Support BikePortland - Journalism that Matters

A GOOD Idea: Make bicycling as easy as driving or taking transit

Posted by on April 10th, 2012 at 10:02 am

Observing Broadway traffic-13

Typical conditions on one of Portland’s busiest bikeways.
We can and should do better.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)

I won’t be satisfied with Portland’s progress as a bicycling city until our transportation system provides the same level of safety, efficiency, and respect to people on bicycles as it does to people who drive or take transit.

I can walk to my car and drive to my office downtown in a few minutes, enjoying comfort and safety on streets made just for me. Or, I can walk a few blocks to a bus or a light rail train and have a similar experience. But on my bike, my experience is vastly different.

Contrary to popular belief, bicycling in Portland isn’t all unicorns and rainbows. Cars still dominate the streetscape. In fact, there isn’t a single A-to-B route in this city that has the type of dedicated, connected, safe, easy-to-use facilities like we provide for motor vehicles and transit.

Is it really any wonder that well over 60 percent of Portlanders still drive alone to work everyday? (Or that a mayoral candidate saw fit to do it in an election ad?)

This is the place I started from when GOOD asked me to come up with an urban challenge for Portland as part of their GOOD Ideas for Cities project.

The team: Jason King, Allison Duncan,
Katrina Johnston, me.

Back in February, GOOD teamed me up with the savvy trio of urban planners at THINK.Urban, a non-profit that melds academic research to urban planning. Over the course of several weeks, Jason King, Allison Duncan, Katrina Johnston, and I rolled up our sleeves and came up with a new way of thinking about our street system. (Actually, they did all the real work and I just spouted off crazy ideas at a few meetings.)

Below, I’ll share the basic points of our approach and then I’ll share some visual highlights from the presentation.

They key principles of re-making our system so it does a better job serving cycling is to make it connected, safe, and legible. If we do these three things we’ll get more capacity from the system for less money and we’ll reap the myriad benefits that come with more people choosing to ride bikes.

Connected

Our main street bike network of the future is already laid out for us.

When we looked at a map of Portland, the most direct and accessible streets were all streets that either lacked quality bike access or lacked dedicated bike space completely. Streets like Sandy, Powell, Broadway, MLK, Lombard, and Burnside. For various reasons, we just assume those roads are primarily for motor vehicles and everything else should either steer clear or simply “be accommodated” only when and where it can be done without impeding motor traffic. That’s unfortunate. So, instead of a backstreet approach, we decided to do the opposite: Re-allocate space on these key main streets so they include quality access for all vehicles.

Safe

BAC Bike Ride East Portland-29

Portland’s protected bikeways, like this one on Cully Blvd, are too few and far between.
(Photo © J. Maus)

There is no mystery here. To encourage ridership and prevent collisions, we must separate motor vehicle and bicycle traffic. If we build streets for cars and trains and then try to figure out how to “accommodate” bikes, it will take us many years to see large jumps in bike usage. There are many tools engineers can use to create separation of modes. We don’t lack the knowledge to do this, we lack the political will.

Legible

A great bicycling city shouldn’t require bike maps. People should not have to have insider knowledge just to move around the city on a bike. It should be blatantly obvious how to get somewhere safely on a bike — just like it is for driving or taking transit. That being said, it’s important to communicate at the street-level with a consistent brand. Just like it’s easy to spot a sign for a freeway on-ramp from blocks away, we should make it easy to find (and stay on) major links in the bike network. To accomplish this, Katrina Johnston developed a simple “LinkPDX” visual standard to tie the system together.

To give these ideas a whirl in real life (well, OK, this is a planning exercise, not exactly real life, but you know what I mean), we decided to develop a test route. Our route takes us from the Cully neighborhood in northeast Portland to Portland State University downtown. Not only did this route allow us to test many of our ideas, it’s also symbolic because it ties together two of Portland’s marquee — yet woefully disconnected — cycle tracks on Cully Blvd and on SW Broadway (near PSU).

With our system you’d take only five streets to make this trip: Cully, 57th, Sandy, Burnside, and Broadway (see image above right). There are only seven turns to navigate along the entire 5.5 mile route. On the flip-side, if you took Portland’s existing bike network, you’d have to add 1.5 miles and make 33 turns! When you combine this inconvenience with risky gaps and broken connections, you start to understand why Portland still has a lot of work to do.

Below is a series of illustrations created by the THINK.Urban team that take you through the route…

NE 57th before

NE 57th after

NE Sandy before

NE Sandy after

Burnside before

Burnside after

Burnside Bridge before

Burnside Bridge after

SW Broadway before

SW Broadway after

Before you nitpick these designs, understand that our team was made up of planners and dreamers, not engineers and bureaucrats. The goal is to spur conversation and show what might be possible if we think beyond the status quo. We have the backbone of a high-quality, connected bike network already in place. We simply have to use it better.

Thanks to Jason, Allison and Katrina for their excellent work in turning our ideas into a cohesive project and thanks to GOOD for the opportunity. You can view the entire presentation, including a video of Allison and Jason presenting it live back in February, at ThinkUrban.org.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for discrimination or harassment including expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

92
Leave a Reply

avatar
42 Comment threads
50 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
53 Comment authors
chrisJoeDaveNick SkaggsPaul Johnson Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Andrew K
Guest
Andrew K

I cannot express enough how much I would like to see this vision realized up and down Sandy BLVD.

Gerik
Guest

Rock solid, now all we need is to pass the policy, secure the funding, and build the political will to make it happen.

John R
Guest
John R

Nice inspired thinking. As much as I like the “greenways,” I think we have taken our eye off the ball by ceeding major streets to autos. Bikes belong everywhere.

9watts
Guest
9watts

Yes, let’s do it. And let’s also anticipate the Beth Slovics by noting that this expenditure is defensive, is necessitated by the overwhelming dominance of the car, and not as she would have it, frivolous spending on nonessential stuff.

“If we build streets for cars and trains and then try to figure out how to ‘accommodate’ bikes, it will take us many years to see large jumps in bike usage.”

I would add to this that if we peel off bits for bikes incrementally without a long term plan that anticipates that cars are not going to be the dominant incarnation of mobility forever, it will be a bumpier ride.

Jake
Guest

This is great! I’ve been commuting from cully for a year now. Wish this route existed right now, I’ve done the sandy route before, and it sucks.
The example photos would make it awesome.

Rol
Guest
Rol

Nice! I’m glad someone’s thinking up these ideas, because those in charge don’t have the courage or creativity.

Oh yeah, and speaking of autos in campaign ads, last night I saw one of Hales’ ads, featuring a guy standing outside his truck. Both his carefully-worded script and that of Authoritative Voice-Over Guy extolled Hales as being 1) different from Adams, and 2) sort of a “back to basics” candidate who will “fix potholes.” Humor value aside, all of this sounds a bit ominous for bike spending if you ask me, since aren’t bike routes basically considered a frill? Pretty G.D. ironic — No, we don’t have the money for frills like providing pathways for small, simple machines anyone can afford; we only have money for the BASICS: big expensive pathways for complex, expensive machines. Shame on you for forgetting the basics! Thanks for warning me not to vote for Hales, Hales ad!

Ely
Guest
Ely

Love those ‘after’ pictures! Pretty & fun. 🙂

SilkySlim
Guest
SilkySlim

I think one the biggest, and most overlooked, hurdles in making bicycling “easy” is actually in the home. The ability for a quick launch out the door, one that is as easy as jumping into a car in the driveway, is a huge factor in boosting trips by bike.

Case in point, my parents. They love riding bikes, but they keep them in the basement. And the tires are half flat. And they can’t find gloves in the closet, their helmet is maybe in the garage somewhere, and panniers stowed under a bed…

And the solutions are simple! More attractive bike storage for your living room. More staple racks on residential streets. Coat hangers with helmet/glove/scarf/panniers holders.

Sometimes, I think we all get a bit caught up in the notion that critical bike mass is just one more bike lane away. Great routes are very important, but the route out one’s front door must be clear of obstacles first.

daisy
Guest
daisy

Love, this Jonathan. Thanks. (I especially like the big dog in the front basket. Next time, though, it’d be great if those some of those charming photoshopped cyclists were people of color, to add diversity in appearance, not just in cycling style.)

I started bike commuting last summer after about two years in Portland (commuting via transit). At first I was impressed with the infrastructure–I hadn’t test-driven my route to work before (inner NE to south Park Blocks) and found it easy to do so on my bike, especially with the green boxes at the Broadway Bridge. But the more I commuted, the more I realized it could be so much better! I get especially frustrated by bike-pedestrian conflicts, when bikes are people are jammed into the same space (like when crossing the Broadway Bridge to the east on a nice evening right before a Blazers game). People are going walk two to three abreast and that’s just their natural behavior. Squishing bikes and people into the same place isn’t always a great match.

One thing I do find baffling: why aren’t the Park Blocks a bike boulevard? They lack the rollers that make Broadway a bit difficult and they seem perfect for it–quiet, pretty, etc. This could be a very family-friendly route through downtown. Especially on the way to PSU, which is a bit uphill, this is a good route now, but it’s terrible going north because of all the momentum you have going downhill.

And one other issue/question for you: I get why this focuses on getting people downtown, but I would really like to see some emphasis on getting people from NE to SE and vice versa somewhere in between the Eastbank Esplanade and the I205 path.

BikeMaxBike
Guest
BikeMaxBike

Wonderful visualization. An additional 1.5 miles and 33 turns? The extra mileage is bothersome for commuting to work, but the turns don’t get me down, its the stop signs! How many stop signs are associated with the 33 turns? 16, 25, 30? Losing that momentum is the worst part of non-direct routes.

anonymous
Guest
anonymous

“A great bicycling city shouldn’t require bike maps. People should not have to have insider knowledge just to move around the city on a bike. It should be blatantly obvious how to get somewhere safely on a bike — just like it is for driving or taking transit.”

As much as I would love to see more cycle tracks and some way to safely ride down Sandy (even just a bike lane), I have to disagree with the claim that it’s blatantly obvious how to move around a city by driving or transit. If you’re not familiar with the city, you will need a map, regardless of whether it’s a street map designed for driving, a transit map, or a bike map.

Goretex Guy
Guest
Goretex Guy

Jonathan, you did an excellent job of defining the problem.

Everyone who is interested in making cycling a larger part of our society should look at David Hembrow’s excellent blog “A view from the cycle path”. It has lots of articles about how they’ve created a cycle-friendly transportation system that’s safe and attractive to use. Lots of videos and photos of cycling on safe streets and cycle paths.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

He’s a cyclist living in the Netherlands and his fascinating blogs (686 blogs since 2008) are about how they make cycling work for everyone there. To quote from his blog about sustainable safety and cycling “it is the principle of design by which Dutch roads and streets are made to be easy to use (for cyclists), self-explanatory and safe by default, preventing crashes from occurring.”

And…”If you want people who do not cycle to take up cycling, then the right thing to do is to campaign for design in road conditions which make cycling into an appealing option.”

In other words, as long as cyclists have to mix with cars and trucks in circumstances that favor the vehicles, it’ll look dangerous and a lot of people won’t want to do it.

Andyc
Guest
Andyc

Man. Right on. I sometimes feel not like a super human, willing to put on the correct kind of psychological armor it takes for me to hop on my bike and drive with a bunch of automobiles all over the city. Yes, I do it often, and have for years, but honestly it still freaks me out more than it seems necessary. As far as biking in this city is concerned nowadays, there are a couple of spots that are better, but really it feels almost the same to me as it did 10 years ago.

zuckerdog
Guest
zuckerdog

In my opinion, bicycling into downtown from the cental eastside is already easier and quicker than driving.
– Strong and confident cyclist
More improvements are probably needed to attract less confident riders.

John Beaston
Guest
John Beaston

Great job envisioning a well-connected network. Combining these “bike arterials” with the neighborhood greenways (aka bike boulevards) would have a dramatic increase in bike mode share. Now let’s get the political will in-place to make it happen!

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

“…Is it really any wonder that well over 60 percent of Portlanders still drive alone to work everyday? …” maus/bikeportland

To help keep things in perspective, of overall road users in Portland, it seems to be a small minority, around ten to twenty percent of Portlanders traveling to work by bike. And of course, more people in addition to Portlanders are traveling Portlands’ streets by motor vehicle.

NF
Guest
NF

Hear hear for the planners and dreamers!

cycler
Guest

There was a great post on Car Free with Kids recently about a family outing using car-share, and how much of a hassle it was, and how much easier it was just to get on a bike and go, just because it was usual and expected for them, and the car-share wasn’t usual and expected.

Nathan
Guest
Nathan

I nearly “squee’d” out loud when I saw Highway 26 as one of the roads that would fit the “highway” (two-lane/two-way traffic + cycle-track) model. This would be the bomb-diggity-snap! The three tiers are a great idea.

Putting a big brand on this seems like a fair political move as well as being great for human interaction. It’s easier to support a banner than a collection of single efforts.

Can we make this happen? Please?

Brian Martin
Guest
Brian Martin

“A great bicycling city shouldn’t require bike maps.” I love it!

Marty
Guest
Marty

I live in Kenton and would love to see Lombard redone and look forward to Swan Island/Going St finishing.

Joe
Guest
Joe

most awesome design ever!

Andrew K
Guest
Andrew K

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)
I hear you Gerik. In my opinion, the first order of business is to get people excited about a clear vision for our transportation future (something the Bike Plan failed to do unfortunately). We do that with words and pictures… and then the politics and the funding fall into place much more easily.

Recommended 5

This is a very true statement. If you “dazzle” people you quickly build public support and a coalition behind an idea.

Makes me wonder if the folks behind think.urban or this GOOD project should partner with a design firm and an institution like the Portland Art Museum and put together an exhibition showcasing a bike friendly vision of Portland. You could couple the exhibition with a month long agenda of speaking engagements and lectures.

The urban planners in the 19th Century did this and through big grand art displays they were able to garner public support and transform the city of Paris into what we know it to be today.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

Amen, Hallelujah! Preach it, Brother!

I saw your tweet yesterday RE turn count and mileage comparisons for the route discussed in this article and thought, “finally, somebody is recognizing this.” My route to work by car: 11.1 miles with 7 turns. By bike (unless I want to utilize the Zoo Bomb “hellway”):13.5 miles and 50 (fifty) turns–on steeper grades. Then I have to take a different route home because the uphills are “too dangerous” to navigate in the dark at slow uphill speeds.

This, IMHO, is The biggest bike-related transport equity issue. Yes, you might need a map or GPS to navigate an unfamiliar city whether driving or riding, but you should NOT need to worry about which lines on the map are accessible to you, or whether it’s safe to do what the nice GPS lady says. You should not have to “practice” your route on a Sunday when there is no traffic, just to see if it’s doable. You should not need to do hours of research to even find a route that is worth “practicing”. You should not be expected to go miles out of your way to find a bridge or overpass that “accommodates” bike use. You should not be expected to go miles out of your way to use magnanimously provided, yet inconveniently located “greenways”. You should not be expected to use crowded and dangerous MUPs because everyone [who is a driver] assumes you’re just out for a leisurely bike stroll.

Granted, yes: I’m legally allowed to ride on any street I want, and take up a full lane doing it (which I often do), but the feeling of dragons breathing fire down my neck gets a little stressful after a while, and I’m only getting slower the older I get.

Note that I am mostly celebrating the recognition of the inequity route-wise. I don’t know what the right starting point is to rectify it, because I’m a cynic who does not believe we will ever have quality, usable, separated infrastructure in city cores in the US. Ever. Even if we ever did manage to do it, it wouldn’t work unless drivers were retrained to pay attention, accept greater responsibility, and forfeit licenses permanently if they can’t. But if drivers were retrained thus, would we need separated infrastructure? “Infrastructure”, including bike lanes, can be a double-edged sword in two ways: 1) legally, (in OR, anyway) a cyclist is bound to use it if it exists, regardless of its usability for the cyclists purposes, and 2) the more “infrastructure” that exists, the more non-cyclists expect to see cyclists only on “designated” routes that have said infrastructure, which defeats the very notion of equality presented in this article.

We are likely at least a generation away from anything approaching this vision, but maybe my kid will someday not have to use all that “vehicular” junk his dad taught him.

Zaphod
Guest

I support this completely. The curmudgeons are already surly so this will feel incremental to them while universe changing for us. And when everyone breathes easier due to the side effects of traffic calming and less {motorized} traffic, maybe those difficult to persuade might crack the tiniest of smiles but deny they did so.

Richard
Guest
Richard

Great ideas, Jonathan. I love the vision of bikeways on major, direct routes through town — let me get directly to the places I want to go, just as I can when I’m driving. I use the greenways, but in many cases they seem designed more to get me out of the way of cars than to get me where I want to go.

Owen Walz
Guest

Great work Jonathan (and team). This seems like the real solution. Let me know if you ever need help with more illustrations.

Alexis
Guest

I think this is a great concept and it’s exactly square-on as far as needing direct and simple routes. It’s interesting the route you chose is not the route that I would have thought — I usually take Broadway, so that’s what I think of, and wish for a cycletrack from Hollywood to PSU, but if you are looking further out, the route I think of might not be the most logical choice for the whole system.

I’m curious why you went with two-way cycletracks instead of one-way on each side. Is there a technical reason? I think of two one-way cycletracks as a simple upgrade from bike lanes that makes cycling easier and more comfortable, while two-way tracks require lots of extra crossings, signage, signalization, etc. Copenhagen has lots of one-way on each side, so there’s no reason to think they’re not good enough. (For Broadway downtown of course the situation is different, since it’s a one-way, but I’m thinking of Burnside and Sandy.)

I also think it’s not quite spot on to make the comparison to bus routes as being easy and direct and there being no street that isn’t safe for a bus. I personally can’t end up on the bus on a street where it’s not safe for a bus, but that’s because TriMet (an expert agency) designed the routes around using streets that are appropriate for buses — there are lots of streets that are not (a full-size bus cannot safely pass through or turn on most of Portland’s residential streets). And many bus routes are not as simple and direct as they could be, for various reasons (serving more populations, historical artifacts, street grid impairment, hub-and-spoke system). The MAX is a better comparison because it offers dedicated space to the vehicle and the routes are generally more efficient.

Jeremy Cohen
Guest
Jeremy Cohen

I love this idea. I happen to live very close to a bike boulevard, work in the downtown core and use the bike infrastructure often. However, I am often frustrated when I have to find my way to a new location/destination by bike. The advantage of setting city streets on a grid is that it becomes easy and intuitive to find specific places and addresses. In our current version, bikes have to overlay the “bike friendly/safe” map on the grid to plot out a bike route to a location. I can’t tell you how many times I have missed the jog-right-jog-left bike boulevards and found myself on busy streets with no bike facilities at all. I am a nearly 100% bike commuter (bus 1x a month +/-), I am *strong (for a 40+ year old) confident rider and I do not hesitate to take the lane–but this city (and all others) NEED to recognize that the streets need to be planned better for all users. Nobody likes to walk next to speeding cars, nobody likes to bike near them, and they are not safe for the people driving in them. Instead of shoving the bikers and walkers onto indirect paths, let’s slow the cars down.
I applaud this plan, and I hope someone has the guts to start on it!

Hugh Johnson
Guest
Hugh Johnson

great talk…now how about some action. Cycling out east of Rocky Butte is sure no picnic, but I doubt much is ever planned for this area.

Suburban
Guest
Suburban

My experience of Portland roads and Flavel Street has been one of almost entirely all modern pavement;virtual rainbows! What a huge amount of asphalt for such skinny tires. We are lucky to live in the pre-ghetto vehicular cycling world of 2012.

wsbob
Guest
wsbob

The only objection I’d have to proposed changes the ‘after’ photos show, is the extent of the use of the green coloring. Nobody else here seems to have mentioned their feelings about it, but personally, I don’t like riding on painted roadways.

Other things to think about, is that the green tends to get dirty and ugly; check out green bike boxes Portland has used at various points around the city. Also, does anyone have an idea of cost of the paint and its maintenance? In a city whose leaders and residents express concerns about rising construction and maintenance costs, having some idea of the expense involved in projects being proposed or simply conceived of, makes sense.

El Biciclero
Guest
El Biciclero

I would have concerns about two-way tracks on one side of the street. This means that roughly half the cyclists using such a track are engaging in behavior that is statistically about at the top of the “Most Dangerous” list: riding the “wrong” way, invisibly off to the side. This would require one of two mitigating treatments: retraining drivers to look for counter-flow cyclists, or making cyclists stop at all intersections/driveways to make sure no turning or cross traffic is going to run over them if they proceed straight ahead. One is impossible, the other is lame. FWIW–remember, I’m a cynic when it comes to U.S.-designed separated “infrastructure”… BUT, I see this treatment already on what passes for a one-way “cycle track” along Farmington Rd. in Beaverton: every intersection has a small “Bikes Yield” sign–even though cross traffic at those intersections has a STOP sign. What is that supposed to mean? Do they mean “bikes watch out because even though you have the right of way as through traffic on the main thoroughfare, drivers entering from the side won’t see you because they aren’t looking”, or do they literally mean “bikes, if you see a car entering from the side you must stop and wait until they have a clearing big enough for them to enter the main roadway, then let them pass in front of you (while bowing in obeisance).”, or do they mean “hey, cyclists–if you see a driver entering from the side, and you do a shoulder check and determine that they have a big enough break in auto traffic to go for it, then yield; otherwise carry on ahead”, or is it just a CYA for the county so that when a cyclist gets T-boned at such an intersection the driver won’t be blamed and they can claim, “hey, we told you, you scofflaw cyclist”?

Granted, this “cycle track” amounts to no more than a curb-separated MUP that is used by pedestrians as well, and has several bus stops along its length, but this is a prime example of how we try to do things around here: here you go bike users–a nice, paved, curb-ensconced section of the road just for you. Well, and also for peds and bus stops. And, oh yeah, it’s a little more dangerous because side traffic won’t be looking for you (and couldn’t see you anyway, even if they were looking), so make sure you slow down a lot. Oh, and also–it’s going to degenerate into a turtle-hump-separated, cracked-up, root heaved, asphalt-mogul-filled, sunken-storm-drain-well-pocked, commuter X-Games obstacle course just up ahead here, so be ready for that or else take the lane on a 35 mph road. So there–enjoy! Ain’t we good to ya?

Dan Packard
Guest
Dan Packard

Brilliant piece! Every elected official in our region should read this, along with every other city in the U.S.

Paul Johnson
Guest
Paul Johnson

Anybody who thinks against the grain operation is a good idea has clearly never ridden the cycletrack on Farmington only to have all the navigation aids facing the wrong direction and cross traffic not expecting you there. Automatic FAIL.

spare_wheel
Guest
spare_wheel

beautiful riposte to the starry eyed dreaming on this thread. we cannot even build a decent bike lane on an arterial in this city and we are discussing networks of two-way cycle tracks that eliminate lanes of car traffic? good grief!

Paul Johnson
Guest
Paul Johnson

A bigger issue would be making transit as easy and convenient as driving or bicycling. I can get a lot more places in Washington County by bicycle than by transit, and I’m not bound to bad routing and infrequently scheduled service that doesn’t run at all after a winter’s sunset.

Jacob
Guest
Jacob

This is a great idea, and one that is long overdue in the cycling capital of the US!

One nit-pick I have, though, is with the 2-way greenway on one side of 2-way streets. I know you just threw this stuff together in a very limited amount of time, but this really isn’t the best design. Montreal basically implemented the exact design that you are proposing on many arterial streets, which was made easier, since that design uses far less space than more standard cycle track designs. While they have been quite successful (the boroughs with lots of these cycle tracks have mode shares of over 10%, many of them kids and older folks), the problem, though, is that these treatments set up more complicated conflicts than more traditional cycle track designs, increasing injuries. As a result the city has backed off of cycle tracks in general, and is now mostly installing striped unprotected bike lanes. It seems the cycling rates are growing much more slowly as a result, which is a sad state of lethargy for the city.

In general, I think these images are very powerful, but it might be a better strategy to show are more accurate picture of what the future will look like. Keep pushing though! These are great ideas!

Mindful Cyclist
Guest
Mindful Cyclist

We also need to start talking with employers about providing shower areas for employees that bicycle. Let’s face it, not all of the people that ride bicycles are bike mechanics that can show up disheveled because they are just going to get more disheveled at work. A person that is going to need to be presentable at work cannot ride 5 miles in the rain and just slip out of the rain gear and call it good.

Along with this, we need to do more work with people to teach them how to commute by bicycle. I know a simple google search can be of assistance, but some people just need to be shown how.

Nick Skaggs
Guest
Nick Skaggs

I really like the pictures you’ve shown and would love to see “arterial” cycling in SE Portland become a reality. Zig-zagging through side streets sucks.

Joe
Guest
Joe

what stops other Cities outside of PDX from doing this? city leaders? need
to see bike transport is good for all, its not just a Req or racing thing.
Bike is a TOOL

chris
Guest
chris

While I’m all for separation, I think two-way cycletracks would be a terrible implemenation…because physics! A head on collision is the worst kind of collision. The cyclist in the outer lane is risking a head-on collision with both cars and cyclists on the inner lane.