One of the common complaints of anti-cyclist motorists is that we don't pay for the roads we use, we don't pay for road maintenance, and we don't have to pay for liability insurance. As is so often the case with emotional arguments, facts are conveniently shuffled to the side.
Local roads are built and maintained with revenues generated from property taxes, not gasoline taxes. Gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees are used to build highways. While rural cyclists often use highways built with auto tax dollars, the vast majority of them own cars and pay the taxes, while the very few that don't create no wear on the roadway, and their purchases of goods that were transported on highways have the tax built into the cost, so they pay indirectly. But this is primarily an issue regarding urban/suburban cyclists.
Bicyclists who use the roads as vehicles create no special needs. The simple engineering accommodations that aid cyclists benefit all users. That's one of the attractions of an integrated cycling system. It's highly cost effective.
As for liability insurance, automobile drivers are required to carry coverage because of the expensive damage a motor vehicle can (and do) cause to people and property. While an out-of-control bicycle can cause severe injury, it can never approach the damage potential of a 4,000 lb. vehicle.
Bicyclists (and anti-bicyclist motorists) who support segregated facilities demand expensive construction and maintenance programs that benefit only one small user class (although I'd argue that the benefit is illusory). Multi-purpose trails are now costing almost $2 million a mile to build (exclusive of any right of way costs). Segregating trail users completely from the road results in the $8+ million pedestrian bridge over Mockingbird Lane for the Katy Trail, or the planned $15+ million bridge connecting the Katy Trail to the Trinity Strand Trail... both "needed" to avoid having trail users stop at a signalized street crossing. Urban cycle-tracks can be even more expensive, as utility and storm-water facilities have to be relocated (the salespeople pushing these designs never mention the expensive associated costs in their estimates, but only a best-case simple paving cost).
Bike lanes have an initial cost of $40,000 per mile of roadway for paint and markings, followed by $5,000 a mile annual maintenance costs above and beyond the normal maintenance costs of the roadway (unless you don't mind them filled with broken glass and trash).
As cities look for alternative funding sources for these segregated facilities, they often look to the cyclists themselves for user fees. Almost every municipality investigates Bicycle License Fees (bicycle tax) as a way to pay for the segregated facilities. To my knowledge, no one has ever implemented one, as the cost is unbearable. Dallas looked into it in the early '90s, and we were seeing estimates of $25 per bicycle just to cover the administrative costs of a registration system, meaning that a fee approaching $50 per bicycle would be necessary to cover overhead costs and generate enough income to make a significant contribution to the City's budget. Bicycle registration wouldn't apply to out of town cyclists who flock to Dallas to use our trails, and it's a regressive tax that hits the poor especially hard. And yet, it's always proposed (I hear rumors that Dallas is again investigating bicycle registration fees to cover the costs of segregated facilities).
The bottom line is which approach is the most cost-effective: an integrated, comprehensive, on-street cycling network that removes barriers, or an expensive, segregated system that limits rather than empowers?
Me? I prefer a judicious mixture of utilizing trail opportunities where available, a comprehensive on-street system (like we have now, only improved) that can convey cyclists anywhere they need to go, and an educational/promotional element designed educate cyclists and motorists alike.
0 comments:
Post a Comment