A letter to Ron Corbett, journalist, Ottawa Sun and CFRA

Post date: Jun 11, 2015 12:48:8 AM

June 10, 2015

Hi Ron.

Thank you for your show featuring one of the fine-gentleman of Ottawa cycling, Mr. Avery Burdett.

I think it’s unlikely that your call for a registration fee for bicycles will succeed. I understand your point of view about a token contribution to represent the cyclist’s “fair share” to use the roads. But in any case where the “fairness” or “equity” argument is raised, I think it behooves us to dig into what’s fair and to properly evaluate it from a cost benefit point of view. It may be opening a can of worms because I think at the end of the day, the registered cyclists will be seen as deserving to not PAY to use the road, but actually be entitled to a share in the savings they provide. Indeed “fair share” may even result in them being granted a tax break or various other incentives to ride their bikes, rather than be asked to pay. You will surely oppose this too, but here is the reasoned argument.

The city has determined (Transportation Master Plan, page 20) that cycling per person per km costs the citizenry the least compared to walking, private auto, and transit. They have stated that encouraging more cycling is in their interests with respect to costs, and that means tax savings for everyone.

As a working resident, I pay my fair share of taxes, as do you, I am certain (so we are only talking about some extra you’d like me and other cyclists to to pay, I understand). I already pay all the taxes and fees and insurance to operate a car. Most cyclists, and in particular the ones your callers typically call “lycra clad” are the ones who afford good bikes and they ALL also have cars. Really they do. It’s only those at the very lower end of the income scale who MUST use bikes as transportation that may not have the means to buy and operate a car. As you know, this is a small population. You may or may not have feelings about requiring them to register their bikes. I noticed you did have a soft spot for under 18’s. I’d be pleased to learn if you had some compassion for the very poorest among us and also not require $40 registration. Or maybe upon $40 registration they get a food bank credit for $40 worth of food or clothing.

But let’s push ahead. Like you, I’d like to see the tax burden on everyone to be diminished, because that includes me. I think the study cited above lumps together many of the societal benefits that increased cycling can bring to the whole community. I’ll take a quick stab at what I think is embedded in those savings and at the same time highlight a few immediate benefits that a person on a bicycle brings to you in your daily life, beyond a good chuckle at their attire.

Admittedly, we aren’t really riding our bikes FOR you, but let’s try to see what things we’re giving back to you, rather than only focus on what you perceive us as taking from you by using the roads somehow “unfairly” or inequitably. (before the subject changes from cost-benefit, let’s just put on record that the whole unlawful use of the road argument is accepted to be the same for cyclists and motorists. I’m not arguing any of those points about running lights and riding on sidewalks etc etc. It’s a rat-hole leading to a separate subject. Consider me to be like Avery Burdett, and I strongly believe all road users need to behave equally and courteously toward others and follow the rules. Fines are the same for both cyclists and motorists already. So this really is about legal courteous and shared use of the roadways, and their is a focus on commuting and utilitarian cycling rather than just for sport, except maybe under point #3 below.)

Okay, so benefits to you and me provided by increased cycling or more cyclists:

1) Cycling reduces gas consumption. There’s more left for everyone else. It’s needed for longer trips, larger loads and everything you’d never contemplate using a bicycle to practically transport. Bulk cargo, bulk public transport, your order from Amazon. That needs cheap gas, no doubt.

2) Cyclists contribute to reducing pollution, cleaner air, because they aren’t a car with exhaust. In large numbers, it means health benefits to everyone, and at least better air marginally increases everyone’s quality of life, if not decreasing health care costs due to breathing pollutants.

3) People who cycle are themselves typically healthier and we expect that to put less long-term stress on health care costs due to the preventive effects of general fitness (Here is where the for-sport cyclists come into the picture a little more). At this point you may like to raise an argument about dangers of cycling and emergency room visits, but that of course allows me to whip-out the card comparing automobile accident rates, deaths, injuries and emergency room visits that result. When this card is drawn, I think this single factor may be compelling on its own and its much larger than all other factors combined, leading to the conclusion “if it’s only about emerge room costs and restorative health care, why the hell does anyone drive a car?”. So let’s do what everyone does and pretend to ignore it.

4) People who cycle (commute) reduce the congestion on the roadway to everyone else’s benefit. Consider if every cyclist you see stopped at a light was instead driving another car. Each one of those would be in front of you at busy intersections, delaying your own commute further. Say to self: “at least it’s not another car in this line, and I might get through this light/cross this bridge sooner because of them.” You get home to enjoy your family-time sooner when more cyclists are not congesting the roads by using their cars or even public transit instead.

5) Bicycle use causes far less wear and tear on the roadways compared to cars and trucks and buses. Cyclists can see intimately the changing nature of a road over its lifecycle. From newly paved, to cracked, to frost heaved due to melting snow and refreezing (due to need for salt and snow removal), to tread-worn when heavy traffic or weather and water damage occurs. Then patching. Then repaving. The more bicycles that travel a road, the fewer cars are wearing it down. (it’s overweight trucks that do the most severe damage). Less cars, less maintenance of roads, less need to repave and repair.

6) As cycling increases, it reduces the overall growth rate in the number of cars needed, and this likewise slows the need to build more roadways to accommodate them. This is all in terms of road-width, total length, need for bridges, signaling, signage, maintenance, drainage, and snow clearance. All of that comes with a new road. More bikes, less cars means a diminished rate at which new roads are needed and the associated costs to build and service them.

So I think I’m trying to articulate that when we talk about “fair share” it may be wrong to only look at what a group is perceived to be “taking” and tax them on it, because we may be forced to concede (or at least we ought to understand) what they are giving back to everyone. The end result may be someone standing up and saying: “wait, we ought to be REWARDING these ‘lycra clad’ blokes, not penalizing them!!!”. So I can indeed envision that a “Fairness-based” registration of bicycles may lead reasonably to demands of “real fairness”, resulting in paying-back the registered cyclists for the savings they have provided. If I were in line for this payback and it needed registration...sure, I’d register, because I’d always come out the winner. Instead, without registration and admin and without looking any further, with no more unnecessary bureaucracy and no overhead, we all win already. (You are welcome, and I’m happy to help.)

More realistically, the city will never really hand back money to anyone if they can help it. I’ve a good sense that when or if someone proposes to raise any barrier to people using MORE bicycles in the city, even a token one of $40 (your view/words), the more reasoned heads will say “No, we owe THEM money in the end, so let’s just tuck this under and hope nobody notices, and call it a wash. We’ll run ads on the buses to tell people to ride their bikes more.”

For this reason, I believe a proposal to register and license bicycles will likely fail at council. They have the numbers in their hands already, and it appears to be their “bent” that encouraging cycling with fewer barriers, rather than more creating more barriers with fees and bureaucracy, is their general understanding of good economic management for the transportation sector.

It’s a position with which I agree. Thank you for reading.

Paul Smeulders

Ottawa