Who pays for the roads again?

You may have seen the letter to the Greenville News yesterday titled Vehicles, not bikes, pay for our roads (Google the article title if you are not a subscriber to see the full letter). The writer opened with the same old argument we have all heard before:

“Is anybody tired of all the whining and crying from the tight spandex and funny helmet crowd? All you ever hear from them is that “we have the same right to be on the road as cars do.” Wrong. There is no way they have that “right.” It is not a right; it is a privilege that I earned and pay for. I am required to carry insurance, passed a test and also pay a $20 a year road use fee. What do cyclists pay? Nothing!”

Of course we know that cyclists DO pay for the roads. Even though we ride bikes, most of us still own cars, carry insurance, and pay gas taxes. In addition, we ALL pay the income, sales, and property taxes that fund the majority of road construction and maintenance projects anyway. It is also worth noting that our lightweight ‘vehicles’ do NOT damage the roads the same way that heavy cars and trucks do. So if a cyclist pays for a road maintenance project through property tax, how exactly is he or she not paying a fair share?

I wrote a longer post in response to a very similar letter to the editor a couple years ago. I won’t repeat all the same points here, but I encourage you all to read that post. It is easy to write an angry letter without checking the facts, but I think the facts are clear. Cyclists do pay their share for the roads…and then some.

A 19th century solution

Last Saturday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, which will, among other things, defines the bicycle as a form of transportation covered by the qualified transportation fringe benefit. The Bike Commuter Act provision, originally introduced by Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, calls for a $20 monthly benefit for bike commuters.

Unfortunately, Patrick McHenry, a republican representative from neighboring North Carolina, argued against the plan saying that bicycles are a “19th century solution to a 21st century problem.” You can read additional excerpts from Congressman McHenry’s statement on this post at Bike Portland. You can also watch a video of his statement on YouTube or even on the Congressman’s own website. I understand that Representative McHenry would like to see funding for completely new alternative forms of energy. Fine, but to completely discount the bicycle as a form of transportation is just absurd. Perhaps, instead of his poster featuring a vintage photo of a couple posed on an antique quadcycle, he should have, as one of the Bike Portland commenters suggested, shown a highway congested with gridlocked cars at rush hour. Bicycles may be old technology, but human powered transportation can be a viable component in a comprehensive solution to our energy problems. In addition to saving energy, transportational cycling addresses the growing problem of traffic congestion (a problem that alternative energy sources alone will never solve). Also, it is worth mentioning that Congressman McHenry represents a state that has an adult obesity rate of 24.7 percent; yet another problem that the “antiquated” solution of bicycle commuting can help to solve.

I know that a few people in North Carolina read this blog. If you do live in the 10th district, or anywhere in the state for that matter, I strongly encourage you to write Representative McHenry and let him know that you do not appreciate his complete dismissal of the bicycle as a form of transportation. I realize that bicycles are not the sole solution to all of our transportation problems, but they certainly can play a bigger role in this country than they do now. Most bicycle commuters that I know aren’t trying to get everyone out of their cars and onto bikes. We just want complete streets that are designed for all types of road users so that all citizens can get around safely no matter how they chose to do so. Can someone please explain that to Congressman McHenry, who apparently opposes any funding for pedestian and bicycling enhancements?