Bike Fee for Transportation Projects?
Washington State House Transportation Committee Chair Judy Clibborn yesterday unveiled a $10 billion transportation plan for Washington State called Connecting Washington. There are a lot of details to pick over, including a hike in the gas tax, a new annual car registration fee based on the value of the car, and money for the SR-167 completion project that’s been drawing so much buzz in this part of the world.
One other item caught our eye: a $25 fee on bicycles. The fee would be added to the sale of any bike valued at over $500. The expected revenue from this is cited at $1 million over the next 10 years.
The money won’t be going to make roads more bike friendly – it will be dumped into the larger transportation package, which mainly funds state highway improvement projects.
The cycling community is understandably not excited about the proposed fee.
Although the proposal was released only yesterday, we already see some humorous jabs out there on the interwebs.
The arrangement should be known as the Wal-Mart Protection Act, as only bicycle-shaped objects sold by mass merchandisers would be exempt from the fee as they don’t sell bikes costing more than $500 in the first place. ~ www.bikingbis.com
But this criticism from Cascade Bike Club gets more to the point of many complaints:
Unfortunately, the package almost completely ignores bicycle and pedestrian investments. Given the benefits people on bicycles provide to the rest of the transportation system by taking cars off the road, this is short-sighted.
Tacoma, like Washington State as a whole, has transportation funding problems. So, while the conversation continues at the state level, we thought we’d ask you: If you ride a bike in Tacoma, what would it take for you to feel like a fee is a sensible and fair arrangement? Would it ever make sense to tax bike sales? What about pedestrians? Should we start asking crosswalk users to fund the cost by dropping in a nickel every time they push the button?
Filed under: Transportation, Legislation, Biking, State Projects
8 comments
R Rob February 21, 2013
I would be happy to pay a bike fee if it would a) help fund real bike infrastructure rather than be devoted to building more highways and b) get bike-haters to shut up with their criticism that tax paying and, in most cases, automobile owning cyclists don’t pay their way for using “their” roads.
M Mofo from the Hood February 21, 2013
Finally. A luxury tax on bicycles.
C Cory February 21, 2013
I bike around all these “steep hills” every day, you get used to it and eventually get to like it! As far as the tax goes, any bike over $500 would come from a bike shop (not walmart) where they could just ring out all the parts separate and then you’re not buying a bike so you’re exempt from the tax and just have to pay the regular sales tax. Maybe if they put this money toward adding bike infrastructure they could get cyclists behind this, but this just seems punitive.
E Erik B. February 21, 2013
One other item caught our eye: a $25 fee on bicycles. The fee would be added to the sale of any bike valued at over $500. The expected revenue from this is cited at $1 million over the next 10 years.
Taxing bicycles to pay for road projects sounds like the ultimate anti green suburbanite sprawl fantasy.
It would be like taxing salads to subsidize the doughnut and fast food industries.
F fredo February 21, 2013
“It would be like taxing salads to subsidize the doughnut and fast food industries” erik
haha, but that analogy doesn’t quite work, erik.
People can enjoy salads and never touch a doughnut. Pretty hard to enjoy the use of a bicycle without touching the roadway.
J JJ February 21, 2013
Cyclists already pay for use of city streets (General Use-Sales Tax 70%,Gas Tax pays 30% for city streets) so motorists on city streets are heavily subsidized by other non motorist taxpayers.In other words motorists don’t pay their fare share for the use of city streets.
County Roads get much of their tax revenue by property taxes.
A ArtBrownSr February 21, 2013
And what about the lower end commuter bikes like the $200-$300 Treks etc. I bike a lot but my bikes are more sturdy heavier higher value than the $600-$1000 touring types. I also believe the funds need to be specific to the use, that is safe interaction of two wheeled traffic vs four wheeled traffic ( bike trails, Bike / car barriers etc.)
M Matt March 4, 2013
As JJ demonstrated, cyclist do help pay for the streets, also, bicycles put significantly less wear on roads than cars do. I don’t think a tax on bicycles over 500 dollars is necesarily unfair, Cory is right to point out that in some cases, the tax could be avoided by itemizing parts. However, most bike shops sell complete bikes over $500.
The real flaw is the allocation of funds. Having a tax from a vehicle that has negligible effects on road surfaces go to highway maintenance is ridiculous. I would happily pay a tax if I knew the funds were earmarked towards bike/ped infrastructure…