Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jlfern t1_iu12rwb wrote

Reply to comment by giritrobbins in New protected parking on Cambridge St? by wegry

And sales tax pays for a portion of the mbta. I haven't been on a train or bus in 20yrs. It is what it is. Their point is vehicles pay a specific use tax. Bicycles do not. Cyclists want more and more of the road but don't want any of the burdens of being a responsible operator on these roads. No license, no registration, no excise, no insurance, no inspection, no direct use tax.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for bike lanes. I also believe it's only fair that cyclists should contribute specifically to the creation and maintenance of these projects much in the same way as motorists.

−4

ledhead93 t1_iu15pfh wrote

The roads, bridges, oil subsidies, emergency services, health implications, etc are covered by everyone regardless of if they drive. That means cyclists and pedestrians are paying for the roads and bike lanes with their taxes. They are not directly paying for these things but given how much bike and pedestrian infrastructure costs compared to vehicle infrastructure along with all the other associated costs, they are still paying more of their fair share compared to motorists.

And the mbta helps everyone regardless of if you use it. The extra traffic, pollution, and land use changes would have a massive economic effect on the state.

16

jlfern t1_iu1nd68 wrote

We can agree to disagree but that's my point. They're not paying more than their fair share. We all pay for everything that comes out of the general. Including roads, bike lanes and the mbta. Motorists pay above and beyond that specifically for roads. Riders on the mbta pay above and beyond via fares.

Bike lanes are not a public park. Sure they may have some residual benefits to society as a whole but again, so do roads and like you pointed out, the T. Bike lanes are created for and used by one subset of the population. You'd think those people would have a vested interest in kicking in a little extra by way of a tax or registration to make the situation better.

−2

kangaroospyder t1_iu1ru1k wrote

You "agreeing to disagree" is ignoring study after study that cars are the most subsidized form of transportation, and it's not even close... You're welcome to just deny facts, but other people aren't going to do that.

7

jlfern t1_iu1w2us wrote

I'm not denying anything. That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying.

It's a simple concept- like it or not but modern roads were built for motorists. If we want to change that significantly (more than plastic dildos in the road) it's going to cost money (regardless of how insignificant an amount anyone thinks that might be). The folks who benefit the most should share in that burden above and beyond the average citizen.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how this doesn't seem fair and reasonable...

1

[deleted] t1_iu2wl8m wrote

[deleted]

1

jlfern t1_iu32nvz wrote

Okay?

We all pay a lot of property tax. A little off topic but thanks for sharing.

And you absolutely should pay your excise tax for your vehicles' road use. Just like you should pay a fare when you take the train or bus. See where this is going?

This isn't some social program to help the disenfranchised. You said it yourself- you pay a lot in property taxes, you own a vehicle. Doesn't sound like you're hurting financially. I'd argue you're probably pretty typical of the average cyclist. It's a choice. You are choosing to use roads not designed for that type of traffic, demanding change and demanding everyone else foot the bill while patting yourselves on the back for all the good you're doing. That entitlement isn't winning over many average citizens of the commonwealth. If you want a plan you need a way to pay for it. And if you want others to help, you better have some skin in the game too.

But the other way might work too.

1

Extra_Masterpiece_47 t1_iu294i3 wrote

Glad you understand 🙏 I honestly heard this from a co worker that they are considering some sort of "registered operator" for bicycle riders. It obviously goes by age so 5 yr olds will not be subject. However the cost of all the bicycle use road expansion is starting to add up

2

charons-voyage t1_iu15rk3 wrote

We can barely get our RMV to function, they won’t be able to handle bike registration. It’s almost impossible to regulate. Shit, look at all the dirt bikes on our roads.

Maybe tax every bike bought in MA with extra tax earmarked for bike infrastructure idk. But I still think the amount of stress bikes put on the infrastructure is negligible. In fact, more bikes HELP drivers by getting cars off the roads.

0