Bicycle Commuting Act
08-13-03, 07:16 AM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 66
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Bicycle Commuting Act
08-13-03, 07:27 AM
#2
A New Creation!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Houston Texas
Posts: 469
Bikes: Sun EZ-1 SC ( My Truck )
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Hadn't heard anything about it. It sounds awesome though! I think we need that in Texas!
08-13-03, 07:41 AM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Allentown, PA
Posts: 204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I wrote to my senator about this and he told me it is sort of on the back burner. I have a reminder in my planner to send him another letter every other month or so to try and keep it alive. If we all keep it in front of our representatives maybe it will happen!
08-13-03, 02:35 PM
#4
Center of the Universe
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 4,374
Bikes: Bianchi San Remo, Norvara Intrepid MTB , Softride Solo 700
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
This has come and gone over the last couple of years never seems to get anywhere but at least it is still alive
__________________
Matthew 6
Matthew 6
10-06-05, 11:34 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 80
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB-5 - modified to be a commuter/tourer, 1987 Schwinn Tempo, 198? Cannondale ST, 19?? Cruiser - my daily ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I just emailed my senators also - thanks for the heads up!
Best,
e.
Best,
e.
10-06-05, 11:51 AM
#7
my dad can still crush me
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: L.A.
Posts: 237
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Guys, email is great, faxes, and phone calls are great. But Ill tell you from personal experience working on capital hill, a letter (a real letter not a form letter) is the only one that carries weight. Everything else gets logged in the subconscious which isn't totally bad but then again its not exactly what you want. If you care about it take your damn time.
Milo
Milo
10-06-05, 11:52 AM
#8
Sumanitu taka owaci
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 8,945
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
This is the part I like:
Nearly 1 million U.S. workers commute regularly by bicycle.
Sort of makes me feel a little bigger.
Nearly 1 million U.S. workers commute regularly by bicycle.
Sort of makes me feel a little bigger.
__________________
No worries
No worries
10-06-05, 11:56 AM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX 77095
Posts: 1,470
Bikes: Specialized Sequoia Elite, Schwinn Frontier FS MTB, Centurion LeMans (1986)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
THIS IS REALLY WASTEFUL !!!
Look, bike commuting pays us sooo many benefits as it is... health, wealth, enjoyment. We all know what they are.
I am not in favor of adding to the Federal Deficit that my son and daughter will have to pay off, with interest, in order to throw some token change my way... so that my vote may be bought for the next election by politicians.
The real problem is the infrastructure for cycling is inadequate, enforcement of traffic laws and prosecution of cyclist-killers is non-existent, and cyclist and driver education are very rare.
Raiding the public money to pay ourselves off is not what we should be doing! It's just wrong for me to try to pay myself to participate in an activity that already saves me boatloads of money.
Look, bike commuting pays us sooo many benefits as it is... health, wealth, enjoyment. We all know what they are.
I am not in favor of adding to the Federal Deficit that my son and daughter will have to pay off, with interest, in order to throw some token change my way... so that my vote may be bought for the next election by politicians.
The real problem is the infrastructure for cycling is inadequate, enforcement of traffic laws and prosecution of cyclist-killers is non-existent, and cyclist and driver education are very rare.
Raiding the public money to pay ourselves off is not what we should be doing! It's just wrong for me to try to pay myself to participate in an activity that already saves me boatloads of money.
__________________
Peter Wang, LCI
Houston, TX USA
Peter Wang, LCI
Houston, TX USA
10-06-05, 12:24 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 80
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB-5 - modified to be a commuter/tourer, 1987 Schwinn Tempo, 198? Cannondale ST, 19?? Cruiser - my daily ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The likelihood that this bill would reach a vote in its current form is nil. The bigger point is to get any discussion on the topic at all rather than wait for the "perfect" legislation to be introduced. Opinions on bicycle commuting vary wildy even within our own ranks (remember the McCain vs. bikepath thread?) but if we don't debate the merits of alternative transportation and how to encourage it, the idea will remain marginalized.
Stepping off the soapbox,
e.
Stepping off the soapbox,
e.
10-06-05, 02:46 PM
#12
Retrogrouch in Training
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I also don't like the idea of a tax incentive, UNLESS it can be shown to be economically beneficial. For example, if models showed that reduced congestion saved enough oil, reduced emissions enough, etc to save some amount of money, I wouldn't mind plowing some of that into an incentive.
On the other hand, to me a much more useful (and free!) bill would tie federal highway dollars to having suitable legal provisions for the accommodation of cyclists and protection of their rights on roads and possibly some sort of requirement for employers comply with.
edit: ok, actually reading the release, I do argue that there should be equitable treatment. If parking or transit/van pool expenses can be exempted, then other sustainable transportation modes should be as well. (Walking also comes to mind.)
On the other hand, to me a much more useful (and free!) bill would tie federal highway dollars to having suitable legal provisions for the accommodation of cyclists and protection of their rights on roads and possibly some sort of requirement for employers comply with.
edit: ok, actually reading the release, I do argue that there should be equitable treatment. If parking or transit/van pool expenses can be exempted, then other sustainable transportation modes should be as well. (Walking also comes to mind.)
10-06-05, 03:15 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Houston, TX 77095
Posts: 1,470
Bikes: Specialized Sequoia Elite, Schwinn Frontier FS MTB, Centurion LeMans (1986)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The "fairness" argument doesn't hold water, really.
I manage a commuter vanpool. It costs $1000 per month to rent the van. Our employer chips in $500, or $6000 per year. That's just one van, and we have four vans here. That's a large expense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if they did not get a tax break, they'd probably be less generous with the subsidy.
But cycling is cheap... a few pennies per mile. Why spend Deficit Money to subsidize something that's already cheap? That's crazy. Spend it where it's needed, like more vanpools.
Our 4 vans take 40 cars off the road, 40 cars worth of congestion and emissions.
I manage a commuter vanpool. It costs $1000 per month to rent the van. Our employer chips in $500, or $6000 per year. That's just one van, and we have four vans here. That's a large expense. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if they did not get a tax break, they'd probably be less generous with the subsidy.
But cycling is cheap... a few pennies per mile. Why spend Deficit Money to subsidize something that's already cheap? That's crazy. Spend it where it's needed, like more vanpools.
Our 4 vans take 40 cars off the road, 40 cars worth of congestion and emissions.
Originally Posted by bostontrevor
edit: ok, actually reading the release, I do argue that there should be equitable treatment. If parking or transit/van pool expenses can be exempted, then other sustainable transportation modes should be as well. (Walking also comes to mind.)
__________________
Peter Wang, LCI
Houston, TX USA
Peter Wang, LCI
Houston, TX USA
10-06-05, 03:20 PM
#14
Commuter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 2,568
Bikes: 2006 Giant Cypress EX (7-speed internal hub)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Read the text more carefully, people. This is not something the government is going to be paying out or even mandating:
In other words, it would make it okay for employers to offer the credit to bicycle commuters, if they want to. (Why they couldn't already, I don't know, but there must be some legal issue I'm not aware of. The HR field is full of things like that.)
If the goal is to promote more bike commuting, then I agree that infrastructure improvements would probably have more effect. The reason these bennies are offered to car commuters is to offset their parking or public transit fare costs, neither of which purely bike commuters have. (And presumably those who commute partially by public transport are already eligible, even if they bike the other part.) We don't even have to buy gas, although an argument has been made elsewhere here (too lazy to search for it right now) that maybe our extra caloric intake requirements should be considered, but that's probably an even longer shot than this. That leaves us with costs for purchase and maintenance, which are not intended to be covered by the car commuters' benefits either, as far as I've heard.
Currently, employers may offer their employees a commuting tax-exemption benefit totaling $190 for qualified parking plans or $100 for transit and van-pool expenses. The Bicycle Commuter Act would amend the Internal Revenue Code to make bicycle commuters eligible for similar credit.
If the goal is to promote more bike commuting, then I agree that infrastructure improvements would probably have more effect. The reason these bennies are offered to car commuters is to offset their parking or public transit fare costs, neither of which purely bike commuters have. (And presumably those who commute partially by public transport are already eligible, even if they bike the other part.) We don't even have to buy gas, although an argument has been made elsewhere here (too lazy to search for it right now) that maybe our extra caloric intake requirements should be considered, but that's probably an even longer shot than this. That leaves us with costs for purchase and maintenance, which are not intended to be covered by the car commuters' benefits either, as far as I've heard.
10-06-05, 03:27 PM
#15
Proshpero
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 712
Bikes: Fixed Surly CrossCheck, Redline Conquest Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JohnBrooking
In other words, it would make it okay for employers to offer the credit to bicycle commuters, if they want to. (Why they couldn't already, I don't know, but there must be some legal issue I'm not aware of. The HR field is full of things like that.)
10-06-05, 03:29 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 80
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB-5 - modified to be a commuter/tourer, 1987 Schwinn Tempo, 198? Cannondale ST, 19?? Cruiser - my daily ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
So kf5nd, you don't really advocate against deficit spending as your first post suggests but rather you advocate for deficit spending that benefits you specifically. Let's say I own a bike shop, wouldn't my argument that the government should deficit spend on bicycle commuting mean just as much as your argument? $6k could easily buy 40 bikes that don't pollute at all. You really want to take away a tax break that helps the environment? I have a better idea, let's take away the tax breaks used to lure large corporations.
Best,
e.
Best,
e.
10-06-05, 03:42 PM
#17
Proshpero
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 712
Bikes: Fixed Surly CrossCheck, Redline Conquest Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Wyden's argument rests totally on fairness: The carpoolers get a break; so should bikers. Would it be too cynical to suggest that Wyden also sees a nice redistribution from low-bike-commuting states to his high-bike-commuting state?
His amendment doesn't make any case for why a subsidy, for either carpoolers or bike commuters, makes sense. Carpoolers and bikers save lots of money by their actions. Do any of you feel that you don't have the proper incentive?
His amendment doesn't make any case for why a subsidy, for either carpoolers or bike commuters, makes sense. Carpoolers and bikers save lots of money by their actions. Do any of you feel that you don't have the proper incentive?
10-06-05, 03:48 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 80
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB-5 - modified to be a commuter/tourer, 1987 Schwinn Tempo, 198? Cannondale ST, 19?? Cruiser - my daily ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I feel that I have plenty of incentive to do it but if the current incentive was enough for everyone, then everyone would do it, wouldn't they? Perhaps there should be disincentives (is that a word?) for drivers of motor vehicles instead? More taxes on gas? Taxes based on vehicle weight? Taxes on low fuel efficiency?
Best,
e.
Best,
e.
10-06-05, 04:06 PM
#19
Proshpero
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 712
Bikes: Fixed Surly CrossCheck, Redline Conquest Pro
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lone Prairie
I feel that I have plenty of incentive to do it but if the current incentive was enough for everyone, then everyone would do it, wouldn't they? Perhaps there should be disincentives (is that a word?) for drivers of motor vehicles instead? More taxes on gas? Taxes based on vehicle weight? Taxes on low fuel efficiency?
A dyed-in-the-wool free marketer would have all the incentives/disincentives recinded. In their place, s/he would have the common-pool resources, like air, designated as someone's property, so that the market could efficiently allocate a price to it. Then, there would be lots more bikers, because it is likely that those with property rights to air would not be willing to part with them for any less than they were worth. Instead, the government has said it owns the air (in the name of the Public), and probably gives it away too cheaply, thus we have too many cars not paying enough for the use of the air (and all the other common-pool resources they use).
10-06-05, 07:03 PM
#20
Retrogrouch in Training
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Knee-deep in the day-to-day
Posts: 5,484
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
It's a pretty classic tragedy of the commons-type dilemma.
In one corner, we have a minority which says that the existing state of affairs in unfair and dangerous: the choice of the motoring public to do so damages our ability to enjoy clean air, safe roadways, quiet, etc. Something must be done.
On the other hand, we have the majority opinion who says, maybe some of those things are bad, but not bad enough that I should get out of my car. We're more numerous than you, we decide how to utilize our shared resources. Tough luck, pinko, but the people have spoken.
Laissez faire says let everyone do what they will. Eventually we'll degrade the environment to the point that the majority will collectively decide that enough is enough. And if they don't, well then it's obviously not important.
Of course the problem with that is the majority would probably come to its senses when enough was too much. Look at all the man-made extinctions and ask yourself if anyone really intended to hunt the North Atlantic Right Whale to the brink or the Dodo into oblivion.
Markets are good at coordinate disparate actors, but don't spread information terribly quickly or well. It's a tricky question and one that has no clear right or wrong answer.
In one corner, we have a minority which says that the existing state of affairs in unfair and dangerous: the choice of the motoring public to do so damages our ability to enjoy clean air, safe roadways, quiet, etc. Something must be done.
On the other hand, we have the majority opinion who says, maybe some of those things are bad, but not bad enough that I should get out of my car. We're more numerous than you, we decide how to utilize our shared resources. Tough luck, pinko, but the people have spoken.
Laissez faire says let everyone do what they will. Eventually we'll degrade the environment to the point that the majority will collectively decide that enough is enough. And if they don't, well then it's obviously not important.
Of course the problem with that is the majority would probably come to its senses when enough was too much. Look at all the man-made extinctions and ask yourself if anyone really intended to hunt the North Atlantic Right Whale to the brink or the Dodo into oblivion.
Markets are good at coordinate disparate actors, but don't spread information terribly quickly or well. It's a tricky question and one that has no clear right or wrong answer.
10-06-05, 07:20 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 80
Bikes: 1992 Bridgestone MB-5 - modified to be a commuter/tourer, 1987 Schwinn Tempo, 198? Cannondale ST, 19?? Cruiser - my daily ride
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I would say we impose some disincentives on drivers but not lots - the price of gas in the US is still half that in the UK. Again, the bigger point is that the discussion needs to take place. If this bill starts the discussion or some other bill starts the discussion, it doesn't matter as long as it happens.
Best,
e.
Best,
e.
10-06-05, 07:45 PM
#22
Eric J. Smith
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 41
Bikes: Raleigh M-60 and a Kinn-Ovation folder with a shaft-drive
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Finally, the price for a gallon of gas is about that of a gallon of milk. That is what I find ridiculous and sickening.
In my over-self-evaluated opinion...tax the hell out of finite fossil fuels, and direct that revenue towards alternative transportation programs, mass transit, and alternative fuel research. Add to that some of these tax breaks and I think people would seriously consider alternatives. I believe, in the long run, these taxes and tax breaks would be a healthy dose of social engineering. The results of this social change would be a healthier national paradigm which would result in a decrease of our national expenditures, doing more for our national debt than a tax break like this would hurt.
The alternative fuel research is a low priority in my opinion. If fossil fuels are taxed enough, then the free market will gladly put their own money into research. Plus, when does "research" really ever pay off? It's a bottomless pit. If researchers are smart, then they wouldn't find an end all solution unless they had exclusive rights to the market, i.e. profits...is "free market" the problem?
There are also other programs out there that could be funded that are well deserved. One example, The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. They are working to create perenial grains, so that farmers don't have to use large amounts of petroleum every year to replant wheat, corn, etc.
Our petroleum based society is leading us to destruction. Name ONE industry in our society that is not dependent on petroleum.
Enough of my jaded viewpoints. I'm stepping down off my soap box. Too much opinion coming from a "newbie" and probably nothing that hasn't already been said before.
In my over-self-evaluated opinion...tax the hell out of finite fossil fuels, and direct that revenue towards alternative transportation programs, mass transit, and alternative fuel research. Add to that some of these tax breaks and I think people would seriously consider alternatives. I believe, in the long run, these taxes and tax breaks would be a healthy dose of social engineering. The results of this social change would be a healthier national paradigm which would result in a decrease of our national expenditures, doing more for our national debt than a tax break like this would hurt.
The alternative fuel research is a low priority in my opinion. If fossil fuels are taxed enough, then the free market will gladly put their own money into research. Plus, when does "research" really ever pay off? It's a bottomless pit. If researchers are smart, then they wouldn't find an end all solution unless they had exclusive rights to the market, i.e. profits...is "free market" the problem?
There are also other programs out there that could be funded that are well deserved. One example, The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. They are working to create perenial grains, so that farmers don't have to use large amounts of petroleum every year to replant wheat, corn, etc.
Our petroleum based society is leading us to destruction. Name ONE industry in our society that is not dependent on petroleum.
Enough of my jaded viewpoints. I'm stepping down off my soap box. Too much opinion coming from a "newbie" and probably nothing that hasn't already been said before.
10-07-05, 09:53 AM
#23
Papa Wheelie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Madison, Wi
Posts: 1,470
Bikes: Jamis Aurora '02; Takara Medalist (650B)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
The real problem is the infrastructure for cycling is inadequate, enforcement of traffic laws and prosecution of cyclist-killers is non-existent, and cyclist and driver education are very rare.
BFW (Bicycle Federation of Wisconsin) is starting a motorist Education program, targeted to drivers in smaller munincipalities.
I agree that cyclist education programs are important too -- as I see plenty of safety issues with riders as well.
BFW is also involved in moving bike path/lane creation thru local governments.
It's a little of that 'Think Global, work Locally" mentality
10-07-05, 08:57 PM
#24
Drive the Bicycle.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 608
Bikes: Three-speed modified for comfort.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A3rd.Zero
Guys, email is great, faxes, and phone calls are great. But Ill tell you from personal experience working on capital hill, a letter (a real letter not a form letter) is the only one that carries weight. Everything else gets logged in the subconscious which isn't totally bad but then again its not exactly what you want. If you care about it take your damn time.
Milo
Milo
__________________
"The bicycle is the perfect transducer to match man's metabolic energy to the impedance of locomotion. Equipped with this tool, man outstrips the efficiency of not only all machines but all other animals as well." Ivan Illich ('Energy and Equity')1974
"The bicycle is the perfect transducer to match man's metabolic energy to the impedance of locomotion. Equipped with this tool, man outstrips the efficiency of not only all machines but all other animals as well." Ivan Illich ('Energy and Equity')1974
05-30-07, 06:42 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,248
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 363 Post(s)
Liked 66 Times
in
48 Posts
I wrote my Congressman (Hally Herger - R, CAlifornia District 2) on this matte and got this response. It is a lot more than the form letter response, that didn't even mention the nature of my letter, that I got from Boxer and Fienstien.
Dear Robert:
Thank you for contacting me to let me know of your support for H.R. 1498, the "Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007." I appreciate the benefit of your views on this matter.
As you may know, H.R. 1498 was introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon on March 13, 2007. The bill, which reflects similar legislation introduced in 2005, would change tax laws to allow an excludable allowance from gross income for individuals who use bicycles to commute to and from work. It would be considered a qualified transportation fringe benefit.
Such a benefit, if tailored correctly, could serve as an incentive for individuals to use bicycles in their morning and evening commutes. Further, this kind of tax benefit would level-the-playing field for taxpayers who currently ride bicycles to work at workplaces where employers reimburse for other means of transportation. However, the tax benefit, if allowed, would serve to increase the already disparate treatment of automobile commuters whose employers do not reimburse employees for public transportation, allowable parking, or van pooling. Unfortunately, many workers may also be excluded from such a tax benefit because they live far from work, ruling out the practicality of bicycle commuting.
Following introduction, H.R. 1498 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, for further consideration. Please be assured I will continue to monitor this bill. Should it come before the Committee for a vote, I will keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you. In addition, I would like to invite you to visit my web site at www.house.gov/herger where you can find additional information on my position on a variety of issues and sign up for occasional e-mail updates on the federal issues important to you.
Thank you for contacting me to let me know of your support for H.R. 1498, the "Bicycle Commuters Benefits Act of 2007." I appreciate the benefit of your views on this matter.
As you may know, H.R. 1498 was introduced by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon on March 13, 2007. The bill, which reflects similar legislation introduced in 2005, would change tax laws to allow an excludable allowance from gross income for individuals who use bicycles to commute to and from work. It would be considered a qualified transportation fringe benefit.
Such a benefit, if tailored correctly, could serve as an incentive for individuals to use bicycles in their morning and evening commutes. Further, this kind of tax benefit would level-the-playing field for taxpayers who currently ride bicycles to work at workplaces where employers reimburse for other means of transportation. However, the tax benefit, if allowed, would serve to increase the already disparate treatment of automobile commuters whose employers do not reimburse employees for public transportation, allowable parking, or van pooling. Unfortunately, many workers may also be excluded from such a tax benefit because they live far from work, ruling out the practicality of bicycle commuting.
Following introduction, H.R. 1498 was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, for further consideration. Please be assured I will continue to monitor this bill. Should it come before the Committee for a vote, I will keep your views in mind.
Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other federal issue important to you. In addition, I would like to invite you to visit my web site at www.house.gov/herger where you can find additional information on my position on a variety of issues and sign up for occasional e-mail updates on the federal issues important to you.