(Photo © J. Maus)
As we reported earlier this month, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has decided to take a few more months before making any changes to North Williams Avenue.
Last night, KOIN-TV (the local CBS affiliate) filed a story on the project. There are a few things of concern about their coverage that I want to clear up. First, watch the clip below…
It’s very unfortunate that KOIN opens with “Bicycles versus cars” and then refers to the situation with the project as a “controversy.” That type of characterization, while convenient and attention-grabbing, is wholly inaccurate.
At the meeting where the project delay was announced, I watched as advocates for the bikeway sat down to chat amicably with community members who oppose the direction of the project (I think they were making plans to get coffee and discuss it further). I also watched the PBOT project manager hug those in opposition to the project and thank them for sharing their concerns. Hardly sounds like a project mired in controversy to me.
Another important thing that KOIN got wrong is, the main proposal on the table to improve bike access does not include removal of any parking* in that stretch of Williams (near N. Failing Street). The plan is to enlarge the bikeway by having only one through vehicle lane where there now exists two. (*Note this comment from project consultant Michelle Poyourow, which clarifies the issue.)
Based on what I assume is an inaccurate leading question by the KOIN reporter, here’s how the exchange with the owner of EAT Oyster Bar went (in case you didn’t watch the video):
“Tobias Hogan owns an oyster bar on North Williams called EAT. He appreciates the desire of the city to make Williams even more bike friendly. However, he’s worried about the impact that could have on his business. ” I think anything that makes it more difficult for people to come to this neighborhood and patronize our places would hurt our business,” said Hogan. “I think taking away parking spaces would probably have an adverse impact on our business.””
I hope someone tells Hogan that there are no plans to remove parking. I also hope that someone tells him a PBOT analysis presented at the last meeting shows that, the street would remain under full capacity even if there was only one through standard vehicle lane (assuming the lane reconfiguration is coupled with improved signal timing and detection).
The implication that this project is getting “push-back from businesses” is far from the case. Yes, there are some businesses on the street that don’t support the plans; but from my sources and my sense of the street, there are more business owners in support than in opposition.
As this project moves forward, I don’t expect the discussion to be void of emotions based on how the street has changed dramatically in the past few years; but I hope those emotions can at least be based on fact and accurate reporting.
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.
To paraphrase Jon Stewart: mainstream media leans toward conflict, sensationalism and laziness.
That was a brilliant interview.
This sort of thing is so infuriating. To think of all the time, effort, research and money that people put into these projects and then the local news goes and potentially negates all that effort in hopes of improved ratings.
Wouldn’t it be nice if journalists were required to obtain a revocable license much like lawyers/doctors/etc.? Lies from mass media are so much more detrimental to society than most actual crimes, and yet they’re fully protected by our constitution.
“Wouldn’t it be nice if journalists were required to obtain a revocable license”
No.
The problem is structural in terms of concentrations of ownership, and that can be addressed without forcing definitions of what is a “journalist”, licenses, etc. which have all kinds of unintended consequences for freedom of speech.
If you’re worried about big corporations stifling the little guy, that would still happen under a licensing scheme… Smaller outlets (such as BikePortland) could be routinely harassed by dubious claims of inaccuracy … in much the same way as the patent system has become so abused by big players cluttering the system with dubious claims that the “little guy” can barely afford to file an original patent, much less enforce/defend it in court.
Back to bikes?
it would, however, be nice if the FCC would take seriously the criterion of “serving the public interest” in the license renewal process for broadcasters, most of whom are owned by huge corporations.
Well said, are!
you can thank Reagan for getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine…
Why does the proposal get continually misrepresented as “taking away” parking. I have seen nowhere a proposal to take away parking, this myth needs to be kicked to the curb. I spoke with someone yesterday who works in the building where Hub is (not the new brewery location, but the other building) and she said the same thing, and said she could not recall where she heard this info from. Somehow this mis-information keeps circulating. If you know people in the area, I suggest talking with them, or if you patronize businesses in the area talk to the people work there and help set the record straight. There will be NO lost parking, and NO threat to the number of people traveling and *more importantly* stopping to patronize businesses. I see no evidence of this, and it would nice if people who continue to express “fear” about this supposed loss in business happening that they might actually attempt to substantiated this claim with real observations. Where exactly has having only one lane of traffic, traveling in each direction, actually hurt businesses? I don’t see it happening on Killingsworth, Alberta, Mississippi, Fremont, NW 23rd, Division, Lombard in St Johns, etc, etc, etc. I live and work on N Williams, and when I read the proposal, I could see no suggestion to take away parking.
they’re just marketing to their target audience… none of the people working toward change believe anything on the TV news… if we even accidentally watch it…
As far as the last comment of the report, I don’t know where to start. Somehow adding better bike and pedestrian facilities is becoming a race issue? “A lot deeper than bike lanes”…. did the reporter really say that? What’s is point, to say that one community has more right or claim to the neighborhood? Even if this were true, the proposed changes to Williams hardly seem like the forum to discuss gentrification. Bike and pedestrian facilities are not likely the harbinger of gentrification. Gentrification has a lot more to do with private real estate deals, than how a public street gets used. I understand the changes – 20% less African-American and about the same percentage of increase of whites in the last 10 years – but how bike lanes became the hallmark of gentrification I don’t know. This town needs to do some serious outreach to low-income and people of color to help correct the stereotype that riding a bicycle for transportation either makes you a second class citizen or some kind of wealthy elite. And that it can be both things for different people is incredible.
To clarify, there is one way that a little bit of parking could get converted as part of this project: IF the community expressed broad support for a right-side cycletrack (between parked cars and the curb), then a few parking spots at intersections and across from bus stops would have to be removed to keep auto traffic flowing and to make sure people riding in the cycletrack were visible to people in a car turning right.
There are three other alternatives on the table that have no parking impacts.
The big question for the communities around North Williams at this stage of the process is whether the conversion of any space in the street should happen in order to make room for bike and bus operations, to make pedestrian crossings safer, to provide a “door zone” buffer for people exiting parked cars, and to reduce speeding on the street.
The project team has heard that converting on-street car parking is unappealing to a large number of people; the response to converting one car travel lane has been more positive, but still mixed.
Please please please for the love of bicycles DO NOT PUT A CYCLE TRACK HERE!!!!!!!
For the love of bicycles please DO put a cycletrack here. Let’s take it next level.
If you don’t like the cycletrack ride in the car lane.
Can you explain what your problem with cycle tracks is?
KOIN was my last hope for accurate local TV news since KGW and KATU have already, on more than one occasion, thrown cyclists under the bus so to speak. Sigh.
Up until now bike advocates have successfully told their story and have made very compelling arguments for expanding the bike infrastructure on Williams. As more time goes on that interest from the bike community has begun to wane and misleading stories like this will continue to sway more and more uninformed people.
I am tired of people calling for increasing conversations with marginalized communities. How many conversations do you need to have before they become demarginalized? What would successful outreach actually look like? Should the mayor knock on every black person’s door and talk to them about transportation?
Transportation planning is not democratic and it never will be. It should be scientific. But when we attempt to make it more democratic the science gets lost to emotion.
In the meantime the threat of someone being hit by a bus on Williams continues to persist.
Kiel, thanks for having the guts to eloquently say what I’ve occasionally tried to convey myself (I have to admit a personal bias on the issue, living as I do on Williams).
The transportation bureaucracy (of which many of us are a part) relies too much on a few influential personalities and not on a clear mission guided by clear, scientific principles buffered by the whims of whatever’s politically fashionable at the moment.
I agree.
Build it as it should be and let the citizens and businesses figure out how to live around it…..
If we keep going to the neighbors and the businesses,
well, it will continue to be like this struggle is…
The reason the Broadway bike lane is dangerous is because the big money (Heathman/Benson/ etc…) won the war.
Cycling lost, and now we have signs warning us to slow down for double parkers, valets, and tourists who do not pay attention at all.
We have police who mistakingly think it is ok to double park in the bike outside a hotel…….
So much more to say here.
Just build the facilities we need.
People will figure out how to live with them…
i disagree. at the end of this process, and at the end of the 50s bikeway process, everyone will have had an opportunity to be heard, and when PBoT puts in something which will, after all, resemble the plans they came forward with initially, with a tweak here or there (including stuff that came from cyclists), no one will be able to say “who asked for this?” “bike lane to nowhere,” etc.
Thank you!
While it’s unfortunate that KOIN produced such a biased piece, it’s even more unfortunate that this is what people who support the project are saying.
How many conversations need to be had? How about enough so that marginalized communities have a voice in their community? Or enough so that they aren’t marginalized?
What would successful outreach look like? Knocking on doors might be a start, but framing “marginalized communities” as some kind of enemy to more bike infrastructure certainly isn’t a good start. The problem here appears to be biased reporting, so let’s not scapegoat the African American community.
Mary, I understand your concern but I really don’t think anyone’s scapegoating the African American community. The frustration comes from pitting this as a cultural issue at all and framing the conversation in a way that it’s bicyclists versus “marginalized communities.” It’s ridiculous and condescending to people who bike, are a cultural minority, or who fall into both camps. I’ve spent at least half my time in Portland living with non-white bicyclists. I pass non-white bicyclists every day on the way home, on Williams. Any transportation project of any kind launched in Portland is necessarily going to mostly benefit white people because Portland is mostly white, just as any project launched in Port au-Prince will mostly benefit black people. That’s not discrimination. It’s demographics. This is a road issue. Not a race issue.
I think I am more alarmed by the conversation I had yesterday with the woman who works on Williams as much as the Oyster Bar guy in the news spot… where are they hearing that parking is going away? From KOIN news I only expect dross, but why are business owners still (choosing to be) so mis-informed? With the news of Metro advancing the CRC, and this update about Williams project, I’m wondering if Portland deserve the label of being progressive. And what’s this idea I keep hearing about moving too “fast” with these changes. If the project was recognized as being about public safety then moving “fast” would be perceived as a good thing.
That sort of reporting on Koin was mirrored this morning in the Oregonian. Joseph Rose’s article “Portland’s naked bike ride ‘plagued’ by accidents, alcohol?” cites one blogger as the source for the gist of his story and then cites Jonathan and the Portland Police to refute it. The less sensational way for Rose to have written his story would have been “Credible sources say naked bike ride has no major problems with alcohol, accidents, but one blogger with no credibility disagrees.”
Glad you noticed that PdxMark. Pretty sad when Rose relies on sources completely lacking in credibility to not only spur the focus of his story but to write his headline as well.
not a harbinger, no, but they are a sort of trailing indicator, and unfortunately this is where the pushback is being felt. the oyster bar was a harbinger.
bike/ped advocates need to engage the disenfranchised population and work to find common ground. i was at the most recent SAC meeting, where ms. maxwell hendricks gave her piece, and in the public comment period i acknowledged to her that i am “one of the faces of gentrification,” but when i said that no one is served by too many cars speeding through and no safe pedestrian crossings, she nodded in agreement.
Let me see if I have this straight: reporter doesn’t know parking will not be affected, nor does oyster bar owner. Blind leading the blind. Oyster bar owner makes knee-jerk reaction to possibility of reduced parking in front of his establishment, citing access and forgetting cyclists eat oysters too. Everyone making false assumptions? Check.
Gentrification issue? No. Non-dooring issue.
Damn, that dude is an ass….Joseph Rose, i’m talking about you…as a carrier of the O’ and a full time non car owning cyclist i took the liberty of emailing Mr.Rose telling him he was a topic of biker conversation on BikePortland.org due to his inflammatory rhetoric and hyperbole…he did not respond…
As a point of fact, he actually buried his own story back in February about an O’ carrier who crashed and died on Burnside @ 102nd…not revealing the name of the carrier or that she worked AM’s delivering his innane drivel. He reported the wreck the day it occured; then the next day…; followed up by copying police reports word for word – WITHOUT her name….though the PPD report clearly included it.
Was he following editors orders to ‘hide’ their association with a dangerous motor vehicle operator killing herself in a manic rush at 3AM to reach a remote destination due to the Oregonians continuing convergance and closing of sub-stations throughout the area?
Or that as a cargo cyclist one sub-station actually hired, then ‘let me go’ the night i showed up telling me, “we advertised for a driver carrier, so we have to give the job to a driver”….when i complained to the station ‘owner’, he as an independent contractor himself told me, “the Oregonian told me i was not to hire cyclists, and that if i did, i would be fired.”
I wonder what percentage of writers/columnists at the O’ are dedicated bikers themselves, and what they think of the O’s slant on cycling in Portland….? Is there an air of ‘tell it like we say & don’t get canned’… secret cyclists of the Oregonian.
Oregonian sucks, but they don’t have to hire your for a driving position on your cargo bike..
That is just petty.
Can anyone direct me to a study that shows that bikeways have a net positive effect on businesses? My initial hunch is that bikeways actually are good for businesses just like pedestrian only zones are good for business. It would be nice to have scientific proof that can be shown to the doubters.
Dr. Kelly Clifton at PSU is working on a study examining the connection between bike infrastructure and consumer behavior. Note that it’s an objective study, so it’s not out to prove a point on way or the other – but it’s a great project, and I think we’ll all look forward to hearing about it when she publishes. Fingers crossed, because that information will be powerful.
JMaus wrote a story on her work a few weeks ago, and here’s some more info if you’re interested.
As Jonathan said above, there is no proposal to remove parking on the stretch where EaT: An Oyster Bar is located. I know this because I am a concerned and well informed citizen, I’ve seen all of the proposals on the table and have attended meetings regarding the N. Williams project. I answered the question “would removing parking hurt business?” the answer to that question is yes, probably. Let’s not make a controversy out of a discussion, we all live here and love Portland which is why we have intelligent debate on how the city develops.
Thanks for commenting Tobias. Having an intelligent discussion is my goal here. I’m glad you’re informed about the proposals. I disagree w you about how parking might hurt your business…but then again, I’m not a retail business owner.
And let’s not forget that the delay in this project has nothing to do with parking, lane capacity, or engineering details— it’s all about race and politics at this point.
How would reducing car parking affect business; is it your clientele is mostly car-based and prefers right-in-front parking due to the changing demographics of the neighborhood or in general?
it was a leading question.
the lady doth protest…
I maintain that if the on-street bike parking corral had been placed in the middle of the block instead of around the corner businesses would be clamoring for more bike infrastructure.
Anyway Tobias’s response in understandable given his perspective. Even though I disagree I will gladly continue to patronize this fine oyster dispensary. 😉
hyperlink fail, sorry: http://otrec.us/project/411
Thanks for the additional info Michelle P. I can’t believe the battle lines are being drawn over parking space. When will public safety be permitted to trump the desire to park private motor vehicles on public streets!?
There are hugs at the meetings? Awesome.
“Bicycles versus cars” KOIN newsguy
Sure enough…the first words that plop out of his mouth. Those words are probably worth extra ratings points, and would be a difficult temptation for some competing tv stations to resist using.
Gentrification does kind of suck. Nobody seems to have been able to figure out how to counter it in a benign manner. Rent control? Freeze property values? Sale of property only to people of modest income levels?
Not to get off topic, but:
“…when i complained to the station ‘owner’, he as an independent contractor himself told me, “the Oregonian told me i was not to hire cyclists, …” Jolly Dodger
This leaves me curious as to what is the official Oregonian policy on newspaper delivery by delivery. I believe there was a story, maybe a year or so ago saying that newspaper bike delivery had more or less gone by the wayside. if so, that kind of puts the potential for neighborhood paperboy entrepreneurs out of business.
I’m going to write to KOIN now and suggest they do a better job covering the real facts in the conversation about N. Williams. I would also suggest to all those posting here who feel KOIN got it wrong to write to the station manager and let them know. If we don’t speak up about sloppy journalism, they won’t change.
A) Broadcast media is a farce since the above mentioned cancellation of the fairness doctrine. I used to enjoy listening to the AM radio talk shows for instance; they were rational once. Nowthe radio is an obsolete device cuz there’s nothing but trash on there. Sad.
B) TV always was trash except it was a little bit OK until FOX lowered the bar to the bottom and the rest inevitably followed. Sad.
C) People who watch TV don’t process much on their own, and might not remember just what it was they saw on the news last night. Sad.
Kill your TV.
Speaking as a degree holder with a major in Broadcast Media Communications, I can only quote for you the words of the late Ernie Kovacs:
“Television is a medium because it is neither rare nor well done”
“People who watch TV don’t process much…”
not that you’d make crazy generalizations or anything.
Bike issues always get blown out of proportion by both sides. The issue that always seems to left out is that by law if a bike is ridden on the road bikers have to follow the same traffic laws as motorists. The motorist is always picked on by if one is truly honest some problems are caused by bikers who are careless boths sides need to be responsible and watch out for each other and follow rules and common sense for any city to be “bike friendly”. If more bicyclists and motorists paid attention to what they were doing we could spend the time and money on more crucial issues.
And formalized bicycle infrastructure with a rich public planning process is counter to the rules of “common sense” exactly how?
Media reports which get key facts wrong, and provoke responses based on those misrepresented facts, help motorists and cyclists get along exactly how?
in the case of north williams, through segment 4, a significant difficulty is that cyclists and motorists are in fact not treated the same under the law. cyclists are forced to ride in a narrow strip of pavement within inches of parked cars and to the right of motorists who might be turning right or pulling into parking spaces. if cyclists were permitted to assert the travel lane, we might have a different discussion.
Sounds like we should just scrub the bike lane and keep the second lane as a shared bike/car lane complete with sharrows. That way everybody wins!
that would work for me, but for better or worse, the target bikeway design in this town, even on major thoroughfares, is for the “interested but anxious” middle. if you can’t get mom and the kids out on the bikeway, it is not up to 2030 plan standards. the best the rest of us can hope for is a repeal of the mandatory sidepath law.
grammy and the kids will quickly learn that a poorly designed cycle track is no safer than a poorly designed bike lane. Making room on the road for cyclists does not need to be a major construction project.
are,
people riding bikes are able to ride in the adjacent lane if they need to for safety, to avoid debris, to pass other riders, etc etc.. I have covered bikes in this town for 6 years and have found enforcement of the “mandatory sidepath law” essentially non-existent.
I agree w you it’s long overdue to be repealed, but it’s not as prevalent or strong as you sometimes make it seem.
the problem is partly perception. you put down a stripe and the motorist asks why are you not over there. also provides a loose tool for arbitrary policing.
Also, don’t forget that the onus is on the cyclist if s/he is involved in a crash while riding outside the bike lane to prove there was a valid reason for being there.
It’s way past time to repeal the mandatory side path law, and it would be a lot easier to stomach all the experimental and substandard bike infrastructure PBOT is so fond of building if you weren’t forced to use it.
you mean the myriad of laws that motorists don’t follow? i rarely, if ever, see a motorist come to a complete stop (e.g. no wheel turning) at a stop sign. the vast majority of motorists treat yellow as go in, direct violation of THE LAW. motorists also rarely, if ever, signal 100 feet in advance of a turn or a lane change.
“blowing” a stop sign on a bike is far less dangerous than failing to signal a turn in a 5,000 lb vehicle. regardless of whether you bike or driver, failure to understand this is, imo, car head.
Blow a stop sign means disregard it.
“Build it as it should be and let the citizens and businesses figure out how to live around it…..”
Its called representative democracy guys. PBOT/Metro/whoever possibly has better tools than the average Joe to analyze this type of thing but it is also their job to report to and attempt to convince the citizens of their position. Also, lets not deceive ourselves that their positions are based purely on objective analysis. They are people just like us with pre-conceived notions and axes to grind. Either they answer to the people of Portland or they are an un-elected oligarchy. I prefer to hope for the former.
Very good points. And let us not forget, if we let them just shove transportation projects down our throats, we’d have an “awesome” (eye-rolling sarcasm) freeway where Powell blvd. currently is.
I agree the endless back and forth is tiring, especially when you’re trying to convince people that you want to improve safety and they aren’t convinced that it won’t negatively impact them somehow, but it’s better than steamrolling projects through.
A.K.
That’s the false dichotomy that I feel is going on here. PBOT and project consultants did TONS of groundwork on this project. They knocked on hundreds of doors before the large official outreach process even began. They have an SAC and have done many private meetings with stakeholders (church groups, business owners, developers).
So, to characterize this process as “steamrolling” as a way to justify it needing to be slowed down, is just not accurate IMO.
Apparently Tobias Hogan owner of Eat Oyster Bar, prefers to keep those few parking spots for his business rather than thinking about the safety of the cycling commuters in the neighborhood. Not very neighborly Tobias, and I just live down the street.
Business owners are in the business of protecting their businesses so they can continue to do business. The real issue is the fact that Mr. Hogan is under the false impression that those parking spaces are in any kind of jeopardy in the first place.
As a neighborhood resident there is good reason to do this. To Tobias maybe you should worry more about your customer service than the three parking spaces on Williams that might be available . Personnaly I would be more concerned with the new residential building going in at Beech and Williams having a limited number of parking spaces for what is supposed to be fifty units. Also how is this even slightly even including the thought of gentrification, this is about transportation and safety.
Mr. Hogan, the problem, as spare_wheel points out, is that is was a leading question, and it was designed to make you a tool for a very particular (anti-bike) framing of the issue.
Greg: It’s about gentrification partly because none of these “developments” (roadway changes, buildings being built) were happening before the shift occurred…. 20% less Black, 20% more white people moving in and putting down roots. It’s understandable why this new “investment” has some people upset, since it wasn’t happening before the shift in demographics.
Beyond this, it’s a clash of values and perception as I see it. The value of cars in have privileged access to our streets, and the perception that less car parking or car traffic hurts business. I think the latter is fairly easy to disprove, that is show me a street where the challenge of parking has hurt businesses on neighborhood commercial strips… NE 23rd, Division, Belmont, Fremont, Alberta, Killingsworth, Mississippi, and downtown SJ all seem to be doing ok business-wise even though parking a car can seem a little inconvenient. Why people want to park in front of a business on a busy street I will never understand, unless as I believe an earlier post mentioned, there is a perception that parking on a side or back street is “dangerous” and in risk of theft?
As far as bicyclists needing to be more comfortable with shared bicycle and car space, as I believe several posts have stated, I strong disagree. As someone who has been hit by cars on my bicycle on three separate occasions (two hit and run, and one incident of road rage) I have little faith in the good nature of those piloting motor vehicles. Everyone makes bad decisions, and this fact is compounded when one is piloting 5000 lbs of metal at high speeds. Separate and safe facilities matter, and there will never be an increase in ridership unless the experience of riding a bicycle in Portland continues to become safer. I’ve been commuting by bicycle for the last 20 years, and even with the positive changes for bicycle riders in Portland, I feel unsafe riding with traffic in most areas. Why, because accommodating bicycles is clearly an after thought on the road way, and until this changes, we’re going to continue to see a lot more people maimed and killed by cars on our streets. Public safety crosses race and class boundaries, and the N Williams project is an attempt to make the street safer, a positive goal in my opinion. The project has been difficult to push through because bicycle and pedestrian interests are still in the margins, despite the rhetoric in the media that states we’re some kind of powerful lobby.
Yo! on the cycle track…. Just DO IT.