SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
The TOL Blog
TAGS:
Bike Plan 2030
Portland Planning Commission just unanimously passed an updated Bicycle Master Plan for the city. The last one was created in 1996. This one looks forward to goals for 2030. It makes bikes a "fundamental pillar" of the city's transportation system. According to the Portland Mercury the first $100 million will buy 123 miles of new or improved bikeways. I'll do the math for you, that's roughly $800,000 a mile. If you'd like to dig into the numbers yourself check out page 114 of the bike plan (pdf).
Some people say $100 million for 123 miles is a deal. City Bicycle Coordinator, Roger Geller, testified that one mile of freeway costs $60 million to build. Planning commissioner, Chris Smith, said:
City Council should immediately raise our level of investment comparable to the best practice in Europe, on the scale of $25-40 per capita per year [which would be $12 to 20 million per year], prioritizing investment in cycling above other modes as necessary to achieve this. Ultimately a level of funding slightly higher than this will be required to build out the projects envisioned by the Plan within a 20-year timeframe.”
Not surprisingly, others think this level of spending amounts to motorist discrimination.
What should the future of biking look like in your town? Do you want bike lanes separated from the roads? Bike paths connecting various parts of your city — or even connecting you to the next town? Or more in-road lanes like the ones that exist now? Or do you think bike travel should be reduced and roads should be left to cars? How much should your city government spend on bicycle infrastructure? What's your "Bike Plan" for 2030?
Tagged as: bikes · portland · transportation
Photo credit: Jesse Millan / Creative Commons
-
Bike boulevards would be an excellent use of limited resources in city infrastructure. I want roads fit for neighborhoods, commerce, transportation and convenience. This, combined with recent environmental science means we should no longer focus on getting single occupant motor vehicles around. I want my city to strive for more by providing vision and planning for the future. Usage based maintenance fees are fine with me.
(Vehicle Weight x Vehicle Miles Travelled. DMV can manage it.)
A waste of resources is continually building for more motor lanes because that's what we've always done.
If you think this is social engineering, what do you call the last 80 years?
Motorist discrimination? "Discriminate" holds some heavy baggage in this country but "to be discerning", "to make judgments", even "to favor based on category" is the job we ask our city planners to do. I think Portland is working hard at getting the most value for dollar out of the 2030 plan.
That city audit survey represents only 3200 people, shows inconsistancies that the Audit Director points out and can also be interpretted as: crime is down,single occupant vehicle miles are down, government satisfaction is up and people like parks and firemen.
Here is a great reading list:
http://bikeportland.org/books/#urbanplanning
Start here if you like:
http://www.powells.com/biblio/9780896087040?&PID=33501
Drive carefully.
-
j
-
GOOD GOD. Just because people don't want to change, doesn't mean the sky is NOT falling. We're overusing EVERYTHING, and exhausting all of our natural resources. So if people can't take it upon themselves to STOP using as much as they want or think they have a right to demand, then social engineering it is.
-
As if there were not enormous social engineering now – what do you call more than120 years of subsidizing for cars –to the point where water, air, the deteriorated physical condition of people - AND 3.4 million injuries and 41,611 people killed in auto accidents in 1999 (http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html). Add too the costs of wars for oil.There’s a true “tragic waste of resources”.
Independent researches (from scientists to other branches of inquiry) will on average be ahead of the general public regarding cause and effect. Ideally elected and appointed leaders will listen and respond to the reasoned determinations of these advisors.
If our children and the environment as a whole are to fair better than a crisped CO2 burdened planet, we must make bolder moves sooner.
-
Bike infrastructure is just better than auto infrastructure. It's better because people who come on bikes stay to shop around and spend more dollars in the economy. People who come on bikes are healthier, physically and emotionally. People who come on bikes take a car off the road, reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.
That said, it's great that we have an ambitious bicycle master plan. Unfortunately, since its release I've heard a number of rumblings amongst cycling/bike community friends that ours is milquetoast compared to the truly dynamite bike plans in other cities.
Wasn't the goal to be the best bike city in North America forever? Weren't we shooting for platinum? I understand that our bike-friendly mayor has been politically shortchanged as a result of his missteps, but transportation, jobs and education are the issues that will define his time in office. Bikes benefit all three in numerous ways.
With all of this comes a question: I'd like to hear Jonathan Maus offer up his proposed improvements for the plan. Politics, ideas of what's "realistic" and cost issues to the wind. What would the ideal Portland bike plan look like? What do we, as citizens and cyclists, need to do to push our actual plan closer to that ideal?
Ernest Callenbach once wrote a famous novel touting this part of the country as "Ecotopia," seeing the fervent planning, environmental protection and connection to the natural resources and beauty that can be found here. Let's not forget why we were his starting point.
-
Bikes and cars both operate fine on paved roads, No one will dispute that there is more inherent risk in not being surrounded by 2 tons of steel.
That being said, I don't think it was the majority of Portlanders goal to be the best bike city. It seems almost myopic to put forth energy and money into something that DIRECTLY benefits few people in a city (we all benefit from cleaner air, healthier people, and a boosted economy).
My fear is striving for a goal of being the best bike city is a great secondary wish for a city, I think all of the statistics will show our city as a whole is more interested in safe nieghborhoods, good schools, living wage jobs, and a transit system that benefits all of us, not just the select few that can ride to work during Portlands many days of Liquid Sunshine.
-
I understand what you're saying, but I would answer that increases in bike commuting benefits auto drivers very directly through decreased congestion and less road wear.
And as for cleaner air and a healthier community, promoting cycling improves each of those in spades. It's not a panacaea, but it's a very important (and fun!) element of getting us toward the collective goals I mentioned above. I never said it should be our number one goal, but it's certainly an expansion on an existing trend that will significantly benefit our way of life.
-
aplambeck,
"People who come on bikes stay to shop around and spend more dollars in the economy." Is there a statistic to support this? I doubt it. I have to imagine cyclists are probably less likely to spend money then people coming into the city with a car. Anyway, it is totally irrelevant. Because, if everyone cycled it would mean nothing even if it was true---it would all equalize.
"People who come on bikes are healthier, physically and emotionally." That is absurd.
There are many ways in which riding a bike is good or great. We should certainly do all we can to improve conditions for cyclists, and create more efficient infrastructure for both automobiles and bicycles. But we won't do so with specious arguments.
-
Oh, scottmil, you just made my day with your factless reasoning, wild assumptions and wonderful glibness, Smuggy McSmuggerton.
There are statistics to back that up, as evidenced by a Toronto study on this very issue.
You continue to say things I've written are "irrelevant," "meaningless" and "absurd," without giving one ounce of rebuttal to actually say why.
That said, my arguments have actual facts, economic data and years of empirical evidence (as a transportation geek and active citizen) behind them. Your "arguments" are the specious ones, my friend, as proven by your lack of warrant, rampant dismissal of real details and ridiculous name-calling.
-
aplambeck,
What name calling? Glad, I made your day. But, I think the joke is on you. Although, it is not very funny. I can't believe this comes from people you might think are the more intelligent and conscientiousness members of the community or the self-proclaimed 'geeks.' That is upsetting. Are many cycling advocates aspiring to be the 'new Republicans?' (Is that name calling?)
The article you referenced is titled: 'TRADING PARKING SPACES FOR BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS.' Note the words: parking spaces, bike lanes and sidewalks? You don't think those words present a problem with your assumption (not to mention what the article actually says). You don't think that you extrapolated and drew incorrect conclusions from that article/study, that wouldn't stand up to an easy-bake?
The study most definitely does not say:"it's better because people who come on bikes stay to shop around and spend more dollars in the economy." Really, show me? Quote the text. Please show me a study that says cyclists spend more money across the board in stores or restaurants then people getting there by other methods. Tell that to Louis Vuitton, Barney's or even Walmart for that matter.
Even if there was a study that could show that because cyclists make it more of a point, or it is a more difficult journey to get somewhere, that they are more likely to be on a mission to buy something specific, rather then just window shopping---if that were even true: if everyone cycled it would obviously equalize. And at what point in time did the power of the pocketbook become a way to support a movement? Are you trying to go backwards? Now cyclists are the big spenders---so hey, get the Bentley's out of the way.
I didn't realize that I had to point out that whether or not cyclists spend money has nothing to do with whether cycling is a perfectly acceptable alternative to driving, and in the eyes of many can help the environment. I thought the case for cycling was strong enough on its own. I also thought it shouldn't be tied to an unnecessary lie that cyclists spend more money then everyone else. I thought adding lies to the argument, that works well-enough on its own, only dilutes it. But, if you want to go down that path: go for it!
-
sorry. conscientious.
-
It is hard to know what to think about cycling or cyclists and the culture. It is terribly easy to get annoyed, with any and everyone on the road, cyclists and motorists. In all fairness we have safe roads in Portland so there is nothing wrong with drivers at large, if anything Portland is already perhaps safer and more accommodating then most cities in America. I feel like some cyclists have created an unnecessary war against drivers, and that the culture is largely fueled by a moral evangelical authority that cannot be sustained or collectively supported in any meaningful way. Riding a bike is superficial, it is not really a way to define people or sort them, like the good from the bad. There are many reasons why someone may or may not ride a bike. For instance, I was hit by a car while riding a bike, so I am apprehensive to ride in traffic. But I do still ride some places.
I believe most cultures, where many people ride bikes, did not get that way by choice, but because of circumstance and function. (Generally overpopulation, convenience, poverty and a lack of space.) Sometimes we try to paint these cultures as superior, or self-created, when perhaps their evolution was out of necessity, with an environmental justification added later. Many people in Portland do seem to be cycling because they feel it is better for the environment---it seems to be a conscious choice. It is wonderful that people make small steps to change things they feel should be changed, or to do their little part. But it is another thing entirely to suggest that people who are not doing 'this thing' are somehow inferior because of 'this thing' alone, especially when 'this thing' is riding a bike. Of course, I fall into this kind of trap all the time, I see a Hummer and think bad thoughts.
I doubt the crux of this debate will genuinely be about resources or money, it is going to be a culture war. The cycling community might be better served by emphasizing the benefits of riding a bike, rather then how a bike is superior to a car, or how a cyclist is superior to a driver. It is a small distinction, but an important one.
-
I agree--there is a wide gulf between "car drivers" and "bike riders". In Corvallis there was a month-long exchange of letters between drivers and riders in the Gazette-Times, initiated by a bicycle rider who regarded the enforcement attempts of the local police with contempt. I believe that both sides can be myopic, although, as a long-time bike rider, the myopia on the part of people who use the automobile as their only transportation mode seems more extreme. It's not about obeying the "rules" as much as sharing both the gain and pain in a manner so as to maximize the benefits (and minimize the downsides) of the system we have and which we are creating for the future. How we get to that point is anyone's guess. When riding my bicycle, I try to stay out of everyone's way, but also let car drivers know that I am a part of the same system that they are using. Cooperation is essential, regardless of one's perspective on the "rules of the road".
-
As a cyclist who enjoys the annual Portland Bridge pedal, where the bridges and connecting streets are cleared of cars to allow bikes to enjoy the city street, I think that is a really good urban vision.
No cars. Delivery trucks are OK on regulated routes. Only bikes and buses otherwise. Why not?
-
I'd like to see BP'30 linked to a required increase in ridership. If it doesn't generate a significant increase in riders, benefitting the environment as well as car-commuters, there's no benefit in doing it.
If ridership doesn't increase sufficiently to offset the additional carbon-load generated by building BP'30, then it's a net negative environmentally and we need to walk away.
-
How are experiments with self serve bike rentals faring in cities? HP campus in Corvallis has a pool of self serve bikes serving employees and connecting the campus.
Hop on a bike, ride to your destination, prop the kick stand by the entrance, and it is ready for the next user. No locks, no trouble, no hassle. It uses simple one speed cruiser bikes with chain guards to protect pants cuffs. Some have fenders for the rain.
A simple bike like this is less likely to be targeted by theft. And with globalization, they could be made under $50/copy in China. It is healthy, connects the community, and after capital cost, is energy free. Take that carbon footprint!
How useful would a pool of 3,000 free bikes be to the downtown community? Even if it lead to just 200 less cars or taxis circulating, it would be an energy effective policy.
-
Re bike sharing –there are examples – see http://www.altaplanning.com/alta+bicycle+share.aspx for a locally grown-globally involved company’s plan.
-
I'd like to underscore Chris Smith's point about the relative cost effectiveness of bicycle infrastructure, even with out accounting for carbon emissions. The ratio of # of humans transported to dollars spent is an order of magnitude higher than for any other kind of transportation investment.
Of course cycling doesn't work for everyone; no one is suggesting investing in bike infrastructure in place of transit investments that can serve everyone, including the elderly and people with disabilities.
But, a large proportion of our trips *are* short trips. And you'd be suprised, once you start using a bike to get around, how many trips you don't really need a car for. All you need is some good rain gear and fenders, and our days of "liquid sunshine" become downright pleasurable to ride in. Combine a bike with transit, and you can get anywhere in the region.
It has already come up in this comment thread - the number one thing holding people back choosing bikes for those short trips around the neighborhood, or to and from transit stops, is the perception and reality of unsafe riding conditions.
Why are our roads unsafe for bikes? Because they were built to move cars.
I don't think it is productive to cast this as a culture war. Even those of us who bike commute every day in all kinds of weather are likely to own cars. This is just about how can we all practically get around an urban environment, while doing something about health and climate change.
The easier we can make it for people who can to take their bikes when appropriate, the less traffic there will be for everyone. And if we are going to get serious about carbon emissions, what's not to like about getting around with pretty much zero emissions?
-
It's amazing that you're doing this today. One of the biggest bike community organizers in Portland, Aaron Tarfman, has gone missing.
http://bikeportland.org/2009/11/11/concern-grows-for-missing-community-member/
If it's possible to let people know about his disappearance, we would really appreciate it.
Aaron was completely car-free and often helped people move — transferring people's couches from house to house on his bike trailers.
He always volunteered at the community events to tune up people's bikes. And he was a huge supporter of more bike paths.
If you need more information, please call his roommate Steve at 503-957-6672.
Thank you.
-
Baby Boomers are not going to be buying bikes just because Generation X activists think it is a great idea. What all of these bikes do cause me to do is maintain a two million dollar personal liability policy annually. I'll feel horrible if I am involved in a deadly accident with a bicyclist but I will go home to dinner and your family will not take my house and 401k.
-
You mentioned a large amount of people that "could" bike, but 6-9 months of Oregon rain probably keeps A LOT of these people offf the streets biking.
-
Amsterdam has the same crappy weather than Portland, and people bicycle. The Dutch are tough, they say 'we are not made of sugar'. Most of the rain here is pretty light. And they have light snow too.
-
Cycling is prevalent in Amsterdam (what a lovely city) not because the people are hardy, but because they have or have had no choice. Do to the evolution of the planning of the city, cycling is often the easiest and quickest way to get around. Amsterdam didn't get that way because of some environmentally responsible choice by residents.
-
Amsterdam bike ridership had plateau some years back a levels way below the current ones; when they looked into it, they reach the same conclusion as Portland planners which is that safety was a big concern. Then they invested heavily in it. Smart! This was covered also in a Public Radio program about a month or so ago.
-
lovely city
-
I just came back from Japan (Tokyo area) where cars are the exception instead of the rule. Most people get where they are going by train + walking, or train + biking. I saw huge bike garages at each train station. These were covered areas with closely packed individual rails for each bike.
If Portland had more covered bike parking at MAX stations I for one could commute more often.
Also, people commute with durable cheap steel bikes there. Much more practical than the expensive bikes seen at bike shops in this country. (example TREK's Portland commuter bike is $1500)
-
Hello,
Two things that prevent me from biking as often as I might:
1) Living in SW Portland, bike lanes disappearing in the middle of a route, and poor intersection layouts (I live in Hillsdale)
2) Resources when I arrive at my destination - bike racks (rather than parking meters, light poles, etc.), showers, etc.
Also, I think biking in conjunction with mass transit is great, but with only two bikes able to fit on one bus, there's the possibility that I'll be late to work as both spaces in the rack are taken.
Finally, I think bike riders have the responsibility to follow normal road rules - stop at stop signs, signal to those behind you your intent, have and use lights, etc.
-
Spending money on bicycle infrastructure will benefit all of us, whether we drive a car or ride a bike. To view this as a zero-sum game where any money spent on bicycle transportation infrastructure is "lost" to motorists is both myopic and overly simplistic.
This should not be considered a "culture war" but a sensible way to stretch our transportation dollars even further. Bicycle infrastructure projects such as bike lanes supplemented by a network of bike trails such as the North Portland Greenway, the Sullivan's Gulch Trail, Fanno Creek Trail, and others, will benefit all of us.
-
I have commuted by bike in Portland and other cities for 15 years. The idea of building ingfrastructure for bikes is a great idea but what is needed along with the infrastructure is education for bike riders and enforcement of traffic laws for bike riders.
Many bikers in Portland seem to have an attitidue of privilege here and act as if they have never ridden in or driven a car. Many do illegal and unsafe maneuvers sucih as passing cars on the right and not stopping at crosswalks for pedestrians.
I am afraid of the backlash from drivers/pedestrians who have experienced rude and ignorant bikers and bikers should know that when there is resistance to bike infrastructure, bikers are often to blame.
-
I'm a motorist. And Bicyclist. Which mode of transportation I use depends on where I'm going and what I'm doing. But I notice two things.
(1) Design standards for car-ways are generally excellent. When new facilities are built, the surfaces are smooth and quiet, the sightlines are good, and attention has obviously been given to traffic flow.
(2) Design standards for bike-ways are generally poor — even when the bike-way are part of the same project as a new car-way. Examples are blind corners, sudden narrowing of the bike-way from 12 feet to three feet, right-angle s-bends, and concrete projections in the bike-way. This is what I think of as discrimination.
(3) Maintenance of bike ways and bike lanes is abysmal. This time of year, they are coated with a layer of black slime from decomposing leaves. They will not be swept until Christmas. Then we will get an inch of snow one morning, and within hours the city and ODOT will be out covering the roads and the bikeways with loose gravel. Two days later, after the snow has melted, will they come back and pick up that gravel? No, the bike ways and bike lanes will be full of gravel well into the summer. This, also, is what I think of as discrimination.
(4) The worst vehicular crash that I have ever experienced was on a bike, on a segregated bikeway. It was directly due to poor design and signage. The busiest bike-way in the city, the Hawthorne Bridge, is a biking nightmare.
My conclusion: we need to up out maintenance budget, and start treating bicycles as real transportation when we design facilities — just as we do for MAX, cars, and busses.
-
It always has to be us versus them. That is the entire problem with this whole endless debate.
"Design standards for car-ways are generally excellent." I don't think so! The roads in Oregon are terrible, the signage is abysmal, the surface of the roads is egregious. If a drop of rain occurs you can't see the lane markings. I am not saying the bike lanes are any better. Neither are very good.
-
How will this be paid for? Bike registration and licensing MUST be made mandatory, as well as helmet laws and inforcement of laws. In my personal experience the vast majority of current bikers that commute do NOT follow the traffic laws (all of which apply to bikes). This leads to unsafe operating and motorist anger toward bicylists.
Bikes must be registered, bikers licensed and fees charged for this plan to work.
-
In my personal experience, the marjority of current motorists do NOT obey the posted speed limit.
-
The reality is that politics rule. Automobile drives have historically been the more powerful political groujp. Bike riders now exert more political power. Therefore more bike lanes. Pot holes go unrepaired, enforcement of bike laws for bikers are ignored. In the future the people who walk will rule once bikers reach their peak of power and become complacant as automobile drivers. Such is the cycle of life.
-
Bicycle boulevards are great in general, especially when traveling with kids. But I would be cautious with the idea that just establishing a bicycle boulevard on a residential street is good enough. I live on a section of bicycle boulevard (upper Lincoln St.) that is obviously used as a cut through, far exceeding the recommended volume and speed of a bicycle boulevard. It's important that the city truly follows through on making these streets a priority for bicycles. Cars dominate the roadway landscape, so truly giving priority to bicycles on these streets shouldn't be an issue.
-
Having lived in the upper midwest, I find Portland to be much less bike friendly--especially for kids. Madison and the Twin Cities have extensive, bike only paved paths separated from the road and from pedestrian pathways. Portland needs to go this way.
-
My girlfriend and I were in Munich just a few months ago. We were amazed how many people bike and the age range as well. Most of the areas along busy roads had as you just mentioned "cycle tracks" were the cycleists when the same direction as the cars. No barriers, just the fact that walking areas were concrete and cycle track was asphalt. Now when you think that this city was pretty much rebuilt after WW2 it shows how forward thinking europe is. On the opp. view, it's hard to start from Ground Zero
-
To a large extent, bicyclists will determine their future in PDX by their current actions on the road.
an example: the collisions we hear about between motorists and bicyclists certainly emphasize the risks bicyclists face on PDX's roads. However, I routinely see cyclists out at night in dark or black clothing, wearing no reflective vests (or any reflective material for that matter) and only a single, small, red taillight beneath the seat. Judging by their bicycles and clothing, these are serious cyclists - yet they seem oblivious to how invisible they are.
These cyclists need to do a lot more personally to improve their safety if they hope to convince the public to do so with public $$.
-
In terms of safety, I wish that there was more focus on biker's responsibility for ensuring safety. I bike and walk to SE from downtown at dark and always see people without lights, without helmets and sometimes, without breaks. If Portland is going to be a successful bike City, there must be new laws or enforcement of laws requiring lights. A tragic accident doesn't only impact the biker, but everyone involved.
-
@Thinking,
As a more often than not automobile driver and sometimes cyclist, I agree that more biker's need to be responsible for ensuring their safety, specifically by using lights at night. When I ride at night I make sure I am well lit, because I know what it is like to drive down a street and see a greyish blob emerge on a bicycle from the dark. Perhaps, unlit riders think they are more visible than they truly are, who knows, but I know they are not. But anyway, this program is talking about building more bicycle infrastructure, which is something we should certainly do!
-
Breaks are what you are entitled to 15 minutes every 4 hours at work. Brakes are the device to aid stopping. Thinking may be your handle proper english clearly is not.
-
I don't like to bike near other bikers and cars so I use Portland's less-used side streets whenever possible. Biking on side streets somewhat mitigates the risk of inattentive bikers and auto drivers.
Well thought out bike paths will be good for Portland. I intend to use them when they provide safe access to dangerous areas like Marine Drive, etc.
When will Portland use subways for mass transit? It seems every generation sees urban railroad tracks laid down only to be removed later. Some light rail makes sense, but Portland's long-term future plan should feature more-expensive subways. I haven't figured out where the money will come from yet.
From Portland's Big Pipe exploits we're becoming a mecca for tunneling. Make sure the subways are built to withstand 9.0 earthquakes.
Prarie Dog Trurl9
-
From Beth Hamon, co-owner, Citybikes Workers' Cooperative:
It's not just about bicycles.
In order to transition to smarter, healthier and more liveable cities where there are greater transportation choices, we not only need more and better bicycle facilities, but we also need a greatly expanded transit system. Smart cities should feature amenities for bike-riders AND pedestrians. For 80 years we've built highways to "grow" automobile usage, and yes, that IS a form of social engineering.
Now it's time to GROW bicycle usage and greater pedestrian access, and re-engineer our cities back to a safe, friendlier, more human scale. I believe that the best way to do this is to expand public transit on the local level and rail transportation on the regional level. Make these options attractive and user-friendly. Place them near businesses and schools and connect them with more residential areas, and grow the demand for them. If that's social engineering, so be it.
-
your guest just compared the MAX light rail and it's cost, but riders have to PAY to ride the MAX. How will the money be recouped from bikers? Tolls? This is why registration and licensing is the only real answer, with enforcement (spelled correctly) officers.
-
If you want people to drive less (I do), you need to make all other forms of transportation attractive, safe and comfortable.
-
I agree. When I rode with the City transportation planning folks a Sunday ago, they had the mindset of including more bicycle improvements provided it didn't disrupt traffic. This is typical car mentality which will get us where we've been, not where we need to go. To get more people on bicycles, routes need to be designed with bicycles as the dominant transportation (a bicycle mindset) which would include; priority in changing the traffic signals, speed limits not to exceed 25 mph adjacent to bike lanes, Idaho's stop sign roll through law, financial incentives to employers to install bicycle friendly facilities, and a strict enforcement of the speed limits for the 2-ton machines that whiz by my left shoulder at 10-20 mph faster than the posted limit.
-
@ mlapine
Stop sign roll through? I understand the argument, clip ons, momentum, etc, but the problem is at the stop sign 90 degrees from your rolling stop I expect you to obey the law (current) and I will go. If this means my car or motorcycle hits you, you will still be at fault, and incidentally, against my car you WILL lose. The only way this would work is if it were on bike only streets. BTW - even in Idaho the biker is supposed to yeild to the right of way. Wonder how often that happens? And here in Portland, bikes are supposed to yeild to pedestrians in cross walks, which rarely if ever happens.
-
If they are going to expand biking in Portland, they need to include some serious work on policing bike riders. I make a nightly delivery (via car) in the Pearl District and I estimate that 3/4 of the bike riders obey no traffic laws. Almost all of them ignore stop signs and even red lights. They are an absolute hazard to themselves and others. The only way I can see it working is to have separate 'roads' for them and let them deal with each other, not cars. I think money would be better spent on buses/trams and electric cars.
-
We need to spend a great deal more than barely 1% on bicycling infrastructure. Last I heard the infrastructure since the early 90's is about as much as the cost for barely a mile of freeway.
Why not jump up to 6%.
Create a network like Copenhagen and Amsterdam with seperated bike lanes. They attract 36% of the population on bikes, that do not mostly walk or use transit.
With another million newcomers in the next 20 years we need to be more proactive.
-
I think the city needs to improve bike accessibility on MAX. I would ride to take public transit to PSU but all the bike racks are always full!
-
I fall into the camp that suggests the plan does not do enough. A bicycle boulevard, which is heavily emphasized in this plan, is simply not safe enough for children, or even casual riders. Bicycle boulevards are sufficient for the “enthused and confident” type of cyclist. If we really want to achieve a 25-30% cycling mode share then we need to develop infrastructure that makes cyclists feel safe.
-
I live in Brooklyn and work at PSU> 2 miles commute but I don't ride a bike because Ross Island bridge is terrifying. The east side has two dangerous (for peds and bikes) freeway entrances. I went to UCD which has a REALLY bike friendly campus. Lots of bike parking and security to prevent theft. Imagine having a bike parking lot for 200 by the library on campus! IMagine having video surveillance for bike parking. IMagine having a safety rail seperating traffic from the sidewalk on the bridge!
-
As someone who rides frequently in the summer, but much less in the winter, I have been thinking about a few things the city could do to help. Regularly picking up leaves from the bike lanes/shoulders would make riding safer. Another slip hazzard is the paint used to mark the pavement. I wonder there are any low-slip paint options on the market.
Catherine
Portland, Ore
-
Could part of the plan be paid for by license fees for bikes. This may also help with identifying bike riders who fail to follow the rules of the road.
-
I like this idea - who is paying for all these bike lanes etc?
-
Something just said struck a chord -- We need to think about the best way to move PEOPLE around the area, not how to best benefit any particular transportation mode. It is hard for many of us to not skip that step and go right to the mode they favor.
-
I'm a 56-year-old bike commuter, and I love the freedom from driving that being able to ride to and from work gives me. Portland is so much better to bike in than it was ten years ago. I know that a portion of my property taxes go for road improvement, as does my car and gas taxes. I also know that my bicyle doesn't impact road surfaces like motor vehicles do. Bicycling also gives me daily exercise. Across the nation most major cities (NY, Chicago, LA) are doing the same as Portland, so this is a national trend. I would like to see an educational campaign to the general public about the rights of bike commuters, as well as the need for all (bikes and motore vehicles) to obey the traffic laws. Before the advent of the car, roads were filled with horses, bicycles and trolleys. We're not going away, so we all need to learn to play in the sandbox together.
-
One of the major downfalls I feel is the lack of space for bikes on the MAX. The new Max has less space for bikes per car, only 4 hooks, then the old cars which have 6 and the commuter population and overall population in portland has grown so much that only 4 spaces per Max is not enough. In the summer it gits so crowded on the MAX with bikes that what we really need is a separate car just for bikes or to add like an additional amount of hooks by removing seats.
-
I support govermental policies that would increase biking in Portland. However, funding has got to be creative. Please do not put it on the backs of Portland homeowners. I already have to save over $300 a month to pay for property taxes. Everyone benefits. Everyone pays.
-
Two years ago I negotiated a large software contract with KLM in Amsterdam. I could not believe what I saw. Bankers going to their work in suits on bicycles, Grandpa and Grandma bicycling together, a mother with a bike and four kids in a bucket going to a park, ladies all dressed up for a night out bicycling. And nobody had a helmet, that is how safe we have to be. For those who think that this is a socialist idea, the Dutch are capitalist of the first order, they invented the stock market. Social engineering is what the car companies do with their advertising they try to make you feel good. But bicycling is fun, exercising makes you feel good, but it needs to be very safe. Something that I don't feel in our streets. The end of the story is that I ended up a taking my wife and two year son to Amsterdam and we had 3 days of blast bicycling everywhere.
This plan is a start, but we need to be more agressive. The safer the better. I don't allow my kid to bicycle on our streets.
One thing that I propose is that people should be able to make donations for bicycle paths when they pay for their licenses. I'd gladly contribute to something that is targetted towards bicycling.
thanks for doing the job.
-
Hi.
I live in the Cedar Hills area and work in Wilsonville. I was a regular commuter by bike to work but have been involved in two accidents involving automobiles. The first accident occurred by a playground at 3:30 in the afternoon. School had just let out, four schools were in walking distance of the intersection and children were present. I was in a well marked bike lane, wearing an orange jesery and the driver, no turn signal, took a right turn cutting me off. The excuse, she didn't see me. She was given no citation and so her insurance company puts me equally at fault which has resulted in litigation. As a side not, I remember having to take a vision test when I get my driver's license renewed. I feel that just building mor bike lanes is not going to be sufficient without legal policies that protect bicyclists. As long as we allow people to plead negligence and get a free pass, bicycling will not be safe.
In the second accident the driver was cited and there is no contest from the driver. The second driver also says she did not see me. With headlines in the paper showing bicyclists killed and the drivers who don't see them not punished, then negligence is protected.
-
I work downtown and take mass transit. I am not supplied with a parking space for my car by my employer why should bikers have a space for their bikes by their employers?
-
Because cycling is being sold as something more then it is: a simple way to get from A to B. Just another perfectly acceptable mode of transportation. And, because there is a culture of cycling, that turns it into a collective religious movement.
-
Providing bike facilities is a great way to provide a low cost benefit to employees.
I am a small business owner. My employees greatly appreciate that we have covered, indoor parking for their bikes. This policy is basically free for me, but is seen as a significant value to them.
-
I support all expansion of bicycle routes, but I think the effort would be enhanced by an education effort rather than a "marketing" effort. I'm talking about education for drivers and riders. Drivers don't all know how they would benefit from more bicycling. Not all riders use helmets or wear other than black clothing or follow rules - the bicyclers who don't use safe behavior just cause more problems for themselves.
-
I'd like to see more education on traffic laws- both for cyclists and drivers. In addition, I'd like to see stiffer penalties and more enforcement of these rules. It is all very well encouraging more cycling, but with that will come more conflict.
I believe many people are just ignorant of the rules. An example of this is the amount of drivers using their fog lights all the time because they believe it makes them safer. This is illegal. Similarly, many cyclists believe they can blow through stop signs. This is also illegal.
Education and enforcement will help.
-
You are talking about the $500 million bike infrastructure budget request through 2030...But can you please put this in context of the total road budget & mass transit budgets planned for that timeframe? It's hard to judge whether this is 'a lot of money' without that context.
-
I won't pay for a separate bike license/registration. I already pay taxes for services like schools where I have no children attending. I don't mind paying taxes for services even if I don't use them; but I would mind the added headaches caused by bike registration, licensing and enforcement. Bike licensing is a big turn off AFAIC.
What keeps me from biking regularly? The car in my garage. It's a pain in the ass to ride my bike to my neighborhood New Seasons when it's raining. The things I buy are usually heavy and bulky. I require a bigger pack. Fenders from November through April. My issues are surmountable, but my addiction to my car tends to derail biking. I've got to take biking more seriously.
You freaks that bike while talking on your cell phones -- knock it off!
-
If we want to license and tax bicyclists, then shouldn't we license and tax pedestrians as well for the use of public sidewalks ?
And how about all those people pushing strollers, those things are huge and heavy and have wheels, all their many children are definitely a burden on society, lets put a weight per mile tax on them too, Cha Ching !
-
Niether pedestrians, nor those pushing strollers are asking for major changes to the infrastructure to add lanes for them. That's why they should not pay.
-
Everyone can walk on the sidewalk. Cyclists, motorists, hang-gliders... . If cyclists want to pay to ride their bikes and pay again to walk on the sidewalk---sure. But it seems a little excessive. Doesn't it?
-
talk about a poor argument. This is the best you could come up with? How about you just don't want to be licensed and insured. Licensing would mean accountability - which in the biking community is avoided like a plauge, instead prefering to blame others. Pay up or no more improvements. Insure like everyone else on the road.
-
a one sided conversation. Not all of us are childless hipsters who live 2 miles from our non-profit, cake jobs. Have someone represent a real, tax paying family and I'll join the bike cult too
-
well pay our in taxes - a lot. And we have children in our household. I am happier giving my tax money for bicycle lanes than for sending our americans to be killed in foreign soils for cheap gas, and enrich the milary industrial complex.
-
I'm not a "hipster." I am a small business owner with an office downtown. I wanted to ride for health, but it was hard to get started (about 5 miles from our house to office). Then, in 2003, our gross receipts of our business dropped more than half from the previous year. We needed to find little ways to save money - we refinanced the house, stopped eating out and started riding our bikes.
Not only did we save money, I lost 10 pounds and my husband's borderline blood pressure went down to normal. We've been riding regularly ever since (usually 3-4 days per week, all year). The infrastructure gets better every year. I'm 8 months pregnant, and I rode until 2 weeks ago. (Now I am on the bus/MAX.) We drive, too, BTW.
-
You seem bitter about whatever your job/commuting situation is. You can start cycling at whatever age, and whatever circumstances you have. If you did not engineer your home-to-job situation in a way that can support a cycle commute, then start using a bike on weekends for grocery shopping, fitness riding, or going to church. Just get on the bike whenever you can. you will find that the more you ride the more routes you figure out how to ride.
-
as a teamster warehouser, i am very mindful of the working stiffs and all we endure. currently, the typical household pays about 20% of income supporting transportation costs. This number is sure to increase as rising oil costs and congestion increases. Building safe ways to get to work, to accomplish our daily must do's stand to benefit the working class at a much greater level than the 'elite'. By having a safe way to get to work not relying on a car, I am freed from the non-discretionary expense. I might even get to suspend my gym membership because I exercise daily. I will be more connected to my community because I don't have that steel box around me.
This does not mean I get forced out of my car. The secret is ' appropriate transportation'. Having a safe way to get 20# of groceries at Safeway, 2 miles away, a bike makes sense. For taking grandma to the doctors, that car is still important.
I have worked on bike issues over the years because, like you, I understand that the burden of the status quo is borne mostly by working folks. We will always have to work,but we dont have to limit ourselves with outdated and unsustainable priorities. Remember also, the dollar you don't HAVE to spend on gas is a dollar you GET to do with as you please. The cost of the current Master Plan is about $500 million, over 20 years. This is about 1% of the total transportation budget. By getting 25% of trips, 5 miles or less out of cars, we meet environmental standards easier, reduce congestion, which allows faster cheaper freight movement, improve public health,safe routes to school, the list of benefits goes on.
If anyone class will be the primary beneficiary of safe bike routes, it will be the working class.
My contention is that the small investment in non-motorized transport will pay huge dividends for generations to come, not only financially,but in how we live.
-
I am a daily bike commuter (but also own three family cars so believe I am speaking from a balanced perspective) but, think the benefits of biking (health, environment, community) are an unbeatable combination of reasons that biking should be fostered in leu of automobiel travel. The current "roadshare," heavily in favor of cars is unsustainable and unconscionable.
-
We haven't talked about the City and County Climate Action Plan.
About 40% of greenhouse gases in our region come from transportaiton. Cycling is one of the most cost-effective ways to reduce these, and also pays off with increased health and lower health care costs.
Chris Smith
-
Earlier Emily had mentioned that someone would be brought on who would share a dissenting voice and talk about what this would "take away" from cars. What are we taking away? Pennies in the bottom of a transportation fund? Yes, we could take those funds and dedicate them to vehicle transportation, as we have done for the past 50 years, but numerous scholars in the field of Urban Planning, like Anthony Downs, have shown that once traffic congestion is here, we cannot build our way out of it and need to think of other ways to reduce travel on the roads. One way of reducing the load on the roads is to provide the means for other types of transportation, like cycling.
So, perhaps it should be thought of like this: automobile drivers should be thanking cyclists for commuting in the rain because if all of those cyclists were to each hop into their own car, imagine how much more it would tie up your morning commute.
Hey Portland, we are all in this together.
-
What? This lady on now is talking about riding on the sidewalk and calling herself a "bicyclist." Gah. Seriously. Bikes are vehicles. Not allowed on the sidewalks. You are seen better on the road than on the sidewalk -- and you don't endanger pedestrians.
-
Well said. I can't believe she said that!
-
Bikes = vehicles. Stay on the streets.
-
Lumping folks into classes, such as motorist biker or ped..and all the permutations, creates an us vs. them mindset. we are all trying to get there from here, safely and quickly. Providing bike lanes, sidewalks. paths as well as streets and highways is the cities realm.
As we enter an era of diminishing resources, providing transportation options will insure we can get to work,school,church in the way that works best for us.
I see the BMP as a step,but not the be-all, end all for Portland. But all this polarization serves nobody.
joe adamski
-
Speaking of the new buffered bike lanes on SW Oak and Stark, I agree that they are confusing and possibly frustrating. I use a bicycle more than any other mode, so my perspective when I first tried these was, how do you keep cars out of this lane? But of course that is not feasible if cars need to park or turn right off of this street. I came to the conclusion that these lanes work best if car drivers and bike riders both treat this as a shared lane with priority for the bikes (where as a lot of bike boulevards the lane is shared but priority is for cars). These lanes with the pavement markings should help make everyone more aware of the need to be cautious.
-
Good discussion. What this leads us to is a need to have a realistic look at our transportation infrastruture needs in the future without looking at how things have been done in the past. With the community issues of climate change, childhood obestity, peak oil and other environmental/social concerns, old solutions will not suffice. In addition, old ideas (car centric development, baby boomers not biking) need to be challeged. We have an unsustainable model in place and we need to look at the solutions through a new lense.
-
I think it would also help to have more bike hooks on the Max.
-
I don't hear any discussion about the weather. Lets face this limitation and not distort the bicycle partisipation in the bad weather. How many people rode thier bicycle today? (40 degrees, rainy and a little windy). I think everyone is enthusiastic on a sunny day but half our days are not sunny. Could we make some of the bicycle resources seasonal adjusted? Available in the summer only.
-
I used my Surly LHT to get to a meeting this morning 5 miles from my home. I used rain gear and proper lights. The ride was weather challenging, but not hazardous. The bike lanes are going to be on the roads in fair weather and foul. If you commit to use a bike, don't wimp out in the rain.
-
about the bike culture wars: on one side, people who act on the roads as though might makes right. on the other side, people who feel that safety and fairness for all is right. that is what the disagreement is really about. ~ Vere McCarty (a partisan)
-
This is not about safety. Clearly, the safest option would be not to have bikes at all! In reality bicycles make the roads less safe for everyone, because roads were not engineered for cycling. Introducing another variable for drivers to focus on decreases safety. So the more cyclists, perhaps the less safety. Unless at some point the cyclists dramatically increase in number, and with it the caution of drivers---but it would take a while to get there---and, seems unlikely.
It is a culture war, because it has been defined as a moral imperative by one side. And, a 'we are better then you are because we are doing this.' And, now, both sides have become a little crazy.
-
I ride very carefully, anticipating the stupidity and chaos of normal urban driving, and try to obey traffic laws, including intersection signs and signals. I have been cycling as a form of active transportation in Boulder and the Vancouver/Portland metro area since 1977. Cycling is getting safer and more accepted through growing numbers of riders.
I do not believe safety is a right. Each cyclist needs to feel as if they are totally responsible for their own safety. Being on hard pavement is dangerous sometimes even without cars. A cyclist uses forces and skills for transportation that are different from those a car driver uses. As the skills develope, the responsibility to use them in a safe way remains the business of the person on a bike.
With the attitude that as a cyclist I am responsible for my own welfare, I can watch the distracted fat idiots in the iron cages with some wary amusement.
-
scottmil,
You have it exactly backwards. More bicyclists (and pedestrians) make the roads safer for everyone including motorists. Motorists paying better attention has a positive impact on all road users.
I have been commuting by bike regularlly since 2003, and as the number of bicyclists increases every year, I feel noticably safer every year. I've never had an accident with another road user (I have fallen due to slick conditions a few times) and I have had only a few near misses.
-
On the contrary, based on accident and injury statistics, the safest option would to not have cars at all. Oh, and please put the cell phone down before you have another french fry! Bikes are the least of a drivers problem or distractions. Let's remember that many cyclists also drive automobiles.
This is not an either/or issue. This culture war is manufactured and I am not sure of the motivation. Possibly based on guilt but I am not a postion to judge. I have not heard a cyclist define cycling as a moral imperative. We have enough things that attempt to divide us. Let's not make transaportation alternative be one of them.
-
wendesivert,
I don't have it 'exactly' backwards, which is why I said: 'Unless at some point the cyclists dramatically increase in number, and with it the caution of drivers---but it would take a while to get there---and, seems unlikely.' The fact is: if bicycles were not on the road at all, the roads would be safer. Because if cyclists are making the roads safer, then why are we worried about safety?
At any rate, the idea that biking allegedly makes roads safer is irrelevant (even if it was true). I only mentioned safety because the culture war, was defined as being about safety, which it is not. Unless you are suggesting safety as the reason people are advocating more cycling on the roads in general, cyclists seen as an added safety measure---that would be nonsense.
-
scottmil,
Safety is a reason many people who perhaps are interested in the benefits of cycling (health, money, environment, etc) do no bicycle. That's why making bicycling feel safer to new users is important.
As I mentioned, I have already perceived an improvement in safety during the six years I have been communting. I've always been wary of cars, but I definitely sense cars paying more attention to me (in a good way.)
And this is measurable - the Oregonian just ran an article about Portland being the ninth safest city for pedestrians. In it, they talked about how that translates into safer roads for everyone. (Remember, the vast majority of traffic fatalities are motorists.)
-
slebahn and others,
Gosh, so many of us are dishonest or simply don't think clearly. We hurt the 'cause' with this nonsense. Maybe I sound that ridiculous---I know my tone sometimes gets out of hand. I don't know. Of course, the safest option would be not to have cars at all anywhere. But the safest option on roads engineered for automobiles is not to have bicycles. I can't imagine that could be disputed. The context of safety was brought up as an important factor in the alleged culture war. I think cycling should be accommodated and the funding increased. I like it. I am just not willing to join a religion, that overstates things that don't need to be overstated. Cycling is definitely being proposed as a moral imperative, read the comments. Read your own comments.
I generally don't eat French fries. I also don't eat in cars. Nor do I talk on a cellphone while driving a car. I also walk miles and miles every week. All culture wars are manufactured. One thing I am pretty certain of, if there is a culture war, it began on the side of the cyclists. I don't feel guilty driving a car or riding a bike.
-
scottmil,
It's not overstating the cause at all. If "cars only" is safer, why are there more per capita fatal traffic accidents in rural areas with few bicyclists and pedestrians?
-
wendesivert,
You think the lack of cyclists make rural roads unsafe? Really? As opposed to say less fear of getting caught driving recklessly? Unsafe road conditions in rural areas? Less visibility? Rural driving culture? General increased speed on rural roads? Surely bikes are last on the list, if they are on it at all.
-
scottmil,
To answer "You think the lack of cyclists make rural roads unsafe?"
No, speeding and roadway designs are the primary culprits. A significant presence of bicyclists and pedestrians, however, does force drivers to pay more attention and drive slower, improving safety for everyone. Also, roadway designs that are safer for peds/bikes (i.e. grid systems) are also safer for motorists.
An exception is the interstate system, which is comparatively safe for cars at high speeds, but not for bikes, peds, scooters, etc. This design only works well, however, when on/off points are miles apart.
None of this is to imply that the main reason we should promote bicycling is to improve safety for cars. It is merely to point out one of the many ways bicycling, even by a minority of road users, benefits the larger community.
-
wendesivert,
I agree with a lot of that comment, which is nice for once! Yay! But, well, no, no, I will leave it at that. On a positive note... .
-
cool.
-
I would like to offer an alternative to licensing bikes in order to raise revenue for bike related purposes. Licensing bikes would be difficult and costly, but licensing riders would be much easier and not penalize those who have more than one bike. Riders could be licensed by requiring an endorsement to their driver's license the same way that motorcycle operators are currently. Riders over some age ( 16, 18?) could be required to obtain this endorsement. People who do not have a drivers license could have the endorsement to their ID card. The additional administrative cost for a program like this should be minimal.
-
The endorsement process would be an excellent opportunity to teach cyclists the laws of the road as they pertain to bicycles. Great idea!
-
Still too complex. Am I supposed to get my 4 year old a "learner's permit" so that I can teach him how to ride? My retired mother is interested in trying out cycling for exercise, can I lend her a bike, or do I have to send her to the DMV for a license?
The licensing idea should go the way of the Dodo Bird. Car licensing doesn't pay for all the roads, neither does the gas tax. We're talking about public infrastructure that is needed by all, even those who don't use it personally.
As far as "fair share" goes, bike facilities can almost be seen as making revenue. The investment they require provides a far larger return than other modes. For example - Portland gets over 6% of trips done by bicycle right now. Keep in mind that bike and ped spending combined is just 1% of the total budget. Based on this, the public might be better off paying people to ride their bikes since it could save such a large amount of money that would otherwise be needed to expand the capacity of our auto and transit infrastructure.
-
I think this is a great idea... but may be something to look at doing in say 2015 or so. Initially, we still need to ENCOURAGE more people to ride their bikes, thus reducing carbon emissions, and licensing and other fees for bike commuters is a slight disincentive. But, with so many commenters here concerned about getting more bicyclists familiar with the rules of the road, I see licensing as an excellent opportunity to provide the much needed education to cyclists.
On that note - here is the best "cyclist education" page I have seen to date - complete with statistics about how/where to ride can save you from being hit by cars. :)
-
nice idea.
-
Bikes need to be licensed the same way cars and motorcycles are - with clearly visable license plates for the same reasons. Accountability. Fees are just to help off set the cost of managing bike transit.
-
Here are a couple things I'm thinking.
1. Paying for it: What if we (cyclist) paid for services instead of fees. I mean things such as paying for bike parking, showers, etc. We could pay monthly like cable, or trimet passes. I'm not advocating a system that would not have a free option, just a system that would promote paying something and getting something to help fund the overall goal.
2. Culture: There was a caller that said something about the culture of cycling and that we all yell at cars and blow stop signs. That is not all true.
Cyclist and cars have to get along. Both cyclist and motorist are equally guilty of antagonizing and blaming each other. As someone who has been hit by cars and spent a lot of time in the hospital, I am sensitive/cautious to where cars are. Both times I was hit, I was hit by a car trying to make legal, yet dangerous, left turns. I am forever changed by those instances because I am extremely cautious. I am more easily bothered by people who blow stop signs or in general seem to not pay attention to what they are doing. That is dangerous.
In a car you have the ability to seriously injure someone and so the responsibility is greater, yet a cyclist has to take it upon himself to follow the rules, if for nothing else than to show that we are respectable members of the transportation community.
In transportation there are bad apples who will always interpret the laws loosely, think speed limits, not using turn signals, driving with cell phones and roll through stop signs. Some of these things happen both on cars and bikes. I still think they are excuses to divert both users from really working together. We have to get past blame and move on to solutions. Bike lanes and other bicycle diverting, highlighting mechanisms should help to separate out the situations that cause the most tension. It's money well spent for both users.
3. Trails:
I miss the ease near by of mountain biking. You have to drive outside of the city to do "good" mountain biking. I hope there are some plans to make mountain bike accessable land.
Portland has some amazing athletes and could benefit from access to trails or sports parks centered around cycling: cyclocross, mountain bike, track, and road course like PIR.
Many cyclist train on the road because there aren't safe alternatives.
-
Paying for it
Perhaps if we thought ahead and built businesses along dedicated bike corridors such as the Springwater Trail, then bicyclists, pedestrians, etc could pay for the trails through the purchases they make via the taxes those businesses pay. A distinct advantage of trails like the Springwater is that there are very few interactions with vehicular traffic.....something I'm sure all motorists and bicyclists can appreciate.
What if, on my bicycle ride to work, I could stop at Starbucks and buy a latte and a newspaper. What if I could drop the kids off at daycare, pick-up the dry-cleaning, do my grocery shopping, get a haircut, drop off the mail, take the kids or the dog to the park for some exercise, buy some lunch or dinner, stock-up at the liquor store and buy my lottery tickets........all without ever having to co-mingle with traffic.
There is a reason why they build gas stations next to the freeway.......that's where the cars are, lets do the same for bikes and peds. Lets build whole new communities dedicated to the self propelled and we'll let the marketplace pay for them. Create the means to reach these people friendly areas and the people will surely find them and they will grow without cars. Does anybody have a neighbor who is too old to drive but can still get around? How about a three-wheeled bike or a nice walk to the store or the Pharmacy for their meds.
On a recent trip to Venice,Italy we walked everywhere we went, it was great ! But we walked not only because we wanted too but because that was the only way to get around. There were no vehicles to be seen or heard (except boats) and everything you needed was within walking distance. And the most amazing thing about Venice........everyone was THIN, except the Americans of course, you can allways pick out the round ones in the crowd!
-
Cycling as Sport.
Another variable in the culture war, (a huge issue) cycling not as a form of transportation, but cycling as a sport or form of exercise. Many of the cyclists are not getting from A to B, they are out there along with the runners, in spandex and plastic roach helmets. I think this creates resentment with drivers, because it is seen as frivolous. Nobody wants Richard Simmons to get in the path of their vehicle. Or wants our road resources used for sport. The roads aren't a playground. Funding for recreational bike trails should be a separate issue entirely. And should not receive extra funding that is not commensurate with any other form of recreation.
-
note that "driving as a sport" or as a form of recreation is so imbedded in the advertising and lore of our car culture that we do not even notice it. If you are going to try to "weed out" sport cyclists, I suggest that you also weed out all the motorists just "out for a drive" or posing as being cool in their pimped out rolling boom boxes.
I would say that on most urban roads, 30% of the motorists are not just "getting from A to B".
-
roboturkey,
30% of automobile drivers are not joy-riding. There is without doubt, a higher percentage of cyclists joy-riding then drivers. And there is almost no percentage of people who consider driving an automobile 'exercise.' I didn't say we should weed people out, I said it is 'another variable in the culture war.' And, that we shouldn't fund projects that are for recreation.
-
The wise expenditure of money on roads is an essential function of good government. Better bike lanes and fostering a "bicycle friendly" transportation system benefits everybody, including iron cagers (car drivers). Cyclists in this area are truly leading the way to a healthier future and a better metro area.
I have noticed better and bettter bicycle infrastructure in Clark County, which I believe is very much a side-benefit of Portland raising the standard for bicycle friendly streets and intersections. This morning in the pouring rain I was able to safely attend an early meeting - using bike lane streets and safe bicycle racks, a ten mile round trip that did not take appreciably more time than if I had used my iron cage. I could leave the auto at home, saving whatever cost that represents in carbon and wear and tear on the streets.
Once a person begins to explore using active transportation and the existing public transportation system for travel, the practicality of even our developing metro network becomes apparent. Bicycle transportation makes sense on many levels, from person health to urban live-ability.
That said, there is defintiely a car-bike culture clash, mostly the fault of iron cage drivers who cannot or will not tolerate any sharing of "their" roads. This is comical until it impacts the safety of cyclists. The court system will eventually take care of the bike cyclists' right to safe travel on public roads, if only through the increasingly elightened liability holdings against iron cagers who injure cyclists.
-
Biking anywhere requires some planning of your day. Here in Bend there are a number of us that ride all the time, all year round. We have many hills here and often in the winter the streets have ice and have snow on them. In fact it is snowing right now. I have studded tires on my bicycle and it has more gears than your basic bicycle. It has racks and baskets for carrying things. I ware layers of clothes in the winter months. I am a 56 years old male and am in better shape (from bicycling and skiing) than many teenagers, but I still get passed everyday by a sixty-five year old guy. L
I look to Copenhagen for inspiration as to what it can be. Twenty years ago they were using cars like we do today. We look to Portland to lead the way. Like many years ago after the Great Depression, America is retooling for the future. Public transportation and use of bicycles is growing.
Conflicts between motorist and bicyclist are due to the lack of the right design of our streets to accommodate both. Even today here in Bend bike lanes (and sidewalks for pedestrians) are often not even considered in the designs of new streets. Like I said, America is retooling. We will get it right.
Garry Zimmerman
Volunteer for Pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Bend, Oregon
-
I am late to this because I was hoping to get a chance to make my point on the air. I apologize if the point has been made in this blog but it was never made on air: IMO the plans for further investment in bike lane marking and 'bike boulevard's' promote a seperatist viewpoint among bike riders and motorists alike. Too many of the callers felt that when a bike lane ended they were out of options.
I am new(ish) to Portland and I ride most everywhere by neccessity. I Google a trip to a new destination and follow the directions as would any motorist doing the same thing. No motorist would question whether they can use a particular road because they didn't know if there was a 'car lane' on it!!?? with the possible exception of I-5, I-205, 405, etc) no cyclist should want (or need) special accomodations to ride any street or road in PDX metro.
Last year when I was here just a few months I was coming home at night in Hillsboro. I was on Cornell headed west. The bike lane ended at the airport miles short of my home. I was hounded off the road by the cars, clipping and honking crazily. I was totally unfamiliar with the interior streets and got badly lost.
Driver awareness has got to be less expensive than the millions planned in road renovations and improvements. Going forward it is likely there will be less money in Portland's economy not more. If cyclists continue to hold out for as extensive a bike road network as what motorists have many will remain sidelined indefinitely as the projects get cancelled or delayed.
I have to say though, as one who has cycled in the Midwest and on the East Coast. Oregon gets a lot of things right and it is a shame that so many residents think that its unsafe to get out there and ride. It is also a shame that so many think that bicycles are just for recreation and that you cannot carry large loads. We are the ONLY couple that ride a tandem to the Winco and load a BOB Yak trailer with 100lbs of groceries every week. That is a shame.
H
-
With the talk about health reform going on I think an argument can be made for more funding for bicycling as part of preventative medicine. More exercise is a good thing.
I don't know how you could parse that out financially as far as how much health benefit would come from more biking, but it is worth a try.
-
I agree, Tom. Even without an exact dollar amount we know the results of a sedentary, car-driven lifestyle are costing everyone dearly. That's why getting kids on bikes (or out walking) and keeping them safe is a worthwhile long-term investment.
So many good comments here! I'm heartened and thoroughly support more bike lanes, bike boulevards, and biker/driver education.
Lydia
-
For another related show, you could discuss funding for transportation infrastructure, maybe in light of the upcoming adoption of the Regional Transportation Plan at Metro. A clear explanation of the amount of all the dollars spent by the region (federal, state, local) to expand and maintain the motor vehicle infrastructure compared with the amount of money spent on infrastructure to make biking and walking possible would be useful to people.
For example, ODOT is adding an on-ramp lane from 217 northbound to 26 eastbound that will cost $35 million. That is just one very small project in the region and the cost per mile is very high. Right now, the RTP includes huge amounts of money for freeway and arterial expansion that dwarf the 20-year amounts that Portland proposes in its new bike plan.
The graph of regional expenditures over the past 10 years for car/truck space really has to be compared to the graph of regional expenditures for bike/ped to get a clear picture of the how the region isn't "shorting" car drivers by adding infrastructure for walking and biking. Transit capital for light rail, new buses, and the street car should also be treated separately from transit operation dollars to better understand how much transit service we are really getting.
-
I moved to Portland 1 1/2 years ago, in part because I looked forward to getting on my bike and riding free. Just after moving, my friend had both legs broken in a bike/car accident. Then my fiance broke his collar bone in an accident downtown. Finally, my neighbor was struck on his bike in a hit and run in the Pearl. Still, these enthusiasts are all (3) still riding and it seems like I hear this story time and time again.
The culture divide between bicyclists and motorists is huge. I have yet to ride my bike around Portland because I am scared of an angry driver -- and I get yelled at by bicyclists when I don't drive exactly how they think I should, though I drive with an extreme sensitivity to bicyclists. How to alleviate these differences?
Should the city invest in safer bike paths, I'm there and ready with my vintage cruiser!!! Please keep this conversation going!
-
It is really a city planning issue. They planted the bomb 20-30 yrs ago. We can't do 'urban sprawl' and expect people to be bike intensive. AND we can't put our mass transit at street level if we want to safely and quickly transport people via transit.
My previous mtn state was far more bike friendly 30 yrs ago than the PNW is even now. Drivers will never be as alert to bikes in the PNW, as they are in highly bike friendly areas, as PNW is not conducive to the daily grind of biking through all the ages of life. (there were hundreds of bikes at my schools in mtn states). The boomers who want to bike will either deal with it here or more likely move to a bike friendly region (what I'll be doing). portland is too little too late. Spend the money to elevate MAX through down town, so you can mass transit Gresham to Hillsboro faster than you can drive. Same with north interstate, elevate it and only have 3 stops between the "NEW' Columbia Crossing... and downtown Portland, there should be bus 'hubs' at each of the 3 stations, but get to 15 min transit Vancouver to Downtown Portland not 50 (takes 10 to drive...)
Bike THEN can be emphasized AND there will be less cars to deal with, so maybe... just maybe; the bikes could use the very roads that USED to be jammed with gas burners.
-
Being a newcomer to Portland as of July; I heartily support and commend this fabulous city in its efforts to celebrate environmental conscienceness and health and fitness by bicycling! I am concerned , however, by the seeming arrogance and brazenness of some cyclists in their disregard for the Fact; that not every driver is as mindful of respect or safety of bicyclists! I am fearful of elderly drivers; or mentally preoccupied teens with a carload of buddies, blaring music, and all of the drivers on cell phones!! I feel that some cyclists are flirting with danger and perhaps loss of life! I believe not too long ago; a young man was hit and killed on Willamet near the University of Portland! I as well; had a near head on collision because a woman on Willamette was not even riding in the bike lane! I had to swerve way over the center lane to avoid hitting her; and as I did; another driver made a right turn onto Willamette, a wide right turn; I had to swerve my Suv; all the while the woman held her head high biking along, oblivious to my effort in avoiding hitting her!! I was stunned!!! Needless to say I was livid, shaken and fuming!! I believe they need to put up some kind of guard rails to separate bikers and drivers!! Bike safety for cyclists needs to be addressed and the pompous attitude of many of the cyclists needs to be examined!! Another danger; night riding w/o illuminated clothing or reflectors!! Only small headlamps on bikes!! WAY dangerous!! So glad this program came on; refrained from calling in; as I feared becoming too angry recalling my harrowing ordeal. Hope this problem is addressed!!
-
If you look at the biggest biking cities in the world - Tokyo, Shanghai, etc - you find that it isn't bike fanticism that drives bike cultures - it's simple practicality. With population growth - biking is the only sustainable solution. Considering Portlands commitment to sustainable urban growth it only makes sense to recognize this fact of practical urban life - and consider bikes along with large scale and long term urban growth.
-
It'd be a great idea for those of us who aren't flequent cyclists but would like to get from place to place efficiently if the route finder on cellphone GPS could show whih routes are bike-friendly. Anyone know if that's being considered by Verizon and the lke?
John.
-
I corrected some spelling and obviously deleted my entire reply! This will be shorter. My comments are in regard to hyper vigilance gravely needed on the part of the cyclist and driver! I am new to Portland as of July; and had a harrowing, for me, ordeal on Willamhette about 2 months ago returning from Fred Meyer. A woman was cruising along, completely outside of the amply wide bike lane, riding in the traffic lane. I slowed way down, waiting for her to turn her head my way, and move to the right a bit; at least into the appointed bike lane; which she did not! Oblivious to me; it was necessary for me to cross the center line at which time; a car had just made a wide right turn onto Willamhette. I then had to swerve my car quickly to avert a head on collision. Needless to say I was shaken, absolutely livid and fuming. I looked over at her, shaking my head, but forcing myself not to roll down the window; and yell something I'd later regret! Is this standard MO? Encountered a similar incident riding with my daughter somewhere else in NE PDX, the gent pompously rode along way outside the bike lane; compelling us to cross the center lane to avoid hitting him! Gave us a dirty look to boot! Stunning arrogance!!! I was taught, as a child, to fear automobiles and to realize that many drivers have more on their mind; than turning the other cheek to rude cyclists! Many are teens, with 3 or 4 other kids in the car, blaring their music and wrecklessly maneuvering down the road; others may be elderly or impaired by drugs or alcohol, or fighting with their spouse or frantically late for work! Lucky for some, I am a mindful, cautious, speed limit abiding driver, ever driving defensively, as I was taught some years ago in St. Louis, a conservative midwesterner! Also of concern are night cyclists failing to be sufficiently illuminated by reflective bike clothing; with nothing but a small headlamp to light up the bike. Hard to see on some of the dark side streets! I for one, feel there needs to be much more than a painted lane, which some of the cyclists ignore anyway! Why not find some feasible way to separate cyclists and drivers; a guardrail of sorts; or separate roadways. I liked the track that is at Portland State. While the green progress out here is beyond outstanding as the diligent efforts in reducing carbon footprints etc, I do feel that both sides need to reach a common ground; and respect for one another and safety needs to be gravely stressed!
-
We know one-way streets keep traffic flowing more efficiently. I wonder why we can’t extend this directional separation of traffic to include an occasional bike boulevard. Why do we have to create NEW paths? Haven’t we already spent an excessive amount of space dedicated to the car? I would rather close some side roads and allocate them for bikes rather than pay for expensive new trails. Streets like SE Clinton St. (which is such a major commuter bike route from S.E. Portland to downtown) would be a good candidate for this. Clinton is a designated bike boulevard but is packed full of cars avoiding traffic on Powell and Division during rush hour. I wonder why we can’t close roads like Clinton by simply posting signs saying “no through car traffic” and enforce it.
-
Comments are now closed.
I think that would be a tragic waste of resources, I just happened to read an Oregonian Article and pulled out these statistics.
"Only 50 percent rated neighborhood roads as good or very good on smoothness, down from 53 percent last year and 59 percent in 2005. And only 39 percent rated street maintenance as good or very good, down from 44 percent in 2005."
The majority of Portlanders would rather the roads were fit for cars, since 2005 the population we are less satasfied with the roads.
"In the area of transportation, auditors were surprised to find that despite public investment in transit and bike paths, two-thirds of Portlanders who work outside their homes still drive solo to work."
I think the government needs to meet the needs of a majority of it's citzens and stop social engineering.
here is the link to the article
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2009/11/portlanders_find_housing_a_bit.html