PDA

View Full Version : Bailout has a boost for bike commuters


Ablang
October 13th 08, 04:07 PM
Look at the last 3 paragraphs of this article. Anyone else has jobs
this cool that encourage you not to use your car?

http://www.sacbee.com/304/story/1305884.html

Bailout has a boost for bike commuters
By Tony Bizjak -

Last Updated 10:02 am PDT Saturday, October 11, 2008
Story appeared in OUR REGION section, Page B1

Bicycle commuters, Congress has your back.

Buried deep in the federal Emergency Economic Stabilization Act – the
$700 billion Wall Street bailout – is an unexpected boost for the
greenest of commuters.

With a tax-code change, beginning in January, companies can give up to
$20 a month to workers who pedal to work. It would be tax-free to
cycling commuters, and a tax write-off for employers.

Riders would use the subsidy to defray commute costs, such as bike
tires or lights, helmets or rental fees for bike lockers at work.

The author, Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said cyclists deserve a
subsidy – albeit small – like the handouts some companies offer
commuters who use transit or carpools, and even car drivers for
parking costs.

"We shouldn't discriminate against people who burn calories instead of
fossil fuel," said Blumenauer, who bikes daily to his congressional
office.

Blumenauer, ironically, voted against his own bill this month because
it was inserted at the last minute with other energy measures into the
mammoth bailout package, which he opposed.

"It's frustrating," he said.

Sacramento cyclists, however, pronounced it good news.

"It's about time," said Walt Seifert of Sacramento Area Bicycle
Advocates. "I hope employers jump on the chance to offer it."

Employers who offer a subsidy can determine who qualifies and how much
they should get.

Several cyclists joked they'd use it to buy alternative fuel –
Starbucks coffee.

"Hey, it's replacing the calories I burn," said Phil Vulliet, an
engineer with Mark Thomas and Co. in Sacramento.

Mega-rider Carlos Casillas, who rides "rain or shine" between Davis
and work downtown, figures he could save three months' worth and buy
"some rubber." Good bike tires cost up to $60, but last only 3,000
miles. Casillas rode that much last May alone, during the region's
annual bike mileage competition.

Census data from 2007 show that just 1.8 percent of Sacramento
commuters ride bikes to work, although riders say they are seeing more
cyclists on the streets this year because of higher gas prices.

Advocate Seifert and others say the federal subsidy serves as a
statement that cyclists are equal members of Sacramento's commute
society.

But Marilyn Bryant, a downtown transportation coordinator for
businesses, said it may take some time before government agencies
offer the subsidies because many of their employee benefits are part
of negotiated union contracts.

Jack Paddon, a principal with Williams + Paddon Architects + Planners
in Roseville, said it's something his company would consider.

"It's not a huge incentive," he said. "But it could be one of those
enhancements to get more folks to consider bicycles as a commuting
option."

As the bike commuting population grows, however, employers face new
expenses, including providing bike parking, showers and even company
cars for meetings.

One bike commuter, J.J. Hurley, says the federal subsidy idea is
great, but he doesn't need it.

His employer, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management
District, already offers employees $4.25 to spend as they please every
day they ride a bike to work. It matches the transit incentive the
agency offers employees.

"It's a cool subsidy," Hurley said. Plus, it makes sense for him. "I
work in land use. I have to practice what I preach."

Jym Dyer
October 13th 08, 08:15 PM
=v= I can't believe how much publicity this little add-on
is getting.

> Look at the last 3 paragraphs of this article. Anyone else
> has jobs this cool that encourage you not to use your car?

| One bike commuter, J.J. Hurley, says the federal subsidy idea
| is great, but he doesn't need it.
|
| His employer, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
| Management District, already offers employees $4.25 to spend
| as they please every day they ride a bike to work. It matches
| the transit incentive the agency offers employees.
|
| "It's a cool subsidy," Hurley said. Plus, it makes sense for
| him. "I work in land use. I have to practice what I preach."

=v= Meanwhile, a bit west, the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District gives lip-service to those who commute to work by bike
but directs employees to drive cars during work hours:

http://bikescape.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-were-up-against.html

=v= Oh, and speaking of biking to eco-groovy jobs, here's an
executive at a "carbon offset" company who complains that bikes
look icky:

http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/bike-beautiful

<_Jym_>

Tom Keats
October 13th 08, 08:17 PM
In article >,
Ablang > writes:
> Look at the last 3 paragraphs of this article. Anyone else has jobs
> this cool that encourage you not to use your car?

I'm afraid I can't help but to look with a jaundiced eye
upon politicians using bicycling for political ends.

That said, I've heard it opined that the current financial
distress was exacerbated by the high gasoline prices of the
past summer (in concert w/ sub-prime mortgages and loans
encouraging people to move into the urban sprawl.)

So perhaps less gasoline-dependence and less urban sprawl will
help. Although gasoline prices are currently relatively low --
now that so many have already been foreclosed out of their
hopes & dreams.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Jym Dyer
October 13th 08, 09:43 PM
> I'm afraid I can't help but to look with a jaundiced eye
> upon politicians using bicycling for political ends.

=v= You mean like G.W. Shrub?

=v= Earl Blumenauer is actually a good guy overall, the most
pro-bike Representative in the country. I'd say he did the
opposite in this case, using politics for bicycling ends.
<_Jym_>

Mike Jacoubowsky
October 14th 08, 07:36 AM
"Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
...
>> I'm afraid I can't help but to look with a jaundiced eye
>> upon politicians using bicycling for political ends.
>
> =v= You mean like G.W. Shrub?
>
> =v= Earl Blumenauer is actually a good guy overall, the most
> pro-bike Representative in the country. I'd say he did the
> opposite in this case, using politics for bicycling ends.
> <_Jym_>

Representative Blumenaeur is awesome. The guy not only rides to work,
almost every day, in a place where the weather isn't always pleasant,
but also wears his leg band throughout the day, as a reminder to others
that cycling and serious business go together. He doesn't have the star
power of Oberstar, but I don't think he wants that. He's a pretty
transparent guy who thinks bicycles are a significant part of the
solution to a lot of our problems. Unfortunately, it's the very
simplicity of the solution that keeps DC from taking it very seriously.
We're not expensive enough.

I remember meeting with Tom Lantos' chief of staff a few years ago. He
was quite proud of their achievements with the Bart SFO project, but
cycling infrastructure was so miniscule it was completely off the radar
screen. Why bother working for something that doesn't create a whole lot
of jobs and bring a whole lot of money into the area? We're not good
pork-barel additive.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Ron Wallenfang
October 15th 08, 02:54 AM
On Oct 14, 1:36*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote:
> "Jym Dyer" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> I'm afraid I can't help but to look with a jaundiced eye
> >> upon politicians using bicycling for political ends.
>
> > =v= You mean like G.W. Shrub?
>
> > =v= Earl Blumenauer is actually a good guy overall, the most
> > pro-bike Representative in the country. *I'd say he did the
> > opposite in this case, using politics for bicycling ends.
> > * *<_Jym_>
>
> Representative Blumenaeur is awesome. The guy not only rides to work,
> almost every day, in a place where the weather isn't always pleasant,
> but also wears his leg band throughout the day, as a reminder to others
> that cycling and serious business go together. He doesn't have the star
> power of Oberstar, but I don't think he wants that. He's a pretty
> transparent guy who thinks bicycles are a significant part of the
> solution to a lot of our problems. Unfortunately, it's the very
> simplicity of the solution that keeps DC from taking it very seriously.
> We're not expensive enough.
>
> I remember meeting with Tom Lantos' chief of staff a few years ago. He
> was quite proud of their achievements with the Bart SFO project, but
> cycling infrastructure was so miniscule it was completely off the radar
> screen. Why bother working for something that doesn't create a whole lot
> of jobs and bring a whole lot of money into the area? We're not good
> pork-barel additive.
>
> --Mike-- * * Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Per the attached contribution I made to an earlier thread, I do not
think this law is a good idea. See comment following the statutory
language:

Here is what I believe to e the principal part of the relevant text:

"SEC. 211. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFIT TO BICYCLE COMMUTERS.


(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 132(f) is amended by adding
at the end the following:


``(D) Any qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.


(b) Limitation on Exclusion.--Paragraph (2) of section 132(f) is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (A), by
striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``,
and'', and by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:


``(C) the applicable annual limitation in the case of any qualified
bicycle commuting reimbursement.''.


(c) Definitions.--Paragraph (5) of section 132(f) is amended by
adding
at the end the following:


``(F) DEFINITIONS RELATED TO BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT.--


``(i) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING REIMBURSEMENT.--The term `qualified
bicycle commuting reimbursement' means, with respect to any calendar
year, any employer reimbursement during the 15-month period beginning
with the first day of such calendar year for reasonable expenses
incurred by the employee during such calendar year for the purchase
of
a bicycle and bicycle improvements, repair, and storage, if such
bicycle is regularly used for travel between the employee's residence
and place of employment.


``(ii) APPLICABLE ANNUAL LIMITATION.--The term `applicable annual
limitation' means, with respect to any employee for any calendar
year,
the product of $20 multiplied by the number of qualified bicycle
commuting months during such year.


``(iii) QUALIFIED BICYCLE COMMUTING MONTH.--The term `qualified
bicycle commuting month' means, with respect to any employee, any
month during which such employee--


``(I) regularly uses the bicycle for a substantial portion of the
travel between the employee's residence and place of employment, and


``(II) does not receive any benefit described in subparagraph (A),
(B), or (C) of paragraph (1).''.


(d) Constructive Receipt of Benefit.--Paragraph (4) of section 132(f)
is amended by inserting ``(other than a qualified bicycle commuting
reimbursement)'' after ``qualified transportation fringe''.


(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2008."

COMMENT:


Nothing in this text makes me any less concerned about abuse than I
was before sweeing the text. A small business man could, I suppose,
spend $240 on
bikes for he, the wife and two kids (who come in to empty the garbage
once a week), and at the end of the year claim a $960 credit.


A larger business could offer employees up to $240 each toward the
purchae of a bicycle if they sign a statement representing that they
are bicycle commuters. Are they supposed to be checking up on them?


The government cannot enforce the rules and limitations in any
meaningful cost-effective way. It is an invitation for fraud, and
there will be plenty of unscrupulous people out there to take
advantage of it.


How a klinker like this got into a perceived "must pass" bill is a
perfect example of what's wrong with Congress.

Tom Keats
October 15th 08, 03:58 AM
In article >,
Jym Dyer > writes:
>> I'm afraid I can't help but to look with a jaundiced eye
>> upon politicians using bicycling for political ends.
>
> =v= You mean like G.W. Shrub?
>
> =v= Earl Blumenauer is actually a good guy overall, the most
> pro-bike Representative in the country. I'd say he did the
> opposite in this case, using politics for bicycling ends.

If it works, that's wonderful.

But politicizing bicycling seems to me like adding
a lot of possibly unintended, onerous baggage onto
freedom.

So many aspects of workaday life have the living
daylights legislated out of 'em. We /need/ a
free hand (or foot,) somewhere.

Provincial/state/county/paroch/township/municipal
legislation regarding the practicalities of cycling
and access to the highways is one thing.

But when feds get involved, I perceive they tend
to ruin everything they touch. Even if their
intentions at the outset are "good."

I think bicycling is best left unsullied and
unfettered by [federal/national] politics.
Just keep it free of obligation & commitment,
as per usual.

That's just my own opinion. Maybe I'm wrong, but
I've seen federal gov'ts in the past steal credit
for good things going on naturally by the populace,
and then ruin it by making it Government Policy
and beaurocratically meddling with it.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home