Support BikePortland

Off-Road Cycling Plan gets Council nod, Bureau of Planning will take the lead

Posted by on April 29th, 2015 at 10:45 am

Daniel Greenstadt and his daughter Gigi
testified in support of the plan at
City Hall this morning.

A few minutes ago at their weekly meeting, Portland City Council voted in favor of a motion to fund the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan. During a discussion of an agenda item about the City’s Spring Budget Monitoring Process — known as the “spring bump”, Mayor Charlie Hales put forth a motion to split the plan’s $350,000 price tag between the Portland Parks & Recreation Bureau and the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability.

The mayor’s proposal uses $50,000 from Parks’ budget and $300,000 from BPS. The motion was passed with Commissioners Saltzman and Amanda Fritz both voting in support (Commissioners Nick Fish and Steve Novick are out of town and were not present). With Fritz on board, all five commissioners are in support of the plan is it’s ultimate passage is all but assured when Council votes on the budget adjustments sometime in the next few weeks.

Last week we reported that Hales wanted to fast-track the plan in part because he feels, “We can’t ask people to climb in their cars and drive for an hour to recreate outside of the city.”

The Off-Road Cycling Master Plan was first requested by Parks Commissioner Amanda Fritz in February 2014. At that time she had just denied a request by the Northwest Trail Alliance to build a new singletrack trail adjacent to Firelane 5 in Forest Park. “PP&R leaders and I believe that a citywide Master Plan for cycling recreation is needed prior to embarking on individual projects,” she wrote on her blog at that time.

Fritz and Parks Director Mike Abbaté have used that same rationale to not move forward on any dirt bike trail access decisions over the past year, most recently around the River View Natural Area access debate.

Advertise with BikePortland.

The Mayor’s decision about where the money for the plan comes from is very significant. The process will now be led by the Bureau of Planning — and not by Parks or the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES). This is an important point because both Parks and BES are embroiled with mountain bike advocates over their role in keeping bikes out of local parks and naturals areas.

“This is an excellent solution,” said NW Trail Alliance’s Advocacy Chair Andy Jansky, who testified at today’s council meeting. “It addresses concerns that many people had about having Commissioner Fritz or Fish involved.”

Jansky said having the Planning Bureau take charge of the Cycling Plan also means that the realm of possibilities for where trail riding can take place has now opened up. The planning bureau has jurisdiction over all land parcels in the city, not just official city park land.

The passage of the plan received lots of citizen support at today’s hearing. Daniel Greenstadt (one of the three authors of a recent opinion piece in The Oregonian that urged Mayor Hales to advocate more strongly for bike trails) testified with his young daughter on his lap. “My family really enjoys hiking, biking and recreating in our public parks,” he said, “and we’d love to have more opportunities to do that.”

Then his five-year-old daughter spoke up: “My daddy and me want more trails. Thank you!”

Jansky put a finer point on how this issue impacts kids. “To you and me, one year isn’t that long, but to an eight-year-old kid a year without a trail is like a lifetime.”

NW Trail Alliance Vice President Aaron Berne shared his memories of riding the trails at River View between classes as a law student at Lewis & Clark College. “The mayor’s support for this is a deep breath of fresh air for me,” he said. “There’s a dearth of trail access in Portland, despite 1000s of wooded acres. This needs to change.”

And in a nod to an issue that has been percolating around the bike trail access debate, both Berne and Jansky told Council that they are looking forward to an open and unbiased planning process.

The next step is likely the issuance of a Request for Proposals from the Bureau of Planning that has more details about what we can expect in the plan itself. Stay tuned.

Greenfield Health
Please support BikePortland.

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

51 Comments
  • PeeJay April 29, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Happy to see trails in our near future. Sad to see nobody stepping up to fix our broken street bike access.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spencer April 29, 2015 at 11:01 am

    Good, now Fritz should abdicate her position at parks and give it to someone who doesn’t blatantly exclude citizens from using the park system. Fritz was forced to vote yes to save face. She tried to kick the can down the road and Hales called her bluff. Hales should remove the parks assignment from Fritz and keep Fish clear as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • J_R April 29, 2015 at 11:04 am

    Let’s hope they don’t spend too much time getting budget approval, issuing the request for proposal, and negotiating the contract. I’m all for process, but want it started yesterday.

    Oh, and let’s not spend an inordinate amount of time or money on the “inventory of existing conditions” part of the study. All too often that leads to a slow, overly-deliberate pace and loss of interest as time drags.

    I’m ready to jump straight to the “development of alternatives” followed quickly by the “evaluation of alternatives” and recommendations.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Scott H April 29, 2015 at 11:47 am

      Especially since there is no existing inventory. It shouldn’t take long to count to zero.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Zimmerman April 29, 2015 at 11:19 am

    I’m so happy to see Amanda Fritz and Nick Fish taken out of this equation as far as the planning process goes. Aside from voting to approve this budget item they have been no friend to mountain bikers in Portland.

    I’m cautiously optimistic!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Bjorn April 29, 2015 at 12:10 pm

      It is pretty telling how badly Fritz has burned bridges with all the other councilors. Here we have a budget item that has unanimous support days after the Mayor gets behind it but that she has been unable to get funded at all.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Liu
        John Liu April 30, 2015 at 5:02 am

        I doubt she was actually trying to get it funded. Since the lack of the plan was her excuse to block mountain bike access, and she wants to continue blocking such access, she never wanted the plan to be funded.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • wsbob April 30, 2015 at 6:41 pm

        According to news reports, on bikeportland, Fritz directly asked mountain bike enthusiasts to request of city hall, the other councilors and the mayor, that they work to arrange funding for the development of an Off-Road Cycling Master Plan. Very possibly, Fritz has discussed with Mayor Hales and the other councilor as well, about a need for a such a plan.

        It would seem that at least in part, as a result of her encouragement to mountain bike enthusiasts, the city has found money in the budget to start towards putting a plan together. And Fritz has voted in favor of spending the money on developing the plan. Because of her positive effort, mountain bike enthusiasts in Portland, may be a bit closer to eventually having mountain bike opportunities within city limits.

        In regards to various other decisions that have come before city council while Fritz has been in office, she’s shown that she has the integrity and character to speak up for what she thinks is right. That’s a good quality to have in a representative.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex May 1, 2015 at 10:48 am

          Her previous decisions and statements make question the very basis of how she comes to the conclusion of what is “right”. It doesn’t matter if someone votes what they think is “right”, it matters how they get there – especially in politics.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wsbob April 29, 2015 at 11:21 am

    This could be a positive step towards acquiring additional natural land within the city that would be appropriate to use for mountain biking.

    If the suggestion is that the bureau of planning providing the majority portion of money for funding the plan, will over-ride commissioners Fish and Fritz responsibilities related to what of Portland’s park land is appropriate to use for mountain biking, I wonder if that’s true.

    Mayor Hale’s statement: “We can’t ask people to climb in their cars and drive for an hour to recreate outside of the city.”, wasn’t his best. A stronger argument than that, for the use of natural park land for mountain biking within city limits, will likely need to be brought forth, if the availability of such land appropriate for mountain biking is to be found.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Zimmerman April 29, 2015 at 12:25 pm

      I thought second guessing the statements and opinions of elected officials was considered rude in wsbob-speak?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spencer April 29, 2015 at 12:29 pm

      There is plenty of park land within the city, that could provide shared use trails. A win/win/ win scenario would be to have the NWTA re-route FP trails so that they were more environmentally sensitive and actually drained appropriately (wildwood trail). The end result would be more trail access, less conflict, and less trail erosion (by every user).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • MNBikeLuv April 29, 2015 at 1:33 pm

      I would argue that Portland as PLENTY of existing land for mountain biking trails. More than many other cities that have urban mountain bike trails.

      Hopefully, the movement of this plan out of the Parks wheelhouse will allow the city to take in the past 10-15 years of urban mountain biking design and usage in other cities as template to follow in Portland. Portland doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel here. They just need to copy the wheel.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alex April 29, 2015 at 3:56 pm

        Yes – Portland has one of the highest sq ft of city parks per capita in the nation (I think it ranks around 7ish). Considering the amount of single track it is probably the lowest sq ft of parks to single track ratio in the country. This idea that we don’t have enough space in our current parks is complete rubbish and does not reflect reality. The only reality that exists is that there are only a few parks where it makes sense. I am just glad to see something added here. I would love to see some single track added along the bluffs in North Portland as well! So happy this got pulled away from PPR.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex April 29, 2015 at 1:56 pm

      I found it – just West of downtown – it’s over 5000 acres and apparently could use more volunteers to help get rid of the invasive species, keep it clean and help keep the park healthy in general. It’s called Forest Park.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • ron
      ron May 7, 2015 at 10:52 am

      I think saying that “driving for an hour to ride your bike on dirt” is exactly what it is all about. This is about equity and taking care of the environment. Equity for people who can’t afford to drive the hour, but want to ride in green space, but not on pavement. Our society should not be about what you can afford to do away from where you live…but offering options (like off-road riding) right here at home. The care of the environment will come from the fossil fuel being used for the now and then vacation instead of being needed every time you want to ride a trail. This is logic and will also in the end give kids another option to keep out of trouble because they will have an outlet for all that energy.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brett April 29, 2015 at 11:32 am

    A small victory, but I question whether this will last past the election cycle. It feels like they’ve tasted their own blood, will acquiesce to cement reelection and then it will fall by the wayside, mired in the bureaucratic BS that is the city of Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess April 29, 2015 at 1:23 pm

      If this were a council election year, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But they do have a solid 12 months to do something with this.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • DZ April 29, 2015 at 11:50 am

    This is a huge win for the mountain bike community in Portland. Thanks to everyone who helped keep the pressure on; keep it up!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dave April 29, 2015 at 11:55 am

    Possibly the first time I’ve ever been genuinely excited about an impending RFP.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Brian April 29, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    This is a great first step. We, the mountain bike community, will need to continue to be diligent in seeing this through. We cannot allow apathy to creep in and assume “others” are doing what we would like them to do. Keep going to meetings (Riverview and North Tualatin Mtns are both next week), keep using social media to spread the word, write a thank you letter to Mayor Hales, become an NWTA member and attend the monthly meetings, encourage other to get involved, etc. We are seeing major progress. Thanks to everyone involved on any level.
    Cheers!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Brian April 29, 2015 at 1:25 pm

      I think I am going to celebrate a bit at Velo Cult today around 5pm. Maybe I will see some of you pro-knobbies there.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • resopmok April 29, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    This stirs memories from the not so distant past:

    http://bikeportland.org/2010/02/12/friday-cartoon-dont-let-it-sit-29431

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Eric April 29, 2015 at 9:00 pm

      The City that Plans!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam H. April 29, 2015 at 1:09 pm

    This is great news, and I’m so glad that Fritz has been taken out of the planning process. Hopefully this funding can set a president for funding our on-street bicycle network. It would be nice for people to be able to safely ride to the trailheads.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Matt F April 29, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Just awesome. I had doubts that this would ever happen

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • TrailLover April 29, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Holy cow! This is big. Getting the MTB master plan funded so urgently and getting it out from under Fritz is a huge step forward. This is a new era for recreational trails in Portland. Stay focused, stay ambitious and stay vigilant. Good work, everybody!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Snowden April 29, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    We still need to work on reversing the bike ban in River View. Parks is still going full steam ahead on finalizing the RV management plan.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dave April 29, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Yes, and we have the perfect counter argument now – Fritz didn’t want to consider bikes until a master plan was complete. Now we need to point to the plan in progress as reason to hold of on any decisions (like permanent plans for Riverview) that could interfere with the planning process.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dwaine Dibbly April 29, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    Fingers crossed. Waiting for the rug to get yanked out from under us…..

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Charley April 29, 2015 at 8:02 pm

    YES YES YES. Big thanks to the Mayor for this. Say what you will about the general trend, but if cities are going to compete with each other for young, tech savvy citizens, urban trails are a big plus. And there are whole lot of other benefits. I can see why the Mayor chose to support this process in such a big way.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • spencer April 29, 2015 at 9:40 pm

      I second Charlie. This is what the city needs but its still just a bone until RVNA is opened back to bikes, and the NWTA gets the green light to put shovels to dirt. The plan is what we needed 20 years ago. Now we have it, but its farcical to believe that tires will “legally” touch dirt anytime soon. Lets keep the pressure on!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • paula April 30, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Anyone else catch the latest news reporting? Seems an unauthorized track has been found on Mt. Scott. (http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Mount-Scott-Mountain-bike-obstacle-course-set-up-on-Altamont-summit-Lincoln-Memorial-Park-Cemetery-property-301770321.html?tab=video&c=y)

    Would this not be the case if Riverview had remained opened (grandfathered in) while the plan is created?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex April 30, 2015 at 6:38 pm

      I was looking for that last night!

      Whether or not it is directly related to RVNA is beside the point – as long as there is no single track in Portland, this kind of thing will continue to happen. Hope there isn’t too much damage done. I did find it funny that the guy they interviewed said there are “probably a lot of places” to mountain bike…little does he know.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Bill Walters April 30, 2015 at 8:34 pm

      Facebook tells me it’s been almost four years since I stumbled upon the Mt. Scott trails, which were already quite developed at the time — so no, not a direct result of the Riverview closure. Just another case of our intrepid local media being ever late to the party but still trying their best to trump up some views.

      Interesting that cemetery land keeps cropping up in the mountain-bike saga, though. What does that say, if anything?

      And are we sure at least some of that blockbuster new find isn’t in Clackamas County? I’m gonna check it out.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Bill Walters April 30, 2015 at 9:07 pm

        Yep, within Clackamas County. (The Clatsop alignment appears to be the border.) Not SE Portland as claimed, nor even the right county. Nice investigation, KATU.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Josh Eastin May 1, 2015 at 2:21 pm

    Hi All, apologies for the cross-post, but the organization “Friends of River View Natural Area” has established a web page and is currently asking for public comments/feedback. Many of the people managing this page have demonstrated strong anti-mountain biking sentiments, and the page, particularly the section entitled “Mountain Biking Controversy and MTB References” reflects that position. In an effort to ensure a more balanced approach to the issue, I encourage all of you to read this website, and to send your comments/feedback to the email address listed therein. Here’s the link: http://riverviewfriends.org/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex May 1, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      Thank you for this! Great to see what information is out there.

      Jonathon, can you please remind people to show up to the upcoming meeting

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • wsbob May 2, 2015 at 11:53 pm

      “…“Friends of River View Natural Area” has established a web page and is currently asking for public comments/feedback. Many of the people managing this page have demonstrated strong anti-mountain biking sentiments, …” Josh Eastin

      You’ve not detailed what, if any, “anti-mountain biking sentiments” people managing the Friends of River View Natural Area “page”…(by the way, which page do you refer to?)…have demonstrated. Thanks though, for the link.

      It’s a low frills site, although by the amount of information available on their it, people managing the site have been busy, and have assembled quite a bit of research already, about coverage by media in Portland about mountain biking in the Portland area. Here’s a link for the site, to one of its pages that has a lot of interesting information:

      http://riverviewfriends.org/MTB.html

      Kind of hard to miss the KATU picture they’ve posted to the top of that page, showing a view of a trail, conditions of which are captioned as:

      “Damage done on Mt Scott, Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery property — 4/30/15 KATU”

      Immediately below the picture, the page starts out with an effort at some explanation as to how confusion over the the use to be made of the RVNA land may have come to be, after city purchase.

      I’ve not yet browsed over all the pages of the site.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alex May 4, 2015 at 10:32 am

        If you don’t get an anti-mtb sentiment from that site, I think you just strong agree with their anti-mtb sentiment (which is true based on everything I have ever read in your posts). The header picture alone on the link you provided is ample evidence – why didn’t they post pictures of illegal hiking trails that are all over Forest Park? Why did they single out the illegal mountain biking trails? Seems a bit suspect, doesn’t it?

        They say Sandy Ridge is under 45 minutes away from Portland – it really isn’t. Without traffic google says it is exactly an hour. They say that no other like-size city has mountain biking accessible in the city – that is false. Look at Minneapolis.

        They have a footer image that Marcey Houle took of bike tires in mud which was used as bad publicity for mountain bikers in the NW Examiner. The funny part about it is that if she would have used a wider shot, it would have shown footprints of people walking around the mud patch, widening the trail and causing more damage than the bikes.

        That whole page is written in a very antagonistic tone and jumps to some very strange conclusions. For example:
        “Another confusing aspect of the situation was the placement of one or two mountain biking advocates on the Project Advisory Committee. ”

        What’s confusing about that? It shows intent by all of the people involved putting that committee together to have mountain biking in that area.

        Stop spreading FUD, wsbob.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • wsbob May 4, 2015 at 8:08 pm

          “…Why did they single out the illegal mountain biking trails? Seems a bit suspect, doesn’t it? …” Alex

          Before city purchase, without authorization from the property’s owner, mountain bike enthusiasts allegedly created bike trails that traveled directly into and across creeks at Riverview. Scientists the city hired to evaluate Riverview for possible recreational use, advised that recreational trail affecting the creeks in that manner, was not compatible with the care needed to sustain the areas environmental integrity.

          The picture of trail at Mt Scott, seems to be another example of trail that mountain bike enthusiasts have created. The steep descending series of low hills shown on that lengthy section of trail, is far more than a few tire tracks in the mud.

          You’re welcome to offer for a different point of view than that given by the Mt Scott picture, a picture of trail for mountain biking that is compatible with natural areas such as Riverview or Mt Scott, and that was created by mountain bike enthusiasts.

          I think many people are going to find characteristics of the trail shown in the Mt Scott picture to be a notable example of mountain biking trail, whether it’s labeled “…damage…”, or not. The trail shown in that picture is almost certainly not a type that would be created for walking, or that’s compatible with conservation and protection of a natural area. It’s a type of trail created for mountain biking, a form of vehicular recreation.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Alex May 4, 2015 at 9:53 pm

            “Before city purchase, without authorization from the property’s owner, mountain bike enthusiasts allegedly created bike trails that traveled directly into and across creeks at Riverview.”

            There were hikers there also.

            “Scientists the city hired to evaluate Riverview for possible recreational use, advised that recreational trail affecting the creeks in that manner, was not compatible with the care needed to sustain the areas environmental integrity.”

            Did they? You don’t know that. That was a closed door decision and we don’t know any of the science behind their decision. Please refrain from making things up.

            Regarding the Mt Scott picture – my point of view is that some people built illegal trails in a poor, unsustainable manner because groups like the Friends of RVNA keep putting up blockades and there is no mountain bike access in the city. Should I take pictures of all of the illegal hiking trails and then claim hikers are all environmentally insensitive? That would be disingenuous and false – just like the “Friends” of the RVNA claiming the Mt Scott trails are synonymous with sustainably built trails. The pictures say nothing of how sustainable they are – there would have to be quite a bit of scientific review done in order to determine that. And even that being said, they were built illegally and not in a sustainable way – regardless of the method of travel that is used on them.

            Mountain biking is passive recreation and not more vehicular than a canoe or cross-country skiing – both of which are allowed in wilderness and other more sensitive areas than RVNA. Your categorization is of mountain biking as “vehicular” does not put it in contrast to passive recreation. I suggest you read up on what “passive recreation” actually is and you will find, quite clearly stated, that bicycling is included in that definition and that is the legal wording that is used to describe the type of recreation allowed both in FP and RVNA.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Bill Walters May 5, 2015 at 3:03 pm

              Moreover, I’m not sure it’s been established that the Mt. Scott trails are illegal. They are on cemetery land and they lead down, perhaps significantly, to a cemetery maintenance yard. Could very well be employees’ ongoing extra-curricular project. But of course KATU didn’t quite “investigate” that far.

              P.S., wsbob: Not to blow your mind, but my wife and I *hike* on the Mt. Scott trails.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • wsbob May 6, 2015 at 9:47 pm

              “…Did they? You don’t know that. That was a closed door decision and we don’t know any of the science behind their decision. …” Alex

              What I referred to was a brief statement of observations and advice that scientists hired by the city, offered the city, as reported by way of a quote in a bikeportland story.

              Mountain bikes are vehicles, designed for and generally used in direct contact with the earth’, rather than water, snow or air. Recognition of bikes being vehicles, whether the bike in question is a mountain bike, a road bike, or a touring bike, is acknowledgement of simple, objective fact.

              If you want to refer back to my earlier comment, I’ve already suggested a type of image of mountain biking trail you or some other mountain bike enthusiast might consider presenting to this weblog or elsewhere to the public for comparison with the trail at Mt Scott.

              The kind of examples of mountain bike trail that’s likely to win more support for mountain biking, whether or not that’s a good thing…are those that show mountain biking trail that’s compatible with the conservation, character, and purpose of the natural parkland within city limits that mountain bike enthusiasts seek the use of for mountain biking. In other words: positive examples, rather than negative ones.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Brian May 7, 2015 at 6:09 am

                You’re absolutely correct, wsbob. One of the things we struggle with is showing those who oppose us what mountain biking is in different places, so people use the most extreme examples to define us. We need to do a better job communicating the different types of mountain biking and who mountain bikers are.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • wsbob May 7, 2015 at 11:23 pm

                “…One of the things we struggle with is showing those who oppose us what mountain biking is in different places, so people use the most extreme examples to define us. …” Brian

                What you’ve written, sounds like an effort to shift onto other people, blame for putting in a bad light, mountain bike enthusiasts that have made of natural lands, uses that aren’t compatible with the conservation, protection and use values generally recognized and supported by the public today.

                There’s quite a range of different types of mountain biking, and accordingly, types of riding sought by people that mountain bike. One question Metro staff may have in mind as it continues to plan for use of North Tualitan, is what types of mountain biking, North Tualitan may be able to offer in the way of mountain biking opportunities.

                North Tualitan represents a potential opportunity, if they were to get their heads together, to propose their own idea of a type or types of mountain biking that would be compatible with the values associated with the North Tualitan natural land area.

                As for the photo taken at Mt Scott, of trail, most likely built for mountain biking, by mountain bike enthusiasts: if there’s other types of trail at Mt Scott built by mountain bike enthusiasts that you believe would be compatible with North Tualitan…photograph it and put the pictures before the public. Or, same, from other other parks in the area dedicated to mountain biking, such as Sandy Ridge or Stubb Stewart.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Brian May 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

        I wish these groups would have some integrity and say what they really are, rather than “friends of….” When you go out of your way to paint a negative picture of one user group with cherry picked data and biased wording, the intent is obvious. I am hoping someone with some time will step up and start an inclusive, positively toned RVNA Friends group that looks at the impact of all user groups, and the needs of all appropriate user groups. http://www.friendsofriverview.org is still available.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Brian May 4, 2015 at 1:16 pm

          Here’s an excerpt from their “Friends” website:
          “When the city prohibited mountain biking on March 16, 2015, nothing changed in the multi-party Conservation Easement Agreement. The city’s memo merely reflected what was already in the original agreement. The PP&R staff evidently didn’t know what was in the agreement before they put up signs for multi-use, with bicycles clearly illustrated as acceptable.”

          Bicycles are NOT explicitly listed in the RVNA Easement as not being allowable. The Conservation Easement states that “nature-based recreation” is acceptable (and includes the words “such as,” which connotes that there are other forms that are acceptable). Recreation is listed multiple times as a proper use of the space. These “friends” simply choose to interpret cycling as not a “nature-based recreation” (and inappropriate), while things like hiking and trail running are “nature-based recreation.” I can validly argue that mountain biking is “nature-based.”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex May 4, 2015 at 1:25 pm

          I agree – very passive aggressive and they set an incredibly negative tone to the whole interactions regarding allowing mountain biking anywhere. It is just like Friends of Forest Park and Friends of Mt Hood. It would be nice to co-opt this groups.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • AllMountainMartin May 3, 2015 at 2:57 pm

    PeeJay
    Happy to see trails in our near future. Sad to see nobody stepping up to fix our broken street bike access.
    Recommended 3

    What is broke about it? In my observation around Hawthorne, I see more people on tour/track bikes acting entitled, out in traffic without a helmet, getting in the way of cars on unmarked main roads were the designated cycling corridor/street is a block away on a back street.

    I ride MTB and Urban Assault, and I do what I can to stay away from cars, so I mostly use the back roads. Makes life a bit safer and a little easier to navigate. IMO, I think people that want to ride their bike around a ton and a half of steal in areas were cars are going +30, without a helmet and not in a designated bicycle safety corridor, should be fined for impeding traffic. In my neighborhood, that would be a lot of revenue for the city.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Don Snedecor May 6, 2015 at 10:20 am

    I think the City Council is on the right track to approve funding for a citywide mountain biking master plan. I think if motorcycle dirt bike riders were interested in riding in Portland natural areas, there would be a similar argument. It should be pointed out that natural areas always have limited human access and development, compared to recreational parks. While mountain cyclist vs. naturalist appears to be the hot-tempered, polarizing issue, I’m far more interested in exploring the park itself. The size of this parcel is huge, much larger than Gabriel Park, and should be considered as an undiscovered gem of parks-deficient Southwest Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0