Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Road tax for cyclists? Switzerland considers taxing cyclists to fund bike lanes, as politician asks: “Are we going to charge children too?”

The tax, currently being weighed up by the Swiss roads authority, could comprise a physical or digital tax disc for cyclists, an annual fee, or a surcharge while purchasing a bike. But campaigners say “absurd” proposal “pits motorists against cyclists”

In news that may offer some inspiration to the anti-cycling tub-thumpers on social media, radio phone-ins, or down the pub banging on about cyclists and their non-payment of the illusory ‘road tax’, Switzerland’s government is currently considering introducing a tax on cyclists to pay for the country’s bourgeoning cycling infrastructure.

In 2018, six years after Switzerland phased out its laws on compulsory insurance for cyclists, three-quarters of the Swiss electorate voted to enshrine cycling in the constitution, pledging the federal government to “promote” cycling and bike paths, along with footpaths and hiking trails, the promotion of which has been included in the constitution since 1977.

Since then, the Swiss Federal Council has passed the Cycle Routes Act, which came into effect in 2023 and sets out plans for the creation of a national, fully connected cycling network by 2040, with the country’s 26 cantons expected to submit their final proposals for the network by 2028. Meanwhile, recent studies have suggested that the proportion of Swiss cyclists on the roads is expected to double by 2050.

Bern (licensed CC BY SA 3.0 by Cristo Vlahos).jpg

> Three in four Swiss voters back enshrining cycling in constitution

This urge to expand Switzerland’s network of cycle lanes has, however, been met with criticism by some politicians, who have questioned how the 15-year project – which the government says will be subject to a “high investment requirement” – will be funded.

Currently, the construction of cycle lanes in Switzerland is mainly financed using the road building funds of the cantons and local municipalities, with some support from the federal government.

In recent years, some cantons have debated the introduction of a measure which will help fund the building of these cycle lanes by taxing those who will use them – namely cyclists – though votes on this cycling tax have narrowly been rejected in Lucerne last autumn and Basel-Landschaft in late 2023.

But now the debate appears to have reached national level, after the Federal Roads Office (ASTRA) announced that it has hired a consultancy firm to carry out a study identifying new sources of funding for the country’s ambitious cycling project.

> Cyclists want to “control the roads” through lower speed limits, claims driver – who asks: “What right does a cyclist have to tell anyone what to do?” amid call for cycling insurance, number plates, and bike inspections

One of the funding models currently being considered by the study is based on aligning cyclists and the proposed bike lanes with the direct “user-pays” principle which affects motorists, who in Switzerland pay an annual vehicle tax, along with purchasing a 40 Swiss Franc tax disc every year.

This cycling tax, if introduced, could possibly be implemented, says transport minister Albert Rösti, as either an annual fee, a physical or digital vignette, or a surcharge added to the purchase of each bike in the country.

2024 world junior women’s road race championships, Zurich (Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

The 2024 UCI world road championships in Zurich (Zac Williams/SWpix.com)

When questioned by the Swiss press on the study, a spokesperson for ASTRA insisted that none of these possible taxes are on the table just yet, due to the study’s recent launch. The roads authority noted that the research, work on which commenced last autumn, is independent, open-ended, and does not represent “a declaration of intent or wishes” on the part of the federal government.

ASTRA also noted that building an attractive and safe cycling network is essential for “everyday life and leisure”, and that research into how the cantons and municipalities will fund this expansion is “important”.

> 'Road tax' is coming... but not for cyclists

Unsurprisingly, the initiative has divided Swiss political opinion. Matthias Aebischer, a councillor for the Social Democratic Party of Switzerland and the president of the Pro-Velo cycling advocacy group, has called for the study to be scrapped, arguing that it will “lead to car drivers being pitted against cyclists”.

Aebischer also argued that the money used for the research would be better spent elsewhere. “For example, one could show in a study how the [recently binned] NAF motorway pot could be used for climate-friendly transport,” he said.

However, MP Xavier de Haller – the president of the Vaud branch of the Automobile Club of Switzerland – told The Local this week that a financial contribution from cyclists to pay for the construction and maintenance of cycle lanes, “even a modest one”, is “entirely logical”.

And right-wing Swiss People’s Party councillor Benjamin Giezendanner – who in 2022 demanded that cyclists should bear the “infrastructure costs for bicycle traffic” themselves – said “it’s time to talk about it again”.

“The Cycle Path Act has given cyclists more rights,” says Giezendanner, who owns a transport company. “It is consistent if they also take on financial responsibilities.”

> What don’t cyclists contribute to? Congestion, pollution and more besides...

Nevertheless, De Haller’s fellow deputy, Louise Trottet – who is also a member of Pro-Velo – believes any future cycling tax would lead to a number of “absurdities”, particularly concerning the fate of children riding bikes on the new cycle paths.

“Are we going to tax them too?" she asked.

In addition, Trottet pointed out that many cyclists also own cars, so already pay the same taxes as motorists for the upkeep of the roads.

And while the focus may currently be on the proposed cycling tax, Trottet’s Pro-Velo group has this week criticised some cantons for dragging their feet when it comes to implementing the Cycle Routes Act.

The campaign group claimed that the act “gives the cantons duties and deadlines to respect. Some cantons show that they take them seriously, by presenting introductory laws shortly after entry into force. Others are lagging behind.”

Just don’t mention road tax, eh?

After obtaining a PhD, lecturing, and hosting a history podcast at Queen’s University Belfast, Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.

Add new comment

37 comments

Avatar
Hardtire | 1 week ago
0 likes

Sidewalk use tax?   Triple-jump levy?

Avatar
mitsky | 1 week ago
4 likes

As multiple studies have shown that cycling brings in multiple times more money than the infrastructure costs...
I remember reading a while ago that cyclists are a 25p/mile benefit to the economy versus 50p/mile COST to the economy of driving.

If they are looking to charge cyclists some new tax...

Can an independent study be done on the costs of road infrastructure, maintenance/repair, health detriments and all other economic costs associated with motoring and see how much of that is covered by any "tax" that drivers pay?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mitsky | 1 week ago
0 likes

Waste of time and money.  Such has already been done many times, nobody is interested.  To be fair we want to put firm costs on things and some of the extended consequences of mass motoring (for generations) are rather "how much for your grandmother" type costs.  Plus if considering changing things that would come with its own costs and take a long time, during which the whole calculation would change.

Further - using such a study would be trying to use (nuanced) data to counter a feeling.  Not a win.

So I'm not sure about good ways of showing people the reality of the economic issue.  However for "but why should we have / pay for 'cycle infra' " more tangible, practical demonstrations are possible!  Perhaps an "all cyclists * drive in single-occupancy cars" day?  (* "cyclists" like the Dutch "fietsers" e.g. those on cycles of all kinds, wheelchair and mobility vehicle users, children and any anyone else who would be using mobility infra rather than driving).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to mitsky | 1 week ago
0 likes

As for "facts" - people confidently tell me that not only does "road tax" cover the costs of driving but "everyone knows" that driving is the engine that powers the economy.  (Quite often this then proceeds "and if you ban driving (which is never what was proposed...) how will our goods get here?  What about the ambulances ...?").

My anecdata is that people feel that driving is something they have to do - in the sense that society expects this of them.  And society does in fact expect adults to drive - or at least be able to.  In part people think of it as another chore or duty - I have to drive to get supplies for my family / care for others / do my important job.  So paying for stuff over and above a car and fuel costs?  People are convinced they're being fleeced!

Slightly more informed opinion ends up in the same position e.g. folks who have an idea of the tax takes and outgoings, are able to quote the numbers - they'll show you that the "motoring taxes" should cover "the road budget" plus.

It's one part "don't care" by users e.g. consequences we can't immediately or regularly see and don't think about.  Plus the motoring industries and those who support them (e.g. governments) have worked very hard on framing motoring as a good, nay an essential.  Drawing tight limits around what we recognise as "the consequences of motoring" (externalities) plus minimising the few that do come up.

Avatar
bensynnock replied to chrisonabike | 1 week ago
2 likes

I've seen this a few times and it doesn't really make sense.

If you can do something for £1 or for free then doing it for free will increase your productivity because you've gained the same result for less expenditure. Of course cycling isn't entirely free, but let's say for short journeys it costs 1% of a car journey - that makes you 100 times less productive in a car.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to bensynnock | 1 week ago
2 likes

Ah, but time means money!

Plus - that money that you're spending driving is generating the energy companies vast profits they can use to maintain the status quo is fed back into the economy through taxes on fuel / cost of car.

Agree - I suspect a lot of motoring is closer to "something we are happy to pay to have" than "keeps us in iPads".

There are of course lots of reasons why driving (limited to cars, say, to keep it simple) is chosen as a "money making tool".  Cars are much more of a "swiss army knife" for tasks than bikes.  E.g. unexpected longer journeys / carrying other people or bulky or heavy equipment / protection of one's important apparel from elements / mobile office and psychological refuge / part of one's status credentials when meeting etc.

Albeit a tool which is vastly overspecified for some purposes e.g. single person transport across short distances (where - in many urban locations - average speeds may not be much higher than is possible by cycling), running small errands, much shopping ...

Avatar
alexuk | 1 week ago
3 likes

Exactly this: "In addition, Trottet pointed out that many cyclists also own cars, so already pay the same taxes as motorists for the upkeep of the roads."

Asking cyclists to essentially pay twice, is absurd.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to alexuk | 1 week ago
4 likes

In the UK I think you'll find you're paying "road tax" e.g. taxes which go towards the upkeep of the roads and the provision of "motor infra" * - whether you own a car, a bicycle, both or neither.  As long as you're paying tax.

* And cycle infra, and pedestrian infra - many parts of which are in fact only required due to mass motoring (e.g. roundabouts, traffic lights and pedestrian crossings for a start).

Avatar
York1900y@gmail.com | 1 week ago
0 likes

Well I am in favour of a cyclist yearly road tax as long as it is charged on the manpower and cars are charged at the same rate
Because it would make driving a car a lot more expensive
Here is the maths to show how much money it will cost the car drivers

1 manpower is equivalent to 1 tenth of 1 horsepower
So since most cars are over 100 horsepower

That would mean a €20 or £20 charge per year

Would work out like this for car drivers charge 20 times ten times horsepower of the car so 20 x 10 x 100 = 20,000 that is for a 100 horsepower for a small car

I don't think that car drivers would want to pay € or £ 20,000 a year or more just to drive their car on the road

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to York1900y@gmail.com | 1 week ago
4 likes

The other issue is it might well cost a substantial chunk of that 20 pounds for all the admin (especially chasing late or non-payment, enforcement etc.) So (just like speeding fines for motorists in current reality) it's more likely to be a burden on the state than a cash cow (at least at a cost that doesn't act as yet another way of discouraging people from cycling.)

Avatar
BBB | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

If this idea goes through, it's going to be weponised by anti-cycling bigots in other contries.

Avatar
Laz | 2 weeks ago
4 likes

I ask that you keep it on the down-low, I really dont want my local politicans to find out....thx

Avatar
IanMK replied to Laz | 1 week ago
1 like

I don't think this is the problem. There is already money available to local politicians but they still have trouble getting it because of minority of loud mouth objectors. Even if cyclists were directly paying for infra those objections aren't going away and local politicians are still going to run away from the conflict.

Avatar
Rome73 | 2 weeks ago
13 likes

By all means introduce the 'cycle tax' in the UK and EU.  But then build a contiguous, comprehensive and high quality network of cycle lanes first. And make the tax proportionate to the cost of the transport, considering things like emissions, weight of vehicle, proportion of space required to build infrastructure I.e a dual carriageway takes much more space and cost to build than a cycle lane.  Then work out a ratio of tax. 
if I may give an example; yesterday I went to the supermarket on my Condor cycle.  I filled two panniers of shopping. I locked my cycle in the corner using one of only 4 cycle racks. I watched a man put two bags, the size of my panniers, into a Range Rover. This vehicle was so large it needed two parking spaces and god knows how much energy to propel the one person and his two small bags of shopping back and forth.  It really struck me how crazy cars have become; they are huge masses of metal, plastics, fossil fuels, glass, electronics, chemicals and rubber. The amount of space and resources they require is immense. 

Avatar
lonpfrb replied to Rome73 | 1 week ago
4 likes

Further there is the harm caused to other road users by over sized over weight vehicles. The data for killed and serious injury by mode is clear, but if anything an under estimate of harm in that KSI is only the extreme measure of public health harm. Injuries not reported are the obvious gap, yet public health impact includes the intimidation of the public who believe that shared use of the public highway is too risky because of the attitude and behaviour of other road users. The acid test, would you encourage your mum to ride on the public highway...

Avatar
Rome73 replied to lonpfrb | 1 week ago
4 likes

Yes, I agree. These huge vehicles scare cyclists and discourage cycling.  I would not let my children cycle some of the routes I regularly cycle for this reason. 

Avatar
chrisonabike | 2 weeks ago
1 like

It sounds a bit silly - feeding into a national stereotype of "expensively over-complicated".  OTOH if they had the bureaucratic infra to police cycle insurance then maybe some of those costs have been covered?

Would it give one the right to demand drivers move off cycle infra or stop blocking it - and to be able to get the police to do something if they didn't?  (Right now I imagine that would get me into unnecessary confrontation with a driver, no police would attend and if they did I might be in trouble for wasting police time...)

I know zero about Swiss cycling - I'm aware of this video (which shows it does exist albeit not perfect, but some places are already considerably better than the UK.  The public transport is even more advanced though).

Avatar
Hanko | 2 weeks ago
9 likes

Extend the logic and we should tax pedestrians too for building pavements. Maybe we should tax tax cars and lorries more for repairing the potholes they cause. And don't get me started on the polution they cause.

Avatar
massive4x4 replied to Hanko | 2 weeks ago
0 likes
Hanko wrote:

Extend the logic and we should tax pedestrians too for building pavements. Maybe we should tax tax cars and lorries more for repairing the potholes they cause. And don't get me started on the pollution they cause.

Road wear is approximately related to the 4th power of axle load. This means that a loaded double decker does about 6000 times the damage of a 2 tonne SUV.

The actual relationship is more complex (nothing is factored for tyre pressure or speed) but as a general rule large vehicles do the vast majority of the damage to roads.

If you sum up the motoring related taxes above and beyond the standard taxes like VAT the amount of tax on road use more than covers both the maintenance and capital budget for roads. At UK rates of petrol duty you'd also be able to pay the calculated social cost of CO2 per tonne.

If you are going to try to capture negative externalities to road transport in tax you really need to capture the positive externalities. Unfortunately for that argument there isn't a rich country that doesn't have a modal share for motoring greater than 50% which is indicative that motoring in general has a massive net positive externality. It's much better identifying where motoring has a net negative externality and dealing with it there by LTN, bypasses and other mitigation.

Regarding raising taxes from cyclists ideally a tax should be cheap to administer, not distort markets and be one people are willing to pay. Raising the funds for cycling infrastructure for cyclists might actually make some sense.

Putting £50 on the price of every new bike would give you about £100 million of funds which would be a 12% boost to the governments annual spend on active travel. Some calcs would have to be done on whether this would significantly reduce the number of bike bought. (Average price of a bike is £500, so it would be a 10% rise)

The interesting one was that e-scooters have a sales volume of £600m and a CAGR of 12%. A 10% levy on them would get you another £60 million, legalise them already and I expect that figure would go up vastly.

The really big effect politically is if getting cyclists to pay for cycling infrastructure is essentially geared funding. Ergo for every £ cyclists pay directly it generates a social licence to raise further multiples of funding from general taxation. Go on any local chat forum and the most common view on cycling infrastructure is that it's expensive and cyclists don't pay for it.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to massive4x4 | 2 weeks ago
4 likes

massive4x4 wrote:

Road wear is approximately related to the 4th power of axle load. This means that a loaded double decker does about 6000 times the damage of a 2 tonne SUV. The actual relationship is more complex (nothing is factored for tyre pressure or speed) but as a general rule large vehicles do the vast majority of the damage to roads.

Not entirely disagreeing (as an "experiment" you may find you're able to spot where bus stops are just by the waves in the tarmac) BUT heavy vehicles (above transit vans) are significantly outnumbered by the lighter ones. Again more complex as we have to factor in distances travelled.

massive4x4 wrote:

If you sum up the motoring related taxes above and beyond the standard taxes like VAT the amount of tax on road use more than covers both the maintenance and capital budget for roads. At UK rates of petrol duty you'd also be able to pay the calculated social cost of CO2 per tonne.

Well ... you go on (and the above is a common argument), and it can become "how much for your grandmother" but in fact there are a lot more externalities of motoring and some are indeed measurable e.g. particulate pollution, damage to buildings, road furniture etc.  Perhaps even noise pollution (which is increasingly recognised as a negative stressor)?  Personally I think we should examine how much land is given over to motor vehicles (a surprising amount), but mostly the suppressive effect on other modes and the reduction of independent mobility for the young, and others who can't drive, or merely don't want to for a given trip.  (Hard to put numbers on that again - but it factors in to diseases of sendentarism, health effects of isolation etc).

massive4x4 wrote:

If you are going to try to capture negative externalities to road transport in tax you really need to capture the positive externalities. Unfortunately for that argument there isn't a rich country that doesn't have a modal share for motoring greater than 50% which is indicative that motoring in general has a massive net positive externality.

Is it?  I think all that shows is we have chosen to have them - or we could afford to have them.  It's definitely arguable but I've seen some research proposing that motoring is a net cost while cycling is a net contributor to the economy.  Various approaches [article, Sustrans], [Copenhagen study], [EU study].

However that doesn't mean we should necessarily simply aspire to replace the one with the other ("can't get there from here" - if truly realistic the calculation would change as the proportion of vehicles dropped - lots of things would change).

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to massive4x4 | 2 weeks ago
4 likes

massive4x4 wrote:

It's much better identifying where motoring has a net negative externality and dealing with it there by LTN, bypasses and other mitigation.

A sensible-sounding idea - but this fails because one of the points of motoring is it is less local... so "just have a 20mph limit in front of the school" or "only when the kids come out" ends up ineffective when the child is run over on another street as they walk home, or when they go to after-school activities.  Or by someone who "wasn't aware it the schools were back".

In fact - we have to tackle our transport issues top-down as well as bottom up - e.g. we have to plan around networks (which may intersect / overlap of course), and some things (road law, conventions like infra designs etc., public transport) need to be coordinated at regional or national level.

Avatar
bensynnock replied to chrisonabike | 1 week ago
2 likes

The 20mph in front of schools implies that drivers are more likely to obey road rules outside schools, which anybody who has two eyes in their head knows is far from the case.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to massive4x4 | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

massive4x4 wrote:

(Summary: Getting cyclists / motorists to have "ownership" via "paying for their infra)

Despite the beliefs of many people this is not the case for motoring (and I'm not aware it has been).  I would suggest most people now feel mass motoring is a "good" (whether or not it is economically positive overall or negative).  So I imagine most will not question continuation of funding for this.

But I don't think any amount of money that can be efficiently raised from cyclists will help much.  (Other than general taxation - which we all pay.  Which is currently just distributed between "motor infra" (a large chunk) and "cycle infra" and "pedestrian infra" (squeezed) ).  And it has been argued that it is cheaper to pay for and build cycle infra than not!  Traffic lights and junction design comes to mind - I believe these may save money overall by preventing accidents / more efficient flows.

On the other there's perhaps a "legitimacy" / "ownership" argument?  Popular belief is strongly that "motorists pay for the roads!"  Would people feel less entitled if they didn't pay motoring taxes?  I'm not sure.  I'm even less convinced that cyclists would feel "emboldened" or "ownership" if they paid some kind of *special* (or hypothecated) tax for cycling.  I'm almost certain it would do nothing in the UK to increase either acceptance of cycling or numbers of cyclists (or rather trips cycled).  (A majority of people sometimes cycling being ultimately the effect and then perhaps continued cause of cycling being normalised).

massive4x4 wrote:

Go on any local chat forum and the most common view on cycling infrastructure is that it's expensive and cyclists don't pay for it.

Indeed - that is well known. e.g. "cyclists don't pay for the roads so shouldn't have rights" , "it's too expensive to provide for cycling" etc.  Plus ignorance of (or failure to believe) how the economics work e.g. overvaluing contributions to shops from people driving there and seeing cycling as entirely recreational with no - or negative - economic value.

Of course there are some truths here as well - because we have designed our built environment around driving we have made and are increasingly making places and activites which are not easily accessible without driving.

How to get around that one - while making the case for "actually - things would be improved for all, including 'drivers' - if we can make effective alternatives to motoring" - is a tricky proposal.  Partly this may start with pointing out we want to facilitate "active travel" and "independent mobility" along with "nicer places".  I recommend Chris Boardman on this question!

Avatar
IanMK replied to chrisonabike | 1 week ago
5 likes

There's a popular misconception that motor vehicles have a an economic benefit to society whilst cycling and walking do not. Hence the acceptance that driving should be subsidised and cycling shouldn't. Of course, we know and can evidence the economic benefits of active travel infra. But why let facts determine our spending piorities

Avatar
GManLondon replied to massive4x4 | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

Surely, if a twin axled car weighs 2 tonnes, and a twin axled double decker weighed 6,000 times as much, this would mean a loaded double decker would weigh 12,000 tonnes? I'll have to read up on this one.

Avatar
ChrisA replied to GManLondon | 2 weeks ago
5 likes

No.  Effect of vehicle not weight.

SUV at 2 tonnes - 2^4 = 16

Bus is 12 tonnes (18t  gross) 18^4 = 105,000

About 6500 times

Avatar
GManLondon replied to ChrisA | 2 weeks ago
0 likes

Ahhh, get you 👍🏻

The number seems huge, but when I see the damage causes to the road at bus stops/stands, it does make sense

Avatar
ktache replied to GManLondon | 1 week ago
5 likes

And remember folks, your high pressure road slicks exert as much force and cause as much damage as the tyres of a landing jumbo jet...

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 2 weeks ago
12 likes

So, what's next, taxing disabled people for any access ramps etc?

How about taxing the drivers that end up parking on cycle lanes?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 2 weeks ago
2 likes

And where do you propose they're going to stop to pick up / drop off all those with disabilities, young children, old people and the sick pets they're principally transporting as a vital public service (I hear)?

Pages

Latest Comments