Oregon bike tax?

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:20:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 5:49 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

The Oregon bicycle tax propose has this problem, and others. I
suspect there will be mandatory registration of all bicycles, so that
the State knows whom to tax and whom to fine for not paying the tax.

ISTM the proposal was for a 1% sales tax on bicycles. (I assume that
means new bicycles.) It's not supposed to be a license fee or
registration fee.

Sorry. After reading the article I left for lunch. When I returned,
it had magically become an annual tax or fee. I guessed it will morph
into an annual state license fee or something similar when nobody is
looking. Lunch does that to my thinking.

"Bicycle tax legislation introduced in California"
http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/bicycle-tax-legislation-introduced-in-california/
Here's another version of the original proposal from July 2012. Notice
that it also taxes bicycle accessories:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2012NeedsAssess/reports_submitted/bike_tax.pdf
This 1% tax was predicted to generate $8.7 million annually in
California.

That was the original intent, but this is the result:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1183
Unless I'm reading this wrong, what was passed became a possible
surcharge to the motor vehicle registration fee that will benefit
bicycle infrastructure. Notice that it requires 2/3 voter approval.
It also expires in Jan 1, 2025. See what I mean about change when
nobody is looking?


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 08:52:16 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

No. Oregon is a financial wreck after years of bad PERS deals. It's
like the old Soviet Union with $.50 of every budget dollar going to
fund pensioners. We have so many budget holes that our budget is more
of a hole than a budget. It's a giant black-hole that sucks tax
dollars into nowhere, and now it wants to suck more.

The problem of retirement payments has been known and accurately
predicted for about 30 years. 30 years ago those problems would have
been trivial to fix. Now they are very hard to fix. That is not an
accident, it is a deliberate strategy by one political persuasion. If
ya can't make 'em capitulate, burn it down and salt the earth. Politics
now seems only capable of Pyrrhic victories.

On Mon, 01 May 2017 08:52:34 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths

I suffered through a city council meeting awaiting my turn and
listening to a debate on the high cost of "installing" a bicycle lane.
The bottom line was $115,000 for 1/4 mile to paint the street, remove
the automobile parking spaces, change the signage, move one transit
stop, and edit the associated public documentation (maps, official
routes, etc). That would be $460,000/mile in 1999 or $683,000 in
todays dollars. That's without any purchase of property or major
construction effort. The million dollar mile might actually be a
conservative estimate.

and while that does sound like
a lot it might be, where real estate might have to be purchased to
increase right of way for the path, be applicable.

The People's Republic of Santa Cruz is famous for using eminent domain
to confiscate or "freeze" the ability of a property owner to do
anything with their property while they debate the merits and
financing of doing anything useful with the property.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/11/coastal-commission-delay-arana-gulch-vote/
We're also famous for forcing developers and homeowner to pay fees and
assume maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure that would
normally be considered the responsibility of the city or county. I
believe that there are several bicycle paths that either traverse or
are adjacent to developments that fall into this category.

Given that the auto - truck crowd sees no sense in bicycle paths the
historical method of building special purpose highways might be used.
The Toll Road, a roadway built by a group and paid for by the users
thereof.

I think we tried something like that in the previous century. LAFCO:
http://www.santacruzlafco.org
was approached to allow the formation of a private road agreement for
a bicycle path that crosses county property. The organization would
be exactly as if it were a private road agreement. For some reason,
it failed to impress the county officials and failed. My guess(tm) is
that they didn't want to establish a precedent where an existing
bicycle path was legally established without the involvement of the
county planning department.

If, for instance, a one mile toll road were constructed at the
specified $1,000,000 and a 10 year bond issue was used to finance it
we would be looking at a 1,000,000 + say 3% dividend annually =
1,300,000. If, again for example, some 1,000 bicyclists used the path
5 days a week that would be only $3.96 a rider, which for a bloke
riding a $3,000 bicycle seems a mere pittance.

According to this document:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2012NeedsAssess/reports_submitted/bike_tax.pdf
the average cost of a new bicycle was $465 in 2010. The problem with
toll roads is the overhead and facilities necessary to collect the
toll. I was involved in a minor example of this gone awry. We have a
nice beach with an adjacent free parking lot. Some party animals made
a mess one weekend forcing the park aids to clean up the mess.
Something must be done, which translated into installing a gate and
charging toll. An automated system was installed, initially charging
$0.50 for a days parking. The equipment was vandalized several times
and finally stolen resulting in a rather substantial financial loss.
To solve the problem, the state hired park aids to staff a collection
booth and raised the parking for the day to about $3.00. I think it's
$5 today but am not sure.
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=545
With loaded overhead on salaries and such, the cost of maintaining the
parking lot has soared well beyond reasonable, especially since the
original problem could have been easily solved by hiring a parking lot
cleaning service and not charging any fees. So, how do you plan to
collect the fees for the toll road? Pay at the gate? Monthly or
annual membership charges with a card key? Fingerprint ID?

However, given the scofflaw attitude exhibited by most cyclists it is
likely that some sort of legal means would be required to encourage
the bicyclists to use the new "Toll Road built especially For Him".

Encouragement usually means some form of negative enforcement. Fines
for failure to follow the letter of the law come to mind.

Perhaps a ruling that failure to use said road, where it is available,
is punished by a $5.00 fine.

Most would pay the fine. The problem is that the State applies a
substantial tax to help pay for the retirement and medical plans for
former employees. I paid a $50 fine for failing to use a hands free
device on my cell phone that mushroomed into $250 when all the taxes
were added. The $5 fine is more likely to be $50 when the smoke
clears.

Perhaps the perfect solution whereby (a) the bicyclists has his own
road, and (b) he that HE has paid his dues.

I live on a private road and am de facto unelected chairperson of the
road maintenance committee in charge of shaking down owners and
renters for their "fair share" of the road repairs. I consider your
suggestion more of an additional problem than a solution.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/30/2017 8:52 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 6:35:44 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

No. Oregon is a financial wreck after years of bad PERS deals. It's like the old Soviet Union with $.50 of every budget dollar going to fund pensioners. We have so many budget holes that our budget is more of a hole than a budget. It's a giant black-hole that sucks tax dollars into nowhere, and now it wants to suck more. The only upside is that the City did fix a pot hole that was a problem on my way to work -- one out of about a zillion after the hard winter this year.

PERS is a problem all over the country.

https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/newsroom/calpers-news/2016/calpers-lower-discount-rate
And even 7.0% is unrealistic. Auditing firms are warning cities about
the extra money they will have to put into the system as the discount
rate falls. While 0.5% doesn't sound like a lot, it translates to a lot
more money that cities will have to pay.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-le-me-richmond-pensions/

In the next economic downturn we will see a lot more Detroits,
Stocktons, and Vallejos.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:21:48 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 08:52:34 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths

I suffered through a city council meeting awaiting my turn and
listening to a debate on the high cost of "installing" a bicycle lane.
The bottom line was $115,000 for 1/4 mile to paint the street, remove
the automobile parking spaces, change the signage, move one transit
stop, and edit the associated public documentation (maps, official
routes, etc). That would be $460,000/mile in 1999 or $683,000 in
todays dollars. That's without any purchase of property or major
construction effort. The million dollar mile might actually be a
conservative estimate.


Well, that does sound like a lot of money but when you take into
consideration the brother-in-law the painting contractor, and the
nephew the paving contractor, and the Lodge Brother that is into
pavement cleaning, it sounds quite reasonable.

and while that does sound like
a lot it might be, where real estate might have to be purchased to
increase right of way for the path, be applicable.

The People's Republic of Santa Cruz is famous for using eminent domain
to confiscate or "freeze" the ability of a property owner to do
anything with their property while they debate the merits and
financing of doing anything useful with the property.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2010/03/11/coastal-commission-delay-arana-gulch-vote/
We're also famous for forcing developers and homeowner to pay fees and
assume maintenance responsibilities for infrastructure that would
normally be considered the responsibility of the city or county. I
believe that there are several bicycle paths that either traverse or
are adjacent to developments that fall into this category.

Given that the auto - truck crowd sees no sense in bicycle paths the
historical method of building special purpose highways might be used.
The Toll Road, a roadway built by a group and paid for by the users
thereof.

I think we tried something like that in the previous century. LAFCO:
http://www.santacruzlafco.org

Certainly. The first toll road was authorized in 1656 when a town in
Hertfordshire partitioned the government for assistance in maintaining
a section of the Great North Road, whereupon Parliament authorized the
erection of toll gates, thus allowing the users to pay their own way.
Very adroit our ancestors :-)




was approached to allow the formation of a private road agreement for
a bicycle path that crosses county property. The organization would
be exactly as if it were a private road agreement. For some reason,
it failed to impress the county officials and failed. My guess(tm) is
that they didn't want to establish a precedent where an existing
bicycle path was legally established without the involvement of the
county planning department.

If, for instance, a one mile toll road were constructed at the
specified $1,000,000 and a 10 year bond issue was used to finance it
we would be looking at a 1,000,000 + say 3% dividend annually =
1,300,000. If, again for example, some 1,000 bicyclists used the path
5 days a week that would be only $3.96 a rider, which for a bloke
riding a $3,000 bicycle seems a mere pittance.

According to this document:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/reports/2012NeedsAssess/reports_submitted/bike_tax.pdf
the average cost of a new bicycle was $465 in 2010. The problem with
toll roads is the overhead and facilities necessary to collect the
toll. I was involved in a minor example of this gone awry. We have a
nice beach with an adjacent free parking lot. Some party animals made
a mess one weekend forcing the park aids to clean up the mess.
Something must be done, which translated into installing a gate and
charging toll. An automated system was installed, initially charging
$0.50 for a days parking. The equipment was vandalized several times
and finally stolen resulting in a rather substantial financial loss.
To solve the problem, the state hired park aids to staff a collection
booth and raised the parking for the day to about $3.00. I think it's
$5 today but am not sure.
https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=545
With loaded overhead on salaries and such, the cost of maintaining the
parking lot has soared well beyond reasonable, especially since the
original problem could have been easily solved by hiring a parking lot
cleaning service and not charging any fees. So, how do you plan to
collect the fees for the toll road? Pay at the gate? Monthly or
annual membership charges with a card key? Fingerprint ID?

However, given the scofflaw attitude exhibited by most cyclists it is
likely that some sort of legal means would be required to encourage
the bicyclists to use the new "Toll Road built especially For Him".

Encouragement usually means some form of negative enforcement. Fines
for failure to follow the letter of the law come to mind.

Exactly. But why should one want to have a law and not enforce it?



Perhaps a ruling that failure to use said road, where it is available,
is punished by a $5.00 fine.

Most would pay the fine. The problem is that the State applies a
substantial tax to help pay for the retirement and medical plans for
former employees. I paid a $50 fine for failing to use a hands free
device on my cell phone that mushroomed into $250 when all the taxes
were added. The $5 fine is more likely to be $50 when the smoke
clears.

In Singapore the fine for not using a hands free device while driving
is S$1,000. The average monthly wage in Singapore, as of Jan 2017, is
S$379 but when the law was passed, perhaps 20 years ago, the average
salary was probably in the S$1,000 range.

You very, very, rarely see someone driving that doesn't use a "hands
free".

Perhaps the perfect solution whereby (a) the bicyclists has his own
road, and (b) he that HE has paid his dues.

I live on a private road and am de facto unelected chairperson of the
road maintenance committee in charge of shaking down owners and
renters for their "fair share" of the road repairs. I consider your
suggestion more of an additional problem than a solution.

Why goodness Sir, do you mean that in the Land of the Free and the
Brave, United we stand, and all that, citizens do not willingly pay
their fair share? Even those so wealthy as to own their own road?

On Mon, 01 May 2017 14:53:12 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

Well, that does sound like a lot of money but when you take into
consideration the brother-in-law the painting contractor, and the
nephew the paving contractor, and the Lodge Brother that is into
pavement cleaning, it sounds quite reasonable.

Yep. That's what happened. The pavement painting contractor was the
husband of one of the city council members.

Encouragement usually means some form of negative enforcement. Fines
for failure to follow the letter of the law come to mind.

Exactly. But why should one want to have a law and not enforce it?

There are plenty of unenforceable laws on the books. Some are there
as "guidelines" for appropriate behavior. Others are there as land
mines should the officials need an excuse to toss someone in jail or
empty their bank account. Many laws are there to placate some special
interest group. These usually include clauses that make them useless
and difficult to enforce. The way California bicycle tax addition to
the vehicle code is a good example. The cost of a one time tax
collection and reporting could easily the revenue generated when there
is a $5 ceiling.

In Singapore the fine for not using a hands free device while driving
is S$1,000. The average monthly wage in Singapore, as of Jan 2017, is
S$379 but when the law was passed, perhaps 20 years ago, the average
salary was probably in the S$1,000 range.

You very, very, rarely see someone driving that doesn't use a "hands
free".

I'm surprised that Singapore doesn't execute violators of the hands
free law. That would surely eliminate the problem. However, that's
roughly the definition of a police state, which is politically
incorrect at this time, and will therefore need to wait for an
appropriate opportunity.

Dumb question: What happens when a country revalues their currency?
Do all such fines get converted to the new exchange rate or do the
dollar amounts remain fixed? We've never revalued the USD so I have
no experience in such matters.

Why goodness Sir, do you mean that in the Land of the Free and the
Brave, United we stand, and all that, citizens do not willingly pay
their fair share? Even those so wealthy as to own their own road?

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

Incidentally, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On 4/30/2017 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2017 08:52:34 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths

I suffered through a city council meeting awaiting my turn and
listening to a debate on the high cost of "installing" a bicycle lane.
The bottom line was $115,000 for 1/4 mile to paint the street, remove
the automobile parking spaces, change the signage, move one transit
stop, and edit the associated public documentation (maps, official
routes, etc). That would be $460,000/mile in 1999 or $683,000 in
todays dollars. That's without any purchase of property or major
construction effort. The million dollar mile might actually be a
conservative estimate.

You can't extrapolate like that; the cost per unit of distance is not
linear. We are working on a city-wide bike plan now. The cost per mile
is not that high. But it's not cheap either. But this is for a lot of
Class 1 infrastructure. One big expense is the transit stops, depending
on how you do the separation from buses, if you don't want buses
crossing cyclist's path.

On 4/30/2017 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2017 08:52:34 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths

I suffered through a city council meeting awaiting my turn...

I have to do that twice a month.

I am impressed that you went and waited. Do they provide free coffee and
tea like we do in Cupertino? And it's actually good coffee.

One thing I learned after years of speaking at council meetings is that
many of the council members have an agenda and nothing anyone from the
public says will change their mind! They will say something like, "well
30 of you showed up to object to XYZ, but there are 60,0000 residents,
so the other 59,970 residents that didn't show up don't agree with you,
now you little people run along."

What I really hate now is when a developer recruits a bunch of people to
speak, even filling out the speaker cards for them, and provides them
with a text to read. And now their new tactic is to recruit high school
students, since we have to be extra polite to young people, even when
they're spouting nonsense.

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:52:41 PM UTC-5, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:11:24 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html
1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

You mean like user fees? That's not the modern way. In California,
if you want to pay for a transportation improvement, you tax those who
do NOT choose to use it. For example, when it was proposed to install
a light rail system connecting Silly Clone Valley (where the jobs are)
to Santa Cruz County (where the homes are), it was determined that
selling tickets for rides would be too expensive. Therefore, the
automobile drivers who fail to appreciate the benefits of the light
rail system should be charged for the honor of supporting it. At the
public meeting where this was discussed, there was a near riot as
commuters voiced their objections.

Apparently, Oregon and most states subscribe to this system, where
truck and automobile drivers pay for the roads because they fail to
appreciate the benefits of bicycle riding. It's sorta a fine for not
using bicycles. Seems like a common and perfectly acceptable, but
unfair, scheme. For example, I don't have any children (that I know
of) but I still pay for the schools with my property tax dollars.

I assume that the trend will continue. If a bicycle tax is enacted,
the money will be used to support sidewalks, do/don't walk signals at
intersections, and safety helmet promotions for pedestrians on the
theory that bicyclists fail to appreciate the benefits of walking.

Somewhere I have seen the number "$1,000,000 per mile" used in
reference to constructing bicycle paths and while that does sound like
a lot it might be, where real estate might have to be purchased to
increase right of way for the path, be applicable.

Given that the auto - truck crowd sees no sense in bicycle paths the
historical method of building special purpose highways might be used.
The Toll Road, a roadway built by a group and paid for by the users
thereof.

If, for instance, a one mile toll road were constructed at the
specified $1,000,000 and a 10 year bond issue was used to finance it
we would be looking at a 1,000,000 + say 3% dividend annually =
1,300,000. If, again for example, some 1,000 bicyclists used the path
5 days a week that would be only $3.96 a rider, which for a bloke
riding a $3,000 bicycle seems a mere pittance.

However, given the scofflaw attitude exhibited by most cyclists it is
likely that some sort of legal means would be required to encourage
the bicyclists to use the new "Toll Road built especially For Him".
Perhaps a ruling that failure to use said road, where it is available,
is punished by a $5.00 fine.


Perhaps the perfect solution whereby (a) the bicyclists has his own
road, and (b) he that HE has paid his dues.

In my area we have a wonderful trail system. Built on old railroad beds. Paved. An organization collects an annual fee for using it outside city limits. $10 annual. Its free use within city limits, probably part of the parks departments. The annual fee is voluntary. I've never seen any police out checking riders for a current permit. Not sure if there is a fine or not. Might be to just pay the annual fee. The system relies on the good heartedness of people/riders who use the trail. Probably not a good method given the "A" hole ness of humans. I purchase an annual permit for the trails given my extra goodness.

On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:45:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

You can't extrapolate like that; the cost per unit of distance is not
linear.

I didn't, but the authors of the California Bicycle Tax law apparently
did. More $$$$:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_bike_bikelanes.cfm
"The cost of a five-foot bicycle lane can range from approximately
$5,000 to $535,000 per mile, with an average cost around $130,000.
The costs can vary greatly due to differences in project
specifications and the scale and length of the treatment."

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
See table 2 on Pg 13 which shows basically the same range of costs.

Out of curiosity, does the cost per mile increase or decrease for
longer distances? On one foot, I can see that cost per mile would
decrease with longer distances because of more efficient utilization
to personnel and materials. On the other foot, I can see that the
cost per mile would increase with longer distances because more
agencies would be involved, more studies required, and more
impediments are possible. I have no idea which is correct.

We are working on a city-wide bike plan now. The cost per mile
is not that high. But it's not cheap either. But this is for a lot of
Class 1 infrastructure. One big expense is the transit stops, depending
on how you do the separation from buses, if you don't want buses
crossing cyclist's path.

Can I have a moving sidewalk written into the plan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway

So, what's your price tag? Here's an example of how it's done in the
people's republic over the hill:
http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/19/pdfs/FinalReportSLVTrailFeasibilityStudypostversion.pdf ?ver=2007-06-06-094957-000
Pg 5 offers the total cost at $21.1 million or $2.8 million/mile in
2006. Some parts are more or less expensive. See Table 1.1 Pg 7.

You might find the illustrations on Pg 57, 63, and 64 interesting (or
amusing). The drawing shows how the bicycle path might be build on
what looks like a cut-n-fill landslide candidate. That's an
improvement over the previous revision of the plan, which had the
bicycle path suspended over the San Lorenzo River from the roadway
retaining wall. If it were ever built, I'm the downhill ride would be
a thrilling experience.




--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558