Jay Rideout
Quote "Some sort of weight/mileage scheme that taxes as a function of miles driven and weight of vehicle (a surrogate for road damage caused) is likely to be the long-term solution for highway funding."
That part is simple... just raise the fuel tax. Big heavy vehicles pay more and fuel efficient vehicles pay less.
and... concerning a bicycle license fees, maybe purchasing a bicycle lane pass would be a better definition of a user fee.
Jay
--- On Wed, 3/11/09, Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team wrote:
> From: Pistis Mountain Bike Racing Team
> Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
> To: andys@fseee.org, "obra@list.obra.org"
> Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 1:59 PM
> My question is, would I have to register all 10 bikes in my
> house hold? My 5 mountain bikes (3 mine and 1 wife and 1
> son) Only one of those even sees the pavement (the one I
> ride to work). The others I drive to the dirt then ride. I
> guess you could say but I drive my car to where I am going
> to ride. But I already pay for that. Who do we need to call
> to make a stink with?
>
> Cliff McCann
> Pistis Ministries
> Pistis.us
> 541-659-4104
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:16:14 -0700
> To: obra@list.obra.org
> From: andys@fseee.org
> Subject: [OBRA Chat] HB 3008 (license bicycles)
>
> Dear Representative Holvey,
>
> Three Republicans (Esquivel, Krieger, and Garrard) and one
> Democrat (Schaufler) have proposed a biannual $54/bicycle
> license fee in HB 3008. Fee revenue, net of collection
> costs, would be deposited in a Bicycle Transportation
> Improvement Fund (BTIF) to finance bicycle lanes. The
> bill's supporters believe that the users of bicycle
> lanes ought to pay the costs. I expect a companion bill
> from these legislators requiring a pedestrian license for
> everyone who walks (toddlers exempted, of course) to pay for
> sidewalks.
>
> There is no question that Oregon faces tough transportation
> funding policy choices. Per capita gas consumption is
> declining modestly as fuel efficiency increases slowly and,
> more significantly, due to the recession/depression. Some
> sort of weight/mileage scheme that taxes as a function of
> miles driven and weight of vehicle (a surrogate for road
> damage caused) is likely to be the long-term solution for
> highway funding. In addition, at the federal and/or state
> level there is likely to be a carbon tax, encouraging
> high-mileage vehicles. Although a carbon tax is good for
> the environment, it is unlikely to be a source of
> transportation infrastructure funding as legislators will
> choose to spend carbon tax money in other ways (i.e., per
> capita rebates, green energy investments).
>
> There are 2.9 million adults in Oregon potentially subject
> to the proposed bicycle license fee (bicycles owned by those
> under 18 would be exempt from licensing under HB 3008).
> Let's assume that half own bicycles (I'll bet
> it's actually higher than that). Annual license revenue
> would be $78 million, but the bill allows for a one-third
> collection cost, netting $52 million annually to the BTIF.
> The existing 1% state highway fund dedicated to
> bicycle/pedestrian transportation has spent an average of
> $11.6 million a year since 1990, and not more than $24
> million in a single year. Thus HB 3008 would more than
> quadruple the existing state revenue spent on bicycle
> infrastructure. Thus, if HB 3008 passes, the legislature
> would likely repeal the 1% fund enacted in 1971, which may
> be precisely what HB 3008's sponsors seek through this
> bill.
>
> HB 3008 is an excellent example of two diametrically
> opposing views on the purpose of taxes. In one camp are
> those who believe that tax policy should be used to change
> behavior, either be rewarding good behavior or by punishing
> bad behavior (e.g., sin taxes). In the other camp are those
> who believe that tax policy should ensure that the
> beneficiaries of government spending pay the freight. (Most
> tax policies do some of each.) The first camp are called
> "liberals." The second camp are called
> "conservatives." By this definition, HB 3008
> falls squarely in the conservative camp -- it is based on
> beneficiary-pays principles and punishes environmentally
> good behavior by making bicycling more expensive. Like all
> sales and license taxes, it is also regressive, taxing
> low-income people at a higher rate than higher-income
> earners.
>
> Unlike motor vehicle registration fees, which serve
> multiple purposes (e.g., government regulation, law
> enforcement, and taxation), HB 3008 seeks only to raise
> revenue. There are no complementary government regulatory
> programs benefitted by bicycle licensing and no law
> enforcment issues at stake, e.g., hit-and-run prosecution
> (the license of bicycles used in the commission of crimes
> would not be visible to witnesses). The question for the
> legislature is whether the bicycling benefits from the
> revenue raised by HB 3008 are worth the negative incentive
> to bicycling from taxation. In other words, does it make
> sense to raise money to build more bicycle infrastructure
> using a taxing method that is likely to decrease bicycle
> participation?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Andy Stahl
> 82787 Jackson-Marlow Road
> Eugene, OR 97405
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows LiveĀ: Life without walls.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_allup_1a_explore_032009_______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org