If the volume of comments on Internet news sites is an accurate barometer of the public's passion on a topic, there may be no more of a hot-button issue in the Portland region than how to pay for improved infrastructure for cyclists.
After all, it seems like cyclists get a free ride, right? While drivers are burning gas – and gas taxes – every time they're idling on Interstate 84 or U.S. 26 during rush hour, cyclists breeze by on idyllic "bike boulevards," sit in front of drivers at red lights in protected bike boxes and don't pay any sort of user fee for the road system.
As cyclists clamor for more bike infrastructure, a comment by Hillsboro Mayor Jerry Willey seemed to epitomize how many Portland-area drivers feel about pedal power:
"There's nothing in here that addresses how we get the bicycle community to start participating in" paying for road construction, Willey said at a May 25 meeting of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee. "That's probably threat words, but we're going to have to deal with that at some point in time. We have three feet on the side of the road for bicycle traffic adding, a significant cost to the road and the cost to maintain that road."
Willey made the remarks as part of a broader conversation about how to pay for Metro's proposals for cutting the region's greenhouse gas emissions, as directed by the Oregon Legislature in 2009. He also talked at the meeting about proposals to charge more for parking and fees for electric vehicle users.
"My concern was, the cost of these (various proposals) being shifted to the cities – the cities that have a relatively fixed revenue source in property taxes and a declining base in gas taxes," Willey said in an interview Monday. "Overall, it wasn't just the bicycle community I was focused on. It was, I think, the cost of many of the proposals."
But stories from the Oregonian, the Hillsboro Argus and BikePortland followed the Metro newsfeed's post about the MPAC meeting and focused almost exclusively on the bike remarks. Combined, more than 320 comments were posted on those stories, ranging on one end with readers upset with cyclists not paying their way to cyclists pointing out their impact on infrastructure costs is minimal and that they already pay for roads.
So who's right? Are cyclists paying their fair share?
Yes and no.
In Hillsboro, most major arterials are built and maintained by Washington County, and most include bike lanes and sidewalks in both directions. Big road projects, such as the upcoming $16 million rebuild of Brookwood Avenue from the Tualatin Valley Highway to Main Street, are paid for out of Washington County's Major Streets Transportation Improvement Program, or MSTIP.
Where does the money from MSTIP come from? Not gas taxes. Washington County property taxes fund the MSTIP program; every Washington County property owner (and, by proxy, property renter) is paying for roads built using MSTIP cash.
So, yes, cyclists are already participating in paying for road construction – and maintenance, which also is paid for from property tax revenue in Washington County.
On the other hand, the amount of money spent on bike improvements on a road project in the suburbs seldom matches the volume of bicycle traffic that road will carry.
According to Washington County, bike lanes constitute at least 12 percent of a road project's budget. The number varies widely, depending on the project – bike lanes can require extra right of way, and for a widening project on a narrower street, could constitute a quarter of the cost of construction. That number would go down dramatically if right of way is already available, or if a wider avenue uses proportionally less space for bike improvements.
According to a 2008 DHM Research survey for Washington County, voters there, on average, felt that about 13 percent of transportation funding should go toward bike improvements, compared to 33 percent for roads, 20 percent for trains and 18 percent for bridges.
Still, it's fair to say that a quarter of the traffic on Brookwood Avenue, when construction wraps up, won't be cyclists.
Gerik Kransky, the advocacy director for the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, rejects the notion that cyclists should pay extra for a system that includes dedicated bicycle improvements.
"Public health, the environment, safety and livable communities – all those are reasons we're trying to incentivize this," Kransky said. "To dis-incentivize riding a bicycle is counterintuitive, based on some of the goals we share as a community – and that's generally what an additional road tax for bicyclists would do."
He also points out that most cyclists own cars, and pay the same annual registration fee as drivers who use their cars every day.
Kransky said that all of the bike infrastructure in the City of Portland – from sharrows on bike boulevards to bike boxes at busy intersections – has cost $60 million to construct.
That might sound like a lot. But look at it in perspective.
ODOT estimates that a project to rebuild a freeway interchange in Hillsboro will cost $45 million. And Portland economist Joe Cortright made headlines last week when he said a park-and-ride garage that's part of the Columbia River Crossing project will cost about $60 million to build – as he put it, to turn part of downtown Vancouver into "a car storage area for people from Woodland who are commuting to jobs in downtown Portland."
In other words, it's all a matter of scale. Improvements for cyclists are proportionally inexpensive, but still cost more than the percentage of commuters using them. On Monday, Willey lauded cyclists for helping the region achieve its greenhouse gas goals, and pointed out that a cyclist license or bicycle registration program could never cover the costs of bike infrastructure.
A newspaper article Willey said he saw while out of town last week said that 5.8 percent of Portlanders bike to work. "That's the largest in the country, which is impressive," he said. "Certainly they're committed to improving the environment and helping us out on greenhouse gases.
"There is a need and a benefit to reducing greenhouse gases, and having electric cars and all of these other sustainability issues," Willey said. "Every one of them is important. Every one of them also has a cost, and you can't just make these decisions and then turn to the cities or the counties and say 'Implement these.'"
The Metro Policy Advisory Committee is scheduled to discuss the greenhouse gas reduction goals again at its Wednesday meeting.