8 ms·

>>>> I hate that it's being used as an argument against cyclists: "get off the road, you don't pay road tax". This of course also ignores that most adult cyclis

>>>> I hate that it's being used as an argument against cyclists: "get off the road, you don't pay road tax". This of course also ignores that most adult cyclists also own a car. Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Income taxes cover a fair amount of road construction. The county bike paths have a fee. We're not allowed to ride on the Interstates, and we tend to avoid "big" roads for safety / comfort reasons. My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
>My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking. Which is itself a net subsidy for all sorts of other economic activity. It's subsidies all the way down.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Indeed - if heavy trucking is subsidised then eventually the prices you're paying for something are lower.
wil421 4y ago
> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Not true for a lot of states. Property tax is not used for roads. Georgia pays for roads using gas taxes and road use fees like registration (tolls contribute a very small amount). Florida is similar but they are much more toll heavy. Alabama is similar as too. All 3 states are in the top 10 roads in America[1]. I believe Georgia plans to charge higher registration fees for EVs at some point. [1] https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-conditions.html https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-condition...
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  EV fees are already much higher than the state gas tax they replace in many places, especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. The idea EVs get a free pass is a myth.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    > especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. I don't understand, do you pay an extra tax on the battery? Sales & property tax on a $60k car should always be the same, regardless of powertrain.
    - xur17 4y ago
      I'm guessing the argument is that EV's cost more upfront (since they include a battery, etc), but have a lower cost of use. Since you get charged sales tax on the upfront cost, EV's get charged sales tax on a larger percentage of the overall "ownership cost" of the car.
      - Robotbeat 4y ago
        Exactly. With gas cars, you pay for gasoline over time. With electric cars, you pay about 50/50 upfront on battery & over time on electricity. EV owners are being punished for paying for part of the “fuel” costs upfront. For whatever reason, capital costs for consumers are penalized with taxes more than incremental operating costs.
        bobthepanda 4y ago
        I mean, we don’t charge lower gas taxes to luxury cars because they pay more upfront, so I don’t know why this is now an expectation for EVs. And we’ve never had flat taxes for sales; gas is actually the only exception in the US I’m aware of, but that’s probably because of the price volatility of gas making a percentage tax hard to budget for.
unglaublich 4y ago
Some motorists seem to forget that cyclists don't need a 30m wide, 40cm thick, heavily reinforced highway with stabilized foundation that has to be revised every year to account for the damage caused by heavy vehicles. The costs of a cycling path that support the same flow of people is negligible compared to that of a corresponding highway.
- makomk 4y ago
  The thick, heavily reinforced roads with stabilized foundations generally have much nicer surfaces to cycle on than narrow cycle paths though, at least around here. Probably because a lot of the deterioration is caused by weather rather than traffic and the cost reduction is mostly through having lower standards and accepting more deterioration.
  - ehnto 4y ago
    I'd take a rough separated cycle path over a shared car road any day.
    - timellis-smith 4y ago
      Depending on what type of bike you have. On a mountain bike, anyday. On a road bike with paper thin tyres that easily puncture, maybe not so much.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        Usually the concern is getting hit by car traffic. At least in the US, drivers don’t drive well around cyclists, and sometimes that’s intentional to boot. Better to not share the road with people who are actively trying to hurt you with a metal object weighing several thousand pounds.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Road bikes aren't really designed for being in traffic in the first place so that places some of the downsides of that on the user. I've used one for many years, so don't get me wrong, I love riding one but it is abundantly clear to me that when my bike tires fits into the slots of a drain that that is my problem and not the problem of whoever designs and maintains the road. In many places a road bike isn't actually street legal (no bell, no fenders, no lights, of course you could add those).
innocentoldguy 4y ago
> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. This isn’t true where I live. Taxes on gasoline purchases pay for the roads.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Gas taxes are a small portion of road costs, and are only for state roads. Cities generally don't receive road subsidies from the state. Cyclists drive on city roads, and city roads are generally paid for with property taxes or local sales taxes (if your city has them). And cyclists cause zero damage to roads, unlike cars or trucks Really, cyclists are getting shafted because they have to pay for so many roads they can't use.
  - innocentoldguy 4y ago
    I'm pretty sure I know more about my area than you do and we do NOT use property taxes to pay for roads here. Property Taxes are used for things like: * The general fund. * Grants. * Costs associated with assessing and collecting taxes. * Justice Courts. * Education. Not maintaining local roads.
    - frosted-flakes 4y ago
      Then your city is the exception to the rule and can be dismissed as an outlier.
      - innocentoldguy 4y ago
        Ah, I see. I’m wrong, unless I’m correct, in which case I’m irrelevant.
        frosted-flakes 4y ago
        Now you got it.
dotancohen 4y ago
> My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking. Road wear grows at the 4th power of vehicular weight, assuming similar tire pressures. An F-150 that weighs one and a half times what your Mazda 3 weighs, does 5 times the road wear. Would you like to calculate how much those tomatoes would cost, if everybody were paying their fair share of road wear?
- Flockster 4y ago
  That sounds interesting, do you have some more infos about this, how the 4th power comes about? I don't have any intuition why it would be that "high". Or some keywords to lead my google searches ;)
  - brianwawok 4y ago
    Start here https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      Study is here https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf But raw data is hard to find
- jeroenhd 4y ago
  Based on [1] this first result on Google, a truck can carry about 300,000 tomatoes. I don't think those tomatoes are going to add up very soon. A loaded truck of about 80,000 pounds (11.5 times the weight) would have 17490 times the road impact compared to the same trip driven back home. Distributed over 300,000 tomatoes, the cost wouldn't be all that much. Despite inefficient engines and truck construction, bulk transport is actually very efficient. Generally speaking: the bigger the trailer, the better, even with the weight increase. Even better would be using this as an incentive to expand and improve the quality of the much more efficient rail network (or transport over waterways, where available) to improve the entire supply chain. That would require the government to act in the interest of its people, though, so I don't think we'll see the effects of such a programme too soon if it ever makes it. Every tax-paying citizen is already paying this heavy price! Only instead of the damage inefficient transport causes to our infrastructure being reflected in our everyday expenses, it's hidden from plain sight in taxes. The only industry I'd expect to see killed by paying for road damage would be package delivery vans. They're driving long distances with comparatively almost no weight at all for the convenience of not needing to go to a centralized store to pick up your stuff. With the way Amazon and friends have their drivers pee in bottles, I don't see why we should subsidize those vans. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434...

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

>My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking. Which is itself a net subsidy for all sorts of other economic activity. It's subsidies all the way down.

robertlagrant 4y ago
Indeed - if heavy trucking is subsidised then eventually the prices you're paying for something are lower.

wil421 4y ago

> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. For instance most local roads in cities and counties are paid for with property taxes. Not true for a lot of states. Property tax is not used for roads. Georgia pays for roads using gas taxes and road use fees like registration (tolls contribute a very small amount). Florida is similar but they are much more toll heavy. Alabama is similar as too. All 3 states are in the top 10 roads in America[1]. I believe Georgia plans to charge higher registration fees for EVs at some point. [1] https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-conditions.html https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/us-road-condition...

Robotbeat 4y ago
EV fees are already much higher than the state gas tax they replace in many places, especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. The idea EVs get a free pass is a myth.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  > especially considering the extra sales tax on the battery, tax on electricity, and even personal property tax on the battery. I don't understand, do you pay an extra tax on the battery? Sales & property tax on a $60k car should always be the same, regardless of powertrain.
  - xur17 4y ago
    I'm guessing the argument is that EV's cost more upfront (since they include a battery, etc), but have a lower cost of use. Since you get charged sales tax on the upfront cost, EV's get charged sales tax on a larger percentage of the overall "ownership cost" of the car.
    - Robotbeat 4y ago
      Exactly. With gas cars, you pay for gasoline over time. With electric cars, you pay about 50/50 upfront on battery & over time on electricity. EV owners are being punished for paying for part of the “fuel” costs upfront. For whatever reason, capital costs for consumers are penalized with taxes more than incremental operating costs.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        I mean, we don’t charge lower gas taxes to luxury cars because they pay more upfront, so I don’t know why this is now an expectation for EVs. And we’ve never had flat taxes for sales; gas is actually the only exception in the US I’m aware of, but that’s probably because of the price volatility of gas making a percentage tax hard to budget for.

unglaublich 4y ago

Some motorists seem to forget that cyclists don't need a 30m wide, 40cm thick, heavily reinforced highway with stabilized foundation that has to be revised every year to account for the damage caused by heavy vehicles. The costs of a cycling path that support the same flow of people is negligible compared to that of a corresponding highway.

makomk 4y ago
The thick, heavily reinforced roads with stabilized foundations generally have much nicer surfaces to cycle on than narrow cycle paths though, at least around here. Probably because a lot of the deterioration is caused by weather rather than traffic and the cost reduction is mostly through having lower standards and accepting more deterioration.
- ehnto 4y ago
  I'd take a rough separated cycle path over a shared car road any day.
  - timellis-smith 4y ago
    Depending on what type of bike you have. On a mountain bike, anyday. On a road bike with paper thin tyres that easily puncture, maybe not so much.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Usually the concern is getting hit by car traffic. At least in the US, drivers don’t drive well around cyclists, and sometimes that’s intentional to boot. Better to not share the road with people who are actively trying to hurt you with a metal object weighing several thousand pounds.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Road bikes aren't really designed for being in traffic in the first place so that places some of the downsides of that on the user. I've used one for many years, so don't get me wrong, I love riding one but it is abundantly clear to me that when my bike tires fits into the slots of a drain that that is my problem and not the problem of whoever designs and maintains the road. In many places a road bike isn't actually street legal (no bell, no fenders, no lights, of course you could add those).

innocentoldguy 4y ago

> Indeed, here in the states, cyclists pay for the roads that we use. This isn’t true where I live. Taxes on gasoline purchases pay for the roads.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Gas taxes are a small portion of road costs, and are only for state roads. Cities generally don't receive road subsidies from the state. Cyclists drive on city roads, and city roads are generally paid for with property taxes or local sales taxes (if your city has them). And cyclists cause zero damage to roads, unlike cars or trucks Really, cyclists are getting shafted because they have to pay for so many roads they can't use.
- innocentoldguy 4y ago
  I'm pretty sure I know more about my area than you do and we do NOT use property taxes to pay for roads here. Property Taxes are used for things like: * The general fund. * Grants. * Costs associated with assessing and collecting taxes. * Justice Courts. * Education. Not maintaining local roads.
  - frosted-flakes 4y ago
    Then your city is the exception to the rule and can be dismissed as an outlier.
    - innocentoldguy 4y ago
      Ah, I see. I’m wrong, unless I’m correct, in which case I’m irrelevant.
      - frosted-flakes 4y ago
        Now you got it.

dotancohen 4y ago

> My hunch is that if one were to look closely at the funding of roads, one would find that they represent a net subsidy for heavy trucking. Road wear grows at the 4th power of vehicular weight, assuming similar tire pressures. An F-150 that weighs one and a half times what your Mazda 3 weighs, does 5 times the road wear. Would you like to calculate how much those tomatoes would cost, if everybody were paying their fair share of road wear?

Flockster 4y ago
That sounds interesting, do you have some more infos about this, how the 4th power comes about? I don't have any intuition why it would be that "high". Or some keywords to lead my google searches ;)
- brianwawok 4y ago
  Start here https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-trucks-do-our-roads https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    Study is here https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr61g/61g.pdf But raw data is hard to find
jeroenhd 4y ago
Based on [1] this first result on Google, a truck can carry about 300,000 tomatoes. I don't think those tomatoes are going to add up very soon. A loaded truck of about 80,000 pounds (11.5 times the weight) would have 17490 times the road impact compared to the same trip driven back home. Distributed over 300,000 tomatoes, the cost wouldn't be all that much. Despite inefficient engines and truck construction, bulk transport is actually very efficient. Generally speaking: the bigger the trailer, the better, even with the weight increase. Even better would be using this as an incentive to expand and improve the quality of the much more efficient rail network (or transport over waterways, where available) to improve the entire supply chain. That would require the government to act in the interest of its people, though, so I don't think we'll see the effects of such a programme too soon if it ever makes it. Every tax-paying citizen is already paying this heavy price! Only instead of the damage inefficient transport causes to our infrastructure being reflected in our everyday expenses, it's hidden from plain sight in taxes. The only industry I'd expect to see killed by paying for road damage would be package delivery vans. They're driving long distances with comparatively almost no weight at all for the convenience of not needing to go to a centralized store to pick up your stuff. With the way Amazon and friends have their drivers pee in bottles, I don't see why we should subsidize those vans. [1]: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-mn-26434...