When the state Senate Democrats unveiled a transportation package last week, folks were shocked to see a “symbolic” bike tax of up to 5 percent on bike sales in the state. And we all fell for it, posting about why it makes no sense.
But really, the bike tax is just a distraction from the larger problems with the bill, acting like a smoke screen keeping people from seeing the real problem: Billions of dollars to partially fund highway expansions all over the state while failing to adequately address road safety, transit, walking and biking needs.
The Bicycle Alliance of Washington points out that less than half of one percent of the proposed $10 billion would go to investments that make it safer and easier to get around on foot and bike. This is simply unacceptable.
Seattle Transit Blog chimed in this morning reporting that the $3.9 billion for new and expanded highways (not including the funds for repairs to existing facilities) does not even fully fund those projects, meaning they will require many millions or billions more to complete them further down the road. This is exactly where we are today as the state tries to dig up the rest of the money for the 520 and the Hwy 99 deep bore tunnel projects.
There is some transit funding in the package, but not nearly enough to fill expected funding gaps at King County Metro and other transit agencies in the state. And this comes at a time when the state should be investing in fast and efficient regional transit, like helping to boost a Sound Transit 3 funding effort.
We cannot widen highways enough to significantly reduce congestion. But we can give people other options to lessen the load.
Meanwhile, lack of safe walking and biking routes to schools is the norm in Washington. This is unacceptable and shameful. It is also detrimental to the state’s education goals.
Compared to expanding a highway, making sure every single school in the state has safe crosswalks around it and safe connections to neighborhoods would cost the state very little. Why is Safe Routes to School absent from this plan?
Regional trails remain disconnected, unpaved or incomplete. A section of trail is kind of cool, but a connected network of trails and separated routes is a powerful transportation system. Cities from across the nation look to Washington’s Burke-Gilman Trail as a premier example of a regional bicycle highway, yet the state remains uninterested in completing other similar routes in its towns and cities.
The new complete streets funding is a step in the right direction, but the state’s own fact sheet describes that pool of money as a fund to make safety improvements for people on bike and foot. This completely leaves out the fact that the biggest safety improvements from complete streets come from reductions in car-on-car collisions. This is a great idea, of course, but it’s not only a biking and walking thing. The scale of the funding is also so completely out-of-scale with the rest of the package that the fact sheet pie graph rounds it to zero percent.
In hard number terms, the Bicycle Alliance of Washington and Transportation for Washington are pushing for at least $150 million per year in biking and walking safety projects and $200 million per year in transit funding. At those rates, it will still take a long time to catch up on the massive needs for biking and walking safety and access, but at least it would make a dent in the problem.
So while the bike tax is certainly a bad idea, let’s not take our eye off the ball. Large transportation packages don’t come along very often, and this one has gotten off to a very bad start. People working toward adequate funding for biking and walking safety are starting with very little on the table. To make matters worse, a tough, only-if-we-absolutely-have-to-do-it-to-get-something-worthy bargaining chip—the bike tax—is already on the table for some reason. It’s hard to bargain when you start by giving up everything and receiving nothing.
If it comes to it and the only way to get adequate or bold biking and walking funds is to offer up the bike tax, then it might be worth it to swallow that very bitter pill (see Neil from Montlake Bike Shop explain why it would hurt his small shop). Unfortunately, that’s not the situation we’re in. Can we get there? Democrats better hope so if they want to avoid bitter opposition to their plan.
Because Washington can’t afford another massive investment in the exact kinds of highway projects that got us into this mess of unsustainable, dangerous, frustrating and economically draining congestion. And we certainly can’t start taxing bicycles to pay for it.
Comments
22 responses to “The bike tax is just a distraction: The real problem is the billions on new highways”
Where is the political party who will represent those of us interested in transit, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements? The Dems are for taxing and spending to build highways and the GOP wants to build highways without taxes (how they will do this is a mystery).
Those of us interesting in tackling climate change, improving our health, and strengthening our economy need to organize and hold our publicly elected officials’ feet to the fire.
I would guess the Green Party?
Tom, you have such a gift for getting to the heart of a complex topic in a rigorous and engaging fashion. Thanks for everything you do.
While I certainly appreciate your sentiments, especially regarding the need to fund mass transit ahead of expanding roads and highways, a bike tax isn’t that far-fetched. Five percent of annual bike sales doesn’t come close to the cost of providing these vast networks of trails and street safety improvements. Instead, how about you pay for green boxes, bike lanes, road resurfacing for that three foot strip, trails, crossings, etc. I’ll continue to pay my taxes for my car, bus and light-rail (as will you). Either way, it’s a completely disorganized effort on all parts that just leads to more fighting and little result.
Sound Transit 1,2,3 all had their complements, but never conquered the complete transportation package. At this point, it almost feels too late to start including every form of transport. I’m sick of nickel and dime taxes. We need to have an honest discussion of where we are headed and what our needs are long-term before we discuss increased taxes. In the meantime, it’ll be pay as you go.
Let’s take this argument to the logical next step…should we exact a pedestrian-tax to cover cross-walk paint and signage as well as those terribly expensive automated crossing signals?
And who really needs safety improvements? I mean, it is not like any resources are expended for the lack of safety if you exclude emergency response personnel-and-equipment, hospital staff-and-stays, and the heroic efforts of our legal-and-actuary class.
As for those “vast networks of trails” could you help me out and tell me where they actually are? I mean the ones that are exclusively the province of bicycles, like the freeway is for cars, and devoid of pedestrians, prams, and pets.
Most of the infrastructure you reference is bicycle themed or bicycles permitted at best…and, yes, we are finally getting some actual material improvements, as opposed to mere paint, but this is pittance in effort and monies compared to what we are doing to simply maintain automobile gridlock.
The bicycle sales tax is merely codifying road-rage. Progress!
“Instead, how about you pay for green boxes, bike lanes, road resurfacing for that three foot strip, trails, crossings, etc.”
Road resurfacing benefits both bicycles and auto drivers.
And in general, a bicycle is “one less car” on the road, we aren’t adding to congestion we are helping fix it.
Plus all of things (roads, transit & bike trails) are paid for from property taxes which bicycle riders already pay for, but we aren’t using the vast majority of the things we are paying for when we ride bicycles.
Face it, an auto centric city isn’t sustainable, nor is it a nice place to live.
OK. So lets do something positive, all of us. How about we all contact our representative to Olympia, work harder with the Cascade Bike Club and the Bicycle Alliance of Washington on these issues and ask each what more can we do to help? Maybe we can be a part of the change to a better overall system!
Jeff
[…] UPDATE: For more, see our post “The bike tax is just a distraction: The real problem is the billions on new highways” […]
[…] Here is an article about the proposed bike tax and the transportation bill for Washington in general. It’s a good read. http://seattlebikeblog.com/2013/02/25/the-bike-tax-is-just-a-distraction-the-real-problem-is-the-bil… […]
[…] is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation […]
[…] people who ride bikes don’t pay for roads, you need to read this and this and this and this, […]
I love good highways. And I like mass transit and bikes, mainly because it makes more room for my car. Seriously though, I am a biker and I know that it benefits everyone to accomodate bikes. Biking is an easy way to get healthier and reduce gas consumption. The number one problem in this country is health care costs, and they are directly linked to obesity. Get everyone healthier and suddenly everything becomes more affordable, from health care to employee benefits to government budgets. FYI Obamacare does nothing to control health care costs overall, so we need to get started on being healthier.
[…] 虚構新聞の記事のようなニュース。自転車購入に5％の税金を課す法案について質問された推進派議員が、「自転車に乗る人は運動で心拍数が上がり、二酸化炭素を排出し、環境に悪影響」という、調査に基づかない暴論を語っています。税収アップのためならなりふり構わないという最近の地方政府の姿勢は目に余ります。 […]
[…] is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation […]
so i guess in the future we need to pay the “shoe tax”?
What an incredibly sleazy creep,America really needs to run bastards like this out of office come election time!
[…] been proposed as part of a larger transportation package, seemingly for no other reason than to soothe the morons who think they’re being oppressed by those icky bicyclists with their environmental […]
[…] momentum for much of the initial transportation package seems to be a bit weak. That package included billions of dollars in new spending on new highway […]
[…] state lawmaker Ed Orcutt, bike tax supporter, stated in an email to a constituent that bikes are unhealthy and bad for the environment, showing a complete lack of understanding of […]
[…] last summer that devoted just .5 percent of the funding to bike and walking (and early discussions included an ostensibly-symbolic bike tax, which was […]
[…] is according to comments he made in an email to a constituent who questioned the wisdom of a new bike tax the legislature is considering as part of a large transportation […]
Before any tax for bike, or other transportation, there should be some kind of plan for the cost of such solution and cost of maintenance of the plan. This nickel dime tax to fix small projects should end and make a real and realistic plan with no dreams plan. Than see the revenues from the transportation taxes. Next decide what is a fair way to tax so that we do not have to debate this every short voting cycle. More of long term direction. One of the most fair tax the state has is the sales tax. It simple, you buy , you get tax for the purchase. It make no different if you are poor or rich. More buying more tax. Poor people buy less than they get tax less. It does not effect the income, only the amount that you are buying. Now this tax can be class of different departments. Transportation that from purchase from things like parts to items that have to do with transportation. Sports would go to parks as couple examples. Book stores retail tax go to libraries. Road licenses also can go to transportation. The other thing on tax is how much do each person has to pay for it to work. I would say all to equal it out, it should not be more than 5% retail tax. So yes a bike tax would be the same as retail going for bike road way and trails not to general fund that it does now. As far as Property tax it should go to the government that it is on. If it is city than the city should received the funds, if it is non corporate county, than the county. that would be the fair way of taxing. The cost of government cost more than revenue than we should ask why and fix it to match the revenue. Two things should solve government revenue. The more people and more people buy. Government regulations should be limited for making business more equal playing field and for safety and health minimum, and not over regulate. This way everyone pays but not being over tax and we get results not only for bikes but all departments.