Tax for bike lanes dropped in Maine, debated elsewhere
A proposal to impose a 2% tax on sales of new bicycles failed to win approval in Maine, but with tight budgets in states around the country, similar suggestions for funding cycling improvements are likely to follow.
"If bicyclists want bike lanes they should pay for them" is a common argument following stories about bike and pedestrian paths. The point was made again last week, after a blog post on the decision to cut $5 million for bike and pedestrian enhancements from Wisconsin's 2012-'13 transportation budget.
Across the country, local and state authorities have considered various proposals to generate revenue for bike projects - from licensing to the special tax considered in Maine.
Under that proposal, revenue from the 2% tax would have been devoted to building, improving and maintaining “bikeways” along the state’s roads. The purpose, according to the bill’s sponsor, was to make cycling safer, particularly along Maine’s thousands of miles of narrow, rural roadways.
In Milwaukee, blogger Dave Schlabowske offers a variation on that idea: devote all the tax revenue generated on bikes and accessories sales to bike projects.
"If we took the 5% sales tax those sales generate for the general fund and put them in transportation, we would have $7,500,000 to spend on bicycles," Schlabowske wrote in a piece directed to Gov. Scott Walker. "That is way more than you had to cut from the budget.”
In a previous post, Schlabowske detailed how people who ride bicycles already pay a share of the costs of the roads on which they ride.
12 Comments for "Tax for bike lanes dropped in Maine, debated elsewhere "
However, biking needs long winding paths that make it unsuitable for placement on private property the way that ski resorts and golf courses are. You can't prevent people from using a bike path that didn't pay the fee for it and increased use of bike paths doesn't necessarily reduce the ability of other people to enjoy it.
It's a difficult situation because people are entirely justified for feeling like their taxes shouldn't be spent to support a luxury recreational activity. There isn't really a suitable alternative to having bike paths on public land and administered by the park system.
Having all the sales tax from bike stuff go towards building bike stuff though is a bad idea. Should we earmark sales taxes from baseball gloves to support ballparks, from guns to support public hunting grounds and from paint brushes to support the art museum? It sounds good to those people who are intensely focused on their own hobbies but it doesn't work in the big picture. Implementation would be impossible too, we don't need the legislature arguing about whether tire pumps should qualify as "bike accessories" or whether ball-pumps should fund football or soccer fields.
JOill May 10, 2011 2:38 PM
Convinced of the Hex May 10, 2011 2:41 PM
they're trying to find sources of revenue that would fund a safer environment for bikers, what's wrong with that? especially when the blunt of it is being undertaken by users. it's a form of user fee.
we subsidize automobile ownership to the max, but somehow owning a car isn't considered a luxury?
joel olsteen May 10, 2011 2:55 PM
My bike is my main form of transportation as I use a car maybe once a week. It is how I get my kid to school, how I get groceries, how I get to work. Anything within 10 miles is within reach for me via bike, and living where I live, I can utilize it to get almost anywhere I need. I don't bike recreationally unless I am going mountain biking in designated trails that I need to pay to use, anyway.
Convinced of the Hex May 10, 2011 3:02 PM
By the same logic, bikes would have to be banned from roads without a "bikeway", and from sidewalks.
Izzatso May 10, 2011 3:14 PM
(These days I do own a car, but I still bike to run errands to cut down on wear & tear and gas money)
Katy/Snaks May 10, 2011 3:35 PM
want to make that argument, then let me audit every car trip taken by
every driver. If you end up at the mall, Walmart, movie theater, or Burger
King, I'm calling you out for taking a recreational drive; and if you end up
3 miles from your house, I'm calling you out for being lazy. If you end up
at a golf course, that's a luxury recreational drive -- double whammy!
If motor vehicle and gas taxes paid 100% for roads, we could have a
useful and logically consistent discussion about bike taxes. I would be
happy with paying for this if that's how it truly worked, as I take long
road trips in the car on occasion, while biking to work and most errands
during the week.
Instead, we have this complicated mess where our general taxes pay for
both. Lead by example by making vehicle transportation self-sustaining,
and bikes will happily follow.
madcoca May 10, 2011 7:04 PM
The RTS May 11, 2011 8:00 AM
Would you like me to explain how a generalization works?
JOill May 12, 2011 2:37 AM
Modra May 12, 2011 9:39 AM
udaman621 May 12, 2011 1:47 PM
Modra May 12, 2011 2:43 PM