the charge on the Bike Master
Plan update.
(Photos © J. Maus)
Last summer, the City of Portland’s effort to update their Bicycle Master Plan was all the rage. Fresh off an attempt by Mayor Potter to cut funding for the plan (he re-instated the funds two weeks later), spirits were high.
There were open house events and a series of well-attended Bike Master Plan Rides (led by PDOT’s bike coordinator Roger Geller).
But it’s been over a year since I reported any news about the effort.
In that time, Geller has been busy with a myriad of other, more pressing projects (Portland’s climate change policies, bike boxes, the Regional Transportation Plan, various streetcar and light rail projects, various grants, the CRC project, and many other things) and he admits that the Bike Master Plan got put on the “backburner”.
Now Geller says he’s finally “able to turn my focus to almost 100% on the Bike Master Plan.”
Geller is calling together a steering committee that will begin regular meetings on November 12th with the intent to complete the plan and have it adopted by City Council by the end of June 2009.
According to Geller, that committee’s short-term focus will be to,
- identify a new network of city bikeways (with a focus on destinations that are not served by current or proposed facilities),
- identify best practices from throughout the world in creating a bikeway network,
- lay out a new bikeway network that emphasizes the type of low-volume, low-speed, family-friendly bicycle boulevard routes that will attract more people to bicycing,
- identify the needed improvements to create these bicycle boulevards at (at least) a conceptual level
Geller also says he’ll work to develop new designs “for building our next generation of bikeways” and that he hopes to hire a consulting firm to work with PDOT traffic engineers to improve design guidelines to “help us achieve our operational targets for speeds, volumes, and cyclist comfort.”
(As for the “next generation of bikeways”, as I type this, the head traffic engineer for the City of Portland (Rob Burchfield), is touring the bike facilities in Amsterdam and Copenhagen (he’s on this trip).)
In addition to having more time to focus on the Bike Master Plan, Geller says that funds from a $75,000 grant from ODOT that was awarded last year have finally become available.
This initial work is just a part of an expansive on the plan that, when complete, will include an updated bike parking plan, and chapters on encouragement, enforcement, new benchmarks, and more.
Stay tuned for continued coverage of this effort and for opportunities for you to get involved.
— More on Portland’s Bicycle Master Plan.
— BikePortland.org’s Bicycle Master Plan coverage archives (29 articles).
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.
I was getting pretty concerned we’d never have a new master plan. Do you think we can count on the momentum holding this time?
Wow, this is awesome.. so glad to see it happening.. and I would love to help in any way I can.. Thanks for reporting on this!
Currently I enjoy virtually unrestricted access to the public-right-of-way in Portland, and the greater metro area, as a cyclist. Question, do the proposed bikeway additions pose any possible threat to the current level of access that I enjoy? Will there be a day when Portland cyclists will be allowed access to the public-right-of-way only via existing, and proposed infrastructure?
Are so-called, “Bike Boulevards”, going to have a negative impact on motorist traffic? If so, what is the justification for adding to motorist congestion? Shouldn’t the idea be to decrease motorist trip-times, and not to lengthen them?
Unlike many who comment here, I do not even own an automobile. But I do participate in the market. Transportation costs are a significant portion of the retail price index. I wish to remind everyone that personal automobiles are not the only cars on the road. Adding trip-time to delivery routes, and other transportation oriented services could lead to a rise in the cost of living.
I shouldn’t be a wet-blanket, I suppose. I already know that all things bicycle are good, and everything else is bad. Of course it goes without saying that any bike-lane is a good bike-lane. Metaphorically speaking of course. What could possibly go wrong while routing cyclists past right-turning autos, on their right-side? What could possibly go wrong with creating a bunch of infrastructure, without also assuring continued unrestricted access to the rest of the public-right-of-way? What could possibly go wrong with eliminating miles of motorist by-ways, and expecting it to not negatively impact retail prices?
Really, what could go wrong?
How about a bikelane flyover where Barbur and Nato split? There’s a project I’d love to see…
Bike Boulevards are typically created on existing, low-auto traffic streets. The bike boulevard will have fewer stops for the cyclist, while cross-traffic will have more stops. Auto traffic on bike boulevards is discouraged by the use of speed bumps and other encumbrances that make automobile traffic less attractive, which in turn makes bicycle traffic more attractive. The impact on auto traffic is minor.
I agree with #3 Vance. I, too, “Currently . . . enjoy virtually unrestricted access to the public-right-of-way in Portland, and the greater metro area, as a cyclist.” And, I share Vance’s concerns regarding the negative impact of other traffic on our public-right-of-ways.
There are intersections and auto/cycle interactions that need serious study and repair (Broadway on the east side from SE 7th Ave. to the bridge, for one).
When I moved here 20 years ago, there wasn’t much cycle infrastructure. Now, the Metro is the envy of 95% of all U.S. cities/metro areas. If my family remains here, I hope for much more cycle-friendly infrastructure for my kids (and everyone else).
I am looking forward to more great reporting by Mr. Maus – whether for good or ill!
Ok,
I really like Roger Geller. Great guy, personable, passionate about his work. When I have asked him questions, even point blank questions that most in his position would not answer, I have gotten truthful responses.
I have concerns that a bicycle master plan based so much on Bike boulevards, low speed, low traffic streets, and separation is going to begin to force change in the cycling habits of those who use, need to use, and enjoy riding daily on high volume, high traffic, and faster paced arterial streets.
While I am not a fan in any manner of vehicular cycling for the masses, (it is not safe nor recommended for any but the heartiest of cyclists) I want to be able to ride where I want, when I want, and to a large degree take the lane if I see it fit. And abandon the bike lane whenever possible.
My worries of cyclists losing privileges on arterial streets, combined with reading of numerous paid “working” vacations to Europe by way too many people, lead me to believe that a lean towards separation of cyclists and other vehicles is in the works.
This is Portland people. Not Amsterdam.
It is never going to be Amsterdam. In fact, I think it is in our best interests if the references to, trips to, dreams of being, etc. Amsterdam were cut back.
We ride on the street. All streets.
I thought we were in the process of sharing the road, and moving forward towards that.
More and more, the signs appear to point towards a separation between bikes and other road users.
Big mistake, and I hope that I am wrong.
But I don’t think that I am.
Vance we’ll give you a bike boulevard to Mal-Wart (walmart) if you get behind this work and start pushing.
Bike Lanes are horrible. They are unsafe, incomplete, and, imho, the result of disingenuous (car-centric) traffic planning. i hate them and avoid them 90% of the time; i ride miles and miles every day.
True Bike Boulevards are safe, quiet, pro-active, inexpensive, AND will increase value of the homes and businesses of they run along. They easily fit our existing infrastructure.
If they are to be TRUE Bike Boulevards, they will consistently be closed to through auto traffic every five (or so) blocks, through-out our whole grid system. They will be the thing that gets people out of their death-mobiles. They will take up about 7% of the pavement.
As far as the impact on existing traffic congestion, yes it will be measurable. But, that congestion is all going to go away with the $8/gal of petrol that awaits us after the bankers are bailed-out.
LooseNut
“My” version of the plan shares the bike boulevard with auto traffic/parking/delivery in five-block, low-speed chunks and allows bikes to continue to share the car-centric roadways as we are now forced to.
“My” version of the plan shares the bike boulevard with auto traffic/parking/delivery in five-block,low-speed chunks and allows bikes to continue to share the car-centric roadways as we are now forced to.
Vance, Icarus,
You and anyone else who engages in vehicular cycling are going to do so regardless, so what do you care? No one is proposing making cycling illegal on non-boulevard streets. That would require changing state law, and if you think that’s going to happen as a result of this plan, well, you’re vastly overestimating the influence Portland has on the state legislative agenda. You will continue to exercise your right to the lane, and no one will know the difference.
This isn’t about you, it’s about everyone else. Icarus, you even said so: “While I am not a fan in any manner of vehicular cycling for the masses, (it is not safe nor recommended for any but the heartiest of cyclists)” You are one who doesn’t even seem to recognize a problem with our facilities, so of course you disagree with any proposed solution.
The problem is that we have reached the maximum number of people who are willing to ride in mixed traffic conditions (outside of perhaps September, when the BCC cajoles a few more people into the saddle). If we want to make cycling a truly viable transportation option for the masses, separating bikes from arterial vehicular traffic is essential.
GLV,
I believe you missed my point.
I for one am not for developing a “Vehicular Cycling” style master plan at all. In fact I am against vehicular cycling style laws being a requirement, and from basing master plans too much on these principles.
But we need to be careful.
In developing more Bike Boulevards and bike lanes, and the possibilities of separated bike facilities, we risk the chance of exposing ourselves to being banned from riding where we want, and where we need to.
In reference to your wording above, separating bikes from arterial vehicular traffic is not as essential as people think it is. And it will only go to show those higher ups with power that further separation is the way to go.
And in the long run this will result in the possible banning of bicycle traffic from many arterial streets. It has happened in cities in the past, it is happening in cities now, (some cities have banned bike traffic all together,within certain parameters, now and in the past) and will happen again.
Separation is not sharing. And all roads are for everyone. Even Vance, who is strangely worried about being able to drive his car around town…
“Duty now for the future” if I may quote DEVO.
The problem with a bike boulevard-centric plan is that it’s fine for leisurely recreational rides in your neighborhood, and even for some level of commuting, but these streets are already low traffic and thus inherently safe for cyclists without many ‘improvements’.
The truth is that if you want to cross the Willamette River, access downtown, or access commercial destinations pretty much anywhere in the city, you will need to ride on an arterial street at some point during your trip, and a fully connective system for cyclists cannot be built in Portland without access to arterial streets at key points in the network; for Roger Geller or Sam Adams or anyone else to claim otherwise is highly disingenuous.
What we really need to have are drastic changes in how traffic engineers think about traffic and road design, including bicyclists in the traffic mix they design for and making a serious effort to integrate – not separate – bicycle infrastructure in locations like NE Broadway and Williams.
Bottom line: we need to stop designing roads for motor vehicles first and foremost and retrofitting bicycle infrastructure as an afterthought. If we do this correctly there should be no need for bicycle infrastructure that completely separates cyclists from motorists.
Amen GLV. I wish the love it or leave it types who insist that Americans are so special (the same kind of American exceptionalism that Dick Cheney et al have shown works so well these past few years) that we have nothing to learn from other cities would just go to Amsterdam and Copenhagen and see how well separated facilities work. What you’ll see is thousands and thousands of people, young, middle aged, and old, biking happily and safely every day — many times more than even Portland, not to mention every other American city. They’re wearing normal clothes (and not helmets), going to the grocery store or to a restaurant or to work and back. Study after study (see John Pucher and others) has shown that separated bikeways make the vast majority of would be riders feel safe enough to get on a bike.
Those are facts: separated facilities leads to vastly more people on bikes. Which in turn leads to fewer people taking cars on the many, many trips where bikes would be at least as easy. And that means MORE mobility for the people who actually do need to drive. And it reduces the wear and tear on roads caused by cars, which necessitates more repairs and therefore impedes traffic more.
Against those facts we have a few hard core types who insist on their right to ride in any lane they want, and a few others who insist that we MUST NOT impede drivers by even a few seconds or we’ll destroy the economy. As noted above, I haven’t seen anyone proposing to ban bikes from those lanes. But I wouldn’t care if they did, as long as I and anyone else can bike where we need to go safely and quickly.
It reminds me a lot of the fanatics who insist on their right to carry machine guns around because, by golly, it’s their RIGHT. Never mind how it affects the vast majority of other people. And it’s the same not-invented-here attitude that helps deny us universal health care because, darn it, that’s a European thing and we have nothing to learn from them. Even though millions of Europeans don’t have to worry about whether they can afford to pay their doctors. This is like Sicko on wheels.
The big goal isn’t reducing driving time, or a right to bike on every single drivable surface. The big goal is getting people around town safely, healthily, and cost effectively. Sometimes that’ll be on foot, sometimes by transit, most of the time on bikes, sometimes even in cars. Separated bikeways have been proven to provide the most effective set of choices for urban mobility.
I admire Mr. Geller and Mia Burk and the rest for getting so much done via the cheap Portland bike blvd. approach. It’s a compromise between what most American cities’ car-centric approach and an Amsterdam style approach with true separated lanes, which requires a much greater public investment (and maybe even losing a few of those sacred car parking spots) in a selfish era when the public wants services but doesn’t want to pay for the up front investment needed to pay for them. Unlike the Republican borrow and spenders of the past decade, Portland can’t pay for cycle tracks on a Chinese credit card.
I really hope the Portland approach will get more and more people on bikes, and am happy about the great progress made so far. But does anyone think that it’ll get us anywhere near the 40% bike commuting and 70% bike usage rates of cities with separated bikeways?
We need MORE separation of bikes from cars, and I wish Portland would imitate Amsterdam and Copenhagen much more than we do. Because I want more people on bikes, and their approach works better than ours to do that. Call it American pragmatism if you need to wrap the flag around it, but the current American way of putting cars first, sprawl and everything else the oil companies, traffic engineers and sprawl lobby have brought us proves that America doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. Quite the contrary.
What matters more, theoretical — or ideological — access to all public rights of way (but not used much because most people would feel unsafe in them), or practicality — getting people around town in a safe, healthy, less expensive way?
So my question is: to what extent does the bike master plan include a role for physically separated cycle tracks?
The problem is that we have reached the maximum number of people who are willing to ride in mixed traffic conditions (outside of perhaps September, when the BCC cajoles a few more people into the saddle). If we want to make cycling a truly viable transportation option for the masses, separating bikes from arterial vehicular traffic is essential.
This statement is just plain wrong. Look at the bike counts for the last five years, there have been double-digit percentage increases practically every year, and the city has added very little new infrastructure of any kind; bicycle ridership is exploding without any encouragement from the city in the way of new amsterdam-style facilities.
What’s really missing from the transportation landscape right now, other than better design and engineering, is a proactive motorist educational campaign, which PDOT has been promising for years, but still hasn’t materialized; instead we get high profile traffic stings targeting cyclists.
“So my question is: to what extent does the bike master plan include a role for physically separated cycle tracks?”
i’ll be reporting more about cycle tracks in the near future…
and i’m not sure, but I assume they will be mentioned in the design guidelines section of the the updated BMP.
However, it’s also important to realize that cycle tracks, at least in the main downtown core area will not be easy to implement. The problem PDOT is grappling with is that we have very short block faces with a lot of driveways… and that means lots of potential conflict with cars. how to make them work in that application is still being figured out.
Statement of fact based on the experience of other cities: if you want to get ~5% of trips do what Portland has done. If you want to get something greater than 5% you start considering cycle tracks and other separated use treatments. End of story.
Which begs the obvious question to the vehicular cyclists among us: is your motivation to see everybody behave just like you, or to see more people on bikes more often? If the latter, you own an ideology without a strategy. You’re the libertarians in a Democrat/Republican world. You can feel good about yourself, but you remain irrelevant.
I’m neither flaming not hating, as each of us is entitled to a world view. I’m simply sharing the facts.
GLV #11 – While the statement below is obviously true, my point would be that there are no assurances being made that it will remain so.
“No one is proposing making cycling illegal on non-boulevard streets.”
But I’ll go you one further. Oregon Revised Statute 814.420 mandates the use of bike-lanes, did you know that? If there is a bike-lane installed, you have to use it. Period. There is a provision in this statute that requires a bike-lane to have passed a state inspection before its use can be mandated. The lack of money for these inspections has left law-enforcement the option of not enforcing this statute. This last has created a pervasive and false public perception that these lanes are there to use at one’s own discretion.
Oregon Revised Statute 811.065 is an incredibly good law. Did you know that you lose the protection this statute provides the very second you enter a bike-lane, or bike-boulevard?
Bike-lanes have preceded bike-boulevards in both design and implementation. When they were deployed the constituency was led to believe that they would be a tool only, and that there would not be a mandate to use them. Woops. Furthermore, 811.065 is a fantastic law that brings automobile insurance providers no end of grief. Their lobby were the ones who seized an opportunity to add the exclusionary language to 811.065 in the first place.
What assurances are being made that I will not have my access to the public right-of-way restricted as a result of adding infrastructure? The answer is, absolutely none. Blindly supporting the addition of infrastructure can end up putting us all on the side-walks with the baby-strollers, and skateboarders, if we are not careful. The exact place big-oil, and conservative America want us.
Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing, friend GLV. Beware.
BURR: “This statement is just plain wrong. Look at the bike counts for the last five years, there have been double-digit percentage increases practically every year,”
Except for this year. There was a post to that effect on this very blog just a few days ago. I stand by my assertion that our current facilities are pretty much maxed out, hence the push for “next generation” bikeways by the city.
And Vance, I’m sorry but I just don’t buy the slippery slope argument. I don’t know what else to say about it.
Hmmm, seems like this tread dropped some previously posted comments over the weekend, can you tell what’s up with that Jonathan?
the gist of my comments in the lost post are that bike counts are up from 16% to 25% on the bridges this year, as reported, respectively, in this weeks Mercury and elsewhere in BikePortland (from 14000 trips per day in 2007 to 18000 trips per day in 2008).
Bike boulevards are far from ‘next generation’ facilities, they are simply existing low traffic streets with a few additional improvements for cyclists.
If you really want to see cycling rise to 20 to 40% of trips, cyclists are going to be everywhere and we’re going to need improvements for cyclists on arterial streets, also.
How about starting with eastbound lower SE Hawthorne, where it’s already clear cyclists have outgrown the substandard-width right-hook door-zone bike lane. Similarly, SE Madison, NE Broadway and NE Weidler need wider, safer bike lanes, and narrower arterials like E 11th, 12, and 28th should receive sharrows.
actually, another 16% increase in bikes crossing the bridges this year, it’s in Amy Ruiz’s column in today’s Mercury.
sure, our current facilities are maxed out, that’s why there should be more than a stingy 4 or 5 foot wide right-hook door-zone bike lane on arterials like SE Hawthorne and Madison, NE Broadway and Wiedler, and new facilities like sharrows on other narrower arterials like E 11th, 12th and 28th.
Bike boulevards are not ‘next generation’ bikeways, most neighborhood streets already function as perfectly good bike boulevards; I think there’s more than a bit of irony and a whole lot of laughs in providing a few added amenities for cyclists, calling them ‘bike boulevards’ and getting people to think they are seeing ‘next generation’ facilities.
Bike boulevards are more than just neighborhood streets.. they take into account slopes, pavement quality, auto deterrence, directness, ensure safe(r) crossings of major arterials, and provide connectivity with other routes. Additionally, signs and pavement markers ensure the legibility of such routes.
Sure, I can bike anywhere and on any neighborhood street, but every time I try that, I happen to be on a street that dead ends, crosses a major arterial at a difficult location to cross and get disoriented and lost. I’m sure people who know every street in southeast don’t care about this because they have a mental map, but as someone who bikes only occasionally and rides transit the rest of the time, it’s not as easy to bike around, especially east of 60th where streets aren’t as direct.
Bike boulevards are key to the future of biking in this city… Bike lanes are also helpful because they provide direct access to businesses I need to get to and remind drivers that I belong in the right-of-way. I’m tired of militant bicyclists who expect every other bicyclist to have the same level of comfort as them and believe vehicular bicycling is the way to go.. Not the case for me and most bicyclists..
Anyway, glad this is finally getting off the shelf again. I was wondering what happened.
Anything to get those other 95% to use their bikes, for whichever purpose, whatever destination: Thats what bike blvds are about. I feel fine riding streets,bikelanes, trails, whatever. Not everyone shares that feeling. For many, street riding scares the bejeebers out of them. They will not ride to school,the store, to work until they feel safe.
True critical mass will occour when it doesn’t even occur that we are doing something different.