home
PDX Lox available via Cyclone Bicycle Supply

Eastmoreland residents organize against wider bike lanes that would remove parking

Posted by on May 4th, 2015 at 10:37 am

yellow house from below
Some people bike on Woodstock Boulevard’s sidewalk to avoid the door-zone bike lane that would be upgraded as part of the 20s Bikeway Project.
(Photos: M.Andersen/BikePortland)

The Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association is trying to stop Portland from widening the four-foot door-zone bike lanes along four blocks of Woodstock Boulevard.

The four blocks would be a key link in the planned 20s Bikeway, the first continuous all-ages bike route to stretch all the way from Portland’s northern to southern border. But Kurt Krause, chair of the neighborhood association’s bike committee, said the benefits of a continuously comfortable route aren’t worth the costs of removing curbside parking in front of seven large houses that overlook the Reed College campus across the street.

All seven houses have private driveways and garages on their lots.

big house

yellow house driveway

basketball hoop

“The biggest problem, I guess, is just for deliveries, for repairmen, for things like that,” Krause said.

Tradeoffs for roadway space

door zone lane
SE Woodstock Boulevard, looking east toward 32nd Avenue.

The city’s current plans call for creating a five-foot curbside bike lane on each side of Woodstock with a two-foot striped buffer.

But there’d be no room for that on the current street without removing the one lane of parking.

“When they have their Thanksgiving dinner, they will not be able to have their family get to their house very easily — that was the example given by one family.”
— Robert McCullough, president of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association

A visit to the site last week showed that there were indeed a handful of cars, not obviously associated with the homes’ residents, parked along the south side of Woodstock Boulevard. (There is already no curbside parking along the north side, next to Reed’s campus.)

Two nearby residents described themselves as pro-bike in general but said they’d prefer to keep the street parking.

“If I clear out my garage, I’ve got two, three, four, six, eight cars here,” conceded Tyler Stevenson, who was washing a car in the driveway of one of the houses, where he lives as a tenant. Still, Stevenson said, “having the parking for the public is important.”

car wash
Tyler Stevenson said he’s “pro-bike” but would rather give up the grassy strip in front of the house he rents than the on-street parking lane.

Stevenson said that cable or gas company drivers are sometimes forbidden from parking in private driveways. He added that campus events often lead to people using the curbside parking on Woodstock, which leads many guests of people in the homes to park on Moreland Lane, the narrow street behind the homes.

Cindy Simpson, whose home faces Moreland Lane, confirmed this.

Simpson’s driveway was one of the few on the block that was full when I stopped by on a Monday afternoon. It holds four cars:

4 cars

Simpson said that’s because her daughter’s family shares the house with her and her husband. She said they never park cars in their garage.

simpson
Cindy Simpson said street parking is
already scarce.

“We have storage, you know,” she said.

“I’m all for bikes — I like sharing the road with them,” she added. “I think the bike lane is huge already. And I think it’s a waste of money when they could be paving the roads.”

(In our conversation, I told Simpson that I thought the bike lane was actually the minimum width, but I was wrong; it’s actually narrower. The current national minimum standard is four feet for a curbside bike lane and five feet for a door-zone lane. Both of Woodstock’s bike lanes are four feet wide.

According to a 2014 study, 94 percent of people bike in the door zone of a four-foot door-zone bike lane. With a five-foot door-zone bike lane, this falls to 91 percent.)

“I’m able to live with it however they do it,” Simpson said in conclusion.


City shouldn’t remove parking without studies to justify it, neighborhood official says

map

Robert McCullough, president of the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association, called his own opposition to improved bike lanes “mainly a public involvement question.”

He said it was based on objections from nearby residents about the lost street parking.

“When they have their Thanksgiving dinner, they will not be able to have their family get to their house very easily — that was the example given by one family,” McCullough said.

In the face of conflicts like this, McCullough said, the city should be consulting “best practices” before any such changes.

“There’s a whole set of traffic rules and regulations and studies,” he said. “We don’t do much of that in Portland.”

McCullough said he isn’t familiar enough with transportation policy to offer examples of what would or wouldn’t constitute a “best practice” on parking conversion.

McCullough also serves as president of the Southeast Uplift coalition of neighborhood associations, an organization that he’s helped rally to action against unregulated Airbnb rentals and the city’s calculations for a new “street fee.”

McCullough has also been one of the more vocal critics of many aspects of the 20s Bikeway since its planning process began. Under his leadership, the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association has persuaded the city to reroute the bikeway away from Southeast 28th Avenue south of Woodstock, where parking removal would have been required, to its current route onto Woodstock and 32nd instead. EPN also persuaded the city not to add speed bumps to 32nd Avenue south of Woodstock. That street is expected to become part of a new neighborhood greenway connection to the Springwater Corridor at the south end of the 20s bikeway.

“The reality is that this is exactly what we envisioned for neighborhood associations to do in 1975 when we set it up,” McCullough said. “The right answer always is to involve everyone.”

Street could be worse, two local bike users say

small biker
SE Woodstock Boulevard, looking west toward 28th Avenue.

Krause, McCullough’s counterpart on the neighborhood bike committee, said people who say the city can’t increase the use of bicycles without upgrading door-zone bike lanes like Woodstocks “certainly have a point.”

“I’m a bike rider myself, and I know those substandard lanes do cause problems and it’s difficult,” Krause said. “But you can make it on the 4-foot lane. It’s not impossible. I’d like to see them not do it. But then it seems as though we’ve sent letters and spoken out at meetings and had face-to-face with [Project Manager] Rich [Newlands] and other things, and nothing seems to really move them from their stance.”

Though Krause said he “would like to see wider bike lanes,” “I just don’t see it as having enough payoff to ban parking on the one side.”

Colin Stacey, a nearby resident pedaling home from work in Woodstock’s bike lane last week, said he’s all for biking improvements, up to and including removing the parking.

“I tolerate some pretty bad conditions,” he said, smiling ruefully. “I just came from Northwest through the Pearl. It’s terrible.”

NOTE: At BikePortland, we love your comments. We love them so much that we devote many hours every week to read them and make sure they are productive, inclusive, and supportive. That doesn't mean you can't disagree with someone. It means you must do it with tact and respect. If you see an inconsiderate or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you — Jonathan and Michael

314 Comments
  • Blake May 4, 2015 at 10:47 am

    I don’t believe Mr. McCullough’s complaints about “process” are particularly genuine. I think it is merely a convenient disguise to wear to conceal his belief that the street by his home are his when they are convenient for him and not his when he is being asked to contribute to them. Consider, for example, his complaining to the Willamette Week about being asked to pay for leaf removal in 2011:

    “Eastmoreland resident Robert McCullough owns one house on Reed College Place divided by a median strip with city-owned trees, and a second house with no street trees. ‘I had to pay twice,’ he says, ‘once for leaves that weren’t there and once for leaves that weren’t mine.'”

    Source: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-16849-leaf_us_alone.html

    Recommended Thumb up 60

  • Eric May 4, 2015 at 10:48 am

    “all-ages bike route”

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:22 am

      I have an alternative pathway.
      take the 4 ft bike lane on the south/east side and add it to the west side bike lane. Then build a parking protected raised northbound/eastbound (uphill) bike lane in that super wider than usual planting strip between the curb and sidewalk. Maybe parking is more important than the trees.
      Safety doesn’t seem more important than parking.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • MaxD May 5, 2015 at 9:41 am

        IMO, trees and safety are more important than parking- save the trees!

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Alex May 4, 2015 at 10:50 am

    NIMBYism striking out at bike commuters. It is funny how people just don’t want things in their neighborhood to change, regardless if it is good for the city/world or not. Hopefully this can get more commuters into supporting MTB access where this type of attitude is prevalent and has stopped Portland from having any access to any single-track within bicycle’s reach from the city center.

    Recommended Thumb up 29

  • Indy May 4, 2015 at 10:52 am

    It’s funny because as a homeowner myself, I would salivate at the idea of no onstreet parking on my street. It just makes homes more accessible overall. Pictures, Real Estate value (ask any realtor if houses without cars parked out front help a house sell better.)

    I guess ultimately: why are we leaving the ultimate decision of public throughways up to the people that live in the area? Aren’t there broader issues of importance here that benefit the city as a whole?

    And come on, park around the block for when uncle Bill brings over Tofurkey. Not a big deal.

    Recommended Thumb up 83

    • Scott H May 4, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      This Proves McCullough is out of his mind. Any homeowner with a driveway would normally jump at the opportunity to prevent the general public from parking in front of their house.

      Recommended Thumb up 24

      • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:17 pm

        This is true if you live in a popular neighborhood with limited street parking. Not so much if you live outside of the inner neighborhoods, where street parking is quite plentiful and the chances of having your driveway blocked are close to zero.
        it’s all perspective.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:26 am

        Mr. M is the same one with the drone to look for violations in the neighborhood.

        http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/06/drones_in_oregon_qa.html

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Chris May 4, 2015 at 4:32 pm

      Personally, I think residents should have quite a bit of say in how their neighborhoods are managed. I understand it can create conflicts with higher level goals, but I think devolving power downwards is usually a net positive.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • JML May 4, 2015 at 5:02 pm

        The problem with this thinking is that housing and job markets, transportation systems, and social and ecological processes operate at a regional scale. Neighborhoods and even cities are regionally interdependent and are thus unable to shape their future unless they act together at a regional scale. For example when one neighborhood zones out certain housing type it over-burdens other neighborhoods or forces cost-burdened households into longer, more car-dependent commutes, which in turn hurts regional air and water quality. Devolution of decision making is needed, but not on the regional level… on the state and federal level. My hunch is that metropolitan region’s are more interdependent than state and nations, and thus are the optimal scale for self-governance.

        Recommended Thumb up 12

      • Chris I May 5, 2015 at 8:16 am

        Generally, that is true, but not when you are trying to build a transportation network. The interstate highway system that everyone loves so much would not exist if every neighborhood had the final say. Devolving power now would only hurt transportation alternatives, as the car network is already fully built out, but options are limited when it comes to transit and safe bikeways.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:29 am

          Only the will to act is limited. Even funding would follow if the will was there.
          While I support light rail, consider if the region’s portion/match for light rail was instead spent on a world class bikeway system.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Patrick May 5, 2015 at 3:20 pm

        I fully agree with you. I would have a problem if people came into my neighborhood who do not live there but pass through, and tell me how it should be. You don’t live there, I do. If you think it is unsafe, go somewhere else where you feel it is safe. I bike to work almost everyday and that is how I deal with feeling of being unsafe regardless if they are justifiable or not.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • davemess May 6, 2015 at 8:17 am

          It’s funny that many advocates had to argue this when the Foster streetscape plan was happening. Many at PBOT were worried about the flow of traffic from Clackamas county. While most of the local people were worried about the other 20 hours of the day and their local livability.
          It’s interesting that this situation is kind of the opposite (both the role for bike access and the “livability perception from the neighbors).

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Carl May 4, 2015 at 5:24 pm

      A propos of nothing: does anybody know of a street near Reed College where I could park my bus on the street for a while? http://www.pxleyes.com/images/contests/graffiti/fullsize/graffiti_4bb17e95c1908_hires.jpg

      Recommended Thumb up 8

    • wsbob May 5, 2015 at 11:20 pm

      “It’s funny because as a homeowner myself, I would salivate at the idea of no onstreet parking on my street. It just makes homes more accessible overall. Pictures, Real Estate value (ask any realtor if houses without cars parked out front help a house sell better.) …” Indy

      Cars not parked at the curb, sometimes it seems, forever, days and days, can definitely be a beautification livability enhancement. I believe I’ve read somewhere, that some upscale residential developments have regulations prohibiting anything other than brief parking at the curb for deliveries and such.

      Neighborhood residents’ loss of overflow parking at the curb, for friends and guests during holiday gatherings may be an issue. Some years back, when neighbors along a comparatively far more humble neighborhood along Lombard out in Beaverton were distressed about the loss of parking to create a bike lane on that street, the city offered to allow affected residents to use more of their lots frontage for additional parking.

      Another example of easily creating space for parking on a residential lot: a short distance from where I live, residents regularly park a couple of their cars right on the front lawn, more or less year round, rain or shine. Lawn seems to hold up, looks good, nice and green, no tracks. Don’t know what they’ve done to achieve that. Maybe it’s astroturf.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Adam H. May 4, 2015 at 10:55 am

    “There’s a whole set of traffic rules and regulations and studies,” he said. “We don’t do much of that in Portland.”

    Are you kidding me?! That’s all we ever seem to do in Portland! Projects here take years of planning and doing studies before construction ever starts. What he means to day is that “the studies the city does don’t come out in my favor”.

    Recommended Thumb up 51

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:34 am

      Mr. M makes his living as a private financial consultant on big-ticket items, very in-depth analysis. His perception of detail is more intense than most persons, so it would be fair to imply that more mundane decisions that require lower standards might fly under his radar.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Carl May 4, 2015 at 10:58 am

    A bi-directional cycletrack along the west side of 27th/Crystal Springs would be so lovely and useful. It wouldn’t require speed bumps (it’s an emergency route!) and, although it would technically require parking removal, nobody parks on that side of the street anyway.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:38 am

      Houses begin again east of 30th on Crystal Springs and the road narrows east of 36th.
      West of 36th the road is 36 feet wide. In Portland that would mean only 8 feet on the west/south side for a bike facility.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Paul Souders May 4, 2015 at 11:05 am

    OMG will someone please help these folks with their messaging. These arguments are beautiful examples of what I like to call “anti-arguments.”

    “Some of my best friends are bikes but there must be limits. Too many bikes might muss up my spats and monacles! And where will I stable my chaise-and-four?”

    I can muster zero sympathy for someone with “three, four, six, eight” cars in their garage. If you can afford a house in Eastmoreland AND an eight car garage(!) you don’t need me to cover additional parking for your Thanksgiving feast.

    Recommended Thumb up 103

    • BicycleDave May 4, 2015 at 12:57 pm

      I imagined him in a powdered wig and dressed as someone on Louis XIV in a high squeaky voice “we’ll have nowhere for our guests to park when we have our fancy balls! Let them (the people on bikes) eat car doors.”

      Recommended Thumb up 27

    • Paul Souders May 4, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      Me too! That’s why I call this an anti-argument. I had little-to-no-opinion on the quality of bikelanes on Woodstock — and I ride this way! with my kids! — until I read the arguments against them. Then suddenly it was like, now I am super-duper pro-ultra-wide bike lanes. And maybe we should widen the street an extra 10′ to the south just to be safe.

      ps. We find the local drivers on e.g. on Tolman or Clayborne very friendly and courteous.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • J_R May 4, 2015 at 1:59 pm

        Agreed. Local drivers on Tolman and Clayborne are friendly. Cut-through drivers are not. Pick any of the all-way stop signs in the neighborhood and watch cut-through drivers blow through them.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • KristenT May 7, 2015 at 8:25 am

      A lot of people don’t use their garages to store their cars, they use them to store all the other stuff they can’t fit in their houses. They use their driveways to park their cars on, and their overflow cars park in the street.

      My problem with this is, these people are expecting the city to provide storage for their private cars in a public resource (on-street parking), when the people already have private storage space specifically designed for their private cars.

      I think that if you have too much stuff in your life to park your cars in your garage, then you need to get rid of some of your overflow and not expect the city to give you unlimited space in the public right-of-way for storage of your vehicles.

      If you don’t have enough room in your garage or just can’t bear to get rid of that most precious thing that’s been stored in a box in your garage for years and you never use anyway, build a car barn out in your back yard and store your cars and stuff there– on your own property.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Kyle May 4, 2015 at 11:06 am

    “I think the bike lane is huge already. And I think it’s a waste of money when they could be paving the roads.”

    That statement – particularly the second sentence – looks like it’s straight out of the Oregonian’s opinion mills.

    Recommended Thumb up 48

    • Chris I May 4, 2015 at 12:42 pm

      Ya, I think someone is an active Lars Larson listener.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • William Henderson May 4, 2015 at 11:10 am

    So who wants to show up for the next Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association meeting?

    Recommended Thumb up 52

  • Ben May 4, 2015 at 11:14 am

    Robert McCullough makes no secret of his loathing for bicyclists. His minority report from City Club’s 2013 cycling report called for mandatory licensing of cyclists. He’s the sort of person who thinks downtown Portland is dying because it’s too hard to park there (some logic!). He’s also the guy who wanted to buy a spy drone for the neighborhood association.

    That bike lane is dangerous, especially given how heavily it’s used. It’s too narrow, and motorists regularly drive in it around those corners. The parking is underused most of the time, and all the houses have driveways.

    Recommended Thumb up 59

    • Any May 5, 2015 at 7:06 am

      While I think bike lanes should be widened (and driver’s in Portland go through mandatory bike safety!) I don’t actually see a reason why cyclists not have to be licensed. I am a very considerate driver (my family and I all ride bikes) but I find myself having to be extra alert in my neighborhood (Woodlawn) because riders fly through red lights (sometimes at night too) and stop signs and I feel like cyclists need to be just as careful as drivers or face repercussions too. Also, I pay a lot to drive my car in order to support wider bike lanes and more, and I think cyclists should do the same, with the caveat that low income cyclists would not pay any fees.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Dan May 5, 2015 at 10:40 am

        Stick around and learn. There are a lot of studies indicating we are on the right path.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Dimitrios May 5, 2015 at 11:12 am

        “I pay a lot to drive my car in order to support wider bike lanes and more, and I think cyclists should do the same”

        Well, something like 89% of us “cyclists” are in the same boat as you. You are talking to drivers here. What separates cyclists from the rest of society is not a lack of driving perspective, but perspective in both driving and cycling. I suppose we could capture that remaining 11% with a licensing program, but something tells me the majority of that 11% are car-less because they can’t afford it and would qualify for your exemption due to their low-income status. I’m not sure implementing more administrative costs for such diminishing returns will be worth it.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

      • J_R May 5, 2015 at 12:10 pm

        “Also, I pay a lot to drive my car in order to support wider bike lanes and more, and I think cyclists should do the same,…”

        No, Any. You do not pay a lot to drive your car. All motorists in this country pay a pittance to drive their cars in comparison to what drivers pay in most countries. Besides that only a tiny fraction that you pay through gas tax and vehicle registration fees goes to support bicycling infrastructure.

        Others have or will comment on the fact that much of the cost for maintain the bicycle infrastructure is borne by those who pay property tax.

        In addition to that, it is worth point out that there is even more automobile infrastructure that is paid by those who don’t make use of autos. The most obvious examples are the subsidized parking garages that are supported by property tax revenues and the required auto parking (as required by city code) that must be provided by a developer and which is passed on to all customers (drivers and non-drivers) through rents and higher prices for products and services.

        When we are motorists, none of us is paying anything close to our fair share.

        Recommended Thumb up 12

      • Ben May 6, 2015 at 9:52 am

        Mandatory licensing of drivers doesn’t stop a minority of people acting like complete idiots behind the wheel, so there’s no reason to expect mandatory licensing of cyclists would have any better effect on curbing bad behavior. I support adding cycling-related questions to the knowledge exam (and requiring all drivers to pass the exam when they renew their licenses), because knowing when bicycles should yield, etc., benefits all road users. Requiring licenses for cycling would only deter people from trying it as a means of transportation.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 8:55 pm

      “Robert McCullough makes no secret of his loathing for bicyclists. His minority report from City Club’s 2013 cycling report”

      Ben,
      thanks for that reminder. I had somehow missed that, or did not associate the name back then with the fellow we have before us.
      Here’s a link for those curious:
      http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2013/05/steve_duin_portland_city_club.html
      And a guest opinion by Mr. McCullough in the O here:
      http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/06/portland_city_club_bicycle_stu.html

      I was unable to find an online copy of the minority report itself.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Cone May 5, 2015 at 11:27 pm

      We can’t have the help using the driveway though. It doesn’t look clean.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jack May 4, 2015 at 11:16 am

    We had a block party on our block last year. It was really convenient to have the street blocked off all day so that the residents of our street could comfortably hang out in the middle of the street. If it’s really the case that local resident opinion trumps public interest, I’m going to request that my block just be closed to motor vehicle traffic permanently.

    Oh, and I don’t want to pay for any costs associated with closing the street. The city should pay for that..without collecting any additional taxes.

    Recommended Thumb up 41

  • Granpa May 4, 2015 at 11:17 am

    I cycle on that street almost daily. Woodstock does have a generous bike path, but it is also a through route for Clakamites commuting through the neighborhood, and some drive like haters. They speed between the stop signs and pick lines through the curves that cut through the pike lane. More buffering on Woodstock would be welcome. Also Reed College has daily classes and occasional events which use nearby streets as overflow parking. Woodstock is the closest on-street parking to the college. That said, the NIMBY flag is carried by only a few of the Eastmoreland residents.

    Recommended Thumb up 23

    • Granpa May 4, 2015 at 11:17 am

      bike lane, not pike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • peejay May 4, 2015 at 11:17 am

    It’s going to reveal a lot by what the city chooses to do here.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • resopmok May 4, 2015 at 12:09 pm

      you mean like how they chose to remove parking on 28th? they’ve already revealed as much as we need to know..

      Recommended Thumb up 18

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 4, 2015 at 8:56 pm

      In case it wasn’t clear from the last section of the post, the city isn’t currently showing signs of folding on this one. Newlands told me that the fallback option would be to send the route down 28th along the golf course – an option that ENA also objected to, which would require more parking removal, and which is narrow at the pinchpoints that it’s hard to see how it could be made comfortable throughout.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Brad May 4, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Give me an effin’ break! How about, as an alternative proposal, the city suggests an off-street path through their front yards instead. So tired of people who are anti-everything everywhere.

    Recommended Thumb up 30

    • Adam H. May 4, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      BANANA: build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Jake May 4, 2015 at 11:22 am

    This is extremely frustrating.

    One holiday a year is worth sacrificing a safer, more comfortable bike route 365 days a year for hundreds of people? If we’re talking about tradeoffs, this is an overwhelmingly easy one to make.

    > “I just don’t see it as having enough payoff to ban parking on the one side.”

    It is _ridiculous_ that someone would be the chair of a bike committee for a neighborhood but not be willing to go to bat for better bike infrastructure, sorry. And this kind of language is exactly why we aren’t making any progress as a city. Maybe it is comfortable enough for you, that’s great! Unfortunately, thousands upon thousands of people would be riding their bike more if we stopped making these “compromises” that are absolutely ludicrous.

    How does one get involved here? Are there people I can write to? Meetings I can attend?

    Recommended Thumb up 32

    • Jake May 4, 2015 at 11:24 am

      Gah, sorry that this comment rendered strangely. The > sentence is me attempting to quote the article.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Lascurettes May 9, 2015 at 10:51 am

      How much you want to bet that he’ll just tell his guests to park in the bike lane anyway and he’ll just pay their fines if they get them?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • davemess May 4, 2015 at 11:23 am

    “McCullough also serves as president of the Southeast Uplift coalition of neighborhood associations, an organization that he’s helped rally to action against unregulated Airbnb rentals and the city’s calculations for a new “street fee.”

    Come on Michael. More read meat inflammatory statements. It should also be pointed out that SEUL has plenty of very pro bike folks on its committees including myself, Terry D-M, and others.
    The world isn’t so black and white. These are all quite complex issues.
    I would expect this kind of thing from the Oregonian, but this site should be better than this.

    Personally i don’t have a problem with these bikeways at all as is (I know I’m only one rider). But my family rides on them without incident. It’s a slow street (note the 25mph sign), and cars are pretty cautious in general. I’m also not a fan of on street parking. But given that there is already an “okay” facility there, I don’t see this as a huge pressing matter one way or the other.

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Terry D-M May 4, 2015 at 12:57 pm

      I do think that parking should be removed from this stretch. The occasional inconvenience of a few households should not create a safety bottleneck in an 8-80 bikeway. I’ll let him know the reasons why I think this next time I see him.

      Recommended Thumb up 31

    • soren May 4, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      “But given that there is already an “okay” facility there, I don’t see this as a huge pressing matter one way or the other.”

      How on earth is a 4 foot entirely in the door zone bike lane an OK facility?

      Recommended Thumb up 20

      • rain waters May 4, 2015 at 3:09 pm

        Because a vast majority of street users in Portland ride cars instead of bikes.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:20 pm

        Because a lot of the parking in this section isn’t always used. No cars =/= no dooring conflict. AND I don’t think that being doored (while certainly a problem and not an enjoyable experience) is not quite as endemic as some on this site would like to think. I can’t think of the last time I’ve heard about a rider on this site getting doored (please feel free to share you anecdotes). Most riders can mitigate a lot of the risks of dooming by paying attention (looking for lights, looking for people in the cars) and riding defensively.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Psyfalcon May 4, 2015 at 5:03 pm

          I can’t see a good reason to not remove parking if it makes biking near a college better.

          But I agree we have an obsession with dooring that probably outweighs the actual risk. The actual opening of a door is rare, especially one where you haven’t just seen the car park. Its the equivalent of the fear of being rear ended while driving. Always keep your car in gear and be ready to gun it ;)

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • davemess May 4, 2015 at 8:24 pm

            granted a college where over 2/3rds of students live on campus, and many of the other 500 live on the other side.
            in my limited experience this route is used much more often by non-students, but i would be glad to be corrected.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 9:27 am

          Thanks for your perspective on the adequacy of the current infrastructure. Here’s mine. I’m a confident rider (happy to ride downhill on Hawthorne and Division, for example), but I don’t ride in those uphill bike lanes, because the cars + the doors make me nervous. I’ll only go downhill there if I’m in a hurry (otherwise I toodle through Eastmoreland). Once we have kids, I would not let them ride either way on Woodstock, and certainly not at rush hour. Do you see many kids biking there (other than your own, I’m assuming)? I think kids riding their own bikes are sort of an indicator species for whether a facility is good enough to get mainstream ridership, as well as an important thing for childhood freedom and health in its own right.

          Here’s a door-zone link –
          http://floridacyclinglaw.com/blog/archives/bicycling-door-zone
          “In Chicago,… dooring made up 19.7% of all reported bike crashes.” That sounds like a lot to me, albeit in a bigger city. The only other evidence I have is anecdotal – I only know a few Portlanders who have had bike crashes, and two of them were doored.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 10:18 am

            The one time I was car-doored was in a lane just like this one on NE Glisan, sent me to OHSU. The ambulance driver called in “Another dooring”…he did not even have to use the word “bicycle” for dispatch to understand.

            Recommended Thumb up 7

          • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:13 pm

            I appreciate your perspective Alex. But I do have to question whether you really are a “confident” rider if these bike lanes make you that nervous (didn’t you say before that you are also nervous on SE 52nd?).

            Frankly I don’t know that bike facilities on arterials are appropriate for the 8-80 crowd. I don’t know that routing the 20s bikeway on this street makes sense if they truly want to make facilities for that crowd. We have neighborhood greenways with different requirements that I don’t think this street would meet at all.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • soren May 5, 2015 at 12:27 pm

              This city is going to need facilities that are more than good enough for current more-confident cyclists if we are going to reverse our declining bike mode share. And if we really want the benefits that active transport brings in terms of decreased congestion, livability, and sustainability we need much better than just “good enough” for davemess or me.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:58 pm

                And there’s the rub. “We” is a pretty big group in this city with a variety of beliefs, opinions, values, and priorities.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm

              I agree that 8-80 facilities and high-volume/high-speed motor vehicle roads are best separated.

              Unfortunately, the geography of this area means that the bikeway needs to go along either Woodstock or 28th – both of which are arterials – unless it’s going to go through Reed College, which opens up a whole can of worms and project risk with its private ownership.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

        • El Biciclero May 5, 2015 at 10:25 am

          “Most riders can mitigate a lot of the risks of dooming by paying attention (looking for lights, looking for people in the cars) and riding defensively.”

          I mitigate dooring risk by riding 5 feet away from parked cars (except in “parking-protected” facilities, where that safety measure is impossible to use). I’ve got video of at least three doorings I’ve avoided (at least in part) by doing so. If I were to ride down a street with a four-foot bike lane next to parked cars, I would not use the bike lane; so for me such a bike lane would be unusable unless there were no cars parked next to it.

          Also, “dooming” is one of the best typos I’ve ever seen…

          Recommended Thumb up 9

          • Dan May 5, 2015 at 10:42 am

            If 3 feet of a 4 foot bike lane is in the door zone, may as well make the bike lane 1 foot wide. How wide is a door zone, anyway?

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • El Biciclero May 5, 2015 at 11:22 am

              According to this Streetsblog Chicago article, it’s four feet wide. Staying out of the door zone means not only avoiding getting hit by doors, but eliminating the need to swerve into traffic to avoid doors. So if The Zone is four feet wide, and I need at least a foot of clearance from my right hand to an open door to feel like I wouldn’t need to swerve to avoid said door, then I’m probably going to put my tires six feet away from parked cars, if I figure half my handlebar width is one foot.

              Recommended Thumb up 8

            • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:14 pm

              and that assuming that all car parking spots are used at all times, which in much of the city is clearly not the case.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Angel May 10, 2015 at 8:51 am

          I have been doored.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Oregon Mamacita May 4, 2015 at 1:28 pm

      You are a breath of fresh air on this site.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Chris I May 4, 2015 at 3:16 pm

        Interesting that you chose that analogy, given the topic of this article.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 4, 2015 at 9:07 pm

      What’s inaccurate or inappropriate there, Dave? McCullough’s opinions, and arguably ENA’s, wouldn’t be news if McCullough weren’t in a position of significant influence and if ENA and SEUL hadn’t bloodied the city’s nose on like half the big things it’s been up to over the last year. That’s why the context is necessary.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:19 pm

        Your characterization of SEUL, that you have solely summed up in two heated links to things that you know would fire up your base on this website.
        Most people on this site don’t know what SEUL is, and now their only knowledge of the organization is what you have provided: SEUL and E Moreland hates bikes, SEUL hates funding transportation, SEUL hates AirBnB.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:47 am

      D,
      the 85th percentile speed on Woodstock west of 32nd is 27-30 mph. 15% of drivers are going faster (Jan 2012 count). 8900 vehicles per day.
      A person struck by a car at 30 mph has a greater than 75% risk of fatality.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • J_R May 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm

        Your statistics on Woodstock west of 32nd pretty well matches my less sophisticated observations. I would bet that between Caesar Chavez and Reed College Place the 85th percentile speed of westbound is in excess of 35 mph because of the downgrade. Some friends who used to live on that block reported that PPB once put the photo radar unit there and the constant flash from the camera was annoying because of how frequent it was. That’s further proof of how fast the traffic is in that location.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Karl Dickman May 5, 2015 at 7:43 pm

          I was biking down Woodstock from Chavez. My cyclometer read 36, and a car cross the double-yellow to pass me. I would estimate they were going at least 20 mph faster than I was.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • paikiala May 6, 2015 at 9:19 am

            Last available speed counts are from 1997.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Todd Hudson May 4, 2015 at 11:26 am

    “Two nearby residents described themselves as pro-bike in general but said they’d prefer to keep the street parking.”

    This describes most people in this town.

    Recommended Thumb up 25

    • Terry D-M May 4, 2015 at 1:00 pm

      Yes in our hood we WANT to remove parking and we can not get the city to respond with a timeline or even an affirmative GREAT, we’ll get on that. We’ve only endorsed Burnside safety and bikelanes over parking two years and a row. I’m patient, but I just hope it doesn’t take a dozen more years like Foster.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Chris I May 4, 2015 at 3:18 pm

        Keep up the good work! I would like to see a diet east of 39th, and then continuing onto Thorburn all the way to 76th. The rampant speeding, and unexpected left turns in the “passing lane” create a hazard for everyone. My trips to Mr. Plywood would be much safer. :)

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Todd Hudson May 5, 2015 at 9:10 am

        You’d think PBOT would have responded to Burnside issues with the Burnside/Gilham accident about a month ago (driver lost control going through the intersection, totaled their car and totaled three parked cars). My neighbors watched it happen and couldn’t figure out how the driver lived through it…

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:50 am

        Terry,
        As may be the case with this NA, I hope you’ll agree that the ‘we’ of a NA does not always represent the people that live in the neighborhood.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 10:28 am

          You are correct, but connected buffered bike lanes 41st to Montavilla was passed by a general membership meeting on Feb 2014, then re-passed with a more aggressive stance “Where bike and pedestrian connectivity and safety take precedence over automobile capacity or parking” again on Feb 2015. No, it is not ALL the neighborhood…but it is also NOT a secret either. I surveyed my block at 61st. (9 out of 10 residents preferred bike lanes and a center turn lane, standard road diet) over the current situation. The one that said no, well…he always will until the planet burns. The only OTHER vocal Resistance to me wanting to put Burnside on a diet was a traffic police officer who is offended by the “Foster Strangulation.” Boy, he was NOT nice to me.

          We are though a board made up of me, has an average age of 37 and is one third renters. All three variables in this city generally make the group more liberal and bike supportive. I am sure some people would organize coming out of the woodwork, but for some real I can not fathom PBOT does not seem to relive us. Just like when we asked fro HIGHER density on the comp plan for four specific blocks…..it has been passed TWICE by the general membership and the city still is unsure what to do with us.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

    • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      And why using those silly “I support cycling” surveys as proof of anything is very fallacious.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Pete May 5, 2015 at 10:54 am

        Hey now, some of my best friends ride bicycles. I’ve even got one of those “Share the Road” plates on my car!

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Allan May 4, 2015 at 11:29 am

    This is the same argument against amazing facilities on N Willamette. Look how that project never got off the ground either! City- please have backbone and make amazing facilities. Don’t listen to neighbors’ concerns about parking if they already have off-street parking.

    Recommended Thumb up 30

    • Kyle May 4, 2015 at 11:40 am

      Lack of backbone is absolutely the issue here. Even when plans are popularly supported by thousands of city residents, if one particularly loud neighbour or business owner (see 28th Ave) complains then half the project is scrapped.

      Recommended Thumb up 25

      • Huey Lewis May 4, 2015 at 5:43 pm

        Neighbor.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Rick May 4, 2015 at 11:35 am

    Sad. Free parking has a high cost.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

  • Cory P May 4, 2015 at 11:39 am

    From now on I’m just going to call that part of Portland East Nimby.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • J_R May 4, 2015 at 11:39 am

    McCullough’s definition of a good public process is when he gets his way.

    I regularly ride on Woodstock (multiple times per week) and it is obvious that most of the parking is by Reed College students, not residents.

    It is also obvious as Granpa pointed out that the majority of motorist DRIVE IN the bike lane where Woodstock is curved. The PPB could do an enforcement action there on any day of the week and write 100 citations for driving in the bike lane. If ever there was a place where a buffered bike lane is appropriate it’s Woodstock in the section between 28th and 36th.

    And, of course, there’s the hill that become steeper east of 36th. That causes westbound motorists to exceed the statutory 25 mph speed zone by at least 10 mph. That’s so they can get to the all-way stop at 32nd more quickly.

    Recommended Thumb up 29

    • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:22 pm

      Do they drive in the bike lane when bikes are present? I agree I like cars to stay out of the bike lane, but my experience has been that almost no one will do this when there are actually bikes using the lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Granpa May 4, 2015 at 3:47 pm

        I have been aggressively crowded by drivers while biking in the bike lane more than a few times.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • J_R May 4, 2015 at 3:54 pm

        I’ve had motorists stay in their lane to pass me while I’m in the bike lane and then “drift” into the bike lane 50 or 100 feet ahead of me where the curve of the road goes toward the right. So, does that count as “while bikes are present?” I’ve never had a “really close call” in this section, but it’s definitely a worry. The amount of bike traffic does help keep motorists alert to the possibility of bikes.

        If cars are not parked, I ride to the right of the bike lane – in the parking lane. I’ve not resorted to riding on the sidewalk as illustrated in one photo in the article.

        The stripping was renewed just last week. You’ll need to wait a few weeks to observe how quickly the pavement markings are worn away by all the drivers drifting into the bike lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Pete May 4, 2015 at 9:56 pm

          I had a driver swerve way into the bike lane in front of me, albeit having safely passed me. It was pretty egregious, and I ended up subconsciously throwing my hand up in disgust (with palm open, no single-finger salute ;) and the driver behind her saw it. We stopped next to each other shortly after at a light, and the guy said “What’s your problem?”. I asked, “Did you see that lady swerve about a foot and a half out of her lane in front of me?”. He said, “Yeah, so what?”. I asked, “Can you honestly say that if she was passing you in the left lane and swerved into your lane in front of you that closely, that you wouldn’t at least honk at her? Really? Yes or no?”. He said, “Yeah, I guess so.”

          It amazed me that I had to explain that.

          Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Eric May 4, 2015 at 11:35 pm

      The least they could do is write some tickets while the paint is still wet.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • joel May 4, 2015 at 11:46 am

    i have lived in eastmoreland for 34 years. I run a bike based business and have two cars most of the year…. not that this validates anything but this is 5 blocks from my house. I think that biking uphill is pretty safe because drivers typically are horrible and slow down on the uphill, or keep speed on the hill- but they speed up on the downhill, and while they cut the white line both ways because they are not competent drivers the downhill is way more scary. the bike lane on the downhill is way more treacherous because both cars and bikes go faster. if the white line is extended away from the curb drivers will still cut through it. i think speedbumps are the first step. the city should install many of them between 39th and reedway. reedcollage can buy more parking and people with houses can just buy other houses with bigger garages. im always afraid cars will kill me biking downhill and i would ask the eastmoreland residents if they can go 25 down this hill and stay in their lane- they dont for sure. coming down the hill widening the bike lane simply will not help because cars will always cut the corner.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:53 am

      Woodstock is a Major Emergency Response route an ineligible for speed bumps.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • joel May 5, 2015 at 10:11 am

        oh- i didnt know- but that totally makes sense now that you say it thinking about connecting streets- thank you

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • joel May 4, 2015 at 11:48 am

    jonathan or michael could you let me know how eastmoreland residents have organized against the bike lane- that part is a little unclear and i havent heard in my eastmoreland newsletter yet.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Granpa May 4, 2015 at 12:29 pm

      Excellent question Joel
      I was at a neighborhood meeting on the subject a couple months ago and there was a majority in favor.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Patrick May 4, 2015 at 3:04 pm

        Can you clarify? You were at an Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association meeting and the majority were in favor of improving the bike lane? If so do you recall what month this was?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Grandpa May 4, 2015 at 6:54 pm

          It was a 20s bikeway meeting, not a neighborhood association meeting, held in Reed Colleges Vollum Hall. Like I said, a couple of months ago. There is a lot to like about the plan and the 8 houses that will lose parking will not suffer greatly, in fact they may find a better, quieter street frontage with the bike lane enhanced.

          Still, although I think the head of the neighborhood association is something of a crank, with unorthodox methods, he has some very valid points and he is a passionate advocate. The drone incident, for which he was rebuked, was to determine if a developer was demolishing a house without taking precautions for asbestos. I don’t think even BP “eat the rich” posters want airborne asbestos floating about. Developers do not have the neighborhood’s best interests at heart, they care only about money. His disapproval of new homes in the neighborhood is echo’d throughout Portland’s established neighborhoods, but in this hood, it is not about increased density, it is about massive houses with no architectural character being built to replace historic houses. the big houses contain no more people, the only house bigger conspicuity.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • TonyJ May 4, 2015 at 7:42 pm

            Big houses… like maybe these ones fighting over their parking spaces?

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Grandpa May 5, 2015 at 6:28 am

              Houses don’t have opinions one way or the other

              Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 4, 2015 at 9:03 pm

      According to Krause, McCullough and Newlands, the neighborhood association has voted to oppose any parking removal on Woodstock for the sake of improving the bike lanes there.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 9:55 am

        I believe they also opposed the traffic calming on 32nd Avenue.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Daniel Costantino May 4, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    Every time I read something about Mr. McCullough, it’s about neighborhood associations being insufficiently consulted about this or that and about NA’s being the only and ultimate representative of the wider choice of all neighborhood residents.

    It’s time to acknowledge the reality that plenty of people don’t, can’t or won’t participate in NA’s for a wide variety of reasons. NAs are just one vehicle of public involvement. Frankly, from the way Mr. McCullough expresses himself, it sounds like he has a very good grasp on this vehicle of public involvement, and he wishes this vehicle to have a stranglehold on all public involvement.

    In Portland, NA’s are private non-profit bodies, whose membership is open but whose officials are elected at regular meetings and not as part of the government election process (unlike in some other cities). They can’t and shouldn’t claim full legitimacy to speak for a neighborhood’s residents.

    The City explicitly gives NA’s important place to speak in neighborhood issues, and while it may occasionally fail at this, it clearly has followed through in this case (changing the originally-proposed route, and then providing multiple meetings to discuss the new alternative).

    If the NA can’t come up with anything better than “leave an unsafe and sub-standard facility as is”, they don’t deserve to prevail in this argument, and the City shouldn’t have to budge from a position they have worked hard to argument and justify.

    You have a bike committee, for Christ’s sake! Use it to come up with a plan!

    Recommended Thumb up 37

    • Rick May 4, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      The Arnold Creek neighborhood has tried to block the SW Coronado Trail from being built the way it needs to be built for pedestrians.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:26 pm

      ” They can’t and shouldn’t claim full legitimacy to speak for a neighborhood’s residents.”

      Who should then? We can’t take every little matter in this city to a popular vote. As you stated this is a voluntary and open process; everyone is encouraged to participate. I agree that some NA’s can be domineered by a few strong personalities, but some can be pretty representative of the neighborhoods. If people are too burdened to get involved, sometimes they will lose their voice. That is how our democracy is set up.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Chris May 4, 2015 at 4:50 pm

      I know some NAs have been accused of various sins, but at the meetings I have attended over the years (mostly Creston Kennilworth, Richmond, HAND, Buckman, and Brooklyn) members have been very interested in hearing from residents, and welcoming to newcomers. I think NAs can be quite good vehicles for getting input from residents.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • renter May 5, 2015 at 12:40 pm

        Are you a home owner? In my experience, neighborhood associations are typically dominated by homeowners. I have personally observed and experienced prejudice against renters at neighborhood associations.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • chasing backon May 4, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    You know the city will fold on this and we continue to wish we actually had ongoing platinum status bike installations in Portland

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Dan May 4, 2015 at 12:15 pm

    If that parking is so valuable, why aren’t there meters?

    Recommended Thumb up 53

  • Charlie May 4, 2015 at 12:22 pm

    I find it fascinating that the “leadership” in this city has to get input on every single thing like this. Why? The public owns, and is entitled to do whatever needs to be done with that street, notwithstanding what the person fronting the street says. Same with 28th. Determine what makes the street(s) safer then just do it.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • caesar May 4, 2015 at 2:55 pm

      “I find it fascinating that the “leadership” in this city has to get input on every single thing like this. Why? ”

      So as not to repeat the River View debacle?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Terry D-M May 4, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    Robert mentioned this in his weekly news update. He does have some…let us say, out of date opinions…..but he does say that he can work with me. I have been making it a point to send North Tabor communications to him As our NA’s have very differnt outlooks. We have a healthy professional relationship.

    Robert told me that he might not always agree with me, but he wants SEUL to become more actvist oriented. Stayed tuned to SEUL as changes may come…… Soon.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Paul May 4, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    It appears from the photo with the parked cars that there is no bike lane on the Reed side of Woodstock. Do bicyclists only travel one direction on that street?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Martha May 4, 2015 at 1:01 pm

      Case in point. Yes, there is are “bike lanes” on both sides of the street, but since people drive in the bike lanes so much the paint gets worn off. If you look really closely at the photo, you can see the faint white paint really near the curb.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

    • rainbike May 4, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      There is a bike lane on each side. Hard to tell from the picture.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • J_R May 4, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      There is a continuous, marked bike lane on the south side (eastbound) of Woodstock between 28th and 41st. On the north (westbound) side, there is a marked lane from just east of 36th to 28th. The lanes are about 4 feet wide.

      On-street parking is allowed on both sides from just east of 36th to Caesar Chavez (39th). From about 36th to 28th parking is allowed on the south side, but prohibited on the north side.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Martha May 4, 2015 at 12:58 pm

    I live up the hill from there and have been riding on Woodstock for a few decades now. Speeding is a big problem on Woodstock because there are no North/South through streets between 28th and 39th (for the same reason, speeding is also a problem on SE Steele, the street bordering Reed’s north side). High speeds plus curves mean that drivers routinely drive in the bike lane. On the south side of the street, that bike lane is in the door zone. On the north side of the tree-lined street, the narrow, curb-tight bike lane often has sticks, leaves, and other debris in it. Trying to cross this stretch of Woodstock on foot is also really sketchy, as the drivers all act like it’s an expressway instead of a 25 mph residential street. Comfort aside, safety is a real issue here, and those bike lanes are nowhere near being “huge already.” (Has Simpson ever actually ridden a bike on Woodstock during rush hour?) They’re pretty darned uncomfortably narrow and in desperate need of an upgrade. That, and there needs to be more active enforcement of the speed limit on Woodstock.

    Recommended Thumb up 25

    • Kyle May 4, 2015 at 3:57 pm

      “High speeds plus curves mean that drivers routinely drive in the bike lane”

      I’m always amazed at how many drivers fail to remain within their lane lines anywhere there’s curves (and on straight sections sometimes). It’s in the same category as using turn signals – are they really *that* lazy?

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Psyfalcon May 4, 2015 at 7:48 pm

        Humans hate lateral g load. People will crash on highway off ramps rather than turn the wheel more.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • MaxD May 5, 2015 at 10:17 am

        Interstate Ave between the Rose Quarter and Greeley is a great example or people driving cars being unwilling to stay in their lane!

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor) May 4, 2015 at 8:59 pm

      I asked Simpson if she had ridden a bike on the street, and she said she had, though I got the idea it had only been once or twice – she noted correctly that the hill is no fun to climb – so not, I assume, during rush hour.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan M. May 4, 2015 at 1:03 pm

    Someone needs to remind the wealthy clowns that it’s our street, not their parking space.

    It’s a public right of way. No single person owns it. You aren’t guaranteed street parking in front of your house every day forever because you own the house. The word “entitled” gets thrown around a lot, but no one is more entitled than wealthy homeowners. Have a sob, park in your driveway, get over it.

    Recommended Thumb up 34

  • Andy K May 4, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    People aren’t going to sacrifice a tangible benefit (like convenient, free, unlimited car parking in front of their house) just to potentially improve the safety for thousands of VRUs they don’t even know without a fight. I’d even wager that they’ll fabricate neighborhood meeting decisions and ask for studies just to shift the focus.

    Fortunately, in this case, they don’t own that parking and it’s not their decision to make.

    I hope PBOT does the right thing here.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

  • J_R May 4, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    As an interesting side note, about ten years ago some residents of 36th Avenue in the block immediately south of Woodstock designed and installed their own NO PARKING signs. If I remember correctly, they said “No Reed College Parking in This Block.” The city, in a effort to be fair, gave the residents 30 days to remove these illegal signs.

    The residents who installed those signs may have moved on and been replaced by new residents. What I find interesting is that those in favor of retaining on-street parking are essentially favoring the retention of Reed College commuter parking, which is exactly what the illegal signs were meant to prohibit.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • davemess May 4, 2015 at 3:30 pm

      Reed claims to have space to house 950 students, and in 2013 only had 1411 students. That means over 2/3rds are living on campus?
      I am around this area all the time, and I rarely see many students on that side of woo stock. Most live north of the school in the apartments off of steele.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • J_R May 4, 2015 at 3:59 pm

        You see the same cars parked day after day on Woodstock and the perpendicular streets. Not there in the evening, but parked from 8 to 5. Some have out-of-state plates. My guess is Reed students living somewhat further away. Some could be faculty/staff, too. There are some Reed students living in shared housing in Eastmoreland, too.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Chris I May 5, 2015 at 8:19 am

          One of my coworkers said he would drive 5 blocks to college every day. People do ridiculous things with cars, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the owners of the cars in question live within walking distance.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jake May 4, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Both sides of the street here have extra wide beauty/green strips between the sidewalks and road — why not cut into those areas to create more room all around, and allow for a cycle track-esque on these 4 blocks, or completely protected bike lane. Yes I realize this means cutting into nature/green space or concerns for some of the trees in the beauty strips, but I believe there is ample space to do so.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Eric May 4, 2015 at 11:27 pm

      Or… Leave the parking, leave the curbs, take the yellow stripes, paint the bike lanes 8ft wide and write tickets for all drivers over 25mph. Too simple?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Charley May 5, 2015 at 7:48 am

      So much cheaper to paint new lines. Should we really spend a million dollars so that that dude with 8 cars can park some on the street???

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • q`Tzal May 4, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    It’s really simple:
    If property owners want PRIVATE control over PUBLIC property such as a road they need to BUY said property at market value and be taxed for it accordingly while the jurisdiction abrogates their obligation to maintain that part of a former public road.

    If, on the other hand, the property owners want the part under their parked vehicles to remain a paved, publicly maintained road they need to STFU and relized that it does not belong to them, it belongs to us.

    Recommended Thumb up 20

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 10:05 am

      You don’t ‘buy back’ public property. I is usually something that was given to the city as a condition of development, so reverting public right of way to former private owners is called street vacation. There a legal cost to be accounted for in the transfer, but not to be paid for the value of the land.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        My suggestion was meant to be farcical and utterly impractical in today’s bureaucracy.

        Obviously the private property owners lack a real understanding of the definition of “public property”.

        Perhaps it would be useful to acquaint them with a functional definition of Tradition as it pertains to this situation:

        Tradition: something that people do because it seemed OK in the past and no one wants to think about it anymore. Often used to justify decisions that people in the past considered ‘writ in stone’ for yet insist that said decisions must still be valid in totally different circumstances when the stone has crumbled to dust.”

        “Becuz” is not a valid reason.
        “Because we’ve always done it that way” is not a valid reason.
        Unless there is something written in law saying that private owners are explicitly given priority user rights over a section of public property they have no standing to make any demands over public property.

        Hopefully City of Portland will recoup any costs wasted rebuffing such a misguided and selfish quest in our legal system.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala May 6, 2015 at 9:26 am

          Tradition:
          noun

          1. the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice.

          Traditions can be good or bad (uplifting or degrading).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dwaine Dibbly May 4, 2015 at 2:05 pm

    That stretch of road needs sharrows, to encourage people on bikes to stay out of the door zone and take the lane. Can the City make this a bike boulevard? The bike lane as it exists is substandard and dangerous.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • J_R May 4, 2015 at 2:20 pm

      “No” to the sharrows. I’m an experienced and confident cyclist, but there’s no way I’d mix with the commuter traffic in the lanes on Woodstock in this section.

      Going uphill eastbound, I manage only about 8 mph on the flatter section and about 5 mph east of 36th. On the downhill, I can do the speed limit but cars are moving really fast. As a motorist while driving the speed limit westbound, I was once illegally passed by another motorist doing an estimated 50 mph. There’s no way I’m going to serve as a moving speed control device on my bike. In my car, absolutely.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Terry D-M May 4, 2015 at 2:21 pm

      WAY too high of street volumes for that.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 10:06 am

        8900 vehicles per day in Jan of 2012.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • rachel b May 4, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    Woodstock used to be a sleepy street, not that long ago. In the year I lived in the neighborhood, I watched it go from a steady trickle of traffic to a major cut-through.

    I’m not with McCullough on this bike lane expansion issue–I’m generally for doing away with cars as much as possible, and it’s no fun to ride Woodstock at present. But I chafe at hearing him slammed. He’s actually done a lot for the little guy around here. He kept UPRR at bay (no small feat) for several years and diligently fought for Sellwood, Eastmoreland and Hosford-Abernethy neighborhoods. UPRR is a pushy, arrogant concern and usually able (and well aware of it) to act with impunity. So I’m grateful for anyone keeping an eye on them, slippery them.

    Re: the street tax, I’m also grateful that he uncovered the pertinent and overlooked bit of important information that certain powerful and well-connected big road users were mysteriously left off the hook for the fee. He was the only person I read who looked into that. Why on earth were UPRR, UPS etc. excluded in the first place? And their $$ burden shifted onto the backs of citizens? Again–grateful for his exposing that tidbit.

    And this is from WW: “McCullough was one of the first to figure out Enron Corp. was behind the power shortages and blackouts that darkened California in 2000 and 2001. In congressional testimony in 2002, McCullough revealed exactly how the Texas energy giant crippled the economies of Western states by manipulating electricity markets. His work led to billion-dollar settlements and criminal convictions.”

    http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21636-costly_to_the_core.html

    I don’t know the man but there’s a lot of bad-mouthing of him going on here when–in the main–he’s always struck me as one of the good guys, at base. Maybe not re: bikes, though. :) We all have our faults.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 7:08 am

      I agree, rachel b.

      The issue here, as many have noted, is less McCullough than the entitled, reflexive attitudes that lead people to object to something on principle that not only makes sense for the public, but won’t materially inconvenience them as private individuals in the least. The fact that they make such ridiculously weak, transparently selfish arguments gives the game away. The sunshine of public scrutiny, which McCullough has let in on so many important issues in the past, is also the best disinfectant in this case. Thank you Michael for this piece.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • rachel b May 5, 2015 at 11:11 am

        Thanks, 9watts. “The sunshine of public scrutiny, which McCullough has let in on so many important issues in the past, is also the best disinfectant in this case.” Wonderful sentence. :)

        As someone who’s lived here all her life, I want to note something else. You really can’t underestimate the reflexive defensiveness and territoriality a lot of long-time residents here naturally feel, at this point. Change has happened so abruptly, and often with little to no discussion with existing residents. A lot of us had been quite welcoming and warm and accommodating for years, but then (as happens in all places where an existing population is supplanted and outnumbered by a new one), resentment and a feeling of being marginalized creeps in. I think a lot of people who’ve lived here all their lives have felt increasingly pushed aside in the process of Portland’s rapid growth. The City sometimes seems to be having a love affair with its own reflection. I think, for some long-time residents, it’s less about selfish entitlement and more about just wanting to put on the brakes and retain at least a little sense of control. Retaining parking spaces, though, I can’t endorse. :) And–note to all–please withhold your ‘get over it!’ and ‘you can’t stop progress!’ and ‘down with the greedy land barons!’ potential resopnses: I’m merely pointing something out, here.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 3:50 pm

          “I think, for some long-time residents, it’s less about selfish entitlement and more about just wanting to put on the brakes and retain at least a little sense of control.”

          That is a really interesting point, rachel b. I know that for me this rings true when I think about the current process by which businesses that have been here forever: retail, processing, manufacturing are being priced/pushed out of the inner SE. To the extent that this is no accident, that our elected officials are encouraging this, I share the misgivings you describe. Which is another reason we need more, vigorous public discussion of these and all issues. Thank you bikeportland!!

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • rachel b May 6, 2015 at 11:37 am

            Hear, hear (thanks, bikeportland)! :)

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 10:08 am

      I think people see McCullough as a symbol of the wealthy elite here that seem to have so much more (generally NIMBY) political influence than the rest of us. The drone story was just so humorous that I think McCullough got into a lot of people’s heads as the epitome of all that. You probably make a good argument that he’s actually a good guy, just has a lot of money and time and puts that to use in his neighborhood.

      Examples of Portland’s elite using City policy to stop changes in their neighborhoods:
      *Wealthy Eastmoreland succeeded in getting downzoning (less density) put in the 2015 comprehensive plan draft for pretty much their entire neighborhood. This despite the brand-new (extremely expensive) light-rail station right next door.
      *Wealthy southwest Portland kept largely density increases out of their area of the city in the 1990s. Poorer East Portland didn’t. http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2013/12/east_portlands_housing_explosi.html
      *Wealthy residents of Willamette Blvd. succeeded in getting plans for truly comfortable bike lanes shelved back in 2011 to protect parking (guess what – almost all of those residents had off-street parking, too!). The slightly wider lanes we’re getting now are nothing compared to what was on the table then. http://bikeportland.org/2011/06/14/pbot-back-to-drawing-board-on-willamette-project-due-to-parking-concerns-54796

      I’m not aware of any such walk-backs by the City in poorer areas.

      I happen to think all of those changes would have been good. But even if you don’t, the fact that the rich seem to have so much more political influence here than the rest of us is still not a good or healthy thing.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • rachel b May 5, 2015 at 10:57 am

        Can we please stop with “wealthy elite?” It doesn’t help the conversation at all, and it’s more than a little misleading. A lot of old timers live in these neighborhoods which were, believe it or not–even Eastmoreland!–built for the proletariat. Even now much of Eastmoreland is populated by Reed profs and their familes. I can’t really find it in me to rail against them for benefitting from the insane and ridiculously rabid pursuit of Portland by a bajillion demanding newcomers, or to rail against someone like McCullough who, it would seem, works his a** for his income and is serving his community and city, big time. Save your scorn for inherited wealth, trust funders and hedge fund managers, maybe. And people who are moving in in droves and creating a “wealthy elite.”

        All that said–we absolutely agree that any attempt to preserve street parking spaces is ultimately a futile endeavor. :)

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:25 pm

          Seriously. You should meet the guy. He’s a decent guy. He’s a little over the top at points, but he’s not the devil incarnate that many on here might think.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 12:41 pm

          A) I don’t see “elite” as a scornful word (or “wealthy” for that matter). I think in this case, it’s just a descriptor. I have a relative who’s part of his city’s elite. He has a lot more money and a lot more political power than most other people. I love him and think he’s a good person who worked really hard for his wealth (although he was lucky too). But, I still I think the inequality of power and influence is not fair and should be changed.

          B) I absolutely agree that there is heterogeneity in those neighborhoods. But the fact is that Eastmoreland, and all the other areas mentioned, have their income distribution skewed MUCH higher than the rest of the city. Average household income in Portland: $53,000. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html
          Average household income in Eastmoreland: $99,000.
          http://www.city-data.com/income/income-Portland-Oregon.html

          That’s a large enough difference that, when combined with the things I’ve learned about the city’s social circles over the years (one small example – Mayor Hales formed the handshake deal with Uber in an Eastmoreland dining room – I think of that political consultant that all the winning politicians seem to hire?), I’m willing to call Eastmoreland an “elite” area. That is maybe a judgment call. “Wealthy?” Not a judgment call in my opinion. Sure, no descriptor of an area’s population is accurate for everyone in that area. But “wealthy” is as accurate as descriptors come for the Eastmoreland population.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • rachel b May 5, 2015 at 2:00 pm

            Hi Alex–“Wealthy elite” is a charged phrase, no matter in which spirit you use it, unfortunately. And, to a long-time resident such as myself, it’s irksome to see it being it thrown around so much here (on this site) as it glosses neatly over the fact that Portland was always a blue collar city—until this latest spate of newcomers flooded in in the past 15 years or so. It seems to me the very thing you and others are complaining about (this relatively new “wealthy elite”) is the monster you and everyone else who moved here in such a fever created. No one in Oregon was saying “Hey, world! Move here so we can become land barons!” I promise you.

            I’m with you on equal representation being important. Moneyed individuals in general hold a terrifying amount of sway in the world. In Portland, we do still have some moneyed locals who are implausibly looking beyond their own bottom line—McCullough among them, esp. as a representative for SEUL. I don’t find it particularly useful to just slap the same coat of paint on everyone and damn them because of the neighborhood in which they live. Esp. if they moved to that neighborhood when it was not so fancy. And they’re not J.L. Gotrocks. :)

            Recommended Thumb up 5

          • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 2:05 pm

            Agreed, Alex. And I think your point is even stronger than the ‘average’ income figures you cite suggest. It isn’t about averages in any neighborhood; it is about the few there, or anywhere, who wield disproportionate influence. Sometimes that influence derives from money; sometimes from connections, or both.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

      • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:28 pm

        Did you look at the comp plan map alex?

        There is downzoning (for various reasons) all over the place, including right next door to East Moreland in Brentwood Darlington and Mt. Scott-Arleta (both relatively “poor” areas of SE). There are a number of areas in East Portland (poorer) also in the plan to downzone.

        I agree there is strong inequity in this city, but I don’t think this is the issue you want to get up in arms about.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 1:07 pm

          Good counter-examples Dave. I did see those in the Comp Plan proposal but glossed over them above. Should have known a sharp BikePortlander would call me on that :-)

          I think they are somewhat different because the reason for the downzoning is different. In Eastmoreland, it’s to avoid change and preserve property values/historical homes and development patterns, even though the neighborhood has the infrastructure and proximity to transit (especially) and commerce (to some extent) to support more density. In Brentwood-Darlington and East Portland, the reasoning is because the infrastructure is not there (pavement, sidewalks), the transit service is worse, and the parcels downzoned are far from commercial center areas.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • davemess May 5, 2015 at 2:49 pm

            Not completely true though. The large segment on the south side of B-D was mainly to preserve the large “more rural-like” historical lots on the ridge. The lack of infrastructure was just icing on the cake there.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 5:06 pm

              Interesting!

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • davemess May 5, 2015 at 2:51 pm

            East Portland also had a lot of issues with overcrowding in schools, and unsafe lots due to risk of landslides.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Paul Cone May 5, 2015 at 11:46 pm

              Where are these landslides in East Portland? It’s pretty much flat except for the buttes, and there’s very little housing immediately up against those.

              http://www.oregongeology.org/slido/index.html

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • davemess May 6, 2015 at 8:24 am

                If I recall correctly it was in areas around Powell Butte.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Carrie May 4, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    I’ve always wondered why the bike route doesn’t go through Eastmoreland, rather than continue on Woodstock. When my family rides from Sellwood to the Woodstock Farmer’s Market, we take Bybee or Tolman through the neighborhood. It’s a bit easier to get up the hill on either of those streets, there is significantly less traffic, so we don’t have to deal with the scary bike lanes.

    One huge reason why I love the improvements to SE 17th is that now my daughter can ride to/from Cleveland High School and not have to ride on Woodstock….

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 10:07 am

      The short jog on Woodstock is to get to 32nd from 26th and head south to Crystal Springs, through the neighborhood.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gutterbunnybikes May 4, 2015 at 5:14 pm

    I’m wondering why if they’re going to shift the whole thing over a few blocks, why choose 32nd? Put the bikes on Reed College Place instead.

    Nice one way car traffic each direction Boulevard with existing traffic control devices on Woodstock already. Added bonus is that it connects to the elementary school down that way too.

    I mean if you’re going to go off course, might as well do it right.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • J_R May 4, 2015 at 5:34 pm

      The traffic control at Reed College Place and Woodstock consists of STOP signs for Reed College Place and the Reed College driveway. It can be a challenge to cross Woodstock at that location. The all-way STOP on Woodstock is a block west at the T-intersection with 32nd Ave.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • gutterbunnybikes May 5, 2015 at 8:46 pm

        Yeah I remembered the stop signs are at 32nd that after I posted that, still it’s than less a true Portland block away (if memory serves me right). Living to the NE of East Moreland I tend to either ride down 37th (or is it 38th – the kinda road broken up by paths nearly all unimproved the new community garden it skirts is looking good this year) from Bybee to the Springwater, or I cut through the Reed Campus and take Reed College Place down aways and head west. Both routes are much more pleasant and fun to ride than Woodstock will ever be – even if you banned the cars from it.

        But I tend to wander and get distracted when I’m riding, I always gotta make time for “shiny objects” or “flower smelling” when I’m riding. I’d love a GPS tracker app that didn’t give me a map, but just an arrow pointing in the general direction of my end destination.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 10:13 am

      Not a bad concept. Reed College Place is on the 2030 bike plan as a route. The speeds are about the same, 24 mph, and traffic volumes on RCPl are about 670 a day to 32nd’s 530.
      School traffic may be an issue.
      A roundabout at Woodstock/Reed College would keep things calm, and better organized.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 12:48 pm

        And yet roundabouts scare the utter feces out of bicycle riders that aren’t “fearless”. Heck, in the 3 years I’ve been driving a truck all over some if the silliest driver behavior at intersections I’ve ever seen has been at roundabouts. The sort of clueless timidity that would occur if one walked in to Starbucks and all the employees talked only in Klingon.

        I’m a big roundabout proponent but it is blatantly obvious that a lot of people have ZERO clue what to do at them. Statistically speaking a college is going to have a higher proportion of young, unskilled, inexperienced drivers with no prior exposure to roundabouts.

        A single lane, small inner circle diameter with tight turn angles and chicaned inlet lanes would make the roundabout so slow that people could feel safe walking it.
        Just make sure to mark the streets leading up to it as not CMV accessible: ain’t nothing as fun as backing 75′ of truck out of a hole it wasn’t supposed to drive in to begin with.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • hat May 4, 2015 at 7:00 pm

    No free public parking.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 8:52 pm

    Blake
    I don’t believe Mr. McCullough’s complaints about “process” are particularly genuine. I think it is merely a convenient disguise to wear to conceal his belief that the street by his home are his when they are convenient for him and not his when he is being asked to contribute to them. Consider, for example, his complaining to the Willamette Week about being asked to pay for leaf removal in 2011:
    “Eastmoreland resident Robert McCullough owns one house on Reed College Place divided by a median strip with city-owned trees, and a second house with no street trees. ‘I had to pay twice,’ he says, ‘once for leaves that weren’t there and once for leaves that weren’t mine.’”
    Source: http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-16849-leaf_us_alone.html
    Recommended 40

    I don’t see how his comment to Willamette Weekly at all suggests that his comments about process are not genuine.

    I’m not sure why you felt compelled to attribute to sinister motivation to the guy, though. This is a disturbing theme throughout all of the comments.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 8:54 pm

    Indy
    It’s funny because as a homeowner myself, I would salivate at the idea of no onstreet parking on my street. It just makes homes more accessible overall. Pictures, Real Estate value (ask any realtor if houses without cars parked out front help a house sell better.)
    I guess ultimately: why are we leaving the ultimate decision of public throughways up to the people that live in the area? Aren’t there broader issues of importance here that benefit the city as a whole?
    And come on, park around the block for when uncle Bill brings over Tofurkey. Not a big deal.
    Recommended 57

    Right, homeowners that actually in that area should have no say at all, right? No opinion at all, right? ~rolleyes~

    Why are you so quick to dismiss anyone you disagree with and attempt to push them to the side of civil discourse?

    Besides, how is the “ultimate decision” being left up to local homeowners, anyway?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 8:55 pm

    Scott H
    This Proves McCullough is out of his mind. Any homeowner with a driveway would normally jump at the opportunity to prevent the general public from parking in front of their house.
    Recommended 10

    Disgusting attitude and opinion. Seriously…everyone you disagree with or doesn’t hold your opinion is “out of [their] mind”??

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 8:58 pm

    JML
    The problem with this thinking is that housing and job markets, transportation systems, and social and ecological processes operate at a regional scale. Neighborhoods and even cities are regionally interdependent and are thus unable to shape their future unless they act together at a regional scale. For example when one neighborhood zones out certain housing type it over-burdens other neighborhoods or forces cost-burdened households into longer, more car-dependent commutes, which in turn hurts regional air and water quality. Devolution of decision making is needed, but not on the regional level… on the state and federal level. My hunch is that metropolitan region’s are more interdependent than state and nations, and thus are the optimal scale for self-governance.
    Recommended 0

    Right, property rights no longer matter because the technocrats among us just know what’s good for us…sheesh, what could wrong there asks inner city housing projects, federal enterprise zones, etc. LOL.

    I mean, your argument is nothing more than a thinly veiled disgust for property rights. You’d apparently be more comfortable in China where whole villages are leveled for government-sponsored economic development because there are no property rights.

    Why oh why do so many Americans move so quickly to abrogate the rights of their neighbors to impose their own preferences? Why the disgust and disdain for rights?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Pete May 4, 2015 at 10:08 pm

      Don’t confuse property rights with public spaces. Nobody is asking these people to create a bike path across their front lawns, or even cut back their hedges. I have a city-owned tree in my front yard and I’m obliged to maintain it; I knew that when I bought the house. Lots of strangers park on the street in front of my house and sometimes the city closes it for construction – I have no right to prevent that because it is not my property.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 5:18 pm

        You did see at least one poster who demanded their front lawns be turned into bike lanes?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Paul Souders
    OMG will someone please help these folks with their messaging. These arguments are beautiful examples of what I like to call “anti-arguments.”
    “Some of my best friends are bikes but there must be limits. Too many bikes might muss up my spats and monacles! And where will I stable my chaise-and-four?”
    I can muster zero sympathy for someone with “three, four, six, eight” cars in their garage. If you can afford a house in Eastmoreland AND an eight car garage(!) you don’t need me to cover additional parking for your Thanksgiving feast.
    Recommended 71

    Wow, the envy is strong with this one. Why attack this person’s choices for having multiple cars?

    Again, so quick to take away (one could read it almost as punishing) from those they envy. I hope this blog’s commenters are not indicative of the attitudes of most Portlanders.

    Just look at how quickly most commenters here move toward using the government to take away rights, to punish others for not thinking the right way, to ostracize those who make different choices.

    Ironically, I bet most of these commenters are liberals or progressives who pat themselves on the back of among the tolerant.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:06 pm

    Jake
    This is extremely frustrating.
    One holiday a year is worth sacrificing a safer, more comfortable bike route 365 days a year for hundreds of people? If we’re talking about tradeoffs, this is an overwhelmingly easy one to make.
    > “I just don’t see it as having enough payoff to ban parking on the one side.”
    It is _ridiculous_ that someone would be the chair of a bike committee for a neighborhood but not be willing to go to bat for better bike infrastructure, sorry. And this kind of language is exactly why we aren’t making any progress as a city. Maybe it is comfortable enough for you, that’s great! Unfortunately, thousands upon thousands of people would be riding their bike more if we stopped making these “compromises” that are absolutely ludicrous.
    How does one get involved here? Are there people I can write to? Meetings I can attend?
    Recommended 20

    Of course not, but don’t let your imagination get in the way of valid considerations.

    Your preference for better bike infrastructure is not always the “right” choice. Yet, here you are attempting to impose that preference via force, i.e., you’re basically demanding that someone do something to make you happy. We all have different values, principles, criteria upon which we evaluate proposed public policy. But you and others here are so narrow-minded, that you’re unable to tolerate dissent from your opinion(s).

    This is a disturbing trend here.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    Terry D-M
    I do think that parking should be removed from this stretch. The occasional inconvenience of a few households should not create a safety bottleneck in an 8-80 bikeway. I’ll let him know the reasons why I think this next time I see him.
    Recommended 25

    What safety bottleneck?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 5:52 am

      National standards for a new bike lane are minimum five feet. NACTO Urban Design standards, which city council adopted in 2012, require a MINIMUM of six feet, like they are doing on Foster, but for an all ages bikeway, like this one is SUPPOSED to be, EIGHT feet is preferable. The goal is to SAFELY have two 12 year old girls riding side by side. That current bike lane is substandard by modern safety standards so the remaining underutilized parking strip needs to go.

      Professional studies have shown, over and over again, that in a bikeway even one major danger point will cause parents to say “No, sorry, you can not ride that.”

      This is no different than when a major remodel occurs and the city says to a commercial establishment “Well, since you are redoing your entire bathroom you now have to make it ADA compliant.” We now have to follow modern safety standards, which in this case require parking removal on EITHER Woodstock or 28th. Since Eastmoreland negated the 28th Option, then this is the choice.

      The needs of the many outweigh the convenience of eight households. The public ROW is just that, PUBLIC. The best option actually, would be to come from 28th and Powell, run through the residential neighborhood THROUGH Reed college to get to 32nd. This would by-pass 28th and Woodstock completely, but it also means working with a private college to run a bikeway through their poverty which blends the public and private sectors.

      I’m pretty sure that precedent would be even more scary to Eastmoreland residents than removing four blocks of parking, but I could be wrong.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:12 pm

    I find the overall nature of the comments here and the general atmosphere of this blog site to be quite intolerant, narrow-minded, and creepy. It’s apparent that too many of you are too quick to:

    a) shame others for not agreeing with you, i.e., attributing false motivation to “them”, attacking their mental faculty, etc.;
    b) ignore the rights of others to speak freely, assemble, and petition their government, in other words, you want to deprive local folks of any opinion or participation in a public process because you disagree with them;
    c) disrespect property rights when it suits your preferences to the point of demanding that someone else’s property (notice none of you are volunteering up your own property) be taken to make way for social progress, regional economic activity, etc.

    This is just creepy. The tone and tenor of the comments here are markedly anti-democratic and intolerant.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Psyfalcon May 4, 2015 at 9:33 pm

      What property are they having taken away.

      The city can come and remove on street parking in front of my house because it is not my property.

      Entitlement maybe?

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • rachel b May 5, 2015 at 6:10 pm

        I suspect he’s referring to past references here on bikeportland re: (and I paraphrase) ‘selfish bungalow owners’ and ‘rich land barons’ hogging up all the inner city, selfishly wanting their existing neighborhoods with single-family housing preserved, and not willingly offering up their homes to be razed for apartments and condos for newcomers. It’s been suggested occasionally that that decision be taken out of the hands of the homeowners. But really only by a small handful of posters here.

        Resistance is futile! ;)

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 6:10 am

      Hey, I have MULTIPLE times volunteered to remove parking in front of my house. So has my neighborhood association…twice. We deal with suburban commuters constantly……about 17,000 of them a day just on this one High Crash Corridor. I would love to charge them to run through MY neighborhood, but I can not (until Salem approves speed radar cameras).

      The reason you feel that this site is disrespectful of the perceived needs of these homeowners is that most of us live in neighborhoods where there are REAL problems. Eastmoreland, the richest neighborhood on the east side with the oldest average age sounds like a bunch of whiny old timers…”I don’t want those kids on our street, it will ruin Christmas!”

      Cities change and grow and we all have to adapt to each other. Eastmoreland is in the way of progress and needs to bend on this one, it is JUST four block of underutilized parking. This NA already has gotten their way on the alignment, and lack of speed bumps, do you think it is fair that the public has NO say on the PUBLIC streets? They ARE owned by the WHOLE city…..Just saying NO, NO, NO just makes you look…well, like upper class snobs who do not care about other’s safety.

      Design a local bikeway alternative that follows modern NACTO safety design standards, is direct and negotiate instead of “Just Say No!”

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Justin Carinci May 5, 2015 at 9:03 am

        To be fair, they only said it will ruin Thanksgiving, not Christmas. And the help have to find somewhere else to park on other days.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Dan May 5, 2015 at 7:52 am

      I would welcome the county taking away the street parking around my house. It creates a safety issue for my kids.

      I’m pestering the county now to get a no parking zone installed next to the main crosswalk to the school, since currently they allow cars to park right up to it, which is ridiculous and contrary to Oregon law.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Oregon Mamacita May 5, 2015 at 12:21 pm

      I agree with you 100%. Well put.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Oregon Mamacita May 5, 2015 at 12:22 pm

        That was meant for Jon M.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    Dan M.
    Someone needs to remind the wealthy clowns that it’s our street, not their parking space.
    It’s a public right of way. No single person owns it. You aren’t guaranteed street parking in front of your house every day forever because you own the house. The word “entitled” gets thrown around a lot, but no one is more entitled than wealthy homeowners. Have a sob, park in your driveway, get over it.
    Recommended 25

    Another creepy poster. Notice that this poster must disparage someone he disagrees with as a “clown”…merely because he disagrees with someone else. Notice to the attribution of motivation, i.e., entitlement in this instance, to a group that he knows nothing about.

    Shameful.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 7:16 am

      “Notice to the attribution of motivation, i.e., entitlement in this instance, to a group that he knows nothing about.

      Shameful.”

      Really? I think we have come to know quite enough about the objecting people in this particular instance, which is what we’re discussing, right? What facts do you feel we have insufficient information about here? As several people have already noted here in response to your ‘property rights’ talk, this is the public-right-of-way-that-has-for-far-too-long-been-treated-as-private-storage-for-automobiles-above-all-other-possible-uses we’re talking about here, not their bedrooms or driveways.

      I think entitlement is the perfect description here but welcome your argument for why in this instance it is inaccurate.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:36 pm

        No, uou have come to conclusions about what motivates these people and that is all. We know very little about absent their opinions expressed in public. But dont let that stop you from pretending to know who they are so you can shame then.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 9watts May 7, 2015 at 7:28 am

          “We know very little about absent their opinions expressed in public.”

          None of this happens in a vacuum, Jon M. These folks expressed an opinion in public. Hue and cry ensued. We have debated the merits of the positions, the politics, the power struggles, etc. on bikeportland. I happen to believe that when you throw your weight around like this—make demands that PBOT undo a decision, a process—you better have your ducks in a row, have a tight argument at the ready for why this is worth fighting. As far as we know, none of this seems to have occurred. So we’re stuck with ‘their opinions expressed in public.’ Given the context, that is sufficient for me to feel that this is an example of (perhaps unselfconscious) entitlement. I’ve asked here many times for more argument, a defense of this position, but so far that hasn’t happened.

          I don’t think it is my responsibility to withhold any judgment, and discussion, until such time as this party deigns to produce more than the vociferous opinion which started this fracas.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • davemess May 7, 2015 at 5:35 pm

            Except in this situation these people aren’t representative of a group. They’re just people who were put on the spot by Michael. They’re allowed to have their opinions, but they are just their opinions and not everyone’s.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • 9watts May 7, 2015 at 9:38 pm

              I was referring more generally to the rumblings coming from some Eastmoreland residents about this particular matter.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Lester Burnham May 5, 2015 at 8:03 am

      This forum seems to have particular disdain for homeowners, regardless of economic status.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 10:36 am

        I am a homeowner, as are many of us. Some of us have disdain for homeowners who think their ownership stretches to the center yellow line of the roadway in front of their house.

        These are two VERY separate issues.

        Recommended Thumb up 15

        • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:37 pm

          Interesting that no one in the article or in these comments habe expressed such an expansive view of home ownership.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 2:07 pm

        A cheap shot. Terry’s correct. Some people who own a house act like people; others act like homeowners; like they own everything; like property values are the only measure of value; like the NA is theirs; etc.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • davemess May 5, 2015 at 2:53 pm

          And many renters act like homeowners are all terrible and the world is owed to them. We all have our biases and stereotypes. That’s why these types of forums and message boards and comment sections are really so dangerous. Get all these people in a room face to face, and we come to find out that we’re not all so clueless and evil as the other person might think. We just have different ideas.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 3:00 pm

            “And many renters act like homeowners are all terrible and the world is owed to them.”
            Really? This is so far from my experience I’d love to have you explain that a little. What form does this take? In what situations does this come up? What are the demands being made?

            “We all have our biases and stereotypes.”
            Sure, and it is good to have them called out. But the fact remains that in this country today (some of) those with money and connections have and sometimes exert a dispoportionate influence, or do you not agree with that? I am having a hard time seeing the inverse of this; the situation in which renters, so called, lord it over another group.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:40 pm

              Oh geez. I see… So it is civil to pretend to know something about someone else and then accuse that person of what you pretend they are? Because that works, right?

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • 9watts May 6, 2015 at 3:52 pm

                Are there always exactly two sides? Do you assume that both are always equally valid?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Dan M. May 8, 2015 at 12:18 pm

        I own a home. My property ends at the sidewalk. From sidewalk to sidewalk is not my property. I understand that because I’m not an misinformed baby who thinks everything near my property is also mine. You’d think more people would understand the intricacies of what they drop several hundred thousands of dollars on, but maybe I’m being too generous.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I May 5, 2015 at 8:24 am

      It’s amazing how you manage to criticize people for making generalizations and casting judgement when that is exactly what you yourself are doing.

      Pot calling the kettle black.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Dan M. May 8, 2015 at 12:11 pm

      It’s not their property. They can complain all they want, but it is the public’s property and PBOT has jurisdiction over it. They are bellyaching because their precious parking spaces are being taken away even though it is an indisputable fact that those are not their parking spaces to begin with, Nothing is being taken from them. They perceive it that way because they’re entitled clowns. My insults followed a line of logic. That doesn’t make me creepy, it makes me belligerent.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • JonM May 4, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Psyfalcon
    What property are they having taken away.
    The city can come and remove on street parking in front of my house because it is not my property.
    Entitlement maybe?
    Recommended 0

    I was referring to multiple commenters who proposed that something should be taken away from these homeowners.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Psyfalcon May 4, 2015 at 10:14 pm

      Reply button. Not quote.

      Now I have to go read the whole comments again because I have no idea who suggested anything besides removing free parking.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • tee May 4, 2015 at 10:43 pm

    First, I would be interested to know the actual percentage of people within the neighborhood that oppose the bike lane changes. I am not sure that these folks on SE Woodstock organizing against the project accurately represent the views of their neighbors. Anecdotally, I’ve met more than a few dedicated bike commuters from the neighborhoods right around Reed that use the existing lane frequently.

    After watching proposed bike/pedestrian improvements either not materialize or get modified to “save important (free) street parking,” the costs of “free” parking are evident. We aren’t going to have parking and infrastructure both.

    As someone who uses that existing bike lane, albeit very cautiously, the original proposed upgrades would have been a game changer. If the neighbors all have garages and driveways why should their unwillingness to use those options affect the transportation options of others. This is one more example of a situation where, if the neighborhood wins, we lose another option for 8-80 bike infrastructure. These kind of decisions set precedents, in my opinion. It will put us farther away from transitioning to a future platinum bike city. While it may seem trivial, I really think that a failure like this is symbolic of a change in Portland’s direction for future development. Unfortunately for the parking lovers, as our city grows density has to increase. We do not have the infrastructure to support our growing population commuting primarily by car. It is also too late to do a huge redevelopment to change this fact, so it is rather sad that those opposed to small improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians get hung up on the idea of free parking without thinking of the actual price.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • JonM May 5, 2015 at 12:05 am

    tee
    First, I would be interested to know the actual percentage of people within the neighborhood that oppose the bike lane changes. I am not sure that these folks on SE Woodstock organizing against the project accurately represent the views of their neighbors. Anecdotally, I’ve met more than a few dedicated bike commuters from the neighborhoods right around Reed that use the existing lane frequently.
    After watching proposed bike/pedestrian improvements either not materialize or get modified to “save important (free) street parking,” the costs of “free” parking are evident. We aren’t going to have parking and infrastructure both.
    As someone who uses that existing bike lane, albeit very cautiously, the original proposed upgrades would have been a game changer. If the neighbors all have garages and driveways why should their unwillingness to use those options affect the transportation options of others. This is one more example of a situation where, if the neighborhood wins, we lose another option for 8-80 bike infrastructure. These kind of decisions set precedents, in my opinion. It will put us farther away from transitioning to a future platinum bike city. While it may seem trivial, I really think that a failure like this is symbolic of a change in Portland’s direction for future development. Unfortunately for the parking lovers, as our city grows density has to increase. We do not have the infrastructure to support our growing population commuting primarily by car. It is also too late to do a huge redevelopment to change this fact, so it is rather sad that those opposed to small improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians get hung up on the idea of free parking without thinking of the actual price.
    Recommended 1

    The costs are not easily observed. The “costs” you’re appealing to are emotional costs. At least until you present some data that represents actual economic costs. The inconvenience of some bikers is a cost; just as it is a cost to have relative parking blocks away or delivery vehicles unable to get to homes; etc.

    Recognize that you’re weighing some costs more heavily than others and lets at least be fair about that fact.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • tee May 5, 2015 at 6:31 am

      Well, this one time, bike lane changes were shot down on 28th over the loss of free street parking. People need to get around. Safety and getting around are economic costs.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 7:24 am

      “The inconvenience of some bikers is a cost; just as it is a cost to have relative parking blocks away or delivery vehicles unable to get to homes; etc.” (emphasis mine)

      JonM, why are you treating these costs as equivalent? The occasional relative who might (remember this is the speculative part here) have to park a block away once a year vs. the people who either already or-might-if-a-decent-facility-were-provided bike here regularly, or even daily. The occasional relative, if he is driving, may not even live here. What about all the people who do live here and who bike or may wish to bike more? I am having a hard time seeing your (and those objecting through McCullough)’s gripe, the argument they wish to make for why exactly this is unfair. Please explain.

      “Recognize that you’re weighing some costs more heavily than others and lets at least be fair about that fact.”

      Pot calling the kettle black?

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Karl Dickman May 5, 2015 at 9:51 am

        I guess Jon is saying there’s nothing wrong with banning car traffic on pretty much every direct route in the entire city, forcing drivers to take circuitous, nonsensical routes everywhere they want to go. After all, the occasional inconvenience this would cause is an emotional cost, not an economic one.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Dan May 5, 2015 at 10:44 am

          Hey, welcome to bike travel!

          Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 10:41 am

      Being car-doored creating a trip to OHSU due to a sub-standard bike lane is not an “inconvenience.” That ONE hospital trip from ONE cyclist costs cost more than the whole bike lane striping…not to mention the emotional and physical costs.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Charley May 5, 2015 at 7:38 am

    I live on 42nd Avenue: nothing but a bike lane in front of my house. So I have to park on my driveway on in my garage. But, I guess I don’t have 8 cars, so I’m really sorry for that guy. It must be hard.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • MaxD May 5, 2015 at 10:41 am

      Is it true that you cannot receive deliveries or visits from utility service vehicles because you do not have on-street parking in front of your house?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Eric May 5, 2015 at 10:02 am

    Perhaps the current lane arrangement can be kept as-is and still meet everyone’s demands. There would have to be one minor change though, to eliminate the door-opening risk to bicyclists.
    Parking on the street would have to be restricted to door with vertical opening (scissor) doors only. (Mclaren, Lamborghini, etc). The list of approved automobiles can be modeled off of this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cars_with_non-standard_door_designs
    Thank you and good night!

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Psyfalcon May 5, 2015 at 11:14 am

      Good idea. I need more supercars to look at.

      (And they say we hate all cars. If I won a billion dollars, the first thing I’d do is find a McLaren F1 for sale).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:11 am

    Terry D-M
    National standards for a new bike lane are minimum five feet. NACTO Urban Design standards, which city council adopted in 2012, require a MINIMUM of six feet, like they are doing on Foster, but for an all ages bikeway, like this one is SUPPOSED to be, EIGHT feet is preferable. The goal is to SAFELY have two 12 year old girls riding side by side. That current bike lane is substandard by modern safety standards so the remaining underutilized parking strip needs to go.
    Professional studies have shown, over and over again, that in a bikeway even one major danger point will cause parents to say “No, sorry, you can not ride that.”
    This is no different than when a major remodel occurs and the city says to a commercial establishment “Well, since you are redoing your entire bathroom you now have to make it ADA compliant.” We now have to follow modern safety standards, which in this case require parking removal on EITHER Woodstock or 28th. Since Eastmoreland negated the 28th Option, then this is the choice.
    The needs of the many outweigh the convenience of eight households. The public ROW is just that, PUBLIC. The best option actually, would be to come from 28th and Powell, run through the residential neighborhood THROUGH Reed college to get to 32nd. This would by-pass 28th and Woodstock completely, but it also means working with a private college to run a bikeway through their poverty which blends the public and private sectors.
    I’m pretty sure that precedent would be even more scary to Eastmoreland residents than removing four blocks of parking, but I could be wrong.
    Recommended 7

    Great argument for the tyranny of the majority you have there. The needs of the many reign supreme, eh? Or does that only apply when you perceive that the many are on your side?

    Your appeal to the supposed needs of the many is not an argument at all. I’d say it’s more an appeal to the people or an appeal to popularity. Either way, it’s not a logical argument.

    Also, lets at least be honest what you’re doing here in evaluating that your preference for a wider bike lane is rifht simply because you say so, just as many others do here, so you’re quick to abuse the power of the state (local govt) in this case, to impose your preference.

    Again, why are so many people desirous of using the state to impose their preferences?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 11:37 am

      The NACTO urban design guide is a national transportation professionals manual. Your argument negates speed limits as well, as well as stops signs, signals and crosswalks. There is no difference. It seems like you would be happiest living on an estate in the country where the public has no say on your life. This is a city, when you live in a city you have to accept certain costs. You can not BLARE your music at full volume at Midnight, you can not speed 55 MPH down your residential street, you can not clear cut your property, you can not pour your used motor oil down the drain ….. when a major bikeway for the ENTIRE city needs to run through your neighborhood you need to be POLITE to your neighbors and work with them to find a safe way through your hood.

      This is Portland, not a libertarian utopia where it is everyone for themselves. This TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY is forcing Eastmoreland to accept emergency friendly speed bumps on Crystal Springs, four blocks of parking removal and a bunch of Sharrows. Not a big deal….cities change, it is the way of things….or at least they have for the past 7000 years or so since they were first developed.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:19 am

    9watts
    “The inconvenience of some bikers is a cost; just as it is a cost to have relative parking blocks away or delivery vehicles unable to get to homes; etc.” (emphasis mine)
    JonM, why are you treating these costs as equivalent? The occasional relative who might (remember this is the speculative part here) have to park a block away once a year vs. the people who either already or-might-if-a-decent-facility-were-provided bike here regularly, or even daily. The occasional relative, if he is driving, may not even live here. What about all the people who do live here and who bike or may wish to bike more? I am having a hard time seeing your (and those objecting through McCullough)’s gripe, the argument they wish to make for why exactly this is unfair. Please explain.
    “Recognize that you’re weighing some costs more heavily than others and lets at least be fair about that fact.”
    Pot calling the kettle black?
    Recommended 3

    Ok, first, why the pot and kettle comment? It doesn’t make sense. I identified comparable costs. I was not weighing one more than the other. You observed that I was rendering such an equivalency. But then you ding me for supposedly weighing some more than others? I was observing the behavior of someone else who was ranking some costs higher than others. Please make sense.

    Further, my intent was observe that posters here appeared narrow-minded as they sought only to present and demand consideration of what they believed to be important while personally attacking others.

    Really, the charge of hypocrisy is not only false, but lame.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 3:03 pm

      Your phrase *just as it is a cost* suggested to me at least that you were equating them. If I misread or misinterpreted that I apologize. From your other comments I’m not sure I misread that, but I tend to like to get to the bottom of these disagreements to have at it.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Karl Dickman
    I guess Jon is saying there’s nothing wrong with banning car traffic on pretty much every direct route in the entire city, forcing drivers to take circuitous, nonsensical routes everywhere they want to go. After all, the occasional inconvenience this would cause is an emotional cost, not an economic one.
    Recommended 2

    Wow, what an absurd conclusion to draw from my commments. Notixe, again, the absence of logic, the absence of an argument. Your intent is only to ridicule the person you disagree with. Worse, you did so without humor or creativity.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren May 5, 2015 at 12:49 pm

      “Your intent is only to ridicule the person you disagree with. Worse, you did so without humor or creativity.”

      Pot, meet kettle.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:22 am

    Eric
    Perhaps the current lane arrangement can be kept as-is and still meet everyone’s demands. There would have to be one minor change though, to eliminate the door-opening risk to bicyclists.
    Parking on the street would have to be restricted to door with vertical opening (scissor) doors only. (Mclaren, Lamborghini, etc). The list of approved automobiles can be modeled off of this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cars_with_non-standard_door_designs
    Thank you and good night!
    Recommended 1

    Lol…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:26 am

    Charley
    I live on 42nd Avenue: nothing but a bike lane in front of my house. So I have to park on my driveway on in my garage. But, I guess I don’t have 8 cars, so I’m really sorry for that guy. It must be hard.
    Recommended 4

    Wow, another poster who seeks to ridicule or condemn someone he disagrees with.

    And, to boot, 4 people liked it.

    This is, like most of the comments in this thread, indicative of the mob mentality.

    It’s distressing to see how quickly people reduce themselves to becoming part of the mob. And in Portland no less where conformance is usually looked down on.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Paul Cone May 5, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      Pitchforks!

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 11:42 am

    Terry D-M
    Being car-doored creating a trip to OHSU due to a sub-standard bike lane is not an “inconvenience.” That ONE hospital trip from ONE cyclist costs cost more than the whole bike lane striping…not to mention the emotional and physical costs.
    Recommended 0

    Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t more expensive. I don’t know. What I do know is you’ve presented another illogical argument, this time an appeal to emotion.

    Look, I’m open to arguments in favor of widening this bike lane. I’m a bike commuter myself and my family limits itself to a single car because I choose to ride a lot. Note that I haven’t picked at comments that refer to national standards for bike lanes. I am mocking and criticizing the mob here who, through, their comments rely far more on emotional pleas to argue than on logic and careful consideration. I do so because I find their comments creepy and antithetical to our system of governing where the rights of the minority are respected, where the views and interests of others are respected. You know, good manners and all.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 12:05 pm

      No, I presented an argument about modernizing the roadway to current PROFESSIONALLY RECOGNIZED standards and that example of ONE accident as a ECONOMIC argument. Cost of Medical Visit versus Cost of re-striping….then i said “not to mention the physical and emotional costs.”

      Just like when traffic lights came out or crosswalks. It is as simple as that, a modernization of our traffic design standards. Woodstock is substandard and needs to be modernized, it is as simple as that.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

    • rmamick May 5, 2015 at 12:43 pm

      It has been presented to you that the current arrangement is outside safety standards. That is not an illogical argument, nor an appeal to emotion. That is an objective statement of fact.
      The fact is that a few people would have on-street parking in a neighborhood affected (where an abundance of off-street parking is available) in order to make the street safer for riding bicycles. As in all public spaces, the best use for the majority should prevail. I can’t see an argument against that.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 12:54 pm

        I dont think anyone is disputing that the current bike lane deviates from the current voluntary standard. I am addressing the variety of arguments being presented to mock and ridicule those with differing opinions on whether the city should voluntarily upgrade the bike lane or that simply assert that it should be upgraded because, well, because.

        Again, you present the illogical needs of the many (which, by the way, bike lanes are not a need as roads and ports and law enforcement are “needs”) as a legitmate argument for doing something. As i noted earlier, this is just a softer version of the mob mentality or tyranny of the majority. The ‘argument’ relies on the exercise of raw power and completely destroys minority rights. I guess thats nice when you cant get done what you want to get done through the typical deliberative, i.e., political, processes, but be honest about what it is… Running roughshod over those you can because you can.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 1:11 pm

          Keeping publicly subsidized parking spaces for a few residents to use once and a awhile totally negates the needs of the MINORITY of this city that bicycles. Yes it is still a minority, though a MAJORITY do it once and a while.

          This is the MAJORITY car owners forcing THEIR PERCEIVED need for the PUBLIC street space over the REAL safety needs of the bicycling minority.

          You just built your own corner, Mr Jon M. The fact that you do not think that decided bikeways are a need tell me that you are negating a VAST percentage of the Portland Population that DOES think they are a need.

          Why is your opinion more important?

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 2:02 pm

            It is a public road way, yes? So observing that the road way is subsidized by the public is quite irrelevant.

            Second, if the spaces are used only once in a while, then there shouldn’t be a problem with door openings, yeah? However, the spaces are used far more often than you wish to acknowledge, hence, the safety concerns.

            Third, totally negating the needs of bikers woild be to remove the bike lane altogether. Otherwise, what we’re discussing here is an improvement that, while sensible, is simply an improvement. There is a serviceable bike lane even if it could be improved.

            Fourth, that a group of people opposes something that you prefer or want is hardly the equivalent of that group oppressing you. In this case, a group of homeowners disagree with you. That’s it and nothing more. If the local government determines to do nothing based in part on the opinions of those homeowners then that determination is being made by local representatives and your complaint is with them, not the homeowners. And, the local government is also not oppressing you.

            Notice, again, how easily you minimize the preferences of others that you disagree with. You don’t agree with the homeowners so therefore their preference is not “real” while the preference you agree is “real”. Hardly a rational analysis. Again, this is what is creepy. Your mere disagreement with others is the basis to delegitimize the views of others. Not that their views are unsupported by data, experience, etc., but the mere fact that you disagree is enough for you to render their view illegitimate and un”real”.

            Lastly, in my opinion, bike ways are not a need that commands a higher priority relative to driving and parking. Driving is a need. Our economic, social, and cultural activities are based on driving. That we have determined that imoroving the road way for bikes is important does not mean that dedicated bike ways are required. It simply means that as we can, we will enhance road ways to accommodate bikers. This pales in comparison to actual needs like welfare, public safety (police and fire), etc. So the “need” for more and bigger bike ways will always be evaluated against that backdrop.

            Lastly, my preference for x or y does not negate the opinion of anyone else. That you believe it does is, well, unusual. Why do you think that me preference for something negates your want of something else?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 5:10 pm

              ‘Driving is a need’. Driving is a necessary activity only because of past choices made about the ‘correct’ or ‘best’ method of transportation. There is also evidence that private interests played a part in dismantling public transportation in favor of the current dominant mode for personal gain.
              Your belief that driving is a need is based on past decisions that actively removed other transportation choices from the menu.

              Recommended Thumb up 7

            • El Biciclero May 6, 2015 at 2:01 pm

              “Lastly, in my opinion, bike ways are not a need that commands a higher priority relative to driving and parking.”

              How is this not an example of the existing “tyranny of the majority” that those who feel they must drive everywhere and park anywhere exert over those who don’t?

              The current bike lane does not meet safety standards; you don’t dispute the “professionals” on this.

              Maintaining the free flow of cars and availability of parking is more important than expanding bikeways, including this one; that is your own assertion.

              Can one then not conclude that, in your opinion, bicyclists, a minority of road users should be subjected to unsafe conditions so that motorists, a majority of road users, can feel free to leave their cars in the street when they arrive at their destinations?

              You talk earlier about bicycle advocates (a minority) using some imagined “raw” power, as a majority (which they are not), to somehow coerce the government into bending the world into their preferred shape. How does that make any sense? I realize you are here most likely using the word “majority” to mean “people who travel on this section of Woodstock on bicycles”, and the word “minority” to mean “people who live in houses on this section of Woodstock”, but how can you argue that we should cater to motorists by de-prioritizing bike improvements because drivers are a general majority, yet also cater to the specific “minority” of homeowners along this stretch of street so as not to engage in “tyranny”?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

        • rmamick May 5, 2015 at 1:32 pm

          “Again, you present the illogical needs of the many (which, by the way, bike lanes are not a need as roads and ports and law enforcement are “needs”) as a legitmate argument for doing something. As i noted earlier, this is just a softer version of the mob mentality or tyranny of the majority.”
          What is illogical about advocating utilizing public resources where they will do the most good for the most people? How is that tyranny? It is what government should be doing…is your argument that government should be using public resources to do the most good for as few people as possible?

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 2:49 pm

            There is nothing illogical about expressing an opinion that resources be allocated to a specific use. What can be logical or illogical is the reasoning or argument behind that opinion.

            And that is what I am observing. Many of the comments here simply rely on naked assertions of what is “right” or “best”. Others rely on simple force, i.e., the needs of the many must rule.

            You assert that spending money in one way is the best, yet, you fail to offer a logical argument, like many others here. Instead, you rely on assertion itself which is no argument at all. Others attempt to minimize or ridicule the homeowners opinions, but that, too, is not an argument for something specific. Others attempt to argue that well, we have more people thatvagree with us, so x must be done.

            Have you never heard of the concepts of tyranny of the majority or minoroty rights? They kind of are basic foundational elements of western democratic governance. When you argue that you have more people on your side and therefore what you want should be imposed, you are engaging in annact of tyranny of the majority. John Stuart Mill sets this as a danger to individual liberty, you know, another foundational element of western civilization.

            This tyrannical behavior involves coercion via compilsion and control. In other words, if you don’t do what we want you to do, then we will come with pitch forks and torches to coerce you into doing what we want you to do.

            You can compare this view of individual liberty with the philosophy of utilitarianism wherein we should all act so as to promote the greatest happiness for all. We can smash our liberty by taking from others in order to make yet other people happy, but it flies in the face of liberty. That approach also knows no bounds and who exactly gets to decide what is best or what will make people happiest?

            You seem to have taken it upon yourself to declare what is best. I wonder would if you will accept my opinion of what is best in some other realm wherein you disagree with me? Unlikely, I am sure. And therein lies the fundamental problem… We rely on a representative government, limited in power and scope, to govern us. It is designed to protect our liberty. Your preferred approach appears to rely rule via power by those in the biggest group. No thanks.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 5:12 pm

              How do you measure net changes in happiness?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

            • soren May 5, 2015 at 6:54 pm

              As a priority utilitarian I gotta point out that JS Mill literally wrote the book on utilitarianism.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 2:17 pm

          “The ‘argument’ relies on the exercise of raw power and completely destroys minority rights.”

          Minority rights to do what, exactly? Have PBOT side with them to keep their guests’ imagined once a year parking spaces, and against the plan that seeks to establish (well sought to establish) a direct N-S bike route through this part of town? I’m having a hard time with the ‘rights’ language here.
          How do you arbitrate in a situation like this, Jon M? If it were me, I would weigh the merits of the arguments put forth by the two (or more) sides and tally up the affected populations as far as this is possible, and then make a decision. Seems like pretty much exactly what PBOT did in this case, but a tiny fraction (seven households!!! with AMPLE–no make that EXCESSIVE on and off-street parking) are seeking to overturn this decision.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:50 pm

            No, minority rights to have a voice, to participate in the political process of hashing out public policy. That’s why we have, in part, the right to assemble and petition our government.

            Notice how many commenters here are condemning these homeowners for simply expressing their opinions? Sure, a few and that’s all have actually addressed in a substantive way the homeowners opinions. The majoroty though, including you, have ridiculed them as entitled elitists, clowns, etc. and have argued that their opinions should not only not count but not be heard becuse the perceived “needs of the many” oitwright these few elitist snobs.

            There is no arbitration to be had here. I am criticizing the many commenters who chose to condemn, ridicule, and judge thismall group of homeowners for holding an inpooular opinion. It’s a creepy thing to see the mob in action seeking to impose their wants via comoulsion and shaming.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • 9watts May 6, 2015 at 3:57 pm

              “have argued that their opinions should not only not count but not be heard”

              There is opinion and there is argument. As I said here yesterday I have not heard the argument from the side of the people with large properties and vast on street parking available *after* these changes PBOT has announced will go into effect.

              “There is no arbitration to be had here.”

              Well that is an easy way out, isn’t it, Jon M? I asked you what you would do—how you would arbitrate—in PBOT’s position, not in the context of this skirmish on bikeportland.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

  • mikeybikey May 5, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Spoiler alert: PBOT will capitulate and maybe even faster than they did for giving up the buffered bike lane in favor of keeping on street parking for a bar. Another weak link in the 20s bikeway-to-nowhere.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Actually, the current design eliminates those spaces. PBOT has not bent on that one (last I heard).

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    Terry D-M
    No, I presented an argument about modernizing the roadway to current PROFESSIONALLY RECOGNIZED standards and that example of ONE accident as a ECONOMIC argument. Cost of Medical Visit versus Cost of re-striping….then i said “not to mention the physical and emotional costs.”
    Just like when traffic lights came out or crosswalks. It is as simple as that, a modernization of our traffic design standards. Woodstock is substandard and needs to be modernized, it is as simple as that.
    Recommended 0

    Your bit about the cost of one door-opening accident…that is the appeal to emotion. If you had presented data to support your assertion about the cost comparison you were attempting to make then you’d have an argument. Yours was a naked assertion about those costs, hence, all we’re left with is feeling bad for the bikers and angry at the bean counters. You may have a point supported by data, but you failed to make it.

    You may have a point about bike lanes being the equivalent of crosswalks and traffic lights, though, again you failed to make it. Simply asserting an equivalency is insufficient to establish that equivalency. Besides crosswalks and traffic signal control the intersection of traffic and people. That is functionally different than bike lanes that serve to separate modes of transit. So I am failing to see your argument here.

    Lastly, I am not sure what you intend to mean by saying it is as simple as modernizing traffic design standards. It seems to me that those standards already exist and that Portland has failed to keep up. This doesnt seem to be an issue of modernizing standards, is it?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Terry D-M May 5, 2015 at 12:55 pm

      We are failing to keep up because locals keep saying NO since they do not want to change ANYTHING that they are not used to. That is common psychology.

      I went to the professional NACTO training. It is about outreach. Bike lane striping for about a quarter miles with scrubbing, in this case, would cost about $20K at MOST. One emergency room visit with spinal injuries…what do you think THAT would cost?

      It is cases like this that have caused the PROFESSIONALS to say that door zone bike lanes are dangerous. Multiple studies have shown this. I do not know what your expertise is in, but usually professionals when they do not understated the engineering for something ask other professionals. In this case, the professional guidelines for a street of that width, speeds and volumes require a modernization of the roadway as this bike lane design is a generation outdated due to STUDIES that show why.

      Are you a traffic safety professional? I am not, but I listen to them. Just like I would listen to an engineer if I was adding an addition on my house or listen to the cardiologist if I had a heart attack. That is what professionals are for.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 2:27 pm

        You’ve misdiagnosed the problem. The problem is not the public saying no to any change. That’s because the “public” is not universally opposed to change. I think your anger at thoseyou disagree with is clouding your judgment.

        I have no idea what a specific visit to the hospital would cost. Apparently, neither do you, but that doesn’t stop you from asserting that x costs more than y. Deal with facts.

        Speaking of facts, I see yet another illogical argument – an appeal to authority. That “professionals” see a safety issue with the current lane design is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether that safety issue demands that the lane be changed in some way with a resultant impact on street parking. What you’re doing is attempting to argue that because “professionals” say “y” then we must do “x”. That just doesn’t fly. That’s intellectual base stealing.

        This is the equivalent of using a climatologists claim that the earth if warming as evidence that we must impose a new tax on carbon. Well, the climatologist is not a public policy expert, an economic expert, tax policy expert, etc.,so his opinion on tax policy quickly loses authority relative to his opinion on the climate.

        So, i dont disagree with the “professionals” about whether there’s a safety issue. I disagree with the comments here that say that the home owners must do x because of that safety issue.

        See the difference?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • 9watts May 5, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          The street historically has been many things: socializing space, play area, commons, route by which to get from A to B. For the past hundred years or so, however, most of these functions have atrophied to make way for cars: driven at speed & parked.
          In this case, a very small attempt is being made to wrest control of a strip of this street (not the main travel lanes for cars, mind you, but the edge) for others not in cars to use as a lane. The idea being that travel (by bike) on these few blocks that abut uncommonly large lots and houses trumps storage (of vehicles). What I’ve yet to see anywhere is a coherent argument by those who oppose this change: On what grounds they feel PBOT should not do it?

          Recommended Thumb up 9

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 3:50 pm

            “Wrest” control? As I noted above, notice how this issue is now about control by those who prefer an action related to bike lanes. Given how most of the posters here have expressed themselves, it is not surprising to see. It is refreshing, though, this little bit of accidental honesty.

            What I have observed at this website is that a majority of posters seek to impose their preference for less cars by demanding lane reductions to make way for bike lanes, housing and zoning restrictions to limit parking and thereby reduce driving, etc. It’s all about control in order to coerce others to conform to a carless future (or at least a future with far less miles driven) or to mock amd embarrass those who don’t share that vision for the future.

            You assert that you have not seen a “coherent” argument opposong this bike lane proposal. I’d suggest that you are intellectually incapable of recognizing such an argument. In other words, I don’t think you’d ever allow or accept an argument you disagree with to be “coherent”.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • 9watts May 6, 2015 at 3:59 pm

              “You assert that you have not seen a “coherent” argument opposong this bike lane proposal. I’d suggest that you are intellectually incapable of recognizing such an argument.”

              Hm. Still no argument.

              It is hard to discuss this in the absence of one from the opposition. Have you made one here? Have I missed it?

              Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Daniel Costantino May 5, 2015 at 3:33 pm

          It’s disingenuous of you to say that we don’t know what a hospital visit costs. As anybody who has been to a hospital in the last decade can tell you, even a relatively minor incident requiring only outpatient treatment (in my case, a broken wrist in 2009) can easily cost $20,000. That cost is born either privately or publicly, but it is definitely borne and easily quantifiable.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 3:56 pm

            Well, good thing I didnt say “we” dont know that cost, eh? Notice that what I actually said was that neither I or the other commenter know what that cost is.

            Since you believe that she ch a cost is knowable, well, present the data. Anecdotal evidence has very little value in a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. And, of course, thats what I am setting up here. The other commenter is attempting to compare costs without presenting any cost data. You have to see the problem there, right?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Daniel Costantino May 7, 2015 at 4:10 pm

              You win on logical rigor and fallacy deconstruction, but you do not convince. A single trip to the hospital easily comes to $20,000. I’m actually glad you don’t know that, of course, it’s not a pleasant thing to learn firsthand.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

  • davemess May 5, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    I think readers need to note something from this whole “situation”.
    Note that it is much easier (although can still be hard in many places) to get new bike facilities where none currently exist. And it is harder to ask for a bigger “slice of the pie”, expanding facilities for a minority of users where they already do exist.

    I know this website is obviously a little bubble, but I have a pretty good hunch that most of the Portland population feels this way, and might not be amenable to “improvements” of already existing infrastructure (much in the way many people get riled up on here at the thought of highway expansion, etc.).
    Not saying anyone is right or wrong. But you just might not want to so surprised when you find out that not everyone in the city has the same feelings and opinions you do.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 12:58 pm

      Silly idea:
      An oft cited reason for not using garages for automotive storage is that they have become storage units for other stuff. We’re Americans: we all have too much stuff.

      From a common law or “law on the books that never has been enforced” standpoint perhaps we (the taxpayers) need to consider the effective worth of the paved road versus the real cost of storage for people’s stuff.

      Can we fast track building code approval and pay building costs for property owners to build a little on site storage shed for their stuff so their vehicles can go in their garages and the public can reclaim the road?

      As ridiculous sounding as Utah just giving free housing to homeless people might seem it is cheaper all around when you attempt to provide other services that they are able to spend less in total.

      Could the COP save money by building people storage units on their properties on the express condition that on street parking is relinquished?

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 2:09 pm

        Why is that the only calculus here? Why is garage storage the only variable considered? We see a variety of reasons presented why local home owners don’t want to give up on the street parking. And surely there are other factors, too, as it appears that it’s notnonly homeowners utilizing thebon the street parking.

        You’ve unfairly reduced the calculus in order tosteer toward your preferred outcome.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Pete May 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm

          You mean like streets and intersections have been designed for decades to steer toward high speed automobile travel with few accommodations for other transportation modes?

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm

            No. I mean like the purpose of traffic control signals and cross walk signals serve a fundamentally different purpose than bike lanes.

            But you knew that because I was clear. Not sure why you engaged in that bit of dishonesty… It didnt add anything to the current discussion.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Pete May 7, 2015 at 8:30 am

              “We see a variety of reasons presented why local home owners don’t want to give up on the street parking.”

              It is not theirs to give up. See my previous comment on this – on-street parking on a public right-of-way is not a homeowner’s “property right”, which you seem to insist. Do they have input into the public process? Absolutely! Do I mind that some homeowners here disagree that on-street parking should not be sacrificed for safer bike travel here? Not at all, but it’s just their opinion, and they are entitled to that.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

        • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 2:27 pm

          Because I was addressing a singular point rather than digressing in to my usual style of dissertation.

          If you like we can have a long and tedious discussion of options, both pro and con, that lie outside the usual extremes of “do nothing” and “RRR! GOVERNMENT SMASH!”

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 3:58 pm

            Being a fan of dissertation, too, I appreciate that, lol…

            But you reduced the whole to a very narrow consideration and thats all I was observing.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Oregon Mamacita May 5, 2015 at 5:39 pm

          Jon M! You rock Mamacita’s world. Thanks for poking a hole in BP’s echo chamber.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Chris I May 6, 2015 at 9:23 pm

            Have fun riding that 4ft bike lane with your little kids.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 1:02 pm

      Precisely.

      I want, like most other riders, I suspect (and it’s only a suspicion), want the bike “lane” over the two Barbur bridges to be widened. I recall a thread within the last few months talking about this stretch and therein was also the bike mob ridiculing those who disagreed and preferred to have two traffic lanes in each direction. There are a variety of opinions and interests at stake in the se considerations, yet, like in most forums, we see the mob form, abandon reason, and appeal to the state to simply do for the sake of doing. This is corrosive to civil society and our political processes. Ironically, this want of exercising raw power is why so many dislike Obamacare or Obama’s redefinition of prosecutorial discretion relative to illegal immigration.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Granpa May 5, 2015 at 2:19 pm

        This is the internet. Your apparent mission to correct wrong thinking will end in frustration.

        Recommended Thumb up 11

        • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 2:30 pm

          Please define “wrong” and limit your descriptors to mathematical expressions that can apply simultaneously to all topics everywhere without being self-contradictory.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Granpa May 5, 2015 at 3:13 pm

            I continue to work on a unified field theory of opinions posted on the internet. Thus far I just can’t get it to pencil out.

            Recommended Thumb up 9

            • q`Tzal May 5, 2015 at 4:59 pm

              “Wrong” is such a nebulous and erratically moving target that it seemingly moves through at least 10 separate dimensions and may itself be part of a solution that unifies Gravity to the other fundamental forces.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 5:20 pm

        Jon, debate, rational or not, is the essence of our ‘political process’ and very little has been typed out here that does not pale in comparison to historic ‘discussions’ in the popular media of past times. And our ‘civil society’ is still here, thriving and growing, as it has for a couple hundred years.
        Rail on.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Dan May 5, 2015 at 5:42 pm

        Maybe it’s not a mob, Jon. Maybe it’s a majority.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Alex Reed May 5, 2015 at 1:16 pm

      Thanks for that point Dave. That’s context that I hadn’t realized and thought about.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • davemess May 5, 2015 at 2:56 pm

        Yes, I think that is one very KEY distinction between this and the 28th business district issue. One already has at least some kind of bike facilities and one doesn’t have any.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren May 5, 2015 at 2:26 pm

      PBOT has continuously expanded bike lane facilities without controversy. Miles of buffered bike lane have been added since PBOT made the 6+1-2′ bike lane a de facto default for re-striping of busier arterials (and conflict points).

      The only reason this road safety project has become controversial is due to loss of parking. Business and home owners who believe that they are entitled to free vehicle storage at tax payer expense are the primary impediment to bike infrastructure improvements in this city.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • davemess May 5, 2015 at 2:58 pm

        I’m having trouble thinking of any except for parts of Barbur and Williams. What others am I missing?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren May 5, 2015 at 4:10 pm

          off the top of my head: bhh, ne cully, ne wheeler, n williamette, se 101st, broadway ramp, hawthorne bridge. i’m missing a bunch of shorter stretches at conflict points too.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • davemess May 6, 2015 at 8:30 am

            Did any of these areas involve removal of parking though? I know some didn’t. I”m not sure about all of them though.
            THAT is where the conflict is coming from.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 3:00 pm

        Another poor argument that relies on attributing beliefs/perceptions on others in order to delegitimize opinions you disagree with.

        And, by the way, on street parking is not storage.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren May 5, 2015 at 3:17 pm

          can you explain how it’s possible to disagree about anything without attribution of a belief, perception, or opinion?

          Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:03 pm

            Yes. You argue the actual words someone has spoken and written rather than pretending to know the other person’s state of mind.

            Notice how many here automatically imputed a sense of “entitlement” to the homeowners they disagreed with rather than dealing with the actual reasoning of the homeowner? Some commenters actually did wrestle with the actual reasoning presented by the homeowners…notice I am not addressing those comments?

            You see, I can oppose gay marriage without hating gays or disagree with global warming activists who demand the imposition of new taxes without hating the environment.

            So, yeah, it is easy… Address the actual arguments presrnted and not ehat you pretend you think you know about the person’s values, principles, etc.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

          • soren May 6, 2015 at 10:10 am

            “Still, Stevenson said, “having the parking for the public is important.”

            “She said they never park cars in their garage.”

            “Krause said he ‘would like to see wider bike lanes,’ ‘I just don’t see it as having enough payoff to ban parking on the one side.’”

            “Still, Stevenson said, “having the parking for the public is important.”
            “He said it was based on objections from nearby residents about the lost street parking.”

            “Krause said he ‘would like to see wider bike lanes,’ ‘I just don’t see it as having enough payoff to ban parking on the one side.’”

            Entitlement (en·ti·tle·ment/inˈtīdlmənt,enˈtīdlmənt — noun): the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges (such as, on street parking).

            Recommended Thumb up 5

            • davemess May 6, 2015 at 12:43 pm

              Except these aren’t privileges.
              Privilege- special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

              This is a public street with public parking spaces. You or I are just as free as the local homeowners to park our cars there if we want to.
              I guess you could make the argument as car-people vs. bike-people, but I don’t think that works as well here.

              Semantics, but this discussion has gone a little off the rails.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Paul in the 'Couve May 6, 2015 at 3:44 pm

                I disagree Daveness. I see the word sense and logic of what you are trying to say but the circumstances don’t fit the conclusion. The privilege is that the space is “virtually” a private, reserved space in front of the house. That this is a common privilege that comes with owning a house in an outer neighborhood or suburb, doesn’t reduce the fact that it is “virtually” a privilege. As you pointed out, not technically, because any one may park there but 95% of the time no one does park there, other than the home owner or visitors and servants, and no one really wants to park there because there is ample parking everywhere that is closer to the desired destination.

                Another way to see it is that it is a neighborhood privilege, a privilege that goes along with residence there. The privilege that comes from being able to afford to live in a home on a large lot, in a neighborhood with predominately other homes on large lots, where you and everyone else has an ample drive way most have an ample garage as well. The Privilege to live in a neighborhood where there are 20 to 30 street parking spaces per block and only 10% utilization at peak daily usage.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

                • davemess May 6, 2015 at 5:22 pm

                  Except multiple posters above have pointed out how frequently these spaces are used for people at Reed.

                  Recommended Thumb up 1

                • Paul in the 'Couve May 7, 2015 at 8:31 am

                  I’ve seen statement that they are used, but from what I recall those comments said or implied that a *few* were used and that there were stretches of unused parking between cars. Is that true? Utilization like 30% or so as a guess? And I’ve seen other statements that the bulk of Reed traffic and parking demand is on the far side of campus.

                  Again, I stand by entitlement. These people don’t care that much about the parking except when they have a party, or it is a holiday, and even then it may not even be the # of spaces. It is the entitlement to the privilege of having ample parking for guests to park right in front of your house and not have to walk a block or two.

                  Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Pete May 5, 2015 at 4:06 pm

          That depends on whether the car is left there for 24 hours or more:
          http://www.portlandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=28591#cid_16049

          If so, it is no longer parking, but defined as storage by the City of Portland.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 4:15 pm

            Fair reply, though I gathered that what the commenter was saying was that since the homeowner chose to use their garage for storage and therefore had to park on the street, that the parking the car on thebstreet was a form of storage.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Pete May 6, 2015 at 11:41 am

              In that case, I’d agree with the commenter that the street then becomes storage for the car because the storage space designated for the car has now become storage for X. The city shouldn’t be paying for the homeowner to use his garage for storage. If he can’t fit the car in the driveway while using the garage for storage, the city’s not obliged to mitigate that with on-street parking.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Dan May 6, 2015 at 1:59 pm

                What if wants to put his car in the garage and put a shed on the road? That way he won’t have to scrape his windshield in the winter.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 5:21 pm

          Jon, how do you define ‘storage’?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 9watts May 7, 2015 at 10:25 am

          Jon M: “on street parking is not storage”

          Really?

          Would you also suggest that using a bicycle to get somewhere is not travel?

          Car-head: The notion that whatever someone in a car does is the normal, natural, unremarkable way to accomplish a given task; ever alternative is suspect, in direct proportion to how much it differs from the car-norm.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Jon M May 5, 2015 at 2:58 pm

    Allan
    This is the same argument against amazing facilities on N Willamette. Look how that project never got off the ground either! City- please have backbone and make amazing facilities. Don’t listen to neighbors’ concerns about parking if they already have off-street parking.
    Recommended 29

    Another great example of tyrannical behavior. This is not about having a backbone or not. Government does not exist as a tool for you to impose your wants/preferences.

    I wonder if you dislike the fact that there are people who oppose abortion because of their religious beliefs. Do you characterize abortion restrictions as an inappropriate imposition of religious belief? If so, then how you demand here that the government ignore residents you disagree with in order to get what you want/prefer?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • paikiala May 5, 2015 at 5:24 pm

      Jon,
      In your ideal form of government, how does anything get accomplished?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • soren May 5, 2015 at 5:25 pm
      • Dan May 5, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        Ah, yes, the tyrannical bicycle dictatorship that does whatever it wants.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I May 5, 2015 at 9:13 pm

      Do you even live in Portland?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala May 6, 2015 at 9:41 am

        That’s a stretch. I often get this question when people disagree with my points of view. It’s a free country, so, IMHO, the question should never be asked. It’s like a city employee going to a public meeting and being asked where they live in Portland. Why does it even matter?
        I don’t live in Portland.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Chris I May 6, 2015 at 11:47 am

          I think it is a good question for this Jon character, because he keeps spouting how the nearby neighbors should have a voice, and “democracy”. Someone that doesn’t pay property taxes in Portland does not have a voice in this discussion. I don’t tell people in Lake Oswego how to design their neighborhoods.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • paikiala May 6, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            Does where you live negate having an opinion on what is right or wrong?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Chris I May 6, 2015 at 2:35 pm

              It doesn’t negate your opinion, but it affects my consideration of your opinion when making decisions.

              In this case, I am curious if Jon M “has skin in the game” on this topic, or if he is just choosing to criticize people that are genuinely trying to make their city a healthier, safer place to live.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • paikiala May 7, 2015 at 12:07 pm

                So, as an analogy, the advice/opinion of the MAYO clinic to treat a disease you might have is less valuable because they’re in Minnesota?

                I don’t quite follow his arguments either (majorities can’t always be wrong just because they are majorities. after all, unanimous is a majority also), but he has a right to voice that opinion as much as you do to oppose it, regardless of where you live.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Dan M. May 8, 2015 at 12:20 pm

              If you don’t live in Portland and complain about what PBOT does, you are at the very least wasting your time on a fight that has no impact on your life.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

    • gutterbunnybikes May 6, 2015 at 6:22 am

      So one now has to ask, what you think of the “tyranny of logic and semantics?”

      Very little that humans do ever comes from a place of pure logic, which you seem to demand. If it did, the houses, the roads, the city, this country, and world wouldn’t be recognizable from where it actually is today. And that wouldn’t necessarily be one that is better. I know too, I’m one of those that argue against helmet while using a bicycle because their use isn’t logical. On every point, they don’t make sense (don’t start this is an example not another thread hijack), but for most the decision to wear one is based on emotions, and there is nothing wrong with that.

      Logical conclusions are most often the least human decisions. The list of decisions that people make on a purely logical context can be counted on both hands over a lifetime.

      And honestly Jon, I see little difference between your “belittling” of opinion of others sarcastic responses and your arguments of following the rules of logic. Then when backed into your own corner, resorts into “define what …. means”. A pretty childish and unwinnable argument, even when done by Presidents – which everyone knew was a farce then as well. And the semantics argument can and usually dissolves into puddle where basically nothing has any meaning. Which is entirely what it is supposed to do -nobody is right if everybody is wrong, but at least you get the points for being the one that brought it up.

      I’m sure you did well on high school or perhaps even college debate teams. But the vast majority of your arguments are just a slippery as those you undermine. How? Because you’re not presenting arguments, you’re merely changing the subject.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Dan M. May 8, 2015 at 12:13 pm

      This is a public road, not a pregnant woman’s body. You make terrible arguments that are so off point they don’t even work as symbolic comparisons.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Mark May 5, 2015 at 6:45 pm

    Isn’t this a section of street where the parking was completely eliminated on one side to allow for two marked bike lanes? That seems reasonable to me.

    I think this may be the wrong fight.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • paikiala May 6, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      A couple of substandard (even when built) bike lanes.
      If we never upgraded to new standards, everyone would still be walking.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Paul in the 'Couve May 6, 2015 at 3:50 pm

      The expansion isn’t just random or because of the substandard lanes on this one stretch, it is part of a major initiative to build a continuous, safe, and usable 20’s Bikeway that would be both actually safe, and also perceived as safe and attractive to less bold riders.

      The real points is that this is one fairly short stretch where a pretty simple and inexpensive solution makes a significant improvement an 8-80 facility. And a few, people who pretty much have a lot of good things going for them are whining about a perceived hardship because they will lose the privilege they’ve become accustomed to taking for granted.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • davemess May 6, 2015 at 5:26 pm

        Would this truly be an 8-80 facility with just widened bike lanes (as the article insinuates the city wants the changes to be)?

        Outside of some serious buffering or raising the level, I just don’t know that a fairly busy arterial like this will ever be that comfortable for that whole crowd with a 6-8 foot bike lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Paul in the 'Couve May 7, 2015 at 8:34 am

          Do you disagree that a 6 foot bike lane with a buffer is a lot CLOSER to 8 to 80 than a substandard 4 ft. bike line? And on this street – as some have pointed out with speed of traffic, traffic volume, I think 6 foot buffered is probably pretty close to 8 to 80. If you come observe MacArthur Blvd. in Vancouver I do see families and kids riding in that buffered lane with 35mph traffic adjacent. And last Sunday I saw an octogenarian riding a 3 speed, wearing a suit and a fedora on his way to church. Will it get everyone out their right away, of course not.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex Reed May 7, 2015 at 9:25 am

          If the City added, at minimum, some flexible plastic stakes to the buffer, or ideally some planters (not sure if there are sufficiently narrow planters?), I think it would get close enough to 8-80 to be a reasonable compromise given current budget realities. I happened to be in Morgan Hill, CA – a suburb of San Jose – a month ago and saw a similar installation with flexible plastic stakes. There were multiple families riding there with young children on their own bikes. Albeit, in more of a “Main Street” type area with a slightly wider bike lane – but also with cars going through the bike lane to park. http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/1395/Complete-Streets-6-Month-Pilot-Project

          I agree that it doesn’t make me totally happy though. I assume improvements to the MUP/sidewalk on the west side of 28th, along with a robust crossing treatment, have been considered and eliminated for some reason?

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • JMak May 5, 2015 at 10:06 pm

    Wow, why are the mods here deleting my comments? There are at least 6 that were awaiting moderation and have been removed/disallowed. They did not contain personal attacks, bad language or otherwise. What’s going on?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) May 6, 2015 at 9:11 am

      Hi JMak,

      No. We are not deleting your comments. Just holding them back to read them before they publish. We just want to make sure they are constructive and supportive. Thanks for your contributions.

      Recommended Thumb up 2