And, gas tax dollars pay for bike trails. Almost all the major bike trails in Madison were constructed with US FHWA funding - 80% - gas tax dollars. Good program for everyone.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of STRAWSER, Charles Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 9:48 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] Fwd: Property tax support for local roads Study of the issue in North America in general: http://www.vtpi.org/whoserd.pdf and in Wisconsin specifically: http://www.1kfriends.org/transportation/who-pays-for-roads-in-wisconsin-2/ The bottom line (pun intended) is that private automobile travel is subsidized (just like every other transportation mode in this country). Exactly how much subsidy roads get depends in part on the roads - and the roads that pedestrians and bicycles are most likely to be using get much less of their cost paid for by gas taxes and vehicles registrations than the roads (like the interstates) that prohibit peds and bikes. The real question is not whether the roads pay for themselves through user fees (they don't), but how much we should subsidize the various modes of transportation. I heard Jay Ferm tell the SCTOD planning committee (discussing the fate of Wilson St and Law Park - see http://www.cityofmadison.com/dpced/planning/southcapitol/ and/or attend the public workshop 6-9pm Tuesday 9/5/13) that the priorities should be pedestrians and cyclists, public transit users, (delivery) trucks, and private cars (in that order - Jay, correct me if my notes are wrong). Jay was just talking about the context that the SCTOD was discussing, but I thought his ranking was a pretty good one in general. And if those had actually been our priorities as a society for the last century, we would be spending a lot less right now on health care for people suffering from issues related to sedentary lifestyles and/or poor air quality, not to mention mitigating the various environmental disasters our transportation (and land use) decisions have created. chuck From: fortkendall tds.net Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 12:29 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [Bikies] Fwd: Property tax support for local roads ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Schimpff, Jeff A - DNR <[email protected]> Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:29 PM Subject: Property tax support for local roads To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> [email protected]; [email protected] ... and the right to use them in peace and safety... Dredged from the archives, there have been several discussions on the issue of how much property tax payers (including renters, and a few people who may not drive or ride a bus at all) pay for our local roads. The discussions below estimate 40% to "less that 50%" of the costs are paid by municipal property tax payers. I recall other estimates ranging up to 60% property tax support, as the legislature becomes less and less magnanimous. And isn't it also true that the cost of law enforcement, snow plowing, sand, salting and scraping crash debris and casualties off the pavement is borne just about 100% by local property tax payers? Those are major costs, as well. Finally, the first discussion below only deals with the City of Madison portion of our property tax (or rent) bills. We also pay for a similarly substantial portion of county road costs thereby supporting the ease and comfort of those who drive commute in from outside Madison, and then complain about bikes on city roadways...(though I must say that along my route from UW Hospitals area to downtown, incidents of impatience, aggressive driver behavior, etc., seem substantially below what they were 20 years ago and incidents of deference to bikes, especially when not legally required, are substantially up. The reasons behind this perception, though, would make for a very interesting study.) **************************** Start of Archive Messages **************************** "Hi Larry, I saw those calculations and was impressed that someone had taken the time to do them. I think most people figure that roads are paid for out of gas taxes, so showing some major part is property taxes helps shine some light on the subject. Did the analysis account for gas and property taxes paid by firms? If 448 is the overall per capita gasoline consumption for the state, some substantial chunk of that was by firms. That would lower the contribution from individuals in comparison with their contribution via property tax. Just for fun, and to procrastinate on something I'm supposed to be working on, I looked to see how close the two cars/household scenario is to reality. In Madison in 2006-8, the average is actually 1.5 vehicles per household (assuming that the handful of households in the ACS "five or more" bin have an average of six). For owner-occupants the average is higher, but still under two -- 1.8 -- and for renters it's 1.1. I'd love to look at the spreadsheets again if you have them handy. Eric ________________________________________ From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]> To: "STRAWSER, Charles" <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Steve Hiniker <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, May 13, 2010 9:40:04 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP In 2008, we calculated that the average Madison residential home paid $307.63 per year in property taxes for roads or 17.07% of the home's total tax bill for city services. These calculations were done using a method to support a Street Utility, whereby all road costs are recovered as user fees. If that same home had two cars and used the state per capita average for gasoline (10.663 barrels or 448 gallons per capita) and two people, they would pay $150 for car registration and $384 for gasoline taxes. This would indicate that property taxes are less than one-half of road expenditures. I am sure that there are other scenarios that road costs can be attributed, but this method is closest to the expenditures of individual Madisonians. I am rather interested in this subject and would be happy to review other data to calculate/attribute road costs. I can provide the spreadsheets used but I don't think the bikies server will let an attachment through its portal. (They are public records.) From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of STRAWSER, Charles Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:14 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Steve Hiniker Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP When a developer turns farmland into a subdivision of houses, the developer is generally responsible for building the local roads (that, is, generally the roads within the subdivision itself, and sometimes widening the collector or arterial road that makes the farmland accessible, and valuable, in the first place, though that is usually limited to "improvements" i.e. widening, where the collector/arterial intersects with the subdivisions roads). Therefore, Larry's point is valid - development (when it takes place in a "greenfield" rather than an area that is already urbanized and has infrastructure) pays for the costs to construct the smallest roads, and, sometimes, development pays for some part of the cost to expand the bigger roads adjacent to the new development to accommodate the increased traffic they induce. But the point bolsters the argument of myself and others on this list that small facilities for cyclists are a better investment in the long term than big roads. Because after the local roads are built, it is the responsibility of the local municipality to maintain these newly built roads. This is just one more reason why conventional suburban development in greenfields cost more for a municipality to service than the revenue it brings in. Studies going all the way back to the 1970s have born this out again and again. One I recall estimated that typical sprawl cost $1.25 in municipal services for every $1 in tax revenue. Of course, the study considered all municipal services (water, sewer, trash, etc.), not just road maintenance. But road maintenance is typically the lion's share of the municipal budget. But the fact is, we have a mechanism to expand the transportation infrastructure (and in a manner I would say that mostly benefit's car drivers to the detriment of all other road users), but we don't have a mechanism to expand the revenue that can be used to maintain the expanding infrastructure. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for us to build smaller infrastructure that costs less to maintain (Tim's points about the maintenance requirements of paths that mostly see 50lb vehicles vs roads that mostly see 5000 lb vehicles are relevant here) than to continue building larger infrastructure (even when someone else is paying for a small portion of it) that we can't afford to maintain. chuck ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mad City Biker Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 11:23 PM To: Larry D. Nelson Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I'm just getting caught up. Quote Larry Nelson: "Steve Hiniker doesn't include the developer's contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%." Could you please expound on this statement? (in layman's terms please!). Bikers (myself included) tend to use talking points similar to Hiniker's to justify our right to use the roads. Are we incorrect in quoting this? Just how do developers $$$ fit into the equation? Thanks! -MCB ________________________________________ From: Larry D. Nelson <[email protected]> To: burleigh chorus.net <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Wed, April 28, 2010 5:10:42 PM Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP The cost to widen a road for bike lanes is greater than just the proportion of pavement as the road bed has to be widened whereas the existing road doesn't require the replacement of the road bed. Also, the road side ditches have to be excavated beyond their current location and new turf established. Bridges and storm sewers need to be widened beneath the roadbed and the storm water culverts for driveways have to be relocated. I suspect that the County Transportation Engineers have estimated the costs quite closely and I am not surprised by the cost increase. Steve Hiniker doesn't include the developer's contribution for local roads, which is generally 100%. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of burleigh chorus.net Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 10:36 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] County Highway KP Al, thats great to hear. Unfortunately, the Town of Middleton is waffling on bike lanes on Old Sauk Road: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_b3533244-507 e-11df-bb09-001cc4c03286.html Does it really cost 50% more money to add 25% more width to a road? Anyway, Ivey hits on the real problem here: "Hiniker says most drivers assume the taxes on gasoline cover the expense to build and maintain roads. But he notes the state's transportation fund - which is basically the gas tax combined with vehicle registration fees - provides only 60 percent of local road funding. The rest falls to property taxpayers." On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: Greetings fellow bikies: Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk sent out a letter I thought you'd be interested in. County Highway KP, a favorite route for bicycling in west/northwestern Dane County, is scheduled for reconstruction. Two elected officials from the Town of Black Earth expressed interest in having a bike lane/shoulder included in the construction project. The County Executive's office agreed to make this addition, and noted a price tag of $600K." ******* End of Archive Messages ******** -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 10:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bikies] InBusiness column on Sherman Ave bike lanes I take issue with the idea that the bike lanes are there for the benefit of bicyclists. The bike lanes weren't painted just because there are bicyclists using North Sherman. They were created because too many motorists are unable to share the road safely and legally. Bike lanes are basically a tax on motorists for failing to meet the obligations of their driver's license. It would be entirely appropriate to pay for them from the gas tax. The use of quotes here is hilarious: .... The changes were promoted with the idea of ?safety? and ?bicycles,? and I?m all in favor of both. ... Ha, as if "safety" is even a real thing! and this: .... the $100,000 reconfiguration, which presumably comes from gas-tax road funds. ... If you're going to shoot your mouth off, would it really be that hard to figure out where the funding for this comes, Mr. Haight? No, it would not. -- darin burleigh _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org -- Jeff Schimpff & Theresa Stabo
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
