U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-14-2014, 11:55 AM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,287,291 times
Reputation: 4025

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^I guess I meant that if everyone is divvying up the responsibility of paying, then bicyclists should pay too. This idea that bicyclists don't cause road damage doesn't have anything to do with the roads being built in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I actually have no problem with the gas tax. I would have no problem with an additional sales tax on bikes, tires and helmets to help fund bike infrastructure.
I simply disagree.

Like I said... this becomes a moral argument to make motorists feel better. Bicycles shouldn't pay a penny in additional fees.

I already showed that Portland, Oregon's complete city wide bicycle network cost the same as one mile of one freeway. There is no practical reason why bicyclists should be subject to additional fees when:

A) Most cyclists are automobile drivers
B) We all pay to fund the roads collectively
C) Bike / pedestrian infrastructure is so cheap compared to roads

Most importantly, bikes are a net economic booster on a local economy. They ease congestion and lower health care costs. Cars are a net drain on local economy. They cause congestion, pollution, health problems, and require costly infrastructure. Every mile of road dedicated for cars takes money out of the economy. Every mile of trail dedicated to bikes puts money back into the economy.

 
Old 08-14-2014, 12:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
I simply disagree.

Like I said... this becomes a moral argument to make motorists feel better. Bicycles shouldn't pay a penny in additional fees.

I already showed that Portland, Oregon's complete city wide bicycle network cost the same as one mile of one freeway. There is no practical reason why bicyclists should be subject to additional fees when:

A) Most cyclists are automobile drivers
B) We all pay to fund the roads collectively
C) Bike / pedestrian infrastructure is so cheap compared to roads

Most importantly, bikes are a net economic booster on a local economy. They ease congestion and lower health care costs. Cars are a net drain on local economy. They cause congestion, pollution, health problems, and require costly infrastructure. Every mile of road dedicated for cars takes money out of the economy. Every mile of trail dedicated to bikes puts money back into the economy.
We had some discussions about people's morals a while back that ended very badly. I thought we were going to stop doing that.

I disagree with the rest of your post, but I do not choose to respond right now, except to say that I'd like to see some proof about "lowering health care costs".
 
Old 08-14-2014, 12:34 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
I simply disagree.

Like I said... this becomes a moral argument to make motorists feel better. Bicycles shouldn't pay a penny in additional fees.

I already showed that Portland, Oregon's complete city wide bicycle network cost the same as one mile of one freeway. There is no practical reason why bicyclists should be subject to additional fees when:

A) Most cyclists are automobile drivers
B) We all pay to fund the roads collectively
C) Bike / pedestrian infrastructure is so cheap compared to roads

Most importantly, bikes are a net economic booster on a local economy. They ease congestion and lower health care costs. Cars are a net drain on local economy. They cause congestion, pollution, health problems, and require costly infrastructure. Every mile of road dedicated for cars takes money out of the economy. Every mile of trail dedicated to bikes puts money back into the economy.
Puhlease. Those cars are carrying people that buy homes, groceries and other stuff, work and pay taxes, etc. Who do you think paid for your bike paths? It wasn't the bicyclists.

Cars aren't the only entities using roads - you also have school buses, government vehicles, FedEx, UPS, florists, plumbers, appliance repair, - the list is as long as there are businesses around. Of course you can't forget all the delivery/transport trucks carrying stuff to stores to inventory for sale. Meanwhile your elitist bicyclists are off dreaming about how they're superior to everyone else in the area.
 
Old 08-14-2014, 02:44 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,287,291 times
Reputation: 4025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
I disagree with the rest of your post, but I do not choose to respond right now, except to say that I'd like to see some proof about "lowering health care costs".
Is that a serious question?



1) Exercise lowers health care costs. Bike infrastructure in every city that has invested in it has caused an increase in ridership. Is cycling not a form of exercise?

2) Bicycle infrastructure increases the amount of bicycle and transit commuting. Detailed analysis from Portland is found here.

-What do you think happens when more people bike, walk, and take train / bus to work? (see point 3)

3) Less cars on the road. Every second you spend in the car you are not exercizing and inhaling toxic fumes, most of which are from your own vehicle. Bicyclists inhale less toxic fumes. Fresh air....

Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Puhlease. Those cars are carrying people that buy homes, groceries and other stuff, work and pay taxes, etc. Who do you think paid for your bike paths? It wasn't the bicyclists..
Opin_Yunted paid for his own bike path usage. Let's recap. I pay:

Sales tax, property tax, income tax, gas tax, vehicle registration fees, and annual safety inspections.

Who do you think paid for my bike paths?
 
Old 08-14-2014, 04:48 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Is that a serious question?



1) Exercise lowers health care costs. Bike infrastructure in every city that has invested in it has caused an increase in ridership. Is cycling not a form of exercise?

2) Bicycle infrastructure increases the amount of bicycle and transit commuting. Detailed analysis from Portland is found here.

-What do you think happens when more people bike, walk, and take train / bus to work? (see point 3)

3) Less cars on the road. Every second you spend in the car you are not exercizing and inhaling toxic fumes, most of which are from your own vehicle. Bicyclists inhale less toxic fumes. Fresh air....
We shouldn't take these assertions as given. And we shouldn't assert or imply that skeptics are foolish for being skeptical.

And I disagree with the assertion that cars are a net negative. I believe they have value, and can flip to negative when they are used where they are not the best fit.
 
Old 08-14-2014, 04:52 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Puhlease. Those cars are carrying people that buy homes, groceries and other stuff, work and pay taxes, etc. Who do you think paid for your bike paths? It wasn't the bicyclists.

Cars aren't the only entities using roads - you also have school buses, government vehicles, FedEx, UPS, florists, plumbers, appliance repair, - the list is as long as there are businesses around. Of course you can't forget all the delivery/transport trucks carrying stuff to stores to inventory for sale. Meanwhile your elitist bicyclists are off dreaming about how they're superior to everyone else in the area.

Local roads may very well have been paid for on an equal footing as car owners by people who only indirectly derive benefit from roads. And bike paths derive funding from various sources, many of which are completely divorced from how any given individual gets around. So, let's step back from this kind of finger-pointing, because it doesn't help anyone.
 
Old 08-14-2014, 05:00 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 18 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,581,357 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Let's get some things straight:
  • We--you and I--were not talking about the OP anymore.
  • We were specifically not talking about dedicated cycling infrastructure--I fundamentally agree bicyclists should pay something for infrastructure--bikeways, bridges, tunnels--dedicated to them.
  • We were talking about shared infrastructure--roads--which we agree, because of their importance, will exist with or without bicyclists. The road is there, bought and paid for as a matter of necessity.
  • The shoulder, which is where bike lanes end up, is of little use to drivers. But that is not zero use, and drivers are not functionally (ignoring legality) precluded from using the shoulder in emergencies, even with a bike lane there.
  • Bicyclists are taxpayers. Local roads are often paid for out of the general fund. Therefore, cyclists pay for the bike lanes on roads already, even roads inhospitable or barred to cyclists.

So, they're already paying something in taxes to fund provisioning space for which the marginal initial and ongoing cost to the city is next to nothing.

If you have an actual, definable point of contention--a clearly articulated argument as to how cyclists aren't paying enough for shared infrastructure--please make it.

I, and it looks like others, too, am trying to honestly understand your side. But, we can't do that if you only articulate your position to be that we're wrong, period.
I wrote a response but it got deleted. I'll try again. I think this thread got off track, several times. It's supposed to be about gas taxes and how they don't pay for all the roads. That was finished up at about post #334 or so. There are a few more posts that relate to the OP, but then it got into cyclists paying fees yea/nay?

The next time it got off track, even for that conversation, was when posters started with the personal stuff which serves only to make the person it's aimed at angry. As I said in the part that was deleted, being "defensive" is considered a cardinal sin by mental health people. I know this b/c I have some background in MH, and I have been on both sides of the counselor/counselee table. It's considered extremely pejorative. Now maybe *many* on here don't know that. But I know it and it bugged the h*ll out of me. Such has happened on this forum before. It's just like when people try to make one's lifestyle a moral issue. Nothing good comes of it. As for the sincerity of some posters, I will keep my opinion to myself.

ETA: I even had a nice link about road shoulders in the deleted post.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-14-2014 at 06:02 PM..
 
Old 08-14-2014, 10:49 PM
 
2,824 posts, read 3,349,202 times
Reputation: 3030
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Local roads may very well have been paid for on an equal footing as car owners by people who only indirectly derive benefit from roads.
Bicyclists didn't pay for it. But you can bet the "indirect" benefit of roads is orders of magnitude greater than the "indirect benefit" provided by bike paths.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
And bike paths derive funding from various sources, many of which are completely divorced from how any given individual gets around.
Certainly not from a "user fee" nor a fee based on distance, registration, etc. Given that public transit is heavily subsidized it wasn't funded by sales of bus or rail tickets either. You want to claim sales taxes funded it? Great. How do you think the products got on the shelves? They weren't hauled in on bike paths by bicycles.

The point was that those rabidly promoting bicycling are hypocritical. They expect a free ride as long as they're riding a bicycle at the same time they want to impose much higher charges/costs for car owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
So, let's step back from this kind of finger-pointing, because it doesn't help anyone.
I didn't see any finger pointing until your last sentence. You can keep your finger to yourself.
 
Old 08-15-2014, 12:46 AM
 
1,110 posts, read 908,585 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
That is your choice. I was very clear with my explanation. Rather than wasting an hour of my day sitting in a car, I prefer to get my cardio workout in so I can do other things. Is there something wrong with that statement?

Unless you live in Death Valley, California, I doubt it is too hot to ride a bike to and from work.
Close, I'm in Phoenix. And there's nothing wrong with your statement. I was just clarifying my position.

Quote:
This is a strawman argument. I own a car. Never did I suggest people should ditch cars altogether. My point was people who drive such short distances to work like yourself are essentially wasting a lot of time, energy, and money. Cars don't do well on short trips, especially in winter climates such as mine. It takes a lot of energy to warm up the vehicle to peak operating efficiency. Short trips usually indicate a lot of stop and go driving, which is harder on brakes, tires, and other components.

People do what they want.. but I can ride my bike in the city 5 miles just as fast as a car. My door to door distance is 7.5 miles. It takes me 25 minutes in my car and just 30 minutes on my bike, without accounting for parking.
Not seeing the strawman. I am stating that in my case, living without a car would not be optimal. I am not speaking for anyone else; people are free to make their own choices.
 
Old 08-15-2014, 10:29 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,486 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight View Post
Bicyclists didn't pay for it. But you can bet the "indirect" benefit of roads is orders of magnitude greater than the "indirect benefit" provided by bike paths.



Certainly not from a "user fee" nor a fee based on distance, registration, etc. Given that public transit is heavily subsidized it wasn't funded by sales of bus or rail tickets either. You want to claim sales taxes funded it? Great. How do you think the products got on the shelves? They weren't hauled in on bike paths by bicycles.

The point was that those rabidly promoting bicycling are hypocritical. They expect a free ride as long as they're riding a bicycle at the same time they want to impose much higher charges/costs for car owners.



I didn't see any finger pointing until your last sentence. You can keep your finger to yourself.
If you're talking about a user fee--a toll--then, no, they didn't pay for the cycle-only infrastructure. But, if we're talking about local roads then, yes, they did pay taxes for it.

Clearly, you don't like bike infrastructure. But I, nor most others, are not, in promoting cycling infrastructure, denying the value roads can add. They allow most of us to get around and good be brought to market. So it makes no sense to pretend, as you did, that the fundamental idea of roads is being attacked within the last few pages of this thread.

But, so far, no-one has given an adequate response to why cyclists should be charged more for local infrastructure than, as tax-paying citizens, they are charged now. We have gone on at length explaining that the marginal cost of cycling infrastructure on shared roadways is almost $0.
  • The initial installation's marginal cost--the cost of this one more thing beyond the last one thing--is almost zero; striping the nearly un-utilized shoulder for a bike lane cost almost nothing above the cost of striping the whole road.
  • The ongoing marginal cost--the cost to maintain that bike lane--is also almost zero; bikes cause almost no harm to infrastructure, and repairs to the roadway is a function of car use and weather.

I say in no uncertain terms that they pay for the shared infrastructure, perhaps through their taxes or perhaps through the higher price of homes due to development fees when the housing was built. And their portion of shared infrastructure costs next to nothing to add and keep up.

So, I ask you--I implore you--, or anyone else, to, at last, clearly articulate why, given this, they should be taxed specifically and additionally for shared infrastructure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top