(Photo J. Maus/BikePortland)
Almost one year after Portland Parks Commissioner Amanda Fritz quietly destroyed hopes of new singletrack bicycling opportunities in Forest Park (at least in the short-term), off-road advocates plan to deliver a strong message to her at an upcoming budget hearing.
Their request? Find the money to fund a citywide mountain bike master plan that would address Forest Park trails and other cycling opportunities like family-friendly pump tracks in local parks.
It’s an idea proposed by Fritz herself and one they feel will finally break the logjam that’s preventing the Parks Bureau from moving forward on any significant projects that improve access for bicycles.
“Show up and tell Commissioner Fritz that the time is now to fund that plan and start moving forward on making Portland more off-road biking friendly.”
— NWTA call to action.
In February 2014 Fritz announced via a blog post that, “I believe that a citywide Master Plan for cycling recreation is needed prior to embarking on individual projects.” That was a blow to advocates who had spent years working in good faith with Fritz’s predecessor (Commissioner Nick Fish) only to have promises broken and processes derailed.
Some off-road advocates feel the call for a master plan (made first by Parks Director Mike Abbate in a letter to the president of the Northwest Trail Alliance on January 21, 2014) and claims of budget woes are just more stall tactics. They say the current Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan does not prohibit the creation and use of singletrack and they cite several examples where Fritz has found Parks funds for projects she personally cares about. There’s also some concern that advocating for the master plan would effectively halt any projects in the pipeline.
Advertisement
Regardless of those reservations, advocates plan to support Fritz’s idea and put all their weight behind the citywide master plan at a public hearing on Wednesday. With that plan in place, they figure there will be no more excuses for City Hall
“Show up and tell Commissioner Fritz that the time is now to fund that plan and start moving forward on making Portland more off-road biking friendly,” reads a call to action sent out by the NWTA this week.
Andrew Jansky with the NWTA says they plan to ask for $200,000 for the planning effort. Most of the money in Parks’ 2015-2016 budget is spoken for; but there’s still room for Fritz to use discretion and fund other priorities.
The NWTA launched a petition on Moveon.org back in November urging City Council to create a “citywide master plan for recreational cycling” that they say is, “decades overdue.” The scrappy organization with about 1,000 members has collected over 2,500 signatures so far.
NWTA staff and members plan to present that petition at Wednesday’s hearing. A key argument they’ll try and make is that too many kids lack safe places to ride bikes in Portland parks. They’re hoping for a large turnout of people who value mountain biking and off-road cycling in all its forms — from pump tracks to singletrack.
If last month’s huge show of support for bike trails in Metro’s North Tualatin Mountains project is any indication, they won’t be disappointed.
Portland Parks Budget Dialogue
Wednesday January 7, 2015
6pm-8pm
Ladd’s Addition
St. Philip Neri Church (Carvlin Hall, 2408 SE 16th Ave)
Facebook event here
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.
Thanks for posting this. There was a strong showing at Skyline Grange last month and I hope the turnout for this is equally impressive. Portlanders are ready to build and maintain sustainable mtn bike trails in the city we love.
“Almost one year after Portland Parks Commissioner Amanda Fritz quietly destroyed hopes of new singletrack bicycling opportunities in Forest Park (at least in the short-term), …” maus/bikeportland
The people that have destroyed hopes of perhaps ever having Forest Park used for mountain biking, are mountain bike enthusiasts. Reading their mean and rude comments to bikeportland stories about this issue leaves no surprise that many Portland residents apparently do not want this park used for mountain biking.
Whether you like Fritz’s action on requests made to use this park for mountain biking, the commissioner apparently has the backing on this issue, of an apparent vast majority of Portland residents that don’t want this park used for mountain biking, rather than the contrary.
Figure out some decent way to turn that support in favor of mountain bike enthusiasts requests, and you may get somewhere, eventually. Lacking an actual vote of the Portland electorate on whether use of Forest Park should be made for mountain biking, consider circulating a petition to pose the question, as if the intention were to get sufficient votes according to city or state requirements, to qualify for a vote on the ballot.
As you’ve been told time and time again, the city surveyed Forest Park users in 2012 (a survey in which cyclists were certainly underrepresented because it took place in the park) and the number one desired improvement was increased singletrack for bicycles.
If you’re detecting frustration among cyclists, perhaps it’s the long list of broken promises and management failures over the past 20+ years that is to blame.
***entire comment deleted***
mran,
It’s clear to me that you do not like how wsbob comments. I get that. But he has a right to share his opinion just like the rest of us. Please refrain from lashing out at other commenters. Our goal here is to create a productive and safe place to discuss the issues we all care about. Put your energy into rebutting wsbob’s comments… Not in insulting him personally or telling him to go away. Thanks! –Jonathan
best just to ignore him. He doesn’t live in Portland, so doesn’t really have a say anyway.
Dave, sure, just ignore what I and everyone else living in Beaverton, a mere six or seven miles or lessl away from Forest Park, has to say about the question of using that park for mountain biking. If you believe people living nearby in the ‘other’ city, don’t really have a say, with their feet, if not their tax dollars, in what types of recreation Forest Park should be used for, you’re sadly mistaken.
To be fair, it isn’t that you live in Beaverton, it is more that you demonstrate a clear lack of knowledge on the park itself and you always bring a hostile tone to the conversation regarding mountain biking in FP.
“The people that have destroyed hopes of perhaps ever having Forest Park used for mountain biking, are mountain bike enthusiasts. ”
Nothing has been destroyed – we just keep pushing things forward and your responses confirm that we are making progress. wsbob, you can keep flamebaiting all you want, your posts have been derisive, inflammatory and so numerous that at this point no one can take you seriously here. We all know how you feel because all you do is repeat the same thing over and over – you don’t want mtbing in Forest Park. We get it. I just hope one day you can quit lying and misleading people about what has happened and why mtbing is still not allowed in FP – it has little to do with the comments made in the bikeportland forums.
“Whether you like Fritz’s action on requests made to use this park for mountain biking, the commissioner apparently has the backing on this issue, of an apparent vast majority of Portland residents that don’t want this park used for mountain biking, rather than the contrary.”
Really? Because that isn’t what she said at all in the statement. It is just red tape she put up and not at all a reflection of what Portland residents want. From my understanding you aren’t even a Portland resident, so it would be nice if you could quit telling us how we feel.
“Figure out some decent way to turn that support in favor of mountain bike enthusiasts requests, and you may get somewhere, eventually. Lacking an actual vote of the Portland electorate on whether use of Forest Park should be made for mountain biking, consider circulating a petition to pose the question, as if the intention were to get sufficient votes according to city or state requirements, to qualify for a vote on the ballot.”
The park users have voted in favor and the use of city park space isn’t really a thing that gets voted on. It is very funny that you suggest circulating a petition to pose the question as this is exactly what the whole article is about and what happened. Or perhaps that isn’t what you meant, the last sentence was very poorly written and difficult to understand.
It is posts like the one you made that should be moderated out by BP staff, it adds very little to the conversation on either side.
I recommend we use this thread to focus on solutions, outcomes we would like to see, etc. Lets see if we can come up with some ideas that NWTA/Parks can use to move this issue forward. It’s time.
I agree 100% and I don’t mean to bicker. I think part of the solution, as well, is addressing comments such as the ones wsbob makes. I would prefer to have counter-arguments posted and facts checked.
Personally, I think you would like my solution less, which is, we should just start riding bikes on wildwood and force the issue. BP seems to have backed up the geurilla traffic diverters and direct action, Burnside skatepark was built illegally and direct – I think it is the most direct way to start addressing the issue. The city doesn’t have money to enforce the bans and ticket anyone either. The political process has proven to be so broken along the way that I think it would really do little damage in the long run.
Point taken.
Cheers, Alex!
I think that Uber used this method to great success for them in Portland. For years I have joked that I should ride 5 minutes on Wildwood for every unleashed dog I saw in Forest Park since very few dog owners appear to follow the rules in the park. If I did that I could ride on Wildwood all day long. I do follow the rules and stay off the trails when riding my bike in Forest Park but it does seem that based on the lack of tickets for unleashed dogs that there would be no legal consequence to riding a bike on wildwood since no rules are enforced in the park.
I agree with Alex about just forcing the issue and riding the Wildwood trail, when its not muddy of coarse. But I’ve always wanted to do a “Critical Mass” approach and get as many people as we can at one time to ride Wildwood. 100+ bikers on the trail in unison would send a message. I’ve always loved the story of the Burnside skate park and how they forced the issue.
Link? As a tiny-wheel-ophobe I’m just barely familiar with the history at Burnside.
Here’s a short documentary on the Burnside skate park.
http://vimeo.com/51164175
It’s crazy to me that Parks did a comprehensive plan for Skateboarders in 2009 and here we are in 2015 struggling to achieve the same for cyclists. I guess the squeaky wheel really does get the grease in local politics.
Is Wildwood really that much of a draw for people?
I know it’s a long (kind of) single track trail, but I’ve run the length of it a few times, and it doesn’t really appeal to me that much as a mountain biker.
Or is this just a case of tasting the forbidden fruit?
Agreed, it’s pretty much a boring sidewalk in the woods. I think the draw is that it is an extended trail that we simply don’t have access to anywhere close.
Its a good way to connect fire lanes without going on Skyline or Leif Erikson. Its not super exciting but its better then Skyline.
Is it really that much better the Leif though?
Yes. Def better than Leif. Less people, too.
DH shuttles from Pittock to MacLeay? I kid…
No – Wildwood isn’t much of a draw. Like I said, I would prefer separated trails. The thing about riding Wildwood (or any single-track up there, firelane W was just an example) is that it creates a “problem” that needs to be solved. Right now there really isn’t a problem because there are so few cyclists riding the trails up there and only problems require solutions. I believe that there hasn’t been much pressure coming from the public because mtbers have been very respectful (despite what wsbob says) by not riding the trails and generally playing along with the political games thus far by in large.
If supply doesn’t meet demand, I’m afraid that we will start to see more and more civil disobedience. It has happened time and again. Our elected leaders needs to understand this and act. Proactively. Now. NWTA has worked hard to keep people off of hiking trails (and has done a damn good job), but you can only use the promise of better future results (that aren’t happening) for so long.
I imagine that virtually everyone would agree that Wildwood is a far superior experience than any service road option, but it’s also true that it’s currently a highly sanitized pathway by recreational trail standards. That’s because it fit the designers’ idea of what a trail should look like. Maybe that standard makes sense within a mile or two of a major trailhead like Thurman but maybe it makes no sense at all in the less-used, further reaches of the park. Some of the anti-bicycle voices like to point to FP’s unique and rustic “wilderness” qualities in a misinformed argument against bicycles but they see no inconsistency building what is essentially a dirt sidewalk right through the middle of it. Parts of Wildwood – and other trails – should probably be returned to a more rustic trail tread.
But I think the important thing to remember is that the cyclists are not simply asking to throw open Wildwood and all other existing trails to bicycle use. The ultimate solution may be some combination of segments of existing trails and some newly built or rehabilitated trails. We’ve spent twenty years asking for a substantive dialogue to discuss various options and that has been almost entirely denied. If you look at thoughtful, well-designed, sustainable, trail networks around the country and the world, the networks often look nothing like what existed before the community and the land manager got serious about creating a real plan. It’s time to get serious. Everyone, including the ecology of Forest Park, could benefit.
wsbob wrote:
I disagree with you completely on this wsbob. Just as you think many Portlanders don’t want more bikes in Forest Park, many other people think the opposite. The tone of bikeportland comments has nothing to do with it. You want to hear “mean and rude”? Are you aware of what people who fight to keep bikes out of the park do? Some of them (like Marci Houle) spread propaganda to sully the reputation of bike riders and they base their case on rhetoric and anecdote that does not reflect reality and is only made to hit specific political notes.
I disagree with you on this too. There has never been a vote nor should there be. We should make policy based on what best reflects adopted plans and goals — not solely on what is just politically expedient and/or what caters to the whims of the best lobbyists.
“…”The people that have destroyed hopes of perhaps ever having Forest Park used for mountain biking, are mountain bike enthusiasts. Reading their mean and rude comments to bikeportland stories about this issue leaves no surprise that many Portland residents apparently do not want this park used for mountain biking. …” wsbob
…I disagree with you completely on this wsbob. …” maus/bikportland
Jonathan, I’m sure you do disagree with my feeling that mountain bike enthusiasts, with their conduct, tone, demeanor and so on, has had them and their desire to use Forest Park for mountain biking, long come to be opposed by apparently many residents of Portland. Because, obviously, it’s your objective to have this park be used for mountain biking.
I think you and other mountain bike enthusiasts, for various reasons, lack a fundamental understanding of what this particular park is, and why it came to be, eighty or so decades ago. What this park was conceived to be, and what it continues to be, with the apparent support of many Portland residents, is what mountain bike enthusiasts are obliged to somehow reconcile with their own objectives, if they are ever to have some hope of using all or some part of the park for mountain biking.
You question whether many, or a majority of Portland residents oppose the use of Forest Park for mountain biking? Fine. As I’ve advised numerous times before, work to put the question to a vote of the public. A decision to use Forest Park for the vehicular recreation that mountain bike is, would be a fundamental departure from the purpose for which the park was created, and thus is worthy of a vote of the public to decide whether to approve or dissaprove.
So far, arguments, efforts and proposals presented by mountain bike enthusiasts to use this park for mountain biking, have been far from persuasive in favor of such a use. Making nasty references to park advocate Marcy Houle isn’t going to help improve your efforts. At any rate, if mountain bike enthusiasts argument favoring use of this particular park for mountain biking is so weak it can’t withstand the opposition of a few strong voices opposing the argument, the plan likely stands little chance of moving forward. Mountain bike enthusiasts will better improve their chances of the, at present, unlikely prospect of using this park for mountain biking, by somehow strengthening their argument in favor of such a use there.
Fundamentally, despite what mountain bike enthusiasts would like to believe with regards to this park, Forest Park is and has been from the get go, a nature park, whose identity to which, vehicular recreation such as mountain biking, is fundamentally at odds.
WSBOB, I think you and other bicycle opponents, for various reasons, lack a fundamental understanding of the fact that all of the things that this particular park is, and why it came to be, eighty or so decades ago are totally compatible with the accommodation of off-road cycling. What this park was conceived to be, and what it continues to be, with the apparent support of many Portland residents, is fully reconciled with the objectives of mountain bikers.
The only thing that the inclusion of mountain bikes would threaten is the monopoly access currently enjoyed by hikers and it is for those selfish reasons that bicycle opponents like yourself are compelled to pretend that there is some kind of conflict between bicycles and nature, conservation or wilderness. That imaginary conflict has been demonstrated to be false in countless settings, many that would qualify for the term “nature park” far better than Forest Park does.
Arguing that the continued exclusion of bicycles is because the cyclists have failed to offer persuasive arguments is like arguing that greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise because scientists lack persuasive scientific arguments for reducing it. Greenhouse gas emissions continue – and trails remain closed – for political reasons that hinge on misinformation, bad management, selfish interest and short-term thinking.
> Jonathan, I’m sure you do disagree with my feeling that mountain bike enthusiasts, with their conduct, tone, demeanor and so on, has had them and their desire to use Forest Park for mountain biking, long come to be opposed by apparently many residents of Portland. Because, obviously, it’s your objective to have this park be used for mountain biking.
wsbob – I don’t think you understand the conduct, tone and demeanor of the anti-mountain bike crowd, it is more deplorable than anything you have seen or experienced here. If you fail to recognize that, you are doing that by choice or ignorance.
> I think you and other mountain bike enthusiasts, for various reasons, lack a fundamental understanding of what this particular park is, and why it came to be, eighty or so decades ago. What this park was conceived to be, and what it continues to be, with the apparent support of many Portland residents, is what mountain bike enthusiasts are obliged to somehow reconcile with their own objectives, if they are ever to have some hope of using all or some part of the park for mountain biking.
I don’t lack an understanding about the history and why/how it came to be in 1948 (67 years). I have read much about the history of the park and it is my conclusion that mountain biking does not go against any of the original concepts of the park. Also, every time the city has reached out about mountain biking in Forest Park, the people have said they would like more access to it in FP.
> You question whether many, or a majority of Portland residents oppose the use of Forest Park for mountain biking? Fine. As I’ve advised numerous times before, work to put the question to a vote of the public. A decision to use Forest Park for the vehicular recreation that mountain bike is, would be a fundamental departure from the purpose for which the park was created, and thus is worthy of a vote of the public to decide whether to approve or dissaprove.
The question has been put to the public. There was an open house, everyone was welcome. I was there, were you? I have linked the results in these comments even. You just keep ignoring the results because they don’t align with what you want. And again, it is not a “fundamental departure” from what the park was intended for. Your originalist argument regarding Forest Park isn’t convincing – there is not Forest Park constitution, it is a city park that was intended to be rustic and have a natural feeling – mountain biking conflicts with neither of those things.
>So far, arguments, efforts and proposals presented by mountain bike enthusiasts to use this park for mountain biking, have been far from persuasive in favor of such a use.
They actually have been persuasive and the majority of the people that have actually made the effort to show up for the voting process want more mountain bike access – even the non-mountain bikers.
> Making nasty references to park advocate Marcy Houle isn’t going to help improve your efforts.
Marcy Houle has been a particularly nasty thorn in this whole process – did you go to any of the single track advisory committee meetings? She was not pleasant, to say the least – worse than anything that has gone in the comment section of BP.
> At any rate, if mountain bike enthusiasts argument favoring use of this particular park for mountain biking is so weak it can’t withstand the opposition of a few strong voices opposing the argument, the plan likely stands little chance of moving forward. Mountain bike enthusiasts will better improve their chances of the, at present, unlikely prospect of using this park for mountain biking, by somehow strengthening their argument in favor of such a use there.
Either you are playing ignorant or your grasp on politics is not too great. Mountain bikers will just start using the park regardless of what you, the city or anyone else says. The mountain biking community has been pretty nice by not using this space so far. In most parts of the country, where these issues have arisen, they have not been so nice.
> Fundamentally, despite what mountain bike enthusiasts would like to believe with regards to this park, Forest Park is and has been from the get go, a nature park, whose identity to which, vehicular recreation such as mountain biking, is fundamentally at odds.
There is nothing about Forest Park that is at odds with MTBing – only you and some other people are at odds with it – Forest Park doesn’t care.
If/when the regressive attitude towards mountain biking in this town starts to change, and there is an actual singletrack trail in Forest Park open to bikes, I sincerely hope the trail is named in your honor.
It is indeed to time to hold the city’s feet to the fire and to shine light on their many broken promises and missteps regarding off-road cycling. Funding the master plan is one important element.
But the master plan is also a two edged sword. As the article mentions, the master plan is partially a stalling tactic to halt progress in Forest Park. No master plan is going to magically reveal some nonexistent parcel of city land where significant singletrack could possibly be shared or developed. Yes, there are potentially some nice, badly-needed, small-scale opportunities at Gateway Green or Riverview, but it doesn’t take any deep thinking to know that Forest Park is where singletrack access or development should be happening RIGHT NOW.
So, yes, fund the master plan. But let’s not pretend that we haven’t known for the past 30 years exactly where Portland’s off-cyclists should be riding singletrack.
Sorry about those typos, people. Heat of passion. No editing function on bikeportland.org?
why would I want to edit out passion? 😉 and no, no editing function. sorry.
Portland Parks has surely done park user survey on the use of mountain biking in general and single track in particular. I often wondered why this data never emerges in these discussions. Is it because the results are not what some people want to hear???? either elected officials or single-track advocates?????
I think some information would shed some light on this sometimes overly divisive debate, perhaps fostering smarter advocacy and more civil discussion.
What objective information do we have about what the most Portlanders say they want from their Parks System with respect to single-track mountain biking?
How about a little investigative journalism on the part of Bikeportland.org looking into this question?
Bikeportland.org leans pretty strong toward the pro-single-track camp… which is fine… but in on this issue I think your mission to accurately investigate and inform needs to trump your advocacy agenda.
Fritz
Hi Fritz,
Thanks for the comment. This isn’t about surveys and polls in my opinion, this is about creating park spaces that are accessible to Portlanders. To my knowledge there is no sound reason to not improve bicycle access on trails in Forest Park. I’m in the pro-access camp. Absolutely. I think people have a right to access their public parks. There is no scientific backing to exclude people on bikes from using trails. There is no safety rationale. There is no budget rationale (NWTA can provide funding if they got green light). There is no planning rationale. The sole reason we have not moved forward on improving bike access in Forest Park is because the people who want to maintain the status quo have squeaked the right wheels at City Hall…. And Commissioner Fritz feels more comfortable supporting them than she does in supporting bicycling.
And I appreciate your feedback on what my mission should be. Thanks.
Forest Park mountain bike trails can be used for active transportation.
I have often thought about what a lovely commute it would be to take singletrack for 12 miles to/from work. Sounds so much more pleasant than riding Hwy 30.
I, for one, have always felt that bikeportland.org has been very civil, respectful, and level headed in their support for single track in Forest Park. I actually wish they would be a little more fervent in pursuit of this goal. The great divide in this issue is not caused by the cycling community, but by those who oppose mountain biking in FP. I think the mountain bike community has demonstrated that they are willing to do whatever we need to do to help make this happen, yet still, nothing…
Mountain biking is what got me into this sport many years ago. And even though I spend more time on pavement than dirt nowadays, there is not a single issue related to cycling or parks usage that is more important to me than having sustainable singletrack in Portland city limits.
While I agree with Jonathan that it isn’t about polls/votes and that this is really about sharing spaces in the city in a reasonable way over the long term while being sensitive to the environment, this is often cited on BP and shows the results of a public query.
TL;DR: People generally were open to allowing more mtbing in Forest Park, but non-mtbers didn’t want to share trails (honestly, I would prefer to not share trails there either).
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/312553
If you want to know more, you can google “single track advisory committee Portland” and you should get more results.
It has been covered by bikeportland for years…
http://bikeportland.org/tag/forest-park
I would highly recommend looking at the vitriolic attacks from Marcy Houle with a grain of salt and compare/contrast them with sound science, counter-arguments provided by many people and a general view of actually sharing a shared space.
> I often wondered why this data never emerges in these discussions.
It does, I just don’t think you have been paying too close attention. I have provided these links multiple times to wsbob because he seems to often forget what the public actually said.
This is long overdue as there are quite a few off-road (for lack of a better term) needs not being in the city, despite the space and collective resources to do so. We lack skills parks for all ages, longer XC/trail loops, intermediate/advanced trails, etc. It’s time for our local government to work *for* us.
“Find the money to fund a citywide mountain bike master plan that would address Forest Park trails and other cycling opportunities like family-friendly pump tracks in local parks.”
Where could we find this? Oh I don’t know, possibly the parks bond we just passed 2 months ago (of which only 50% of the money is actually planned/spoken for).
Yes. If I could have conditioned my Yes vote on mtb trail access, I would have. If mtb trail access doesn’t happen (and I mean actually happen, not just get batted around a couple planning meetings) before the next such levy comes up, I’ll be voting No.
When the city comes in and their BEST selling point is “this just replaces an old tax and won’t increase your taxes overall”, I remain very skeptical.
I wish everyone the best of luck, but I woudn’t be surprised if the rules aren’t changed again, goal post moved, etc…
If it were someone else in charge of parks, I’d say we have a pretty strong case and a good chance of seeing some results, but with this particular councilmember I’d sooner expect another lecture about riding on sidewalks downtown. At least she’s not in charge of Transportation. Or Police — can you imagine weekly Ladd Circle stings?
When this petition began I was hoping to see 1,000 signatures. The count currently stands at 2,563! Very impressive. Numbers matter. When NWTA began their membership total was about 135, and they are now nearing 1,000 members. The momentum is undeniable and the local government must positively respond to our needs.
New Zealand has amazing singletrack. They did it in an environmentally respectful way and is maintained properly. This could be done in forest park too!
I think it’s important to keep in mind that unless tomorrow night reveals otherwise, the city’s failure to deal effectively or creatively with singletrack demand is generally not the fault of the Parks Department itself. PP&R directors (Mike Abbate at the moment) have generally been hamstrung by incompetent or feckless command from across the street at city hall. Amanda Fritz (on her way out of office) is just the latest parks commissioner to mishandle this matter. With the backing of uninformed bicycle opponents who are happy to mislead and inflame the public in order to protect their monopoly access to trails, Fritz’s tenure has marked yet another frustrating chapter.
Yes, it’s sometimes disappointing that the PP&R director and staff haven’t demonstrated or asserted greater knowledge of the state of the art of recreational trails management, but it’s my belief that if they were asked, allowed and properly funded to do their jobs as professional land managers, they couldn’t help but act in favor of greater singletrack bicycle access because the inclusion of cyclists in trails networks is the current gold standard in conservation and trails management. In order to deny better accommodation of bicycles in Forest Park (and other city lands), they would have to ignore or willfully oppose the experience and science that is now largely standard in their field of work. I think that’s beneath them.
Everyone should attend tonight’s meeting. But if you can’t, it’s apparently ok to send comments via email to cynthia.castro@portlandoregon.gov. Impossible to say if or how the email comments will impact the process but hopefully it’s better than nothing. Stay constructive.
There was a decent showing of mtbers there last night. Wish it would have been twice as much, but I do think that people were impressed by the numbers based on what I heard.
Please send emails to to the email above and say you support the MTB Recreational Plan.
Yep. I estimate we were about 25% of the attendees. What struck me was the fact that with a little more effort we could have a major impact at these meetings that would be difficult to continue to ignore. Lets do what we can to fill the meeting space for the rest of the budget process. It won’t take much work on our part if we work together.
Excellent news. Since we’re 25% of attendees and since according the city’s own survey more singletrack is the public’s number one priority (for Forest Park visitors at least), maybe now the city can devote more than 0% of the budget to us. Time for change!
Done.
Thanks for staying on this guys!
If anyone’s interested, here’s another picture of elk looking quite distressed due to the presence of bicycles
http://tinyurl.com/qhwc7mz
Ha. Imagine how distressed they would look due to the presence of cars on that paved road.
Yep. They look really bothered.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4RxWQnTdj_8/mqdefault.jpg
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-Iwpoce77F0/mqdefault.jpg
I’m quite interested to see what direction this ends up going. I think if the master plan is approved they’ll quickly see that there aren’t many other places to look than forest park. If they spend 200k on paperwork and come up with nothing, that will look very bad. However if they don’t approve the plan, I’m afraid their policing efforts on trails are going to get problematic. You’ll start to see the open protests mentioned in the comments as well as simply bikes riding trails anyway. The easiest solution for them will be to designate some trails multi-use and hope for the best. We all know it would work perfectly fine.
As stated above by someone, the wildwood is likely pretty boring for actual mountain biking. It’s not the hardcore that are missing out here. It’s all the kids and older folks who don’t have anywhere safe and beautiful to ride in Portland.
An intelligently built trails network can include elements to suit a range of needs for all trail users. Maybe the first few miles of a trail are relatively smooth and easy like much of Wildwood, but then the same trail – or a connecting trail – can become progressively more challenging. Just as less-experienced cyclists might want a relatively easy start from the trailhead, how many hikers who are 10 miles into Forest Park are really looking for a flat smooth trail tread? More experienced hikers, just like more experienced cyclists, tend to enjoy a more technical and rugged experience. These same kinds of design features can help reduce the number of trail users in more remote and sensitive areas and can help ensure that the trail users who do reach those areas tend to be more experienced and better educated about trail etiquette and conservation issues.
That was me stating that.
I mentioned wildwood specifically as it is simply the longest piece of singletrack in FP. As I have said, I am not pushing for sharing Wildwood – in fact, the majority doesn’t really want that. It doesn’t make sense. It is a political move. The only time there are solutions are when there are problems and riding Wildwood would create just that a problem looking for a solution. NWTA has essentially been the good cop, we need a bad cop. If “they” start designating trails as multi-use, the trailwork that could be done could be done for multiuse and not just for hiking. I honestly would prefer that over no access at all. That being said, the best solution would be to separate the traffic as much as possible to maximize the enjoyment for everyone. I also see the impact about hikers/runners/users complaining about having to share a trail with mountain bikers. Honestly, it pushes the argument to the forefront – it is a political move and nothing else.
Regarding the Master Plan – I think it is just more red tape. Once that is approved (if ever), there will be more red tape put up in its place. When is there enough red tape to just call bullshit and start enjoying life knowing full-well that you are not negatively impacting the environment or other people’s happiness? What is the timeline for the Master Plan – if it ever gets approved? Is it 5 years? 10 years? Not to be selfish, but I only have so many years on this planet and, all things considered, riding a mountain bike in Forest Park isn’t really close to the tipping point of what is environmentally sustainable for me or my offspring (or the future of the planet). The environmental impact I have driving to a trailhead 100 miles away every weekend is a much larger negative impact than that.
Mountain biking has only increased my knowledge and respect for the environment and I would like to spread that around. No one should treat it as a personal sanctuary; rather, we should treat it as a place to learn, respect and teach the impact we have on all of the things around us by having fun, building trails and rehabilitating it to a healthy state as much as possible.
As Ryan just noted, there have been a few comments here about simply starting to ride the Forest Park singletrack as some kind of “civil disobedience.” First, I’m not sure it really qualifies as civil disobedience unless you’re announcing your specific intentions and inviting enforcement and sanction as a public demonstration. Otherwise it’s just doing what you want and hoping you get away with it. Maybe there is a role for true civil disobedience but that needs to be orchestrated.
More important maybe is the fact that simply starting to ride the trails illegally – or even legally if the park were suddenly open to shared-use – might also make no sense. Few people seem to be arguing that the entire trails network is already tailor made as a shared use trails system. There are places that may need maintenance, improvement, modification, signage or, as some have pointed out, maybe even some un-sanitization to make them better trails not just for cyclists but for any trail user who isn’t looking to experience the “wilderness” from a dirt sidewalk.
As it is today, much of something like Wildwood may be unnecessarily fast and too boring to be of much appeal to many in the MTB community. It could be made more technical, slower, probably more sustainable and could appeal to a wider range of trail users of all kinds. But it’s not even clear how much, if any, of Wildwood or other existing trails could or should be part of an ultimate shared use network in the park. That would all be determined by a process that the city has been denying for 20+ years.
> First, I’m not sure it really qualifies as civil disobedience unless you’re announcing your specific intentions and inviting enforcement and sanction as a public demonstration.
I am pretty sure it does qualify whether or not you announce your intentions. Perhaps what you want is not to “get away with it”, perhaps what you want is to get other users to complain about you riding the trail to put more pressure on the system for new trails. Whether or not you announce your intention, it can accomplish this and push the issue to the front. At that point, you can announce your intention if anyone is listening. Or maybe it should start by replacing the editor at the NW Examiner so we can have some news that isn’t tainted with hate towards (all) cyclists.
> As it is today, much of something like Wildwood may be unnecessarily fast and too boring to be of much appeal to many in the MTB community.
I agree, it is boring and not really that fun to ride. That being said, I really wouldn’t want to change it – people seem to love that trail and that is fine. I would really prefer to have some new trails open up. If that isn’t an option, then, yes, let’s make it better for sharing for both cyclists and walkers/hikers/runners.
> That would all be determined by a process that the city has been denying for 20+ years.
As it stands, it is going to take another 20+ years to make any forward movement. I am not really willing to wait that long.
It’s great to see all the thoughtful feedback in this discussion. At the moment, it would seem to make sense to wait a bit more and see if/how/when the master plan process starts to shape up. I too am very suspicious of it but right now it doesn’t have any form or details to criticize. If it’s a nebulous, $200,00, 10-year odyssey that is sure to be co-opted by the anti-bicycle political lobby, that’s one thing. But if includes a stated goal like “30 miles of singletrack in the city of Portland by 2017,” then we may have something to work with. Personally, I think it will look more like the former, in which case maybe “It’s go time!”
And maybe that’s a protest ride on Wildwood or an “Occupy FP” or a Group Flat Tire in Fritz’s office, but first I think we have to let the city play its next card.
Another option to follow up on this is via the survey that I received from Parks & Rec yesterday. They’re asking for additional feedback on budget priorities and provided the following survey monkey link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=6pgk_2bs_2fGvTUVkx9_2bfRnJSQ_3d_3d
Deadline for feedback this way is January 13th at 4 pm.
That link is associated with your email address and has already been filled out. It would be nice to have that survey available to more people. If anyone can get a link to that it would be great!
Odd because I hadn’t filled it out prior to cutting and pasting. Oh well, I hope whoever filled it out for me answered it the way I would have.
Is Jonathan’s link working for anybody? I think NWTA is working on a way to get more people on these survey distribution lists.
Nope, his link is the same as mine. So either Parks & Rec has gotten all of the feedback they want from the survey or there is a problem.
That didn’t work, but this one should:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PPRbudget
Great! Looks live. I made singletrack NOW in Forest Park my “other” top priority and the Master Plan my 2nd priority. Everybody vote! Share the link.
sorry for posting a bad link.
Here’s the one link to rule them all – https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PPRbudget