Should bikes pay the exact same registration fee as cars, and more than motorcycles?


Three Republicans and a Democrat (sounds like a “balanced” cable talk show) have introduced a new bill in Salem that already has a lot of people talking.

From KATU:

Under House Bill 3008, those 18 and older who ride on any highway in the state would have to pay $54 every two years to register their bike. They would have to attach a sticker to the frame of their bike.

That money would go toward a Bicycle Transportation Improvement Fund, which would pay for bikes lanes and paths as well as future projects.

Those who fail to register would face a $25 fine.

KATU has also posted the full text of the bill.

BikePortland beat KATU to the punch yesterday with a hotly-debated post, and they have a follow-up post which interviews one of the sponsors today, which includes the stunning quote: “if there were not bicycles we wouldn’t need bicycle lanes”, apparently unaware that bicycles predate cars, and that were it not for the hazards presented by heavy, fast moving cars, we wouldn’t have a situation where we effectively kick bicycles to the curb.


59 responses to “Should bikes pay the exact same registration fee as cars, and more than motorcycles?”

  1. In the case of my household’s three bikes (for two people), that will amount to 100% taxation in about 6 years (registration paid vs. vehicle cost when new), whereas for our cars it won’t even be 5% taxation in twice that time.

    While I don’t mind, in principle, establishing a means of recovering stolen bikes and direct funding of new bicycle infrastructure as part of our overall mix, I’m concerned that the existence of such a fund would be used as an excuse to abandon other funding streams for important bicycle safety efforts.

  2. How about charging a penny a pound for registering any vehicle? That would provide revenue parity for a typical mid-size car, and the bicycle fee would be around 10 to 25 cents or so. You could round to the nearest $5 and pay for 20 years up-front.

  3. No. It discourages bicycling, which should be promoted since it is a transportation mode that doesn’t pollute and provides exercise, a health benefit that many people should be getting.

    But moreover, the transportation marketplace heavily encourages car/truck use. Drivers don’t have to pay for things like the Big Pipe (of which 40% is needed because of road runoff due to oils, etc left behind by motorized vehicles) most parking (yes, most bike parking is also free, but it takes up far less space and money than car parking), oil defense, some road projects (at least 20 Oregon cities have a street utility fee),…

    If drivers had to pay for more of the costs they incur, then it might be reasonable to charge bicyclists.

  4. I’m already taxed through fees and insurance to run two cars–highly necessary because bikes are seen as second-class citizens and even thought Portland is a Platinum-class city, that really depends on what part of town you’re in.

    Try and ride your bike in the outer eastside, where I live, and see how close to death you come.

    I’ll bet these are four state legislators who got cut off by a rude bicyclist somewhere and thought “hey, we have an axe to grind. Let’s get us back at some two-wheelers”.

    A lot of people who own cars also own bikes and use them. They’ll be taxed twice at a minimum.

    A lot of people who only Go By Bike do that because they can’t afford a car. So why don’t we just make it more expensive for them.

    And a statewide bike registration? Do we need the entire State of Oregon to spend time doing this? In the past, cities took care of that. I remember a long time ago, Corvallis did just that. THAT would more appropriate, if they just had to do this.

    And motorists (an I am one) get a free ride from a lot of the pain they inflict on the environment, as Jason above pointed out.

    This is just such a stupid idea.

  5. (preemptive comment alert)

    Hey Terry, please address the second paragraph of Jason’s comment in yours.

  6. Should bikes pay the exact same registration fee as cars? ABSOLUTELY – and the dollar amount of the registration fee also needs to be tied to any increases that might occur in the dollar amount of the registration fee for automobiles. Therefore if the cost to register a car goes up, then so does the cost for registering a bike. Maybe then bicyclists would be less cocky in support of increasing fees on automobile owners if the fees also applied to them. A bicycle tax once in place in Multnomah County pre-dates the gas tax. It is about time a public discussion took place about requiring bicyclists to pay their own way, including paying for parking in neighborhoods where parking meters are sited.

    Moreover, there is an extreme amount of excessive hot air oratory being passed by bicyclists that includes a lengthy bicycle babble want list as long as somebody other than bicyclists themselves pays for all those demands. Bicyclists are your basic freeloaders many times over expecting somebody else to fund their lifestyles like mommy and daddy did before they reached the age of adulthood. If bicyclists want specialized infrastructure, including the so called world class bicycle infrastructure on the Columbia River Crossing, the bicyclists themselves need to be willing to open up their own wallets and actually fund all that specialized infrastructure where cars are not allowed. As for the BTA suggesting to The Oregonian they are willing to discuss whether bicyclists should help pay for bikeways, that is merely a duplicitous diversionary tactic that attempts to sweep any concept of a bicycle tax or bicycle registration fee under the rug. Bicyclists want all the cake they can get, but don’t want those who they expect to pay for that silver platter delivery to have any. That is called hypocrisy.

  7. Where is the fiscal statement on this bill? No way a statewide registration program doesn’t cost hundreds of thousands annually.

  8. Moderator note: Terry, drop the incendiary rhetoric. You didn’t direct it at any one person, so I let it stand, but your sneering, derisive tone is really out of place here. Stick to the facts and issues.

  9. This is a sloppy bill. Why the 18 and over rule? Arbitrary. I don’t have a problem with this notion, but are bikes using $54 dollars worth of services from the city?

    Why do bikes pay the same registration fee as cars when cars do way more damage to the roads? Space wise, cars take up more room but bikes would pay an equal

    And another note, why does it cost the same in fees for large SUVs compared to an economical car like a civic? A large SUV is going to do more damage than a smaller passenger car.

    Fair is hardly fair in this case. I enjoy the reasoning behind police investigations for stolen bikes.

    How about applying user-fees for stolen cars? Why all of a sudden the attention to bike theft investigations?

  10. Bob R. wrote: we wouldn’t have a situation where we effectively kick bicycles to the curb.

    Wow, $25/year is “kicking bicycles to the curb”? Considering that most bikes cost a couple hundred bucks to begin with, a $25 annual fee is hardly “kicking bicycles to the curb”, especially given since the majority of Oregonians now have a cell phone, which is easily a MINIMUM $45/month expense. (Yes, I know, some people have cheaper plans…but they are few.)

    That said…the law makes no sense. 18 and older? Any “state highway” – so as long as you stick to city streets this law is unenforceable? (I guess that means stay off of roads like T.V. Highway, Barbur Blvd., McLoughlin, Killingsworth, Lombard, Powell…) $25 fine for non-compliance? And then:

    I’m concerned that the existence of such a fund would be used as an excuse to abandon other funding streams for important bicycle safety efforts.

    Such as…taking funds from the Highway Trust Fund?

    That, I agree with.

    And finally in Bob’s third consecutive post without any other contributor:

    How about charging a penny a pound for registering any vehicle?

    In concept, THIS I agree with. I’ve long advocated weight-mile taxes to be applied to all vehicles. (I think for bikes, since the infrastructure is typically more for volume rather than weight, it’s more fair to simply charge them $15/year, with $13 of that going towards bikelane/bikeway maintenance, improvements and construction.)

    I would base the tax not on the age of the rider, but on the size of the bike (so that you don’t end up taxing tricycles for small bikes for kids who would rarely if ever ride a significant distance from their home). I was riding my bike when I was 12 and 13 years old from McMinnville to the nearby towns of Carlton, Lafayette, Dayton and Amity — so how does 18 years of age make sense?

  11. I would base the tax not on the age of the rider, but on the size of the bike (so that you don’t end up taxing tricycles for small bikes for kids who would rarely if ever ride a significant distance from their home).

    I’d rather see the tax based on the value of the bike. A kid’s tricycle may actually way more than a high-end bike.

    In general, I’m not opposed to some sort of bike registration, but I’m not sure how much. I’d rather see an excise tax at the point of sale. In the end I can’t imagine this would end up being a money maker because of the administrative costs involved. What happens if there is no private company willing to take the 1/3 cut offered in the bill to administer the program?

  12. Aaron W.: with that logic, if I pay for one car, I should be able to drive the other without any fuel tax, registration tax, or licensing fees.. right?

  13. Can you imagine the bill if the octuplet mother who already had 6 kids, for a total of 14, gets a bicycle for each of them, what the bill will be? $756!!
    It is just an anti-green bill.

  14. User fees are an excellent way to pay for government services.

    Decreasing VMT and increasing bike usage has been an overall goal of Portland’s for some time. Taxing the behavior that you’re trying to promote seems counter intuitive.

    $25 a year seems a bit much and probably will promote evasion. I have hard time believing that police are going to check bike racks.

  15. Anthony, I hear what you’re saying and again I’m not opposed to there being some bike registration fee, but to say that bicyclists don’t pay for the infrastructure assumes that cyclist and motorist are mutually exclusive categories. I’m both a cyclist and a motorist and as such, I do pay for the transportation infrastructure through both the gas tax and registration fees.

    Erik H is right. $25/year isn’t much and for most people wouldn’t be a hardship.

    W.S.Lis, remember this only applies to bikes used by people 18 and over.

    I think it is very appropriate to discuss how we fund our infrastructure improvements. I think we are too reliant on the gas tax and vehicle fees. But is this the best way to do it? How much money net income would be received from this? I haven’t seen any projections. I believe the bill calls for the administrator of the registration to receive 1/3 of the income. Logically that means they would receive $18 and the state would receive $36 for each bike registered. Any sense on how many bikes are eligible? Is this a realistic breakdown? Can the program be administered for that amount? How much will enforcement cost? I think a tax at the point of sale would be easier to enforce and could then be linked to the price of the bike.

  16. I don’t expect Terry to ever acknowledge the fact that local roads are not generally funded completely or even mostly by a combination of gas taxes or vehicle registration fees, but it bears repeating.

  17. Wow, $25/year is “kicking bicycles to the curb”?

    Nope, I never said that. You missed the context entirely.

    And finally in Bob’s third consecutive post without any other contributor

    So I separated some opinions from the main post body of my own post. Does anything I do not offend you?

  18. I live on the Long Beach Peninsula in SW Washington and use a bike to get around locally. IF I had to pay $54 to license my bike I suspect that I would simply park it and go back to a second car. This would certainly defeat the purpose of the fee and actually cause more damage to roads that are inadequately maintained now.

    My son lives in Portland and uses his bike a lot to go to and from work and I suspect that he would go ahead and pay the fee. Cars and trucks to far more damage to roads so possibly the fees for them should be raised proprtionally. (Many drivers would not be able to pay these additional fees in this already cash strapped economy).

    Nuff said from an outsider.

  19. Is the Achilles’ heel of this bill the definition of “operate”, and perhaps also the definition of state highway?

    The text of the bill creates an exemption for bikes which are not operated on state highways.

    If merely walking one’s bike in a dismounted position does not count as “operating”, then one could theoretically avoid registration by not riding on state highways (such as 82nd Ave.) and walking their bikes when crossing state highways.

    A troublesome aspect of the bill is the exemption for out-of-state ownership: The burden of proof is on the cyclist. Under this bill, you can be stopped and if your bike does not have a state sticker, you must show identification or some kind of proof that you are not actively breaking the law.

    Then there is a clash of the “operate” and “state highway” exemption, with the proof of registration requirements… I may have missed something, but there is nothing preventing an unregistered person who never touches a state highway from being stopped and interrogated, and possibly fined, on city streets.

    Further, how does a young person without a registration prove that they are not 18? Not all kids carry state ID when bicycling.

  20. Automobiles present a severe impediment to bicycling, walking, and the practical arrangement of mass transit. Automobiles are one mode of travel among the others and require the most infrastructure. Thus, travel by car must incur the cost of maintaining travel by the other modes. Harrumph! Why, I oughtta! Four score and twenty years ago, I forefathers…. To be or not to be, that is the question!

  21. Taxing cyclists for road maintenance? What a great idea! I’m surprised someone hasn’t come up with it before now. After all, those freeloading SOBs cost us money and time in striping bike lanes and enforcing laws already on the books that most drivers would prefer to pretend do not exist. So what if they are taking cars off our clogged streets and lowering emissions in our polluted air? They are a nuisance and they should pay.

    But why stop there? Let’s be fair about this, and tax parents who have school age children, because we have to stripe crosswalks for their safety. Of course, that’s because a majority of drivers can’t be bothered to read—much less understand—the vehicle code, which clearly states that a crosswalk exists wherever there is an intersection of two streets, regardless of whether it’s striped or not. And even where marked crosswalks exist, many drivers cannot be bothered to stop when a pedestrian foolishly steps into the street, causing more trouble and expense for all concerned. So by all means, let’s register the kids and tax their parents.

    And while we’re on a money-saving roll, let’s register and tax everyone who uses a handicap sticker to park in those coveted near-the-door spots. After all, it’s not OUR fault they’re disabled, right? (They were probably stupid enough to think they could ride in bike lanes or cross the street and not get hit by a car.) And yet WE still have to pay for striping their spaces and erecting signs and issuing parking tickets because they leave spots open that the rest of us should be able to use when they’re not there!

    Definitely, everyone should be paying their fair share in this society. Except if they just bought a new $40,000 Lexus and don’t want to pay more than $150 in vehicle registration costs. I mean, that’s just outrageous! How can anyone afford that in this economy?

  22. Astoundingly BAD idea, will never pass anyway. Bikes do not damage roadway they travel and have relatively few purpose built facilities. Go ahead and tax me, then watch me and other bikers chugging up the Marquam Bridge during rush hour.
    Obviously, we should be rewarding bike users: free parking, dedicated storage garages, stoplight priority. And yeah, all 8Billion dollars we will spend on CRC? Use it instead to launch a program like Paris and remake our entire transportation system, making our beautiful city the icon for livablity in the US>

  23. oh yeah, and while we are at it, raise the Gas tax nationally to establish a minimum and maximum range per gallon. SO that gas remains a constant $5/gal (adjusted annually for inflation) use that money to fund our exodus out of the age of SOV, establish a Dept of Transportation Alternatives which will admin such revolutionary ideas as: bikes, HSR, commuter rail etc.

  24. I own 6 bicycles. $324 every two years to the state?! Even if I don’t ride them at all – you’ll be charged if you OWN a bicycle.

    Seriously?! I can only ride one at a time! This “bill” is ridiculous. No way in hell can I even afford to pay for it.

  25. “I own 6 bicycles. $324 every two years to the state?! Even if I don’t ride them at all – you’ll be charged if you OWN a bicycle.”

    >>>> That’s right, and you SHOULD BE charged, just like someone who owns multiple cars/trucks, and does not ride them all at once.

  26. “Moderator note: Terry, drop the incendiary rhetoric. You didn’t direct it at any one person, so I let it stand, but your sneering, derisive tone is really out of place here. Stick to the facts and issues.”

    >>>> But there is an element of truth in what Terry says; I do find the bicycle crowd in this town to be rather ‘pushy.’

  27. But there is an element of truth

    Then the aforementioned commenter can stick to those elements which are factual and truthful. There is no need to flagrantly insult an entire class of people. Neither do I accept tarring all motorists with the same brush. (After all, I am a motorist, too.)

    (And yes, I do realize that Karen’s comments do begin to tar motorists in such a manner, but I’m letting those stand as a stylistic reaction to Terry’s comments, which are also still published.)

  28. Thing the first: “State Highways” in the vehicle code usually refers to _any_ public road, not just numbered highways, so walking your bike across 82nd or Barbur won’t get you out of a ticket (unless you only walk your bike — I’ve heard,but not verified, that a walked bike is an “accessory” while a ridden bike is a vehicle).

    Thing the second: I’m going to steal an idea from Chris Rock and suggest that instead of an excise tax on bikes, have an excise tax on bicycle tires. Somewhere in the $1-$5 per tire range. This lets you collect some sort of use fee for both new bikes, which are typically sold with a pair of tires, and for old bikes, as they wear through old tires.

    Thing the third: Since we’re discussing this because of bicycles’ recently discovered “heavy impact” on the state’s roadway infrastructure (and ’cause I’m a left-winger), I’d like to suggest another tax, this one on the installation of studded tires. Say, $500, with around $400 refundable on the removal of the studded tires from the vehicle. The state can make money off both the tax itself and the couple months interest on the removal deposit. And people might be motivated to change their tires back before March (I heard a couple cars with these today — they looked like Lowland Subarus, so I’m not sure why they needed them still)

  29. Aaron asked: “Terry, is your assumption that bicyclists don’t also drive cars?”

    The simple answer her is that some do and some don’t. But the question also requires a deeper answer.

    By asking this question, is it your assumption 1) That with the fuel taxes, taxes on tires, license and registration fees on motor vehicles that drivers pay, this combination of taxes and fees completely pays for the roads, bridges and other infrastructure motorists use – and therefore enough money left over after paying for all this motor vehicle infrastructure to also fund bicycle infrastructure? And/or 2) That if a bicyclist owns a car and therefore pays all of the aforementioned taxes and fees, that same bicyclist should not also have to register their bicycle(s). .

    As a response to 1) A number of bicyclists on this blog and elsewhere are continually using the argument insisting motorists do not completely pay for the costs of driving and using the roads. Therefore, any suggestion that because a bicyclist drives or may own a car is just the opposite to the first bicyclist argument. In other words, bicyclists can not have it both ways and two opposing arguments. Requiring bicyclists to pay a registration fee for their bikes and/or a direct bike tax to pay for specialized bicycle infrastructure would go a long way to resolving this two headed inconsistency.

    As a response to 2) Obviously a person can not drive a motor vehicle and ride a bike at the same time, So it would also follow that if a person owns two or more cars, or say a car and a truck; since that said person can not drive more than one motor vehicle at a time, and that said person also drives the first vehicle and is already paying a registration fee on that first vehicle, that same said person should not have to pay a registration on the second or third or forth…vehicle be it a motor vehicle or a bicycle. In other words and to be fair, the same must apply for all vehicles such that an individual would then not have to pay for more than one vehicle registration fee no matter how many vehicles that individual owns – be those vehicles either motor vehicles or bicycles.

  30. >>>> That’s right, and you SHOULD BE charged, just like someone who owns multiple cars/trucks, and does not ride them all at once.

    I have very strong negative words for anyone who thinks this is a good idea. However, I will let the people at bikeportland.org speak on my behalf.

    I own a car, but have not driven it in 2 years. The tags are expired. This law requires you to pay registration fees on your bicycles, regardless if they are used on public right of ways, or stored in a closet.

    This braindead registration proposal would cost more than registration for my motorcycle.

    What exactly is the rational for charging a bike registration fee like this? This is a joke. I doubt anyone would even bother. The ticket is only $25.

  31. Terry. Thank you for clarify. I appreciate that you qualified your statements with “a number of bicyclists on this blog” because more than anything else I think it is important that we not categorize people simply by a chosen mode of transportation.

    I am a bicyclist. I am a motorist. I am a father, a son, a spouse, a brother etc. But in the end, I am a person who rides a bike home from work, drives a car to work and does lots of things the remaining 22 and a half hours of the day.

    What really scares me about the discussions I have seen on other websites is the vitriol lobbed back and forth and how that translates on to the road. When I’m riding my bike I’m viewed as a rolling bumper sticker and suddenly lose all identification other than as a cyclist in the eyes of some people. This bothers me and scares me greatly.

    In the end, when I am on my bike I am very vulnerable to people who decide they don’t like cyclists and choose to intimidate them. Let’s just remember those other categories (father, spouse, son) in this process as well.

  32. instead of an excise tax on bikes, have an excise tax on bicycle tires. Somewhere in the $1-$5 per tire range. This lets you collect some sort of use fee for both new bikes, which are typically sold with a pair of tires, and for old bikes, as they wear through old tires.

    That’s a much better idea than this registration proposal. It’s easier to enforce because you deal with a limited number of retailers, rather than all cyclists, and it is far less of a burden to occasional riders. It also captures revenue from out-of-state riders, if they cycle in Oregon at sufficient levels to wear out or damage their tires. Fee avoidance would be minimal, as very few are going to travel to Vancouver to avoid a couple of bucks on a tire. It also solves the problem of being pulled over unnecessarily because registration tags aren’t visible or having to prove you’re from out-of-state.

  33. Setting aside for the moment the merits of this proposal itself, it is refreshing to see Republicans proposing new taxes in the middle of a recession. :-)

  34. I say,
    we eliminate all fuel taxes and registration costs

    and simply making driving a car illegal, because they are dangerous. Even without taking into account tailpipe emissions, they cause at least 40,000 deaths per year and 2.5 million injuries.

    I’ll define a just jail sentence at 7 years for a murder, and 1 year for assault. That’s 2.78 million jail-years per year generated by automobiles (given a just legal system). Divide that by the 200 million estimated drivers; that works out to just over 5 days of jail time per driver. If we assume outlawing cars reduces driving by 50%; we can therefor state that a fair punishment for driving should be 10 days in prison.

    Sounds perfectly fair to me.

  35. MRB –

    Comparing the act of driving to murder is just as hyperbolic as Terry’s remarks. Perhaps you intended that to be illustrative, but please folks, can we keep this just a tad more about policy? Pretty-please?

  36. MRB has a good point. If you do the math on the 5 days a year that the average car driver should spend in jail, that works out to 20 minutes per driver per day. And if you look at the amount of time people save by driving instead of taking transit/walking/bicycling, it is less than 20 minutes for most people in this city…

    [Moderator: Sept-11th-related remark removed. Sorry, Matthew, but there’s no way that was on-topic and no way that it could have led to anything resembling a fruitful discussion — it was a veritable Asimov Cocktail.]

  37. Hi! I live in Minnesota, have lived in Portland short-term in 1991, 1999, and 2001-2.

    Minnesota used to have bicycle registration, it was about $5 a year. The law was never really enforced but there was a major benefit to registering, it helped with recovery if the bike got stolen. I actually wish they’d bring back registration here for that reason. Now I think $54 is ludicrous and some of the wording of the bill is atrocious, but the concept isn’t necessarily bad.

  38. Bike registration is fine…but the state should pay the bike owner, not the other way around. $54 every two year is cheap price to pay for less congestion, better air and water, fewer green house gases and healthier people. Bike lanes are just fat fog lines on most state roads anyway.
    Limit to one bike per person. A family of four could register four bikes and receive $216 every two years. It would encourage children to ride their bikes to school…50 cents a week or so, could reduce the number of teenage car drivers, the most dangerous to themselves and others. Biking pays.
    Incenting desired behaviors that have wide public benefit is nothing new.

  39. I don’t think too many bikers are genuinely against user fees being assessed, just that this bill is absolutely terribly written and downright unfair.

    Transportation fees, for whatever mode, need to be fair and account for all externalities. That way, the individual can make the choice of what mode best suits them for mobility.

  40. Aren’t transportation departments’ goals basically to enable their constituents to get from all their point A’s to their respective point B’s safely, efficiently, economically, and with minimum adverse impacts? So let’s consider what happens when a gas tax expenditure entices a motorist to walk, bike, or use transit.

    The motorist’s environmentally controlled trip is a little faster, the parking space is a little closer to the destination, there’s a little less demand for gasoline [which helps keep the price down and make petroleum reserves last a little longer], and the motorist is in a much better position should there be a collision with the pedestrian or the cyclist.

    The transit rider’s total trip will almost certainly take longer, the marginal cost can be higher than the motorist’s [especially for short trips where there are no parking fees], the rider has no control of the environment in the transit vehicle, the rider is totally exposed to the weather and any and all hazards when outside of the vehicle, and the rider is subject the additional delays from transit operations on top of traffic backups.

    The pedestrian’s trip takes the longest of all and the exposure to weather and hazards is second only to the cyclist’s on a per second basis, but may well be higher overall because of the additional time spent taking the trip.

    The cyclist’s exposure to weather and hazards are higher than the pedestrian’s because of relative speed, the cyclist disproportionally sucks up exhaust fumes and other pollutants because of faster breathing rates, and the bicycle is about four times as likely to be stolen as a car.

    All three of the former motorists now have more difficulty transporting groceries or other cargo but still share in the costs of providing “free” parking.

    The point is that maybe a more appropriate epithet than “freeloaders” for non-motorist travelers might be “suckers”.

    The foregoing was said in the hope of providing those who feel put upon in this matter with a smile and a chance of having a little better day.

  41. Since a person can only use one vehicle at a time, it seems like there is a possible consensus here that a person should only pay only one registration fee for the vehicle(s) they own. Therefore a person with only one bike and no car would pay the same dollar amount registration fee as a person with one car and multiple bikes, and also pay the same dollar amount registration fee as a person that owns multiple motor vehicles (cars and/or trucks) and no bikes.

    As for the state paying bike owners: if anything, it should be the state paying drivers for creating private sector jobs because one in every 10 jobs in the US are tied to the auto industry – many of them in the private sector. In Portland, some of those jobs tied to the auto industry include longshoremen unloading shiploads of cars from across the Pacific. The crazy concept of the state paying bike owners to ride them just enhances the term freeloading pedal pushers.

  42. Many people own bikes like other people own shoes – different colors and styles depending on how you feel, what the weather is like, and if you are going off-road or not.

    Its not like the average person has a garage full of high-performance Ferrari’s, Lamborghini’s, off-road 4×4 trucks, compact car for driving in town, an SUV for transporting the soccer team, and the backbone Subaru/Toyota/Honda for everyday trips. They would cost you so much money that its beyond fantasy.

    However, I can do essentially that with bicycles for less than what you pay in gasoline for 6 months.

    I think it would be funny if we charged a registration fee for cars equal to the full vehicle’s value. For (one) of my crappy 20 year old bicycles, that would be ~$10/year. For your car, a lot more.

    ======================

    On the other hand, the government is currently giving out subsidies to people who purchase hybrid vehicles. A couple years ago, the Feds were subsidizing SUV’s by allowing you to claim them as a tax-deduction for a “business.”

    So we will PAY YOU to drive a car, but charge you to cycle!? That just makes so much sense!

    Next you guys are going to tell me that bicycles cause all the potholes on the freeways, take up all those parking spaces at the store, and produce all the smog that turns the sky brown in the summer.

    I guess those gas fumes can get you pretty high… ;)

  43. What exactly would I be paying for? Cars require complicated and expensive infrastructure to prevent them from killing people. So-called “bike infrastructure” is really just more car infrastructure, because its sole purpose is to prevent bicyclists from being injured or killed by errant cars. Remove cars from the picture (not advocating that) and bicycles wouldn’t need painted lanes or traffic lights or overpasses or anything. road maintenance could happen once in a hundred years.

    Again, I am not advocating the removal of cars, because, as Terry Parker said, the auto industry is a job creator, and even though that could be said about any human activity whatsoever, and even though the auto industry worldwide is shedding jobs massively right now, it is still a valid point.

    I hope they don’t make me register my shoes to pay for sidewalks and “pedestrian infrastructure”.

  44. Terry Parker: As for the state paying bike owners: if anything, it should be the state paying drivers for creating private sector jobs because one in every 10 jobs in the US are tied to the auto industry – many of them in the private sector.

    I’m having a lot of trouble verifying that 10% claim you keep making. CNN Money, using numbers from the Center for Automotive Research, puts it at 2 million jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 130 million people are employed in non-farm jobs. How do you get that 1 in 10 figure?

  45. $14,698 is the average salary of automotive jobs in Oregon, (according to Jeff’s link.) I know people that work in bicycle shops that make more than that. Starting salary for a TriMet bus driver is $13/hr, so $27k a year. I even know someone that works at Payless shoes, (you know, for pedestrians,) that makes about that much.

    So why exactly wouldn’t we be better off if GM went bankrupt?

  46. nate wrote: Bikes do not damage roadway they travel and have relatively few purpose built facilities.

    No but bike facilities DO require ongoing maintenance. I know many streets that have gone decades without significant maintenance. There are stretches of freeway that went 15, 20+ years without any type of pavement preservation.

    Obviously, we should be rewarding bike users: free parking, dedicated storage garages, stoplight priority.

    OK, where is my reward for riding door-to-door transit, on old buses that are fully depreciated, without shelters, proper access to the bus stop, and I don’t use expensive park-and-ride lots for free parking, huge oversized MAX station platforms, or the WES’ free Wi-Fi? I’m literally as cheap as a TriMet rider there is…so why do I end up subsidizing every other TriMet rider? Where’s my “Transit Stimulus” check considering that not one penny of TriMet’s stimulus funding will even go towards any transit service I use?

    Wells wrote: Automobiles present a severe impediment to bicycling, walking, and the practical arrangement of mass transit. Automobiles are one mode of travel among the others and require the most infrastructure.

    Light rail, and in fact all forms of railroad, present severe impediments to transportation – long trains divide cities and cut off neighbors, create huge amounts of noise pollution, have huge land requirements, and kill hundreds of people annually. Based upon that logic – ALL TRAINS MUST BE ELIMINATED.

    Try again.

    carless in PDX wrote: Seriously?! I can only ride one at a time! This “bill” is ridiculous. No way in hell can I even afford to pay for it.

    So are we also arguing that vehicles should be registered in the same manner? I can only drive one car at a time too. So why should, if I own multiple vehicles (which I personally do not, I have one motor vehicle for our household of three), I pay multiple registration fees?

    Bob R. wrote: That’s a much better idea than this registration proposal. It’s easier to enforce because you deal with a limited number of retailers, rather than all cyclists

    So let’s do the same with motorists. Let’s eliminate the DMV and gas tax and replace it with a “Les Schwab” Tax. Tax the tires only. (Although I do agree with the studded tire tax. There’s virtually zero reason why anyone in the Willamette Valley needs studded tires.)

    Lenny Anderson wrote: Bike registration is fine…but the state should pay the bike owner, not the other way around. $54 every two year is cheap price to pay for less congestion, better air and water, fewer green house gases and healthier people.

    I’m still waiting for my bus refund check for devoting more of my personal time towards TriMet’s needs (six mile commute today took 50 minutes, with 25 of those minutes WAITING for TriMet), using door-to-door transit instead of a park-and-ride lot, walking across a busy highway thanks to TriMet’s “we can’t fund sidewalks for bus but we’ll take our stimulus funding for sidewalks to MAX stations” devotion towards bus riders.

    I should get a check for my transit “choice” long before a bike rider does.

    Matthew wrote: $14,698 is the average salary of automotive jobs in Oregon

    And a large part of that is that Oregon is one of two states without self-serve gas. Eliminate that, and while you’ll see a large number of those “automotive jobs” go away, you’ll end up drastically increasing the average salary.

    There is no reasonable way that Oregon has more “automotive jobs” without counting gas station attendants than Mississippi which is currently a hotbed for foreign-owned auto factories. And of those 115 assembly workers…you can kiss them goodbye in a couple years when Daimler shuts down the last manufacturing line, further relegating Oregon to a low-wage service sector economy.

  47. I think any bike owners who have an arrogant attitude of entitlement should pay a DOUBLE registration for each bike.

    That might straighten out their mind a bit.

    There were a bunch of letters to the Oregonian today (Tuesday) about this fee. I feel a backlash may be building against the sense of entitlement felt by some bike riders. Of course our wonderful mayor’s pandering to the bike lobby has helped fuel the bad attitude.

    Nick, Non-Driver and heavy TriMet user.

    PS: Bob, I am not disparaging the whole class of bicyclists; most of them are OK, in my opinion.

  48. Erik, I agree with you 100% that bus riders have gotten the short end of the transit stick. I say that as someone who gets around this city using the following order of preference:

    1) Bike
    2) Car
    3) MAX
    4) Streetcar
    5) Company Shuttle Bus
    6) Bus

    (As I’ve mentioned before, I’d like to take the bus but I get carsick way too easily)

    My comments should actually probably be under a new post regarding TriMet’s announcement of $1 million investment in Bike facilities http://trimet.org/news/releases/mar9_bike_facilities.htm (hint hint Bob R. and Chris). But I’ll make them here since that post hasn’t been completed….yet.

    I’m actually a bit embarrassed about the timing coming on the heals of the proposed bike license fee. PR wise it just doesn’t jive. As I’m sure you all know, the rationale behind putting the facilities at these stops has to do with the topography of the west hills. If it was as flat as the east side more bicyclists would simply ride all the way downtown, but the hills make many riders opt to use MAX to get from Beaverton TC or Sunset to Goose Hollow.

    So, this is a response to MAX not having enough bike capacity on their MAX or WES trains, for that matter, to handle the demand along these portions of the route. At least their will be a cost to use this service although, I hear you Terry, it certainly won’t cover the cost of installation anytime soon, but car park and rides are free and cost money to develop and maintain so there is some correlation there.

  49. Transit riders get a 75% subsidy from the payroll tax. Maybe its time for a “bike strike”…a day where we all leave our bikes at home and drive our cars or a Zipcar…at the speed limit; see how that plays out.
    The benefits from bikes are so great and at so little social cost that suggesting a tax or fee is just an outright and unworthy attack. Hey folks get on your bike and join the fun.

  50. Erik Halstead: “Light rail, and in fact all forms of railroad, present severe impediments to transportation – long trains divide cities and cut off neighbors, create huge amounts of noise pollution, have huge land requirements, and kill hundreds of people annually. Based upon that logic – ALL TRAINS MUST BE ELIMINATED.”

    ws: Light rail does not disconnect neighborhoods. Go live near a freeway or a raised up freeway overpass before you make a statement like this. Historically speaking, the suburb to city freeway destroyed many historic (and minority) neighborhoods.

    Hell, even live near a large arterial road and try to cross it as compared to light rail. In fact, crossing the light rail on Interstate Ave. is the easiest thing I have ever done, and it has LR in both directions.

    Ridiculous post. Yeah, the Pearl District is fragmented from the street car. In fact, people on one side of the street car line hate the other side because of the division created by the tracks. *sarcasm*

  51. I agree with Erik’s point about rail dividing cities. For instance, look at that giant overpass on SE Holgate over all those railroad tracks. That thing is wider than any freeway in the state.

    There’s plenty of other situations just like that around.

    And as far as light rail goes, the MAX setup at Collins Circle at Goose Hollow is just a disaster waiting to happen. And I don’t understand Tri-Met’s obsession with putting MAX tracks right down the center of arterials (i.e. Burnside, Interstate and Washington Street in Hillsboro). I realize it’s a common setup in other places in the world, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a flat-out bad idea.

    It’s not safe for anyone–it creates frequent car/train collisions (the City of Hillsboro lost a brand new fire truck), it’s less safe for pedestrians (they’re stuck on an island in the middle of the road).

    And in the case of the Yellow Line, it’s blocked a number of crosswalks.

    Back on the topic of bikes, I agree that they are a useful form of transportation–they are a form of exercise and they are chronogeographically independent like cars. The issue is that we don’t really have an adequate space for them in our current transport hierarchy.

    I’d totally support a fee if it would create better bicycle infrastructure that didn’t cost other modes of transportation (walking, driving) a bunch of space.

    I do, however, think the bill is poorly worded and is in need of a serious re-write. It’s vague and unclear. And easily avoided if you stay off of state-maintained facilities.

    -Alex

  52. Alex L Says:

    And as far as light rail goes, the MAX setup at Collins Circle at Goose Hollow is just a disaster waiting to happen.

    It’s been like that since 1998 and the only “disaster” I can remember was when some drunk tried to drive home to Vancouver by way of the Westside tunnel.

    And I don’t understand Tri-Met’s obsession with putting MAX tracks right down the center of arterials (i.e. Burnside, Interstate and Washington Street in Hillsboro). I realize it’s a common setup in other places in the world, but as far as I’m concerned, it’s just a flat-out bad idea.

    It’s pretty much the traditional model for light rail. Where else would you put the tracks, other than a few convenient locations with abandoned right of way?

    It’s not safe for anyone–it creates frequent car/train collisions (the City of Hillsboro lost a brand new fire truck), it’s less safe for pedestrians (they’re stuck on an island in the middle of the road).

    And again, what does “frequent car/train collisions” mean? You can get that information in this report.

    As a result of their efforts, TriMet has significantly reduced their collision occurrence. On average, in the 4-year period
    between 1994 and 1997, TriMet experienced one collision every 33,368 train-miles. (Collisions include every incident of contact, including minor fender benders, clipped mirrors, and
    many other incidents in which no injuries were reported and material damage was minimal.) On average, in the 4-year period between 2004 and 2007, they experienced one collision every 93,492 miles.

  53. Jeff F says:
    It’s pretty much the traditional model for light rail. Where else would you put the tracks, other than a few convenient locations with abandoned right of way?

    Instead of running it down the middle, I’d put them on the side of the road.

  54. I’d put them on the side of the road.

    The problem with that is that it would block driveways, and possibly lead to incidents involving right-turning vehicles.

    I feel that, for Burnside and probably in Hillsboro, the center of the street is probably the best place. It may not be the safest, but I don’t think that elevating the tracks or putting them underground (the other options) provides enough benefits to justify the extra cost.

    That being said, I DO think that Interstate MAX should have been put along I-5. Besides having less conflicts and not preventing pedestrians and vehicles from crossing Interstate, it would be faster (including avoiding street jogs), possibly more reliable since the tracks would be open and not in grooves and attract riders from east of I-5 who see the freeway as a barrier.

    Overall, if people follow the signals there shouldn’t be problems (this also goes for Collins Circle, where all traffic is stopped when trains are going through). However, I think that’s a big “if”, since we seem to be real lenient about giving people driver’s licenses and letting them keep them. I strongly believe that we should take licenses away from drivers who disobey rules/signs/etc until they can be trusted to follow the law. It would cut down on the number of crashes that occur.

  55. While my comment was largely sarcastic in tone, I must address this more serious rebuttal:

    ws wrote: Light rail does not disconnect neighborhoods. Go live near a freeway or a raised up freeway overpass before you make a statement like this. Historically speaking, the suburb to city freeway destroyed many historic (and minority) neighborhoods.

    Hell, even live near a large arterial road and try to cross it as compared to light rail. In fact, crossing the light rail on Interstate Ave. is the easiest thing I have ever done, and it has LR in both directions.

    I’m going to use a lot of very specific examples:

    45°29’32.07″N, 122°47’47.14″W: Apartment Complex divided by MAX tracks in Beaverton.

    45°29’54.63″N, 122°49’46.61″W: Apartment Complex pedestrian access to major employment center (Tektronix) blocked by MAX tracks underneath Murray Blvd.

    45°30’52.90″N, 122°51’45.05″W: Residential Neighborhood completely isolated from major travel corridor and adjacent residential neighborhood to south of MAX tracks.

    45°31’11.59″N, 122°52’41.86″W: Residential Neighborhood to south of MAX tracks isolated from educational/research center to north of MAX tracks.

    45°31’30.35″N, 122°53’40.84″W: Residential Neighborhood split in half by MAX with no pedestrian connection.

    45°31’47.49″N, 122°54’36.29″W: Historic community of Orenco divided, including access to an elementary school to the south isolated from neighborhood to the north.

    45°31’34.06″N, 122°57’2.11″W: Access to recreational athletic fields blocked by MAX to southerly residential areas.

    45°31’26.80″N, 122°57’25.94″W: Over 1/2 mile “barrier” between residential neighborhoods created by MAX with no ability to cross north-south.

    45°31’15.75″N, 122°58’2.93″W: Residences along Main Street blocked by MAX to neighborhoods to south.

    45°31’3.28″N, 122°27’49.44″W: MAX creates a nearly .4 mile barrier prohibiting pedestrian access north-south.

    45°30’40.00″N, 122°26’54.58″W: Another MAX barrier between residential neighborhoods north-south.

    And that’s all not counting the restrictions on pedestrian crossings on Interstate and Burnside…

Leave a Reply to R A Fontes Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *