The Real Battle

 Last week I wrote about the passage of Bill 212 in Ontario, Canada.  Among other things, it authorizes that province’s government the authority to order Toronto—its largest city and capital—to remove bike lanes and to block the metropolis from installing a new bike lane if it results in the loss of a traffic or parking lane.

Interestingly, Philadelphia has gone in an almost-opposite direction.  Yesterday Mayor Cherelle Parker signed a bill that prohibits drivers from stopping, standing or parking in bike lanes—and increases fines for those who break the law.

Reactions to both events has been predictable and echoes the ways in which cyclists (and pedestrians) have been pitted against drivers. The debate, fueled at least in part by misconceptions, can also be seen on the editorial pages of the Washington Post.  The first salvo of the latest fight came from Mark Fisher’s article, “The truth about bike lanes:  They’re not about the bikes.” Yesterday the newspaper published reactions from anti-bike lane (and, in some cases, anti-cyclist) motorists. It has announced its intention to devote a page to pro-bike lane arguments.

Among the misconceptions expressed in the editorials, perhaps the most egregious is this:  We are getting our lanes for free.

Some years ago, I found myself arguing about that with a driver whom I cursed out after he cut me off.  I became his emotional punching bag because, at that moment, I was the embodiment of all cyclists, just as any given Black person can become a proxy for an entire race.

I didn’t raise my voice or lose my temper. Instead, when he shouted the “free ride” canard, I pointed out that I paid for that street and its parking spaces just as he had:  Here in New York, as in most places, street and road construction and maintenance is paid from the general pool of taxes. He was not, as he believed, paying for something I wasn’t. In fact, I said, the only tax he pays that I don’t is on gasoline.

He actually calmed down. I probably could’ve mentioned other ways his and other ways his and other motorists’ driving is subsidized—including our foreign policy—but I left him while we were at least civil toward each other.

Some would call it a “win.” In today’s political climate, it would be a step forward. On the other hand, to amend Mr. Fisher’s thesis, the debate about bike lanes isn’t really about the lanes.  I believe it is, rather, a proxy for the culture wars, which in turn are about economics: Will they serve the interests of those who have brought the planet (whether through their financial, political, cultural or ostensibly-religious activities) to its current crisis—and their often-unwitting pawns? Or will we leave those coming after us a world in which they can live, let alone thrive?

Who Pays For Whom?

This argument has a foundation as weak as many St. Paul street beds, with even more (pot)holes than Shepherd Road.

So wrote Zack Mensinger in a Minn Post editorial. It’s the very point I’ve made to drivers who complain that I, and other cyclists, are taking “their” lanes and parking spaces.

So what is the flimsy logic Mr. Mensinger has exposed? It’s the faulty basis for a mistaken belief that too many non-cyclists hold: They, on four wheels, are paying for roads and other motor-related infrastructure and we, on two (or, sometimes, three) are freeloaders.

The reality, as he points out, is all but diametrically opposite.  In St.Paul, and most other places in the US, drivers don’t come close to paying the cost of streets. 

For one thing, contrary to common belief, most potholes are not caused by freeze-thaw cycles, even in a place with winters as brutal as those in the Minnesota capital. Rather, most of the damage is done by motorized vehicles, especially the bigger and heavier ones. 

Think of it this way:  Sidewalks are subject to the same weather conditions streets incur. Yet we don’t see potholes on sidewalks, which are used by pedestrians.  Even the heaviest cyclist with the heaviest bike is closer in weight to an average-sized pedestrian than to a car, let alone a truck or bus.

Another argument drivers make is that they pay gasoline taxes and vehicle registration fees.  That is true, but those revenues don’t come close to paying for streets and roads. And, if you own a car but use your bike more (admittedly a rare circumstance in the US), you’re still paying the same registration fee.

Someone is sure to bring up tolls for bridges, tunnels and highways—which cyclists don’t pay because we don’t use those facilities except for bridges.  But, as with gas taxes and registration fees, they represent a small part of roadway funding.

So, if those fees and taxes don’t pay for roads and streets, what does?  In Minnesota and most other places, the majority of street and road financing comes from general funds.  They usually include income and property taxes, which we pay whether or not we drive.  In other words, some of the money that’s deducted from my paycheck pays for things I, as a cyclist and non-driver, will never use. 

So, however and for whatever reasons drivers want to rant and rail ar us, they should thank us for subsidizing them.