Tax cyclist idea.........pedestrians next?

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

According to the CSO, in 2006 there were 36,306 men and women over the age of 15 cycling to work, versus some 1,080,446 who drove a car.

This wasn't suggested as a "commute by bike" tax. I'd guess that total bike ownership is rather higher than 1%.

The argument also goes the other way: if the ratio of bike:car is 1:30, they're not taking much traffic off the roads.

rflynnr

Lumen wrote: »

The argument also goes the other way: if the ratio of bike:car is 1:30, they're not taking much traffic off the roads.

Even if bikes account for only 3% of the traffic volume cars do, they may still make a substantial contribution to improved traffic flow. Ever noticed how Dublin commuter traffic becomes quicker during July and August? This is often put down to the fact that schools are closed and thus school-run traffic is off the road. Indeed I mentioned this assumption in passing to the then Assistant Director of the DTO about eight years ago during a research interview on changing patterns of urbanisation in Dublin. He corrected me, pointing out that school runs were generally short trips and rarely made extensive use of radial routes into the city. When I asked why there seemed to be less traffic during the summer months, he informed me that at any given moment between June and August, 3-5% of the normally resident population wasn't in Dublin but were on holiday. Consequently traffic volumes fell, marginally but with noticeable effect. The Dublin traffic layout is capable of handling a finite volume of traffic: once that volume is surpassed, the system slows dramatically or simply halts. Anything that takes four-wheeled vehicles off the road reduces the likelihood of overall traffic volumes reaching this critical tipping point. In that context the 3% figure represented by cyclists becomes potentially quite significant.

Lumen

rflynnr wrote: »

Even if bikes account for only 3% of the traffic volume cars do, they may still make a substantial contribution to improved traffic flow. Ever noticed how Dublin commuter traffic becomes quicker during July and August? This is often put down to the fact that schools are closed and thus school-run traffic is off the road. Indeed I mentioned this assumption in passing to the then Assistant Director of the DTO about eight years ago during a research interview on changing patterns of urbanisation in Dublin. He corrected me, pointing out that school runs were generally short trips and rarely made extensive use of radial routes into the city. When I asked why there seemed to be less traffic during the summer months, he informed me that at any given moment between June and August, 3-5% of the normally resident population wasn't in Dublin but were on holiday. Consequently traffic volumes fell, marginally but with noticeable effect. The Dublin traffic layout is capable of handling a finite volume of traffic: once that volume is surpassed, the system slows dramatically or simply halts. Anything that takes four-wheeled vehicles off the road reduces the likelihood of overall traffic volumes reaching this critical tipping point. In that context the 3% figure represented by cyclists becomes potentially quite significant.

Interesting insights. I agree with "potentially". However, I don't think it works that way. In a modern city, I believe that the limiting factor is people's patience. If you add capacity, more people take to the road until gridlock is reached again.

I can see how seasonal differences might make a difference, because commuting behaviour might be ingrained - once you get used to using a particular mode of transport, you get used to it and continue, rather than using public transport for 9 months of the year then the car in summer.

rp

Lumen wrote: »

If you add capacity, more people take to the road until gridlock is reached again.

Its the same with motorways - add lanes to a road and more people use it. Tom Vanderbilt explains it very well in his excellent book "Traffic".

unionman

rp wrote: »

Its the same with motorways - add lanes to a road and more people use it. Tom Vanderbilt explains it very well in his excellent book "Traffic".

But within an urban area you cannot add 'capacity', at least not without knocking buildings down. The motorway is extra urban. Dublin city has a finite traffic capacity, so rflynnr's explanation there makes a lot of sense.

scottreynolds

I propose a congestion charge. ... for cars obviously.

Seriously though Dublin does have enough people to have a really good public transport system. Hence the problems. The government kind missed the boat here. the only sensible thing in Dublin now would be to have a high speed transport hub into the city with several stations around the m50 (Dundrum, Liffey, Blanch, Swords) and buses etc feeding these hubs. This would stop much of the madness of people going into town to go back out of it which is pretty stupid. Sydney (albeit very loosely) has this concept....

Kurtosis

I propose a Footpath Tax for pedestrians. I'm tired of money for the building and upkeep footpaths coming out of my Road Tax while these walkers contribute nothing :pac:

penguin88

penguin88 wrote: »

I propose a Footpath Tax for pedestrians. I'm tired of money for the building and upkeep footpaths coming out of my Road Tax while these walkers contribute nothing :pac:

Heh, tolled paths. Well at least it'd keep people from cycling on the paths.

DBCyc

scottreynolds wrote: »

Seriously though Dublin does have enough people to have a really good public transport system. Hence the problems.

I agree but the real problem with Dublin is that the high population is spread out over such a large area with a lots of low density areas of population (e.g. sprawls of housing estates in west Dublin). This is unfortunately due to poor planning and often due to corruption.

This creates a big problem in trying to provide effective public transport links as the catchment areas around the line are around 1 km walk to a rail station and maybe half or less for a bus stop.

Therefore even with all the planned public transport services, there will still be always be large areas of the city outside the reach of public transport and will remain dependent on cars to get into work unless the cost / disincentive to drive by car increases, i.e. congestion charge.

I'm all for the levy on car parking in the workplace as it is similar to a congestion charge...then using the revenue to provide incentives to cycle. Well done the greens!

Kurtosis

Myth wrote: »

Heh, tolled paths. Well at least it'd keep people from cycling on the paths.

A flood of people walking in the cycle lanes could ensue though...

Húrin

"If nothing else, such a levy might at least allow the common motorist give way more easily to the sometimes meandering cyclist who adamantly refuses to avail of the bike lanes that we, the hard-pressed motorists have paid for by way of tax levies imposed upon us. "

KEITH WYNNE

That's rich Keith. The "hard-pressed" (who have most of the road) motorists have paid for cycle lanes that they park and drive in anyway.

blorg wrote: »

I earn above the average wage and correspondingly pay more in tax than the average man on the street; as such I could as well argue that I pay for the motorways and resent not being allowed to cycle on them

Oh wait, it's the Indo.

You're damn right blorg. Especially when one considers how enormously expensive motorways are, far more than any other kind of road.

Húrin

Raam wrote: »

I wouldn't use my commute as a replacement for a good long hard ride. (Is there any way to re-phrase that without making it sound dirty?)

Especially coming from a poster called "Raam"!

studiorat

rflynnr wrote: »

Unless you're aware of a scheme for evading VAT on bikes, bikes are taxed, so they are no different.

Well if you use it as a business expense! I work in town and use the bike to nip from place to place. I'd have no problem claiming the VAT back on a bike. You can claim VAT on parking any other services in maintaining the company fleet, so why not a bike you use for work.

Lumen

studiorat wrote: »

Well if you use it as a business expense! I work in town and use the bike to nip from place to place. I'd have no problem claiming the VAT back on a bike. You can claim VAT on parking any other services in maintaining the company fleet, so why not a bike you use for work.

As long as you don't also use the bike privately, that's OK. If you're using it in the evening and at weekends, technically you're dodging tax. It's the same with phones, computers, cars, etc.

That's my understanding anyway, but I'm not an accountant.

penguin88

penguin88 wrote: »

A flood of people walking in the cycle lanes could ensue though...

And so cyclists would use the road (proper) again. Win win!

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

As long as you don't also use the bike privately, that's OK. If you're using it in the evening and at weekends, technically you're dodging tax. It's the same with phones, computers, cars, etc.

That's my understanding anyway, but I'm not an accountant.

Depends on the amount of usage.

If you're self employed and use your car say, 50-50 between business-private use, you can claim 50% of your car's running costs as expenses. You can also claim depreciation and the like on the car.

Should be the same for a bike. I don't think you can claim back the VAT though if it's used at all privately.

Raam

Húrin wrote: »

Especially coming from a poster called "Raam"!

I knew that username was a bad idea.

kenmc

seamus wrote: »

Should be the same for a bike. I don't think you can claim back the VAT though if it's used at all privately.

Well that's very simply solved then - always carry a letter you need to post for business whenever you use the bike. Then you're on a business-related Wicklow 200

studiorat

Lumen wrote: »

As long as you don't also use the bike privately, that's OK. If you're using it in the evening and at weekends, technically you're dodging tax. It's the same with phones, computers, cars, etc.

That's my understanding anyway, but I'm not an accountant.

Evenings and Weekends? Probably my busiest time...
The only reason I have a car is for work.

rubadub

micmclo wrote: »

Nobody in Ireland pays road tax

Yep, and read the letter

If nothing else, such a levy might at least allow the common motorist give way more easily to the sometimes meandering cyclist who adamantly refuses to avail of the bike lanes that we, the hard-pressed motorists have paid for by way of tax levies imposed upon us

Apparently this particular motorist gets charged a "bike lane tax levy", news to me...

dub_skav

So can you claim mileage if you use your bike for work?

Would be based on depreciation of the bike due to the extra use, increased frequency of new tyres/punctures. Possibly even the extra fuel (food) costs incurred

studiorat

Oh Yeah. I've got a "bananas" column in my accounts.

Kurtosis

Myth wrote: »

And so cyclists would use the road (proper) again. Win win!

Good thinking! It'll make a good point in our manifesto for the next general election, we'll be sure to get the anti-pedestrian lobby's votes.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

kenmc wrote: »

Well that's very simply solved then - always carry a letter you need to post for business whenever you use the bike. Then you're on a business-related Wicklow 200

Stick a small company sticker on the bike and add 'marketing executive' to your job title:p

Vélo

Sean_K wrote: »

Stick a small company sticker on the bike and add 'marketing executive' to your job title:p

And if your employer has a parking space for the "Marketing Executive" would you have to pay the €200 if you parked your bike in it