Wrap up report for our Max ad “Should cyclists pay a road tax?”

November 25, 2009 Justin Kistner — 9 comments

Findings

After much anticipation, we are pleased to release our final report on the conversation that ensued from the release of our ad on the Max light rail train asking, “Should cyclists pay a road tax?”

More education about how roads are funded is needed

No one seems to really know how roads are funded in Oregon. As we wrote in our report, “the amount of misinformation shared throughout this campaign was staggering.” That misinformation and lack of understanding took the debate to bizarre and unproductive places.

As is often the case online, people spent a great deal of time debating wrong facts, which leads to heated and unproductive conversation. Accurate and well-distributed data would at least focus that debate.

Today, we still can’t say for certain how roads are funded in Oregon. There is a national statistic from the Federal Highway Administration, but it includes sales tax as a funding source, which doesn’t exist in Oregon. Claims from participants in the conversation suggest the funding picture for Oregon is quite different, but we have not been able to validate that claim. In a discussion with Scott Bricker (former head of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance), he suggested less than 20 people how road funding really works in Oregon. Despite investing a lot of time researching it, we still cannot say we’re among those 20 people.

Secondly, we know for certain that roads are funded through taxes, whether property, gas, or other taxes. None of us pay the same amount for these taxes. The underlying motivation to understand contribution is really about fair allocation of funding for infrastructure. That brings us to our second finding, which is the real crux of the issue.

More explanation of how bike infrastructure benefits all road users

There are a few schools of thought here. A very small group feels like separate infrastructure for bikes is the wrong way to go. Most people feel like dedicated infrastructure for bikes is the solution, but they don’t all agree on who pays for it or who receives the benefits from it. Our conclusion is that more explanation of how bike infrastructure benefits all road users would help.

All of the discussion about funding sources is an attempt to argue for equal contribution for equal usage, which is an attempt to make things “fair.” But, explicit usage is not the only way roads provide us with value. Roads enable the transportation of people and things. Sometimes those things are on trucks headed to the store where we will buy them later. Sometimes roads enable an ambulance to reach us, or the police to stop a crime in progress. We use the roads to get to work, visit friends and family, and to get to the places we want to go. When Oregon thinks about the taxes we pay for roads, the real concern should be focused on if we’re getting the maximum return on our investment.

This is where arguments about decreased congestion from increased bike usage get their power. This is how safety and accessibility start to matter more to us than who paid for what.

There are amazing debates the public could have about congestion, safety, accessibility, and more but only if people have good data. So, in addition to funding sources, we need more data about allocation and usage as well as effective distribution of that data.

Too many people riding bikes ride dangerously

Speaking of safety; much of the conversation was distracted from tangents about people riding bikes dangerously. There was significant push back about the danger of motor vehicles. To me, the safety concerns of mixed-use roads are not trivial. Vehicles that have drastically different weight, inertia, and protection using the same space is a recipe for disaster. If the safety of that ecosystem is dependent upon high attention from users, that makes less sense than designing the spaces to be fool-proof to begin with. Inherently safer road designs would mitigate this debate.

Where do we go from here

Tolerance
The most important thing we can all do is to be considerate of each other. Since this discussion covers money, safety, identity, and more, tempers can flare. If someone is making a direct attack, it’s hard to turn the other cheek. Here are some ways we can avoid adding to the tension:

Don’t get angry if people don’t know where road funding comes from. Remember, throughout this discussion no one provided reliable data about the funding of Oregon roads.
Don’t assume that because you heard some guy once talk about roads and taxes at a cocktail party that he was an expert. That’s true for what you read on blogs too (including this one).
Education is not evenly distributed; so don’t be surprised to find ignorance. Also remember that your information might be wrong, so don’t wield it as though it is undisputed fact.
Be kind to your fellow road users. We are all entitled to the road and just trying to live our lives.

Unhappy Hour
Someone on the Shift List suggested bringing people together in a town hall fashion and talking through the issues. When people are talking anonymously over the Internet, it’s easy to dismiss or marginalize other people. In person, however, we could talk through our questions and concerns to arrive at some much needed consensus.

Doing the right thing
If this had been a survey for a Webtrends client, this is what we would advise our client to do:

Find the correct answers to road funding in Oregon to put the debate to rest.
Frame the conversation to be about return on investment, not pay for usage. As long as we are talking about explicit road usage in exchange for equal contribution; no one wins. We get value out of the roads from not directly using them, so let’s ask what is the optimal configuration of the roads to provide everyone with the most value.
Encourage road user accountability. This means we’ll need to talk about things like: extending insurance to bikes, equal law enforcement for moving violations, establishing vehicular homicide laws to crack down on lethal driving, etc. There is a lot to discuss there, but just having the discussion will do a lot to improve the relations between vehicle operators who feel other vehicles are operating dangerously.

Would you ask the same question if you could do it over?

If we had the opportunity, we would have asked the same question. The information we gathered was extremely informative and that was the point of our exercise. If we would have asked a question like, “Are we getting the maximum return on our investment in road infrastructure?” not only would we have had much less response, but it wouldn’t have reached the same people. We saw a disconnect, and this process was one that got to the bottom of the disconnect in order to make a recommendation for how to address it. We feel very good about our recommendations. Download our report to read more about our recommendations.

CATEGORIES: Social Media

TAGS: bike MAX portland taxes

Click here to cancel reply.

9 Comments

Calliope
2009-11-30
22:49:21
In terms of "misinformation" and the "bizarre and unproductive," nothing touches WebTrends' disingenuous original question; garbage in, garbage out. A much more accurate way to ask would have been, "Should people have to pay extra to ride bikes?"

But of course that wouldn't have been red meat, and wouldn't have raised as many comments--many of them violent and outright murderous ("cyclists make good speed bumps," for instance), though relatively quickly purged by the various sites' moderators. It also likely wouldn't have translated into real-world intimidation--though of course, no Portland cyclist can establish a causal relationship between noticeably more aggressive motorist behavior (including taunts of "pay up") and this summer's campaign.

The saddest part is that if Portland's most vulnerable road users had extra danger heaped upon them--and if WebTrends placed itself on the same nauseating gradient as local if-it-bleeds-it-leads TV "news" and local radio shock jocks, all of whom have exploited car/bike tensions for ratings in past summers--it was all for nothing. As Justin writes in the download, "the sides are too polarized and the topic is too complex for a Max ad."

Duh, Justin. You could have just tried downtown bike commuting for a few days, gathered the same insights, and spared your neighbors the extra risk. But of course that would have required empathy instead of exploitation.

PDX, you've been punk'd. WebTrends drew a bullseye on our backs for nothing more than its own gain--and apparently that MAX wrap is *still* out there doing its damage in our home city. No doubt WebTrends has made plenty of local converts--to Google Analytics, StatCounter, *anything* but WebTrends. I've made the switch at work, and it's been "good riddance" all the way.
Justin Kistner
2009-11-30
23:34:48
Hi Calliope, welcome back. To clarify, our report was written by Thom Schoenborn, who does ride his bike to commute downtown. We're not ignorant of our community and studies are almost always done to confirm a hypothesis. It was a great experience for us and we learned a lot. Even critics of our campaign, like Jonathan Maus, found our report helpful. Sorry you didn't enjoy our campaign or feel like you've learned anything from it.

BTW, which one did you go with: Google Analytics or StatCounter?
Calliope
2009-12-01
12:01:17
Justin, this was merely an ill-advised stunt, not a study; studies seek permission from their subjects if risk is involved, or at least provide an opt-out. You did neither for PDX cyclists, who bore the brunt of any heightened road tensions and attendant risk of injury and death. If, as you claim, WebTrends truly was not ignorant, that makes its actions even worse. WebTrends, at least have the decency to remove the MAX wrap; it *is* still out there, isn't it?

Using both Google Analytics and StatCounter in different but modest circumstances; no need to make a quick decision, since the price is so reasonable.
Calliope
2009-12-01
12:05:03
That is, attendant *increase* in risk of injury and death.
Justin Kistner
2009-12-01
23:35:14
Calliope, the ad runs through the end of this month. All participants were told we were asking the question to collect the results. There was no risk to warn people of for answering the question.

If you don't need our differentiating features and are able to use a free solution, then you should. StatCounter is a counter, not analytics. Definitely choose Google over StatCounter, but I also recommend you consider Yahoo! Analytics. Those are all free solutions.
Calliope
2009-12-02
13:26:45
It's great news that the MAX wrap comes down Dec. 31. Could you please post documentation to that effect?

However, you're expressing a short-sighted and dangerous concept of who the participants were, and still are--and that may be the crux: You guys just don't comprehend the havoc you may have wreaked on your neighbors.

Exploiting car/bike tensions--both via the MAX wrap directly and via the violent and sometimes outright murderous comments it fomented--ups the risk for everyone *on the road*, whether or not they made comments you could analyze. The stunt was executed in a way that made us all street-level subjects in your "study," and we had no way to opt out of the potential for increased aggressive behavior and resulting increased risk of injury and death. This seems very similar to the sort of negligence that, in other contexts, has generated class-action suits. Just sayin'.

But anyway: Post that documentation--and live up to it come Dec. 31--and you won't see more from me until possibly the next campaign, if I and my peeps are in your crosshairs again.

BTW, who's next? I bet they would appreciate a heads-up.
Jonathan Maus / BikePortland.org
2009-12-04
16:28:58
Yes, I did feel this report was helpful in that it provided some data and perspective from an outside source on a complicated and controversial issue.

HOWEVER, I met with Justin (at his request) and told him very directly about my serious misgivings with the entire campaign from the get go.

I still think Webtrends could/should to more to make up for their mistake. Bottom line: I feel their message contributed to ignorance, which in turn leads to hate, which in turn leads to road rage, which in turn leads to more dangerous conditions for people who bike.
Justin Kistner
2009-12-04
17:14:25
Hi Jonathan. That is a lot of turns we don't agree on, as was the case when we met. While we may not see eye to eye on our campaign, I think you can vouch for the fact that I'm not an evil mastermind trying to inflict harm. We had a respectful and productive conversation.

I know it would be easier to say we created the thoughts people shared and if we did something different it would undo those feelings, but that's not realistic. People shared what was already on their minds whether it was good, bad, or ugly. The discussion that ensued did more to educate than not doing our campaign because people got to hear and share a wide swath of opinions. From here, our recommendations have been made, so the question now is not what more could/should Webtrends do, but what will BikePortland and other transportation advocacy groups do with those recommendations.

Who is going to find out the actual answer for Oregon road funding so it can't be a source of debate? Who is going to shift the debate from bike advocacy to maximizing return on our investments in roads? And, who is going to show leadership by addressing negative perceptions of irresponsible road use (for all vehicle types) with tactics other than denial or reverse finger pointing?

Our campaign found the answers. Now it's up to you to move on them.
Calliope
2009-12-04
18:22:48
WebTrends didn't create the violent and murderous thoughts, but it elicited and amplified them on various sites—which created an influence that may have upped road users' risk of injury and death while offering them no opt-out.

Not a neighborly move, WebTrends.

Folks following along: A relevant issue might be whether what's evident here would have been sufficient due diligence for a campaign that you had commissioned. Would finding certain answers have been worth the risk to your potential customers' health and to your organization's good name?

And now back to radio silence in anticipation of December 31.