To make a bike highway proposal more palatable in all corners of the state, Liias and the Senate transportation budget writers included a 10% tax on new electric bike sales, which was stiffly opposed by bicycle advocacy groups.

Though Liias relented some and narrowed the tax to apply to only the fastest, least regulated ebikes, he said he was “comfortable” with the tax overall.

“It’s a fair arrangement. You chip in and you get a system you can use,” Liias said. “It’s not that we’re taxing ebikes and investing it in something else.”

There’s so much to unpack here. What “corners” of the state were so anti-cycling yet pro-tax that they were persuaded into agreement by a 10% flat tax on ebikes specifically? And while I get that ebike sales are making up a larger part of overall bike sales, what does this mean for acoustic bikes? And what should happen to tax revenues if the cost of ebikes plummets due to, say, very welcome competition in the entry-level space?

Second, this is a state senator speaking about how the “least regulated” ebikes would be taxed. Uh, you’re in the legislature. If such ebikes aren’t being sufficiently regulated, that’s a job for the legislature to fix. It is a tacit admission that they’re not looking at the whole picture, either to write and enforce clear laws on what ebikes are or aren’t allowed, or to bring those ebikes into the scope of the laws, and put them on equal footing from the law’s perspective. Don’t do halfway measures.

Finally, why would only ebikes pay to use a network which ostensibly serves all micro mobility users, electric or otherwise? It would be bizarre for an ebike to pay in but not an EUC, an acoustic bike, or even a Lime scooter.

As the article says, many states do have a state bike system. Here in California, we have ours numbered in the same scheme as US Highways, but they’re almost always just paint on the ground or numbers on a map. If Washington can realize a system of connected, non-road adjacent paths for cyclist to use to get to existing trails and nature destination, that would substantially move the needle.

I would however warn against leaning too heavy in terms like “bike superhighway” or “bike freeway”, which London UK did early on, before they standardized on “cycleway”. After all, most people wouldn’t find bicycling on a freeway to be very comforting, but the idea of a dedicated path to build connectivity – rather than just another recreational path – is a sound idea.