When economic times are tough, cyclists could pitch in by paying a small fee

NO, that's not me on a bike in the early 1940s, it's James Sullivan's younger brother, Tom, proudly showing his balance and the license — V066 — from the city of Vancouver, B.C., in 1941.

Sullivan sent me this photo after I jabbered on radio station CKNW about the potential benefits of bicycling fees. He was struck by the fact that there has been hardly a mention of bike licenses in his province and city since the days of World War II, roughly when Seattle had a cycling license.

Tom's joy is unbounded in the photo, and was not dimmed by the license tag the Canadians decided was needed then for their city.

I speak now of the state's dangerous and looming budget deficit. There's so much money taken out of the state's pipeline that virtually no amount of federal kickbacks to the states can muffle the cries. Every proud, state-funded institution is crying to keep their modest state monies flowing, without a public comment of who or what should get cut instead.

In these times, something nearly like the Great Depression and a country at war, cyclists may help us by acknowledging their role in the continued maintenance of our city and region. A modest fee, either at time of purchase or annually, would go down well with Seattle's and King County's other taxes on our modes of recreation and commuting.

Vancouver traffic engineer David Rawsthorne cycles to his office every day. He bristled at the notion of a cycling fee but was expansive about the job his city does for cycling.

"Vancouver spends a healthy amount each year per cyclist," Rawsthorne said by phone and added any comparisons between cyclists, car drivers and taxes would not get much reception before his city council. In fact, he said, it's just the opposite.

"For as long as I can remember, the province has not collected a sales tax on bicycles," Rawsthorne said, although there is a federal tax that cyclists pay at point of sale.

Vancouver is now going through the open process of asking citizens if they want two bike lanes on a bridge most of us have used in treks north. It's the Burrard Bridge, built in 1932, near where the freeway turns into Vancouver neighborhood traffic. The old bridge is unable to support the cars, trucks, cyclists and pedestrians using it daily. Adding bike lanes to bridges now seems as easy as riding a bike — just like that kid in the photo.

I continue to be stumped by the hackles raised by cyclists who want clean, well-maintained trails and bridges as part of their city and region but refuse to negotiate from a position of political strength. The sales tax on bicycles is collected, sure, as it is on dishes and limousines. The issue becomes not about a penalty but about participation in the upkeep of the environment.

In the best green cities of the West, including Vancouver, B.C., Portland and Seattle, the case for infrastructure improvement remains strong. In the opinion piece (below) on this page, you can find evidence of the unequivocal public interest in improvements to roads, bridges, viaducts and the like.

Similarly, if a tax to support cycling were proposed, only the users would fight it. (Scratch a devoted bicyclist and find a saint). That's the case with most fees, and why government by necessity taxes us all for parks, traffic, schools and even the recreational use of boats and RVs. It's about maintaining the trails beneath us.

James F. Vesely's column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: jvesely@seattletimes.com; for a podcast Q&A with the author, go to Opinion at www.seattletimes.com/edcetera