Buses and bicycles are both forms of “alternative” transportation, but that’s about the extent of what we have in common. There is an uneasy truce between us on the streets and our tenuous relationship tends to ebb and flow between cooperation and complaints.
The size difference of our vehicles combined with the need for us to share the same space on the road, is a recipe for frustration and stress on both sides.
Back in February, I received a comment from someone who claimed to be a TriMet bus operator. The first line read, “Why do I hate bikes, by a TriMet driver.”
I was intrigued, so I sent off an email, and a few weeks later we met for coffee. It was an enlightening experience. In order to protect his job, the driver asked to remain anonymous. For the purposes of this story, I will refer to him/her as Paul (not his/her real name).
I could tell from the outset that Paul was concerned about the issue, both as a bus driver and an occasional cyclist. He sincerely wants to improve safety and he knows first-hand many parts of the equation I never even considered; like the pressure TriMet feels from the powerful Transit Union, the stress cyclists cause drivers, and the high standards of TriMet’s accident investigation policies.
“There’s one thing that keeps me on the road, it’s my commercial driver’s license. That license is my ticket to live. If I’m in an accident, even if it’s not my fault, I could lose that license.”
“Preventable Accidents” and the Bullpen
According to an informal poll among his co-workers in the “bullpen” (the driver lounge at the station), Paul said that 8 out of 10 of them ranked cyclists as their main cause of stress.
Paul insists that it’s not that drivers dislike bicyclists, but that it stems primarily from a strict TriMet policy that scrutinizes each and every accident and doles out career-threatening PAs, or Preventable Accidents.
Pauls says that for every accident that happens in or around a TriMet bus, TriMet convenes a panel of drivers and managers to assess the incident. They analyze all the details and if they conclude it was “preventable” in any way, the driver is given a PA.
He also said some drivers have been fired for getting just one PA, even with no tickets on their record.
“There’s one thing that keeps me on the road, it’s my commercial driver’s license. That license is my ticket to live. If I’m in an accident, even if it’s not my fault, I could lose that license. TriMet’s additional standard makes it very stressful. No one wants a PA. These PA standards are too strict. You can be 100% legal, doing everything humanly possible to avoid accidents, and still get fired if they find one detail they deem ‘preventable.’ If there was only the legal minimum, TriMet would run out of buses.”
According to Paul, this PA system sets a much higher — and sometimes unreachable — standard for culpability in an accident.
Paul gave me an example of a situation that might be given a PA:
“If a driver waves a pedestrians or bicyclist through an intersection, or makes some sort of hand or facial gesture, and the person ends up for whatever reason, getting hit in traffic, the driver can be given a PA for that. That’s why we sometimes ignore people.”
He said sometimes he feels terrible for not acknowledging someone in the street,
“You might think we’re being rude…but it’s tough, we know we might be responsible for whatever happens after we make a gesture. We bear all the responsibility!”
With all this stress about avoiding accidents, Paul reminded me that bus drivers have high rates of death and heart disease,
“It’s a real stress monkey job that’s for sure. Personally though, I’m not so much of a stresser, I’m a laugher.”
Dealing with complaints
Paul spoke highly of TriMet’s complaint handling system and warned that complaints can be a tricky issue,
“Judging how we’re doing just from complaints is tough. People tend to only speak up when they’re mad and it’s hard to see through complaints to find real trends.”
According to Paul, TriMet has a call center staffed with 4-5 people and that they are good at getting complaints to the right person. He also emphasized the importance of being able to place blame for a complaint on a specific employee or issue,
“Complaints must be trackable and the culprits must be known. Call center staffers will not make any judgement calls or use discretion…they need hard evidence.”
One reason for this, Paul says, is fear of the Union.
The influence of the Union
I was not previously aware of how the Union influences TriMet policies. We discussed how this figures into complaint handling and how it might be a barrier toward more constructive, open, and effective communication between TriMet and the community.
Paul was blunt about the Union’s impact,
“TriMet is hamstrung by certain rules the Union puts on them. They have to be super careful with their communications with the public, especially with the media, because of what the Union will do if they say or do the wrong thing. The presence of the Union also forces TriMet to be very careful how they deal with driver complaints.”
Dangerous “chokepoints”
Paul described what he calls, “chokepoints” as highly trafficked streets where he feels bicycles should not even be allowed to ride,
“Some of these roads, like going up Hawthorne at rush hour, or Alberta or 23rd, are much too narrow. If it were up to me, bicycles would not be allowed on them at all…especially during rainy weather. I mean, we’ve got a rainy street, lots of traffic, our wipers are going full speed…our stress goes way up around these chokepoints.”
But he was quick to add that a ban of bikes on these roads should not even be considered until more investment is made in alternate routes. This gave me a chance to tell him about the effort to create more bicycle boulevard streets in proximity to major arterials.
Dealing with increase in cyclists
Paul was keenly aware that there are more bicycles than ever on Portland roads. His solution to conflicts would be to invest more money into bicycle-only infrastructure. He said Portland needs to plan for this “increased density” of cyclists.
“You know, when they plan housing they plan the water pipes and power lines for future potential…we should do the same for bicycles…I’ve been to Holland and Germany and I’ve seen how they handle it…we can’t necessarily make Portland just like them, but in certain parts of the city we can try.”
Paul’s concern comes not just from his stress of getting into an accident with a bicycle, but because he feels bicycles are relatively more unpredictable than cars. He gave me the following example,
“On a usual day I might take 3-4 evasive actions involving cars, and I pass by thousands of them. But with bikes, I’ll make the same amount of evasive maneuvers but I only see a few dozen of them.”
Safe passing distance
On this note, I asked Paul what he thought about the pending safe passing distance legislation. He told me about a video he has seen from TriMet that shows bicycles being pushed over by the wind vortices of passing buses,
“I’m aware that at any speed above 15-20 mph I’m pushing air so I give as wide a berth as possible. On many streets in this city, there’s simply not four feet of space to pass with. In some situations, I’ll slow way down and not pass until the road widens up.”
I realize not all drivers share Paul’s perspectives. Like cyclists, their conduct varies widely from on to another. What I appreciate about Paul is his willingness to speak candidly about these issues. He is a team player and wants to work with cyclists to improve relations and safety on the roads.
Paul said he’d like to be able to show more bicyclists his point of view. He is concerned that cyclists and bus drivers make “dangerous assumptions” about what it’s like to be in the other’s shoes. To bridge that gap, we talked about me joining him for a ride-along.
Paul also said he wants to do an event where he can demonstrate how many bicycles he can fit in his blind spots at any given time (around 30 he claims).
As I packed up from our chat, he said,
“Portland has a really great future, and I think you and I sitting here at this table is somehow a small part of that.”
I agree Paul, and I look forward to working with TriMet in the future.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
This was a very thought-provoking and education article Jonathan. Thanks for taking the time to do the interview.
It’s always good to get both sides. As with hearing from the police department, it’s good to know that there is room for constructive efforts towards a safe environment on the streets for everyone. I’ve been pushed off the road by TriMet, but I also notice when a bus waits or slows down to avoid a dangerous situation. I hope they notice when cyclists slow down or don’t pass in close situations.
Thanks to both of you for the article.
Very interesting. This is the kind of community-building that will make Portland a better place to live and ride.
Interesting that Paul says he hates bikes and that he and his fellow drivers identify bikes as their primary cause of stress when it appears that the actual cause of the problems for the drivers is the perceived unfairness of the TriMet PA policy. After reading the interview, it is obvious that Paul really doesn’t hate bikes, but that is indeed where he initially placed the blame. Is this an example of scape-goating?
A_O,
I don’t think Paul hates bikes at all, I just think he being honest and saying that bikes are the cause of a lot of his stress and anxiety…and that TriMets PA policy contributes to that stress.
And I didn’t directly write this in the article, but we talked about how because of these various factors (stress of an accident, perceived unpredictability), that bicycles are an easy scapegoat for their stress. It’s not a malicious thing, it’s just human nature.
This article did a great job in showing me the other side of the issue. From now on I am going to give buses more leeway especially at the “chokepoints”.
Excellent interview and article Jonathan. Thanks to “Paul” too.
It’s articles like this that really make me appreciate what you do for the Portland bicycling community, Jonathan.
Thanks a bunch!
Well done, Jonathan. One more reason why you are the leading voice in the bicycle discussion we’re having in Portland. Thanks for this.
This is like many of the systemic problems retarding the adoption of bicycling in the US: one of planning (developing route networks), policy (parking/ road capacity taking precedence over traffic safety for vulnerable users) and design (lumping alternative modes towards the curb out of the way of cars).
That is a rock solid article! I am very impressed.
Paul, you did a good thing taking the risk you did. I hope you continue on your brave path.
Jonathon, well done. Go buy some sunglasses, your future is very bright. I look forward to participating in your subscription program.
Get parked cars off the bus/bike streets and my guess is that most bike/bus incidents would go away.
“Paul” brings up a very good point about congested streets like Hawthorne, Alberta and NW 23rd that should be addressed in the upcoming bike plan update.
Namely this:
Bicyclists shop, too.
While bicyclists probably shouldn’t be using those streets for commuting — parallel routes would be a better bet — bicyclists should definitely not be prohibited from riding on those streets, because they shop, go to movies, go to the pub and otherwise use the street just like everybody else. And one of the advantages of riding a bike, one of the things that keeps people using bikes over other modes, is the ability to ride right up to your destination and park your bicycle right out front.
So yeah, what’s the best way to provide multi-modal (bicycle) access on these streets?
What’s the best example from Europe — from the Netherlands or Germany, specifically?
I think the answer is pretty clear — ban the least-efficient use of the space (cars) to make room for everybody else. Buses, bikes and peds would have a lot more room if this happened. But, are there other options that might work, too?
Great article Jonathan.
I’ve been commuting by bike and Trimet bus/train for nearly 8 years straight, almost every day of the work week.
On my bike, I’ve only been in one situation where I felt the bus driver was completely asleep at the wheel (the choke point coming into town, off the Broadway bridge where the road curves to the left, the bus came from well behind me to nearly crush me against the curb as he pulled up to the stop there — I confronted him, he shrugged, and drove off).
But that is one time in thousands. I am thankful for the work Tri-met drivers do and their generally cautious nature around me on my bike.
More conversation means more understanding means a better city.
Thanks to all,
Ron
Wait a minute. Paul implies that a single “preventable accident” can result in termination from the job and even revocation of his commercial driver’s license. This sounds extreme, if not illegal. Can we fact check? It certainly doesn’t sound like the kind of employment protections a powerful union would have in place.
Remember, this is the same union that kept a driver on the road despite 107 rider complaints over 5 years.
(http://www.wweek.com/html2/leada011001.html)
Thanks both to Jonathan and “Paul” for reaching out to each other. All road users have to figure out a way to get along.
I think this article drives home the point that improved cycling infrastructure is good for everyone, not just cyclists. If they’re not doing so already, the BTA should be recruiting TriMet, trucking companies, and anyone else who is forced to coexist with cyclists on a daily basis to help push for better cycling facilities in and around Portland.
Here’s the message to people like “Paul”: give us faster and safer ways to get where we’re going, and we’ll get out of your way.
A few years ago I heard (on talk radio)about a case where one driver sued another driver after getting in a accident after being waved through an intersection. Waving someone into an intersection is always a bad idea. A simple hand jester can be a form of social pressure or perceived as an indication that the intersection is safe to enter.
Similarly I learned to be cautious about yeilding to pedestrians at intersections. Some pedestrians (especially they lack driving experience) will assume that because one car has yielded, other cars will yield as well and then procede into a crosswalk unattentively.
As for TriMet, the PA policy sounds great and I wish everyone was held to the same level of accountability. The way we currently determine fault seems to encourage some drivers to refuse to yeild their right-of-way to avoid otherwise preventable accidents.
I’m joining the kudo parade: Solid work, J-Maus.
Here’s my take: if I drove the way I rode, I’d have my license yanked. And from what I’ve seen, I’m probably one of the more law-abiding riders out there. (I rode with a friend last week and was white-knuckling behind some of his death-defying moves.)
I mention this because, frankly, that fear of the union causes drivers to err on the side of extreme caution. And that caution probably saves a lot of cyclists’ lives.
If you’ve ever posted here or on the OBRA email list that “there’s no such thing as an accident,” then you oughta be happy that Trimet (and by commission, the union) have put the fear of God into these drivers.
I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it’s a million times better than the alternative of a public transit system with less regard for safety.
Perhaps the question for these understandably stressed drivers is how discipline for PAs could be better/differently handled inside TriMet.
FWIW, I bus it a lot, and I don’t know how drivers deal with all the crap they have to put up with. They’re good people.
Interesting article. The elephant in the living room that was never mentioned in the article is the fact that bikes and buses are often forced into conflict in order to maximize efficiency for cars (both parking and driving). There would be plenty of space on Hawthorne and those other streets if the number of car lanes was reduced and if bicyclists were given bike lanes, but as it is, bikes and buses are forced to share the right lane and compete with parking and turning cars. Until streets are designed to prioritize low-impact forms of transportation (like walking, bicycling, and using transit), this conflict will remain.
The times that I’ve been squeezed by buses have been because the bus was scootching over to avoid cars. That said, I’ve mostly found Tri Met drivers to be polite.
This was most certainly an elightening article, I know I’ll do my best to share the road with better with trimet, understanding the drivers’ concerns better.
I aggree that less car parking on road such as Hawthorne would increase saftey for everyone (including the cars; I’ve seen a parked car get side swiped on that narrow little road) But I work on Hawthorne. A while back there was a proposal to put parking meters along the stretch where I work and most of the local business owners were not pleased (including my boss). Now I’m not sure how that played out in the end, I’m just an employee so I’m not exactly kept up to date on these things. I just wanted to point out that that would NOT go over well with the local businesses, and probably not the surrounding neighborhoods either; as those parked cars would move onto the side streets.
A note about on-street parking on streets like Hawthorne:
If you eliminate on-street parking and add a stripe of paint for bikes…there’s a very good chance that you’ll have made things far worse. Parked cars, even with their tendency to fling their doors open at inopportune moments, are great traffic calmers. If you want to see what Hawthorne would be like without on-street parking, spend some time on Powell.
I don’t know what the solution is for streets like Hawthorne, but I’m pretty certain that eliminating on street parking is not it.
We could put Powell, Hawthorne and Belmont back to the way they were when they were built – 14′ wide sidewalks, and one (narrow) lane in each direction.
Of course, to be authentic we oughta run streetcars down them as well.
Sometimes I think things might have been better “back when”. Then I think of all the horse crap and the fact that someone’s got to shovel it all up…
Other days, I figure that the alternative (cars) really isn’t any worse.
Um…. make that “the alternative (cars) really isn’t any BETTER.”
^%&#%^&# must proofread before hitting “Submit”
I don’t know what the solution is for streets like Hawthorne, but I’m pretty certain that eliminating on street parking is not it.
Agreed. Street parking on a major thoroughfare also helps keep people from riding in the gutter: on a really busy street, the *last* place for a cyclist to be is with a mere four or five inches between their wheels and the curb. Don’t mistake this as some V.C. nut-jobbery: practically speaking cyclists riding on busy streets need to take at least *enough* of the lane up to make sure that a motorist is going to need to think things through before passing them. Not to mention even a foot taken off the lateral movement necessary to execute a left turn comes in pretty damned handy…
Oh, and none of that “drift-towards-the-crosswalk-then-merge back” stuff when going through straight intersections, please. 🙂
/high-horse
What I want to know is if drivers realize that they don’t have a bus lane on 3rd and 4th streets.
Daily I am honked at when I pull in front of a bus(w/ about 15+ feet of space)on one of those streets to make a right turn.
I think someone needs to remind them that it’s not the real bus mall, so others use it, too.
“Paul described what he calls, “chokepoints” as highly trafficked streets where he feels bicycles should not even be allowed to ride,
“Some of these roads, like going up Hawthorne at rush hour, or Alberta or 23rd, are much too narrow. If it were up to me, bicycles would not be allowed on them at all…especially during rainy weather. I mean, we’ve got a rainy street, lots of traffic, our wipers are going full speed…our stress goes way up around these chokepoints.”
this is totally outrageous BS. Cyclists should be outraged that banning bicyclists from these streets would even be suggested. If Portland is serious about bicycling, every street should be considered a bicycle route. If this is the way TriMet operators feel, then they are probably under too much pressure from management to meet their schedules. My understanding is that meeting their schedules is their number one priority when it comes to their performance evaluation. If this puts cyclists at risk, it is an irresponsible policy, and baning bicycles from these transit routes is not the solution.
Like Carl, I agree that we should not consider removing parking lanes as a way to find more space on crowded commercial streets. They are great traffic calmers, as he mentioned, but also, the parking options keep the shops open. People in cars provide most of the business to these shops and restaurants, and they have to feel they have a reasonable chance of getting a parking spot nearby. Until more people abandon their cars, we do need to accomodate them. We just need to favor the less-bad kind of cars (parked or about-to-park_and-spend-money-locally) over the more-bad kind (driving through on their way to Gresham).
I don’t find this driver’s opinions “enlightening” or “interesting” in any way whatsoever. I found them to be outrageous, insulting, and indicative of the typical misunderstanding even professional drivers have of traffic laws.
We, as cyclists, have absolute legal right to safe use of the streets, period. It’s not a negotiation and it’s not even open to “discussion.” To the extent, thus, that a cyclist is, him-/her-self obeying the law, bus drivers and every other driver on the road is absolutely bound by the law, and that means yielding the cyclist complete, full use of the roadway. If a cyclist is moving at 5 mph and it’s unsafe to pass, and you’re in a car or bus behind that cyclist, and it takes half an hour to arrive at a clear and safe route to pass, then you sit there and wait half an hour. End of story.
Hey, bus driver, you’re not doing cyclists a nice “favor” by passing at a safe distance–that’s your strict legal obligation. And if you fail to live up to that legal obligation, then you very well OUGHT to lose your job and career as a driver. Being a professional carries with it professional responsibilities and stresses. Deal with it, like the rest of us do in OUR jobs, or move on to something else.
This article does nothing but make me want to be redouble my efforts at documenting and reporting even the most minor infraction I see committed by bus drivers.
An example of how bad a street can get if parking were removed is 39th. I live right near it by Hawthorne, and it’s a constant threat. I don’t like driving on it, won’t ever bike on it, and hate even walking on the sidewalk. It’s dangerous to cross, even. The few businesses on this street buffer themselves from it with big parking lots, and they don’t get any walk-in traffic. The city has decided that 39th is a North-South local express route, and there is room for nothing else.
Which underscores the point: cars are a HUGE burden on a city’s infrastructure. Buses might appear to be so, but think about that sign that they used to carry – something like “241 cars stayed home today because of me.” What if everyone who drove decided to take the bus? We’d have the streets wide open for us! Conversely, if nobody used public transport, the streets would be in gridlock, and we’d spend our time weaving through side-view mirrors all day.
Hawthorne sucks for every user. Bikes – too many cars/busses, busses – read the article, cars – narrow, congestion, peds – unsafe crossings, narrow, cluttered, and congested sidewalks.
The businesses on Hawthorne have fought for and won maintaining the status quo. Anyone else, residents and shoppers, have a hard time understanding this.
There are similar neighborhood commercial districts in the SF Bay area where the street use design on similar streets seems to be superior, where all the users win.
Two motoring lanes, one in each direction, with left turn lanes as needed. The through lanes can carry more traffic if not impeded by waiting left turners and too narrow lanes for safe passing. Left turners are feel safer and less compelled to make dangerous turns due to pressure from behind. No dooring hazards.
Angled back-in parking. It is easier than tight parallel parking. It is proven to be safer to back in and forward out of any parking space. It puts the doors in a no traffic area. Exiting allows a clear driver’s view of oncoming traffic, bikes and cars. Possibly more parking spaces per block.
Wider sidewalks. Without actually increasing the sidewalk width, the jagged edge along angled parking creates a space for plants, vending boxes, benches, bike racks, etc. which then opens up the main pathway for a better walking environment.
A marked bike lane. The reduced number of motoring lanes opens up more room for a safe sized marked bike lane. The angled parking removes the door hazards. Exiting parked motorists can clearly see oncoming bikes before exiting. A view of driver doors enables making eye contact with motorists getting ready to exit.
The business association of Hawthorne has much to account for in their resistance to meaningful change along “their” street. Their vision of motorists being their primary source of revenue is selfish and short-sighted. Residents of the area and cyclists who shop there might benefit by talking to the owners of the shops they patronized about this issue. It is possible that they can be encouraged to adapting to the new world.
Michael:
I agree with your points, but if the decision is between parking and no parking, you only have to look at the difference between Hawthorne and 39th. For all its flaws, Hawthorne is clearly better than the disaster that is 39th.
As for back-in angle parking, it is superior, but it’s a big change, and people are very conservative about things they’re unfamiliar with. The city should try it in a few small areas and get people used to the idea (I believe they did it at one side of Jamison Square in the Pearl). It could be the trick for Hawthorne, Belmont, Alberta, and others, but only if businesses are convinced that it will work.
Here is a good description of how back in parking is good for bike safety: http://www.momentumplanet.ca/?q=node/227
And a good pdf: http://www.bozeman.net/bozeman/bikeboard/pdf/Parking_Back_in_Head_out_Angle.pdf
And, wait! there’s more! http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=12662
Interesting article and ensuing discussion. My personal opinion is that we must remove parking from bike routes and at least from the bus stop side of bus routes in order to begin any real progress. That being said, I agree with the observations of Martha R. where she mentions the conflict for space between bike and bus when we both overlap. Seems to me bikes could go against the curb in a wide separated bike way and the bus should have an island for loading/ unloading where the puny little bike lane exists now. Bus passengers would only have to cross bike traffic to get to the sidewalk. And yes, sometimes a ped might mistakenly walk in front a cyclist. My suggestion is ring your bell , slow down and smile. How do we prevent peds from walking in the bike lane? How about enforcement?
In reference to how to control traffic speeds on streets like Hawthorne, Alberta etc…, the idea that ‘parked cars’ are the best tool for this is laughable at best. How about speed limits and strict enforcement?
my $.02
Great article. I hope this dialog continues. However, I think a next step might be to get a response from the Trimet drivers union. Comments like “the union throws up barriers…” don’t quite make sense and should be a red flag that “Paul” is not giving us the whole story.
The discussions for the Hawthorne Blvd. Plan (which is the impetus for the curb extensions and intersection retweaks they are doing now) happened some 15 years ago.
During those meetings, a bicycle lane was suggested for Hawthorne, with one lane of traffic each way and a shared turn lane.
The Business Association raised holy hell. They depend on as many cars going by their shops as possible. If there was only one lane, they contended, then there would be fewer cars to shop at their businesses, but more congestion. The resulting congestion made the residential neighbors nervous about cut-thru traffic, and so they were not big fans of a bike lane with reduced number of traffic lanes.
So the full bicycle lane was cut back to an uphill only “bicycle climbing lane.” This still didn’t fly in the committee and the status quo won out.
So we are left with the feeble “bikes in lane” signs and conflicts and “chokepoints.”
Citizens, planners and City Council had the opportunity to put in something better, but since it was 15 years ago, nobody had the fortitude or the foresight to push through what could have been a better solution.
That is why some of these citizen advisory committees do a disservice — they lobby for the current situation, and ignore or give less concern to what things might be like in the future.
As a member of the The Hawthorne Boulevard Transportation Plan Advisory Committee, I can tell you that the proposed plan went to a straight majority vote of the Advisory Committee. The two cyclists on the committee were significantly outnumbered by business interests and neighborhood representatives. PDOT also strongly supported the status quo option, as did the PDOT Commissioner at the time, although it escapes me at the moment exactly who that was.
The irony is that, with the current lane configuration, left turns are prohibited at all of the major intersections along Hawthorne above 12th and below 39th, thereby forcing anyone who wants to make a left turn off of Hawthorne to cut through the neighborhood.
I agree that a bicycle utopia, where every road has sweet smelling air and 20 feet of room on all sides of you sounds fabulous.
Since we are not going to acheive that paradise until gas is aroung $100 bucks a gallon, how about we stick to all the fabulous streets where we are not pinched between parked cars, 35 mph traffic and buses?
Seeing people ride down MLK, Division, 39th, the thick spots on Hawthorne and on and on. Just go one block ether way and you have a cycling bliss.
The even bigger issue are the people you see riding on busy narrow streets. Tweakers, hipsters and spaced out hippies. Fair weather cyclists out for their once a month dose of green liberalism.
Go on to the side streets and you find all the daily commuters. Cruising along, far more safely and with vastly reduced congestion/stress.
I think what we need is more education for cyclists. The riders on the busy streets tend to look clueless, or appear to be following the exact same routes that they normally travel in their cars. Notice how many more of them are suddenly out when it is sunny.
They just don’t appear to know any better. Why anyone would ride on Division or Powell, with Clinton just a couple blocks away is very perplexing. Are you making a statement? Eager to wind up dead or in traction? Are you just plain ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know.
I am a truck driver for one of the major chains here in Portland. I am also a member of the Teamster union. I commute to work by bicycle and also try to race as much as I can. I see through Paul’s commects as typical whinning and crying from the vocal minority. I see it in the drivers I work with, and we pay them no mind. I would say that his views on the union and company are just that his views. You must talk with the shop stewards and other drivers before you give this person any credit. Please go get the whole story before you print dribble like this.
“To the extent, thus, that a cyclist is, him-/her-self obeying the law, bus drivers and every other driver on the road is absolutely bound by the law … Hey, bus driver, you’re not doing cyclists a nice ‘favor’ by passing at a safe distance–that’s your strict legal obligation. And if you fail to live up to that legal obligation, then you very well OUGHT to lose your job and career as a driver. Being a professional carries with it professional responsibilities and stresses. Deal with it, like the rest of us do in OUR jobs, or move on to something else.”
Michael, I think you’re very much missing the point here. If I understand correctly, a bus driver could be given a PA for an accident that was not his fault if he could hypothetically have avoided it. That means if *you* do something stupid , *he* could lose his job for it (not to mention the mental anguish that would follow if someone were killed).
His other point is that just because something is legal and you have the right to do it doesn’t mean it’s a smart thing to do. He acknowledges that the problem is in an inadequate amount of road available for bikers.
This is exacerbated by bikers who have no respect for the safety of themselves or others – and the stress this creates for bus drivers is even greater than the stress it creates for other drivers. (I do think that these daredevils are generally in a minority, but they make cyclists look bad and stress everyone out).
Anyway, I agree that removing street parking from Hawthorne and other commercial strips would be a mistake. In addition to the points already made, street parking also provides a barrier between pedestrians and traffic.
I think the Hawthorne Streetcar group makes a good case for a street car on Hawthorne as an alternative to buses http://www.hawthornestreetcar.org/apm/home.php
Another idea: instead of banning street parking on the bike boulevards, why not ban through traffic and allow parking? This would essentially create a network of “bike only” streets (perhaps these could also be open to motorcycles and scooters).
I have a CDL, drove transit, coach buses, and large vehicles and the stress the driver expresses is as drastic as “job or no job”. I do not rely on my CDL for work, but I do donate driving time when needed and for that I am grateful and protect my CDL. For those who are unaware, CDL drivers are even held to higher standards when driving personal vehicles. All in all, we are protective of our driving records. And, so I am largely with the driver on this one.
Believe it or not, cyclists in some conditions, not always weather related, are hard to see. Also, with the increase in cyclists on the road, lack of uniformity in law and driving etiquette between cyclists and non-cyclists (cars, buses, trucks, peds) there is a higher chance for confusion.
Also, cyclists are bad drivers. I have a hard time riding within 10 feet of most cyclists because you cannot ride in a straight line, are looking at the flowers, don’t look over your shoulder before making a move. All those lessons we learned in driving school still apply.
The same goes for drivers who don’t signal, forget that at a stop sign the right of way is to the person on the right, and think that they can just wave pedestrians across the street without first checking the other lane of traffic.
In all, cyclists shouldn’t be restricted from any city street. However, just as drivers avoid the freeways during rush hours when they don’t have to be on them, I am not trying to make Hawthrone at 5pm my primary route home. So “Paul” was mostly saying if its not necessary for you to be there, don’t.
I sometimes go out at night or on the weekend and do ‘recreational rides’ up and down Hawthorne, just so the motorists know that ‘bikes belong’. I used to commute on Hawthorne as well, but that ended up being just a little too stressful for me.
I have also personally boycotted the businesses in the Hawthorne business district ever since the HPTPAC made the fateful decision not to provide safety improvements for cyclists on the boulevard.
I just read the TriMet Bus Operators interview. I, too am a TriMet Bus Operator and just wanted to say that our Preventable Accident policy is established by the National Safety Council. We have an internal appeals process as well as we can go to the National Safety Council for a final determination.
I’m not sure that our Union or any other Union is that all mighty and powerful.
Nevertheless, last year we had a required Homeland Security training. TriMet devoted at least 15 minutes to bicycling issues. They presented a video from lane County. Some of us Bus Operators/Cyclists kept our ears and eyes open as to what was being said in the classes. It appears that only a few of the trainers are familiar with the subject – much of what was being heard in the classes was ANGER!! Some of the trainers just let the Operators vent and that was it. The Head of Training made comments to some Bus Operator/cyclists and Supervisors that the need for a cycling specific and or alternative transportation class was seriously in order. That was it. Haven’t heard any more about it since.
I’m not discounting Paul’s stress related topics but they sound pretty general. The HATRED against cyclists is well known amongst upper Management, Supervisors, Trainers and Bus Operators.. The problem seems to be aggravated by lack of information. The class I was in the trainer actually told us that he classifies cyclists into two different categories. The good ones wear helmets and the bad ones don’t.
As a Bus Operator/Cyclist, I would like to see equality on the roads. I would like to see Bicyclists required to test, insure and license – the same as autos and motorcycles. Everyone has to be accountable for their behavior – regardless of their size. I would also like to see the BTA come out with some educational Public Service Spots focused on appropriate interactions with each on the roads.
I just read the TriMet Bus Operators interview. I, too am a TriMet Bus Operator and our Preventable Accident policy is basically established by the National Safety Council. We have an internal appeals process as well as we can go to the National Safety Council for a final determination.
I’m not sure that our Union or any other Union is that all mighty and powerful.
Nevertheless, last year we had a required Homeland Security training. TriMet devoted at least 15 minutes to bicycling issues. They presented a video from lane County. Some of us Bus Operators/Cyclists kept our eyes and ears very open to what was being said in the classes. Many of the trainers are not familiar with the subject – much of what was being heard in many of the classes was ANGER!! Some of the trainers let the Operators vent and that was it. The Head of Training made comments to some of the Bus Operators and Supervisors that the need for a cycling specific and or alternative transportation class was in serious order. That was the last anyone heard of it.
I’m not discounting Paul’s stress but it all sounds pretty general. It’s all a matter of perspective. The HATRED against cyclists is well known amongst upper Management, Supervisors, Trainers and each other. The problem seems to be aggravated by a general lack of information. The class I was in the trainer actually told us that he classifies cyclists into two different categories. The good ones wear helmets and the bad ones don’t.
As a Bus Operator/Cyclist I would personally like to see equality on the roads. Bicyclists should be required by law to test, license and insure their vehicles the same as automobiles and motorcycles.
I would also like to see the BTA involved with providing Safety Informational Spots on various media showing appropriate bike/auto interactions.
Everyone needs to be accountable for their behavior regardless of the size of their vehicle.
I would request that it be known that I am deeply grateful to ‘Paul’ for coming out and speaking candidly. I ride the bus regularly (always with my bike) and have felt among a small percentage of drivers an unvoiced bristle. Most of the drivers are pleasant.
While I realize that it’s stressful. I would much prefer if all drivers were put under this type of scrutiny. With a fairly unbiased view, I would say that trimet drivers are the safest vehicles that I share the road with. I occasionally see someone go far out of their way to help a passenger. If more drivers were threatened with possible termination for driving unsafely than we wouldn’t lose 600 people a year. Paul should attempt to get across Beaverton, or east Portland on a bike. The stress we experience in less-friendly areas should surpass trimet drivers. After all losing your livelihood is less scary than losing your life.
That being said, I hope that we do have more dialogue btwn bikes and bus drivers. I very much appreciate trimet, and the service. I would be very happy to participate in a demonstration such as ‘Paul’ mentioned.
Yes parking has its place as a traffic slowing tool…though you need a lot of turn over and more congestion (slower speeds).
For those readers who have opinions about whether or not Hawthorne is better with room for bikes or not just set out some cameras and hose counters on two sections of Hawthorne each side of 39th Street. One has a 3 lane (road diet – possible bike lanes) config and the other is a 5 laner. Simple.
I think both the city and business owners have to think hard about Hawthorne…even with the ‘improvements’…about a street many do not like to drive on, bike nor walk along…a failure of too much success. It is time to ration space. I like biking and driving east of 39th Street.
Correction to my post. 4 lanes on western Hawthorne.
All in all I would rather ride a bike on the transit mall with most Trimet operators than on the road with many car drivers.
And thanks to Michael about the posts on back-in parking…and seeing some of my work referenced (photos etc.). Back-in parking is really the ONLY diagonal parking any jurisdiction should do on any arterial. (It would be better to often have less parking but it helps our case when we can boost parking WITH a bike project.) Over here in Vancouver we have 1.3 miles of back in parking and bike lanes now on McLoughlin (4 phases).
Back-in parking with bike lanes is being adopted in more cities each year – and a ProBike presentation last summer. It has come a long way from my first dream of it while visiting Seattle (Queen Anne) from Honolulu 10 years ago. Though it was a pain in the ass to get in on the street here 5 years ago and in other cities…it is still not a slam dunk task and requires a lot of hand holding. (I often wonder why conventional diagonal parking is so unquestionabley loved and enbraced by drivers…must have blind faith (or tireless angels) in pulling blindly out into traffic.
And Portand has more of back-in parking each year too…though I am not sure it should be installed on the driverside of a oneway street (downtown BikegGallery)…just too limited of sight triangle for the driver of approaching traffic and bikes. But then again it is a little different than passenger side back-in parking…new skills for me to learn as I park.
Todd Boulanger
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Vancouver
I ride my bike on Hawthorne quite often. I live on upper Hawthorne, so it’s pretty convenient to step out the door and head downtown. The reason I don’t use one of the lower traffic side roads is the same reason the drivers don’t use them – stop signs. I can make good time going straight down Hawthorne timing the lights, but if I have to stop at every stop sign on the side streets, it takes much longer.
If folks really want to keep bicycle through traffic on the neighborhood streets, something’s gotta change. If we could pass the stop-as-yield, Idaho style legislation, that might get me off the busy roads, but until then you’re all just going to have to share them with me and suck it up.
“Michael, I think you’re very much missing the point here. If I understand correctly, a bus driver could be given a PA for an accident that was not his fault if he could hypothetically have avoided it. That means if *you* do something stupid , *he* could lose his job for it (not to mention the mental anguish that would follow if someone were killed).”
I don’t think I have missed the point at all, to be honest. My stance is based on an assumption that we’re talking about cyclists who are in full compliance with the letter of traffic law. A fantasy, I know, as sadly there ARE many cyclists who totally flout traffic laws. And in that case I come down equally hard on the cyclist. There’s no excuse.
I am in no way trying to argue that the cyclist is always right and the motorist always wrong. Far from it. If both parties would just obey the law, as it’s written, there literally would be no problem. My issue arises when I am obeying the law and I KNOW I am obeying the law, and a professional driver is griping about how oh so stressful it is to deal with my presence, as if maybe I should’ve just stayed home. Like my chosen mode of transportation makes me a second-class citizen. I particularly take offense to the idea that there should be some streets set-aside as no-bike zones.
If the complaint, however, is strictly against all those cyclists out there who ride irresponsibly, then “Paul” is preaching to the choir on that particular point. As I said, I’ll come down as fast and hard on a cyclist in flagrant violation of traffic laws as I would on a bus driver. It’s all about EVERYone simply living up to their responsibilities and not assuming their right to the road takes precedence.
Therein lies the dilemma. A sizable percentage of the motorists don’t want cyclists on ‘their’ arterial streets, and a sizable percentage of the neighborhood residents apparently don’t want cyclists on ‘their’ neighborhood streets (e.g. see comments in thread about traffic sting at Ladd’s Circle).
For the most part cyclists want to access the same destinations motorists do, safely and quickly. Bike boulevards designed for low speed recreation cycling with a multiplicity of stop signs are not conducive to transporation cycling.
Thanks for the report, Jonathan. At first I thought this was going to be some irrational person saying he didn’t like bikes, but it’s great to know that Trimet drivers are not bullies that push cyclists off the road, but rather try their hardest and take on massive amounts of stress to keep us as safe as we can.
Jonathan,
I am a Trimet bus operator also. I have a few issues with what Paul said. Nothing serious but points that should probably be corrected for the sake of being as correct as possible. I’d be happy to discuss if you want. Just email me. Out of curiosity how long has Paul been driving a bus for Trimet?