http://us.mc461.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showMessage?pSize=25&sMid=3&fid=Inbox&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&filterBy=&.rand=1721531657&midIndex=3&mid=1_2203_AHzHtEQAAULeSgQJ%2BA3Ful4Ky0E

I am great with biking and I know as a car driver, I need to help pay for the roads I travel on ... SO SHOULD YOU, BICYCLISTS! Bikers need to register your bikes with the DMV to maintain the roads where you ride and for all the new paint on the roadways to accomodate the bikers safety.
I know that this is is not the popular biker viewpoint, but just take some time to think about it. If everyone stopped driving and started biking, who would maintain the roads and bridges?

So nothing will have changed, what again is your complaint?

I'm also concerned about the bike excise fee.. I don't think we're at the point where we should make it more difficult for people to afford bicycles. One has to also question the cost effectiveness of this. How much does the collection of this fee cost? Seems like it would have to be relatively high.

1. Oregon residents don't pay sales in washington, except on services.

2. Road development is is a hugh money drain. Think about how much money goes just for planning and EIS's. For example, how much haas been spent on the Sellwood bridge so far without any tangible work.

3. On state contracts, the contractor's are required to pay union scale for wages. This is the only way that Union shops can compete with other companies. So in short, this package is also a big pay off for the states unions. Political payback for the Millions spent in oregon in the last 6 months.

4. By discouraging cycling, you necessitate the road package. If people ride their bikes, this takes cars and their wear and tax revenue off the streets, thus the excise tax. Same logic with implementing the on-board gps and taxing by the mile rather than the gallon.

So final analysis, Ted is not interested in promoting alternative transport, rather just putting more money into the same old system.

When I say we I mean the ones that pay gas tax in the extra cost of goods that are shipped in and we buy every day. I don't mind paying a bicycle tax, except that I am getting doubly taxed. First the increase of the price to ship the components here then a extra tax on top of the increased price because it is a bicycle. For what? A bridge that I and most Oregon residents will not even cross. Also, that bike tax money could just as easily go to bike improvements on or around the new I-5 bridge.

As for the gas tax. This is a regressive tax that will target people who can not afford a new $30,000 hybrid car. Most of the automobiles that people can afford to buy are those massive SUV's that were all the vogue a few years ago. An increase in gas tax directly affects all of us, just because we do not buy gas directly from a gas station.

Then there is that creating jobs argument. Yea, it will create short term construction jobs in the Portland\Vancouver metro area. Cool, the rest of the state is not only paying for this bridge but it is also not getting the benefit of the jobs. I say that the money should be used to fund 300 $2 million projects (may they be affordable housing/education/alternate transportation/economic development) around the state so that everyone's local economies are helped.