Oregon bike tax?

On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:53:10 -0700, sms
wrote:

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.

As I recall, you were elected, not appointed. Therefore, one can
assume that you actually wanted the position. Meeting with your
electorate and the GUM (great unwashed masses) is part of the price
you pay for the position.

I am impressed that you went and waited.

I've been at various city council and country supervisory meetings
over the years. Each one provides a different level of entertainment
and boredom. Studying the psychology and mannerisms of the various
speakers and officials was worth the wait. Incidentally, the reason
for the wait was that someone had moved several items of contention
into the consent agenda hoping for a quick approval without protest.
So, we had to show up early to make sure they didn't try to sneak
anything through before the GUM arrived. It worked, several times.

Do they provide free coffee and
tea like we do in Cupertino? And it's actually good coffee.

Nope. Rust flavored water from the water fountains. There are coffee
shops and overpriced vending machines nearby.

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."

That hasn't happened to me yet. If it did, I would mumble something
about the council member having made their decision prior to the
public meeting, which is in violation of the Brown Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act
I would then ask for an invitation to the council members private
meeting so I could voice my opinions when it would do the most good.

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.

Yeah, I've seen some of that. The Santa Cruz version is to pack the
crowd with supporters. We also have a rather vocal minority that
specializes in wasting everyone's time listening to their act. The
council members tend to be polite, pretend to listen, and do nothing
overt, so as to not give anyone an excuse to complain. What amazes me
is that the same people show up at every meeting to speak on every
conceivable topic as if they were personally affected. I suspect they
just want attention. Not catering to them might explain the lack of
free coffee at council meetings.



--
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 Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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.

One can only speculate on the logic of this. A law as a guide line...
Sort of like Thou Shall Not Kill (as modern Christians have
interpreted the ancient Hebrew words). What does it mean? As reported
in this group run over a bicyclist and get a small fine?

It seems to me that guide line isn't working well.


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.

The point is that establishing a law for the protection of the society
and then enforcing it does provide greater safety for the members of
the society.

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Look at crime rates (Singapore versus U.S.)

Murder rate 0.38 - 5
Rapes rate 2.7 - 28.3
Road Deaths
(per Capita) 3.6 - 10.6


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.
here you recertainly correct that humanity is, in essence,

I'm not sure as I can only remember France converting to "New Francs"
at 100 old fancs equaling 1 new franc. Most countries seem to
devaluate their currency by inflation.

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.


While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

ly, 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.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 11:55:26 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/30/2017 11:11 AM, 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.

VTA has a fare-box recovery of 10%. So for every $2 ride, the county
generously kicks in the extra $18. Of course other transportation is
also subsidized, but not to that extent. The existing light rail system
was NOT designed to move people from where the housing is to where the
jobs are, it was designed to bring people to downtown San Jose, where
the jobs aren't. The part of the system to move people quickly from
where the housing it to where the jobs are was planned, but they forgot
to build it.

What is infuriating is that so much transit infrastructure was removed,
including the rails to Santa Cruz. Map of what we used to have:
https://thegreatermarin.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/railways-of-the-bay-area-1937-final.jpg

Even at that time some rail lines were history: from 1900 - 1910 there was an electric railway from Los Gatos to Saratoga:
http://www.santacruztrains.com/2013/...ion-depot.html

On Mon, 1 May 2017 15:35:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.

That sounds like the ideal way to have a "bike way" ( although
probably unused railroads are not always available :-)

On Mon, 01 May 2017 16:28:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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.

Ah you 'mercans. So modern, so technical.

Over here in this poor little downtrodden and undemocratic country it
is done differently. No single use bike paths, just the public
highway. But these silly Asians included a ruling in their traffic
regulations - "The big Guy is Wrong".

In short the largest vehicle involved in a collision is initially
deemed to be in the wrong and will be burdened with any and all costs
and in the event of death will have to compensate the victim's family,
or, if they wish, be charged with a felony.

If you, the cyclist, were to hit a pedestrian then you will pay. If an
auto hits you on your bike then they pay. If a big truck hits an auto
the big truck pays. And it is "pay everything". The ambulance to the
hospital, any and all hospital costs, any and all rehabilitation
costs, all equipment replacements, everything.

And it does work. Of course it doesn't prevent accidents and we do
have a lot although police reports seem to say that alcohol or
recreational drug use is a major factor, but it does seem to have an
effect on the driver's attitudes. The throwing beer cans and cursing
bicycles that I see reported here have never happened to me, in all
the years I've lived in this country.

I might add that while the larger vehicle is initially deemed wrong
this does not preclude the "big guy" presenting evidence that the
"little guy" was the cause.

On 4/30/2017 9:25 PM, John B Slocomb 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?

Realizing that fuel prices vary, a quick look seems to show that
Oregon state gasoline tax is in the 13% range.


The practical problem with taxing bicycles is that there is no continual
cost to add a tax on to. The purchase price of any new vehicle is only a
one-time charge, and what the legislatures prefer to do is add a tiny
charge onto something that is regularly consumed.

People don't know how much gasoline or cigarette taxes they pay each
year, because they don't pay it all at once. Frogs slowly boiling and
all that...

------

Also we note: I believe OR was the state that said they raised the motor
fuel taxes "to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient, hybrid
vehicles", and then only a couple years later was discussing charging
road tax based on in-car GPS transmitter data, since they found out that
if something like (only) 15% of the state switched to hybrid cars then
the state's road maintenance budget (that they got from gasoline taxes)
would be severely underfunded.
DOH!

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:31:28 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2017 16:28:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

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.

Ah you 'mercans. So modern, so technical.

Over here in this poor little downtrodden and undemocratic country it
is done differently. No single use bike paths, just the public
highway. But these silly Asians included a ruling in their traffic
regulations - "The big Guy is Wrong".

In short the largest vehicle involved in a collision is initially
deemed to be in the wrong and will be burdened with any and all costs
and in the event of death will have to compensate the victim's family,
or, if they wish, be charged with a felony.

If you, the cyclist, were to hit a pedestrian then you will pay. If an
auto hits you on your bike then they pay. If a big truck hits an auto
the big truck pays. And it is "pay everything". The ambulance to the
hospital, any and all hospital costs, any and all rehabilitation
costs, all equipment replacements, everything.

And it does work. Of course it doesn't prevent accidents and we do
have a lot although police reports seem to say that alcohol or
recreational drug use is a major factor, but it does seem to have an
effect on the driver's attitudes. The throwing beer cans and cursing
bicycles that I see reported here have never happened to me, in all
the years I've lived in this country.

I might add that while the larger vehicle is initially deemed wrong
this does not preclude the "big guy" presenting evidence that the
"little guy" was the cause.

Here we have a rule - the big guy is always right.

On 5/1/2017 5:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I've been at various city council and country supervisory meetings
over the years. Each one provides a different level of entertainment
and boredom. Studying the psychology and mannerisms of the various
speakers and officials was worth the wait. Incidentally, the reason
for the wait was that someone had moved several items of contention
into the consent agenda hoping for a quick approval without protest.
So, we had to show up early to make sure they didn't try to sneak
anything through before the GUM arrived. It worked, several times.

I am often amazed at items that have absolutely no business being in the
Consent Calendar being placed into the Consent Calendar in an attempt to
sneak them through without discussion.

What amazes me
is that the same people show up at every meeting to speak on every
conceivable topic as if they were personally affected.

Yes, we have that too. One woman who is pretty well-informed on the
topics she speaks on, and she speaks on every topic, and one who is very
uninformed.

On Tue, 2 May 2017 10:34:55 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 5/1/2017 5:38 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

I've been at various city council and country supervisory meetings
over the years. Each one provides a different level of entertainment
and boredom. Studying the psychology and mannerisms of the various
speakers and officials was worth the wait. Incidentally, the reason
for the wait was that someone had moved several items of contention
into the consent agenda hoping for a quick approval without protest.
So, we had to show up early to make sure they didn't try to sneak
anything through before the GUM arrived. It worked, several times.

I am often amazed at items that have absolutely no business being in the
Consent Calendar being placed into the Consent Calendar in an attempt to
sneak them through without discussion.

We have an added bonus in that the actual agenda gets perpetually
revised and changed right up to the last possible minute. It's almost
impossible to detemine what has been dumped into the consent agenda
until perhaps 30 minutes before the meeting begins. When I protested
and suggested that the agenda should appear well in advance of the
meeting, I was told that it was impossible because of the constant
changes. The Brown act clearly requires 72 hrs notice before a
meeting, but not very clearly defines when the associated agenda
should be posted:
https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/open-meetings-3/facs-brown-act-primer/brown-act-primer-notice-of-a-meeting/
Printed copies at the meeting? I have to use my cell phone camera to
get an accurate copy. Of course the sole posted copy is a 4th
generation Xerox copy of dubious quality.

Also, the "brief description" of an item gets carefully worded so as
not to attract a potentially hostile audience. Several meeting I
attended had items of interest that were not recognizeable in the
printed agenda.

What amazes me
is that the same people show up at every meeting to speak on every
conceivable topic as if they were personally affected.

Yes, we have that too. One woman who is pretty well-informed on the
topics she speaks on, and she speaks on every topic, and one who is very
uninformed.

Cut back on the free coffee and maybe they'll go away?

I tend to attend meetings that anything to do with ham or commercial
radio towers or the ever growing SCZ tower ordinance. For such
ocassions, we can count on a personal appearance by:
1. A compulsive liar who never has any of his facts straight.
2. An emotionally distraught victim of electrosensitivity.
3. The smart meter Greek Chorus complaining of "electro-smog".
4. Various amateur experts on landscape and building aesthetics.
5. A local realtor looking for a reduction in propery tax assessments
due to the alleged devaluation caused by the proposed cell towers.
6. A very well informed lady on the history of SCZ county who wants
to turn back the clock and make it look like the 1950's.
7. Me, usually spouting technobabble that few can understand.

If you're having difficulties sleeping at night, I highly recommend
attending one of our city or county meetings.

--
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 5/2/2017 12:20 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

We have an added bonus in that the actual agenda gets perpetually
revised and changed right up to the last possible minute. It's almost
impossible to detemine what has been dumped into the consent agenda
until perhaps 30 minutes before the meeting begins. When I protested
and suggested that the agenda should appear well in advance of the
meeting, I was told that it was impossible because of the constant
changes. The Brown act clearly requires 72 hrs notice before a
meeting, but not very clearly defines when the associated agenda
should be posted:

I would complain to the FPPC. Those changes are not legal.

https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/open-meetings-3/facs-brown-act-primer/brown-act-primer-notice-of-a-meeting/
Printed copies at the meeting?

We have those.

Also, the "brief description" of an item gets carefully worded so as
not to attract a potentially hostile audience. Several meeting I
attended had items of interest that were not recognizeable in the
printed agenda.

City staff is good at that in many cities.

In my five short months in this job I finally had one major victory. I
told the City Clerk and City Attorney and City Manager that both the
Council and the public needed to know what was actually being voted on.

We had council members making long-winded, rambling motions, that they
kept modifying, and by the time the vote occurred it was unclear what
the exact motion was since it had been changed so many times. I
requested that on all complicated motions that the motion be read back
by the clerk prior to the vote taking place. I expected push-back.
Instead the City Manager told me that this has been a problem for as
long as he can remember.