-Watch it below-
Since many of us in Portland’s bike advocacy sphere are wondering who will take the reins of our state’s largest bike advocacy organization, I thought I’d share a short video (which I found via Intersection 911) featuring the leader of New York’s Transportation Alternatives, Paul Steely White.
The video was created as part of TA’s excellent Biking Rules PSA competition. In the simple video, White makes a clear, concise and compelling case for bicycling in cities. His tone and framing of the issues are what we need more of in this country. Here are a few examples…
… on the (over)use of cars:
“The ideal city is a city in which private automobile use is minimized. For one person to travel in a car, you can accomodate a whole bus full of people or many dozens of cyclists. So, to make more room for livable cities, more parks, more greenways, it’s imperative that we minimize car use, and one great way to do that of course is with the bicycle and by making bicycling an attractive and safe option for everyone, not just the intrepid.”
He also nicely works in a plug for separated, center-median oriented bikeways (as opposed to traditional bike lanes on the right adjacent to parked cars), saying, “Riding in this lane is really the riding experience that should be possible on all New York streets.” The same could be said for cycle tracks in Portland.
And finally, a positive and inspirational message:
“I don’t think there’s another world-changing thing that anyone can do that has such a strong impact on your daily life but also has major reverberations throughout the world.”
This is how we need to be making the case here in Portland. This type of message needs to be heard loudly and regularly by our entire metro region, and it needs to be delivered from a trusted citizen advocate/activist, not from our Mayor or a city employee.
Watch the video below:
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
“Since many of us in Portland’s bike advocacy sphere are wondering who will take the reins of our state’s largest bike advocacy organization…..This is how we need to be making the case here in Portland. This type of message needs to be heard loudly and regularly by our entire metro region, and it needs to be delivered from a trusted citizen advocate/activist, not from our Mayor or a city bureaucrat.”
Ladies, Gentlemen, Dignitaries, Gentle Readers, I wish to nominate one Mr. Jonathan Maus.
(I would volunteer lots, Jonathan, I promise.)
This is SPOT ON! thanks 🙂
The fundemental strategy must change as well. Want the movement to succeed? Stop trying to convince everyone to give up their car, stop claiming bikes as the cure for all environmental and social justice ills, and cease inflammatory statements like “cars are the new smoking”.
Like any political movement in America, you will only succeed if you can convince one group of voters: middle class housewives.
Convince them that their kids should be riding to school to combat childhood obesity and need safe routes to do it. Tell them how much better their marriage will be if hubby loses his stressful commute and beer gut because of bike riding. Educate them that they can save money buying the things they need locally instead of driving to the megabox store 20 miles away. Appeal to their heartfelt sense that their children deserve a cleaner, better world. These are very powerful arguments and these women control household spending and home agendas. They vote, have centrist tendencies, and generally tune out fringe voices.
This is who we need on our side if we hope to make bikes a truly major player in our transportation future. Appealing to wonks, like minded advocates, sympathetic pols, and preaching to the choir won’t accomplish the goal.
Excellent as always. Seriously, this blog is some of the best journalism I encounter.
One little point: those of us who work for the City of Portland think of ourselves as public servants, staff, employees, professionals in our various capacities. Any chance of our not being referred to in bulk as “bureaucrats”?
thanks for the comment Anne.
point taken. I also don’t think “bureaucrat is the perfect word”… but i use it, not in a derogatory way, but to make the connection that city employees — whether they like or not — are part of a large bureaucracy that comes associated perils.
but yeah, as i think about it more..maybe it’s time i stopped using that word… after all, i’m the one who also frequently calls city employees “advocrats”.
thanks
Actually, I’ve got a criticism of the ‘journalism’ here: Jonathan, you seem to be on the PDOT cheerleading squad when it comes to cycle tracks; I think instead that you should be taking a really hard look at the potential design flaws and safety hazards posed by cycle tracks as planned for Portland, and the issues raised by forcing cyclists to use segregated facilities of potentially inferior design in one of the few states in the US which still has a mandatory bike lane and sidepath law.
Burr,
I disagree with your comment. Pbot does not own the idea of cycle tracks. Nor am I being a cheerleader. I use that term here simply as a synonym for separated bikeways.
I know you and others have a major issue with the mandatory sidepath law… But that’s an entirely separate conversation.
Why the need to nitpick here? I’m simply saying that 1) Paul Steely White strikes an excellent tone 2) we need more of that in Portland and 3) separated bikeways are what we need more of.
Let’s squabble about cycle track designs and Oregon vehicle laws some other time. And FWIW, I agree that PBOTs cycle track design is not as good as it could be and that the mandatory sidepath law needs to either be clarified or, better yet, eliminated.
Thanks.
Jonathan, the fact that you admit you think we need more separated bikeways in Portland makes you an advocate and a cheerleader for cycle tracks, and not an impartial journalist, it’s that simple.
And this is above and beyond any discussion of actual design issues or issues associated with the mandatory sidepath law.
Perhaps what you should really be examining more critically is the issue of why separated paths are considered necessary in the first place.
@ #8 Burr-
You’re a VC. Great, we get it. We heard you the first 1000 times. Feel free to advance another perspective from time to time. You might find yourself becoming more persuasive by letting up on the beating of that ideological drum.
(That assumes, of course, you seek to be persuasive. There are others – Terry Parker comes to mind – who clearly have no interest in persuading anybody of anything. If that’s your intent, feel free to disregard this advice.)
Thanks.
I have to concur with BURR here. You and BikePortland are blurring the lines.
Too often, this site functions as nothing more than a P.R. portal for government agencies, elected officials on the “right” side of bike issues, consultants making a buck off bike issues, etc. More troubling? It seems like you emcee a fair amount of bike oriented events and are asked by other media outlets to speak for or give opinions about the cycling community. In a sense, this site is much like Fox News or MSNBC – pundits and advocates posing as journalists.
My suggestion is that you utilize your staff to impartially report bike matters. Then, if you see fit, state your opinions on postings clearly marked as editorial. I expect there to be a pro-bike bias here but it really does increasingly seem as though you rubber stamp anything from PBOT / Alta / Euro expert du jour / various advocate groups as gospel truth and then vigorously defend THEIR ideas whenever a reader criticizes or finds shortcomings with their thinking.
Is that journalism? Or simply protecting friends and those you want continued access to?
Lazy Spinner,
I don’t agree with much of your comment.
First, I don’t defend other people’s ideas, I defend my own ideas. Everyone needs to understand that my role and this site are somewhat unique in the journalism/advocacy world in that I try and do/be both.
Yes, I agree that sometimes things are blurred here on this site, but I do not deny that. I have said in a public speech to a sold out theater that I am an activist and I am not ashamed to say that.
I say, judge me by my words and my reporting.
If you think I “rubber stamp” things you must not read this site very much or read very carefully.
Did you happen to see my reporting about the Broadway/Williams intersection and how PBOT has let it languish?
Did you see my video on the one year anniversary of Tracey Sparling’s death wondering why the City only acts boldly after someone dies?
Did you read our critical analysis of the BTA’s recent personnel news? Or all my reporting on their position on the CRC?
Did you actually read my report of Mikael Colville-Andersen’s talk? Or a recent European delegation that came here giving advice? If you did, you’d have noticed not one single iota of “rubber stamping”. It’s strange/ironic to me that there are people at the BTA and at PBOT that are worried at how critical I’ve become of them and at the same time I have readers saying I’m just their mouthpiece.
And as for me being an “emcee” at bike events and talking to the media about bike issues… yeah, I do that frequently (especially at my own events). And when I talk to the media I’m being candid about MY BELIEFS, not anyone elses. And yes, I do defend my beliefs because they’re, well, my beliefs.
I’m always opening to having my beliefs challenged (that’s why I have so much respect and pay so much attention to comments on this site).
So, Lazy Spinner, I take offense at you calling this site a “PR portal for government agencies”. It’s easy to criticize like that… but it’s much harder to back it up with credible evidence.
As for your sense that my “rubber stamping” is “increasing,” I think what you’re sensing is more of my candor in not hiding my advocacy. I think we need more advocacy voices in Portland and in the USA right now and I’ve decided to share more of mine more often. Yes, perhaps I should try and label it “editorial” more often… I guess I assume people understand my role and style more than they actually do.
Thanks for your suggestion on how to utilize my staff. I actually think we’re doing pretty much what you suggest.
I’m disappointed you compare this site to Fox News or MSNBC. I think it’s nothing like those outlets at all. But, just having you say that will make me pay even more attention to what we publish.
Thanks.
My reading comprehension is just fine.
Broadway/Williams “languishing”? – I don’t detect willful neglect. Sounds like a scheduling conflict and a smart revision of the original proposed fix. In fact, kudos to PBOT for not wasting tax money to do the same job twice.
The Sparling Tragedy? – A problem isn’t a problem until it becomes a problem. City managers are not clairvoyant. Well publicized deaths have a far greater effect on decision making than scores of unreported close calls. In fact, if you don’t know something is broken what spurs you to pre-emptively fix it? Hunches? Dreams? Miss Cleo?
Critical Analysis of BTA Firing Bricker? – Really? A loose timeline of hirings / firings during his tenure interspersed with some vague HR speak about changing direction or perceived complacency amongst Portland bike riders? A few comments about him being political and enjoying lobbying? Good thing Woodward and Bernstein didn’t stop with, “Somebody broke into an office. Some government types taped a few conversations. We couldn’t get hold of President Nixon for comment. Where’s our Pulitzer?”.
As for the CRC, BTA didn’t get what they wanted and walked away from the table. Did it hurt them? Make the CRC look bad? Cause the city to re-evaluate its position? Who knows? We only got Michelle Poyourow’s version of the story.
Recent Visitors? Some nice knowledgable folks rolled into town and told us what works in their homelands. Nothing controversial there but the “OMG! Copenhagen is soooo coool!!! Portland, be like Copenhagen!” stuff is getting a bit cloying. Where is the analysis of costs, funding, political will to do this, the alternative plans that factor sharing space with over 200,000 motor vehicles? I like what these advocates have to say too but they offer no more substance than a motivational speaker. It’s exciting to know that smooth talker has all of the answers you seek but only if you buy $500 worth of self-help books and videos. What if Portland doesn’t have the $500 or the taxpayers will only shell out $300?
I’m sorry that you take umbrage with my government PR comment. That may not be your intent but the only voices we seem to hear from are PBOT, BTA, quasi-govermental advocacy groups, and the like. I’d love to hear more from the CRC planners, those who don’t believe in bikes, politicians with an (R) behind their name, rural and suburban officials, business leaders, etc. that may not subscribe to the notion that bikes make things better. Why? Because it will spur honest debate. We might learn something or find common ground. It might cause us to re-think some of our ideas. At the very least, understanding your adversary better prepares you for future battle.
Overall, this site does a great service. But as bikes become a serious matter in this town, this site should hold itself to higher standards and become the prime source for balanced information and reporting on bike issues.
@ Align #9 – If you feel the need to ‘label’ me as to the ideological content of my message in order for you to be able to more easily dismiss my message, I truly feel sorry for you.
For the record, if you’ve actually been paying attention to what I’m trying to say here instead of simply attempting to ‘label’ me so that you can dismiss me, I am far from an ‘ideological vehicular cyclist’.
Among other things, I was and still am a strong advocate for the arterial bike lane system we have in Portland today, and wish it were more extensive; but over the years I’ve also come to the conclusion that this system, for a variety of reasons – mostly lack of vision, engineering design limitations and inflexibility, almost all imposed by PDOT – is not really up to the task demanded of it.
I just don’t happen to agree that replacing the existing system with even more inflexible and segregated European-style cycle tracks is the logical next step forward.
Basically, I think the movement towards cycle tracks is an admission of defeat – that motorists will not and cannot be reined in and educated to share the road with human powered vehicles civilly and safely – so instead we must build a completely new set of infrastructure to protect cyclists from motorists, when perfectly good roads on which cyclists and motorists safely coexist on a daily basis already exist.
Furthermore, the same issues of limited right of way width that have prevented the installation of bike lanes for the past 20 years on many inner city arterial streets like SE Hawthorne and East 28th will similarly prevent the installation of even more space-intensive cycle tracks, and my prediction is that the elimination of curbside parking to accommodate cycle tracks will never occur, just as it never occurred for bike lane installation.
On the other hand, I have been a strong advocate for sharrows, which I think would prove very useful on narrow rights of way where PDOT has been unwilling or unable to install bike lanes. Sharrows clearly indicate to motorists that cyclists have a right to use the roadway, right of way reallocation is not necessary for sharrows, and capital costs are minimal compared to construction of cycle tracks; however, for mysterious reasons known only to Rob Burchfield, PDOT seems to have ignored/passed over sharrows in favor of cycle tracks, which makes no sense whatsoever to me.
Oh, and by the way, comparing urban design and traffic in Portland to urban design and traffic in New York City is just about as absurd as comparing Portland to Copenhagen or Amsterdam, maybe more so.
Lazy spinner,
wow. Ok. It’s clear you feel I have a lot to learn about being a great reporter. Guess what… so do I!
Did I ever say that I was doing all the best stories and reporting possible? No. I was merely responding to what I felt were your claims that I am nothing more than a mouthpiece. I think you and I and anyone reading this would agree that my work falls somewhere in between the “rubber stamp” journalism you first mentioned and Pulitzer level quality.
No news there. I absolutely agree with you that I have a very long way to go in doing the kind of transportation/bike journalism this community deserves.
The good news is that I feel we here at bikeportland are working toward that goal. The reason I’m trying to build a team here is precisely so I can focus more on in-depth issues and do the type of stories you refer to above…we’re just not quite there yet. Doing great journalism is no small task. And, while I’m proud of my work and he work of Elly and others on this site, i am nowhere near satisfied!
Thanks for sharing your opinion. While it doesn’t feel good to read, it is also an important reminder to me to keep pushing myself to do even better work.
Cheers.
Wow, I ended up reading everyone’s comments before watching the video. After the dust has settled I’m impressed with everyone’s civility. (And Jonathan’s patience an openness. Ha!)
Cool vid! Not sure how you can share a beautiful eloquent video and call it “journalism.” It’s more like blogging. Nevertheless I’m glad someone shared it with me.
BURR, I had to re-read your comments because your tone shut me off initially. I’m beginning to agree with you (at least your underlying points). We need a lot more advocacy for sharing the road with motor vehicle traffic. I personally favor a balance. (Often times everyone wins with separated bike lanes.) But road sharing has been recently losing out to other approaches. It would be nice to see some “hip” PR video about bikes coexisting in car traffic.
Maybe we see less of it these days because it is such a political bomb? It’s hard to make a feel-good video of someone riding in the street with car traffic. How do you educate car drivers about the law and their responsibility without upsetting them? They lose because they have to slow down. The majority of car drivers aren’t happy with this compromise.
You may be right. People are wimping out and not confronting the powers that be.
Yes to sharrows and yes to more driver education!
I don’t agree with your assertions of bikeportland being a PBOT cheerleader. However, I have noticed that the stories have been more measured and mature in the last year or so. (Probably a good thing!) There have been fewer stories with 100s of impassioned comments.
Maybe as Portland planners and the Portland bike advocacy community has moved more “main stream” it gets more uncomfortable to push back against “main stream” stuff like car culture?
We see more stuff like summer Portland Greenways. This is the most succinct example of the general direction bike advocacy is going these days. The Greenways rides make huge progress toward making biking more inclusive. This is a feel good event that opens biking to many families and new bikers. It helps new bikers take political ownership of the idea of biking.
Maybe lately we have had a little too much feel-good biking approaches? Truly transforming Portland into a biking city means to continue the effort of taking the streets back. This is a political battle where car drivers will be unhappy with the outcome. They lose a lot.
We didn’t get the 40 hour work week by working with the boss. Something to be mindful of.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
I am as vehicular as the next cyclist, and am often on these boards decrying lane striping, bike boxes, cycletracks, and the mandatory sidepath law. But I would have thought it was well understood that this site has a point of view and does not pretend to be neutral on many of these matters. That being said, the site does put information out there that you would otherwise have to ferret out on your own. And this is not just an aggregator blog: Jonathan puts actual people out on the street and into meetings and sets up interviews and posts original reportage here. Anyone who wants to try to replicate that is welcome to try. It can be done, but it takes a lot of work. The contrarian “vc” voice is largely missing from the conversation in Portland, but one cannot expect Jonathan to “be” that voice, because it is not his voice. What is needed is a grassroots advocacy organization that picks up where BTA seems to have decided to leave off. Get rid of the mandatory sidepath law. Make the p.r. videos that educate motorists and cyclists alike how to share the existing infrastructure. When PBoT proposes a cycletrack or whatever, work with them to assure that the conflict points will not be worse than what already exists. Roger Geller is actually a thoughtful guy. There is nothing inherently wrong with bike “boulevards” if they are designed well, so long as motorists are not led to believe that cyclists are required to choose the sidepath.
cars are the new smoking… i like that!
As has been said countless times, the policy-maker’s problem with a VC approach to bikes in the right-of-way is that only the most fearless of cyclists will pedal.
If you’re interested in more people bicycling in service to a more sustainable future you have to consider separated bikeways as a tool. That’s been the experience of every city in the world.
So it’s simple: either you’re interested in what’s works for you – ideology – or you’re interested in what works best for everybody – policy.
Bikes and motor vehicles co-mingle in virtually every location in every great bike city where there isn’t sufficient ROW to accommodate separation. The fundamental difference between those environments and Portland’s environment is motor vehicle speed.
On these streets in Amsterdam (or Copenhagen, Malmo, Utrecht, Gronigen, the list goes on), for example, a motor vehicle is never going faster than 10-15 mph. The speed is slow enough that everybody can adjust behavior safely and easily. In central Amsterdam driving a car is like being a bull in a china shop. The motorist really has to be careful. Co-mingling works in those kinds of conditions.
The problem with applying that anything-goes approach in Portland is that we don’t have conditions like that. The best example would be something like that tiny little street between the Ash Street Saloon and the Oyster Bar. The great bike cities have entire neighborhoods built at that scale. You don’t need separated facilities because you can’t drive fast in those conditions.
So maybe part of the answer is just to slow speed limits way down everywhere?
Separated paths are just another half-assed cop-out by people who think they can engineer out the human element, which of course we know they never can.
We’d be much better off educating both cyclists and motorists in better operation of their vehicles and to cooperate and coexist on shared roadways, rather than trying to control human behaviour through engineering solutions.
I think we can do it if we put our minds to it. Motor vehicle hegemony has only existed for 50 to 100 years in the US, and I don’t think it’s too late to turn back that tide in ways that don’t relegate cyclists to restrictive and deceptively hazardous segregated side paths.
“don’t relegate cyclists to restrictive and deceptively hazardous segregated side paths”
Burr,
Dedicated paths will encourage fearful cyclists. As mode share increases the number of cyclists taking the lane will increase.
Anecdote: The number of cyclists taking the lane on Hawthorne to make a left turn on 12th has increased significantly. I’ve noticed that most drivers are now very bike aware and react in a respectful manner when bikes cut through multiple vehicle lanes (after exiting the dedicated bike lane). I can only imagine what this would look like with 25% mode share.
I am also a VC.
A few points to ponder:
Car ownership amongst the working classes in the USA exploded in the immediate post-war period. An affluent nation untouched by combat, citizen soldiers returning home to good jobs and GI Bill benefits, and government spending the peace dividend to finance urban expansion led to the rise of car culture here.
Contrast that with Europe. Until the 1960’s, most of Europe suffered recession like conditions. The majority of GDP was spent on rebuilding destroyed cities, social programs, and defending against the imminent threat of Soviet invasion. Those cities that were rebuilt (even “new” cities like Rotterdam) on the existing street plans that existed before the war. So, a population without disposable income and cities with narrow thoroughfares from the days of true horse power necessitated the building of mass transit systems for mobility. The bike was already an inexpensive and accepted form of transportation in these places.
Why mention this? Because it is important to understand that the European and American experiences are profoundly different and that is a big reason why just aping Copenhagen or Amsterdam is not necessarily the best or most realistic solution for an American city.
As a VC, what I worry about is that the Euro-fetish our local transportation planners seem to have will create unintended consequences. First and foremost, will separated paths restrict road use access for VC riders? Will the existence of cyclepaths and new MUPs be viewed as “You bike riders got what you wanted now stay off the roads because those are for cars only!”? Not only public perception but police traffic enforcement as well. As an example, the cops won’t let runners and power walkers amble down a busy street lane when a sidewalk is available. Why would it be different for bikes? I firmly believe that pro-bike politicians would sell out some of our current road use rights if that meant getting a few conservative votes or muting some of their objections to funding separated bike paths.
What will the cyclepaths and MUPs be like in practice? I do not condone unsafe or aggressive riding but will the new facilities be speed enforced? As a fit cyclist, I don’t wish to be limited to a 10 MPH speed limit because anything faster will frighten the newbies. I really do fear that the engineering will be geared to the lowest common denominator. If I am travel and speed curtailed to a pathway, then the efficiency of cycling is now lost. I might retreat back to the comfort of the car rather than spend more time in the cold rain amongst a traffic jam of upright cruisers, bakfiets, and riders deafened by iPods and possessing poor handling skills.
Since I don’t live an easy 2-3 miles from my downtown job, these things concern me greatly. Some here would love to see a bunch of smiling, sharply dressed folks idly pedaling their Batavus to work. My commute requires lycra, a road frame, and some effort (hills!). Presently, it is about fifteen minutes faster than using the car. If I lose those fifteen minutes because entering Portland requires slowing to the speed of the average fat tired Electra Townie rider (rather than zipping past crawling traffic using the current bike lanes), then I might just ride shotgun in the wife’s SUV or start using my car again.
If I can’t ride freely then I may as well be warm, dry, and comfortable!
key word is relegate
@ spare wheel #21 – unfortunately, if the powers that be have their way you will never get a chance to see what cyclists merging left to make a left from SE Hawthorne to SE 12th looks like at 25% mode split, because all those cyclists will not be allowed to take the lane and instead will be trapped on Hawthorne in a mandatory separated cycle path and forced to make a ‘Copenhagen left’ there.
Now if the city was smart, they would already have removed one lane of eastbound traffic on Hawthorne, starting on the viaduct at the MLK off-ramp, and continuing to SE 11th, and installed one of those nice wide buffered bike lanes like they just put on SW Oak and SW Stark downtown.
The bicycle traffic volumes these days on lower Hawthorne are certainly high enough during peak hours to justify moving this bike lane out of its current right-hook door-zone position and widening it considerably from it’s current substandard width. I’ll bet the city’s own crash data would also support bike lane improvements on lower eastbound Hawthorne, so putting a wider buffered bike lane at this location makes a lot more sense to me than the ones they just installed on SW Oak and SW Stark.
And, unlike a separated cycle track, you would continue to be free to merge in and out of a buffered bike lane to make that left turn onto SE 12th.
The other thing the city should do on SE Hawthorne is to put nice large sharrows in the center of the right lane every block in both directions SE 11th all the way through the business district to SE 39th, which is basically a promise they made as part of the final negotiations on the Hawthorne Blvd. Transportation Plan ten years ago that they have never followed through on.
If someone wants ride with auto traffic that’s their business, but i DON’T and should not be forced to.
Cars are noisy, smelly, toxic, kinetically lethal and the ugly suckers take up a ton of our public space. Their use is heating up the planet and decreasing Portland’s quality of life.
The modes of transport are so different that separation is the only real solution. Bike lanes are a waste of paint and provide no real safety, even the buffered type.
We’re dealing with a system that has evolved around the auto and has given the selfish transport mode the highest priority. Time for substantial change if we want a sustainable city where grannies feel safe enough to ride their trikes.
substantial change is fine, but complete separation is hardly necessary. Unconditional demands for things like that are going to get us exactly nowhere.
BURR, lets agree on substantial change being needed.
There’s lots of stuff i think we could argue about and you appear to have a lot more time on your hands so i can’t go there.
What unconditional demand?
unconditional demand for complete separation of motor vehicles and cyclists
i never made that assertion, “complete.”
What i envision is a thorough network of bike blvds that divert autos off them at regular intervals, say three to five blocks. The solution could be as simple and affordable as the yellow curb in the middle of SE 20th (@Ankeny) at most intersections through out the city.
Complete separation is impractical and would be unfair to auto users who have homes and/or businesses on bike blvds
Who gets the short end of the bike blvd stick? The people on streets next to the bike blvd, because they have to deal with increased autos, seeing less smiles, and the jealous feelings they’ll have about their bike blvds neighbor’s property value.
Ahhh yes, the bike boulevard. An idyllic corridor where bike riders can go slowly on streets with little traffic (wasn’t much to begin with compared to arterials) and a stop sign every two blocks. I suppose if you wish to travel north/south at a leisurely pace that sounds just dandy!
But, your job is downtown. How do you go west and then back east at night? That’s right – on a high speed arterial of death with just a painted stripe! The sort of road that scares the living daylights out of “interested but concerned” and keeps them in their cars.
Many of you keep getting suckered into this fantasy of smiling grannies rolling through quiet neighborhoods with soaring home values thanks to traffic diverters. The majority of jobs in this region require travel to downtown, the Lloyd District, the industrial areas, or to the suburbs. Hence, you have to pedal fast and mix with cars and trucks. Why the willful ignorance of this fact?
That’s what needs to be addressed to get the mode share you drool over. Bicycles are not viable for the masses unless that happens. Quick – name three Portland politicians with the spine to dedicate an entire line of Sandy, Broadway, Macadam, and Hawthorne to bike traffic only?
Think about it this way. What made the suburbs possible? Freeways. They allowed people to buy affordable homes twenty or more miles from work and still commute quickly. I think that we agree that model no longer works thanks to overbuilding and the awful environmental costs. But, the original transportation model (quick, easy, unfettered access to and from work) still applies to bikes. Not everyone lives within twenty blocks of their workplace nor do Oregon wages allow anyone but the top 10% of earners to buy homes that close to downtown. So, the bike boulevard scheme just enriches the rich. Live in Lents? Gateway? St. Johns? Where’s the high speed corridor that makes bike commuting efficient and safe? Those are the people that need real infrastructure to be lured from their motor vehicles.
Lazy Spinner, I think people that are fit, experienced and want to VC briskly with traffic on high volume streets such as Sandy Blvd, Foster, Grand Ave, or out in Beaverton…Canyon Rd, T.V. Highway, Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy…should certainly not be prohibited from doing that.
I think that the, as you put it…”… smiling, sharply dressed folks idly pedaling their Batavus to work. …” probably represent a larger potential percentage of the public that might be persuaded to bike for transportation if the infrastructure was there for them.
Biking in both type situations should be permitted and provided for.
@31 L.Spinner,
The fantasy of smiling grannies rolling through quiet neighborhoods with soaring home values thanks to traffic diverters is coming whether you believe it or not.
The question is, how long will naysayers stand in the way? And. . . how long to calm the outraged masses who fear any substantial change, how long to wrestle funding, etc.?
There’s a lot of good will towards bikes in Portland, in the political realm, in business circles, and culturally—bikes are a Portland icon. It’d suck if we don’t rock it.
Adams, Blumenauer, and Wyden (Bricker (after he’s elected)) are all spineful individuals.
As for downtown goes, we need every tenth, or so, road in the north/south and east/west directions closed to through auto traffic, aka a bike blvd.
I live near MLK & B’way and work at 162nd & Glisan. Its 45 minutes on bike or train. i make it the whole way on side streets, except Halsey. If i go 10 minutes out of the way, no Hell-sey and i only encounter 4 signals. Last year, i lived out past the water treatment plant on Columbia Blvd. and i found back streets all the way into town that were probably quicker than autos in a lot of cases. Definitely beat the bus.
Diverter = Smiling Grannie on trike with hundreds of other renewed cyclists zipping past her, also smiling.
Um, counting to three refers to the number of votes needed for Portland City Council to take action, not any three random local politicians.
and the ‘interested but concerned’ group, even if they do exist, aren’t going to be dedicated enough to take the time you did to research and test complicated low traffic routes from the nether reaches of Portland to downtown and back, most people want the convenience of easy and direct routes when they are biking, just like motorists.
Anyone outright dismissing cycle tracks really needs to do their homework. Come to NYC where the designs are top of the line, where cycling has gone thru the roof since their introduction, where people are riding in them with big smiles safely – and the injury and death stats fully support they are working well.
That’s all I’ll say.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cringe at the political naivete on display here.
I’m so confused. Except for the couple of blocks on 7th and then on hawthorne that I use to get across the river, I can’t think of a single bike lane near my house that I use. And I’m so mixed up, because I’m a granny. And I like riding uprightish.
And when I was young and pregnant with another kid on the back of the bike riding down stark street and signaling my turns… was I a fit and fearless VCer? I thought I was just going to the park. I felt pretty fat, and had to be careful not to tip over.
Where do you people live- that you can ride around in bikelanes protected from cars? I know there’s one down on 7th, but it doesn’t go across the freeway, I think it maybe goes up sandy? I know there is one half way up morrison, but I don’t use that bridge coming east from down town…. does anyone? Is there a bike lane on Foster? I’m not sure I’d wanna be on foster anyway… stinky and ugly and noisy and I can’t even IMAGINE feeling safe, white paint or not.
I heard cycling has increased due to infrastructure that makes people feel safe. Where is it? How do people use it to get from one place to another? I find that I have to use streets to get pretty much anywhere I want to go. Is there some alternate portland that I can’t see?