BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

local roads are supposed to be paid for with local funds. state roads are supposed to be paid for with state gas tax funds. states are supposed to be reimbursed for building and maintaining the federal interstate highway system.

What actually occurs is that local and state gas/vehicle/transportation taxes do not provide enough funds to pay for maintenance and capital improvements. So, local and state governments float bonds and/or apply for federal dollars to assist in paying for projects. Additionally, the federal gas tax does not adequately provide the federal government with the budgeted funds. So, even the federal government has to borrow money to pay for local road projects.

In short, everyone provides funding for our infrastructure (even children with allowances), but not at the levels we need to properly maintain what we currently have.

under the above logic, we shouldn't have sidewalks

well, if we calculated cost of roads by weight of vehicles, and how that damages the roads, i guess we can pay more once we are the heavier vehicles.

Sure erok, among other things... we should have road and bridge closures due to soil and rock slides, restrictive weight capacities on bridges and other elevated structures, closed sidewalks with gaping holes in them, under funded/cost prohibitive mass transit service, substandard and inefficient traffic control devices, substandard and inefficient signage, weekly water main breaks, sewerage overflows during 2-year storm events, acid mine drainage into seemingly potable watersheds. We have all this wonderfulness and more.

A quick search through the forums and you'll find quite a few threads regarding hazardous, blocked or absent sidewalks.

I would guess a very small percentage of cyclists out on the roads are 100% car/bus/taxi/delivery vehicle (UPS truck?) free. I'd imagine they still pay gas taxes in one way or another, whether that is filling their car with gas, paying transit fees, having a box shipped UPS, etc. A very flimsy argument. We all pay for the roads in one way or another.

well if it comes from local coffers, anyone who pays rent or owns is also paying property tax that goes to help fix the roads.

it's such a dumb argument, but you hear it all the time. it's like saying that you don't have any kids so you shouldn't have to pay school taxes.

There are plenty of people who use the "no kids so no school taxes" argument. But, generally these people hate all taxes, so their arguments hold no weight.

my parents have defeated that tax argument by having as many kids as possible. Take that!

This is why I brought it up. I want hard numbers that I can show people that cyclists in fact do pay for roads.

Hmmmm. I don't have hard numbers, but you could try this kind of logic....cyclists put less stress on roads than cars do, so they cause less future damage (saving the gov't money).

Or maybe that's my economist brain taking over.

That doesn't work. They just say that there aren't enough bikes to make a difference.

I dunno...the whole argument seems specious to me. With regards to cyclists' rights, it's irrelevant who pays for the roads. The law already says we have the rights and responsibilities of any other road user, regardless of whether we've paid "our fair share".

That aside, little things like sales tax apply to all of us, plus many of us pay our yearly fees for registration of a vehicle that only runs once every week or two.

Gas taxes paid as a measurement of your right to the road is ridiculous; even the proverbial Hummvee owner wouldn't want that codified into law, once he looks at the fuel consumption of the average delivery van or semi truck...

I'm with Dan, it doesn't make sense. I mean, I own two cars already. You're saying I can spend another 8-10 a week driving but if I'm on my bike that's not cool?

under the above logic, we shouldn't have sidewalks

Maybe. I'm responsible for the sidewalk in front of my house, not the city. Of course, the city also takes extra money from merchants/cafes who wish to use their sidewalk as a place of business. And I'm guessing the city wouldn't take kindly to turning my sidewalk into a garden...

And I'm guessing the city wouldn't take kindly to turning my sidewalk into a garden...

Observation of local roadways would seem to indicate that turning it into an extra parking space is okay, though

It doesn't make sense, but none of the arguments against cycling ever do, yet I get in discussions with people over them all the time. If I had numbers that showed where the funding for roads came from I would have ammo. I want ammo.

The other night when i was taking the incline up a guy in line told me and my gf we should have to pay a extra fair for our bikes. I just smiled and nodded. Guess its ok for him to have a baby stroller the size of a shopping cart tho. People just dont get it.

For each municipality (in Allegheny County) the road and bridge projects are paid through property taxes from the municipality, the school district, as well as, the Regional Asset District Tax for locally owned infrastructure.

For Allegheny County, the road and bridge projects are paid through the General Fund (property taxes), RAD tax and the local share of the Liquid Fuels Tax.

http://www.alleghenycounty.us/publicworks/Annual07.pdf

Additional funding for local governments is provided by the state and federal government. The funding sources vary based on the department. DEP, DCNR, EPA, PennDOT can provide funding for various road and bridge projects.

State revenues are from Liquid Fuels Tax, Motor Vehicle Fees and the General Fund, with some nominal others.

Same goes for the Federal government. The Federal Highway Trust Fund is funded entirely by Liquid Fuels Tax (car, truck, motorcycle, airplane, boat).

there are more sources at the local, state and federal levels for "road and bridge" funding, but I'm too lazy to find all the links...

of course the argument is specious. it's not really even meant to be an argument. it's just something people who spend inordinate amounts of their income on transportation tell themselves to bring comfort to their poor souls when they see those of us who don't.

that guy doesn't have to pay for gas! well, at least i take care of the roads...yeah...

you would think that with so many drivers paying for the roads, they'd be in better shape!

another thing that's never considered is how much tax money is spent when a car crashes. the fire, police and ambulance service alone, not to mention the detectives, etc. some municipalities are charging drivers (or considering) who get into crashes and don't live in that muni. i kinda think it's a good idea, because many small towns near cities get overburdened with commuters to the city, and are stuck footing the bill for their shitty driving.

consider how much tax money went to fix this situation caused by an SUV driver yesterday. can a bicycle ever cause this much damage? hell, that probably cost more than the entire bike program of Penn Hills.

Traffic was shut down on part of Frankstown Road in Penn Hills, where an accident this morning escalated into a mild calamity in front of the municipal police station.

Police Chief Howard Burton said the crash, reported about 4 a.m. in the 12,000 block of Frankstown Road, caused serious injuries to a motorist whose sport utility vehicle sheared a utility pole that was cemented into the ground.

The driver's identity has not been released. He apparently lost control of his SUV as he rounded a bend at the police station.

Duquesne Light Co. repair crews rushed to the scene to restore electricity, but a hose burst on one of the trucks, spilling automotive fluid onto the roadway.

A hazardous-materials team then was called to clean up the spill as work continued to get the power turned on.

Then, however, a worker using a jackhammer ruptured a water line near the pole, and repair efforts had to be halted until another crew repaired the water line.

Chief Burton said the section of Frankstown will remain closed most of the day between Shenandoah Drive to the east and Orchard Drive to the west.

Read more: http://postgazette.com/pg/09209/986890-100.stm#ixzz0MZjFVrRR

hey, those same emergency teams are called in every time a driver hits a cyclist, so cyclists are just as responsible!

ha. i think if i ran into a telephone pole, i don't think the fire dept would need to be called.

when i read that story, for some reason benny hill comes to mind

erok, nitpicking just because I can: if you run into a light pole and someone calls 911 for paramedics, there's a good chance the fire department will show up before the ambulance. I'm not sure exactly why this is, but it happened when I got into my injury bike accident, and it happened when my mom fell down the stairs at my house (on Christmas Eve -- that was ugly) so I think there's a reason. More fire trucks than ambulances?

Wow. I've been lurking on this board for such a long time and finally decided to post.

Lyle. The reason a fire truck will arrive first most of the time is because ambulance services are oveburdened. Many fire departments, including Pittsburgh, have EMS and First Responders on their rigs. So, whoever is closest gets called as well as the ambulance. That's a way to cut down on the time for arrival after dispatch. This is a measurment that is critical for funding, etc. in the fire and ems service.

Also critical when a few minutes or even seconds could make a difference between life and death.

Firemen in Pittsburgh are trained first responders. Often, most of the time, you are closer to an engine house than you are to a paramedic station. So on a call where an ambulance is needed, usually the fire dept will be the first ones on scene to assess the situation and address any immediate needs until the ambulance arrives.

oops.. didnt read the above post before I posted..

what a miserable excuse for a rube goldberg machine.

thanks, erok. now i have that damn theme song playing in my head - with visions of high speed people chases...

I /love/ this comment from a blog post after an Oregon legislator suggested a $54 fee every two years to register bikes. He says that road damage is proportional to vehicle weight to the 4th power. If $54 is a fair rate for a bike, than the proportionally-scaled rates for cars would be, well, lucrative from a revenue standpoint.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/03/license_register_and_tax_every.html#2966641

I can't verify his statistic myself as to the ratio, but it sounds right. Car registration fees at "reasonable" levels, scaled down to match bike weights, would cost too much to administer.

Update: A related post from the New York Times has a comment referencing a study that looked into weight/damage levels: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/enjoy-the-free-ride-while-it-lasts/#comment-383329 linking to http://dinamico2.unibg.it/highways/paper/dodoo.pdf .

Yes, great comment indeed. Common sense... something a lot of people that drive cars don't seem to have a lot of. You can see from some of those comments the types of discussions I have with people about paying for roads. That is why I am looking for hard numbers. I don't have the attention span to do the research myself though.

I wish I had some data to give this Craigslist poster. http://pittsburgh.craigslist.org/rnr/1308482572.html

I'm pretty sure that most of the roads I use were originally built long before a fuel tax was enacted

That's a nice, articulate post. Whether he's right or wrong, he deserves a respectful response.

More brilliant comments from both the hosts and the callers, http://tinyurl.com/mwsea3

Erok and Scott, you have a very difficult job!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus

So guys.. when are you all going to get bicycle vs motor vehicle safety taught in city schools? I Know some states make new drivers take drivers ed, and most insurance companies offer discount for drivers ed.

Has anyone ever approached AAA or some of the other standard groups about increasing bicycle related safety content in their classes?

alot of what you talk about needs to be dealt with on the state level. pa hasn't had a statewide advocacy group until, really 3 months ago. pa bikes and walks just hired their first executive director only a couple weeks ago

http://bike-pgh.org/2009/07/22/new-statewide-bikeped-advocacy-group-pennsylvania-walks-bikes-hires-first-paid-staff/

If education and advocacy in schools, state-wide, is what you're looking for, then I would suggest that you work with other groups to amend public and privately funded driver education courses and the pennsylvania motor vehicle driving test to provide awareness and education for the encounters with other vehicles on the road (bikes, horseys, carriages, etc.) and pedestrians.

It will be a difficult go of it, if you're working alone as cycling advocates.

I agree it does seem overwhelming, but so did biking back up liberty ave my very first day of commuting to work.

I just think that education is really the only way to solve the ongoing frustrations between cyclists and drivers, (and properly designed roadways). I pretty much also think trying to bring the older, set-in-their-ways drivers around is probably a lost cause, so focus on the younger and next generation of drivers.

Education sounds good. Well-designed roadways sound really good.

Don't forget the power of individual action, too. If we each take one opportunity during our day to help out a fellow traveler (wave a motorist to merge in front of you, slow traffic until the bus pulls all the way out, etc.), I think that will have a pretty significant cumulative effect.

I agree on the individual action part. I try my hardest to be a courteous road user, whether on my bike or in my car. I used to have bad road rage, until I started cycling. I mellowed me out a whole lot.

a properly designed highway is a moving target. roadway and traffic design directives and methodologies are forever changing. what was standard and safe 20 years ago, is not today.

in pennsylvania, my vote is for education. it will cost exponentially less than upgrading all shared thoroughfares to currently design standards - save some homes and trees, too.

I wonder if we'll hear the same whining about "I pay for these roads and you don't" when people start driving Volts and Leafs (Leaves?) in significant numbers.

My guess is we'll see additional taxes levied on electricity and funneled to the construction of highways

I meant to post this article I saw over the weekend about the HTF being out of money, necessitating a "bailout" from the general fund. I cannot believe the federal gas tax has not changed since 1993 - you'd think it would be a percentage or at least indexed to inflation or something.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09220/989540-454.stm

So, apparently we are all paying for the roads, not to mention buying shiny new cars for people.

Only one solution there. Drive bigger cars more often! Drrr.

Buy gas and light it on fire!

Serious question: if (a) the ROI on electric or hybrid vehicles is so long for the average driver and (b) electric, diesel-electric, or hybrid vehicles are so awesomely amazingly efficient, why are we seeing so much hype about electric cars for the consumer, instead of seeing a boom in electric delivery vans for the USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc?

A UPS truck probably does more start-stop driving in a week than I do in a year.

There was a pamphlet I found online from Florida this weekend that I should have posted on here....but of course can't find it now. Whatever the case, it addressed this point indicating something like property taxes and other types of taxes(which everyone, bikers incl'd, pay) also fund the roads. This makes sense if all the taxes go into one revenue pot...which I'm not always sure they do, but it was a good point nonetheless. If I can find the pamphlet again, I'll post it.

http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf

this is also interesting (to me)

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/

I tend to think quoting Canadian sources in such a debate will only add fuel to the fire and likely result in being called a communist

i'm interested in the grumblings about tax per mile driven. not saying i'm for or against yet, i really don't know enough, but the idea is intriguing.

I'm pushing for the VMT (vehicle mileage tax). In that push I've been advocating for common sense implementation. Such as, within Pennsylvania all motor vehicles are inspected once per year. During the inspection the vehicle's mileage is recorded on the inspection sticker - or, at least is supposed to. Motorcycles and trailers are currently exempt from the mileage recording.

the Obama administration is against it. Some state DOT's and members of Congress are for it, but are proposing GPS and other expensive means for obtaining the mileage from motor vehicles. I do not support these proposals. Not on the basis of privacy, but of expense and complexity.

*boing* Found it: clicky, it's number 7

thanks to Cycle*Dallas and Bike Commuting in Columbus for that link...

i'm into it too, the part, like you said, that i'm still not sure about is how to collect the info. of course it would be easy to just take the mileage number and charge for it, but then it becomes an additional cost to drive, (which i'm all for), but i think will be a harder pill for most to swallow since people hate taxes. the nice thing about the current tax on gas, is that the tax is hidden within the cost of purchasing the gas, so people kinda forget they're being taxed.

I'd be for the VMT if they take the vehicle's weight into consideration.

I'm always amused at those trucks that have a sign that says "This truck pays $20,000 in Road Use Tax" (or whatever for the amount). A fully loaded truck wears the road as much as about 10,000 cars- they SHOULD pay an extra tax and the amount listed on those bumper stickers isn't nearly enough.

Mick

Is there a convenient printable handbill similar to that Flordia pdf based on PA laws? Something to throw in the backpack & have handy on the commute in case some random driver could benefit from being given a copy?

If not ... anyone want to collaborate & put something together?

Article on SUV weights and the applicable, but unenforced, regulation.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755#back

the nice thing about the current tax on gas, is that the tax is hidden within the cost of purchasing the gas, so people kinda forget they're being taxed.

...until someone makes a stink about raising it.

The one concern I have is that gas tax revenues, from my understanding, have increasingly been siphoned off to plug budget holes, instead of plugging holes in the road. A pay-per-use kind of road thing is a nice idea--the Turnpike is good like that--but you'd need something like the infamous Al Gore "lockbox" to keep political hands from using it for something other than road upkeep and safety.

Also, as a side note, I second the liking of the Florida pamphlet...

I'd be for the VMT if they take the vehicle's weight into consideration.

Proposal:

A motor vehicle's class is based on the gross vehicle weight. A vehicle's class is considered when administering and performing the safety and or emissions inspection. Some classes of vehicles, such as buses, are inspected semiannually.

Since the inspection process is class dependent, the VMT rate would be implicit in the inspection process and the recorded information submitted to the state.

Fuel taxes: Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

Just in inflation alone, the federal 18-cent/gallon tax passed in 1993 would be over 26 cents now, if it had been indexed to inflation. That's money lost.

For those old enough to remember the 1980 presidential election, 3rd-party candidate John Anderson would have imposed a 50-cent/gallon tax. That would be about $1.30/gallon now.

We are long, long overdue for a BIG tax hike on motor fuels. Look what $4 gas did for cycling and transit last year! People complained like crazy, but got used to it, and made adjustments. Like rode bikes and transit.