Is a law requiring drivers to pass bicycle riders by at least three feet a good idea?

Doc O'Leary wrote:

Could that be because bicycles don't have *nearly* the impact on the
surrounding environment that motor vehicles do? Yeah . . . that could
be exactly it.


This isn't about FACTs, it's about principle. Never let the facts get
in the way of principle...

Dan

Doc O'Leary wrote:
In article ,
"CJ" wrote:

Doc O'Leary wrote:

...The problem is not that the laws aren't bicycle-friendly
enough, but that they are too car-friendly.

Could that be because bicycles are not registered, licensed, or taxed
so they and their riders can contribute to the pool of money used for
road construction and maintenance as are cars and trucks. Nah...
couldn't be.

Could that be because bicycles don't have *nearly* the impact on the
surrounding environment that motor vehicles do? Yeah . . . that could
be exactly it.


What is mo this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for
roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't
even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The
general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike
all pay into) pays for streets and highways.

Mike Nelson wrote:
What is mo this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for
roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't
even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The
general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike
all pay into) pays for streets and highways.

Further supporting argument: when economists make any reasonable effort
to calculate the externalities of driving (pollution, road damage,
noise, congestion, uninsured risk), in other words the effective subsidy
of driving amortized over vehicle miles, fees and taxes fail to cover
even that. Externalities of cycling are orders of magnitude lower
(essentially congestion, plus some squashed insects).

But in any case the whole point is irrelevant if one acknowledges access
to the roadways is not in any way proportional to financial
contribution. If this was the case, we'd use local toll roads. On the
only roads where tolls are collected, cyclists are generally prohibited,
anyway.

Dan

"Mike Nelson" wrote in message
. ..


What is mo this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for
roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't
even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The
general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike
all pay into) pays for streets and highways.

I thought the California gasoline fuel taxes, that would be the state excise
tax,
the federal excise tax and the sales tax was the major transportation
funding to repair our
roads and highways. The rest of the distribution of the fuel taxes would go
to transit and the
planning administration.
fwiw,
-tom

I thought the California gasoline fuel taxes, that would be the state
excise tax,
the federal excise tax and the sales tax was the major transportation
funding to repair our
roads and highways. The rest of the distribution of the fuel taxes would
go to transit and the
planning administration.
fwiw,
-tom

The really insane thing is that the state & fed won't add just a nickel a
gallon to the gas tax to pay for badly-needed infrastructure improvements.
Even worse, attempts have been made by legislators to eliminate the gas tax
entirely when the price of a gallon of gas gets above a certain level.
UNBELIEVABLY DUMB!!! And not just because we should be discouraging, not
encouraging, use of gasoline. Dumb also because the final price at the pump,
during times of rapid escalation, has very little to do with cost of
production or taxes, and much more to do with perceived scarcity. Thus
eliminating the tax will most likely not change the final price at the pump,
but rather divert more money to the oil companies, who price the product as
high as the market will bear during such times.

--
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...

"Mike Nelson" wrote in message
. ..


What is mo this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for
roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't
even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The
general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike
all pay into) pays for streets and highways.

I thought the California gasoline fuel taxes, that would be the state
excise tax,
the federal excise tax and the sales tax was the major transportation
funding to repair our
roads and highways. The rest of the distribution of the fuel taxes would
go to transit and the
planning administration.
fwiw,
-tom

"Tom Nakashima" writes:

"Mike Nelson" wrote in message
. ..


What is mo this idea that vehicle taxes and fuel taxes pay for
roads is a gross exaggeration. Vehicle taxes and fuel taxes don't
even _begin_ to pay for the cost of our streets and highways. The
general fund (which pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists alike
all pay into) pays for streets and highways.

I thought the California gasoline fuel taxes, that would be the
state excise tax, the federal excise tax and the sales tax was the
major transportation funding to repair our roads and highways. The
rest of the distribution of the fuel taxes would go to transit and
the planning administration. fwiw, -tom

A while ago I posted a link to a page giving the Palo Alto budget
(in an easily digested form, although several years old):
http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/budget/pdf/budgetprimer.pdf.

Cities pay for most of the roads and maintenance for the roads within
each city's boundaries. Some roads, however, are owned by the county
or state, and those are funded by the jurisdiction that owns them. The
breakdown for funding for freeways and expressways is not the same as
for local streets, many of which carry very little traffic.

Most of the mileage put in on bicycles is on local streets, and paid
for out of property taxes. Some bicycle-specific projects may be
funded out of other sources, although cities typically compete for
such funding. An example of one such project is a bike/ped bridge
connecting Alma Street in Palo Alto to Alma Street in Menlo Park,
crossing a creek. The alternative would be to either take El Camino (6
lanes, the outside one kind of narrow, with a fair number of stop
lights) or following a significantly longer and circuitous route.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Bill Z. wrote:
Most of the mileage put in on bicycles is on local streets, and paid
for out of property taxes. Some bicycle-specific projects may be
funded out of other sources, although cities typically compete for
such funding. An example of one such project is a bike/ped bridge
connecting Alma Street in Palo Alto to Alma Street in Menlo Park,
crossing a creek. The alternative would be to either take El Camino (6
lanes, the outside one kind of narrow, with a fair number of stop
lights) or following a significantly longer and circuitous route.

The bike-ped bridge, a pricey piece of infrastructure @ $5M, is not bike
specific -- it's combination bicycle-pedestrian. With the need for ADA
compliance for pedestrian access, the marginal investment in providing
bike access seems a relatively small fraction of the total.

Pedestrians don't pay registration fees or gas taxes, either. Maybe
they shouldn't be allowed on the roads....

Dan

Dan Connelly writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
Most of the mileage put in on bicycles is on local streets, and paid
for out of property taxes. Some bicycle-specific projects may be
funded out of other sources, although cities typically compete for
such funding. An example of one such project is a bike/ped bridge
connecting Alma Street in Palo Alto to Alma Street in Menlo Park,
crossing a creek. The alternative would be to either take El Camino (6
lanes, the outside one kind of narrow, with a fair number of stop
lights) or following a significantly longer and circuitous route.

The bike-ped bridge, a pricey piece of infrastructure @ $5M, is not
bike specific -- it's combination bicycle-pedestrian. With the need
for ADA compliance for pedestrian access, the marginal investment in
providing bike access seems a relatively small fraction of the total.

Sigh. Read what I said it is: a bike/ped bridge. I might add that it
is mostly used by bicyclists due to the distance from the bridge to
most points that people might want to go to. Pedestrian traffic for
the most part probably consists of people living in a few apartments
on the Menlo Park side going to downtown Palo Alto or the Palo Alto
train station.

ADA compliance was not expensive: two ramp cuts at both ends (which
bikes would need anyway) and no grade issues because the area is
nearly flat. The minimal width for a bike facility is wider than the
minimum width for an ADA-compliant facility as well.

Pedestrians don't pay registration fees or gas taxes, either. Maybe
they shouldn't be allowed on the roads....

They pay property and sales taxes - the same things bicyclists pay -
and those taxes cover the sidewalks as well as local streets. Paying
for local streets out of property taxes is not surprising, as these
carry little traffic and mostly provide access to residences. The
gas taxes tend to pay for roads that carry lots of traffic (e.g.,
a freeway).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:46:56 GMT in rec.bicycles.soc, Dan
Connelly wrote:

Further supporting argument: when economists make any reasonable effort
to calculate the externalities of driving (pollution, road damage,
noise, congestion, uninsured risk), in other words the effective subsidy
of driving amortized over vehicle miles, fees and taxes fail to cover
even that. Externalities of cycling are orders of magnitude lower
(essentially congestion, plus some squashed insects).

plus, parking cars wastes a tremendous amount of high priced,
valuable land that could be used much more productively for other
purposes. in my small town with more folks in the suburbs than
downtown, almost have of the surface of our downtown core is used
to park cars (more if you count the buildings with parking
underneath). and it's empty for all but 8 hours per day.