The Daily Journal of Commerce reports that our intrepid Congressman is sponsoring a bill that would look at a national study along the lines of ODOT’s pilot program to use in-car GPS systems to track Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) to allow a VMT tax as an alternative to the gas tax.
But all of you who are convinced that this is a secret plan to track your every movement, relax – the article reports Congress is looking at a “a five- to 10-year period of study and slow integration.”
Personally I think congestion pricing is a more practical and effective way to achieve similar policy goals, but if a VMT tax is where we’re headed, Oregon may as well be the leader (propelled by Federal funding for development).
67 responses to “Earl Blumenaur: Slowest Big Brother Ever?”
It’s not a secret plan to track our every movement, but it is a plan which sets up the infrastructure for future privacy problems, and, as you say, isn’t the most practical solution.
It’s open heart surgery when an aspirin regimen would do.
It would be great if insurance pricing worked in conjunction with this too!
Isn’t the per-gallon tax we have now equivalent to VMT times a bloat factor? You pay more if you just have to drive an SUV.
What is the perceived advantage of just taxing VMT?
Restoration of “bloat” can be done by converting it to a weight-mile tax; the gross weight of any given car is known, and it’s the “miles” part that we need to calculate. (Unlike trucks, there is seldom a large delta between gross and net weight with most personal autos).
Speaking of which–do truckers use this system (or similar) to calculate and pay the WMT, or is it still based on logbooks and such?
The advantages of taxing VMT over fuel taxes include:
* Taxes cannot be avoided as easily by filling up out-of-state.
* Unlike an “odometer tax”, can be designed to exclude miles travelled out of state, and may be less resistant to tampering.
* Fuel taxes may affect non-motorists, in particular farmers and such, who consume fuel for tractors and farm equipment that are not typically operated in the public right-of-way.
The security/privacy questions for such a thing are important. If its implemented as an in-car routelogger (as opposed to a device that transmits your position at all times to Big Brother), it can be designed such that it only maintains and reports a total count of miles traveled within a given jurisdiction, but without retaining or making available details on which motel you were in last Tuesday night.
VMT wouldn’t discriminate between electrics & oil burners.
An interesting policy question regarding VMT vs fuel taxes vs other ways of charging for road use, is what are you trying to charge for?
Are you mainly interested in paying for road maintenance, in which case the weight of the vehicle matters (as well as its axle configuration–busses are of course the worst offenders) but the fuel used does not?
Or are you mainly interested in limiting fuel consumption (both due to supply issues, and pollution when it burns), in which case a gas tax might be more suitable?
Or are you interested in “congestion charges”?
(Non)Official notice: Tri Met will offer free microbrewed beer to afternoon riders on all of its lines.
There, that promise should get people out of their cars!
I survived the year 1984 fairly well and had hoped to never revisit it. Can’t we come up with some out of the box methods to encourage people to use transit? and not surveillance?
I don’t think the VMT proposal is designed to scare people out of their vehicles and on to transit, Ron. For one thing, when ze smartcards are in place, ve vill be able to track ze autobus riders, too. Your only hope is to walk, at least until the RFID tag is implanted in your bottom.
(You may already have one implanted somewhere in your clothing, after all…)
:)
Speaking seriously–I expect that there will be some resistance to anything that permits widespread surveillance of the populace. Now that there is again a Democrat in the White House, the political right wing in this country has suddenly rediscovered the concept of “civil liberties”, which they had apparently forgotten about for the past eight years. (Leftist civil libertarians, at least, are consistent–and don’t trust the Dems OR the GOP).
The free beer proposal, I do like. (“I’ll take whatever the driver’s having, please!”)
(Non)Official notice: Tri Met will offer free microbrewed beer to afternoon riders on all of its lines.
Will Fareless Square count as part of the promotion? I imagine we’d see a record number of transfers if this occurred.
I still think the Aerial Tram, which is closed late at night, should stay open and serve drinks, at least on weekends. The views would be amazing and I’m sure revenue could be generated. Imagine a disco ball inside the shiny silver tram cars. :-)
For a truly equitable non-discriminative transport tax system, just implant a tracking chip in the left middle index finger of everybody. Then every time a person moves more than a few feet, they are taxed. That way, instead of the current discrimination applied to motorists as the cash cows for other modes of transport, deadbeat bicyclists, transit riders and walkers could also then be directly taxed, and hopefully at the same rate. Such an invasive move would also give the socialistic progressives what they truly desire, ultimate power, regulation and control over the people.
Such an invasive move would also give the socialistic progressives what they truly desire, ultimate power, regulation and control over the people.
As much as I oppose the VMT-by-GPS approach, Terry is wrong to assign blame to progressives. This has been an equal-opportunity scheme when it comes to the parties in power as it has been investigated in various agencies and locales.
But once we’re all part of the Big Brother Socialist Utopia and have chips in our extended middle fingers, I do support Terry’s idea of transportaiton taxation at the same rate. I propose 1 cent per mile walked, biked, or driven, multiplied by the total volume (including vehicle) of whatever is moving, and then subsequently multiplied by the total weight. That would only be fair.
Of course, to minimize revenue collection, the first three miles each day are free. We don’t want to hit up housewives with a big bill for running the vaccum cleaner, do we?
(Likewise, an exemption for farmers and groundskeepers is in order).
On the plus side, Dancing with the Stars may well be too expensive to produce, so they’ll have to find something more enlightening to put on the air.
We should make sure there’s a treadmill tax too, so that people can’t bypass taxation by running in place.
Good thing I like to sit around all day and play with the computer.
Good thing I like to sit around all day and play with the computer.
People who don’t drive around a lot are a drain on the economy… there should be a “sit around all day” tax to catch the idle scofflaws.
I still think the Aerial Tram, which is closed late at night, should stay open and serve drinks, at least on weekends. The views would be amazing and I’m sure revenue could be generated. Imagine a disco ball inside the shiny silver tram cars. :-)
Maybe that’s a way they can plug their budget gaps.
I bet they could pick up some wedding receptions, a showcase party for a convention, or something else equally weird. It might be kind of fun (and convenient) to just take the Blue line back and forth for a few hours with food and drinks. You could just jump off nearest to your house or hotel.
I doubt bus rentals would be too popular, but the streetcar and tram would probably do well. And the tram would finally bring some nightlife to SoWa.
What do you have against busses, Comrade Dave? Off to Camp Obama with you!
People who don’t drive around a lot are a drain on the economy… there should be a “sit around all day” tax to catch the idle scofflaws.
I’ll take a chip in my finger and drive everywhere before I let you tax my bandwidth.
Camp Obama! (smirk) Is that somewhere in the Poconos?!
No, it’s in Arizona, where the 30,000 fresh graves have been dug by the federal government.
(Though I completely forgive you for the error because it is difficult to keep up with all the latest anti-Obama conspiracy theories.)
30,000? There are literally millions of senior citizens in the US awaiting mandatory euthanasia–that’s nowhere near enough.
Besides–why wouldn’t Obama dig the graves in his native Kenya instead? That way, they’ll be outside US jurisdiction. (Worked for Bush…)
Besides–why wouldn’t Obama dig the graves in his native Kenya instead?
Too many carbon emissions to ship the bodies. President-in-absentia Al Gore said no, and his word is final.
You can pry yr walkin’ tax outta my cold, dead (chipless) hands
How did this perfectly reasonable thread veer so far into the gutter, and so fast?
Ah yes… one of the usual suspects screamed “socialism”, and it went downhill from there. :)
Of course, when a thread starts with “big brother” in the title, that’s a bad omen…
“multiplied by the total volume (including vehicle) of whatever is moving, and then subsequently multiplied by the total weight.”
Taxing at the same rate (a flat rate) is not subject to a multiplication factor.
However under Bob’s plan, a person “being driven” in a bus, or riding on a streetcar, light rail vehicle, train, airplane, or ship would also have to account for the entire volume and weight of that vehicle too when taxed – and that too would only be fair – under Bob’s multiplication plan. Mass transport modes would likely be paying be paying their own way, including the capitol costs, or become obsolete due to lack of patronage, and mass transport projects paying their own way or becoming obsolete is worth investigating. Additionally, under Bob’s plan, the volume of a bicycle does not need a specialized lane any wider than the handle bars and therefore the width of all bicycle lanes could be narrowed and reduced. Marathons and bicycle events like the bridge pedal would also be tax revenue generators – and for mayhem like critical mass rides, the total volume and weight for each rider could be based on the entire mass mob rather than just the individual own weight and volume. Bob may be on to something here. Food would cost more because of the added weight to transport it to market and fat people would have an incentive to slim down, not only because of increased food costs, but because it would cost them less for individual taxes too. .
As for running a vacuum cleaner, I believe that would fall within the category of within a few feet and not be subject to taxation.
Taxing at the same rate (a flat rate) is not subject to a multiplication factor.
Sure it is, if it’s a rate per multiple units, such as passenger-mile, pound-foot, man-hour, or whatever. Sort of like if the library checked out books for a rate per pound, per day. All books are charged at the same rate, but the price would be different depending on the book.
You really haven’t thought this through. Best you leave it to the socialists who have experience in this area. Don’t worry yourself over it.
Marathons and bicycle events like the bridge pedal would also be tax revenue generators
Perhaps you didn’t notice, but Bridge Pedal riders paid for the privilege.
The route we were on cost each of us $3.13 per single-direction bridge crossing, even though the majority of the lanes that day were still used by cars who were not paying a $3.13 single-use toll.
And on the freeway bridges, cars don’t pay a toll on any of those bridges the other 99.906849315068493150684931506849% of the year when bikes and peds are completely banned. Try to cross the Marquam or Fremont without a car and you can get arrested.
But I don’t consider ODOT to be a bunch of bike-hating Nazis because of it, even though you think that PDOT must be some collection of car-hating commies.
There, I’ve done it. The complete obliteration of this thread by the self-invocation of Godwin’s Law.
Sorry, Chris.
How did this perfectly reasonable thread veer so far into the gutter, and so fast?
To be as rational as I can, I hate the idea and will oppose it every step of the way. I believe that there are certain freedoms, regardless of if I drive or not, that should not be tracked in intimate detail. I don’t like the phone or internet traffic can be a piece of evidence either, but I’m opposed to the state tracking traffic and users, regardless of method.
People deeply concerned about being tracked should definitely avoid owning a cell phone.
I’m fairly concerned about probes into my personal life, especially my finances and identity, but find the issue of my vehicle being tracked completely harmless. In part, I think that’s because I’ve spent time dealing with ODOT staff and the idea that they could get anything sinister out of the wealth of data derived from auto travel seems laughable. Mostly, though, I don’t care who knows where I drive or when–Yes, boss, i admit it, I sneaked off to Grand Central for a sticky bun.
and above all, junk the grocery club and credit cards. (Want to know which contributor has hemorrhoids?)
Dave,
Don’t drive a rental car, then–most of them are equipped with GPS units (separate from any on-board navigation systems which renters may use) which permit the rental agency to track rental car use.
A findlaw article from four years ago, covering rental cars and other potential (ab)uses of GPS.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20050823.html
R A Fontes — do tell!
I don’t know who around here has hemorrhoids, but I could tell you who is the biggest pain in the ass. :)
JeffF Says: People deeply concerned about being tracked should definitely avoid owning a cell phone.
Nor should they even leave the confines of their home. Closed-circuit cameras are everywhere!
“Sure it is, if it’s a rate per multiple units, such as passenger-mile, pound-foot, man-hour, or whatever. Sort of like if the library checked out books for a rate per pound, per day. All books are charged at the same rate, but the price would be different depending on the book.”
Multiple Units – charge every rail passenger for the volume and weight of each of the number of units coupled together. Pound-foot – charge all the bicyclists for every rotation of the pedals and each drop of sweat dripping on the road. Man-hour – charge each transit rider for all the man hours of drivers and management.
Libraries don’t charge for checked out or overdue books based on the size, pound or volume of pages in the book. That would be pound foolish just as the multiplication factor on a mobility tracking chip would be pound and volume foolish. The bottom line is the infrastructure for alternative modes need to be paid for by the users, and not by taxpayers in general or expecting motorists to be cash cows for other modes. .
“Perhaps you didn’t notice, but Bridge Pedal riders paid for the privilege.”
Actually, it is again the Portland area taxpayers that are paying and subsidizing the “privilege” afforded the riders in the Bridge Pedal. The money you paid goes to the sponsors and does not cover the public costs. Although ODOT charges for the services they provide, the City of Portland does not fully charge for their services. This includes blocking off roads, police services, etc. Additionally, some of the money the sponsors receive is passed along to bias lobby groups like the BTA Indirectly, that has taxpayers discriminately subsidizing a one-sided lobby effort.
Moreover, the Bridge Pedal creates a carbon footprint by creating unnecessary congestion where it otherwise would not exist on a Sunday morning. Traffic during the event on 26 coming into and passing through Portland was backed up through the tunnel to the zoo. Traffic after the event on MLK and Grand Avenue was extremely congested due to people with bicycles crossing those streets to get to their cars. Additionally traffic was considerably increased in the area with people driving home from the event. They were east to spot – cars, trucks and SUVs with biycles fastened to them.
The bottom line is that although event organizers collected a fee, not enough of dollars collected were used to cover the taxpayer costs for the event. None were used to help pay for transportation infrastructure.
“Try to cross the Marquam or Fremont without a car and you can get arrested.”
“Try driving on the Eastbank Esplanade and you will get arrested – even though it was paid for with poached motorist paid highway dollars and not bicycle taxes.
Terry Parker Says: “Try driving on the Eastbank Esplanade and you will get arrested – even though it was paid for with poached motorist paid highway dollars and not bicycle taxes.
Do you think everything is funded by highway dollars?
Actually, Terry, motor vehicles are permitted on much of the esplanade with a permit if needed. Try getting a permit to ride a bike on the Marquam or Fremont bridges on any of the 364.66 days of the year when the Bridge Pedal isn’t happening.
Libraries don’t charge for checked out or overdue books based on the size, pound or volume of pages in the book. That would be pound foolish just as the multiplication factor on a mobility tracking chip would be pound and volume foolish.
Terry, you’ve got your finger right on the tip of the problem. I’m sorry you completely fail to see that you’ve got it 100% right in the case of libraries and apply this thinking to other modes.
Your desire to tax/toll/register bikes is pound foolish — always has been — the cost of providing the administration of such a scheme far outweighs the revenue that could be directly raised.
For some reason I suspect that Terry’s eagerness to tax bicycles is not due to any revenue windfall, perceived or actual, which would lighten the burden that motorists allegedly bear.
I think Terry’s eagerness to tax bike riders is simply because he wants ’em off the roads altogether.
(And in fairness to Terry, many of the proposals from transit advocates to raise auto-related taxes and fees, are often offered in the same spirit–not as ways of raising revenue, but of making driving more expensive in the hopes that fewer will choose to do so. Now it may be the case that one or the other mode of transportation enjoys an unfair subsidy, so such a position may well be justified; and I think that motorists enjoy a far bigger “unfair advantage” than do bicyclists–but at this point, as the old joke goes, we’re just haggling over the price.)
The bottom line is that although event organizers collected a fee, not enough of dollars collected were used to cover the taxpayer costs for the event.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that event organizers were charged proportionately less than other major parades and events?
Does the Rose Festival pay a bridge toll for every float, horse, and marcher?
I drive a taxicab in Portland. I would very much not want to be charged by the mile for anything. Or, guess what, it will be added to the price per mile that the passenger pays me. Much easier to just charge me a gas tax, which I pay everyday. Sometimes twice.
As far as GPS, my taxi is equipped with a GPS that allows the dispatcher to pull up a screen and follow me on a map. Great for safety (someone always knows where I am) and great for sending the nearest cab to a passenger who just called for a cab. Not good in my personal car. It just doesn’t feel right.
For as much as I drive for work, I actually drive my personal car very little, taking the bus or bike for a lot of things. But, even though that means I would come out ahead (on the personal level), I would still miss the freedom of being able to drive wherever I want without being metered in my own vehicle. It’s a perception of freedom thing.
BTW–did Big Brother knock this site offline from yesterday afternoon through this morning, or what? :)
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that event organizers were charged proportionately less than other major parades and events?”
Last years event was well documented in the media. My issue is not with the under charge as it applies to the money going to Providence for their research. However, when the BTA, which is basically a one-sided bias lobby group, receives money from the event, then taxpayers are indirectly and discriminately funding their lobby efforts. I do not see the City of Portland directly or indirectly funding lobbyists or groups from the other side, or anybody else for that matter that speaks before the City Council or always has representation on transportation related citizen committees. With the BTA getting paid off, what the City is doing is unethical.
“Does the Rose Festival pay a bridge toll for every float, horse, and marcher?”
No, however the Rose Festival is a city wide event. The Grand Floral Parade is broadcast on TV across the US and even to foreign countries promoting Portland. Unlike the Rose Festival that plays to an array of interests with not only three parades, but car races, dragon boat races, the rose show, a carnival, etc, etc, etc; the Bridge Pedal plays only to a niche market – the bicyclists, and is a major impediment to traffic flow tying up the majority of Willamette River bridges including one direction on each of the two freeway bridges.
Referring to the Eastbank Esplanade, JeffF said: “It was financed through a combination of $4.9 million in federal (transportation) grants (that were dedicated for specific uses)…”
The grant was through the Federal Highway Trust Fund – money that came from motorist paid federal fuel taxes.
I asked:
Terry replied:
Last years event was well documented in the media.
I’ll take that as a “No”. You do not have any evidence whatsoever that event organizers were charged proportionately less than other major events.
Terry goes on:
My issue is not with the under charge as it applies to the money going to Providence for their research. However, when the BTA, which is basically a one-sided bias lobby group, receives money from the event, then taxpayers are indirectly and discriminately funding their lobby efforts.
No, it doesn’t matter _where_ the money goes so long as major events which benefit from city services are treated equally.
No, however the Rose Festival is a city wide event. The Grand Floral Parade is broadcast on TV across the US and even to foreign countries promoting Portland.
Doesn’t matter. If the Bridge Pedal is not treated differently than other major events, there’s no discrimination going on.
Incidentally, the Bridge Pedal is an internationally-known event with many families participating. Bicycling is no “niche”. Bicycle _commuters_ may be a niche, as in less than some other modes, but recreational _bicycling_ is a majority-beloved activity. Most every kid learns to ride a bike.
I don’t have Portland-specific figures, but surveys done in various states put bicycle ownership in over 50% of households, and in households of 4 or more people it goes up into the 80’s.
Bicycle-averse individuals are the “niche”, not that it matters with respect to city support for major events.
and is a major impediment to traffic flow tying up the majority of Willamette River bridges
Completely 100% wrong. I was there and saw it with my own two eyes. The _majority_ of bridges had a _majority_ of lanes open to autos. It was a quiet Sunday morning, and I saw traffic flowing freely in both directions on the arterial bridges, and on the freeway bridges, you could see from the side that traffic in the open directions was flowing freely.
The only arterial bridge to be closed in both directions was the Broadway.
BTW–did Big Brother knock this site offline from yesterday afternoon through this morning, or what? :)
Chris is trying to get the details from the ISP, but they took it down due to a high intensity of activity, possibly a comment spam attack or a denial of service attack from people who don’t like transportation. :-)
Terry Parker Says: Referring to the Eastbank Esplanade, JeffF said: “It was financed through a combination of $4.9 million in federal (transportation) grants (that were dedicated for specific uses)…”
The grant was through the Federal Highway Trust Fund – money that came from motorist paid federal fuel taxes.
JeffF also mentioned the additional $24M in LID funds, which you seem to have missed while claiming the Esplanade was “paid for” with “poached” highway funds. In my world, $4M is only a fraction of $29M, Terry.
Since I-5 effectively blocked access to the eastside waterfront for generations, it is only appropriate that some of the money which was used to (very successfully) mitigate this access problem come from highway funds.
If I-5 had been constructed in such a manner as to not cordon off the river, then such funding would be less necessary.
The Grand Floral Parade is broadcast on TV across the US and even to foreign countries promoting Portland.
Oddly I’d never heard of the parade (or even the Rose Festival) until I moved here, but I had heard of the Bridge Pedal. Of course, I am a transportation geek, so maybe that’s why.
I could see why it might have been a pain if the I-405 shutdown was in effect, or if it was a daily or weekly thing, but once a year on a Sunday morning I don’t see the harm in shutting down one direction of travel on two bridges.
Forgot to mention that, sadly, the Grand Floral Parade is not broadcast nationally. This year, although it was in HD, it was only carried on KGW and in SD on Northwest Cable News. It was available for Internet streaming, however. (If there were any other outlets, they weren’t publicized on the official Rose Festival site.)
The Rose Festival did provide an officially-sanctioned bike event this year. Uh oh.
I didn’t participate in the Bridge Pedal event, but I did have to travel along the eastside in both directions that morning and I was actually marveling at how little interruption there really was. Initially, I thought it bizarre that the Marquam was covered with bikes, and wondering where all the freeway traffic was supposed to go — didn’t know until later that only one direction was blocked on each freeway bridge. It must have been very efficiently done, because there was quite possibly less traffic on I-5 than usual at the time on a Sunday.
Terry Parker:“The grant was through the Federal Highway Trust Fund – money that came from motorist paid federal fuel taxes.”
ws:Eastbank Esplanade receiving federal money is absolutely 100% justified. That complex of highways on the eastside of Portland completely cuts off people from adequately accessing the waterfront area. That in itself is not fair for one mode of transportation to completely remove access to another especially in such a centrally located place and geographically important local.
Water and waterfront access – at least within the city environment – should allow for adequate pedestrian access to the water and it’s edge.
Highways in particular are real estate consuming. Now, if they paid property taxes and were a private entity then it might be a different scenario, their ROW is public domain and therefor pilferage of the HTF funds is justified.
I’d ask anyone to look at I-5, 30 and 84 that cuts along the river’s banks and ask yourself if that land consuming roadway is doing $4.5 worth of land consumption? I’d say it’s a quite higher than that.
Bob R.“Since I-5 effectively blocked access to the eastside waterfront for generations, it is only appropriate that some of the money which was used to (very successfully) mitigate this access problem come from highway funds.”
If I-5 had been constructed in such a manner as to not cordon off the river, then such funding would be less necessary.”
ws:I didn’t know you had posted this before my post, which had similar overtones.
I might add that there is substantial runoff from I-5 that went (and still does) directly into the Willamette River without any bio-filtration (oil, brake dust, coolant, etc.)..to which the Esplanade design helped mitigate some of these issues by utilizing urban stormwater design solutions where water is bio-remediated in before it reaches the river.
Bob said: “it doesn’t matter _where_ the money goes so long as major events which benefit from city services are treated equally.”
It is questionable, subjective and completely opinionated whether the activities of the BTA, specifically their lobby efforts and inclusion on the majority if not all transportation related citizen committees, actually benefit the city as a whole. Additionally, if true equality existed, the city would also financially subsidize auto events and the auto lobby, implement a bicycle tax so that bicyclists pay the same percentage of bicycle infrastructure as motorists pay (through fuel taxes license and registration fees) for roadway infrastructure, and mandate that all transportation related citizen committees have specific and proportionally quantitative representation (as compared to alternative modes) instead of just saying the majority of citizen committee members also drive with no specific representation. It should be noted that everybody uses sidewalks too, yet these same citizen committees almost always have a pedestrian coalition representative in addition to a bicycle (often BTA) representative.
“I don’t have Portland-specific figures, but surveys done in various states put bicycle ownership in over 50% of households, and in households of 4 or more people it goes up into the 80’s.”
I don’t have specifics either, but surveys that go to the general public (not just bicyclists) that have asked the “question should bicyclists be taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure” and/or ask the question “should bicyclists pay a license and/or registration fee or both”; 55 percent or greater of the responses say yes to both. Yet in the political arena, any transparency and/or open discussion of the subject continues to be off limits and/or stifled with excuses. This is in part due to the niche and special interest lobbying from bicycle community – including the BTA.
Terry,
None of your points matter, your original contention was that the city, by offering services during a major event, was favoring a political lobbying arm. But you have presented ZERO evidence to support this claim. In order for your claim to be true, the city would have to have done favors for the Bridge Pedal event that it does not do for other events. Period.
Your subsequent claim was that bicycling is a “niche”. This has been disproved by multiple independent surveys of households.
Sorry, but you don’t get to keep moving the goal posts.
Additionally, if true equality existed, the city would also financially subsidize auto events and the auto lobby
Seems to me there’s plenty of activity at PIR and plenty of car and RV shows at the taxpayer-subsidized Expo Center, a service of Metro.
Why do you bother arguing with Terry?
You think you will change his mind or something?
Terry Parker: I don’t have specifics either, but surveys that go to the general public (not just bicyclists) that have asked the “question should bicyclists be taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure” and/or ask the question “should bicyclists pay a license and/or registration fee or both”; 55 percent or greater of the responses say yes to both.
Do you have some citations for these surveys, Terry? With surveys, it’s always helpful to see the methodology and the questions themselves. The first question in particular is interesting because it really is completely different from the second.
When it comes to supporting or using taxpayer dollars to subsidize bicycling of any kind, the City of Portland utilizes any disreputable method possible. That is implicitly unethical – period.
When it comes to the way the City of Portland treats motorists compared to alternative modes, the City practices total discrimination including tax discrimination – period.
In Glasgow, there is a long street running from a large shopping mall, rail station and subway station down toward the river that has been closed off to auto traffic. Buchanan Street is a bustling retail district, well served by cross-streets with auto, commercial and transit traffic, as well as the stations at the top. There are some photos here, including one of a double-decker on the cross street.
It can work, obviously, but I can’t think of a Portland street that’s comparable.
When it comes to supporting or using taxpayer dollars to subsidize bicycling of any kind, the City of Portland utilizes any disreputable method possible.
Hyperbole without evidence. Period.
When it comes to the way the City of Portland treats motorists compared to alternative modes, the City practices total discrimination including tax discrimination – period.
The city provides subsidized parking (including digital reader boards to promote its usage, and commercial ad campaigns) below market rates, among other perks.
You are very quick to complain about subsidies (both real and imagined) for bicycles, but never, so far as I can tell, acknowledge the perks automobiles receive.
Bob said: “The city provides subsidized parking (including digital reader boards to promote its usage, and commercial ad campaigns) below market rates, among other perks.”
Bicyclists ride on the streets free from paying any direct taxes and fees; park free on the streets and sidewalks, in areas set aside for bicycle parking and just about anywhere they can chain up their ride to a post or tree; and have specialized infrastructure specifically provided free to them including bike trails and paths, bicycle infrastructure on bridges, headlights instead of traffic citations, in some places showers, free bicycle storage in new buildings as required by building codes, etc, etc, etc.
Motorists pay to use the roads through fuel taxes, license and registration fees; then pay to park in some areas on those same streets that have been already paid for, have some of those parking fees poached to fund a third of the operational costs for the Portland Streetcar in addition to subsidizing the bicyclist freeloaders; and all the while having roadway capacity being reduced to accommodate alternative modes of transport.
The subsidies you say motorists receive while at the same time paying user fees and subsidizing other modes are pale in comparison to the free deadbeat existence bicyclists arrogantly help themselves to. And that my friend is why the City of Portland, Metro and the State of Oregon continually discriminate against motorists as compared to the users of alternative modes whom pay far less of a percentage (or zero) of the costs for the infrastructure they use.
The math that TP cannot or will not do is this:
In a finite system when you remove users, more space is available to those who continue to need to use the system. This is the least expensive and most obvious way to make efficient use of limited resources. When someone bikes they are essentially no longer taking up space on the road…with very few exceptions. Think of where we would be if even half of the folks who are on bikes switched back to driving their cars. Bicyclists should register with the City and then get paid to bike…not the other way around.
Another message rant from the freeloading mindset of deadbeat bicyclists to the taxpaying public: “Build me a network of specialized infrastructure with your tax dollars, and then pay me to use it.”
And my property taxes, heating, food, water, and sewer bills all should be eliminated and picked up by other taxpayers because shelter and basic needs are an essential right. Providing bicycle infrastructure and riding a bicycle are not.
Terry Parker: I don’t have specifics either, but surveys that go to the general public (not just bicyclists) that have asked the “question should bicyclists be taxed to pay for bicycle infrastructure” and/or ask the question “should bicyclists pay a license and/or registration fee or both”; 55 percent or greater of the responses say yes to both.
It’s been several days now, Terry. Do you have citations for these surveys?