|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Maybe I just shouldn't read the newspaper.
--- Contrary to Dean Shirley's (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/app...OP01/604260329) belief, bicyclists definitely pay their fair share of taxes. Most bicyclists just ride on city streets. We pay for these streets because, like everyone else, we pay general sales and property taxes. State and Federal gas taxes, along with general fund moneys, pay for the construction and maintenance of state and federal highways, the majority of which do not have bicycle facilities or would be downright unpleasant to ride on, even when bicycles are allowed on them. In fact, bicyclists subsidize the motorists. We don't require the same amount of pavement that motorists need. We don't put the same wear and tear on the roads that motorists create. We don't use the vast parking facilities motorists need. We also pay for emergency response services, but due to simple physics, bicycles rarely cause injury accidents in the same way that cars do. And yet, through our general taxes, we pay for all of these facilities and services to a level that we do not need to get around on a bike. Our legislature is perceptive enough to realize bicycle licensing is not cost-effective. It's cheaper to have bikes on the road than to develop an elaborate bureaucracy to tax and limit their existence. If you are upset about inequities in our tax system, you have good cause. Studies show that Washington State has the most unfair state and local tax system in the country -- the wealthy pay the least here, and the average Joe pays the most. If you're feeling the pinch, you're not alone. But don't blame bicyclists for that. -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Claire Petersky wrote: If you are upset about inequities in our tax system, you have good cause. Studies show that Washington State has the most unfair state and local tax system in the country -- the wealthy pay the least here, and the average Joe pays the most. If you're feeling the pinch, you're not alone. But don't blame bicyclists for that. Claire, your writing just gets better and better. That last paragraph effectively refocuses the argument in a way that's hard to refute, and does so without insult or condescension. It's a model rebuttal. Bravo! RichC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Claire Petersky wrote:
Maybe I just shouldn't read the newspaper. --- Contrary to Dean Shirley's (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/app...OP01/604260329) belief, bicyclists definitely pay their fair share of taxes. snip Claire - do you have a link also for whatever it was the King County bicycle lobby was whining about? Also, I'd like to see a representative pie chart of construction and maintenance funding sources for roads and bike paths. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
"Diablo Scott" wrote in message
... Claire Petersky wrote: Contrary to Dean Shirley's (http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/app...OP01/604260329) belief, bicyclists definitely pay their fair share of taxes. snip Claire - do you have a link also for whatever it was the King County bicycle lobby was whining about? I'm pretty up on recent issues, but there's nothing in particular that leaps out at me. The City of Seattle has a new initiative, but that's just the City, and the Journal is a suburban paper. I think Mr. Shirley was doing a general pout, not addressing a specific project. Also, I'd like to see a representative pie chart of construction and maintenance funding sources for roads and bike paths. Me too! -- Warm Regards, Claire Petersky http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/ See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
"Claire Petersky" wrote in message ink.net... "Diablo Scott" wrote in message ... Also, I'd like to see a representative pie chart of construction and maintenance funding sources for roads and bike paths. Me too! Google is our friend: Not many pie charts per se but some interesting comparisons for various places: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/library/2001_rtp/overview.htm Billions of Dollars Percent of Total 1 Transit Operations 35.8* 44% 2 Transit Rehabilitation 15.6 19% 3 Transit Expansion 13.6 17% 4 Roadway Maintenance 11.5 14% and Operations 5 Roadway Expansion 3.0 4% 6 Other** 2.1 2% TOTAL $81.6 100% *36% fare revenue/64% subsidy **Other includes bike and pedestrian improvements, Transportation for Livable Communities/Housing Incentive Program grants, system management, etc. http://www.ci.maitland.fl.us/2006Bud...ntsProgram.pdf Transportation Improvements CRA FY06 $ 41,604,758 5year $ 86,551,664 Transportation Improvements Rd. FY06 $ 636,044 5Year $ 11,928,409 Pavement Treatment GF FY06 $ 12,500 5year $ 1,936,150 Bicycle / Sidewalk Network GF FY06 $ - 5 year$ 1,202,000 http://www.vabike.org/archive/ar97_2a2.htm The typical roadway section for a secondary road in York or James City County is two 12-foot lanes plus an 8-foot shoulder. If the estimated traffic volume in the design year exceeds 2,000 vehicles per day, VDOT design standards require paving the first 3 feet of the 8-foot shoulder. Thus the shoulder consists of 3 feet of pavement and 5 feet of gravel. Therefore, the marginal (or additional) cost to a road construction project of adding a shoulder bike lane at the time of construction is the material and labor cost of an extra 1-2 feet of asphalt on each side of the road (the gravel shoulder is already a sufficient base). The marginal cost of a shared roadway is, in most cases, zero. However, if a wide outside lane is the chosen alternative, the labor and materials for 2 extra feet of pavement and gravel base on each side of the road would comprise the marginal cost of such a facility. It is very unlikely that this type of shared lane treatment would be constructed on a new or substantially reconstructed road. It is more likely to occur in a constricted right-of-way situation where curb and gutter are used or in retrofit projects. However, in order to produce a "worst case" cost example, it is used here. Given the above assumptions, the costs from A Cost Model for Bikeways are as follows: Shoulder Bike Lane-asphalt, 2 feet in width on both sides: $1.85/linear foot or $9,715 per mile. Wide Outside Lane-asphalt plus aggregate base, 2 feet in width on both sides: $3.72/linear foot or $19, 642 per mile. These figures come from the detailed analysis done by HRPDC and include the actual cost figures from the Old York-Hampton Highway and Centerville Road projects in York County and James City County respectively. In order to understand the relative costs of bike lanes, it is important to compare them to two other figures: Reconstructed Secondary Road-$ 1.2 - $1.9 million/mile New Secondary Road on New location-$2.2 million/mile As a percentage of total cost, bike lanes add approximately 1/2 of 1% to the cost of the road projects contained in the adopted six-year plan. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
"rdclark" wrote in message oups.com... Claire Petersky wrote: If you are upset about inequities in our tax system, you have good cause. Studies show that Washington State has the most unfair state and local tax system in the country -- the wealthy pay the least here, and the average Joe pays the most. If you're feeling the pinch, you're not alone. But don't blame bicyclists for that. Claire, your writing just gets better and better. That last paragraph effectively refocuses the argument in a way that's hard to refute, and does so without insult or condescension. It's a model rebuttal. Bravo! RichC It was nothing but a typical letter to the editor, guaranteed to put all to sleep. Claire does not know how to go for the jugular. Only someone as Great as I know how to do that. Unfortunately though, every time I do it it never gets printed. Editors of newspapers can spot my type from a mile off and want nothing to do with me. I am the master of insult and condescension. Is there any other way to write? But I thought Washington Sate was the most liberal state in the nation. If so, how can it be that the average Joe is paying the most and the wealthy are paying the least. I thought that was a Republican philosophy. The Great Ed Dolan is all confused and confabulated by this startling revelation. Surely, there is something rotten in Seattle here! Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Claire Petersky wrote:
In fact, bicyclists subsidize the motorists. We don't require the same amount of pavement that motorists need. We don't put the same wear and tear on the roads that motorists create. We don't use the vast parking facilities motorists need. We also pay for emergency response services, but due to simple physics, bicycles rarely cause injury accidents in the same way that cars do. And yet, through our general taxes, we pay for all of these facilities and services to a level that we do not need to get around on a bike. Yes! Free off-street parking is a clear example of a subsidy to motorists, because it isn't actually free at all. The cost of buying the land, and constructing and maintaining the parking spots, gets passed along (in part or in total) to consumers in the form of higher prices. Every time you buy something at the mega-mall, some portion of the price goes to pay for the sea of "free" parking outside the mall. But whereas drivers use those parking spots, bicyclists don't. Consequently, the bicyclists are subsidizing the drivers. The price of a gallon of gas (taxes included) doesn't cover the full social cost of burning that gas (pollution, accidents, congestion, the list goes on). In the case of congestion, the situation is especially acute, since even the most fuel efficient cars clog up roadways. So the argument that drivers are paying their fare share via their gas taxes is, at best, only partially accurate. As long as I'm joining you on the soapbox, I'll point out the obvious: every bicycle trip removes a car from the road, which benefits the remaining drivers. So rather than sniping at us, Dean Shirley should be thanking us. Have a great weekend, everybody. Josh (in Massachusetts) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Bob wrote: that's falling into the "us versus them" trap again. Actually, I rather like the us vs. them point of view. I feel that way very storngly when I read that our Congressmen rode in big, gas guzzling vehicles approximately one block from their offices to a photo-op in front of an Exxon gas station sign this morning (Washington Post). Once there, they pontificated about the price of gasoline. One block! So yes... more us vs. them with regards to indecent automobile use is just fine. Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of transportation is both silly and wrong Why is it silly to say it is wrong to drive a car? When you see someone motoring alone in a Suburban or Expedition or F150 pickup, who is not a farmer or trademan, do you think those hundreds of horses are contributing to our social welfare? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
Bob wrote: Defining people as good or bad based on their mode of transportation is both silly and wrong, as silly and wrong as the letter to the editor that Claire posted that started this thread. Indeed. And there are cases where one group subsidizing another (partially or totally) may be a good thing. As a transportation policy analyst, however, my bias is toward policies that promote equity and efficiency. To the extent that acres of "free" parking helps hold down the price of goods, that may be a good thing, but, clearly, there are other costs associated with "free" parking. More broadly, since gas prices don't reflect the full social costs of automobile use, people who drive larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles than are necessary are, in fact, imposing those costs (the externalities) on the rest of us. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Another letter to the editor
There are, of course, plenty of reasons for someone other than a farmer
or a tradesman to drive a SUV or pickup truck. Calling down hellfire and brimstone upon the driver of such a vehicle merely because the good reason for his/her use of such a vehicle is latent is churlish at best. When he was looking for his last vehicle, my father almost bought an SUV. The reason was that he found it much easier to enter/exit than most small vehicles (arthritis). Simply because ***you*** do not see the reason behind a specific action does not mean that there is not a good reason for it. There are, of course, plenty of motorists who could just as easily commute via bicycle. Since many of us live in quasi-free societies where, for the moment, people are allowed to make their own poor choices rather than have us, the illuminati, make their decisions for them, we have to live with it. Come the revolution... Jeff |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Letter to the editor | Claire Petersky | General | 20 | April 16th 06 03:11 AM |
NOT f%$#$in HAPPY JAN. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR | flyingdutch | Australia | 55 | December 11th 05 08:14 AM |
letter to the editor of The Age re "Drugs, dial, drive, bloody idiot?" | Carl Brewer | Australia | 14 | July 18th 05 08:04 AM |
Great Money Making Opportunity | gh | General | 0 | March 24th 05 04:55 AM |