burnthesheep

This here is why we should support out local clubs with our time and a few dollars towards membership!

coffeesnob

Don't riding lawn mowers get taxed in Cary?

Retro Grouch 

. So do pure electric cars, a growing market.

BlazingPedals

Traditionally, muscle-powered transportation has been kept unregulated due to constitutional concerns (freedom of travel.) If they are allowed require bicycle licensing, walking would be next -- walking uses roads, paths, or sidewalks, all of which are built and maintained with tax monies.

Maelochs

The whole "user fee" topic raises the question of how the costs are calculated.

If I never ride on MUPs (which are just more dangerous sidewalks) then the only impact I have (since bikes do no harm to roads) would be using painted bike lanes ... but I would ride the same space whether there were bike lanes or not (and more often there are not.) So my question is, how am I costing anything, by riding my bike? How is the cost assessed? How is the overall cost of all cyclists assessed?

But that is crap because as has been shown, no government runs on "user fees." There is a "General Fund" for a good reason.

Further .... if one were to push "user fees," I want my money back. I use my car about half-a-dozen times a year and already pay an annual registration fee. Somebody is driving extra miles on my dime ....

Sy Reene

Indeed... though the huge influx in NYC of Citibikes bikeshares, and their seemingly high usage, points to an alleviation of either A) Taxis, B) Mass Transit, or C) Driving.
In the case of Taxis/Ubers, it's already an issue how many of them there are. In the case of Mass Transit.. lower ridership should mean less stress on mass transit system and need to add more services; in the case of C) Driving -- well we already have that determined.

Gresp15C

Taking use taxes to the point of absurdity, matching every penny of tax with a corresponding penny's worth of use, would require a bureaucracy bigger than the number of taxpayers. Assigning use taxes on a less fine grained basis requires theories about how things are used and money is spent -- those theories are unavoidably political. So you're back with what we have right now, which is a hodgepodge of user fees based on what the policy-makers consider to be politically palatable. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing -- it's how a representative democracy works.

In our society, it's unavoidable that each of us pays for goodies that we don't benefit from, but that someone else does, while enjoying the overall rise in prosperity supported by a complex, modern economy.

I have another concern about the tax, which is that I have several bikes, but can only ride one of them at the time. My state has a $15/y user fee for the state bike trails, but at least I can use it with any bike. And I pay no fee for state parks if I arrive by bike.

Maelochs

Not sure, but i'd imagine most Citibikes are replacing cab rides or walking. People use the trains to get around longer distances because they are faster and safer. To work or to downtown or to the office or whatever is a train ride because you can carry all your gear for the day and arrive ready to go. Once int he city or in whatever neighborhoods, Citibikes are better than cabs (cheaper and sort of fun) for short trips where one won't be carrying much---pick up the dry-cleaning, get some small items, go for lunch. Some ridiculous percentage (83 % or something) of New Yorkers are car-free, so it isn't driving that gets cut, I'd imagine. Trains aren;'t awesome for short trips because there s a lot of walking and waiting. Cabs, walking, and Citibikes are perfect for short, time-sensitive trips (like an hour for lunch) so that would be my guess.

WizardOfBoz

Agree with your points. There is an efficiency in folks recognizing that some "overlap" in what they pay is less costly and intrusive than strict allocation. That said, there are an awful lot of cases where revenues go into the general fund, ostensibly to support "X", and "X" never sees a penny. This is called corrupt representative democracy!

My SIL is a teacher in the Chicago area, and the union and local goverment negotiated away the teacher's rights to particiate in Social Security. So they don't pay FICA, their money goes to local government. Guess who's not gonna see her full pension? But the money was supposed to go into sequestered accounts!
Another Chicago example, from the Chicago Trib: " ...in an unprecedented analysis of Chicago’s finances, a Tribune investigation found that city officials have long abused their borrowing privileges, spending funds meant for long-term initiatives on problematic short-term expenses from library books to legal settlements. " And " Between 2000 and 2012, Chicago spent $9.8 billion in general obligation bond proceeds with few restrictions and virtually no oversight. "

Sy Reene

The Hudson River Greenway MUP is very populated with commuters now on bikes - Citibikes or their own. The designated bike lanes sharing the streets (though they could be better) get their usage for crossing town. I do it myself to the downtown WTC area from 7 miles north of in upper Manhattan but on my own bike. It's actually a bit odd to see folks in suits going to work on Citibikes.

It's a bit interesting.. found some info on the bikeshare site. Typically average distance ridden on a Citibike is about 2 miles. Over 10 million rides are done per year. Typical carbon offset is over 2.5 million pounds per month (during warmer months). https://www.citibikenyc.com/system-d...rating-reports
Cabs and Ubers are drivers/cars, so a diversion from those to bikes is a good thing.

Unquantifiable is also an assumed public health benefit that carries an associated cost.

berner

I agree totally with this. Every other interest group has lobbyists in the nations capitals and so should cyclists. Bike clubs at least are a not lobbyists but but can do a good job of advocacy and some already do. My own bike club, Narragansett Bay Wheelmen, has been around over 100 years and do a fine job of advocacy having had a good bit of practice. It is much preferred to pay club dues than taxes imposed by people who know nothing of cycling.

ridelikeaturtle

I agree with the fallacy of putting too much value on the concept of "use taxes". It has to be used this way to a degree, as using more of any resource should require more contribution. (Water charges, electricity, petrol... "sales tax", etc.) But there should also be some level of contribution from more "general taxation" (such as income, inheritance, capital gains, etc.) to pay to live in a better world.

You may not have kids, but you want to contribute to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school, so we can have a more educated population, and everyone benefits.

What sort of society do you want to live in? A safer, cleaner one, that helps people be healthier, be happier? Or an "every man for himself", profit-driven approach, that hurts the poor and vulnerable, and benefits the wealthy?

mr_bill

I-Like-To-Bike

Yeah, four.
One, is the point of your rhetorical questions and example to prove that a relative handful of commuters ride a bicycle to one specific transportation hub in the Boston area or that a lot of bike parking spaces exist at one station in Boston?

Two, how many of the daily 11,000 inbound commuters at that station ride a bicycle daily to the station, or better yet, how many commuters ride to any other public transit hub/station/stop in Boston?

Three, any data to indicate how the commuters who do ride a bicycle via an MUP to a transit station in Boston, or transit hub/station/stop anywhere else, got to the hub/station/stop prior to the advent of an MUP to the station or dedicated/secure or ride sharing parking at the station?

Four, any data to indicate how the commuters who do ride a bicycle via an MUP to/from their work or study (for students) destination in Boston, or anywhere else, got to/from their work or study (for students) destination prior to the advent of ride sharing, or an MUP and/or dedicated/secure bicycling at the destination?

rydabent

Just another tax and spend b'crat trying to get more money to spend on what he wants to spend it on.

livedarklions

You might want to learn the difference between a politician and a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat would recognize that this will cost more to administer than it could possibly collect in fees, this politician just wants to appease his bike-hating constituents and flip off bicyclists.

Mainiac

And exactly where will you put the license plate?

livedarklions

Gosh, dontcha think you oughta support these assertions before you go demanding a bunch of facts and figures about Tstops in Boston?

Anything but your gut behind your estimations of "probably" and " likely "?

I-Like-To-Bike

No, I don't think I need or "ought" to support statments that are qualified with the words "probably" and "likely."

The Boston poster asked "Any questions?" I asked questions relevant to his post.

The poster from Boston tossed out a bunch of numbers about parking spaces at one station in response to the post that you cite that did not indicate anything about how many bike commuters ride anywhere or what impact MUP's have made on the number of commuters who switched to bike commuting as part of their commuting routine or how they previously commuted.

Perhaps you have an opinion, information or maybe even a question on the topic; or perhaps not.

WNCGoater

Whut?? You gotta be kidding me. Firstly, I as a citizen of NC I already pay the same taxes as everyone else. I pay one of the largest gas taxes in the nation ostensibly to build and maintain roads. I pay sales tax ON MY VEHICLE, as well as property tax. County tax, city tax, sales tax, NC state income tax, taxes for licensing, insurance, sales tax on maintenance, tire and battery taxes, and all the road "use" fees associated with all that...every thing everyone else pays, at a substantially higher rate than some NC citizens currently using our roads and substantially lower rate than others. And you believe I should also pay another tax to ride my bicycle on the road?
Really?
What about pedestrians? What about joggers? Should we require a license to be purchased to walk or jog on a road or use a sidewalk? Yeah, absurd right? So tell me, what's the difference? Why should the rest of the citizenry of NC subsidize pedestrians and joggers who use taxpayer built infrastructure without them paying a "use fee"?

And you HONESTLY BELIEVE any of a $10 bicycle tax is going to go toward doing ANYTHING to improve cycling in NC? If you do, I have a bridge for sale.

Think people, think before you...

WNCGoater

A big surprise, It doesn't work. (See Link)
As stated above, this is some BS politician wasting time in the General Assembly, trying to introduce crap legislation, to appease the bike hating public. He has nothing of substance to contribute likely, so he finds some hot button issue that will get his name in the paper. It likely won't pass and if it does, it is pretty much likely it won't be enforced. You wouldn't believe the comments made in the wake of FB posts from news outlets. The public, as as whole, HATES the cyclist. Especially here in Western NC where roads are often curvy, with limited safe passing areas and in relatively poor shape to start with. It is indeed difficult to pass oftentimes. It doesn't help the jerks who spread out and take the lane because "by God I can", though there is no good reason to do so, and hold up traffic while slowly grinding up a two mile climb.

https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life...1a_MzhLxIrDcTo

I've written to my state Rep. and Senator and would encourage others to do likewise. Heck, write 'em whether you live here or not, they're just counting Yey or Nay and weighing the political fallout of supporting or not.

WizardOfBoz

First, Southern states generally have lower taxes that those here in the Northeast. NC taxes are in the lower half - number 30 of 50 if you believe this. And this low rate is compounded by the recent legislation eliminating state tax burden from being deductible. Enjoy your low taxes! Although I must say that I expect NCs total tax burden to be much lower than PAs, but it wasn't (8.32 vs 8.66%).

Second, even with low overall taxes I would bet that your total tax burden is way, way more than ten bucks. The ten bucks for bike registration may be the straw that broke the camel's back though. Point is, if taxes (and NCs are lower than average) bug you that much, I'd not focus on the ten dollar bike registration fee. I'd focus on the thousands of dollars of the other taxes you pay.

Besides this being an additional (albeit small) tax, it sounds like the other main issue that torques you is that this legislation seems to be a grandstanding play that has nothing to do with improving cycling or bike safety. If the lawmaker is just being a jerk to curry favor with anti-bike idiots, your anger makes more sense. If so, I reverse an earlier comment. It sounds like you need to build a coalition of bikers to vote him or her out. Or to make him or her sweat a little bit.

The ten bucks doesn't bug me that much. An anti-bike lawmaker does.

JohnDThompson 

Since wear and tear on the roads is roughly proportional to vehicle weight, perhaps a tax or purchase surcharge based on vehicle weight applied to all vehicles (trucks, cars, motorcycles, bicycles) would be appropriate? It might be several hundred dollars for a heavy truck, but only a few pennies for a bicycle. That way nobody could whine about cyclists not paying their way (despite the fact that only federal and state level roads are funded by the fuel tax, while city and township roads are funded by property tax, regardless of whether you have a motor vehicle).

fietsbob

Of course the Political influence is heavier at the heavier vehicle weight end of the scale.. ..

BikeWalk NC

goto: https colon //goo.gl/forms/BKZGQWFbqngpwu1h1

Join with BikeWalk NC in writing the governor and state representatives to return funding for Active Transportation Projects and Programs.

March 2, 2019

Dear Governor Cooper and members of the North Carolina General Assembly,

There is no need to create new bicycle registration programs, to tax children and low income cyclists and overburden local, regional and state enforcement and regulatory agencies. The active transportation funding problem of today rests in the decisions of previous legislative bodies.

In 2013 when the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) adopted its goals of implementing its "comprehensive statewide plan for improving bicycling and walking conditions across North Carolina", it focused on five main principles – mobility, safety, health, the economy and the environment. The NC General Assembly that same year, defunded that plan and has since directed NCDOT to spend billions of tax dollars on limited use roadway and turnpike projects, while defunding active transportation.

For six years, North Carolina has not funded any stand-alone bicycle or pedestrian projects. Rural and urban counties across the state have active transportation plans and projects that remain unfunded. Unfair financial burdens exist for local communities which limit their ability to: provide for active transportation, improve roadway safety, enrich their quality of life and placemaking, and enhance North Carolina’s economic vitality through a modern multimodal transportation system.

The undersigned individuals, BikeWalk NC and its organizational partners stand with nine other Regional Planning Organizations and other Metropolitan Planning Organizations that represent millions of North Carolina residents.

We ask that the North Carolina General Assembly provide direct funding that will allow the design, construction and prioritization of Stand-Alone Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects, facilitate safe active transportation facilities through the codification of North Carolina's Complete Streets Policy and remove the 2013 requirement for matching funds for infrastructure that connects and protects us all.