So, for those of you who are unaware, May is BIKE month. That's a whole fun month for those of us who derive spiritual bliss from those two wheeled human powered vehicles. Of course during May, and the other 11 months of year we still get to dodge traffic, put up with poorly maintained roads and the occasional moron who has confused his privilege of driving a car with a right to run everyone else off the road.
When oil prices where up to $140/barrel last year many of us in the cycling world (especially the cycle commuter set) were pretty sure that for some parts of the US northern European style cycling was just around the corner. But with the drop in oil removing the incentive for people to reconsider their driving habits (and the fact that buying a bike does not seem like a good move in a recession) one might wonder where exactly we are headed. But all of the upsides remain. More bikes=fewer cars. Fewer cars=less oil purchased from non-democratic regimes, fewer greenhouse gases and of course healthier people (which also saves a lot of money).
As many before me have noted, most of America is set up to make driving the easiest option. Big parking lots, freeways, suburbs, even office parks are all a byproduct of how people move from place to place. There have been a few stabs in the other direction. The newer bridges here in the Bay Area have bike lanes (including the new Bay bridge- whenever its finished), many cities have designated bike lanes and bike streets. All that is great, but it does not seem to be making a dent in the amount of traffic headed down I-80 each morning. So, short of uprooting 50+ years of infrastructure what can we do to effect this change? We could jack up taxes on cars or oil (a carbon tax?) but that might be a tough sell in the middle of a huge recession.
How about providing more tax incentives to cycle commuters? Perhaps a depreciation schedule for bicycles used for commuting. How about a tax incentive to live within 10 miles of your job? That alone might not only encourage smaller commutes (and more cyclists) but also help to stabilize communities in cities that are otherwise suffering from brain-drain and capital flight.
Imagine if on your tax form you had a chance to take a credit based on your distance from work? This would not be a tax on your commute, but a credit for not having one. I am sure there is someone out there who could do the math and tell me if this is practical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I like the concept but it would be pretty difficult to prove a negative to the IRS. How would you produce proof that you (or someone else) are not driving? Some sort of infastructure, like GPS tracking on your bike, would have to be part of the deal.
I would make it pretty simple. I am pretty sure that state transportation departments keep some estimates of average commutes. I would use this as a benchmark and then offer a tax credit to anyone who lived within that radius. The closer you live, the greater the credit. We could go a step further and offer a credit for having fewer cars than licensed drivers per household (and that turns out to be pretty progressive). That would credit people who carpool/mass transit/bike all of which reduce pollution and oil use.
Post a Comment