It's not as though 'tax bikes' issue is a surprise question, or an idea the BTA isn't aware of. I'd imagine the group has discussed the issue at length and has ironed out some clear ideas of its own on the issue.

A response along the lines of: 'Time available to me today would not do justice to the serious topic of possibly generating revenue from bike lane use, however the BTA believes that....' and finish off with a short, ending that touches generally on the BTA's outlook on the issue. ..would have been alright.

I think it was fine to explain that money was already available from various sources, for projects in the plan, but the BTA needs to take advantage of opportunities to quell the uncertainty and lack of awareness amongst the public about the worth of bike infrastructure to reducing transportation congestion. It seems to me that this was one of those opportunities.

The people balking over spending on bike infrastructure aren't all 'joe six-pack' right wing bike hating crackers. It's just my own casual observation that tells me...but what I hear and see, is that many people with moderate views on social issues just don't recognize or understand that bike infrastructure is or can be a congestion relieving transportation option.

To gather the support of these people for bike plans, simple, clear examples, that are readily accessible and practical for them to personally use would be a great idea. If biking to the grocery store from their homes were almost as easy and enjoyable as walking the boardwalk at the beach or a college campus such as PSU has, people would ride.

Producing situations that demonstrate to these people that bike infrastructure represents relief from traffic congestion and the requirement to drive to get to the store and so forth, seems to me as possibly resulting in the 'tax bikes' cry going by the wayside.

anonymous...why you can't bike anymore? Physical/medical issues? I've seen and heard of people with fairly extraordinary disabilities somehow managing to get fitted for the freedom of a pedal powered vehicle. Someone won't let you ride? How unfortunate for you.

Mr. Anonymous, do you have to be hauling livestock and hay every time you leave the house? In between trips hauling all that stuff around, might not a little jaunt into town or around the countryside near home on the old cruiser do you good?

Seriously, do you think a person wishing doing this simple kind of travel should really be required to have their bike licensed, registered, taxed, and the rider forced to undergo a battery of tests and examinations?

BTW, why tax bicycles? Cars aren't taxed, gasoline is. For that matter, why tax one of the few things that reduces obesity? People riding bikes is helping to keep the cost of your health insurance down.

Tractor-trailer trucks cause most of the road damage, with cars a distant second. Motorized vehicles kill about 500 people a year in Oregon, bikes kill less than 5 - and that's with NO licensing or training. While I'd love to see some training, who's going to pay for it? Who's going to enforce it? We don't enforce the laws we have now. Who's more dangerous? Who costs the taxpayers more in terms of paving costs, road constuction, parking, injuries and deaths; air, water and noise pollution; resources consumed, and property damage? Motor vehicles. So why do you wish to discourage one of the few things that reduces all of these factors, decreases road congestion and improves health?

"In the Q and A session at the press conference this morning, the BTA’s Poyourow was asked by a local TV reporter, “How do you propose to that the bike community pay for the bike lanes? There’s no tax generation from bike lanes…that comes from the gas tax. And money is tight, how to you get bicyclists to pay for this?”

In response, Poyouorow said,

“Many of the proposals in the plan are very affordable. Biking is one of the most affordable investments we can make. All people need to feel comfortable bicycling is smooth pavement and a backstreet.”

The reporter asked questions that many metro area residents want adamantly demand answers to, but Poyouorow conspicuously failed to answer them. In terms of being able to count on growing, widespread support from the public for improvement in bike infrastructure, this isn't good.

In arguing support for improved bike infrastructure, a commonly raised point, is that there is a correlation between the presence of and use of bike lanes and a resulting reduction in motor vehicle congestion on the street. There's at least some truth to the idea raised in that point that even the most harsh critics of license free, tax free biking probably couldn't deny.

I like and believe the idea that bikes ridden on the street are reducing congestion on them produced by an excess of motor vehicles, but am not sure to what level the general public accepts that idea. If it widely accepted the idea, I don't think local tv reporters would be quite so inclined to pop off with the 'tax bicyles' type of question.

Offer better proof to the public that bike lanes mean transportation needs are being more effectively met with less motor vehicle congestion on the street. The cries for a bike tax will whither, and the public will be more inclined to support speeding up the construction timeline for the items in the bike plan.

Perfect.