that better biking and walking
access to transit will result
in more trips.
(Photo © J. Maus)
TriMet General Manager Neil McFarlane knows how important it is to get the right language into Transportation System Plans (TSPs) — the documents that dictate many of the transportation policies and investments in cities and counties throughout our region.
Back in June, McFarlane sent out a letter urging cities, counties, and other jurisdictions to beef up support for bicycling and walking projects at the outset of their TSP updates.
I got a copy of the letter and have pasted the key paragraph below (emphasis mine):
“TriMet wants to support your goals by providing quality transit service that boosts mobility, improves access to jobs, fights congestion, and enhances the sustainability of our region. But as you may know, many areas still lack the basic sidewalk infrastructure to allow and encourage access to our service. As a regional partner, your work on safety issues, traffic operations that affect transit, and pedestrian and bicycle projects are fundamental to our ability to serve the mobility needs of local areas and of the region. We provide the service, but you control much of what makes transit successful. Safe and walkable streets are fundamental to good transit, because every transit rider is a pedestrian first and last.”
One local source in the planning field called his letter, “an extraordinary document,” and added, “I can’t think of any other transit agency tackling the bike/ped nexus so directly, and demonstrating that they really understand and want to support the development of facilities that support transit.”
The letter was accompanied by a two-page document titled, TriMet Recommendations for Transportation System Plans. 6 out of 10 of the recommendations revolved around greater support for bicycling and walking (emphasis mine)…
- Word Choice: Avoid calling walking, bicycling, and transit “alternative” modes. They are used by almost everyone and promote health, save money, avoid congestion, and reduce oil dependence. Instead simply say “walking, bicycling and taking transit.”
- Quality of Pedestrian/Bicycle Facility and Transit Service Matters: The existence of a 6-foot-wide, curb-tight sidewalk may make a street somewhat safer for a pedestrian, but it is not a place where people want to walk when it is next to traffic. To encourage more trips by walking, bicycling, and taking transit, go beyond minimum design standards… Long-term success requires complete facilities that feel safe and allow many people to choose walking, bicycling or taking transit.
- Analysis: Data collection and system analysis for walking, bicycling, and transit require explicit and rigorous methods just as motor vehicles do… Collect data that help identify meaningful and complete pedestrian, bicycle and transit needs.
- Prioritize Specific Locations and Areas Where People Walk, Bicycle, and Transit: Develop a list of pedestrian and bicycling projects, based on where it is most important for more people to be able to access specific places by walking, cycling or transit… Then identify investments that will increase comfort and safety for walking, bicycling and taking transit to and from those areas. In the long-term, this will be better for travel demand and for livability, saving money and avoiding negative impacts of continually widening roadways and intersections. Pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure costs are very low compared to roadways, but the pedestrian and bicycle network needs are substantial in every jurisdiction…
- Unbundle Pedestrian and Bicycling needs from Larger Road Projects: Pedestrian or bicycle improvements made now deliver substantial benefits immediately, even if long-term future plans may include roadway widening that could require rebuilding some of the improvements. Stand-alone pedestrian and bicycling projects are cost-effective and provide substantial benefits in the near term.
- Conduct Field Visits and Safety Audits of Select Corridors on Foot and Bicycle:… Roadways are all generally built to basic quality standards, and therefore engineers and planners can focus on things like capacity and function. But with walking and bicycling, there is not yet consistent basic quality and safety. Assess the facility on foot or bicycle with the engineers and planners who will be helping identify priorities. Include the following: Is it noisy? Do you feel too exposed to traffic? Is the environment attractive? What can I see at night? Do I generally feel safe walking? Can children safely walk here? Conduct 3-4 pedestrian safety audits (see Resources section below) and incorporate the results in the analysis. This will greatly improve the detail and completeness of the needs identification and the scope, as well as the effectiveness, of proposed projects.
This stuff looks reads like it could have been written by a bicycle advocacy organization, so it’s great to know that it not only came from TriMet, but it came with the stamp of approval from the GM.
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.
Of course there’s the issue of actually finding money as well. I wonder sometimes if we could pass a bump in the trimet business tax to specifically fund sidewalk and bike projects. What if measure 26-119 had been devoted solely to rebuilding streets and creating paths? It still probably wouldn’t have passed but maybe in the future with some strong champions we could get a dedicated region wide funding source to have better ways to get to bus and max stops.
Trimet is one of this city’s best arguments for getting a bike.
I can’t think of a better transit operation on this continent for a city Portland’s size.
http://www.translink.ca/
Name any city served by BC Transit (known in Vancouver as Translink).
Vancouver is a much larger city and metro area.
A better comparison would be Edmonton or Calgary, which both have better transit systems. But it IS true that Portland has one of the better systems for a mid-size city in the U.S.A.
And if we look around the world, dozens of similar-size cities in Europe and Latin America and Asia are better.
No they’re not. Both the Vancouver metro and city are smaller than the Portland metro and city. Source: wiki
Vancouver city and metro may be about the same size as Portland city and metro, but Vancouver city is 3-4 times more densely populated. According to that Wikipedia article, only NYC, SF and Mexico City are more dense for North American cities over 500,000. It also serves as the economic hub for a much larger region that isn’t considered part of the metro area. So Vancouver can have more transit, but I don’t think it’s obvious that it does a better job than TriMet.
I don’t think I agree about Edmonton and Calgary. Their light rail is much more efficient than ours, especially through the downtown core (MAX is so slow down there, for cripes sake!). Calgary’s is fairly extensive and runs frequently. But I found that in either place, if my destination was not near light rail, there was usually no dependable way to get there. Nothing like the Frequent Service network of buses, even as we have it in its current decimated form.
Given that Portland is in the top 25 cities by population in the US, I do believe Portland qualifies as “huge”, not “mid-sized.”
The language is encouraging. Though I did note this:
“Pedestrian or bicycle improvements made now deliver substantial benefits immediately, even if long-term future plans may include roadway widening…”
That there is some 20th Century thinking. Long term there isn’t going to be any roadway widening, because long term we aren’t going to be able to afford the oil, the asphalt, or the machinery to build this kind of thing, nor will we have any reason or desire to.
I like this approach but can’t understand why neither the impending end of oil nor the well-underway end of stable climate never makes it onto the transport agenda in this country. (Or I should say ‘not yet.’ It will soon but then it’s going to be mostly too late.)
So why did Trimet put up the new stickers in the already limited bike areas on the MAX?
They seem to still want to encourage cycling to the station, but discourage taking the bicycle aboard.
That’s nice, but are they going to hand me a properly equipped bicycle at my destination station?
Exarctly. And bike-and-ride is particularly futile for reverse commuting to the sparsely-served suburbs, where a high proportion of the area’s jobs are.
exactly… I’m baffled by all this talk about bicycles when TriMet doesn’t even want bikes on their trains…
as you say, they went from 4 dedicated bike spots per train to up to 4 possible bike spots per train…
The ‘allow cyclists access to the hook’ language was dropped because it implied that someone had to move their stroller to allow someone else to hang their bike, even if there was nowhere to move except off the train. What we heard from customers was that the message it sent was that strollers were less welcome – which was not the intention.
The problem with that is twofold:
1) Children under six are not fare paying passengers.
2) This treats TriMet’s most loyal customer base as second class citizens. You can look a gift horse in the mouth, but it will only serve to limit TriMet.
Given that most strollers that aren’t folded take up more standing room, particularly those the size or larger than a bicycle trailer, than a bicycle hanging on the hook, and the limited number of hooks, this situatuation is not equitable for TriMet unless open strollers pay full allzone fare regardless of distance, and is bad for everyone who uses TriMet whether or not they bring a stroller, a bicycle, luggage, or are travelling light.
I have no problems if bicycles go back to a permit system. I have mine from last time still. Perhaps now is the time for a similar system for stroller users so that TriMet can educate them about appropriate stroller selection and considerations for other transit users, like the old bike permit system.
having to move for seniors and people with disabilities makes me feel like I’m less welcome… please change the wording so I don’t get kicked out of my spot…
If someone has to explain why that’s not a comparable situation to strollers, then you’re not going to ever understand it…
Part of that is they kept saying “dedicated” spots, when in fact those spots could be also used by others, such as those with strollers. They were always meant to be shared with others, but they kept calling them dedicated, which caused a lot of problems.
I can’t tell you how many times I had bike riders insist that me and my toddler get off the train because my folded stroller was in “their” area. One time I finally got sick of it, pulled out my cell phone, called TriMet, and let them explain to the bike rider that I was entitled to use that spot as well.
TriMet changed the wording because of the number of complaints they received about bike riders who caused problems by not wanting to share that space. I realize bike riders need a place to put their bike, but so does a parent with a stroller. I am glad that TriMet now ackowledges that those spaces are to be shared by a number of riders with large items.
That’s great, but I’d be more willing to consider TriMet a supporter of people who bike or walk if I hadn’t just heard their Capital Improvements director extolling the virtues of the CRC freeway megaproject (at the Metro LUFO hearing).
“Trimet is one of this city’s best arguments for getting a bike.”
~~~>CLASSIC!
“I can’t think of a better transit operation on this continent for a city Portland’s size.”
~~~>Probably true if you live in the Portland city core. If you live on the west side (Beaverton, Hillsboro etc) you need a car to get to the max weekends and nights. And the MAX service ends way to early to make claims of world class service.
I love all the bureaucratic steps he has there. God, what would we do with bureaucrats and their visions of central planning?
One project of immediate concern: Washington County is finalizing plans to spend many millions to realign Oleson Road in Raleigh Hills, without coordinating with TriMet about how people will cross Beaverton-Hillsdale to get to bus stops there. See http://www.fixbhos.org for more info on this plan to speed up traffic while only doing the minimum required for other modes.
Does anybody really get offended by the words “alternative modes”? It kind of describes what it is, it isn’t derogatory. I think they are being oversensitive
no offense, as long as they also refer to cars this way…
Jim, nice point. Language is very political, and it’s a tough line to toe. Analogously, we can think back to slave times, and how the language of property was applied to humans. If abolitionists campaigned to change the use of that vocabulary, we would certainly think them righteous.
On the other hand, the same battles are always waged by both sides of the ideological debate. Famously (in the tech community, anyway), there is a Christian fundamentalist website that aggregates news and filters certain terms it deems too liberal. So any instance of “gay” becomes “homosexual”, which is a bit more judgmental. When I praise the abolitionist but I condemn these people for the same act, I can’t account for why everyone should think me right.
(In case you were wondering why the site is famous — http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2008/07/post_825.html)
On the other hand, Vancouver metro is also 3-4 times sparser than Portland metro. You don’t get endless Californian Condo-style tract housing between suburban centers, you get…FARMS. And yet, Translink still does a better job connecting suburban areas despite having to cross *miles* of farms to get to them!