Some cycling advocates and riders are frustrated that cycling is being overlooked in a multi-million dollar trail project.
As we reported last week, PP&R recently launched their Rose City Recreational Trail Project — a $4 million investment into trails that could circumnavigate and bisect Rose City Golf Course and Rose City Park. The design and alignment of the trails is still undecided, but a project manager shared at the April 25th launch meeting that up to 2.3 miles of new trails could be built on the 168 acres of land. “So that’s a really robust trail system and it would be an amazing asset,” said Parks Capital Project Manager Jonathan Fain.
“Amazing” and “robust” perhaps, but not if you were hoping to bike on the trails.
Much to the chagrin of some cycling advocates, PP&R’s online survey to gauge public feedback on the project doesn’t include cycling among the seven answers to a question that asked respondents to share the types of activities they’d be most likely to engage in on the new trail. Another question asks folks to list their top three priorities for the project. There are eight choices, including “dog walking,” “bird/nature watching,” even “sitting and resting.” But “bicycling” was nowhere to be found.
“Shared-use trails that are open to off-road cycling play a critical part in providing access to nature and safe cycling routes for kids,” said Lisa Olivares, executive director of the nonprofit Northwest Trail Alliance (NWTA), in a statement to BikePortland. Olivares called the exclusion of cycling from the PP&R survey a “huge disappointment.” NWTA has spent years trying to create more dirt trail opportunities for Portlanders so people can “Ride to their ride,” and avoid costly, toxic, expensive, hour-long car rides just to enjoy a trail.
But beyond, NWTA’s core members, having places in neighborhoods where people on bicycles can enjoy unpaved surfaces closer to nature than a typical bike lane, could be amazing additions to our urban landscape. Think about a mom or dad who wants to jog on these trails and have their little ones trailing along on their bikes. Why not create a trail system that explicitly allows that?
Creating unpaved cycling experiences in the city is why NWTA was a key partner in the development of Portland’s Off-Road Cycling Master Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2023. Notably, when council dedicated city funding to create the plan, then Mayor Charlie Hales intentionally put Bureau of Planning & Sustainability (BPS) — not PP&R — in charge. At the time, advocates who felt a historic anti-bike bias from PP&R, hailed the decision because they felt BPS would give off-road cycling the fair chance it has Rose City Recreational Trail Projectso often lacked.
That context is why advocates fear PP&R is up to old tricks and this $4 million investment in Rose City Park will once again leave them at the trailhead with nowhere to ride.
Even more troubling for NWTA and their allies is that the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan specifically recommends Rose City Golf Course as a site for bicycle trails. Page 91 of the plan states:
Recommendations
• Develop a natural surface loop trail for family-friendly cycling, walking, running and enjoyment of nature. Off-road cycling skill features (like rocks, logs, or skinny bridges) could be added along the sides. The loop trail could provide safe walking access along NE Tillamook and connect neighborhoods to the south of the golf course to Glenhaven Park. Creating a full loop may require on-street segments. Care should be taken to limit potential conflicts with the golf course. Metro’s Glendoveer Golf Course’s fitness trail could serve as a model.
and/or
A small bicycle park (about 5,000 to 10,000 sf). Bicycle parks have areas for family recreation and skill building. Given the continued use of the property as a golf course, the under-utilized slope between NE Sacramento Street and NE 72nd Drive on the northern edge of the property is the most suitable location for a bicycle park. Building a bicycle park or trail here will require coordination with the Rose City Golf Course and additional planning and community input.
At the public launch meeting for the Rose City Recreational Trail Project last month, PP&R Capital Project Manager Jonathan Fain was asked by a member of the public if bikes were going to be allowed on the new trails.
“My short answer is we’re not sure yet,” Fain responded. “We have heard from some people in the [advisory] committee that they would like that.” “The golf course staff is very reticent to have bikers on golf property,” he added. “But there again, that might be an opportunity to make better connections with 72nd and that bike lane. So we’re definitely looking into that.”
But if PP&R is open to the possibility of bike access and is “definitely” looking into it, why did Fain never mention bikes in his presentation at the launch meeting and why wouldn’t PP&R want to gauge interest in cycling in their survey?
We can often look to the source of the funding to find clues as to what types of uses should be planned for, and ultimately, allowed. This project’s $4 million budget is made up of $2 million from Parks System Development Charges and $2 million from Metro’s Local Share program, which distributes funds from their 2019 parks and nature bond measure. In section 6.4 of the Local Share Handbook, Metro states (emphases mine):
The bond measure includes a $40 million program to “create trails for walking and biking.”… Trail program funds are limited to projects already identified on Metro’s regional trails system plan map. These “regional” trails typically connect multiple cities, are wide, paved, and are designed with bicycles in mind… These include local in-park trails or any trails that offer people a way to experience nature close to home. Examples include a new bridge over a creek in a local natural area or a new mountain bike trail network within a local park… Local share-funded trails do not have restrictions on length, width, surface material or user type (such as bicyclists or pedestrians) as long as they are consistent with ADA guidance.
So we know Metro has no qualms about their money being used to fund bike trails.
That leaves PP&R on-the-hook to clarify why they’ve decided to not prioritize cycling in this project.
BikePortland asked PP&R Public Information Officer Mark Ross about the Off-Road Cycling Plan, why biking was not an option on the feedback survey, and why bike-accessible trails are not being considered in the design.
When it comes to the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan’s recommendations for cycling at this park, Ross pointed out that the the plan is merely “conceptual” and “does not create any City regulations or make a commitment to any recommended projects.” Projects recommended in the plan will require “site-specific planning… more detailed site analysis and design,” and so on, Ross shared, making it clear that city staff can whisk away plan recommendations at their whim.
Then Ross said “the City will not be excluding bikes” at Rose City Golf Course because PP&R worked with the transportation bureau on a recent project to improve safety on NE 72nd Lane. But I wasn’t asking about bikes being ridden through the golf course in general, I specifically asked about their inclusion in the trail project. I also never asked why bicycles were being “excluded,” — I’m simply curious to understand why PP&R chose to not prioritize them in the planning of this project.
Ross went on to explain that, “When this effort was discussed with the community it was presented as a walking trail; not a cycling or mixed-use path. While the survey does not specifically provide ‘biking’ as a preferred activity, there are ample open comment sections for folks to advocate for additional activities. This practice of listing prioritized options based on project opportunities and constraints, while leaving room for additional recommendations is aligned with our engagement practices.”
That might be acceptable practice at PP&R, but it sure seems fishy. And Ross still hasn’t answered my questions.
It’s also worth noting that PP&R presents this project to the public as if the grant they received from Metro to fund it requires them to make it a pedestrian-only trail. A slide (at right) shown at the launch meeting states: “Metro grant requirements: Provide Free to Use Pedestrian Trails.” But when asked for clarification, a Metro spokesperson said PP&R’s grant application didn’t ask for a biking trail, “So Metro did not fund a biking trail.” “If PP&R wanted to add a bike trail to this local share project, it is eligible,” said Metro Media Relations Lead Nick Christensen.
The concern I’m hearing from some advocates is that leaving cycling out of the initial framing was baked-into the planning assumptions from the very beginning — and they know from experience that that decision could have a big impact on what ultimately gets built. I’ve asked Ross to clarify PP&R’s decision making around how they chose to frame the project to the community and what specific “project opportunities and constraints” were in play that led to bicycling not playing a more prominent role in the launch of the project.
While Ross hasn’t answered those questions yet, he did say PP&R would include a member of NW Trail Alliance on the project’s advisory committee. And Olivares with NWTA will likely take him up on that offer.
“While it’s a huge disappointment to see bicycling completely left out as one of the recreational/transportation options in the community survey,” Olivares shared with BikePortland. “We look forward to working with our Parks partners to ensure the groundwork the City laid out by including this site in the ORCMP is brought to life.”
— The Rose City Recreational Trail Project survey is open through May 23rd.
Not sure of the details on why cyclists have been excluded on this project but IMO if local transportation advocacy groups (Oregon Walks, The Street Trust, Bike Loud, Bikebus, etc) were more inclusive and less ideologically extreme cycling would get more support from government entities such as PBOT and ODOT. I love cycling but the actions of these groups rub me the wrong way. I imagine many in PBOT, ODOT and the community at large feel the same way.
How would you say they’re ideologically extreme?
Just one example is that Bike Loud, Oregon Walks and The Street Trust signed onto a letter demanding less police and a closure of ALL Portland arterials to vehicles to protect the homeless. This is an absurd non-starter and shows the extreme ideology of the local transportation advocates. Unfortunately this type of behavior creates more enemies than partners.
https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Response-to-Emergency-Declaration-on-sweeping-camps-FINAL.pdf
Nick, if you’re interested here’s a bikeportland post from March 2023 on The Street Trust. If you look at the comment section you will see there are a number of comments opining that The Street Trust is not/is no longer a beneficial organization.
https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/10/how-the-street-trust-thinks-oregon-should-tackle-epidemic-of-pedestrian-traffic-deaths-371253
Back in the day, the BTA (the progenitor to TST) took tough positions and got results. TST takes ridiculous positions and gets no results. Their mission seems to be primarily to provide their director a way to inject herself into local and state politics with no discernable effect.
I’m glad they changed their name because it gives me, a visible bicyclist, some distance from their embarrassing demands.
I will say that in general, the cycling culture in Portland is very divisive – I don’t know how many times I have read comments here and other places where “utilitarian” (for lack of a better word) cyclists cut off/treat recreational cyclists and projects with disdain. If you are aware of them picking on people saying “avid cyclist”, you should look it up. It just serves to further divide the community and it slows down progress on all fronts in my opinion. I wish it would get talked about more tbh, we are missing out on a lot of money both from parks funding, tourism, and building a critical mass where more infrastructure in general can get funding. People sure do seem to love their clique’s and kind of miss the big picture imo.
This is an off-road cycling issue and it really has zero to do with any of those groups. And FWIW NW Trail Alliance, the group who this does have something to do with is about as mainstream as apple pie as evidenced by their excellent working relationships with every major land and parks agency in the state and their amazingly successful work on Gateway Green.
But these groups can and should be advocating for all forms of cycling should they not? To say they can’t use their influence to advocate for off road bike trails in Portland seems very limiting. Glad to hear NW Trail Alliance is a more inclusive/coalition building organization. In my opinion that will give a them a better chance of reaching their goals versus the more oppositional approach of these other groups.
Nonprofits can decide to advocate however they want. It’s not for you or me to decide. If you want to influence them, volunteer and become a member or join their board.
But why would someone want to join a group with what many of the community consider to be very extreme positions (such as closing all Portland arterials to vehicles)? The chance of influencing that type of belief system from within seems low. These groups would have to “chill out” a bit before I would consider joining them (again). I actually was a member of Bicycle Transportation Alliance (precursor to The Street Trust) but they just got too “nuts” for me personally to stay a member.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/08/10/bta-members-support-changing-orga-name-to-the-street-trust-189172
One of the “joys” of running a nonprofit is you discover there’s so many kinds of ways of doing it. Some are membership-based, dependent of recruitment for their existence. But many operate through direct and in-kind grants, and some go where the money is (mission creep) rather than where their supporters think they ought to go.
Give some thought (and study) to a segment of the trailway that would connect bike routes on both sides. Other segments of the trailway could be more dedicated to walking and wheel chair mobility devices. Certainly their should be signage that state “Bikes and Scooters must pass pedestrians at a Walking Speed.”
How about signs saying “Pedestrians may use full lane” and a requirement that bikes pass with sufficient clearance that there would be no contact if a walker tipped over into the bike’s path.
Ah yes, the known ideological extremists behind the local Bike Bus movement with their divisive demand that children should be allowed to cycle to school safely.
I get that. My issue is with Sam Balto who like Sarah Ianarone is against banning homeless camps on school routes. I can sort of see why as he leads bike buses in the leafy and camper free parts of Portland. It’s not the same in my neck of the woods where there are some truly frightening homeless camps on my kid’s school route. They now can’t walk alone, they need to be accompanied by an adult And frankly we now often drive.
Economically-comfortable progressives hate it when poor people live in their neighborhoods because it rubs salt in the festering wounds of their economic hypocrisy. Moreover, city government decision makers are predominantly economically-comfortable progressives so they also go out of their way to eliminate this cognitive dissonance by violently evicting houseless people from inner-city twee neighborhoods. If inner-city progressives were truly as empathetic as they pretend to be, they would be lobbying the city to designate their neighborhoods safe zones for people camping in public areas. As a dirty renter with no roots in the community and no skin in the game, I would love to see my twee neighborhood be designated a safe zone!
Why would anyone concerned with humanitarian issues want people sleeping on the streets in their neighborhood or any other? That people would champion that solution while simultaneously considering themselves “progressive” baffles the mind.
Fixed it for you:
That people would [tolerate violent eviction in progressive neighborhoods]
thatsolutionwhile simultaneously considering themselves “progressive” baffles the mind.My point was obviously not that this is a good thing, strawperson Watts, but rather that if progressives really cared about houselessness they would not tolerate the violent evictions that disproportionately force houseless people to live in less wealthy (and progressive) and less well-resourced neighborhoods.
.
Until we start treating housing as a fundamental human right, there will be people camping in public spaces. Forcing houseless people to move away from very well-resourced inner city neighborhoods to less-resourced neighborhoods does nothing to lessen the number of people camping but does reduce their access to resources that can lead to some being housed.
I think we agree that if a person has nowhere to go, they have to sleep somewhere, but “somewhere” is not the same as “anywhere”, especially if they have an offer of more suitable shelter and have been given a lawful order to go elsewhere.
I could probably be persuaded that, on some level, housing is a human right, but I will probably never agree that we all have the right to our choice of housing arrangements and location, unconditioned on behavior, paid for by someone else.
One of the things that seems to have united a fractured Portland (including a large number of progressives) is a recognition that unlimited camping on the streets and in parks and natural areas has proven untenable. We probably all recognize that we have to do something different than we have been, and I strongly suspect Portland is going to elect a city council dedicated to doing just that.
It’s not a solution – nobody considers it a solution, it’s an acknowledgement of reality instead of living in denial of the problem. People without a home need to sleep somewhere and we don’t have enough places for them to do that.
There are plenty of places to sleep in public. The reality is that some should be considered acceptable and others should not. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, you need to recognize that the majority of people draw the line at playgrounds and safe routes to school.
Agreed, but while we don’t have enough places for everyone, we do have places for some folks, and I believe they will soon be required to accept a place when it is offered.
I hope Multnomah County will stop sitting on their hands and create more places for people to sleep. They have the money, just not the ability and/or will, and don’t exhibit much urgency to help get people off the street.
We just don’t want our kids to have to walk into traffic to go around a camp on a public sidewalk. We don’t want wheelchair users having to go into the street. We don’t want our kids threatened by mentally ill drug addicts. I don’t care if they are moved violently or non-violently. We need our safe routes to school clear.
The Bike Bus guy might be able to hold that position because it’s easy to go around things in the street. Having a sidewalk fully blocked next to a busy road (something that I’ve encountered many times while walking my kids to school) is a different situation.
Just as Parks doesn’t design basketball courts next to tot lots, sedate/passive recreation does not fit well with dynamic recreation. Bikes means e-bikes and once the nose of that camel is in the tent, road warriors on their one-wheels will be repurposing the space for their very dynamic form of recreation. Clearly Parks have designated trails adjacent to the golf course as sedate/passive.
Of course, Like at Riverbend,nature park, cycling advocates will disregard limitations and do whatever they want.
I present to you: a basketball court (green roof with skylights) next to a tot lot (playground to the south): https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5466891,-122.6416027,126m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
24th and Klickitat
That is a Catholic Church, not a city park and the play structure is across a wide concrete path from the court and is used by the church preschool kids not the general public as a rule.
Not exactly a gotcha comparison.
We have basketball courts literally in the same park as kids play areas. They’re right next to each other. What is the supposed problem with that?
Are you mistaking me for someone else?
I never said anything of the kind. I just pointed out this was not a city park.
You just enjoy starting arguments.
I did think you were Granpa. But since you were defending his point, I don’t think it really matters. I don’t see what his concern is with basketball courts other than what he learned from the Fresh Prince intro, and I didn’t start any argument on it.
I did not defend his point, I clarified the location.
I am sure you have nice parks on the Alameda ridge.
Such a man of the people….
Trying to guess where I live? It’s not there. But I can say almost every playground I’ve visited all over town has basketball courts nearby. That is all this is about, not whatever it is you’re trying to say.
I overlook a multi-use park path from my window, and have been on it at least twice per day for years. It’s shared with virtually no problems with every type of trail user imaginable–people walking, running, biking, groups of competitive runners doing sprint interval training (hardly “sedate/passive”!), old people with walkers, people in wheelchairs, prone bikers, kids learning to ride bikes and trikes and scooters, babies in strollers, toddlers learning how to walk, dogs, people on e-bikes and e-scooters, Parks maintenance staff driving pickup trucks, occasional groups of dozens to thousands of bikes on group rides, occasional walks and runs with hundreds to thousands of people…
It was designed that way on purpose by Parks. There are similar trails all over the city, and the world. They work fine.
I don’t buy that. The golf course is surrounded by roadways. The sound of cars lacking mufflers, let alone any car, will drown out any bicycle rider. This is a proposed loop trail on the edge of the golf course.
The 3 wheel patent Mercedes moto car, if allowed to thrive on our horse and bike paths, will make way for daily F1 racing on overly smooth asphalt. There are designated places for these jay drivers, and this dynamic recreation racing, safely outside of populated areas. Clearly, the city has designated our horse and bike paths as sedate/passive.
And look… your apocryphal laments turned out to be prescient! (Ignoring the fact that horse carts as sedate/passive, or even non-polluting, is completely ahistorical.)
Wrong. On so many levels
First, mountain biking is considered passive use, just like hiking, etc. Portland Parks adopted the MN DNR 2007 trail guidelines as part of the ORCMP and guess what, that guideline is explicit in placing hiking uses and mountain biking uses on sustainable trails as the same impact type. (Spoiler alert, the EPA agrees and has since 2009.)
Second, sustainable trails (shared hiker/biker) are the norm all over the country (outside of Portland) and work just fine in any number locations with higher functioning adjacent lands. A great example are the trails at Theodore-Wirth Park in Minneapolis, directly adjacent to a golf course and archery range (to be clear, the archery targets are pointed away from the trails). One of my favorite examples of a single-loop sustainable trails to mountain bike goes past a basketball court, a pickleball court, a pollinator specific restored preserve, an older person’s apartment building decks/porches, uses a small section of a regional trail, and literally exits/enters adjacent to the playground. It’s fine.
Third, e-MTBs are different from e-bikes used on roads. I’m not a fan of e-MTBs and if you use one and don’t have a physical diminishment, I’m not sure which circle of Hell you are going to, but Jeffery Epstein and Klaus Barbie are going to be in your dorm. That being said, having had years of trail use sharing with hikers and e-MTBs, everyone gets along without issues. Yes, my trails have adopted things like directionality and User Management Techniques, which is something the ORCMP didn’t contain strictures for. But those are things NWTA could push for on future trails. As to One-Wheels, they can’t do rougher trails, so just let the trails age in and they can’t use them. Again, as person who uses trails all the time, everyone gets along just fine.
Lastly, there is suggestion implicit in your comments I want to tease out. Are you suggesting that people of Portland are somehow unable to do what other people, in other cities (including those you would likely think of as “less refined”) have been able to do? Are the parks managers, the users, the neighbors in, say Duluth, all better people than those in Portland because they have placed trails open to hikers & mountain bikers in all their public natural areas? What about Atlanta? Dubuque? Kansas City? Dayton? Are all these people that much smarter, kinder, or somehow more special than those in Portland? Or is it that parks managers, users, and neighbors in Portland are just unwilling to listen and learn how others have done something successfully?
COTW!
First, I am assuming you mean River View Natural Area. I mean, the mountain bikers were unduly kicked out of there and it was ridiculous. Do you remember what happened at all? They had been partnering with the city for years and then they got kicked out without any explanation. The “science” presented at the meetings was not backed by anything and in the hallways all the neighbors didn’t seem to care about the environment, they just cared about parking.
For one, I am personally against abiding by the rules of parks and think we need mountain biking in Portland. It’s completely ridiculous we have so little of it close to the city given the amount of people participating.
For reference: https://bikeportland.org/2015/03/11/hundreds-attend-freedom-ride-protest-river-view-bike-ban-135403
Hi Granpa, are you saying that bike paths should exclude e-bikes? Seriously unclear here on your meaning. I’m new to PDX biking culture and am a 65yo man getting (back) into shape, and loving my e-bike commute from Roseway (I live near the golf course) to downtown. Yet I occasionally get shade thrown from “serious” cyclists, one guy even took the trouble to confront me in my own yard to inform me that I should get a “real” bike … my bike was parked in my yard at the time. I’m trying to understand the controversy before I start getting defensive. Am I categorically offensive for riding an e-bike? Am I being lumped in with other types of e-bikes and/or e-bike riders? I keep to the right, never ride over 15 mph and much of the time slower, watch behind me for those I may be blocking, and give pedestrians wide berth.
The funny thing is, for a city that is struggling, quickly adopting mountain biking could be game changing for Portland. Admittedly yes, cost is an issue so feel free to make the equity argument. Portland Parks also seems to think that golf and racecar tracks are items that the public should subsidize, keep that in mind.
Back on topic, with NICA racing becoming more and more popular, Portland is seriously hitting its own kneecaps with a hammer by making riders travel out of town. Mountain bikes are maintenance intensive, more so than road/gravel/commute, and developing a community around racing means that people who are tight on time drop their bikes at a shop. Furthermore if people are driving to Hood River to ride, they’re probably gonna stop in Hood River to get a bite or fill up their car when it hits empty. You have to create the community that you want, and for some reason, Portland is super into creating a community focused on nimbyism towards using a bike off road. Bellingham and heck even Issaquah are close examples of local trails in a wet place. I grew up in a tiny conservative town and even their city council has realized the benefits of having a 10-15 mile trail system and a partnership with the local mtb advocacy group to build/maintain trails. And perhaps that is my main takeaway…. Portland is just simply too politically tightly wound to performative action and us vs them mentality that there will never be a real conversation on mountain biking in the city. I truly hope I am wrong, but, from a point of view that’s been taking a break from PDX enjoying trails daily…. It’s time to move on.
Props to the people haggling the city/county (nwta), I truly hope that somewhere somehow a partnered relationship can be nurtured with CoP or Metro.
Imagine what could be if Rose City Golf Course were deleted and Rose City Park took its place. There would be ample room for walking-only paths, off-road mountain bike paths, a bike park, skate park, an outdoor amphitheater, playgrounds, and lots of space for residents, flora, and fauna alike. It’s sad that it feels like there’s just fighting over the scraps. Very reminiscent of how discussions around street design tend to center on arguing over whether a fraction of space should be allocated to bikes, pedestrians, or transit, while 99% of the space is given to cars.
In case it’s not obvious I think golf courses are dumb.
Golf courses provide natural habitat for birdies and eagles.
A nature park with hiking trails instead of water-intensive, chemical-laden mono-culture would be a significantly better habitat.
Given the number of users, it’s hard to justify the amount of space and the public subsidy we devote to public golf courses.
Lol, you missed the joke. “Birdie” and “Eagle” are golf terminology.
That would require me knowing even the bare minimum about that “sport”.
lol nice joke.
But seriously golf courses in the city tells me the the city doesn’t care about the people in the community. Kills me every time I see the SE Bybee Blvd MAX station I say that as someone who actually likes the sport too. Keep them out of cities!
I wonder, will the resulting project be ADA?
So you asked Parks why biking wasn’t included as a potential use of the trails, and the reply was:
It’s frustrating that Parks doesn’t understand that that’s not answering the question, it’s confirming why you asked it!
Also frustrating is that I’ve been involved in several previous projects with Parks where they’ve similarly, arbitrarily limited the project before it’s even off the ground. The result is that the project becomes a messy fight ending in a compromised project.
Sorry to post multiple comments, BUT….
I just read your summary of the Metro bond measure where you quoted the purpose of the program: to “create trails for walking and biking”.
That struck me as weird since I had in my mind that I’d read something yesterday from Parks that the program was only for “pedestrian trails”. So I went through my browsing history and found it–in the Parks public presentation slides:
https://www.portland.gov/parks/documents/rose-city-park-recreation-trail-project-community-meeting-1-slides/download
On page 9: “METRO GRANT REQUIREMENTS..2. Provide Free to Use Pedestrian Trails”.
Parks cut “…and biking” from the description. That looks like a direct lie from Parks to the public about how Metro’s funds can be spent. I’d like to hear Mark Ross’ response to that. (By the way, I respect him and also don’t like that Parks put him in a position to have to deal with this.)
Hear hear!!!
Great reporting! Thanks to Maus and NWTA both for working on this.
I guess bird watchers outnumber cyclists in this city? It’s interesting how openly hostile people in this city are to the idea of offroad cycling.
They might. I’m not much of a mountain biker, but it seems plausible that a golf course does not provide the most exciting terrain for that activity. Would people actually seek out unpaved cycling trails there?
There exists a continuum of mountain bike and dirt riding skill, intensity, and interest. This is just as it is for paved cycling, hiking, skiing, kayaking, rock climbing, etc. If the City creates opportunities for legal natural surface bike riding, people will definitely seek it out!
This is especially true of riders who live in the neighborhood. I used to live near unpaved alleyways in southeast, and I rode them all the time. They weren’t steep or technical at all, and I rode them on whatever bike I happened to have between my legs.
Honestly, I think the main use of any new trails in this park would be roadies, commuters, and kids with department store bikes, who dip into the park for fun riding, as part of a longer trip.
Just as it would be with hiking- most people would “hike” these trails, by walking from their house to the trail, enjoying the natural space, and then walking home. I don’t expect we’d see the Mazamas carpooling to the golf course for training hikes.
Occasionally in these uniquely Portland debates one will see the argument that a certain area just isn’t mountainous enough for “mountain bike” trails.
I think most people outside the sport of mountain biking get caught up in the term “mountain biking,” and have only seen images of strong riders on steep, technical terrain, but of course, people mountain bike and gravel ride on simple, flat terrain all the time. How else would people learn how to ride off of paved surfaces? What about opportunities for kids?
If I sound frustrated, it’s because these access debates are often won by anti-bike pincer arguments, in which bikes an area is declared too small to be of value to “mountain bikers,” at the same time any legal bike use of a larger trail is argued to have too much environmental impact.
In effect, we can’t have natural surface trails in residential neighborhood parks (“it’s too small; there are too many people; there aren’t any mountains”), OR natural surface trails in larger, wilder parks (“it’s a precious natural gem, and bikes destroy the environment”).
It’s my least favorite Catch-22.
The ORCMP was masterful in pointing out the value of a continuum of trails for riding, from short perimeter trails in neighborhood parks, to designated skills areas, to longer, wilder trails in larger parks.
I feel like the term off road cycling gets over thought here. People already ride bikes on these trails. Mostly on non mountain bikes.
They are just fun little diversions from the streets. An area to pass through that is tranquil and maybe a little bit challenging if you’ve got smaller tires. You know, enjoying a nature path but on wheels.
Exactly. I regularly see people (kids and adults) riding along the paved path near me, then all of a sudden gleefully veer off into the trees or across the grass for 10 or 100 yards, then swoop back to the paved path and look serious again. It’s fun! I bet lots of people near this golf course would appreciate a place to ride (or let their kids ride) a bit off the pavement.
It wasn’t that long ago every neighborhood had a vacant lot or un-manicured playground where kids could ride off pavement. Ironically, it sounds like that’s what some of these trails are now, but Parks is proposing the equivalent of building a house on the vacant lot and removing yet one more of the few remaining places where people can ride off pavement.
Jonathan, I guess my first post was somewhat off topic. I went to the Broadway Corridor page because it’s on the Green Loop bikeway and I do not support the proposed elevated portion from the most northern Park Block to the Broadway Bridge (near my apartment), nor the (off topic) building height allowance raised from 30 to 40 stories that PBA & PDC “unquestionably” support. I walked through a few blocks of SW 4th recently and couldn’t picture in my mind how the bike lane there would work. I need to see a detailed aerial view map of the entire 4th Ave project to get a better idea of how many parking spots are retained, how the bus lane works, etc. I’ll check back to see if this comment is retained, but if my (reasonable) comments are automatically deleted, that would be disappointing.
Hi Art,
You can see an animated flyover of the plans for SW 4th on PBOT’s website. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ezSnPTQCI
I use this trail weekly now and will continue to use it weekly going forward. poaching or not
What else to expect from Portland Parks & Recreation? There is no trail at the Red Tail golf course property that they own between SW Oleson Road and SW Scholls Ferry Road. Even Lake Oswego, Oregon has a park not far from the Tualatin River with mountain bike access.
This response by Mark Ross bothers me:
The survey has a dozen questions about the trails, and it DOES have several boxes for write-in comments, EXCEPT for the questions where “biking” would be an answer–such as the questions about what activity you’ll engage in, and what are your priorities. (There are some other questions without write-in boxes, but they’re essentially ones where it’s really unlikely the listed responses wouldn’t cover every situation, such as how often you use the trails.
So while open comment sections are generously provided, plus one box (#13) at the end for “anything else”, they’re specifically absent from the questions “for folks to advocate for additional activities”.
So Parks not only didn’t list “biking” as a use option, they even wrote the survey to discourage writing it in.
This bureaucrat-speak isn’t much better:
Biking IS an opportunity, and I don’t see any constraints against considering it, so omitting it is NOT “aligned with (Parks’) engagement practices”.
Yeah- one of the first questions had a list of specific ways you use the park; riding a bike was excluded, and there was no comment box to add it. I almost chose the wheeled mobility device, until I realized that they probably mean wheelchairs. There were other comment boxes that allowed me to plug cycling, but cycling is clearly orthogonal to the intended spread of options.
$4M for a walking path? When I lived in another state, I worked with other volunteers to build miles of trails without any government support. Sure, this path takes a lot of planning & public interaction, and it will be wider than a simple hiking trail and will have some sort of imported surface. But $4M seems way too much for 2.3 miles of unpaved trail.
i don’t know the full scope mark, but I assume the cost reflects the ridge and other topographical/soil stabilization issues?
Couldn’t agree more. My understanding is the project team expects to spend about $3 million on overhead, $1 million on construction. 2-3 years of salaries for the project team, a big slug to consultants, and voila, you get much less than what you paid for. It’s maddening. It’s also–so I’ve been told–a result of layer upon layer of regulations. Each one probably has a good reason for existing, but, in aggregate, they make this kind of work extremely expensive and slow.
I think if bike advocates teamed up with neighborhood folks and struck a deal by which PP&R would build a bike path through the golf course (or ideally two, one at the east edge and one closer to 72nd Drive), and in exchange 72nd Drive would become a two-way street for traffic again, that would make for a pretty strong coalition of different interests.
Slightly off topic to Rose City Park, but very on topic for trails in general: does anyone have any idea why Kelly Butte is so under-utilized/developed as an east side green space?
Great question! I know NWTA is quietly looking into buffing up Kelly Butte but am unsure of timelines.
Imagine a robust, directional, multi-use trail network on Kelly, connected to Powell Butte, Mt. Scott, etc.
We can dream!
This would be an awesome addition to all-road riding routes on Alameda Ridge, Rocky Butte, and Tabor. It would not negatively impact walkers/runners whatsoever. We should have as many connector paths through the city in natural areas as possible whether you’re on your commuter, gravel, or mountain bike.