and their workplace) is a DESTINATION for the people I'm talking about. They come from all over the city - yes, some even from east of 82nd. I argue that what "works for downtown" DOES work for the rest of the city. Does it work for all of the citizens? Certainly not - not everyone will start biking just because the infrastructure is there. But it does work for the city as a whole, no matter what fractious divisions you seem to want to create.
Alice,
I'm pro-bike, but I'm not anti-bike tax. Read my previous posts; I support a bike tax in theory, but how would you implement it? I think there's too much gray area between bicycling as recreation (think skateboarding) and bicycling that would actually be using the infrastructure on a regular basis. And a temporary day license? Where would one get such a thing? I think that's just plain silly.
Anyway, I think a tax at the point of sale on bicycles would be a much better way to do it. But again, you'd be in a situation where those that don't use the infrastructure (i.e., mountain bikers, my 10-year old nephew, etc.) are subsidizing the small percentage that do (bike commuters).
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 26, 2006 9:59:52 AM
Stephen,
You asked “I am curious what you have to say about what I'll call the "unfairness" issue, i.e. Joe Taxpayer contributes to plenty of services he sees no benefit from. Why pick on bicycling infrastructure when you actually DO see a benefit?”
Part of my answer is philosophy and part of it is a reality check. As a teenager, I rode my bicycle all over the Portland Metro area, from Northeast Portland to Beaverton, St Johns, Northwest Portland, Oregon City and even to Crown Point. There were no bike lanes anywhere. Now I am older and I prefer the comfort of a car. Today bicyclists have become arrogant with their pricey demands. The outspoken ones take every opportunity to knock the automobile and/or demonstrate in civil disobedience mass to disrupt the freedom of choice of others even though the price tag for bicycle infrastructure is funded by those who are disrupted. There is no humility in their attitude. Zealot bicycle organizations dog politicians like flies hovering around poop until they receive the infrastructure they want. Many bicyclists also feel that traffic laws should not apply to them, even requesting special exemptions for bicycles. Other bicyclists simply ignore the majority of traffic control devices.
I believe bicycles have their place, but we should not be just spending scarce transportation dollars to become a platinum bicycle friendly city, and bicyclists need to make a financial contribution. What I totally oppose is taking something away such as motor vehicle traffic lane to add a bike lane or anything else. As an example, the concept of placing Max on Interstate Avenue in North Portland was a good idea, but four motor vehicle lanes should have been retained when the line was built.
Bicyclists also refuse to compromise. In many cases routing bicycles to a parallel street or route rather than compressing traffic lanes to add bike lanes makes far better, safer and economic sense. This can often be done with a minimal price tag, not the three plus million dollars proposed for NW Flanders Street. The example I can use here is the fact there is no actual need to add bike lanes to Naito Parkway on the portions of the street that have a parallel bike route in Waterfront Park The motor vehicle lanes on the parkway will be so compressed (narrow) that bicyclists in the bike lanes will be stick out their left arm and hit the sides of large trucks passing. The rebuilding of Naito Parkway to accommodate bicyclists was more political posturing than need.
I do pay taxes for many services that I personally see no benefit in. However, in most cases the users of those services also make a direct financial contribution for the service. As a motorist, I pay taxes to drive and the more I drive the more I pay. Transit riders directly pay through fares a portion of the service they use. Personally I think the amount should be greater than 20 percent as it now stands. Unlike when I was a teenager and there were no bike lanes, lockers, accommodations on transit, trails or other exclusive services for bicyclists and therefore no need for a bicycle tax, bicyclists today have these have these exclusive government services and unlike all other modes of vehicle travel, contribute zero dollars toward the expenditures .The bottom line to me, part philosophical, bicyclists should help directly pay the costs of bicycle infrastructure (like other vehicle modes do) and not expect others in the community to subsidize all their requests. It is simply a matter of equity.
Finally, on another note, it would be very interesting if Sam could have someone separate out the PDOT budget even farther .We have a figure for bicycle expenditures, but what percentage of the budget goes to transit; what to sidewalks, curb extensions, streetscapes and other pedestrian amenities; what directly to motorist needs; what is freight exclusive; what is related to other bureau work; what to management and or planning; and what services are shared such as traffic signals for both vehicles and pedestrians. The percentages of funds received could then be compared with the funds expended.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 26, 2006 11:06:56 AM
Just for the record, I am not necessarily a fan of bike lanes, and disagree with many applications of this road treatment by the city, primarily for safety reasons - bike lanes are often unsafe due to their location adjacent to curbside parallel parking (the door zone), or to the right of right-turning motorists (the right hook zone).
While bike lanes do give cyclists some refuge from overly aggressive motorists, I think they also provide a false sense of security to novice bicyclists, which is the user group the city claims to be installing bike lanes for.
Somewhat perversely, the roads in outer SE Portland have generous right-of-way widths allowing the installation of bike lanes, but I agree that these roads are seldom used by cyclists; whereas, in inner east Portland, there are a lot of cyclists but the roads don't have adequate width to install bike lanes in most cases. Downtown, bike lanes aren't needed, because you can keep up with traffic on your bike due to the timing of the signals, and I'd personally rather ride in the center lane, where cyclists are better protected from motorists' parking and turning maneuvers.
One thing to consider is that the city is proposing addition bike lane installations in the outer parts of the city, in order to establish some kind of 'geographic equity' of bike facilities, so this is where a lot of 'bike dollars' will be going in the future. I'd rather see the money go to further improve routes (and not necessarily with bike lanes) for cycling in the inner east and west sides of town, where the most cycling activity is, and to make further improvements to the Willamette River bridges and their approaches, which are notorious pinch points for cyclists and motorists alike.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 26, 2006 12:51:34 PM
How is that 3 bucks a gallon treating you? Will you still be complaining about bikes when its 4 bucks? ya, cuz when I ride past you, you think "If I could just drive to where I am going faster, then I could have time to go to the gym, and get rid of my big ass". small minded people are everywhere.
Posted by: BIG ASS SUV | Apr 26, 2006 12:57:50 PM
The only problem with any big SUV is that no matter what the price of gas is, the SUV is paying more in fuel taxes than one of those teeny weenie hybrids to subsidize the arrogant big butts free pedaling in the bike lanes that refuse to accept the responsibility of helping to pay for the government services they use while at the same time continuing to criticize others by harassing their freedom of choice lifestyle. People buy trucks for a variety of different reasons including cargo space. Someone with a lot of common sense once told me “you can use a SUV for a pickup, but you can not use a pickup as an SUV.” Anybody that does not pay their fare share of taxes in the pedal pusher lane should not be telling others how to live.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 26, 2006 3:22:35 PM
Terry,
I appreciate your having taken the time to research and collate this information. That does appear to constitute a higher percentage than I had expected. It's still not clear to me (from looking at the tags on the spreadsheet) whether or not any of the $3.5 million for cycling came from auto user fee revenues.
You're mentioning hybrid cars brings to mind another dilemma, and I'm curious for your or any one else's input. As hybrids and other modes of transit that have decreased dependence on petroleum products become more common, where are we going to get money for roads and transportation infrastructure? Perhaps it's a mistake altogether to tie roads to fuel taxes. In one sense it's great because to keep those tied together as the number of gas users grows at a rate slower than the total number of system users means that gas taxes will be forced higher and gas users will be forced to pay amounts more closely approximating its true cost, thereby curbing demand and consumption. Nevertheless, at some point in the near future gas taxes will no longer be able to sustain our transit investments. What do we do then?
This is what makes funding bicycle expenditures problematic. There's a reason why roads aren't funded by putting $8000/year license plates on cars that run on tax-free gasoline, because there's an implied fairness to assuming a directly proportional relationship between system use and the consumption of a common fuel source. The reliability of that relationship breaks down as sources diversify. As the fuel source for transportation inevitably broadens to include electricity and cheeseburgers, how do we measure use? For limited-access routes like the interstate highways, traditional tolls seem like a perfectly effective solution, but what about richly interconnected urban areas?
Posted by: Clay | Apr 26, 2006 8:56:58 PM
I few comments which have not been posted here. First of all; when comparing the costs associated specifically to motor vehicles it should be noted that infrastructure must be repaired/replaced much more frequently due to such issues as cars crashinginto them, degradation from heavier vehicles, and environmental degradation. Bike improvements (aside from restriping) rarely need replacement. One ODOT estimate found that 40,000 bicycles would be required to cause the same roadway degradation that a SINGLE car causes. Then consider that only 1500-2000 vehicles can use any given lane in one hour, meanwhile 40,000 vehicles can pass through a single lane in the course of one hour. For those who want to rant, please return quietly to Beaverton. For those who want to discuss hard facts, I am happy to speak with you.
Posted by: Aaron | Apr 26, 2006 10:46:43 PM
Aaron: how many pounds of freight can your bike carry while it treads lightly on the precious roads?
This entire line of reasoning is silly: of course bikes are lighter, but they are also designed to fulfill an entirely different purpose than vehicles. To suggest that most of us can just hop on our bikes and ride to work is ridiculous.
Sure, cars and trucks weigh more, and wear more on the roads. They also protect you from the rain and cold, they provide safety features and amenities not available on bikes, and they permit those of us who need to arrive at work dressed like a grown up (instead of looking like a bike messenger). Did I mention that my car commmute requires 1/3 the time as my bike commute?
The Bike Nazis are stuck in some kind of urban Peter Pan syndrome.
Posted by: Alice | Apr 27, 2006 7:02:15 AM
Alice,
Bikes are designed for personal transit and light freight. Big trucks are designed for heavy freight. Unless you qualify as heavy freight or have some sort of disability, you are plenty capable of getting around by bike. I would love to see a day when the majority of auto/truck traffic on the roads consisted of shipping freight, hauling for construction or other heavy work. Unfortunately, today the fact is that only a small percentage of people using the roads really could not commute by bike or transit.
You fool yourself to think that everyone who rides a bike to work dresses like a bike messenger all day. It takes only a modicum of imagination to figure out how to do it. Well, that and the gumption to get up and actually move under one's own power instead of that plundered from dinosaurs. Lawyers, doctors, business people, construction workers, butchers... all commute by bike.
You also fool yourself to think that cyclists, living a responsible, health-promoting lifestyle and sacrificing so-called "convenience" in order to contribute to conservation and prepare for a future of very expensive energy, that they are somehow suffering from a Peter Pan syndrome. It's the petroleum dependent who refuse grow up and accept that all this energy will last forever and that consuming it in such vast quantities (20 million barrels each day in the US alone) doesn't decimate the environment and everyone's health. The Peter Pans are those who live in a magical wonderland where entropy, resource scarcity, and homeostasis don't matter.
Posted by: Clay | Apr 27, 2006 10:01:44 AM
Alice - your netiquette is really quite awful; you don't help your position at all by carelessly throwing around the word 'Nazi' and making all kinds of other spurious, unsupported claims regarding those of us who have a different lifestyle or opinion than you do.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 27, 2006 10:27:51 AM
Clay,
I agree there needs to be a fairness or equity issue if fuel usage is to continue to be tied to road usage. The current system is fast becoming obsolete with the advent of high mileage vehicles like hybrids. One solution would be to raise the license/registration fees on the high mileage vehicles to make up some of the difference. Another way would be to have vehicle mileage checked every two years when the license is renewed with some sort of tax imposed. However such a mileage check would require a reduction or elimination of fuel taxes. I oppose any type of GPS system because it is an intrusion by government on people’s private lives. I believe everybody who uses the roads should help pay for them. Neither of the aforementioned suggestions addresses bicycle use and that is why I hold true to my suggestion for a bicycle license registration fee that would average bicycle infrastructure costs to be paid by all adult bicyclists who use the roads.
I oppose tolls in most cases because tolls allow well-to do people to use some roads while others in lower income brackets could not afford the added expense. The exception might be for a bridge that otherwise would not be built. However, if tolls are enacted for a bridge, then all users, motor vehicles, freight, transit riders, bicyclists and pedestrians must all pay a toll.
Furthermore, although I do not oppose the alternative fuels concept and think biodiesel has great potential, I totally oppose ethanol production, especially from corn. It takes almost one gallon of fuel (diesel or gasoline) to produce a gallon of ethanol and bring it to market. Ethanol is extremely corrosive and can not be delivered through a pipeline. Therefore it must be transported by tanker, either truck or train. The corrosive nature of the product also does damage and shortens the life of internal combustion engines. To put it bluntly, I do not want to use that junk in any vehicle I own.
Posted by: Terry Parker | Apr 27, 2006 10:44:12 AM
Alice,
Your argument is severely flawed. You are talking about choices, not given facts. I am an attorney, and ride 4 miles each day into downtown. You claim that most people are not able to ride a bicycle because they need the amenities that a car offers, and you need to show up to work looking like a grown up. That is your choice, again not a fact as you propose. I leave three suits in my office, because I too need to look like a grown up. My ride takes almost twice as long as it would to drive, but it is my choice. Your choice is to drive.
This whole argument is just asinine. Why are you complaining about bicycles, when Exxon's price gouging raked in 8.4 Billion in profits. Get a real cause.
The average person in Portland is pro bike, and other alternative forms of transportation. Our city council, mayor and most elected officials are pro bike.
The "vocal minority" represented here are only thinking of themselves. Portland is a wonderful place to live, and a large part of that comes from progressive thinkers. The fact that we don't have six lane roads that keep people from walking along them, supports the wonderful community we have here. Portand is what it is, and if you don't like it, move back to LA.
Posted by: Garret | Apr 27, 2006 12:26:59 PM
This is incredibly valuable information. Thanks to the City, and to Com. Adams, for working on providing some facts so we can make informed decisions.
Thank you also for treating bicyclists with respect, as most people who bike are also drivers and pedestrians. Working beyond our stereotypes and labels will be helpful when we decide what to invest in as a community.
Your constituent who drives, bikes, walks, and loves Portland.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Apr 27, 2006 3:46:52 PM
Garret: do you ride to work between October and February, when most of us go to work and leave in the dark?
Do you think that you are representative of most attorneys in Portland (biking to work)?
Do you feel you are taking greater risks when biking to work than when taking public transit or driving your automobile?
Are you adequately insured for that additional risk?
Do you worry about the drivers that are putting on make-up, or shaving, or talking on the phone, or getting high while they drive their cars? Do you think they worry about you?
Posted by: Alice | Apr 27, 2006 6:29:25 PM
A lot of cyclists ride all year long, not as much as when the weather is nice, but sitll, it's relatively mild in Portland.
90% of attorneys probably don't ride to work, same as the rest of the population, but the numbers of cyclists in Portland has tripled in the past ten years, PDOT can provide the numbers, and I personally know more than a few attorneys who do.
It's safer to ride a bicycle than to drive a motor vehicle, motorists kill 42,000 of their fellow motorists each year in the US. There is no additional risk to riding a bicycle.
The PIP coverage on my auto insurance policy covers me if I'm in a bicycle accident; if the motorist that hits me is at fault, his or her insurance pays.
Putting on makeup, eating, shaving, getting high, driving drunk, talking on the phone, etc. in your vehicle endanger every road user, and some of these behaviors are expressly illegal.
What does any of this have to do with the topic under discussion? It's obvious you just don't like bicyclists and you're grasping at straws here.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 27, 2006 9:20:43 PM
Alice - A quick review indicates that you haven't posted one comment that was on topic in this entire thread. Please quit wasting everyone's time.
Posted by: Randy | Apr 27, 2006 9:33:17 PM
No additional risk to riding a bike to work than a car? In Portland? Are you kidding?
Posted by: Alice | Apr 27, 2006 9:33:32 PM
Randy:
Did Garret ask you to respond to my post, or are you just trying to hijack this thread?
Posted by: Alice | Apr 27, 2006 9:36:26 PM
I think motor vehicles drivers are getting worse about observing laws concerning stop lights and stop signs.
That being said:Why?
Could it be that they are tired of the kid glove, hands off treatment afforded to bike riders in this town?
The traffic laws are for all and when people see one segment getting special treatment they may just decide to follow the trend.
Now, before you bike riders go off, stop and think about your bike riding, stop sign blowing mayor. Cops handing out lights instead of ticketing bike riders without lights (paid for with motor vehicle traffic fine money). Closing down interstate freeway bridges for a bike ride in the city.
Don't even try to claim there is no special treatment for bike riders or you will lose all credibility.
Posted by: Pete | Apr 28, 2006 9:36:02 AM
Paul,
Thanks for sharing your findings with us. I'm glad that the numbers on bicycle expenditures will finally be out in the open for everyone to see.
I think one of the reasons people have misperceptions about how much money is spent on bikes is because bike projects tend to be highly visible, like bike lanes and bike racks.
It's also worth noting that bicycles cause very little damage to the roadways,as opposed to cars and trucks.
Bikes are a cheap and fun way to move around the city and they just so happen to be very easy on the environment. They're a win-win for everyone!
I wonder if this "small but vocal" group you refer to is the same group that convinced ODOT to exclude bike facilities from the St. Johns Bridge?
Posted by: Jonathan Maus | Apr 20, 2006 11:31:36 PM