Eric, Erk. The "special paths" you refer to are all mixed-use paths in Madison, so as soon as pedestrians, dogs, and rollerbladers get a bill, we'll all be even (yes, I'm being snarky). Plus, the paths are Parks Dept. which is separate from Streets Division.
As elite as you keep maintaining that cyclists are as a group, I'd argue that most cyclists are also peds and auto drivers- so we are also part of the majority. Yes, cycling may have some up-front infrastructure costs, but each and every time a person chooses to ride their bike INSTEAD of driving their car somewhere they are doing everyone a big favor- in healthcare costs (both short-term in car wrecks, and long-term in maintaining their own health), road wear costs (maybe minimal, but not nothing), airshed pollution, and emissions & fluids that acidify our rain, enter our watershed, etc. I don't think it's smart to try to make an apples-to-apples comparison when it comes to bike and cars, and it's stupid to try to make cars=<>bikes<>=costs<>=fees but if you want to start playing that game, then ounce for ounce I think bikes are going to kick the cars' butts. It doesn't need to be us vs. them, but it would be nice if people (this includes you and me) knew that every time they drive they are putting a burden on everyone. -india *********************** India Viola UW-Madison Stretton Lab 115 Zoology Research Bldg. 1117 W. Johnson St. Madison, WI 53706 608.262.3336 *********************** "How can we learn from our mistakes if we don't first acknowledge them?" -Anonymous "We exist in the bacterial world, not bacteria in ours" -Stuart Levy ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Westhagen <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Bikies] Bicycle Counts (was Question on bicycle traffic counts) To: "STRAWSER, Charles" <[email protected]>, BikiesSubmissions <[email protected]> > > > Charles, > > > > Now I have heard everything. Basing the road repairs on actual vehicle > weight when talking about bicycles. Weather, expansion-contraction > etc., are the primary determinants on most roads. Certainly if they > are not constructed for the weight, weight limits must be posted like > on blacktop feeder roads. > > > > But I am talking about all the special paths, lanes, snow > removal--etc., which makes Madison different from other cities--such as > mine. (village). Bikes and pedestrians use these exclusively in > greater Madison. Bikes should pay for them or put the entire matter to > a public vote. After all, that is what government and voting is for. > When government acts alone it is to exert the "will of the few on the > many." When a referendum is taken, --the "will of the many on the > few." As for the 44% you claim comes from the likes of property > taxes--well ask the property owners if they will pay for exclusive > infrastructure which excludes automobiles and horses. I have posted > the explanation of your Madison current licensing fee which seems to be > just a collection to support a Madison office of bike > licensing--nothing more. If your bike is stolen and the robber leaves > the plate attached, you might get it returned? > > > > If the bike community really wants respect that they pay their > way?--license for the same fees a cars or something special since I > would expect it would only be for the Madison vicinity where there is > exclusive bike infrastructure. There is no need for a State-wide fee. > You are correct that "out my way" the bike wear and tear is negligible. > > > > Eric > > > > STRAWSER, Charles wrote: > > > > Eric, you are so woefully misinformed about > the money. Let me help paint a clearer picture: > > 1.The City of Madison bicycle registration > fee costs $10/four years, or $2.50/year. My ~3000 lb car’s registration > fee is $75 annually. So, since one purpose of the registration fee is > to pay > for building and maintaining roads, and the weight of the vehicle and > the miles > traveled on the road are some of the biggest determinants of the costs > of > maintenance, then a “comparable” bicycle license fee, based on the > weight of the vehicle, would be roughly 30 lbs/3000 lbs x $75 annually, > or 75 > cents/year. In other words, bikes are ALREADY required to pay more than > three > times a proportionally “comparable” license fee. > > 2. As I have previously posted to this > list, a study commissioned by WisDOT in the 1990s concluded that fuel > taxes and > vehicle registration fees accounted for 56% of the costs of public > roads. 44% > of the cost of roads is paid for with something other than fuel taxes > and > vehicle registration, aka user fees. In Wisconsin this means primarily > property taxes, which everyone pays directly or > indirectly. “Program funding” for motor vehicles is therefore NOT > tied to vehicle registration fees, or even registration fees plus fuel > taxes. > So why should bicycles be held to a different standard? > > Because motor vehicle user fees pay for > 56% of the cost of roads, I suggest we dedicate 56% of the space on > roadways to > the EXCLUSIVE use of motor vehicles – no bikes or pedestrians allowed > on > that 56% of the space. The rest of the space, 44% of the roadway, > should be > divided more or less equally between all road users (yes, including > motor > vehicles would be fair), since everyone pays for that 44% through > property > taxes. > > Until the fact that public roads have to > be subsidized (at approximately the same rate as public transit), any > talk > about bicycles (or pedestrians) not paying their share of the roads is > simply > ignorance of the facts. > > > Chuck > > From: Eric Westhagen > [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 > 12:44 PM > > To: STRAWSER, Charles ; BikiesSubmissions > > Subject: Re: [Bikies] Bicycle > Counts (was Question on bicycle traffic counts) > > > > Dear Group, > > > > For the past week this debate and list of suggestions about bike > counts and direction of spending for bike infrastructure avoids the > real question of payments. I have not commented before on your local > Madison bike issues and advocacy groups have made Madison into > one of the few "biking cities" in the country. Yet there is a > constant theme that "auto drivers" don't like bicyclists? And why > might that be? Certainly most rode some type of bikes as children. > They are pedestrians part of their current lives--so just why? They > feel it is "us or they?" Certainly that is the general opinion > expressed in this listserv--"us or they"--"us or those big bad SUVs." > > > > And all sorts of hockus-pokus can be put forth to show why bikes > deserve all the spending they have gotten in the greater Madison > area. Nevertheless--the bikes are a minority--an elite, if you will. > So, why not have a real money raising license fee? Then bikes can put > their heads up high and declare to autos that they are really on equal > footing in the payments department. Why not an annual fee with fines > for non compliance? There is still no gas tax money--but a comparable > annual bike license fee would go along way toward making a case for > bike infrastructure. > > > > >From the Web at the close of '07 was this:---- "[In Wisconsin, state > law prohibits officials from collecting more in bike registration fees > than it costs to run the registration program, said Arthur Ross, > pedestrian-bike coordinator for the city of Madison. The best-known > pay-off of that city's mandatory registration is also enabling police > to return stolen bikes, Ross said. > > > > "Certainly, I would not want to see program funding tied to bike > registration," Ross added. "We need a whole lot more money than were > ever going to raise through bicycle registration." > > > > In Madison , about 20,000 bikes have valid registrations, said John > Rider, bicycle registration coordinator. The $10 registration lasts > four years. The program helps transportation planners, "get a handle > on how many bicycles we have in the city so we can have some more say > in trying to have bicycle facilities," Rider said. "It gives us a > voice." > > > > It was pressure from cycling advocates that eventually led Minnesota > lawmakers to repeal that state's registration program several years > ago, said Anderson, the bicycle and pedestrian coordinator. ]" > ----------. . . .-------- > > > > Eric > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bikies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
