Support BikePortland

River View bike ban might not be permanent, Fritz says

Posted by on March 11th, 2015 at 9:23 am

fritz2012headshot380KB

Amanda Fritz

Portland Parks Commissioner Amanda Fritz has taken a lot of heat over the past week for the decision she made along with Environmental Services Commissioner Nick Fish to ban biking at River View Natural Area as of March 16th. The decision was made abruptly and came as a huge shock to many advocates who were working in partnership with the City of Portland to restore the 146-acre parcel and hoped to see biking access improved and officially sanctioned at the end of a public process.

We are working on the story and hoping to understand more about the decision from the commissioners, advocates, and other insiders this week.

In the meantime however, it looks like Commissioner Fritz has already heard from so many concerned Portlanders that she has issued an update about the decision, saying that there’s still a chance the city will reverse course. Here’s what she just posted to the official River View Natural Area website:

A message from Commissioner Fritz regarding the recent changes at River View Natural Area:

The decision to prohibit mountain biking for now at River View was made in partnership with Commissioner Fish and the Bureau of Environmental Services, with due consideration of the reason for dedicating ratepayer dollars to purchase the site to protect water quality. We are not saying River View will never be used for mountain biking, rather just not now, before the citywide assessment of appropriate places for cycling is funded and completed. I encourage you to participate in the upcoming City Budget process, to urge funding for the citywide Master Plan for cycling that Portland Parks and Recreation and I have proposed in our requested budget allocations.

-Amanda Fritz, City Commissioner

Advertisement

Besides giving the public a ray of hope that the ban might eventually be reversed, the key part of this comment is, “with due consideration of the reason for dedicating ratepayer dollars to purchase the site to protect water quality.” This is a reference to the 2011 lawsuit filed against the City of Portland for what the plaintiffs said were purchases made with water ratepayer funds for parcels and projects that had nothing to do with water quality. A judge ultimately ruled in favor of the City of Portland, but the courts are still monitoring the purchases.

The largest target of that lawsuit was the $6 million the city paid to purchase River View. While it seemed obvious to assume that lawsuit is what scared Fritz and Fish into the abrupt bike ban decision, they had previously maintained that it had nothing to do with it.

The initial memo about the decision (PDF) she and Fish released on March 2nd said nothing about the lawsuit and focused entirely on their “abundance of caution” to protect the parcel’s streams, ecosystem, and fish habitat.

The insinuation that bicycling was somehow in conflict with conservation goals — something that has never been proven by any city studies — was salt in the wound for bike advocates.

What’s even more confusing is that we’ve since heard from high-level sources at the Parks Bureau that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the decision and that it’s more general antipathy toward mountain biking that exists among some Parks and Environmental Services staff as well as influential advocates that have pressured the city to prohibit bicycling. We’re still trying to get to the bottom of all this.

Either way, Fritz’s acknowledgment that this decision is not final is a hopeful sign — but I doubt it will do much in the short-term to alleviate the frustration and anger that her handling of the issue has caused so far.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. 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

159 Comments
  • Avatar
    Dan March 11, 2015 at 9:27 am

    I believe her!

    /s

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Madison Wellington March 11, 2015 at 9:28 am

    Hallelujah! Hopefully they will reconsider this after so many people have been speaking up about it. I know I emailed her personally urging her and Comm. Fish to re-consider that decision. Portland needs more local mountain biking! None of us have cars, so mountain biking that can be ridden to is crucial on my eyes!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jeg March 11, 2015 at 9:30 am

    The antipathy toward mountain bikers is well earned. We need separate usage trails for this to work, and a sea change in the entitlement and roughshod of the mountain biking community. I’ve been nearly killed multiple times by mountain bikers breaking the law.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) March 11, 2015 at 9:36 am

      Hi jeg,

      I agree that some people are not considerate of others when the ride bikes on trails.

      However… and this is very important… That is not a valid reason to exclude an entire group of users from a park/natural area.

      People are nearly killed every single day by folks who drive dangerously and illegally – yet we never talk about outlawing driving in certain areas.

      In my experience, anecdotes are never the source of good policy.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:15 am

        You are creating a false dichotomy. Speeding bikers on hiking trails are just as dangerous as speeding cars.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Rick March 11, 2015 at 10:34 am

          What bicycles weigh 4,000 pounds and can go 140 mph?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

            When one bike hits me going 30 MPH, both individuals will probably die.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Chris I March 11, 2015 at 11:08 am

              Probably not, actually. Severely injured, yes. Dead, probably not.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                jeg March 11, 2015 at 11:50 am

                Severely injured? I guess it’s ok!

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                MNBikeLuv March 11, 2015 at 1:28 pm

                The prevention of accidents on a trail, shared or otherwise, is about trail design and user interaction design, not the setting of speed limits.

                First, you can cut the speed down by designing the downhills to be tight, twisty and choked up. That way you “design in” a maximum speed.

                Second, you can do some simple things, like adding directionality to the trail so that user group interactions are always face-to-face. That makes impacts far less likely.

                Third, most urban systems avoid such issues by not not having extended downhills, placing higher speed/higher skills areas off by themselves, or going fully segregated for urban trails. Or all three (like they do here in the Midwest).

                Seriously, if any commentor thinks urban mountain biking is impossible or dangerous or damaging to the environment in an urban environment, come to MN. We will do a tour. And after they talk to park managers, elected officials, neighbors and other user groups, as well as going for some MTB rides, I will *guarantee* that person will return to PDX wanting some urban MTB trails. We you see it done right, all the “concerns” melt away.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              bjorn March 11, 2015 at 3:25 pm

              I’ve done a lot of mountain biking, I’m not sure I’ve ever gone 30 mph on singletrack, I think you are overestimating the speeds most riders travel at by a lot.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Duncan Parks March 12, 2015 at 10:33 am

              Your speed estimates are ridiculously inaccurate. I just checked Strava for top speeds on the Oregon Enduro Series segment down Lower Hide and Seek at Sandy Ridge – a pretty fast, 7% downhill grade race run. Top pro Curtis Keene’s average speed (#1 on Strava)? 13.6 mph. I don’t think anybody is advocating building official trails steeper than 7% (or at least they shouldn’t).

              We should make decisions based on objective reality rather than just your particular perceptions.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:39 am

            Most cars don’t actually *go* 140 mph. In any case, the speed to worry about is 20-40mph. At 20mph, the chance of survival in a collision is 80% – at 40mph, it’s 20%. Most mountain bikes aren’t going to be going 40mph downhill, so the danger isn’t as great. That doesn’t make it nonexistent, however, and a 20mph impact from a 150-180lb mountain biker is still likely to put both parties in the hospital for a while.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Alex March 14, 2015 at 8:01 pm

              Even going 20 mph is rare. I would much rather see one way bike specific trails fwiw. Also, crashes of this sort are so rare.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Tony T
          Tony T March 11, 2015 at 11:14 am

          Please define “just as dangerous.” Cars kill 34,000 people a year. Pretty sure MTBs don’t come close to that.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          howrad March 11, 2015 at 4:37 pm

          Can you cite some data supporting that claim?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Rick March 11, 2015 at 10:33 am

        Two roads in Portland now don’t allow driving as of recently: SW Ankeny between SW 2nd and SW 3rd. Also, SW 21st by BH Highway doesn’t allow driving due to the previously massive potholes and the need for proper storm drainage so there is now a trail there.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob March 11, 2015 at 10:47 am

        “…I agree that some people are not considerate of others when the ride bikes on trails. …” maus/bikeportland

        Jonathan…my impression of what he’s written, is that jeg appears to be talking about something far more serious than inconsiderate behavior on the part of some of the people that mountain bike. Use of bikes as vehicles, in ways that are dangerous to people on foot, seems to be what he’s talking about.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 11:05 am

        Jonathan is correct, anecdotes are a poor basis for setting public policy. Thankfully, we have data too. Everyday in America cars kill approximately 100 people. Bicycles – let alone mountain bikes on trails – kill approximately zero…ever.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:44 am

          Except we DON’T have data – trail use / injury data is woefully incomplete where it exists at all, and many incidents are completely unreported. Also, bicycles do kill people – just not as many. One bike-on-bike collision in Portland recently killed a man, and there have been several bike/ped fatalities caused by a bicycle in the last couple of years. (though not in Oregon) Saying “it doesn’t happen” is inaccurate – it *is* happening, it’s just not common – yet. The cavalier attitude many cyclists have towards biker responsibilities to pedestrians and other non-bike users pretty much ensures it will become more common over time.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Brian March 11, 2015 at 11:50 am

            Accidents, yes. Deaths? I am not aware of any. Deaths due to collision on a shared use trail would not go unreported. Quite the opposite, I’m sure. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t plan to avoid it, of course. I feel mountain bikers do a LOT to reduce trail conflicts and accidents. We are the only user group with agreed upon “rules” of the trail.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              matt picio March 11, 2015 at 12:19 pm

              http://www.rentonreporter.com/news/91473374.html#

              So that’s at least one, and regional to boot – I’m sure a comprehensive search can find others.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Matt March 11, 2015 at 12:33 pm

                One death of an elderly woman from 5 years ago in a Seattle suburb. They have now lowered the speed limit on this trail to 15mph. How often do they lower the speed limit on road when cars kill people?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Steve Campbell March 11, 2015 at 1:28 pm

                It’s actually in Renton and the speed limit is 10 MPH. Renton also closed a section of the trail through downtown to bikes altogether. It didn’t help that somebody riding the trail hit the mayor while he and the city council were touring the trail after the accident to decide what to do.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 12:47 pm

                The photos show a cement trail, which isn’t what we are referring to. It looks like an old railroad conversion, kind of like the Banks-Vernonia “Trail.”

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                matt picio March 11, 2015 at 1:55 pm

                If people keep saying “trail” when they mean singletrack, then that’s what’s going to happen. There are several definitions of trail, if you’re going to bandy the term around, clarify from the start.

                In any case, it’s relevant as the same conflicts will occur as usage increases and conflicts become more frequent. I’d rather we all address the issue before people get killed routinely. If these issues happen on a paved path with (comparatively) clear sightlines, is it really a stretch to think they will happen on a dirt trail in the trees? I’d like us all to avoid this happening:
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTHUQlZrxBI

                and yes, I know that isn’t exactly what we’re talking about either, but we can either nitpick the particulars to death or we can actually do something productive.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                bjorn March 11, 2015 at 3:29 pm

                I don’t see how a death on a paved path has any bearing on what should or should not happen on traditional mountain bike trails. If anything this one death would be an argument for banning bikes from the eastside esplanade, and the springwater corridor, why aren’t you calling for that if you really believe that one death means it is impossible for pedestrians and cyclists to share multi use path/trail?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              matt picio March 11, 2015 at 12:24 pm

              Also this one: http://www.wfaa.com/story/local/2015/03/11/13624720/

              And plenty of serious injuries, and equestrian deaths:
              http://fellsforever.org/articles_on_mountain_biking/mountain-biking-accident-reports-deaths/

              More reporting is needed, because it’s not clear how serious the issue is. There’s never as much data on trails as on roads, so it’s hard to separate the hyperbole and anecdote from the actual issue.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 12:49 pm

                Another cement path. I am talking about single track trails. Dirt. Think the Wildwood Trail, if that helps.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                MNBikeLuv March 11, 2015 at 12:58 pm

                I’m not sure you know what fellsforever.org is. If you did, you might not quote from it. fellsforever.org is a proganda site created by Friends of Fells in a (failed) attempt to stop MTBing coming to an urban park outside Boston called Middlesex Fells.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                matt picio March 11, 2015 at 2:02 pm

                They’re linking to actual articles, so I’ll use them to make a point for what they’re worth. I appreciate the heads-up, though. Everyone should examine a source before blindly trusting a link.

                I don’t know anyone else who’s currently mining for those stories, so in the absence of other sources, I’ll use what’s available with the appropriate caveats. I’m not anti-MTB, but I’m not pro-MTB either. I chair a county committee for bike/ped issues, and I am a hiker, and I bike (about 3,000 miles/year) – so while I am very pro-bike in general, it’s hard for me to take any stance which discounts pedestrian safety. It’s not just “protect the hikers!”, if I am going downhill on a trail (and in this case I *do* mean dirt singletrack) and I hit a hiker I am going to the hospital as well. It’s a legitimate concern, and we can’t take for granted anymore that it’s going to be clear or safe because there are a LOT more trail users than there used to be, and numbers are likely to continue to increase.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 2:07 pm

                From the context (a discussion of trails at River View) I thought it was clear that we were talking about mountain-bike trails. “Singletrack” is but one type of trail that mountain bikers ride these days.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 2:17 pm

                For some reason I can’t reply to your posts below, but FWIW I appreciate your stance and reasoning.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                MNBikeLuv March 11, 2015 at 2:43 pm

                Since BikePortland won’t let me reply to your newer comment, I’ll go up one level in the chain.

                Here is the thing: as a rule, people are dumb and stuff happens. Its easy to find an article about that *one* case where a thing happened. Or, given enough time, several cases where that thing happened. Or, oftne “because, Florida”. But that doesn’t make it “normal”.

                I would suggest to look at modern urban MTB trails for information on interactions. You won’t find those negative interactions/injuries because those trails are DESIGNED to prevent those situations. Directionality (MTBers go one way, hikers the other; all encounters are face-to-face), designing downhills correctly, or (as in the case here in MN) going full segregated if the use numbers will be high are ways to prevent negative user group interaction.

                Remember, while PDX has about 0 miles of urban/suburban MTB singletrack trails, MSP has about 60 miles with another 16 going in this summer. And Duluth, a much smaller town than PDX, is 3/4 the way through building a single 100 mile long human traffic (MTB/hiker) trail system.

                You are trying to find information because you have no experience with urban MTBing. Which is fine, nothing wrong with that. But MN has had legal, purpose-built, MTBing for 15 years. And our collective experience over that time is simple: if you design it right you just will not have any of the issues you have highlighted.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Alex March 14, 2015 at 6:20 pm

            Perhaps the data is so low because the frequency of such type of events is so low. I really don’t think there are too many accidents despite the hyperbole. Perceived rudeness, sure, but otherwise very low.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Opus the Poet March 11, 2015 at 2:12 pm

          From the limited amount of data I can find, bicycles kill about 5-10 people a year on average in the US, mostly pedestrians but a large proportion other cyclists (or themselves). In my data gathering I have 6 confirmed cases of a cyclist killing a driver world-wide in 8 years, vs maybe a million cyclists killed by drivers in the same period.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob March 11, 2015 at 11:11 am

        “…yet we never talk about outlawing driving in certain areas. …” maus/bikeportland

        Oh c’mon now J…It seems you’ve written stories and made mention of a thing called ‘Car Free Streets’.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:48 am

          Not exactly equivalent, but the basic point is sound, and Jonathan – wsbob is right. There have been several instances in the last few years of either road segments being shut off to cars, or plans for them to be in the future. Limiting use based on safety concerns, or to accommodate community functions, recreational use, or other factors is pretty common. Not saying the bike ban in this case is warranted (and if it’s truly for watershed reasons, there should also be an outright ban on dogs – not merely unleashed ones), but a discussion of trail use and separation of trail users isn’t unreasonable.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            wsbob March 11, 2015 at 12:35 pm

            Matt…thanks. Banning cars from streets isn’t a new idea, but it’s yet to take a widespread hold around here. It may though. Consider lifestyle malls, the closed street type events you noted. Many people that otherwise wouldn’t do so, like to walk and bike when they don’t have to contend with motor vehicle traffic.

            With reference to Riverview’s possible uses for recreation, based on news reports and comments to them, it seems plenty of people, both citizens and politicians, have gotten way ahead of themselves in concluding the status of this land parcel. The city is going to have to work out the details of what, according to the purchase agreement, it’s allowed to do with the land.

            Before the city decided to buy it, the land was for sale. Anyone with the money could have bought it, right?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Tom March 11, 2015 at 12:57 pm

          The difference is that mnt bikes are banned from maybe 99.9 something percent of trails, but cars are banned from 0% of roads. If cars were also banned from 99.9% of roads, then you would have a point.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Michael Whitesel March 11, 2015 at 9:37 am

      Attempted murder is a serious charge. Did you file police reports?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Paul Atkinson March 11, 2015 at 9:53 am

        Hyperbole is literally the worst thing ever.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:16 am

        I will next time, for sure. But, honestly, do you expect much from the paramilitary police?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          VTRC March 11, 2015 at 10:35 am

          If you honestly feared for your life, I hope so.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Mike March 11, 2015 at 10:47 am

        Who said anything about attempted murder?

        When a cyclist hits another cyclist or pedestrian, it is ok because they are not driving and therefore less dangerous.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:57 am

          Breaking one’s neck from a muscley mountain biker hitting them at 30 MPH can kill someone.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Bjorn March 15, 2015 at 10:21 am

            Seriously where are you getting this 30 mph number, no one is going 30 mph on a narrow cross country singletrack mountain bike trail.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Psyfalcon March 15, 2015 at 4:09 pm

              I couldn’t manage to go faster than 12mph at Powell Butte. No doubt others can go faster, but 30 mph is just a dream except on dedicated downhill runs.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan March 15, 2015 at 5:32 pm

            I’m a mid-level short track MTB racer, and on the rare occasion that I do any singletrack by myself I typically don’t go much faster than someone would if they were running.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            TrailLover March 15, 2015 at 7:55 pm

            Jeg is obviously pulling that number (30mph) out of her imagination but, infammatory hyperbole aside, the real point of her post is that she believes bicycles to be a threat to her and others on the trail. While she almost certainly was not “nearly killed” as she asserted, she clearly felt unsafe. The question is did she feel unsafe because her safety was actually being threatened by the bad behavior of another trail user or did she simply perceive a threat when none existed. Or was it somewhere in between?

            We’ll never know what actually happened to Jeg out there on the trail but we do know from various studies that most conflict is more perceived than real. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a real challenge that the trails community needs to face. Jeg should feel safe on the trail. Some of that may be Jeg’s responsibility (experiencing and learning more about other trail users and how interacting with them results in “killing” or injury almost never) and some is the responsibility of other trail users to behave safely and responsibly in ways that Jeg finds reassuring. Together we can invite the Jegs of the world, as well as her alleged oppressors, to join the rest of us who get along just fine every day on shared trails all across the country.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I March 11, 2015 at 10:33 am

      Has anyone ever been killed on a trail by someone on a mountain bike?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:46 am

        Plenty have sure been killed in intersections of SF by speeding bikers. That’s proof enough, even given the different context.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Buzz March 11, 2015 at 10:51 am

          ‘Plenty’ as in two? Compare that to the 40,000 people per year killed adn the countless others injured and maimed by motorists each and every year in this country.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Scott H March 11, 2015 at 11:21 am

          Ah, if only we had data and historical statistics so we could say, compare the amount of people killed by cars vs people killed by bicycles with numbers and other factual methods instead of personal anecdotes. That would be swell.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:52 am

            Why do we need to? We could have zero cars in the world, and I still wouldn’t want to be killed by someone riding a bike. Just because it’s safer doesn’t mean it’s “safe”, or not a concern.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Scott H March 11, 2015 at 12:35 pm

              I’m not suggesting you ought to be injured or killed by someone riding a bike. Just that if we’re going to argue, we ought to argue about facts, not things that people have imagined.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                matt picio March 11, 2015 at 2:11 pm

                That’s a fair point, and overall I agree. I just don’t see why the comparison is necessary – it’s like saying why should we address cycling deaths when we should be addressing heart attacks. Heart attacks kill far more people. The answer is they are both important. I’ll acknowledge that the number of people killed by bikes on trails (or specifically on singletrack) is at most in the single digits, and possibly zero – but injuries definitely happen, some serious. It sounds like several commenters (not aimed at you personally) are arguing that because it’s not killing people every day we shouldn’t address it at all until it does.

                I think my overall point is that there’s no reason why any of these park areas shouldn’t have hiker-only trails – as long as there are also shared trails, and (preferably) some which are bike-only and equestrian only. It’s a big city, and a lot of parkland, and if we could just get people to stop viewing it as their backyard, and able to acknowledge that there are different groups with different needs who all should be able to enjoy their activity somewhere that isn’t a 2 hour drive away, then I think that would be a really great start.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 2:20 pm

                Thank you. As a non-mountain biker, we would love your support. If you have a minute please consider a quick email to Ms. Fritz, Mr. Fish, and Mr. Hales. It would be great for them to hear from you.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                bjorn March 11, 2015 at 3:34 pm

                You recognize that there is a giant set of hiker only trails 1 block from here right? Tryon Creek Park has a network of miles of unpaved trails all of which are already off limits to mountain biking. If the concern is conflict between user groups then the right answer is to point hikers at Tryon Creek and Forest Park and make River View bike only, but really wouldn’t it be better to leave it as mixed use and allow people to decide if a bike free hiking experience is important to them, and if it is they have many options very close by.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Opus the Poet March 11, 2015 at 2:20 pm

          Number of pedestrians killed by collision with cyclists in SF since 2000 : 2

          Number killed by motor vehicle in the same period : thousands.

          Percentage of killer cyclists convicted in SF : 100%

          Percentage of killer drivers convicted in SF : 1.2%

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Frank March 11, 2015 at 10:43 am

      I love this use of the word “entitlement.” So, who is feeling entitled – maybe the ones who currently have essentially ALL the trails to themselves? Maybe NW Portland neighbors who don’t want users in “their” park? Maybe Audubon and FPC who act like it is their own park, not the citizens’ and taxpayers’?
      But I do agree that on well-used trails it’s better to separate bikes and pedestrians. That can be by providing dedicated, separate trails or by designating times. Both are done in many place around the country.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan March 11, 2015 at 2:22 pm

        The word “entitled” is for those who have everything and feel they deserve everything too. The word for the rest of us is “uppity”.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Tom March 11, 2015 at 12:11 pm

      The antipathy toward DRIVERS DRIVING TO THE TRAILHEAD is well earned. We need separate usage TRAFFIC LANES for this to work, and a sea change in the entitlement and roughshod of the DRIVING community. I’ve been nearly killed multiple times by DRIVERS breaking the law.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jeg March 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm

        Hey, calm down there. I am for curtailing dangerous auto drivers as well. Being for safety doesn’t mean I want trails excluded from MT bikers; I just think safety needs to be addressed, not simply someone’s desire to feed an adrenaline addiction.

        I go hiking for peace. Many do. Mt bikers severely damage that reason for access. I think there would be much more respect all around if safety was honestly addressed rather than outright dismissed as it has by many in this thread.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          spencer March 11, 2015 at 12:42 pm

          I go mountain biking for peace, and try to avoid heavy hiking trails because its NOT peaceful. IE coyote wall in the spring.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          MNBikeLuv March 15, 2015 at 9:10 pm

          jeg – While I have connections to PDX, I live in MN. Here (and in WI & MI) we have tons and tons of MTBing trails. Seriously, most cities with 20,000+ residents have at least 1-2 miles of MTBing trails in town. I can tell you that we have no issues with hikers and MTBers. None. We have had urban MTBing for 15 years, so its not a new thing also.

          What you consider a dismissal of safety by other commenters is actually a reflection of the reality. Done properly, there will not be issues with MTBers and hikers.

          As I often comment on MTB based articles on BikePortland, if any person within the PDX city government or any commenter from PDX thinks urban MTBing is the unleashing of hellspawn, come to MN. We will go on a tour. And after we talk to land managers, elected officials, users, and other user groups, I can guarantee that person or persons will go home to PDX being in support of urban MTBing trails. Why? Because once you have seen it done, and done right, you understand all the “concerns” about MTBing don’t really exist.

          As a side note, PDX can’t even accomplish what a town of less than 20,000 can accomplish: http://stillwatergazette.com/2015/03/13/public-meeting-scheduled-for-proposed-stillwater-mountain-bike-trail/

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Karl Dickman March 11, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      I grew up in Bend. I’ve run, ridden, and hiked miles and miles of trails, at Swampy Lakes, Shevlin Park, Phil’s, Tumalo Falls, Mrazek, and the Deschutes River trail (both the in-town and out-of town sections), starting at the age of 10. Some of those systems have hiking only and biking only trails, but the vast majority are mixed use. With this experience, the idea that mountain bikers and hikers can’t possibly share the same trails makes no sense to me. Do you really think that parents shouldn’t be allowed to take their kids riding in a beautiful forest, that a retired couple should have to stay home?
      As Jonathan says, you can’t hold mountain bikers as group responsible for the behavior of a few bad apples. I spent a two years as a volunteer XC coach at Lewis & Clark. On a Wildwood run, one of the young women on the team was knocked down when three men shoved their way past her. They left her bleeding on the trail without looking back. Her shins were covered with blood from her knees all the way down to her socks. Some runners can be just as rude and inconsiderate as some mountain bikers, but it would be crazy to conclude that running should therefore be banned in Forest Park.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      VTRC March 11, 2015 at 4:39 pm

      One of the things I really want to see out of a new set of trails, is a system designed to reduce this kind of conflict. Trails that are planned and built so that speeds are moderate, sightlines are good, and erosion is a non issue.

      It really sucks that you’ve had bad experiences, but I think that this is something we can plan for and mitigate and makes something we can all enjoy. I think we can do that in Forest Park and we can do it here.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      davemess March 11, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      What “antipathy”?
      A few angry neighbors in NW? A couple employees of the Parks dept?
      A misinformed environmental group?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Psyfalcon March 11, 2015 at 9:33 am

    Even with the lawsuit and salmon, there is no reason to close the area to bikes. Without any clear science requiring it, they closed it anyway. Now, its going to be much harder to open again politically with hiker type groups now feeling something (bike free trails) is being taken from them.

    I’d give them a <5% chance of opening it again.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      oliver March 11, 2015 at 12:25 pm

      Salmon Shmalmon. The properties adjacent to FP and RVNA are populated by the same demographic.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jordan March 11, 2015 at 9:39 am

    If city doesn’t fund the mountain biking plan, or maybe before, we as a community should look towards filing our own lawsuit against the city for more access.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Jessica Roberts
      Jessica Roberts March 11, 2015 at 9:41 am

      What would be the basis for a lawsuit? I am not aware of any guaranteed right to access laws.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Jordan March 11, 2015 at 9:57 am

        I am not sure. Maybe it won’t work. But it does seem to be the thing that makes the city to take action. It does look like some snowboarders tried the same thing a while back and it didn’t work… http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611596/Judge-tosses-snowboarders-lawsuit-demanding-access-to-Alta-Ski-Resort.html?pg=all Oh well.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          phreadi March 11, 2015 at 10:45 am

          Alta is a privately held business and can do what they want. River View is a city owned park we’re all paying for, and they’re ignoring (their own) science as rationale to unfairly ban a legit form of trail user under false-pretense, and actually choosing not to deal with the biggest eco threats. The question is who’s got the $ and appetite for risk involved with a lawsuit. I don’t’ think the NWTA or IMBA has the ability to enter into litigation, but what do I know.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            jeg March 11, 2015 at 11:46 am

            “Alta is a privately held business and can do what they want.”*

            *within the law

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    redhippie March 11, 2015 at 9:46 am

    The environmental argument is laughable.

    What are the water quality environmental impacts created by mtbs on trail vs hikers on a trail?

    It is the trail construction and its proper use that impacts the amount of erosion and subsequent Total Dissolved Solids in water bodies. How does a trail discharge more or less sediment with hikers vs bikers? If it is more, then build the trail better.

    Is it nutrient or bacteria loading caused by folks and their animals going to the bathroom. How would this differ from hikers or the people who live in the woods or in the pirate fleet anchored just off shore.

    Can anyone explain what the exact environmental impacts are that result in this closure?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Pete March 11, 2015 at 10:25 am

      We’ve had the same complaints – danger to hikers, and environmental impact – on Mission Peaks in Fremont, CA. No lawsuits have been filed, and Parks & Rec now uses a volunteer MTB crew to patrol the hillside. The main problem we see is that ‘scofflaw’ MTBers will ‘drop’ off trail, cutting swaths straight down the slope rather than staying on the switchbacks, and that results in significant erosion when winter/spring rains come. We’ve put together several work crews to fight the problem with instructional signs, fences, and volunteer efforts to repair the existing damage.

      http://bayarearides.com/rides/missionpeak

      I don’t know of any studies that have been funded, bans, or lawsuits… just problems and solutions (see the article “Loved to death”):
      http://issuu.com/tcvarchives/docs/tcv-130212/36

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan March 11, 2015 at 2:25 pm

        Hikers are known for cutting switchbacks in both directions. Neither problem will completely go away.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Pete March 11, 2015 at 6:40 pm

          Yes, good point; we had to frequently reprimand people for trying to cut down the swaths we were repairing (while walking past the blatant signs).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Joe March 12, 2015 at 1:58 pm

        All those cut switchbacks in Mission Peak Open Space Preserve are cut but lazy cows who can’t be bothered with staying on trail.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Psyfalcon March 11, 2015 at 9:48 am

    OT:

    Who put up the Yellow signs that can only be read in one direction on Powell Butte? With new names that do not match the signs at the entrance.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      davemess March 11, 2015 at 5:54 pm

      That would be our Parks Dept. I find them pretty weird. They’re so bright, and seem to go against the “nature park” designation a bit.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Psyfalcon March 11, 2015 at 11:35 pm

        Yellow is ok for wayfinding, maybe better than standard park brown. I just found them very hard to read, I hadn’t been up there since they were installed last year.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bjorn March 11, 2015 at 9:54 am

    Of course they are saying it isn’t the lawsuit that has them worried. How would it look in the court to have a quote from Fritz like: “We improperly used funds to buy this land and we are worried they will notice so we banned mountain bikes to try to help cover our impropriety.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Tony T
    Tony T March 11, 2015 at 9:54 am

    I’m pretty tired of Amanda Fritz treating people on bikes as “the other” who can be pushed to the margins and subjected to the broad brush of collective punishment. Her tone and in this case, her actions, show very little interest in dealing with bike issues in good faith. I am VERY interested to see who might challenge her next time around.

    This latest “ray of hope” convinces me of nothing other than the fact that she’s felt the heat. We should keep that heat up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      dan March 11, 2015 at 10:21 pm

      There’s no nice way to say this: Amanda Fritz comes across as rather loopy. Haven’t met her in person, but her policy decisions seem erratic and based on personal preference dressed up as objective reasoning. Is she all there?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Michael Whitesel March 11, 2015 at 10:08 am

    According the Portland Parks, “Portland is home to more than 152 miles of completed regional trails”. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/42336

    How many miles of dirt trails do we “entitled” mountain bikers enjoy? Well, we have an amazing ½ mile of trail on FL #5 in Forest Park and maybe a mile or two at Powell Butte.

    Well according the the Outdoor Recreation Participation Topline Report 2014 http://outdoorindustry.org/images/researchfiles/ResearchParticipation2014Topline.pdf?207, bicycling in general is way more popular that hiking. While mountain biking specifically is growing three times faster.

    Looking at the rates of participation, at worth mountain bikers should have access to ¼ of the trails that hikers have access to. That should translate to 38 miles of dirt trails for access by mountain bikers. BTW, this is referencing a nation study. I suspect participation rates in Portland are higher. And that they’d be higher still if there was proper access locally.

    Youth (rank)
    2. Bicycling (Road, Mountain and BMX) 23.7% of youth, 19.2 million participants
    5. Hiking 13.1% of youth, 10.6 million participants

    Adult (rank)
    3. Bicycling (Road, Mountain and BMX) 13.1% of adults, 27.4 million participants
    4. Hiking 11.4% of adults, 23.8 million participants

    Participation (6:+)
    Hiking (Day) 34.4M
    Bicycling (Mountain/Non Paved Surface) 8.5M
    Bicycling (BMX) 2.2M

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      jeg March 11, 2015 at 10:25 am

      Entitled in terms of safety to hikers, not that they have trails. I agree we need more separate tracks for MT bikers.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Brian March 11, 2015 at 11:09 am

        And proper trail design and implementation for shared trails. I share trails with hikers all over the state (and at Powell Butte) without a single incident. There are many solutions for safe shared use when resources are in competition.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        dave March 11, 2015 at 11:41 am

        Huh? Entitled in terms of safety to hikers? I do not think that word means what I think you think it means.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        oliver March 11, 2015 at 12:38 pm

        “Mountain biking will not longer be allowed…Plan for RVNA…common goals of:
        protecting water quality and watershed health,
        restoring aquatic and and terrestrial habitat,
        and providing recreation access that is compatible with the protection of natural resources”

        Commissioners Fritz and Fish’s memo vis a vis banning mtb use at RVNA says nothing at all about hiker safety, or trail conflicts.

        This issue is not about your fear of or risk from people riding mountain bikes.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Duncan Parks March 12, 2015 at 10:39 am

          Wow, and you just accept that without question? Even when it is in direct contradiction of the city’s own Technical Advisory Committee? Even when Fritz claims “we have no studies or findings”? Sheesh.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:56 am

      I think you’re confusing “trail” with “singletrack”. The city doesn’t use the same definitions.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Michael Whitesel March 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm

        Source?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          matt picio March 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm

          https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/409097

          “Hard surface trail”, “Soft surface trail”, etc. State definition is anything that’s not a road, but I’d have to spend more time finding the actual reference in the ORS or other documentation.

          Regarding the Portland Parks & Rec definition specifically, I’d need to track down the exact reference – since the city’s site changed, it’s harder to find things like internal Parks & Rec documents. It’s a lot easier to see on park regulation boards and park maps like the one linked, where the actual definition categories are reproduced on something public-facing.

          Page 10 of this reference would be the best example:
          https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/38306?a=250105

          This is one of the big issues when talking about “trails”, since the city definitions rarely match what the advocacy community is talking about – and the average reader of the Oregonian just sees “159 miles of trails” and wonders what all the cyclists are complaining about. The MTB community is correct in saying that there’s only 0.5 miles of dedicated dirt singletrack. I agree with them 100% that there should be more. I don’t know if it should be in River View, or in Forest Park, or Powell Butte, or somewhere else, but it should be somewhere. Put in a dedicated facility (or three) in one of those three spots and people will use it. But if they’re going to close it to bikes to protect nature, then they should ban dogs as well. Dogs do far more to damage the watershed and harass wildlife than bikes do.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Granpa March 11, 2015 at 10:10 am

    Regardless of whether the RVNA is opened to Mt. bikes, the community needs to self-police bad behavior. Shred shaming, erosion guilting and wildlife harassment harassment should be imparted on those who are poor stewards of the land and bad ambassadors of the sport. It is easy to picture the salute one would get by trying to impose good behavior on a sparking adrenaline addict, but if the sport is going to be accepted as not destructive, then those with the most to gain/loose need to educate their brethren.

    http://onthisdayinfashion.com/?p=12729

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Fred March 11, 2015 at 11:24 am

      I hear what you are saying Grandpa, but do hikers call out other hikers that cut across switch backs and trail runners that run when the trails are muddy? Do drivers correct other drivers when they break the law? Like any group, there are people who are rude and careless, but the majority of participants within most groups are courteous and respectful.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jeg March 11, 2015 at 11:48 am

        I do call out hikers that cut switchbacks. All. The. Time.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dave March 11, 2015 at 1:59 pm

          Do you call for those trails where you’ve observed bad hiker behavior to have hiking banned?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        phreadi March 11, 2015 at 12:14 pm

        I called out a hiker last saturday a.m. that was letting her off-leash dog rip around off-trail and she laughed and kept walking.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      ChrisM March 11, 2015 at 11:48 am

      I agree with you Granpa. But, we would all be well-advised to become educated on the appropriate use of trails by all users. I’ve seen hikers startle people on horses (which is never good) because they don’t know that they should give fair warning on approach. As a young self-absorbed lad, I was called-out by some old codger while cutting a switchback when hiking my way up to Yosemite Falls. He was old as hell, had on a marathon t-shirt from the 80’s (from when I was born), and I couldn’t keep up with him to save my life. I had never really thought about erosion before that, but I’ve never forgotten. But, what really made it work was my willingness to listen, (and value his experience), but I’ve since found that most people don’t want to listen. However, it does add some credibility when you’re using the same mode of travel and not perceived as the Other.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Geoff Grummon March 11, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      The mountain biking “community” has been promoting good behavior on trails for decades. IMBA’s rules of the trail are ubiquitous at trailheads all over the country.

      https://www.imba.com/about/rules-trail

      Every group ride that I have been on has always emphasized good behavior and being polite to other trail users. Advocacy groups like NWTA have dedicated countless hours towards maintaining trails. The behaviors that you describe are not considered acceptable and have not been for a long time. In the unlikely event that I happen to see someone on a bike harassing wildlife or eroding a trail, I’ll be sure to talk to them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Spiffy March 12, 2015 at 4:58 pm

      telling an athletic stranger what to do in the woods is asking for a beating… I’d rather not put my life in danger like that… I call people out in the middle of the city all the time because I have crowds of people around to protect me should the person become offended and seek to take out their frustration on me…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eric March 11, 2015 at 10:10 am

    Sounds like a lot of the same from past Forest Park conversations. Not now…maybe in the future…not now…maybe in the future. Keep trying to kick that football Charlie Brown. One of these days Lucy might actually let you kick 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rick March 11, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Dog poop causes far more damage than mountain biking.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    wsbob March 11, 2015 at 10:39 am

    “…This is a reference to the 2011 lawsuit filed against the City of Portland for what the plaintiffs said were purchases made with water ratepayer funds for parcels and projects that had nothing to do with water quality. A judge ultimately ruled in favor of the City of Portland, but the courts are still monitoring the purchases.

    The largest target of that lawsuit was the $6 million the city paid to purchase River View. While it seemed obvious to assume that lawsuit is what scared Fritz and Fish into the abrupt bike ban decision, they had previously maintained that it had nothing to do with it.

    The initial memo about the decision (PDF) she and Fish released on March 2nd said nothing about the lawsuit and focused entirely on their “abundance of caution” to protect the parcel’s streams, ecosystem, and fish habitat. …” maus/bikeportland

    Apparently, money was made availabe to buy parcels of land on condition that their continued function was to be able to preserve water quality. City officials involved in and responsible for overseeing the purchase arrangement, may have had various ideas about the range of uses, in addition to water quality preservation, that the city could possibly use the land for.

    Questions about what those ‘various ideas’ are, and how consistent they are with the conditions of purchase, may be where the hitch is in terms of allowing the land to be used for mountain biking, in addition to water quality preservation.

    Could be, but I kind of doubt Fritz and Fish were “…scared…” in to declining to move forward at present, to allow the land to be used for mountain biking. Sounds much more like they’re carefully vetting the city’s purchase arrangement before signing off on use of the land for mountain biking. Seems like questions about whether the land, according to the purchase agreement, could be used for mountain biking in addition to water quality preservation, should have been raised and answered, before the purchase rather than after. Otherwise, Fritz and Fish seem to be doing just fine, so far.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Brian March 11, 2015 at 11:11 am

      “Recreation” is listed as an acceptable use on the Conservation Easement.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob March 11, 2015 at 11:47 am

        Is ‘vehicular recreation/mountain biking’ also listed on that Conservation Easement?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Brian March 11, 2015 at 12:55 pm

          #4 under General Purpose: “Protecting natural, scenic, and open space values of real property, ensuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open space use.”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            wsbob March 11, 2015 at 1:21 pm

            So your answer to my question, is essentially, No.

            Having mountain biking clearly recognized for being the recreational form it truly is, I think, at least in Portland, likely essential for use of park land to be offered for mountain biking. Making that recognition up front, addresses one of the fundamental obstacles hanging over efforts to have city park land used for mountain biking.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Brian March 11, 2015 at 1:50 pm

              1. Your opinion of “their interest” is just that, your opinion. The opinion of one man with a bias against mountain biking with no data to back it up.
              2. Saying that mountain biking is “inherently at conflict” with the “vast majority” of those who walk is the opinion of one man with a bias against mountain biking with no data to back it up.

              You have the right to repeatedly state your singular, biased opinion, but I think it might be more impactful if you had actual data to support it.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Brian March 11, 2015 at 1:52 pm

                Sorry, this was Darn, this was a reply to your comment below.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                wsbob March 11, 2015 at 6:50 pm

                Brian…Forest Park is unique with respect to all other Portland parkland, natural or otherwise. This distinction obliges a bias that must be acknowledged and factored into any decision regarding the use of this parks’ land for recreation. As such, mountain biking as a form or vehicular recreation, is not compatible with that park’s fundamental purpose to the Portland public. So, it’s not just ‘one man’s’ bias that’s at play here. It’s a citywide bias wit respect to a unique urban natural land park.

                Of course, the city and its people could re-evaluate the purpose, and do whatever it wants with the parkland. The city and its people could add mountain biking to the park, and other forms of vehicular recreation as well. Doing something like that may make lots of ATV’ers happy, or maybe not. The city could sell off some of the land and let houses or factories be built on it. It has gone some length to avoid that kind of thing, as it may well continue to do, regarding mountain biking.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Zimmerman March 11, 2015 at 8:04 pm

                The only place I’ve ever seen mountain biking referred to as “vehicular recreation” is here, on bikeportland.org, and only by you.

                “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

                – George W. Bush

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 8:29 pm

                WSBOB – No “re-evaluation” of the purpose of Forest Park is needed because mountain biking is entirely compatible with the park’s existing designation. Please produce the slightest amount of evidence to contradict that statement.

                For a fellow who asserts that we all have so little idea of how the general public feels about mountain biking that we need to invest public funds and resources to put it on a general ballot (sheesh!), you seem to have no problem concluding for yourself exactly how Portlanders feel about mountain bikes. And what a coincidence indeed – Portlanders seem to agree with your anti-bicycle views! While we’re at it, I don’t recall a general election ballot asking me specifically about my desire for baseball diamonds, climbing structures, tether ball poles, drinking fountains or, frankly, foot-only hiking paths. Surely you’d like to put each of those to a vote of the people as well.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Psyfalcon March 11, 2015 at 11:42 pm

                Forest Park is not designated as a nature park or a natural area. If the city wanted to designate it as such, it would.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Brian March 11, 2015 at 1:57 pm

              My point is that other forms of passive recreation that are allowed are not listed either.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          f5 March 11, 2015 at 2:35 pm

          Can you cite any example (besides yours) where bike usage on single track trails is called ‘vehicular’?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Eric H March 12, 2015 at 2:48 pm

            To paraphrase bob “So the answer to your question, is essentially, No.”

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          spencer March 11, 2015 at 9:47 pm

          its not defined that way bob, you know it, and you keep spouting it as gospel.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Fred March 11, 2015 at 11:27 am

      Or, maybe they could use science to make that determination?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 11:27 am

      “…should have been raised and answered, before the purchase rather than after. Otherwise, Fritz and Fish seem to be doing just fine, so far.” -WSBOB

      What you’ve just said is that despite the fact that Fritz and Fish totally bungled, both initially and now again, one of the most obvious and fundamental elements of this project – recreational management – they’re doing a great job. Wow.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob March 11, 2015 at 11:43 am

        How is it you think the two commissioners “…totally bungled…” recreational management of this project?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 11:48 am

          Just read your own description of what’s happened and read the commissioner’s own backpedaling statements and anxious plea not to abandon her on funding for the master plan. Or simply call the commissioner’s office and listen to them apologize for not handling the whole thing better. No mystery here.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            wsbob March 11, 2015 at 12:13 pm

            Say why you think the two commissioners “…totally bungled…” recreational management of this project. Don’t just try borrow from what I or someone else has written about the commissioner actions.

            Bungling recreational management of the land, would be for example, entirely failing to get the land, at all. Or, once having it hand, failing to put together a recreational plan and responsibly regulating types of recreational use for the land. They’ve not failed in either respect.

            Made some mistakes? Maybe. Most likely along with other parties involved in the deal as well. Not going to pay to point fingers, and listen to unofficial city hall gossip to get the situation squared away. Best thing probably will be staying focused on key questions yet unanswered in the purchase agreement.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 1:27 pm

              You’d like to argue over the definition of the term “bungle?” Would you prefer “botch,” “mismanage,” “fail to properly administer,” “neglect to anticipate the obvious” or some other language that would explain why the commissioner is scrambling to undo the mistake, oversight, damage, error that appears to be threatening her credibility, policy and perhaps political fortunes?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                wsbob March 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm

                “You’d like to argue over…” TrailLover

                I think you should explain in at least some depth, what you meant. Since you’re accusing somebody of bungling something. Explain what you mean instead of simply insulting somebody.

                I don’t think the commissioners are ‘scrambling’, nearly as much, if at all, as you and some other people commenting here, would like to think. Some details weren’t clearly worked out before or at time of purchase, so they’re trying to get that straightened out. Meanwhile, impatient mountain bikers rant and rave, trying their best to demonize people that are earnestly trying to add to Portland’s inventory of natural lands for water conservation and recreational uses.

                As usual, Portland mountain bike enthusiasts vocal at bikeportland, rally together, to inflict upon themselves, a black eye. No wonder that nothing even close to a majority of Portland residents have spoken out in favor of using city parkland for mountain biking.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 8:42 pm

                I think the “bungling” has been explained pretty well on these pages. You can also hear about it from, of all places, the Oregonian editorial board: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/03/portland_sticks_it_to_mountain.html

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                wsbob March 12, 2015 at 11:28 am

                traillover at: http://bikeportland.org/2015/03/11/river-view-bike-ban-might-permanent-fritz-says-135407#comment-6262562

                TL…you’re the one, directly in comments to this discussion, that accused the commissioners of “bungling”. That obliges you to provide an explanation of what you mean, rather than to mimic things other people have said, or post links to sources you suggest would explain what you mean.

                I read the Oregonian editorial, and the impression I get from it, is that the board is grasping for answers they don’t have. It’s the old story of second guessing somebody else’s work, which the board, and a bunch of people commenting to this bikeportland comment section are also doing. Taking potshots is about all it amounts to.

                The land was purchased by the city, in part, for preservation as natural land. That in itself was a major success, rather than to have it eventually sold off for some less worthy use. Who bought the land? Taxpayers.

                Mountain bike enthusiasts didn’t buy the land. Why not? Did they even try? Would have been great if they did. But they didn’t. And locally, they show no indication that they ever will try do something such as that, on a smaller scale of, for example, The Nature Conservancy’s work. That organization has land donated to it. It’s able to raise money for saving land for activities consistent with values embraced by the entire nation. If they want stronger, broader support across the population, mountain biking enthusiasts are going to have to work much harder than they have to date. Using greater care in expressing criticism of public officials would be a good start.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                davemess March 12, 2015 at 1:55 pm

                “Mountain bike enthusiasts didn’t buy the land.”

                Are “mountain bike enthusiasts” also not taxpayers? (And I will point out at this point that you are not a Portland taxpayer)

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Evan March 11, 2015 at 10:41 am

    “I encourage you to participate in the upcoming City Budget process,”… I encourage you to participate in the upcoming Election Process, let’s get some new leadership in city council!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Based on “an abundance of experience” with Commissioner Fritz, kicking and screaming is the only way she will ever accommodate bicycles on Portland city trails. Even the yet-to-materialze Mountain Bike Master Plan that she now touts wasn’t even on her funding radar until she was begrudgingly forced to include it by an overwhelming outpouring of community demand at the public hearing in January.

    Her suggestion that bicycling might be allowed at River View at some point in the future is pure backpedaling after she botched yet another opportunity to help Portland move forward on an issue that the city has been bungling for 20 years. The commissioner is not to be believed regarding any promises or hints of future improvements at River View or elsewhere.

    As evidenced by her current plea for community support for the funding of the Master Plan, it is the commissioner’s own bad actions that are the greatest threat to the Master Plan moving forward at all.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      matt picio March 11, 2015 at 11:59 am

      Agreed. There needs to be more opportunities for mountain biking than currently exist. There’s a huge demand, and as many other people have mentioned, the majority of MTB’ers are courteous, considerate, and just want a place to ride. There’s enough trails (and space for more) to be able to accommodate hiker-only and hiker/MTB or MTB-only trail uses. Pressure *does* need to be applied to Parks in general and Fritz in particular to accommodate those use cases.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        wsbob March 11, 2015 at 1:10 pm

        “…There’s a huge demand, …” picio

        In Portland, there’s not much indication of a huge demand, population percentage-wise to use Portland park land for mountain biking.

        Resident taxpayers are the people forking out the dough to buy parcels of land like the Riverview. Their interest in using this, or any other parkland for a given type of recreation, especially when it’s one such as mountain biking that’s inherently at conflict with the vast majority of other recreational forms engaged in on foot, should be carefully considered.

        Mountain biking in Portland, yet remains to become among the standard forms of recreation made of Portland park land. Until it becomes so, expect it to continue to receive the close scrutiny it does. Applying “…Pressure…” in efforts to have mountain biking received favorably, in the form of malicious claims, could wind up with a bad result.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Scott H March 11, 2015 at 1:45 pm

          Your own perception of demand should never be confused with actual demand, something entirely different.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          TrailLover March 11, 2015 at 1:45 pm

          WSBOB – You can keep repeating the opposite of the truth but it doesn’t make it so. Mountain biking is fundamentally COMPATIBLE with other trail uses as evidenced by the thousands of miles of shared use trails all over the country. Maybe you should look into that.

          Second, “…not much indication of huge demand?” Would something like a large survey of park users help shed light on that? If the results of that survey showed that more bicycle singletrack is the number one desired improvement among trail users, would that constitute an “indication?” Because that’s exactly what the city-sponsored survey revealed in 2012.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            wsbob March 11, 2015 at 6:20 pm

            Like I said:

            “In Portland, there’s not much indication of a huge demand, population percentage-wise to use Portland park land for mountain biking. …”.

            The petition indicates no such thing. How other parts of the country have received mountain biking, is no clear indication that Portland wishes to do similarly. If you really want definite confirmation or rejection of the idea to use Forest Park for mountain biking, also as I’ve said before, put the choice before the public on a ballot. There’s an election not too far away.

            There’s nobody, aside from the 2000 or so NWTA mountain biking association, visibly calling, if at all, for the use of Forest Park for mountain biking. In fact, there’s good reason to suspect that a majority of Portland residents may not be interested in having the city’s largest, earliest established, vehicle free except for park roads, nature park, to be used for mountain biking, at all.

            Scott H, you made an effort at a snappy answer. How about adding some substance to it: To what “actual demand” relative to Portland parkland do you refer? Do you suspect that demand would have been sufficient to swing a citywide vote of Portland residents, to spend 6 million bucks for 146 acres of land for a mountain biking park?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              davemess March 12, 2015 at 1:57 pm

              Ah yes, the “Portland is unique” argument. That’s my favorite!

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          davemess March 11, 2015 at 5:59 pm

          Two hundred and seventy people signed up on a Monday night to do a protest ride (in a far corner of the city) is a sign of demand whether you want to believe it or not.

          Go up to PIR on a Monday night in the summer for mountain bike short track races, and tell me there is no interest in mountain biking in Portland.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Bjorn March 11, 2015 at 6:16 pm

            One thing to note is that there are miles of trails for horses right next to this property, I can’t imagine there is actually more demand for horseback singletrack than mountain bike singletrack in the city, but there are more trails for horses than for bikes.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Paul Souders March 11, 2015 at 8:20 pm

              Because the plural of “anecdote” is apparentlly “data” … I live directly next to Tryon Creek SP, hike in it weekly, my wife runs in it daily, and we have never seen a single horse in four years.

              I do occasionally step in some evidence of equestrian usage however.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          spencer March 11, 2015 at 9:49 pm

          mountain biking does NOT conflict w/ conservation bob.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          f5 March 11, 2015 at 10:20 pm

          I know of at least 30 cyclists personally in the portland area that would love to have more access to single track in FP (and now Riverview), and none of them are members of the NWTA. Consider that I’m just one person and this town is full of cyclists.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan March 12, 2015 at 6:45 am

            Add me to your list.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Geoff Grummon March 11, 2015 at 11:12 am

    Jonathan and Michael – thank you for continuing to cover this story. I look forward to hearing more about how this decision was influenced by city staff members and anti-mountain bike advocates.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    maccoinnich March 11, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Off topic, but that photo of Fritz always reminds me of Marge Simpson in “Scenes from the Class Struggle in Springfield”.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Joe March 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    Team Robot…. awesome!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    spencer March 11, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    allow existing uses the the RVNA. enough said. study it as its used. NOTHING occurs in a vacuum. keep the pressure on !!!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Brian March 11, 2015 at 1:44 pm

    We need people from our Parks and Rec to visit some of these systems. Most people are visual learners, and I think they need to see what we are talking about. I’m happy to get the Kickstarter for plane tix up and running.

    MNBikeLuv
    The prevention of accidents on a trail, shared or otherwise, is about trail design and user interaction design, not the setting of speed limits.
    First, you can cut the speed down by designing the downhills to be tight, twisty and choked up. That way you “design in” a maximum speed.
    Second, you can do some simple things, like adding directionality to the trail so that user group interactions are always face-to-face. That makes impacts far less likely.
    Third, most urban systems avoid such issues by not not having extended downhills, placing higher speed/higher skills areas off by themselves, or going fully segregated for urban trails. Or all three (like they do here in the Midwest).
    Seriously, if any commentor thinks urban mountain biking is impossible or dangerous or damaging to the environment in an urban environment, come to MN. We will do a tour. And after they talk to park managers, elected officials, neighbors and other user groups, as well as going for some MTB rides, I will *guarantee* that person will return to PDX wanting some urban MTB trails. We you see it done right, all the “concerns” melt away.
    Recommended 1

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      MNBikeLuv March 11, 2015 at 6:32 pm

      Brian,

      If those in the PDX MTB scene would be serious about doing something like that, I would be glad to help. I have connections on my end. Rooms, rental bikes, people, etc. If this is something you want to pursue, reply back and we will figure out a private way to communicate.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan March 12, 2015 at 7:57 am

    wsbob
    Brian…Forest Park is unique with respect to all other Portland parkland, natural or otherwise. This distinction obliges a bias that must be acknowledged and factored into any decision regarding the use of this parks’ land for recreation. As such, mountain biking as a form or vehicular recreation, is not compatible with that park’s fundamental purpose to the Portland public.

    Hmm….let’s look at the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan, and the “Goals for Trail Management” contained within. Among the 10 goals listed is Goal 2: Provide Opportunities for Passive Recreation:

    “Forest Park should offer the citizens of Portland Opportunities for outdoor recreation in keeping with the Park’s resource values. Forms of recreation must be appropriate for Forest Park and must be passive in nature. Examples of passive recreation include walking, running, bicycling, riding horses, walking with pets, and observing fauna, flora, and other natural history features. Opportunities should be created for these activities which implies the need for appropriate facilities as well as controls on the level and location of the allowed uses.”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Duncan Parks March 12, 2015 at 10:45 am

    Fritz is alluding to the court case judging the legality of using ratepayer dollars to buy River View. Couldn’t one make the case that pursuing an essentially made-up resource plan banning mountain biking – rather than pursuing the priorities the TAC identified as threatening water quality – be seen as a reckless disregard for the goal of preserving the resource? If the TAC says A,B, and C threaten water quality into the Willamette, and Fritz and Fish do D, shouldn’t *that* be a cause for concern from the Judge?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan March 12, 2015 at 11:30 am

    What did I say? I’ve been stuck in moderation for 4 hours…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eric H March 12, 2015 at 11:51 am

    “Who bought the land? Taxpayers. Mountain bike enthusiasts didn’t buy the land. Why not? Did they even try? Would have been great if they did. But they didn’t. …” wsbob

    Hi Bob – I’m a taxpayer in the city of Portland and a mountain bike enthusiast. Help me square that dilemma up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    TrailLover March 12, 2015 at 1:46 pm

    “Who bought the land? Taxpayers. Mountain bike enthusiasts didn’t buy the land. Why not? Did they even try? Would have been great if they did. But they didn’t. …” wsbob

    The local tether ball enthusiasts didn’t buy Wilshire Park, the local basketball enthusiasts didn’t buy Mt. Tabor, the local hiking enthusiasts didn’t buy Forest Park. We the people bought or preserved those places and we the people like tether ball, basketball, hiking, mountain biking and a host of other wholesome activities. Maybe scraping flat a 12,000 square foot pad for a basketball court is inconsistent with the other goals for River View but nobody…nobody…let alone the experts supposedly managing this project has presented any evidence to show that an existing use like mountain biking is inconsistent with the other purposes of the land.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Psyfalcon March 13, 2015 at 3:03 am

    From the wayback machine: (http://bikeportland.org/2010/02/23/unauthorized-bike-trail-damages-pristine-habitat-in-forest-park-29920)

    a.O February 24, 2010 at 8:30 pm
    Rick, I will bet you $100 that Jim Labbe, Bob Sallinger, Nick Fish, etc are all saying the same bullshit about how they support access and blah, blah, blah for the next five years and somehow it mysteriously just won’t get done and on Feb 22, 2015 there will still be no legal singletrack in FP. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

    5 years later, still no singletrack, and we’ve lost more with RVNA.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar