Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org)

Go Back   Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org) > General Discussion > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2012, 12:05 PM
maxadders maxadders is offline
Site Admin
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 44
Default N Lombard Trail / MUP: Do you use it?

I was riding up on N Lombard up by the Port the other day, just south of Kelley Point. Hadn't been out there since they'd finished the MUP on the east side of the street. While I like the bridge over the slough where N Marine turns into N Lombard, the path beyond is a little tough to ride-- constantly banging on my wrists with each pavement gap. Mind you I'm not on some lightweight race machine, but a 30lb touring bike with 28c tires and it still bugged me.

Since it was Sunday and truck traffic (nay, ALL traffic) was light, I hopped out into the road and just took the lane. A few moments later a semi passed going the opposite direction and the dude actually leaned out his cab, honked his horn, pointed at the path and shouted something I couldn't understand at me. What the hell was his problem? I wasn't in his way; there was practically no traffic, but he felt compelled to give me a hard time about presumably not using the MUP.

...the path that is not only uncomfortable to ride but also forces me to cross directly in front of every vehicular entrance and exit on the street. Hell, it was even partially blocked by a landscaper's truck at one point. The whole thing is just poorly designed. Seems like the drivers would prefer bikes in the road to bikes essentially darting out from the path / sidewalk. Sigh....
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 03:30 PM
biciclero's Avatar
biciclero biciclero is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 239
Angry But it's SEP-ar-ated...

Another prime example of the kind of "separated infrastructure" we DON'T need. Granted, I live nowhere near here so what do I care, but from your description it sounds like the typical sub-par "bike path" (MUP) that serves to keep you "safely" away from motor traffic while at the same time making your ride slower, less comfortable, AND more dangerous! With the added bonus that it makes drivers (even those you are not currently impacting) mad at you if you don't use it! What a win-win!

This kind of thing really puts (or should put) cycling advocates in a tough position: is this kind of terrible MUP what we should be advocating for? If not, does that mean we should advocate for something better? If so, who is paying for stuff like this and are they willing to pay more for "better" (whatever that means)? If there is "no money" for anything better, then should we oppose this kind of MUP (at the risk of being labeled a VC Zealot)? If so, then does opposition actually prevent things like this from being built? Should we just be thankful that somebody built something, regardless of how bad it is? Are cyclists required to use this path now under ORS 814.420, or do the many driveway crossings and excessively jarring gaps in the pavement constitute a "hazard" that can be legally avoided?

I can't stand it.
Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! --Napoleon Dynamite
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2012, 03:36 PM
phdbd phdbd is offline
Site Admin
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 64
Default N. Lombard Trail.

I never use the path, but I don't often go north on Lombard. I see lots of riders on the road heading that way though. I think I used the MUP east of Kelly Point once a few years ago, and got so annoyed by the stop signs that was the last time.

I can't see a situation where I would use it. On heavy traffic days your likelihood of being hit from behind on the road seem less than your chance of being t-boned by a freight vehicle coming out of a loading dock.

The road needs a bikelane. I agree that the (new) facility is substandard. Is there a legal requirement for cyclists to use it?

As an aside, like riding in most of Portland, I get lots of consideration from traffic out there, so the odd crank really stands out.
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2012, 08:01 AM
Alan Alan is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 511
Default Mandatory Sidepath Laws / ORS 814.420

Originally Posted by phdbd View Post
The road needs a bikelane. I agree that the (new) facility is substandard. Is there a legal requirement for cyclists to use it?
Maybe. It depends on what the rider did, how the cop wrote it up, whether the rider hired a lawyer and went to court, how the prosecutor and defense presented their cases and ultimately on the judge's interpretation. ORS 814.420

There's been discussion of mandatory sidepath laws in a couple threads on BikePortland front page, recently. I don't understand the advantages, benefits, need for, social value (etc.) of such a law...what's good about it? What problem does it address? Is it effective at fixing such problems?

I'd also be interested in 814.420's history...when was it passed? Who proposed and pushed for it? What was their motive?
Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2012, 06:02 PM
maxadders maxadders is offline
Site Admin
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 44

here's a link to the path:


It ends by spitting cyclist back into a regular old bike lane right before joining with Rivergate. just a mile or maybe less? I don't know. I've ridden it before on a weekday afternoon when there was a ton of truck traffic and the shoulder was a little unpleasant to ride. But I'd still prefer it to worrying about driveway traffic.
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 PM.

A production of Pedaltown Media Inc. / BikePortland.org
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.