Oregon bike tax?

On Tue, 2 May 2017 06:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:31:28 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2017 16:28:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:45:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

You can't extrapolate like that; the cost per unit of distance is not
linear.

I didn't, but the authors of the California Bicycle Tax law apparently
did. More $$$$:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_bike_bikelanes.cfm
"The cost of a five-foot bicycle lane can range from approximately
$5,000 to $535,000 per mile, with an average cost around $130,000.
The costs can vary greatly due to differences in project
specifications and the scale and length of the treatment."

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
See table 2 on Pg 13 which shows basically the same range of costs.

Out of curiosity, does the cost per mile increase or decrease for
longer distances? On one foot, I can see that cost per mile would
decrease with longer distances because of more efficient utilization
to personnel and materials. On the other foot, I can see that the
cost per mile would increase with longer distances because more
agencies would be involved, more studies required, and more
impediments are possible. I have no idea which is correct.

We are working on a city-wide bike plan now. The cost per mile
is not that high. But it's not cheap either. But this is for a lot of
Class 1 infrastructure. One big expense is the transit stops, depending
on how you do the separation from buses, if you don't want buses
crossing cyclist's path.

Can I have a moving sidewalk written into the plan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway

So, what's your price tag? Here's an example of how it's done in the
people's republic over the hill:
http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/19/pdfs/FinalReportSLVTrailFeasibilityStudypostversion.pdf ?ver=2007-06-06-094957-000
Pg 5 offers the total cost at $21.1 million or $2.8 million/mile in
2006. Some parts are more or less expensive. See Table 1.1 Pg 7.

You might find the illustrations on Pg 57, 63, and 64 interesting (or
amusing). The drawing shows how the bicycle path might be build on
what looks like a cut-n-fill landslide candidate. That's an
improvement over the previous revision of the plan, which had the
bicycle path suspended over the San Lorenzo River from the roadway
retaining wall. If it were ever built, I'm the downhill ride would be
a thrilling experience.

Ah you 'mercans. So modern, so technical.

Over here in this poor little downtrodden and undemocratic country it
is done differently. No single use bike paths, just the public
highway. But these silly Asians included a ruling in their traffic
regulations - "The big Guy is Wrong".

In short the largest vehicle involved in a collision is initially
deemed to be in the wrong and will be burdened with any and all costs
and in the event of death will have to compensate the victim's family,
or, if they wish, be charged with a felony.

If you, the cyclist, were to hit a pedestrian then you will pay. If an
auto hits you on your bike then they pay. If a big truck hits an auto
the big truck pays. And it is "pay everything". The ambulance to the
hospital, any and all hospital costs, any and all rehabilitation
costs, all equipment replacements, everything.

And it does work. Of course it doesn't prevent accidents and we do
have a lot although police reports seem to say that alcohol or
recreational drug use is a major factor, but it does seem to have an
effect on the driver's attitudes. The throwing beer cans and cursing
bicycles that I see reported here have never happened to me, in all
the years I've lived in this country.

I might add that while the larger vehicle is initially deemed wrong
this does not preclude the "big guy" presenting evidence that the
"little guy" was the cause.

Here we have a rule - the big guy is always right.

And just look at the "big Guy" you elected :-)

On Tue, 2 May 2017 07:41:14 -0500, DougC
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:25 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

Realizing that fuel prices vary, a quick look seems to show that
Oregon state gasoline tax is in the 13% range.


The practical problem with taxing bicycles is that there is no continual
cost to add a tax on to. The purchase price of any new vehicle is only a
one-time charge, and what the legislatures prefer to do is add a tiny
charge onto something that is regularly consumed.

People don't know how much gasoline or cigarette taxes they pay each
year, because they don't pay it all at once. Frogs slowly boiling and
all that...

------

Also we note: I believe OR was the state that said they raised the motor
fuel taxes "to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient, hybrid
vehicles", and then only a couple years later was discussing charging
road tax based on in-car GPS transmitter data, since they found out that
if something like (only) 15% of the state switched to hybrid cars then
the state's road maintenance budget (that they got from gasoline taxes)
would be severely underfunded.
DOH!

Taxation in the U.S. has a long and ludicrous history. The so called
"Boston Tea Party" was, in effect, a protest against a decrease in the
tax on tea :-)

On Tue, 02 May 2017 08:31:47 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Freedom.

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

Yep. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that an economic system
that is NOT based on greed, doesn't work.

We also demonstrated my point when California voted itself a free
lunch in the form of a ballot initiative to force auto insurance
companies to lower their rates by 20% and freezing rates for existing
customers.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Re gulation_(1988)
Basically, Prop 103 demanded that auto insurance companies operate at
a loss. That wasn't going to work.

The insurance companies initially responded by refusing to write new
policies in California. It took 3 different insurance commissars to
find someone willing to deal with the resultant mess. After plenty of
litigation, things eventually settled down to lower rates at not quite
the level passed in Prop 103.

ly, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

I've been dealing for the last 40 years. We've tried various schemes
in an effort to be fair, none of which were perfect. The closest
we've come to something that irritates the fewest owners, landlords,
and tenants was to simply charge by the flat fee for the annual spring
maintenance binge plus a formula based on the number of drivers in a
household and the distance from the beginning of the road. Counting
drivers was necessary because one person has about 6 cars, but with
only one driver. The distance from the beginning of the road was
needed because although the other end of the road is passable, but
sufficiently muddy and full of deep potholes, that it creates an
effective dead end. Those near that end of the road, use more of the
road, and should therefore pay more. That was necessary because none
of the residents at the begriming of the road would pay anything
unless it was included. If you have a better scheme, I'm interested
(use email).

Incidentally, we have a few "students" on the roadway. When I asked
for road maintenance money, they offered to substitute labor in lieu
of payment. We did that only one year. I arranged for the students
to meet with the paving contractor, who put them to work preparing the
road with picks and shovels. By the end of the day, those left
standing were totally exhausted and offered to pay instead of
continuing the work. The next day, the contractor showed up with the
heavy equipment, which finished the job in a small fraction of the
time that it took the students. Yeah, I know. I'm evil.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Tue, 02 May 2017 18:58:22 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 02 May 2017 08:31:47 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Freedom.

Ah yes. Freedom to shoot a nagging wife?

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

Yep. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that an economic system
that is NOT based on greed, doesn't work.

We also demonstrated my point when California voted itself a free
lunch in the form of a ballot initiative to force auto insurance
companies to lower their rates by 20% and freezing rates for existing
customers.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Re gulation_(1988)
Basically, Prop 103 demanded that auto insurance companies operate at
a loss. That wasn't going to work.

The insurance companies initially responded by refusing to write new
policies in California. It took 3 different insurance commissars to
find someone willing to deal with the resultant mess. After plenty of
litigation, things eventually settled down to lower rates at not quite
the level passed in Prop 103.


Here when it was decided to enforce mandatory insurance for autos the
government essentially held a bidding contest to select a group of
companies to provide the insurance. The result is quite cheap
liability insurance for every car on the road. In fact you cannot even
pay your annual vehicle tax, or register a vehicle, without showing
proof that you have insurance coverage for the year. If you want
insurance for your own car you can also purchase that relatively
cheaply compared to U.S. prices.

ly, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

I've been dealing for the last 40 years. We've tried various schemes
in an effort to be fair, none of which were perfect. The closest
we've come to something that irritates the fewest owners, landlords,
and tenants was to simply charge by the flat fee for the annual spring
maintenance binge plus a formula based on the number of drivers in a
household and the distance from the beginning of the road. Counting
drivers was necessary because one person has about 6 cars, but with
only one driver. The distance from the beginning of the road was
needed because although the other end of the road is passable, but
sufficiently muddy and full of deep potholes, that it creates an
effective dead end. Those near that end of the road, use more of the
road, and should therefore pay more. That was necessary because none
of the residents at the begriming of the road would pay anything
unless it was included. If you have a better scheme, I'm interested
(use email).


Way back when I was a kid the town was required to maintain roads
within the precinct (I believe they called it) but there were roads,
we lived on one, that were outside the precinct and for those some
sort of fixed fee was charged. The roads would have been dirt roads
and maintenance was probably a grader running over the road
occasionally to smooth out the washboard. I have the feeling that one
paid the road fee at the same time one paid one's town taxes.

Incidentally, we have a few "students" on the roadway. When I asked
for road maintenance money, they offered to substitute labor in lieu
of payment. We did that only one year. I arranged for the students
to meet with the paving contractor, who put them to work preparing the
road with picks and shovels. By the end of the day, those left
standing were totally exhausted and offered to pay instead of
continuing the work. The next day, the contractor showed up with the
heavy equipment, which finished the job in a small fraction of the
time that it took the students. Yeah, I know. I'm evil.

Not really. Learning about physical labor is not evil. I remember when
I was in high school a representative of Dartmouth Collage spoke to
the senior class. He recommended that one should take at least a year
off and work before entering collage. He went on to say that those who
had done that invariably got better grades than those who came
directly from high school.

On 5/3/2017 12:04 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
I remember when
I was in high school a representative of Dartmouth Collage spoke to
the senior class. He recommended that one should take at least a year
off and work before entering collage. He went on to say that those who
had done that invariably got better grades than those who came
directly from high school.

I saw a world of difference between students fresh out of high school
and students who had spent time in either industry or the military.

I had to teach a fair number of evening classes. Not my favorite gig,
for various reasons; but one nice aspect was that those classes had
quite a few students who were a bit older and working in industry, often
in technical jobs.

It was fun to observe the younger students in the mix, when guys already
working in the field would say "At our company, here's how we use what
you're talking about..." or ask "Why do you suppose we're having this
problem ... ?"

One could see the young kids suddenly realize "Holy ****, this stuff is
REAL!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, April 30, 2017 at 8:35:44 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

--
- Frank Krygowski

You can move to Texas.

No taxes on cyclists.

Andy

On Wed, 3 May 2017 00:38:47 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/3/2017 12:04 AM, John B Slocomb wrote:
I remember when
I was in high school a representative of Dartmouth Collage spoke to
the senior class. He recommended that one should take at least a year
off and work before entering collage. He went on to say that those who
had done that invariably got better grades than those who came
directly from high school.

I saw a world of difference between students fresh out of high school
and students who had spent time in either industry or the military.

I had to teach a fair number of evening classes. Not my favorite gig,
for various reasons; but one nice aspect was that those classes had
quite a few students who were a bit older and working in industry, often
in technical jobs.

It was fun to observe the younger students in the mix, when guys already
working in the field would say "At our company, here's how we use what
you're talking about..." or ask "Why do you suppose we're having this
problem ... ?"

One could see the young kids suddenly realize "Holy ****, this stuff is
REAL!"

When I was in school I was accused of having a "crib" as I got 100% on
two consecutive weekly tests. The lecturer was rather indignant and
wanted to know where I was getting a crib for his tests. I explained
that I was into drag racing motorcycles and that last two weeks had
been about fuel and air intake systems and I was really interested and
really paid attention (and my motorcycle was a little faster). Nothing
more was said about it but I made it a point to fail a question
occasionally even if I knew the answer :-)

But many of the students were ex military going to school on the
government dime so us "young guys" stayed pretty much in the
background.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 5:30:49 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017 06:18:31 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 2:31:28 AM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2017 16:28:28 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Mon, 1 May 2017 11:45:35 -0700, sms
wrote:

You can't extrapolate like that; the cost per unit of distance is not
linear.

I didn't, but the authors of the California Bicycle Tax law apparently
did. More $$$$:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_bike_bikelanes.cfm
"The cost of a five-foot bicycle lane can range from approximately
$5,000 to $535,000 per mile, with an average cost around $130,000.
The costs can vary greatly due to differences in project
specifications and the scale and length of the treatment."

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/Countermeasure%20Costs_Report_Nov2013.pdf
See table 2 on Pg 13 which shows basically the same range of costs.

Out of curiosity, does the cost per mile increase or decrease for
longer distances? On one foot, I can see that cost per mile would
decrease with longer distances because of more efficient utilization
to personnel and materials. On the other foot, I can see that the
cost per mile would increase with longer distances because more
agencies would be involved, more studies required, and more
impediments are possible. I have no idea which is correct.

We are working on a city-wide bike plan now. The cost per mile
is not that high. But it's not cheap either. But this is for a lot of
Class 1 infrastructure. One big expense is the transit stops, depending
on how you do the separation from buses, if you don't want buses
crossing cyclist's path.

Can I have a moving sidewalk written into the plan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_walkway

So, what's your price tag? Here's an example of how it's done in the
people's republic over the hill:
http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Portals/19/pdfs/FinalReportSLVTrailFeasibilityStudypostversion.pdf ?ver=2007-06-06-094957-000
Pg 5 offers the total cost at $21.1 million or $2.8 million/mile in
2006. Some parts are more or less expensive. See Table 1.1 Pg 7.

You might find the illustrations on Pg 57, 63, and 64 interesting (or
amusing). The drawing shows how the bicycle path might be build on
what looks like a cut-n-fill landslide candidate. That's an
improvement over the previous revision of the plan, which had the
bicycle path suspended over the San Lorenzo River from the roadway
retaining wall. If it were ever built, I'm the downhill ride would be
a thrilling experience.

Ah you 'mercans. So modern, so technical.

Over here in this poor little downtrodden and undemocratic country it
is done differently. No single use bike paths, just the public
highway. But these silly Asians included a ruling in their traffic
regulations - "The big Guy is Wrong".

In short the largest vehicle involved in a collision is initially
deemed to be in the wrong and will be burdened with any and all costs
and in the event of death will have to compensate the victim's family,
or, if they wish, be charged with a felony.

If you, the cyclist, were to hit a pedestrian then you will pay. If an
auto hits you on your bike then they pay. If a big truck hits an auto
the big truck pays. And it is "pay everything". The ambulance to the
hospital, any and all hospital costs, any and all rehabilitation
costs, all equipment replacements, everything.

And it does work. Of course it doesn't prevent accidents and we do
have a lot although police reports seem to say that alcohol or
recreational drug use is a major factor, but it does seem to have an
effect on the driver's attitudes. The throwing beer cans and cursing
bicycles that I see reported here have never happened to me, in all
the years I've lived in this country.

I might add that while the larger vehicle is initially deemed wrong
this does not preclude the "big guy" presenting evidence that the
"little guy" was the cause.

Here we have a rule - the big guy is always right.

And just look at the "big Guy" you elected :-)

Imagine that coming from someone worth nothing.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 5:30:50 PM UTC-7, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 2 May 2017 07:41:14 -0500, DougC
wrote:

On 4/30/2017 9:25 PM, John B Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 09:35:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Oregon bike tax?

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...tax_lawma.html

1% on bike sales seems like a token to silence the cries that "they
don't pay their way." It couldn't generate much money, could it?

Realizing that fuel prices vary, a quick look seems to show that
Oregon state gasoline tax is in the 13% range.


The practical problem with taxing bicycles is that there is no continual
cost to add a tax on to. The purchase price of any new vehicle is only a
one-time charge, and what the legislatures prefer to do is add a tiny
charge onto something that is regularly consumed.

People don't know how much gasoline or cigarette taxes they pay each
year, because they don't pay it all at once. Frogs slowly boiling and
all that...

------

Also we note: I believe OR was the state that said they raised the motor
fuel taxes "to encourage people to buy more fuel-efficient, hybrid
vehicles", and then only a couple years later was discussing charging
road tax based on in-car GPS transmitter data, since they found out that
if something like (only) 15% of the state switched to hybrid cars then
the state's road maintenance budget (that they got from gasoline taxes)
would be severely underfunded.
DOH!

Taxation in the U.S. has a long and ludicrous history. The so called
"Boston Tea Party" was, in effect, a protest against a decrease in the
tax on tea :-)

Right.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 6:58:31 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2017 08:31:47 +0700, John B Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 01 May 2017 09:02:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On the other hand taking a laissez-faire attitude toward law and order
results in what?

Freedom.

Yep, that's about it. Given the opportunity, the GUM (great unwashed
masses) will invariably vote themselves a free lunch, cancel all
debts, and nationalize all private roads. Democracy is all about
having someone else pay their fair share.

While I suspect that you are being a bit droll here you are certainly
correct that, perhaps, the most obvious trait of humanity is greed
:-)

Yep. The former Soviet Union demonstrated that an economic system
that is NOT based on greed, doesn't work.

We also demonstrated my point when California voted itself a free
lunch in the form of a ballot initiative to force auto insurance
companies to lower their rates by 20% and freezing rates for existing
customers.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_103,_Insurance_Rates_and_Re gulation_(1988)
Basically, Prop 103 demanded that auto insurance companies operate at
a loss. That wasn't going to work.

The insurance companies initially responded by refusing to write new
policies in California. It took 3 different insurance commissars to
find someone willing to deal with the resultant mess. After plenty of
litigation, things eventually settled down to lower rates at not quite
the level passed in Prop 103.

ly, many years ago, several home owners would not pay into
our road maintenance fund. So, when the road was resurfaced, we left
a large gap in front of their houses. Predictably, the runoff from
the newly paved sections undermined the old pavement until it became a
large collection of overlapping pot holes. I have a few photos
(somewhere) that I show to reluctant property owners as an added
inducement to paying their fair share.

But what is "fair share"? Based on family income? Income net of debts?
Number of cars? Number of operational cars (takes junkers parked in
the yard into account). Tithe?

I've been dealing for the last 40 years. We've tried various schemes
in an effort to be fair, none of which were perfect. The closest
we've come to something that irritates the fewest owners, landlords,
and tenants was to simply charge by the flat fee for the annual spring
maintenance binge plus a formula based on the number of drivers in a
household and the distance from the beginning of the road. Counting
drivers was necessary because one person has about 6 cars, but with
only one driver. The distance from the beginning of the road was
needed because although the other end of the road is passable, but
sufficiently muddy and full of deep potholes, that it creates an
effective dead end. Those near that end of the road, use more of the
road, and should therefore pay more. That was necessary because none
of the residents at the begriming of the road would pay anything
unless it was included. If you have a better scheme, I'm interested
(use email).

Incidentally, we have a few "students" on the roadway. When I asked
for road maintenance money, they offered to substitute labor in lieu
of payment. We did that only one year. I arranged for the students
to meet with the paving contractor, who put them to work preparing the
road with picks and shovels. By the end of the day, those left
standing were totally exhausted and offered to pay instead of
continuing the work. The next day, the contractor showed up with the
heavy equipment, which finished the job in a small fraction of the
time that it took the students. Yeah, I know. I'm evil.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Well, after all, you can't expect much more out of the Marxism that they teach in schools these days. Particularly in Great Britain. The working class are the only one's that understand this any longer.