Even if we posit that a greater percentage of bicycle riders do not observe traffic laws, which I’m willing to grant, I still see a far greater number of automobile drivers breaking the law and failing to observe the rules of the road. This is important, because they can do a lot more damage when they screw up.

Jake- This is also a pedestrian bridge. Are you suggesting that walking is a minority activity? Do you have legs? Lots of people do. I would estimate that the majority of people in Oregon can walk and it is their primary mode of moving around.
As for licensing cyclists to pay for this infrastructure; “they” already do via the aforementioned taxes. I use quotes because almost all adults riding bicycles also drive cars. There is no “they”, there is just “us”. So a more reasonable solution is to have people using cars pay a fair share since “they” cause more wear and tear, cause more collisions, cause more air/water/ground pollution and require a lot more space. By your own logic, you owe those that choose a bike a great deal in unused subsidy monies. For that matter, you need to quit parking your private property on the public right of way that I am paying for.

Besides, do the math. Even using the high estimates of 8% of portlanders commuting daily (around 50,000 based on population of 600,000), you’d gain a whopping million dollars if you taxed them $20/year which may be almost enough to pay for the licensing management. This model has been tried and tried in cities across the country for decades and it ALWAYS fails.

Ozzie- if you close off access to bicycles on Burnside and/or Morrison (where it is still closed to bike traffic) you displace all those people onto Hawthorne and Steel bridges. What’s the point? Creating higher bike traffic density so you have to wait longer in your car to turn right? Merely trying to inconvenience your neighbors? A better solution is to distribute the load of users across a wider area.So no, closing other bridges to bike traffic, especially those with existing infrastructure, is not reasonable.

Jack- The ones not paying their fair share are car users. Fuel subsidies keep the cost artificially low and as previously stated, all tax payers are funding auto infrastructure whether they drive 20k miles/year or 2 miles/year. Your argument quickly leads to higher usage fees to automobile drivers.
Driving a car is not a human right.
When the revolution comes, you will be on the losing end of it. Get with the program.
Start here:

You know, there is coming a day, when these idiots that promote this crap, will figure out, we are broke..B-R-O-K-E.

We are unable to print money out of this mess we are in now..LEFT OR RIGHT, we are broke.

Maybe a good old fashion revolution like the one 200 plus years ago is coming again.

No you lefty/progessives, I’m not calling for violence in the streets, yet in time, I’m very afraid, it will be promoted, because this tax an spend…limiting free speech crap that is coming out of DC now, is a small match in front of millions of people carrying a gallon of gas labeled. enough is enough.

Somebody isn’t paying their fair share, wonder who that might be?

Keep Portland Mediocre