Alta wins contract to develop Portland bikeway projects

There is very little independence in the bike transportation community. It’s a closed upper middle class community looking out for their income.

The BTA never asked their membership to call up their Salem reps like Tina Kotek and Chip Shields to oppose the $4 billion CRC.

Why? Because Tina, Chip, and Sam would cut off the very big money going to all the lucrative bike projects and consultants if suddenly the BTA lap dog started to bite back.

“There is very little independence in the bike transportation community. It’s a closed upper middle class community looking out for their income.”

Fascinating, provocative statement, and one worthy of in-depth investigation. Takers?

One important point to keep in mind regarding 12th ave is this.
Since moving to inner northeast Portalnd I’ve tried the MLK crossing, the 12th Ave crossing, the 21st ave crossing, and the 28th ave crossing. Here’s what I’ve discovered:
The MLK crossing is a busy 4 lane road in each direction with highway onramps and a big enough elevation change to make it easy to flow with traffic southbound, but very difficult to travel northbound (not to mention streetcar track construction).
The 12th crossing is not bad but has no bike lane on the bridge itself and in addition the connection between Tillamook and Broadway to the bridge has stoplights at every block which slows down travel significantly. The 28th crossing is okay if you can manage the S-curve but it’s out of the way for most inner eastsiders.
My favorate of late has been 21st which has a bike lane along it’s whole length. The problem of the double stoplight at Broadway and Weidler as well as the pool design btwn Weidler and Multnomah can be avoided by taking 19th ave between Multnomah and Broadway. What is really needed is a bike (and maybe transit too) bridge at 7th or 9th ave. But of course there’s never any $$ for that

footnote: PBoT has indicated that it intends at some point to convert the sidewalks on 12th over the bridge to MUPs. when i heard roger geller say this at a BAC meeting, i asked whether this would be a mandatory sidepath, or whether bikes would still be permitted to use the deck (for the positioning purposes mentioned in my previous post), and he agreed that sharrows would be appropriate. we will see what actually gets put on the pavement.

and thank you, jonathan for deleting the offensive language in comment 5.

#2 Joe:

I’m a little conflicted about your comment. While I certainly support your anti-CRC efforts (if you remember, I attended your anti-CRC happy hour for Bob Stacey), and agree that the BTA should do more to resist the CRC, I feel like your criticism seems somewhat misplaced here in an article that is, in part at least, about Michelle Poyourow, who has been one the most consistent and vocal critics of the CRC. Case in point:

“The BTA can no longer justify pouring our members’ precious resources into a project that is bad for the health and vitality of this region and now has a lousy bike and pedestrian facility to boot.”

http://bikeportland.org/2009/08/31/bta-walks-away-from-crc-bikeped-advisory-process-we-will-put-our-energy-elsewhere/

At CRC hearings and protests, Michelle’s stood out as a strong, clear voice in the face of what otherwise appeared to be an unstoppable steamroller of a project.

I’m less aware of Mia and Scott’s stance on the CRC, but I get the sense that Mia isn’t a huge fan based on a comment in this post about Rex Burkholder’s campaign:

“In Rex’s career, his involvement with the CRC is his only blemish. That’s not enough to lose my vote.”

http://bikeportland.org/2010/04/09/checking-in-on-the-race-for-metro-president/#comment-1529851

While I myself voted a different way, I’d say “blemish” – while an understatement – is an apt description.

I guess what I’m saying is that while I’m all for anti-CRC criticism, I don’t see how it fits here in the comments section of this particular story, directed at these particular people.

“If successful, Birk says, Alta’s work will develop the projects up to the point where PBOT can then fund them and begin implementation.”

I totally love that line. The city is spending money for a plan, if successful, to raise more money and then spend money.

@JE #12: Better that than spending our money without a plan.

Plans aren’t free. Good planning is worth every penny.

My memory is the same as #17.

However, I tend to agree with my buddy Joe Rowe that Portland’s bike advocacy community is incredibly insular.

This is one hope I have for the BTA’s new director, as he comes from a larger organization in a larger city with a broader mandate. I’m really hoping he can reach out to non-wonks in a way that the BTA has had trouble doing in the past, as well as linking up with other organizations working on different-yet-related issues (like Michelle did to join with CLF, AORTA, etc., in opposing the CRC).

But to link this all back to what I was originally going to post, when I read the headline, my first reaction was “surprise of the century.”

Is there even another bike infrastructure planning firm in town? You’d never know it.

Reply to #12: If you remember, the BTA would not come out against a 12 lane CRC for months and months- while the cycling community was demanding a stop to the mega-bridge madness. Eventually, a limp, weak, soft stance was offered. See below.

http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/21/bta-at-a-crossroads-with-columbia-river-crossing-project/

My apologies for my initial snarky comment – and the flamewar it helped set off.

However, I do not think this article is the appropriate place to complain about BTA advocacy with regards to the CRC, particularly when the two people referenced in the article no longer work there. This is a different project, with a very different scope, budget and client. The people in question are in different roles than at their previous employer, with different responsibilities for their job. Who knows, maybe it’ll suit them better.

#20, Anon:

I think you have a valid point with regards to the BTA and the CRC. But I think andy in comment #22 just put it best:

“However, I do not think this article is the appropriate place to complain about BTA advocacy with regards to the CRC, particularly when the two people referenced in the article no longer work there.”

I’m just going to cut and paste my comment from the Bike Commuter Tolerance guest article from last Thursday, as I’m guessing Jonathan didn’t see it:

—————
Hey Jonathan, regarding your comment (#2), maybe it’s time for that 7th Ave bike/ped bridge article? 🙂

Solutions have been proposed for making close-in N/S connections easier and safer; they just haven’t been followed up on.

I still maintain that a bike/ped bridge over 84 at 7th would be a wise investment in infrastructure. For all of us, but particularly in terms of creating a better connection in that area for the nervous-but-interested and people with kids.
———————

I really hope that Alta is allowed/encouraged to explore the long-proposed 7th Ave bridge option as an alternative (more costly, yes, but with much greater benefits as well) to what sounds likely to be a crappy pseudo-solution to the 12th overcrossing…

I would say that public outreach is a critical element, considering some of the public “outrage” over the Holgate buffered bike lane.

Jonathan re #25

“I asked PBOT for dollar figures involved in this contract but there are none yet because negotiations are just beginning.”

Do you mean to say that the city has already awarded the contract without knowing the cost?

Considering that Alta has opened branches in several places and that they are becoming one of the Big players in the Transportation Planning Industry (I made that up but maybe it’s a real thing, who knows?), the likelihood of not agreeing on specifics for a contract that was already awarded on a budget that is as yet unclear — well, I doubt that Alta and the city would drop the whole thing now.

There seem to be a lot of steps to this dance and I don’t yet feel convinced that all of them — or all of the players — are absolutely necessary.

Lisa P (#13) – Scott Bricker is a great lobbyist, and I suspect a pretty good consultant. Michelle Poyourow will be good as a consultant as well, she has an amazing depth and breadth of knowledge and the drive to turn it into a solid business. Ability has nothing to do with why they are no longer at the BTA.

The BTA is a complex entity, and at any given time there are at least 25 staff, board members, and primary stakeholders. In any organization that size, it’s impossible to simply state what the challenges are with the organization. The BTA frequently gets my criticism on many items, but also my praise when they do things right – which they do frequently. While I disagree with a number of the staff changes, sometimes those changes happen simply because the chemistry of the staff isn’t working – and some changes are simpler than others. Some have more impact than others. Bringing Sadowsky on board was not an easy decision for the board, and I think it was a good one, but I also think that the board made a big mistake taking Scott Bricker away from what he is good at (lobbying) and forcing him to divert that energy to the administration and fundraising of the organization. I think they missed an excellent opportunity to push the legislative agenda when all of the relationships Bricker built had to be reworked with Karl Rohde in that slot.

There are no simple answers, and it’s easy for people to point fingers at people we know casually, if at all on a personal level. (“people” in a general sense, not you specifically)

That said, I agree with other commentors that Joe Rowe has a point – the community is very insular. On the flip side, the community is going to go with those who have the knowledge, the drive, and the skills, and you get that by volunteering, working as staff, or serving on a board of an organization that does this type of work, whether in public or private practice. Bricker, Poyourow, Mia Birk and others each have a number of years of specific experience with bike infrastructure. Anyone from outside the bike planning “community” in Portland has to have enough skill to offset the local knowledge these individuals possess, or we’re (society) not putting the best people in those jobs.

steve (#23) “Good thing PBOT doesn’t simply do this themselves” – this displays an ignorance of city departments. City staff already is engaged 100% with their assigned duties. They don’t have the time, skills or resources generally to also engage in fundraising, which utilizes a different skillset than most of the staff has. Hiring a firm to identify and help secure funding is generally cheaper, since the city doesn’t have to pay Alta benefits, or retirement.

It’s not all a conspiracy as you seem to imply.

BTW, the article you cite doesn’t show that Alta made the mistake in recommended placement of the sharrows – I wouldn’t call name dropping “investigative journalism”.

I found the commentary on this story to be very interesting, as it seems there are a number of people not too impressed with the work Alta is doing.

Alta is probably the biggest consulting firm specializing in bicycle and pedestrian planning in the nation and is well respected in the field and by myself. There are two or three other (relatively) large firms that specialize in bike/ped planning and several others that have strong bike/ped departments. Overall I think there are only 10 firms that have more than 8 people on staff working exclusively or mostly on bike/ped planning issues. There are probably only 2 or 3 cities that have 8 or more staff members working these planning issues as well.

As a professional in the bike/ped planning field, I too am concerned that the profession is becoming too insular on some topics and that a feedback loop of self approval may be forming in the profession, particularly in the past 3 to 4 years. I have little concern with most of the ideas and design innovations that have been developed in that time but there are two or three treatments that have become popular solutions that I have a real problem with since they grossly violate some basic roadway behavior principles.

Unfortunately, I feel that my concerns about these innovations are dismissed and under the “Safety in Numbers” rug and (ie. it’s okay to build infrastructure with inherent flaws because the safety in numbers principle will make it okay in the end).

Finally Portlanders, don’t get too spoiled out there. At least you have one of the best bike/ped consulting firms at your fingertips. I’m quite sure there are hundreds if not thousands of bike/ped advocates elsewhere in the country who would love to have your problems.

Best of luck!

#18 “Is there even another bike infrastructure planning firm in town? You’d never know it.” From what I hear, the answer is “Yes.” Apparently another firm was a very close second for this project, which is good to hear. Nothing against Alta, but some competition of ideas should create more options.

Can’t they just go put up cones one day then change them around according to surveys of passing cyclists? It’s not rocket science to paint a thick white line or paint a sharrow. On the other hand, the Couch St couplet…ugh.

he is in the lane, which is all that is required. the overtaking station wagon is not encroaching, which is unfortunately all that is required. the safe passing distance statute, 811.065, does not apply where there is a bike lane, meaning the motorist could, as you suggest, ride a close to the line as she chose. a cyclist riding toward the left edge of the bike lane could be working a strategy to force motorists to keep their distance. i know that is why i do it.

Jonathan, the first Stakeholders Advisory Council meeting is tomorrow (Thursday) Dec 9th at 7:30am (ouch!) at 700 NE Multnomah Building, 3rd Floor Conference room (same floor as the Lloyd TMA).