Thanks for the inspiration, Congressman Blumenauer! The possibility of Obama helping to facilitate a biking revolution in the US is exciting. Keep fighting the good fight.

"We've been waiting for you for about seven years, and we by golly love us some bicycles, but some of your constituents in the 3rd CD actually think that these issues are matters of greater concern to the republic than the ability of Portland Yuppies to express their love of Pedal Power."

Pat, that's a really interesting point. Problem is, were Earl to drop his bicycling work and shift full-time to the issues you highlight, as several others seem to be doing (Kucinich, etc.), what would the outcome be? Would that one more congressman be enough to push the balance and set us on a course to impeach one President while electing the next? Would Earl's sway with Pelosi finally convince her to change course?

NO.

All that would happen is that we would keep the most important leader in the congress from working toward giving bicyclists fair tax benefits, adequate infrastructure funding, and a voice in DC. Bicycling, while many see it as a recreational issue, has implications for energy, global warming, health, and the list goes on. His contributions have made a serious impact, and the notion that he should focus on nothing but imnpeachment is hogwash. He has also spoken out loudly against the offenses that you cite. I like my Congressmen and women to be able to multi-task, thank you very much.

Look at how pathetically few comments there are in response to this subject. Not much interest on the part of the politics buffs, it seems. And out of the ones there are, whatever Blumenauer does, if it doesn't involve proceeding with the demand some people have made to impeach lame duck Bush, or having a tantrum and refusing to do anymore work whatsoever until the war in Iraq is over, the old saws start whining.

Instead of whining, maybe better to go out in the garage and get that old dusty Schwinn tuned up. Gas prices are making that form of transportation an increasingly better idea with each day that passes. With improvements in bike infrastructue that Obama and Blumenaue may help to bring about, the streets may become safe enough that even old saws on their old Schwinn's can ride without getting killed. That's got to make someone happy.

Oregon hosted the first kick-off discussion with Obama about bicycles, when 75,000 people invaded downtown Portland to provide the largest crowd to date int eh 16 months of his campaign -- and at least 10,000 of them arrived by bicycle. Obama noticed, and I think something may have clicked for him then. That bicycles actually can make a huge difference!!

We're on the cusp of a bicycle revolution in the U.S., not just in Oregon. Bicycles have been outselling cars in this country for a few years now. Bicycle facilities are popping up all over the nation -- in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland and all over the place. Heck, there is even a group of bicyclists in Los Angeles who have decided to abandon the traditional Critical Mass bicycle ride, and instead have taken to riding their bikes on the Los Angeles FREEWAYS -- to prove that, during rush hour, the bicycle is the fastest way to get from point A to point B (by splitting lanes or taking the shoulder to pass the cars at a rapid pace)!

Bicycles are useful for a wide variety of tasks that they are only beginning to be actually used for in this country. I would wager that, for many trips of up to 10 miles in each direction (topography notwithstanding), bicycles may become the ideal choice, especially with gas & diesel prices skyrockting past $4 and $5 per gallon! The trips of 1 to 2 miles are such low-hanging fruit that it's ridiculous. You can make those trips on a 1 to 3 speed cruiser. Trips up three to ten miles are easy with a bicycle with more gears.

Such trips are not just for urbanites, either. How many folks in small towns still make many trips that are ten miles or less? How about in rural areas?

Places like Germany and the Netherlands recognized this fact thirty years ago, and have been working diligently ever since then to build out national bicycle route infrastructure, including off-street paths, to connect their small towns to their big cities and all kinds of destinations in between.

We should be doing the same in this country. And such an effort could and should be supported, encouraged, and partially funded and planned by the federal government.

Which is why Earl and Barack should be applauded for their words and their actions with regards to bicycles. This is the kind of new leadership that our country needs right now.

And yes, we need to impeach Bush and Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors. But not at the expense of the bicycle movement. I want multitasking. The rule of law must be preserved, and crimes must be punished -- but we must also adapt our nation to the changing times, and promote the bicycle and provide infrastructure for it to encourage it as the premier 21st-century local form of transport.

"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."

-Samuel Adams

“And yes, we need to impeach Bush and Cheney for their high crimes and misdemeanors. But not at the expense of the bicycle movement.”

-Garlynn

"Oh, and yeah, I love me some bicycles..." Pat Ryan

Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like a racist remark. It wasn't funny the first time Ryan made it, and it's not any less offensive the second time around. About a year ago, S. Renee Mitchell made an issue of that kind of remark made by a naive Starbuck's supervisor. As a result, the supervisor got fired. The supervisor seemed to have made her mistake partly out of ignorance. Can Pat Ryan claim the same?

Bicyclists and the bicycling community continually want more bicycle infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it. This is in part due to the fact that a conflict of interest exists by politicians who promote bicycling not wanting to tax themselves for the free ride they now enjoy. Basically it is the NIMBY syndrome as it applies to avoiding taxes and handing out subsidies to the “big bicycling” groups whom support these politicians and financially contribute to their campaigns. . Currently, specialized and often exclusive bicycle infrastructure is subsidized through Federal grants by poaching highway dollars from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The primary source of revenue in this fund comes from the Federal tax on motor fuels. Twenty percent plus of this fund is siphoned off to subsidize infrastructure for other modes of transport. The users of these other modes, including bicyclists, are not directly taxed to make any financial contributions to this fund and one reason why the fund is going broke. In other words, money is being appropriated (pirated) from this fund to subsidize special interest agendas that do not pay for themselves.

Since there is a significant cost to providing bicycle infrastructure, it is long overdue to directly tax bicycling at all levels of government. This must be viewed be as a user tax no different than motorists paying fuel and other taxes to pay for roadways, or National Park users paying entrance and camping fees.

As it stands now, bicyclists are freeloaders providing only lip service instead of transport tax dollars for what they want congress to provide. These freeloading pedal pushers are feeding off of the special interests of politicians to fund their choice of transport mode through the taking of the taxes other people pay. This is a form of taxation without representation to those who are paying the taxes and footing the bill for the freeloaders. Providing bicycle infrastructure MUST become financially self-sustainable, moreover, totally paid for by those who use it.

Terry Parker, the troll, wrote:

"Bicyclists and the bicycling community continually want more bicycle infrastructure as long as somebody else pays for it."

I can only reject this statement 100% by saying: I'm a bicyclist. I own five bikes. I ride them. And I expect the government to build more bicycle infrastructure so that other people will also feel safe to ride their bicycles.

But I do pay for this infrastructure. I also own two cars; I pay taxes and registration for both of them. I own property. I pay property taxes on it. I have a job, and both state and federal income taxes are deducted from my salary.

I expect the funding for expanded bicycle infrastructure to be deducted from many, if not all of these forms of payment.

I also expect Earl to communicate better about his efforts to impeach and otherwise hold accountable to the law this current Republican administration, including both Bush and Cheney. I also hope he will do more in this department... I understand the sentiments of the folks on this thread who wish he would do more, and communicate better about those efforts. Frankly, Early is kind of a one-trick pony, or so it seems -- he loves bikes/transit/smart growth, but doesn't seem to do much else, especially when it comes to fighting the law-breaking, war-mongering ways of the Republicans. If he IS doing something, he sure doesn't communicate very eloquently about it.

But, the reason why I also celebrate his efforts and his victories with regards to bicycles, transit and livable communities is exemplified by Terry Francis and people like him, who would stomp out all of these efforts completely if given the chance. Earl's efforts are valuable because they are carrying the torch of progress through these difficult times. Yes, I want him to do more -- but I also want to celebrate what he has done. If you would like to protest and rant and otherwise cajole him into doing more, please, feel free to do so, and don't let my encouragement of his successes so far stand in the way! :-)

Garlynn is the real troll (trolling for the tax dollars someone else pays to fund her mobility and lifestyle) tax pickpocket, poacher and freeloader here expecting someone else to pay for the government services she receives and uses to move about. Garlynn rejects bicyclists being directly taxed their fair share for having the privilege of pedaling on the specialized and exclusive bicycle infrastructure someone else now pays for. Garlynn states “I own five bikes” – all of which in all fairness to other roadway users should be registered and licensed with the same fees to register cars and trucks.

Garlynn also states “But I do pay for this infrastructure. I also own two cars; I pay taxes and registration for both of them. I own property. I pay property taxes on it. I have a job, and both state and federal income taxes are deducted from my salary.”

First of all, the owners of cars pay for the roads by driving them and paying the fuel taxes when they are driven. The more a car is driven the more is paid out for roads. Parked cars do not pay for bicycle infrastructure. Bicyclists in Portland continually use both sides of an argument Garlynn is using to avoid being directly taxed. Like Garlynn, they claim to own a car and pay a registration and license fee that pays for bicycle infrastructure, but then reverse that statement and say that any bicycle registration and license fee would be entirely eaten up in administrative costs. It can not be both ways. Moreover, with the exceptions of (1) Urban Renewal Districts where property taxes are redirected to infrastructure instead of paying for government services like police and fire protection (other property owners subsidize that), and (2) one time funding requests from the City of Portland General Fund made by Sam Adams, property taxes and income taxes DO NOT pay for roads or bicycle infrastructure in Oregon!

Furthermore, “livable communities” and “quality of life” are both subjective terms meaning different things to different people. What I expect of any elected politician including Earl Blumenauer is to “equally” represent the diversity, lifestyles, housing and mobility choices of all Oregonians, and not dictate – through taxes, the lack of taxes or otherwise what those choices should be. That includes totally representing the silent majority who use their cars and trucks everyday for business or otherwise. I currently view Earl running around the country consuming a lot of energy to propagate his personal choices on society – sort of like Mr. Magoo not seeing the big picture beyond what is right in front of his rose colored glasses. To clarify, like Garlynn, he wants somebody other than the direct users to pay for his ideals thereby reeking havoc on the transport economy as a whole. Portland’s transport based economy where motor vehicles help drive the economy is a good example of that Magoo like perception. With all the extravagance spending on bicycle infrastructure and transit alternatives, Portland continues to get more congested, less affordable and a more expensive place to do business all because money from motorist paid taxes is diverted to transport alternatives while improving motor vehicle capacity is being ignored. The current tax discrimination applied against motor vehicle owners and the lack of equity here is nothing to celebrate.

erm...

Streets are dangerous?

I ride on streets all the time. At night, during the day, with kids, without kids.

I always wear my helmet and I don't ride on either Hawthorne or Division.

I also pay attention to my surroundings, and try to stay off freeways.

as for the "bikes don't pay their way" arguement:

1. Gas taxes don't even come CLOSE to paying for roadways. The tax hasn't been increased in, what 30 years? It hasn't kept up with inflation.

2. A bike does very little wear and tear to a roadway. Think about it: 1-2" patch of road contact in a single line, with a vehicle weighing 30 pounds vs a 1' patch of road contact in two recurring lines at a much higher rate of speed, with a vehicle weighing 3850 pounds.

A path created for a pedestrian/bike use is going to stay in relatively the same condition for decades. Literally decades. There are some bike paths in Eugene that are exactly the same as they were when I was growing up in the 70's. I cannot say that about all but the most least traveled roads (there is a cobblestone street at like 36th and Belmont in Portland.)

I believe Sandy has been resurfaced twice since I started living here 18 years ago.

As for my not paying the way: you big dope. I pay the same amount to register my car as you. I pay for gas, and I pay for my wear and tear of the roads surface (by your logic.) I also have only put 120miles per month on my car--and have logged several hundred per month on my bike.

If we WERE driving for everything, then you wouldn't be able to GO anywhere. Each one of those "freeloaders" is one less car. Each one of those "Tax Pickpockets" on a 'good for 30 years bike path' is one fewer person that you have to idle behind in your car. That means GALLONS less gas that comes out of your pocket.

OTOH, maybe you are one of those, "Not driving is UnAmerican!" types. Heh.

This whole idea of a fractional diversion to reduce the vehicular traffic makes a LOT of sense. Lets get another 1000 bikes on the road in PORTLAND and we'll see some MORE traffic reduction. Maybe with some careful planning we can avoid goofing further with 217.