Edmonton Bicycle Commuters Society

0 comments at 5:12 pm posted by Chris C

Every so often, in the “Reader Comments” sections of news articles and blogs, someone suggests that cyclists should have to pay for cycling infrastructure themselves.

We all pay property taxes to support car infrastructure, regardless of how much or how little we use it. The cost to fully fund the proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan is $100 million over 10 years.  It will build 489 km of pleasant bike routes that fully connect the entire city. Connector routes within neighbourhoods will be suitable for anyone (from age 10 up) to ride on comfortably and safely, and a City-wide system will provide direct corridors for travel. At that rate of spending, it would take a quarter centery to build the 23rd Avenue interchange, which is approximately 2 km.

But, you say, car drivers pay a gas tax!

<read more…>

Well, yes, car drivers pay taxes on gasoline.  (Let’s not forget that many car drivers also ride bikes and appreciate safe and effective cycling infrastructure.)

The Alberta government collects a provincial fuel tax (9 cents/litre), and then returns 5¢/L to municipalities. The rest funds provincial infrastructure. The federal government collects a 10¢/L fuel tax, which comes to Alberta via the Gas Tax Fund (GTF; $476.9 million over 5 years, about $95M/year) and is earmarked for environmentally sustainable infrastructure. The provincial government is responsible for distributing the money to municipalities: all of the province has to share that $95M. And of the money that the city gets and puts into transportation: the money is going to transit, not roads.

So that leaves the 5¢/L fuel tax to fund roads.

Looking at the proposed 2009 Capital and Operating Budgets for the City of Edmonton, we can calculate the following numbers:

Which leaves $500.5 million unpaid. If gas taxes paid in full for roads, you’d be paying 58 ¢/L (plus GST) in taxes alone. And that’s assuming that such high taxes wouldn’t impact fuel consumption. If people reduce their usage due to high gas prices, then the taxes would have to be even higher.

Now let’s move into a more speculative realm, and enumerate some assumptions. Suppose that:

• The bike plan is fully funded and built, at a cost of $10M per year for 10 years
• 2% of trips are made by bike instead of by car once the plan is complete (we’re currently at 1%)
• Many of our current road costs stem from being at full capacity (overpasses, widening roads, congestion)
And the big one,
• That a 1% reduction in car usage will result in a 1% savings in road expenditures (excluding bicycle-related costs)

Direct savings on road expenditures: $5.5M per year.

Bicycle and car infrastructure spending are a lot more closely tied than those assumptions allow: a road rehabilitation project can easily include improvements to bike paths and sidewalks at the same time, saving everyone money.  So the $5.5M number isn’t actually so clear, but it is tantalizing to consider.

There are clearer savings to be seen, though.  The cost per kilometre of bicycle infrastructure is laughably cheap compared to automobile roads. Bicycles are quiet, good for the environment, and good for health (even more savings: cycling reduces cancer rates).  Having people walking and biking in neighbourhoods builds a stronger community, which makes the place safer, and improves quality of life.  More cyclists on the road mean cyclists are safer (cities with more cyclists have dramatically lower accident rates, likely because everyone’s more aware of each other).

More cyclists mean good things for drivers, too: less congestion, more parking space, and a happier commute.

Economically, a bicycle-friendly city draws cycle tourists. Bike tourists tend to stay longer and spend more than other tourists, leaving their marks in the local economy.  (For entertainment, check out David Byrne’s journal entry about his spin around town.)

Finally, the infrastructure proposed to be constructed in the Bike Plan will be very high capacity.  Let’s make a couple more assumptions:

• Bicycle mode share increases to 20% (and car mode share decreases to 57%), thanks to cycle-friendly infrastructure, and the environmental, health, and cost benefits.
• The bike plan can support this load without significant additional unplanned expenditure.
• Ignore the fact that people on foot, rollerblades, skateboards, and in wheelchairs can all also benefit from multi-use trails (and share in the modal cost distribution)

At 2.5 million trips per day, 20% being cycle trips, the cost per trip for a cyclist would be about 5 cents. For a car, given 57% mode share?  $1.07.

Portland had a 146% increase in cycling mode share over 10 years, and now hovers near a 10% cycling mode share, thanks to a focused investment in bicycle infrastructure. Copenhagen, that beacon of hope, is at 36%.  Montreal, which can be as cold as Edmonton and is certainly much wetter and snowier, is around 2-3% (and rest assured that they bike in style).

We can do it. And we can save money doing it.