Making "protected" bike lanes safe

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Note that the chart is including all highway costs, not just the
construction costs I mentioned. But the percentage paid by those taxes
and fees goes as low as 2% in Alaska. The article claims the national
average is 24%. (There may be other estimates from other sources, but
these are the sorts of things I've read in the past.)

Let's recall that this tempest-in-a-teapot initiated when John said "We
had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free?" The implication was that cyclists are not paying their way - that
they are somehow a burden on other taxpayers. It's flat wrong in more
than one way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you really have to go to state and local budget documents. I wouldn't put much faith in a fifty-state chart. Ohio looks like it is particularly tied to gas taxes for road building and maintenance. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/2012/Ohio%E2%80%99s-$1-6-Billion-Highway-Budget-Shortfall-Where-do-We-Go-from-Here.aspx

Here is an overview from Michigan: https://www.mackinac.org/25863

Cities and counties get allocated shares of state road funds and are then allocated the burden of taking care of city and county roads. Portland is filling budget holes and potholes with a $.10 gallon local gas tax. Yet another tax, along with the arts tax, TriMet tax and all the other business taxes for Portland businesses. This is why you really have to look at the road to figure out who is taking care of it and with what money.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 4/14/2019 4:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Note that the chart is including all highway costs, not just the
construction costs I mentioned. But the percentage paid by those taxes
and fees goes as low as 2% in Alaska. The article claims the national
average is 24%. (There may be other estimates from other sources, but
these are the sorts of things I've read in the past.)

Let's recall that this tempest-in-a-teapot initiated when John said "We
had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free?" The implication was that cyclists are not paying their way - that
they are somehow a burden on other taxpayers. It's flat wrong in more
than one way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you really have to go to state and local budget documents. I wouldn't put much faith in a fifty-state chart. Ohio looks like it is particularly tied to gas taxes for road building and maintenance. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/2012/Ohio%E2%80%99s-$1-6-Billion-Highway-Budget-Shortfall-Where-do-We-Go-from-Here.aspx

Here is an overview from Michigan: https://www.mackinac.org/25863

Cities and counties get allocated shares of state road funds and are then allocated the burden of taking care of city and county roads. Portland is filling budget holes and potholes with a $.10 gallon local gas tax. Yet another tax, along with the arts tax, TriMet tax and all the other business taxes for Portland businesses. This is why you really have to look at the road to figure out who is taking care of it and with what money.

-- Jay Beattie.


In particular, the constant carping about the idiot governor
(no matter who, of whatever ideology or party) as regards
cyclists and potholes completely ignores subsidiarity.

You can see dramatic changes around here on the same road
from one township to another both in pavement/striping as
well as snow removal. Some do well, some not so much with
comparable tax bases, traffic, weather etc.

And in the public's eye mayors, who are directly responsible
for city streets, often get a pass. Most USAians blame the
State administration because of the gas tax, ignoring all
the other various revenues, revenue sharing, waste, graft,
mandates and so on.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 4/14/2019 5:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/14/2019 4:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Note that the chart is including all highway costs, not just the
construction costs I mentioned. But the percentage paid by those taxes
and fees goes as low as 2% in Alaska. The article claims the national
average is 24%. (There may be other estimates from other sources, but
these are the sorts of things I've read in the past.)

Let's recall that this tempest-in-a-teapot initiated when John said "We
had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free?" The implication was that cyclists are not paying their way - that
they are somehow a burden on other taxpayers. It's flat wrong in more
than one way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you really have to go to state
and local budget documents.Â* I wouldn't put much faith in a
fifty-state chart.Â* Ohio looks like it is particularly tied to gas
taxes for road building and maintenance.
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/2012/Ohio%E2%80%99s-$1-6-Billion-Highway-Budget-Shortfall-Where-do-We-Go-from-Here.aspx


Here is an overview from Michigan: https://www.mackinac.org/25863

Cities and counties get allocated shares of state road funds and are
then allocated the burden of taking care of city and county roads.
Portland is filling budget holes and potholes with a $.10 gallon local
gas tax.Â* Yet another tax, along with the arts tax, TriMet tax and all
the other business taxes for Portland businesses. This is why you
really have to look at the road to figure out who is taking care of it
and with what money.

-- Jay Beattie.


In particular, the constant carping about the idiot governor (no matter
who, of whatever ideology or party) as regards cyclists and potholes
completely ignores subsidiarity.

You can see dramatic changes around here on the same road from one
township to another both in pavement/striping as well as snow removal.
Some do well, some not so much with comparable tax bases, traffic,
weather etc mandates and so on.
Yes, it's complicated.

Our county engineer has pointed out that road maintenance funds coming
from the state are given equally to each of the 88 counties. But the
county road mileage varies greatly from county to county. Ours has more
than most, perhaps because it was among the earliest settled. There
simply isn't enough money to maintain each mile of county road as well
as in some other counties.

It would make practical sense, I suppose, to divide total funds by the
number of miles of road instead by the number of counties, but it's a
political impossibility. There are more counties that would lose money
by that scheme than would gain. The votes will never go in favor of it.
--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/14/2019 2:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

You can see dramatic changes around here on the same road from one
township to another both in pavement/striping as well as snow removal.
Some do well, some not so much with comparable tax bases, traffic,
weather etc.

The PCI (Pavement Condition Index) varies wildly between cities and you
especially notice it when you cross into another city on the same road.
In my city we spend a lot of money keeping our streets well paved and we
have a PCI over 80 while a neighboring city is in the 60's. But the tax
base is different and the demographics are different.

And in the public's eye mayors, who are directly responsible for city
streets, often get a pass. Most USAians blame the State administration
because of the gas tax, ignoring all the other various revenues, revenue
sharing, waste, graft, mandates and so on.

As mayor, no resident has ever complained to me about the condition of
our city streets. In "strong mayor" cities it is the mayor responsible
though in "strong city manager" cities it's more the city manager that
is responsible, with the city council providing the necessary funding.

As Jay and I showed, taxes directly related to motor vehicles do pay a
very high percentage of road expenses at the state level. Some of those
taxes go to bicycle infrastructure and mass transit, and there are often
objections by drivers as to why should they be paying for these other
expenses. I know that there is this narrative out there that general tax
money pays for most of the expenses of roads, but in most cases it's untrue.

On Sun, 14 Apr 2019 07:53:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

Most budgets and revenue sources are available on line from state DOTs.
-- Jay Beattie.

Here's the California and Santa Cruz County situation:
https://sccrtc.org/funding-planning/funding-overview/
https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/18b-FundingOverview-ChartMarch2017.pdf
https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/18a-FundingOverviewSCR.pdf

In 2016, the county passed Measure D, which provides a 30 year 0.5%
sales tax (about $17 million/year) to fund local streets and roads.
https://sccrtc.org/funding-planning/measured/
https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Cruz_County,_California,_Transportation_Sale s_Tax_Measure,_Measure_D_(November_2016)
Prior to its passage, county road maintenance had effectively stopped.
It's much better now. Most of the bicycling related road improvements
in the county come from this tax and from SB1 (Senate Bill 1) which
provides about $9 million/year to the county for road maintenance and
another $3 million/year for public transit. As intent is often the
first casualty during implementation, the authorities have seen fit to
use the money mostly for capital improvements and new infrastructure,
and not much for repairs:
https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/MeasureD-ProjectUpdates-Spring2019.pdf

There are bicycle related projects in the plans:
https://sccrtc.org/projects/bike/
https://sccrtc.org/funding-planning/approved-projects/

2018 approved projects list:
https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ExhibitA-2018RTIP-approved.pdf
(Search the document for the word "bicycle").




--
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, 14 Apr 2019 13:21:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/14/2019 10:53 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 5:49:56 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, April 13, 2019 at 9:36:08 AM UTC-5, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 10:44:36 PM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 20:04:00 -0700 (PDT), "

Frank said MOST road construction is not funded by the gas tax. A very simple search on Google easily confirms this. I found only about 30% of road construction is paid by federal and state gas taxes combined.

The question is "what percentage of roads are funded by non-vehicle
related taxes and fees?"

See https://taxfoundation.org/state-road-funding-2017/. So in
California, 38.2% of road spending is paid for by taxes unrelated to the
vehicle, i.e. income taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.


In California and nationally, the vast majority of road construction costs ARE paid by federal, state and local gas tax, registration, weight-mile tax and similar vehicle-related taxes.
-- Jay Beattie.

To say I am skeptical of what Jay wrote is an understatement. I stand by my assertion that a majority of road funding is paid from other sources. Such as general income taxes. Not gas or motor vehicle related fees. I did a simple Google search and found the following.

Federal fuel taxes raised $36.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2016
State fuel taxes raise money too. On average state fuel tax is 31 cents per gallon. Federal is 18.4 cents per gallon. So all states raise $61.3 billion from fuel taxes. Total federal and state is $97.7 billion. Lets round that to $100.
California's 2019 budget is $190 billion and 7.5% goes to Transportation. Or $14.25 billion. Transportation might include trains and airplanes too. And all the administrative costs too. But I bet a vast majority of all the Transportation department's costs are spent on roads one way or another. Lets say $10 billion.

Now I said 30% of roads were paid by the fuel tax and 70% from other sources, such as income taxes. Jay said a VAST majority of road costs were paid by the fuel tax and other vehicle costs/taxes. I think VAST is at least 75%. About the opposite of what I said. So lets split the difference and say 50%.

I am excluding all the "other" costs Jay mentioned. No one has given an accurate or even inaccurate estimate of what all these "other" costs amount to. Or even what these "other" costs are. Are boat registration fees part of this "other"? Toll road fees? Parking tickets fines collected by the cops? Speeding tickets? How much are car registration fees in each state compared to their fuel tax costs?

So we have California with $10 billion road costs. And total all USA federal and state fuel taxes of $100 billion. So to pay for ALL of California's road costs it takes 10% of ALL federal and state fuel costs. To pay for only Half California it takes 5%. There are 50 states. California is 2% of this total. Does California get 5% of all federal fuel taxes to only pay for half its costs? I don't know how federal fuel taxes are allocated to all the 50 states. Population, miles of road, political favor? But I doubt California gets 5% of all federal fuel taxes to pay for only Half of its road transportation costs.

Based on these numbers, I'd say my statement that road costs are paid from other sources besides fuel and/or any transportation costs is far closer to the truth than Jay's claim that the VAST majority of California (and all states) road costs are paid from fuel and other transportation costs.

Oregon example: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/About/Pa...n-Funding.aspx

Roadway funding and transportation funding use a different mix of revenue sources. https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Planning...ng-Sources.pdf And to slice the pie even finer, different roads use a different mix -- state, county, local, etc. The oldest paved downtown streets in Portland were paved by the adjacent business owners, like an early LID. The road to my house was built by a developer in the 1940s. I know his family -- they're trying to mow-down the forest nextdoor. http://www.livablepdx.com/ (my neighbors -- my wife and I missed the picture).

Outside of urban renewal districts, private development and other specially designated areas, roads are funded with mostly vehicle-related taxes and charges. Here are some Oregon pie charts:
https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/ci...sportation.pdf California is pretty similar, although it has a lot more diversity in terms of programs and funding.

First, I said most road construction is not funded by the gas tax. John
challenged that by saying the "gas tax does go to support highways." A
clever inversion, but not a rebuttal of my statement.

I'm not sure that is exactly right as working from memory now ( a
rather shaky scheme at my age) I thought I was pointing out that gas
tax was used in support of roads, if not for the actual construction.

The discussion since then has broadened to include other (motor vehicle)
user fees. Jay is saying "mostly vehicle related taxes and charges." But
I talked specifically about gas tax.

And while I'm not a tax attorney (as I just proved while working on my
IRS forms), it seems the percentage of road construction covered by gas
tax varies considerably from state to state, and doubtlessly from road
to road within a state. Here's one source:
https://taxfoundation.org/statelocal...-separated-out

Note that the chart is including all highway costs, not just the
construction costs I mentioned. But the percentage paid by those taxes
and fees goes as low as 2% in Alaska. The article claims the national
average is 24%. (There may be other estimates from other sources, but
these are the sorts of things I've read in the past.)

Let's recall that this tempest-in-a-teapot initiated when John said "We
had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free?" The implication was that cyclists are not paying their way - that
they are somehow a burden on other taxpayers. It's flat wrong in more
than one way.

O.K. perhaps I was a bit injudicious in the use of words but
certainly, as in this post (above), as soon as "as tax" and "roads"
are mentioned together a number of folk leap into the fray, as it
were, to prove that the gas tax isn't used to build roads, or that
road costs also come from other sources as well as the gas tax, or,
or, or.

All of which seems to me to be just additional proof that bicycle
advocates will argue vehemently again any thought that all uses of
the public highways and byways should pay for it, or perhaps, more to
the point, that bicycles being somehow "God's Chosen Few" deserving to
ride free of all costs, ignoring all rules (my friend is the sheriff)
or even consideration of their own safety.

--
cheers,

John B.

On 4/15/2019 9:20 AM, John B. wrote:

O.K. perhaps I was a bit injudicious in the use of words but
certainly, as in this post (above), as soon as "as tax" and "roads"
are mentioned together a number of folk leap into the fray, as it
were, to prove that the gas tax isn't used to build roads, or that
road costs also come from other sources as well as the gas tax, or,
or, or.

All of which seems to me to be just additional proof that bicycle
advocates will argue vehemently again any thought that all uses of
the public highways and byways should pay for it, or perhaps, more to
the point, that bicycles being somehow "God's Chosen Few" deserving to
ride free of all costs, ignoring all rules (my friend is the sheriff)
or even consideration of their own safety.

You're just not getting it, John.

First, the reason bicyclists dispute the tax issue is that they've heard
or read many, many times "You have no right to the road. You don't pay
gas tax." But even if a bicyclist never drove a car, their contributions
to other taxes would more than cover the amount of public expense they
generate while bicycling.

Second, I'm certainly not arguing against people paying for use of
public highways. I pay my taxes faithfully, including those that go
toward building and maintaining roads.

Third, bike registration and bike licensing schemes have been tried many
times. They've all been abandoned. They just don't work, because they
cost far more than they are worth. They're no more sensible than
licensing shoes.

Now if you want to propose some road funding scheme other than the
current ones, let's hear it. But I suggest the most rational would be to
compute the costs each user imposes, and charge proportionally.

By that scheme, I might have to pay as much as a penny per year for the
road damage I do on my bicycle.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 4/15/2019 6:20 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

All of which seems to me to be just additional proof that bicycle
advocates will argue vehemently again any thought that all uses of
the public highways and byways should pay for it, or perhaps, more to
the point, that bicycles being somehow "God's Chosen Few" deserving to
ride free of all costs, ignoring all rules (my friend is the sheriff)
or even consideration of their own safety.

The argument I would make is that most cyclists are also drivers. They
are paying the taxes necessary for roadways and when they use a bicycle
they are providing a benefit by reducing road deterioration.

For those that aren't also drivers, they get a free ride but it's not
worth trying to find a way to tax them. What would you do, an extra tax
on bicycle tires or energy bars? I guess you could do what Oregon did,
but that's rather petty, and I question the $200 minimum for the $15 tax
to kick in. I think that it should be $125 which would exclude the BSOs
from Walmart, but would include the decent bicycles that could
legitimately be used for commuting, sold at places like Costco.

On Monday, April 15, 2019 at 10:24:12 AM UTC-7, sms wrote:
On 4/15/2019 6:20 AM, John B. wrote:

snip

All of which seems to me to be just additional proof that bicycle
advocates will argue vehemently again any thought that all uses of
the public highways and byways should pay for it, or perhaps, more to
the point, that bicycles being somehow "God's Chosen Few" deserving to
ride free of all costs, ignoring all rules (my friend is the sheriff)
or even consideration of their own safety.

The argument I would make is that most cyclists are also drivers. They
are paying the taxes necessary for roadways and when they use a bicycle
they are providing a benefit by reducing road deterioration.

For those that aren't also drivers, they get a free ride but it's not
worth trying to find a way to tax them. What would you do, an extra tax
on bicycle tires or energy bars? I guess you could do what Oregon did,
but that's rather petty, and I question the $200 minimum for the $15 tax
to kick in. I think that it should be $125 which would exclude the BSOs
from Walmart, but would include the decent bicycles that could
legitimately be used for commuting, sold at places like Costco.

Moreover, roads are not pay-to-play, except toll roads. You get whatever right to the road the legislature gives you -- whether you drive a car or ride a bike. The funding source is really irrelevant, except in the minds of those who claim entitlement.

If public benefits were really pay-to-play, the coal rolling dead-weights would get sticker shock from the cost of sending their mullet-head kids to school, fetching them out of the river every year, paying for their sidewalks, etc., etc. They should thank me and say "please ride your bike and stay healthy so you can subsidize me and my family with your staggering property and income tax payments. May I change your flat?"

-- Jay Beattie.

On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/14/2019 4:35 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, April 14, 2019 at 10:21:57 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

snip

Note that the chart is including all highway costs, not just the
construction costs I mentioned. But the percentage paid by those taxes
and fees goes as low as 2% in Alaska. The article claims the national
average is 24%. (There may be other estimates from other sources, but
these are the sorts of things I've read in the past.)

Let's recall that this tempest-in-a-teapot initiated when John said "We
had a discussion fairly recently about bicycles paying road tax
and the group was solidly against it - buy a bike and use the roads
free?" The implication was that cyclists are not paying their way - that
they are somehow a burden on other taxpayers. It's flat wrong in more
than one way.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you really have to go to state and local budget documents. I wouldn't put much faith in a fifty-state chart. Ohio looks like it is particularly tied to gas taxes for road building and maintenance. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/news/Pages/2012/Ohio%E2%80%99s-$1-6-Billion-Highway-Budget-Shortfall-Where-do-We-Go-from-Here.aspx

Here is an overview from Michigan: https://www.mackinac.org/25863

Cities and counties get allocated shares of state road funds and are then allocated the burden of taking care of city and county roads. Portland is filling budget holes and potholes with a $.10 gallon local gas tax. Yet another tax, along with the arts tax, TriMet tax and all the other business taxes for Portland businesses. This is why you really have to look at the road to figure out who is taking care of it and with what money.

-- Jay Beattie.


In particular, the constant carping about the idiot governor
(no matter who, of whatever ideology or party) as regards
cyclists and potholes completely ignores subsidiarity.

You can see dramatic changes around here on the same road
from one township to another both in pavement/striping as
well as snow removal. Some do well, some not so much with
comparable tax bases, traffic, weather etc.

And in the public's eye mayors, who are directly responsible
for city streets, often get a pass. Most USAians blame the
State administration because of the gas tax, ignoring all
the other various revenues, revenue sharing, waste, graft,
mandates and so on.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andrew, I think that we're all aware that cities are responsible for their own roads. But long rides are mostly on county and state property. Here in California ALL of the roads are getting longitudinal cracks and if they open wide enough they can trap a tire. I caught my tire in one come down the steep side of Mt. Diablo but managed to ride it out of the end. As it turns out, the physical therapist I was sent to was riding on the same spot with a friend who fell and broke his neck and is now a quadriplegic. I was riding on another road in Pleasanton and got my tire trapped in another of those and was falling over in slow motion when I ran off the end of the crack and regained control.

Whether the park district fixed the one on Diablo remains a question but I reported the one in Pleasanton to the streets department and they patched that so well I can't even find where it was.

Pleasanton is an upper class area whereas Mt. Diablo is state park and the state fixes nothing until they are sued.