Terry:

1. Motor travel has been subsidized at public expense for over 50 years, and continues to be subsidized. Bicycles have been subsidized for at most 30 years, and at a much smaller amount in both real terms and in percentage.

2. Motor vehicles produce the bulk of wear on roads. Motorists *should* pay to repair the roads they are destroying. Studies have shown that the amount of road wear caused by bicycles is so negligible as to be nearly indistinguishable from weathering. If anything, you should be arguing for freight to pay its fair share. One tractor-trailer causes as much road wear as 92,000 automobiles.

3. Taxation without representation? What are you smoking? Motorists represent at least 75% of the voting population - I think you are quite well represented. If you don't like PDOT's (Sam's) policy, then VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. Are you saying that the 3.5% (or 7%) of the voting population that bikes is somehow holding motorists hostage?

4. As for directly taxing cyclists - how do you propose to do that? A "tube" tax? Tire tax? (speaking of which, automobile studded tires should be taxed also in that case, due to disproportionate wear) And speaking on the conceptual side of things, why should human-powered vehicles be taxed? Unlike motorized transport, HPVs increase general health, do not emit harmful emissions, do not support prolifigate use of non-renewable resources, etc. We want to encourage this - therefore, don't tax it. As a cyclist, I'd be willing to accept a direct tax when the city stops giving tax breaks to developers, when they properly assess the properties in the Pearl (and South Waterfront), and when they stop subsidizing growth.

5. Speaking personally on the tax issue: I already pay income taxes and property tax as passed along through my rent. I am a law-abiding cyclist, yet am treated as a second-class citizen by motorists, who frequently show me less respect as a road user than they do when I drive a car. I have had things deliberately thrown at me, been cut off deliberately, intimidated, sworn at, spit at, and yelled at - all by people safely ensconced in 1,500 to 6,000 pounds of aluminum, steel, hi-grade plastic and safety glass. The entire system caters to the automobile, and my decision not to be part of that system seems to offend a number of people personally. There is limited space available on urban streets - and by and large that space is fixed. It's now too expensive to condemn homes and add lanes. Building elevated lanes above the existing ones is impractical due to current and future expense. The roads are required to provide for all users, as they should be. This means that modes other than the automobile will sometimes need to be subsidized at the expense of motorists. Sometimes these projects benefit the motorists as well (3 Bridges). Sometimes these projects are not just for transportation (also 3 Bridges). Life is not merely about getting from point A to point B as fast as possible.

And if you've read all that, thanks for "hearing" me out.