Support BikePortland

Why would anyone ride on that scary stretch of Lombard?

Posted by on December 17th, 2015 at 8:50 am


Martin Greenough’s commute on the City of Portland bike map.
(Note: The dotted red line (which denotes a high-caution area) near the crash site is for 42nd Avenue, which is on an overpass above Lombard.)

I don’t ride on Lombard. You probably don’t ride on Lombard. Heck, why would anyone ride on Lombard?

It’s a state highway, a freight route, and people drive about 50 mph on average! In many sections — especially around NE 42nd where 38-year-old Martin Greenough was killed on Saturday — Lombard is essentially an urban freeway. Biking is legally allowed, but practically prohibited by design.

“He was just getting to know the city. He might have just wanted to give it a shot and see.”
— Monica Maggio, Martin Greenough’s housemate

But you wouldn’t know that by looking at a city bike map.

In the past few days I’ve noticed a familiar thread of conversation around this tragic crash: Why was Martin even riding on that section of Lombard when everyone knows to avoid it like the plague? Some people, on a website that shall not be named, even go so far as blaming Martin for being in a place not meant for bike riders.

But what if Martin had no idea just how dangerous Lombard was until it was too late?

For the past few days I’ve been trying to track down people who knew Martin. I want to share more about who he is so we can all remember him as something more than just “that bicyclist.” One thing I’ve learned is that he moved to Portland only two weeks ago.

I’ve spoken with one of Martin’s housemates, Monica Maggio, who shared some touching memories of him. I’ll share more of our conversation in a separate post (I’m still waiting/hoping to hear from his family); but one thing she told me was that Martin had just gotten a new job and was riding home from work when he was hit.

“He had just bought his bike… Saturday night might have been the first time he commuted to that location and back,” Monica said.

He very likely had no idea there was a dangerous gap in the bikeway on his way home.

Martin worked around NE 11th and Columbia and he lived near NE Alberta and Cully — a nice bike commute distance of about 3.6 miles with a direct east-west connection via Lombard.

If not for the admonitions from Monica and the other two housemates Martin was living with, he might have tried to get home via Columbia. “But we told him,” Monica said, “Please don’t ride on Columbia. Find another route. Columbia is too fast, too crazy.”

As many of us know, as dangerous as the biking conditions are on Lombard, Columbia is even worse.

So Martin chose Lombard, which was actually the lesser of two evils.


Monica said Martin was using one of the city bike maps of Portland to orient himself and find his route. It’s very likely that he simply opened up the map, saw that Lombard was listed as a bikeway and figured he’d take it to Cully, then up to Alberta. Straight and direct. Easy-peasy.

Unfortunately the bike map doesn’t point out that Lombard is a state highway where people drive 50+ mph. Or that the bike lane is often full of debris and gravel or that people often park their cars in the bike lane, forcing bike riders to contend with fast-moving auto traffic. (Stay tuned for our next post which takes a closer look at the riding conditions in this area.)

And inexplicably, the City of Portland bike map doesn’t list the notorious bike lane gap at 42nd as a caution area (it’s a wonderful map and the city staff who work on it are top-notch quality folks, so I’m sure they’ll address this in the next printing).

On the city bike map, the hostile and dangerous bikeway on Lombard is depicted in the exact same way as the relatively serene and safe bikeway on N Vancouver, or the civilized and respectable, grade-separated cycle tracks on Cully.

In other words, to someone new to town there’d be no reason to avoid Lombard. He wasn’t familiar with the neighborhood sidestreets and his map said Lombard would take him directly to Cully with a bike lane the whole way. And of course, Martin probably realized how bad it was once he got on it. But we’ve all done that. We ride on a street and think, ‘Dang, that was scary, I won’t ride here again.’ But we do. Because we might be in a hurry, or we might not have any other choice. Or, like in Martin’s case, we might simply not know of a safer place to ride.

“He was just getting to know the city,” said Monica. “He might have just wanted to give it a shot and see.”

— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 –

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

  • Alex Reed December 17, 2015 at 9:03 am

    I’d say that any substandard bike lanes should either be omitted from the map or marked in a different (and light or cautionary) color.

    Substandard defined as:
    *Anything less than six feet, on any street
    *Anything less than 9 feet (six feet + 3 feet door zone shy) in the door zone
    *Any bike lane with sunken storm grates & bad pavement (e.g. the newly striped SE 52nd northbound bike lane between Woodstock and Foster)
    *Any bike lane with no separation or buffer on a street with an 85th percentile speed of 35 mph or more

    Yes, this would mean the City admitting that part of their vaunted X hundred miles is not really good infrastructure. But it’s what necessary in order to serve their citizens well and therefore should be done.

    Recommended Thumb up 84

    • Terry D-M December 17, 2015 at 9:27 am

      That is how, now that I can make maps, I draw them. This blue lines for these old scary lanes, wider for minimally NACTO Compliant (6 feet) then much wider for modern buffered. Protected gets a bolder blue.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • soren December 17, 2015 at 9:36 am

      “Yes, this would mean the City admitting that part of their vaunted X hundred miles is not really good infrastructure.”

      People are dying due to deferred construction of safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure but our elected officials fret about deferred paving.


      Recommended Thumb up 42

    • Ray Atkinson December 17, 2015 at 10:06 am

      I believe a Level of Traffic Stress map for Portland would help to accomplish what you are describing. Does anyone know if PBOT has already created a Level of Traffic Stress map for Portland?

      Here are some resources on Level of Traffic Stress.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 10:11 am

        OR better yet, get out ahead of this depressing situation and take the steps we already know how to take to reduce/eliminate the stress from the routes that could use it. Vision Zero, Platinum, and all that.

        Like the attention SE Clinton is getting right now, just everywhere.

        It wouldn’t even be that hard. Just skip the autos only; autos first projects around the city for a few years while we catch up with the biking-must-not-involve-outrageous-conditions backlog.

        Recommended Thumb up 19

        • Alex Reed December 17, 2015 at 10:31 am

          Yeah, honestly, pretty much all our bike facilities are substandard in one way or another (legacy greenways = cut-through routes with bad major-street crossings; bike lanes = discussed above; MUPs = tree-root-ridden, too narrow for current volumes and/or having weird badly-signed gaps e.g. I-205 path @ Flavel). But at least not guiding people (who are likely new to Portland and/or new to biking) onto the very most stressful/most dangerous ones would be a start.

          Recommended Thumb up 18

    • wsbob December 17, 2015 at 11:15 am

      Colors, red and yellow denote caution…maybe use those colors to indicate dangerous for biking routes.

      Looking at the map segment, top of this picture, and considering Greenough’s home to work route, I’m wondering how Ainsworth, Holman, 8th, 9th and 11th streets, all marked in green, are for biking: traffic volume, any bike lanes, etc.

      Often, the straightest line to destination, isn’t the best route for biking. Heading off the beaten path may be far better even though it may involve a little extra riding time. People with experience riding in the Beaverton area, for example, may know well that Beav-Hillsdale Hwy from Raleigh Hills to Downtown Beaverton, can be faster than going roundabout on Scholls Ferry Rd, Jameson, Elm, to 5th to Downtown is, but the latter is a far less traveled route, quieter, and most likely safer for biking.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • dwk December 17, 2015 at 9:11 am

    “(it’s a wonderful map and the city staff who work on it are top-notch quality folks, so I’m sure they’ll address this in the next printing).”

    What are you talking about?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 9:44 am

      Is my statement not clear? All I was trying to do is add some personal context because I know that the PBOT Transportation Options staff who manage those maps take their job seriously and truly do care about their maps and the people who use them. Any other questions?

      Recommended Thumb up 23

      • dwk December 17, 2015 at 9:50 am

        If you were doing a bike map of Portland would you have Lombard on it?
        How can you that it is a ‘wonderful” map?
        It is a terrible map and the people who put it together are more interested in showing how many miles of bike lane they have and are not interested at all in the quality of the routes.
        sorry, since a person just died using their map I thought it was an odd thing to write.

        Recommended Thumb up 34

        • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 10:12 am

          Got it; ignore my “maybe” comment. The rest of my post stands.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • matt December 17, 2015 at 10:16 am

          Unfortunately, I concur. Regardless of personal relationships, how serious they take their job, its not a “wonderful map”. I make maps for a living, I take my job serious and am a great person, but even I put out shit product on occasion that i’m not proud of. When it comes to compiling data, “garbage in. garbage out…” The fact that lombard is even highlighted as a route is messed up and shows someone at Pbot isn’t doing their due diligence or QA/QC.

          Recommended Thumb up 13

          • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 10:25 am

            Fair points all. Thanks for calling me out on that part of the story.

            I think these neighborhood bike maps are generally pretty great… But then again I say that from a position of privilege because I know the roads.. And know some of the people who make them. Again. Points taken. Thank you for the feedback.

            Recommended Thumb up 17

            • Jj December 17, 2015 at 12:23 pm

              A point of knowledge, not “privilege”.

              Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 10:29 am

          Would I put Lombard on the map if it were up to me? That’s a great question. I’m not sure yet. I need to think about it a bit more.

          You might be interested to read a story I posted in January 2014 where I was critical of the city for this exact issue. In the story I pointed out how our maps — with unsafe bike lanes depicted on them — show a “network” that isn’t as connected as it appears.

          Here’s that story: Gaps abound in Portland’s ‘low-stress’ bike network.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 11:00 am

            Would I put Lombard on the map if it were up to me?

            I would include it, for sure, even knowing what I know today. It services too many areas more efficiently than any other route for me to simply ignore it. I would also, though:

            – Mark the 42nd street pinch point (that’s a simple error/oversight, a common problem on any complex map). That might even mean adding a specific warning symbol for bad spots, sort of like the red circle for dangerous intersections.

            – Include additional information about route difficulty, traffic stress or pucker factor. Simply encoding it as “Bike lane (painted lane on higher traffic street),” as it is now, isn’t enough information to make a decision. It could still be the blue line but, for example, have double black diamond symbols embedded along its line.

            Beyond the map maker’s authority, I would:

            – be sure the bike lanes are swept frequently;
            – be sure the 8″ lines and bike symbols are in good repair;
            – promptly cite and tow illegally parked cars;
            – be sure drainage is good and drain covers and utility access are safe and paved smoothly;
            – fix the pinch point (both a temporary-but-soon fix and a permanent-but-longer-term fix).

            There’s other stuff, too, like speed limits, enforcement, driver education and licensing, highway law, and plenty more (federal rules, freight…on and on), but yes, Lombard is an important street for bike riders in that area, and we deserve to have not only access to it but knowledge about it.

            Recommended Thumb up 11

            • dwk December 17, 2015 at 11:10 am

              I would not put it on any bike map. Same with roads like Barbur which I use 5 days a week. These high speed roads with bike lanes will be used by experienced local bike riders but are not for the masses. They should not be on maps which are primarily used by tourists or new cyclists. The bike maps of Portland should show MUP’S and bike greenways only.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

              • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 11:13 am

                I think those roads should be on the map, with qualifiers. We should be working toward getting the qualifiers removed, but leaving them off the map entirely does not to me suggest active pursuit of this goal of facilitating people biking on all roads.

                Why not use the color codes to denote dates for each class of road by which time they will be upgraded? That would put the fire under ODOT’s or whoever’s feet, and also achieve the credit the map’s makers so obviously seek by creating some accountability.

                Recommended Thumb up 11

              • dwk December 17, 2015 at 11:29 am

                I passed/met a women riding on the sidewalk on one of the Barbur bridges yesterday morning in the dark. She was terrified. I asked what she was doing as it was obvious she had found herself in the wrong place. She told me her car was in the shop, she was going to work and she was on Barbur because she knew it had a bike lane……

                Recommended Thumb up 15

              • dwk December 17, 2015 at 3:18 pm

                Maybe if they put out a real map showing the amount of safe bicycle streets, it would look so embarrassing, there might prompt some action…..

                Recommended Thumb up 5

              • Tom Hardy December 18, 2015 at 1:50 pm

                Then the bike maps would only consist of relatively short marked streets with very few interconnects.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 10:08 am

        Maybe dwk just meant what map:

        The latest version shows the 42nd overpass as all red dots up to Ainsworth, and the eastbound exit from Lombard to 42nd has been eliminated as even a “moderate traffic” route. So, even in this small example it’s evident that the map makers are updating details. The red-dot obstacles eliminate safe crossing of Columbia/Lombard for miles, and then the red-circle intersections make safe route finding in general about as straight-forward as a pinball route. This all reminds me of my comment about Four Types of Bikeways, and how if Portland really wants to reach its human-power mode share goals it MUST make most routes desireable to most people (including safety in both fact and perception).

        Recommended Thumb up 7

  • James December 17, 2015 at 9:13 am

    In the 8 or so years since I ditched my car, I’ve lost count of the number of times that city- or state-provided bike route maps have lead me to terrifying road conditions. I absolutely do not trust them anymore. And I don’t blame anyone who has tried to follow such maps and decided that driving was probably in their best interest.

    It’s absolutely heartbreaking, the possibility that Martin died because he thought he had moved to “America’s Bike Capitol”, only to be betrayed by sub-standard, car-centric road design.

    Recommended Thumb up 79

    • Tom Martin December 17, 2015 at 11:29 am

      Yet, Portland IS better than most cities. WAAAAY better. It’s true that there are significant gaps and maintenance issues, but yall have never tried to be bike free in Annapolis or Baltimore, MD. Still, I understand the issues. We should be better, and the investment is minimal as compared to car centric building.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • B. Carfree December 17, 2015 at 7:24 pm

      Back in the early part of this century, my wife was driving a van on highway 126 (between Eugene and Florence, at the coast). It’s a state bike route, largely so that ODOT can more easily secure funding for it, but in many years of riding it I only saw one other cyclist on it, and for good reason.

      My wife encountered a group of young riders and their adult escorts at the dreaded “Mapleton Tunnel”. They had routed themselves there based on the state bike map, but knew that attempting to pass through that tunnel was ill-advised, at best. My wife offered to drive behind them with her four-ways going so they could proceed on their trip, an offer they were only too happy to take her up on.

      I don’t understand why the bike maps put out by cities, counties and the state aren’t better checked prior to publication. Not only are there roads listed as fine to ride on that are anything but safe, there are often superior alternatives that are not put on the map simply because the silly staff haven’t designated them as bike routes in their not-the-real-world models.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • El Biciclero December 17, 2015 at 9:18 am

    “‘He had just bought his bike… Saturday night might have been the first time he commuted to that location and back,’ Monica said.

    He very likely had no idea there was a dangerous gap in the bikeway on his way home.”

    This is what rankles me. Martin didn’t study hard enough before attempting to get from A to B on a bike. As a bicyclist, I can’t trust maps, Google, GPS—anything—to point me to a “safe” route. And really, why aren’t all routes “safe”? Why can I expect to drive my car anywhere, traveling any route I want, but if I want to travel by bike, I must study carefully, make trial runs, review video, check maps and street views, cross-referencing multiple sources to see whether the bike lane drops or there is a left turn signal, or a way around that doesn’t involve left turns or two-way stops, find out what the de facto speed is on a street that is signed for 30 mph, hope the shoulder or bike lane is as wide as it looks online and there aren’t huge drainage pits in it and the stripes haven’t worn off since the last time the Google photo car drove by (I have started looking at the “image capture” dates on Google street view to get some notion of whether the picture is still accurate for places I haven’t been). If I don’t do all of the above I could DIE.

    If I hop in my car and follow my nose, the worst I can expect is getting lost.

    We should never, ever have to ask “why would anyone ride their bike on that route?”

    Recommended Thumb up 146

    • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 9:44 am

      comment of the week (my vote).
      Thanks for hammering on this point, El Biciclero.

      Recommended Thumb up 30

    • axoplasm December 17, 2015 at 10:05 am

      This exactly. Thank you.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 10:09 am

      I’ve always said that great bike cities should not need bike maps. You should just be able to get on your bike and ride. Safely.

      Do we expect tourists and others who hop on a bike share bike to know all the best/safest routes?

      Recommended Thumb up 44

      • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 11:04 am

        Or we could simply ask why all these routes (potential routes) are so unsafe?
        Hm. This is not a trick question.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 11:22 am

          Demented terrorists?
          Packs of carnivorous wild beasts?
          Swamp of Fire fumaroles?

          Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Edwin December 17, 2015 at 2:11 pm

        I would hope that in a “platinum” city you could do just that, and ride safely on routes that are designated as bike routes by a government agency. LAB needs to do a rethink.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

    • wsbob December 17, 2015 at 10:50 am

      “…And really, why aren’t all routes “safe”? …” bic

      Easy: It would cost tons of money to make all of them safe, and people don’t have it.

      If you or anyone else reading here, has any ideas about how to get people living in Oregon and paying taxes, to be prepared to shell out the money needed to make superior bike infrastructure that would prevent the type of collision Matin Greenough succumbed to, let’s here them. People aren’t willing to pay for protected bike lanes everywhere, and that type of bike infrastructure is the only thing that may be able to keep motor vehicles out of the bike lane.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 11:00 am

        “Easy: It would cost tons of money to make all of them safe, and people don’t have it.”

        Poppycock. We have plenty of money; those we’ve elected or who have been appointed by those we elect just happen to habitually drive (suffer from Car Head) and so prefer to prioritize in a way that does not help the Martin Greenoughs of this world. $200 million that no citizen asked to be spent studying the CRC (just as an example) would have gone a long way toward the ends you say are impossible.

        And what is this talk of ‘people don’t want’? What is the process by which you determine this? And don’t say ODOT’s priorities perfectly reflect the true wishes of the people, because I think is very easy to show this not to be the case.

        Recommended Thumb up 17

        • wsbob December 17, 2015 at 11:42 am

          Are any substantial numbers of people, such as a majority…outside of bike advocates, and people commenting to bike weblogs somewhat like this one, asking that far more than is now, of their tax dollars, be spent on superior bike lane infrastructure (such as a system of main lane separated ‘protected bike lanes’, or ‘cycle tracks’.) rather than on expansion and improvement to roads for motor vehicle use?

          I’m fairly sure they’re not making any such request. If they were, it most likely would be covered extensively by the media, because that would be big time news. I’d be delighted to hear that a majority of Oregonians are upset that elected officials and transportation personnel are devoting road budgets to travel improvement for motor vehicle use rather than the same for bike use.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 12:45 pm

            Are any substantial numbers of people, such as a majority… asking that far more than is now, of their tax dollars, be spent on superior bike lane infrastructure (such as a system of main lane separated ‘protected bike lanes’, or ‘cycle tracks’.) rather than on expansion and improvement to roads for motor vehicle use?

            Yes. They sure are wsbob. Whenever Metro or other planning agency or city/county asks citizens if they want safer streets where they and their families can bike and walk safely… They absolutely see a majority of the people say yes. It’s all in how you ask the questions.

            And you would not see that in the media, because it doesn’t play well to the “bikes vs. cars” bullshit that sells papers. Like many issues, we are more in agreement than disagreement, but the media goes out of business unless they can portray otherwise.

            Recommended Thumb up 36

            • Charley December 17, 2015 at 1:45 pm

              Why can’t I recommend this 100 times???? 🙂

              Recommended Thumb up 6

            • Stephen Keller December 17, 2015 at 2:11 pm

              The problem is people always say “yes” when asked they want safer streets. A better question might be, “how much are you willing to pay for safer streets?”

              Recommended Thumb up 6

              • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 2:47 pm

                Question wording is important – very important. But, really, the question isn’t or shouldn’t be ‘how much are you willing to pay’ (the implication being above and beyond what you are already paying in taxes) but something along the lines of ‘should your city government reprioritize funds currently going to X,Y,Z to make bicycling less hazardous to those people?’
                Or better yet, skip the survey question and just cut to the chase. Do what needs doing and forget the damn car. Automobility’s over and done anyway. So why throw good money after bad?

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Pete December 18, 2015 at 3:39 pm

                How about asking people, “Do you realize how many more billions of your federal tax dollars were spent over the last five years to design and deploy a wireless technology to prevent freight trains (generally carrying crude) from derailing (and exploding) than were spent on improving bicycling and walking conditions across the country?”

                Recommended Thumb up 2

            • wsbob December 17, 2015 at 3:06 pm

              “…Whenever Metro or other planning agency or city/county asks citizens if they want safer streets where they and their families can bike and walk safely…” maus

              Jonathan, your response does not answer the question I posed in my earlier comment. A majority of this state’s residents do not seem prepared to put bike infrastructure before infrastructure that supports motor vehicle travel. If they were so prepared, that would play very well in the media.

              A majority of the state’s residents saying ‘We’ve asked that our money going towards the transportation budge, be spent on bikeways before highways, but our legislators refuse to heed our demand.’, would be big news. Oregon residents making up the majority, aren’t saying that though. They’re saying to the people representing them: ‘I’m having difficulty driving to work because of congestion. You’ve got to work to have something done to better handle traffic on streets and highways.’.

              Periodically in comments to bikeportland, I mention the area west of Beaverton surrounding the Nike campus: boundaries somewhat arbitrarily chosen, about a three mile radius…170th, Merlo, Millikan Way, Murray Blvd, Walker and Cornell roads. Within those boundaries, rapid growth within the last twenty years. Increasingly worsening motor vehicle congestion. Widening of roads to accommodate motor vehicle traffic.

              Bike infrastructure included in the road widening to help meet travel needs of this area’s growing population, is limited to standard, main lane adjoining bike lanes. No protected bike lanes, no cycle tracks. Are area residents in great numbers, or a majority of them, expressing their distress and dissatisfaction about this? If they are, they’re being very quiet about it.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm


                like everything, this is all about politics and perception and framing. There are no absolutes. People’s opinion about issues like this are malleable and easily changed in my opinion depending on the political leadership and framing of the problems/solutions.

                This goes much deeper than simply anecdotal experiences and the perception of the problem by the people who live a certain area. That’s why we don’t — or we shouldn’t — set policy based solely on what people think. We need to balance individual anecdotes and public will with science, political leadership, and so on.

                There’s also a chicken & egg problem. Of course many people would reflexively say they don’t support “bike spending” because they have no idea what kind of transportation system we are trying to build and that we must build. We need a few high-quality demonstration projects and excellent a-to-b bike connections so that people can grasp what it is we are trying to do.

                It’s my firm belief that if a local elected official were to embrace and effectively share a new transportation vision that did not put auto capacity and convenience at the center and instead elevated bicycle travel to the highest priority for trips of 3 miles or less… that politician would find overwhelming support for that vision. But I realize that’s not an easy political task at the moment and it takes a lot of things to be in place before it can happen.

                I hear what you are implying and that’s a fine perspective. Thanks for sharing it.

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • wsbob December 17, 2015 at 10:23 pm

                “…We need a few high-quality demonstration projects and excellent a-to-b bike connections so that people can grasp what it is we are trying to do. …” maus

                I’d be delighted if in our area, there was a single such project in the works, but there does not seem to be, nor does there even seem to be serious consideration of such a project outside of perhaps, bikeportland. Numerous times in comments to bikeportland stories, I’ve mentioned the rapidly increasing development in neighborhoods around Nike’s campus, and with the South Cooper Mtn development. Those are situations such a project could be easily embarked on, compared to what Portland would have to wrangle with, but still…nothing like that seems to in the works, or even serious considered, should some citizen be so bold as to mention it.

                High prioritization of roads for vehicular use, at the expense of bike use and general livability, seems to me to be a very tough nut to break. I keep my ears open for ideas about how to do make that break, but have yet to hear any that sound as though they have a chance of being successful. More 185th type avenue, country road transformations, is what we seem set to get. The same kind of crummy non-protected bike lane infrastructure from which Martin Greenough received his early departure from this life.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 12:56 pm

            “Are any substantial numbers of people, such as a majority…outside of bike advocates, and people commenting to bike weblogs somewhat like this one, asking that far more than is now, of their tax dollars, be spent on superior bike lane infrastructure”
            The funny thing is, wsbob, this litmus test (that there must be a sustained request from enough people) is never expected much less required of cars-only projects. I’ve been pointing this out to you every time you say the above. Are you hearing me?

            Recommended Thumb up 11

            • paikiala December 17, 2015 at 4:02 pm

              Silence is consent.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

              • B. Carfree December 17, 2015 at 7:37 pm

                And here I always thought silence indicated apathy more than consent.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

            • shirtsoff December 18, 2015 at 3:52 pm

              Thank you, 9watts! When we discuss active transportation infrastructure, inevitably the idea of “well, someone has to pay for it.. tell me who!” always enters the discussion. It’s apologetic nonesense that misdirects the discussion away from safety and the worth of human lives and frames it instead as an “inevitable consequence” of motorized traffic..

              There is *plenty* of money in the interstate and DOT budgets for active transportation if only it were prioritized. Even back country roads with low usage find a way to be funded. Motorized traffic always wins thanks to decades of successful lobbying from the auto industry. Why is it that we never ask who will pay for those rural roadways which sometimes have no shoulders, horrible line of sight and other issues yet when we discuss building safe pathways for active transportation *that* question of “who will pay” is always thrown into the mix? Why isn’t it asked in every instance if it is a fair question?

              We bend over backwards to pay for routes that benefit only a few users out of the conditioning to support motorized traffic at any cost. If we channeled that willingness into bicycles and other modes we would have an interstate system in place for active transportation before another year passed.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

    • John Lascurettes December 17, 2015 at 3:45 pm

      Speaking of not trusting Google for bike directions: Going from SE Morrison and 8th to inner SW downtown, it will always tell me to take the Morrison Bridge. Not the MUP path, but the actual bridge – despite it being illegal for non-motorized traffic to be on the bridge. I’ve reported it to them, they’ve replied “you’re right! it’s been fixed” only to find out that it will still tell me to take the bridge on my bike. I check routinely, because trying to figure out how to get to the MUP from SE is a major pain and it would be nice if bike directions would tell me a better route than the one I do end out taking (which is still pretty sketchy) to get there.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Angel December 17, 2015 at 8:28 pm

        It would also be nice if Google would default to biking/walking/kayaking/etc for shorter distances.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Pete December 17, 2015 at 4:30 pm


      These were my first thoughts reading this. I’ve scouted bike routes using my car in the past, in the Portland and Beav/Hells areas, and especially when I moved to silicon valley in 2009. When I got my LCI there was dedicated discussion on the topic of ‘route selection.’ I can’t remember any time in my life when had to I use a bicycle to scout a route to see if it was safe to drive on though.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Lester Burnham December 18, 2015 at 2:41 pm

      Don’t forget being hit by impaired drivers and left for dead.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Duncan Watson December 17, 2015 at 9:21 am

    I am in Seattle nowadays but I know that I rode a lot of roads that others would say “Why would you ride that?” when I encountered them in the wild. There is no reliable pathfinding method to avoid these kind of issues and there are often no alternatives. It needs to be a priority to make sure that this kind of gap doesn’t exist. You covered the underpass/highway merge issue previously. This needs to be our standard.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Bb December 17, 2015 at 9:38 am

    Cyclist Second class citizen.

    One who must plan out a feasible route and if not approved by motorists. They will be subject to ridicule, harresment, and blame.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Peejay December 17, 2015 at 9:40 am

    While the fault for this specific tragedy rests with the criminally negligent ODOT, Portland must own up to its responsibilities here. The city has been using “America’s Bike City” in its boosterism and promotions without doing the work necessary to make it so. For every Tilicum Crossing, there is a SE 52nd (or for that matter, the eastside approaches to Tilicum itself) in the network. We put up with it because we are motivated and want to ride. So we ride on substandard junk routes, and cheer the city on for trying really hard, but are they?

    What if the bike riders of this city went on strike? If every trip made with a bike were suddenly made with an SOV? Or not made at all, and businesses had to close down during the strike? Then what, Portland? Would the mayor and city council take us seriously then?

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • paikiala December 17, 2015 at 4:05 pm


      Where does the city promote itself as ‘America’s Bike City’?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Alex Reed December 18, 2015 at 11:55 am

        Hard to dig that up (if indeed the City has ever used those words), but Travel Portland certainly paints an in my opinion unjustifiably rosy picture.

        “Portland has more than 300 miles (483 km) of bike lanes, paths and low-traffic streets designated as “bike boulevards,” making cycling one of the best ways to see the city. Many of these bikeways run right through the heart of downtown and past popular attractions, shops and restaurants.”

        A) A good number of the 300 miles are bike lanes on Lombard, Barbur, and similar streets that very few tourists are going to have any interest in – and as we’ve seen, could easily get in over their head on.

        B) “Many of these bikeways run right through the heart of downtown and past popular attractions, shops, and restaurants” – Shops and restaurants, sure, but “right through the heart of downtown” is one of the bigger mismatches of biking demand (for tourists especially) and bike infrastructure supply. There is the waterfront path at downtown’s edge, the Broadway bike lanes which for much of their length are 5-foot door-zone hotel-zone facilities, and the stark/Oak heavily-motor-vehicle-encroached bike lanes to nowhere. That’s it.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Alex Reed December 18, 2015 at 11:58 am

          Actually, even the “shops and restaurants” part is misleading. A high percentage of the bike infrastructure that’s going to be widely appealing to tourists is greenways, which in fact go past very few shops, restaurants, or attraction. Unless they mean “past” as in “2-6 blocks away from” which is – still misleading.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Alex Reed December 18, 2015 at 12:09 pm

          I know Travel Portland is not a City bureau, but it is funded through a City Tourism Improvement District and thus City Council should have an oversight role.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • rick December 17, 2015 at 9:48 am

    Why ride ODOT’s Lombard or TV Highway or SW BH Highway? Because many side streets are dead-ends or because the thru-streets are littered with trailers without license plates.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 10:19 am

      Because it goes where you want to go with the shortest distance and least grade.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • JF December 17, 2015 at 9:53 am

    Very helpful perspective. Answers the questions we’ve all been asking. And, yes, we have all found ourselves on a road we regretted. But unlike Martin, we were lucky enough to survive it.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

  • Tony H December 17, 2015 at 10:09 am

    There have been a few times I have found myself on a road and promised myself that I would never do that again. Perhaps (and we will never know) Martin was thinking that exact same thing before he was killed. This is so tragic. And reading that he was new to Portland, and was just beginning to get out and about by bike makes it even worse, if that’s possible. If the driver gets life in prison, or gets released on a technicality next Tuesday, that doesn’t change the underlying problems here. As Chuck Marohn (the Strong Towns Blog) says repeatedly, if you have to constantly tell people to slow down, you’ve designed your street wrong.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

  • Kyle Banerjee December 17, 2015 at 10:11 am

    El Biciclero
    As a bicyclist, I can’t trust maps, Google, GPS—anything—to point me to a “safe” route.


    Some routes listed as highly dangerous (and are regarded as such by the cycling community) are quite safe because the environment is such that motorists pay attention and sight lines are good. Other times, routes might be described as safe when the reality is quite the opposite. There are other times where the designated routes are plenty safe, but they’re so crazy slow that I’d rather take a busy road.

    Pinch points are highly undesirable and need to be eliminated over time, but there are ways to ride them. I’ve ridden that particular stretch, and in all honesty I don’t think it’s that bad even if it’s far from optimal.

    We need to keep pushing for proper facilities and encouraging motorists to do what they should. But cyclists who choose more problematic environments do need to be more prepared than most.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • rachel b December 17, 2015 at 10:14 am

    What a sad story. Thanks for looking into it, JM.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Asher Atkinson December 17, 2015 at 10:17 am

    Thanks for providing more background to this tragedy. This make me so sad and forces me to take a new look at the cycling advocacy I generally support.

    My initial reaction, like many posting on Bike Portland, was to ‘fix’ it ASAP by creative striping or routing the bike lane to the right of the bridge pillars. My reaction now is to fix it by redirecting cyclists off most of sections of Lombard, and other roads where, as you say, biking is legally allowed, but practically prohibited by design. It’s inexcusable to direct a cyclist down dangerous roads before they understand what they are dealing with.

    Another reaction is to effectively burn the maps and replace with real time, crowd sourced route information. Strava heat maps are an example. Where you can ride and where you should ride are very different. I happen to know the roads well between Martin’s commute and wish there were better mechanisms to share information based on rider experience. I turn to strava all the time to learn about routes, but it is more in the context of recreationally riding. Identifying and drawing attention to similar tools specifically designed for commuters is likely more effective and expedient than fighting with ODOT over lanes and signage.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 10:23 am

      Let’s not lose sight of the fact that hundreds (thousands?) of people have biked on Lombard for decades and not been killed.
      This is both a simple and a complex problem.

      + Simple in that the idiot who ran over Martin was not paying attention and probably also driving faster than his lack of attention warranted.

      + Simple in that this was a shitty piece of infrastructure as highlighted by Hazel/bp on the day before.

      Complex in that we have created and many are working hard to perpetuate a society that is profoundly unequal when it comes to infrastructure parity, safety, prioritization (thanks Matt Garrett and Oregonlive and Car Head and David Evans & Associates and Charlie-asphalt-Hales who only rode his bike when he was up for reelection). Backing out of this mess is not simple or straightforward or quick, but it will work a lot better, more people will get home alive in the future if we start yesterday and stop dilly-dallying (Matt Garrett, are you listening, or just saddened?).

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • Asher Atkinson December 18, 2015 at 12:16 am

        To clarify, I should have suggested directing cyclists off NE Lombard, specifically from 11th to where it becomes Killingsworth, just past Cully.

        Yes, hundreds may have navigated that section in the past without issue, but why not strongly encourage safer routes through nicer streets and focus on building up that infrastructure, as it will likely serve more cyclists over the years.

        I’ve lived off NE Going for years and seen the bike boulevard subtly, yet significantly, change the character of the neighborhood. The same is happening on Holman and Dekum. I’m convinced building out safe and largely separated routes through neighborhoods brings value to both cyclists and the surrounding community. If we accept resources are limited, then isn’t it better to invest them in neighborhoods, rather than under a highway bridge? Yes, a few intrepid and hurried cyclist, my self included, may find occasional value in blazing down NE Lombard. But most, and probably Martin based on what we’ve come to learn of him, will prefer calmer routes for commutes once they know about them.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kathleen Parker December 17, 2015 at 10:17 am

    I have ridden near this crash site in fear several times to get to Whitaker Ponds, a Metro Natural Area on NE 47th across Columbia Blvd. while I enjoy the solitude of Whitaker Ponds, access to this public space for walkers, bikers, and transit riders is terribly dangerous. A very sad death. Many people are biking and walking around this area with no support from city infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Branden S. December 17, 2015 at 10:18 am

    I personally avoid riding Lombard at all costs, but at the same time I’m comfortable riding MLK from Russell all the way down to Division on a regular basis.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • TonyT
    TonyT December 17, 2015 at 10:18 am

    While I can empathize with Jonathan’s desire to preemptively defend the makers of the map, let’s not underestimate the likely role that the map played in this.

    “On the city bike map, the hostile and dangerous bikeway on Lombard is depicted in the exact same way as the relatively serene and safe bikeway on N Vancouver, or the civilized and respectable, grade-separated cycle tracks on Cully.”

    THAT right there is huge. Somewhere along the line, politics played a role in this map. It HAD to. There’s no way any informed person intent on informing others could describe these two stretches of road as even remotely similar.

    The city should scrap their existing map and start over. It should be made for people like Martin (obviously), not as a boosterism bauble intended to impress people with our “infrastructure” which in most instances is PAINT on the side of the road.

    This isn’t the first time that Portland’s maps have failed us in politically convenient ways.

    Head to this story and check out the “auto speeds” and “auto volumes” maps.

    As I commented then, “They combine ‘low speed’ and ‘no data’ on the speed map and ‘low volume’ and ‘no data’ on the volume map. This is terrible map making at best, and purposely misleading at worst.”

    “Ask yourself why they chose to combine low speeds/volumes with no data, rather than high speeds/volume and no data. The no data areas could JUST as easily be suffering from high speed/volume.

    This was a conscious choice with an obvious flaw in regards to predictable interpretation error. At a glance it makes the thin green lines seem like success, when they may very well be a gap in data obscuring speed/volume failure.”

    The city wants to look good and they’re hiding and obscuring data to make it happen.

    End rant.

    Recommended Thumb up 32

    • rachel b December 17, 2015 at 11:03 am

      Good rant, TonyT. Bad (and self-serving) map!

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Kris December 17, 2015 at 4:18 pm

      TonyT hits the nail on the head.

      This map is clearly erroneous and misleading by showing all of N Lombard in blue (“Bike lane – painted lane on higher traffic street”), while there is a key section that features no shoulder and forces bikes onto a high-speed roadway. With 20/20 hindsight, it is obvious that they should have left out the middle section of N Lombard (i.e. apply no color, like they did with other problematic roads like Sandy Boulevard) or mark it with red dots (“Difficult connection – use caution, use sidewalk, or find a different route”), so users like Martin Greenough could plan to go around via NE Dekum and NE Killingsworth.

      BTW: some great investigative journalism on your end, Jonathan. I hope you follow up with PBOT Transportation Options to get a better understanding on how this erroneous marking made it onto their print maps, despite all the expert staffers and GIS tech at their disposal. I hope it will result in some soul-searching on what the primary goal of these maps should be: providing new cyclists a realistic picture of where it is safe to ride and where it is unsafe; or just a promotional tool to make the case that Portland has a world-class, fully connected bike network with hardly any gaps or dangerous connections.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • m December 17, 2015 at 10:23 am

    Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing. Such at tragedy.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Hazel December 17, 2015 at 10:53 am

    I was thinking about this same thing on my morning rode. When I complained to ODOT about this issue, part of their response was that I should just ride elsewhere. While I am connected socially through bikes by being involved in the community, living here for twenty years and owning a smart phone that can help me way find. There are many people who bike in Portland, especially those that are low income or minority that don’t have that priveldge. They become more vulnerable when an entity say “just ride somewhere else” since those people may never be aware of options or that a road with a bike lane isn’t actually safe.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • rachel b December 17, 2015 at 11:06 am

      Good point, Hazel. And a lot of us still have (if anything) dumbphones.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • 9watts December 17, 2015 at 11:07 am

        Yep, just a corded one at home.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 11:55 am

      Hazel, given that you have those privileges, what route have you chosen through this area? If you don’t use Lombard, is it just because of this pinch point, or are there more factors?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Hazel December 17, 2015 at 1:00 pm

        Alan, I am the person that reported this issue to ODOT. I ride on Lombard sometimes. I also take Holman. I am also what would be considered am expert/confident rider. At the pinch point, I stop and wait until there are no vehicles coming to travel under the 42nd overpass.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Alan 1.0 December 17, 2015 at 1:14 pm

          Thanks, Hazel, I recognized your name. The fact that you have all that knowledge (or/& “privilege”) and still consider Lombard a viable bike route says to me that it is.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Hazel December 17, 2015 at 1:51 pm

            As someone else stated, most of this route provides a huge shoulder along with the bike lane so it doesn’t seem any worse than biking on 30. Beyond the issue at 42nd, there are always cars parked in the bike lane since there’s no parking enforcement and the exit entrance to 33rd is a little dicey too. As I also mentioned, this route is super fast and I don’t see why cyclists can’t have that option sometimes too! I’ve never timed it but the route up Holman is much slower. There are a lot of major crossings and stop signs. My guess is Lombard saves me 15-20 minutes.

            Recommended Thumb up 6

  • John Stephens December 17, 2015 at 11:15 am

    I often see cyclists on Ainsworth and Killingsworth, sometimes even Prescott, and I want to let them know there are much safer streets to ride on, such as Going, but that’s not an easy conversation when I’m in a vehicle and they are navigating a tight and busy street. It’s also their right to be on those streets, so I’m not trying to tell them to do something they don’t want to do. However, the city could place more signage on busy streets that indicate where a better cycling option is located.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • AndyC of Linnton December 17, 2015 at 11:52 am

      On the city bike map, heading east from N. Willamette, Ainsworth is marked as a bike boulevard/ neighborhood greenway,until you reach NE 18th. Past MLK I would not consider it to be anything close to this, but there it is on the map.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • AndyC of Linnton December 17, 2015 at 11:56 am

        I haven’t been to that stretch of Ainsworth in a while, so maybe there are speed bumps/ neighborhood greenway signs, and sharrows, but you know, I assume not.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • dwk December 17, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      If I were King, I would make the bike greenways/blvds. in this city car free (except those who live on them), and I would outlaw bikes on busy streets as the exchange for public support.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala December 17, 2015 at 4:07 pm

        How would you do that? (details matter)

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren December 17, 2015 at 12:06 pm

      “However, the city could place more signage on busy streets that indicate where a better cycling option is located.”

      The city could start building bike facilities on busy streets because these streets are often the most direct route and/or the destination of people biking.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • dwk December 17, 2015 at 12:26 pm

        Sorry Soren, streets like Fremont in NE, Broadway, Weidler, Sandy, etc. will never be bike friendly streets, ever.
        I will give up riding on those in exchange for making Tillamook, etc. car free.
        Until there are car free routes there will never be wide spread cycling transportation….

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • soren December 17, 2015 at 1:53 pm

          A road diet and protected bike lane is planned for the Broadway-Weidler couplet. I’m optimistic. (Sandy as well at some point in the future.)

          Recommended Thumb up 6

    • maxD December 17, 2015 at 12:12 pm

      Going is considered a greenway/bike route, but between 7th and Interstate it has exactly ZERO safe crossings of busy arterial/commercial streets. Skidmore provides controlled intersections at 7th, MLK, Williams, Vancouver, Mississippi and Interstate. If you were following and trusting the bike map, you would attempt to cross the quadruple threat on MLK without a signal despite a signal being one block away!

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • paikiala December 17, 2015 at 4:09 pm

        maxD, Define ‘safe’. It’s not easy, and people usually say something very subjective, but I’ve said too much already.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala December 17, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Few, if any, traffic engineers would call a signal ‘safe’.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • El Biciclero December 18, 2015 at 9:34 am

          You’re right. Waiting at the curb forever is definitely safer than attempting to cross an unsignaled intersection.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Bald One December 17, 2015 at 12:38 pm

      I ride Ainsworth a fair amount, and I think it’s a great street for biking. The only problem with it are the very few/occasional a-hole drivers who feel they have a right to go really fast and all bikers should get out of their way so they don’t have to slow down.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Angel December 17, 2015 at 8:45 pm

        I used to ride Ainsworth when I was new to town. Coming from the famous-for-bikes small city of Davis, riding bikes in Portland was quite the culture shock. It was SO SCARY! I walk a lot more in Portland than I would if the streets felt more safe, and Ainsworth, for me, is one very clear example of that.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • El Biciclero December 18, 2015 at 9:31 am

      “…the city could place more signage on busy streets that indicate where a better cycling option is located.”


      Oh, and while you’re on those STOP sign-filled routes, watch out for “enforcement actions”—just a friendly reminder.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Mike December 17, 2015 at 12:06 pm

    I rode Lombard between 27th & MLK for about 5-6 years on a daily commute from Alberta & 28th up to Vancouver, WA (this was 9 years ago).
    It was crappy, traffic was mostly fast, and the road debris rivaled Dirty 30. However, the shoulder was generally wide enough that I didn’t feel any more at risk than other high volume roads with a bike lane. I’ll call myself an Adventurous Commuter so my tolerance of potentially risky conditions is probably higher than most.

    It’s been mentioned above but I’ll echo the thought that the PBOT bike map utterly fails users in that area because of the pinch-point under the bypass. If that doesn’t qualify as a Difficult Connection (their definition), I don’t know what is. Taking cyclists from a fairly wide shoulder to *sharing the lane* with drivers going 55+ with no warning is grossly negligent. Why it wasn’t marked as a Difficult Connection is beyond me.

    Naturally, their disclaimer “While we have made every effort to provide a high quality, accurate and useable map, the information is advisory only. Map users assume all risks as to the quality and accuracy of the map information, and agree that their use is at their own risk” absolves them of responsibility.

    I’d think there should be something a little more obvious other than a dashed red line. Solid black line? A “Very Dangerous – Do Not Ride Here” call-out? But I can easily see why PBOT would avoid putting something on a bike map that hints that a portion of the city is essentially unrideable or life-threatening. Sadly, it would require some honesty by them to admit that, despite their efforts, there are a number of locations around the city that are substandard for cyclists and carry a higher risk than normal of injury or death if used.

    I get that they can’t fix everything overnight. I also get that there are certain things that can never be fixed. But being upfront with us on dangerous areas is the least they can do.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • fourknees December 17, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Tony H
    There have been a few times I have found myself on a road and promised myself that I would never do that again.

    This. I’ve ridden on SW Barbur Blvd once and only once shortly after I moved to Portland. I promised my family I would never ride it again. Barbur is also a “blue” for bike lanes road, but it does have the red dots at the bridges and some other gaps. The “bicycles in roadway” sign with blinky lights has not changed my mindset on riding this road.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Joe December 17, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    RIP 🙁 such a sad story, think everyone who rides wants to find that “safe route”.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • AndyC of Linnton December 17, 2015 at 12:31 pm

    I’ve always taken these maps with a huge grain of salt. I think I’ve said this before, but calling a thing doesn’t make it that thing. Imagine the parks department put out a parks map and included the median to I-5 as urban green space. Technically, sure. Realistically, no. I’m not trying to get down on those that put out the map too much, but who are you putting this map out for? If I hadn’t been riding in this city for about a decade before I saw one of these, I would have no way to know that much of the information is not accurate.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Scott H December 17, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    “He was just getting to know the city”

    This makes me so angry. Portland deserves better than this.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Weiwen Ng December 17, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    FYI, while there was nothing quite this bad in Baltimore City and Baltimore County, Maryland (at least nothing I actually rode), the city had several designated bike lanes or bike-friendly roads that were less than bike-friendly.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Bald One December 17, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Jonathan – nice piece of journalism. I look forward to hearing more on this story.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Chris Balduc December 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm

    I would like to see an app developed that would allow us to outline bike routes through Portland. The app would contain a map of Portland and a draw function to highlight street bike routes throughout the city. Registered users could add their own layer of routes they find trustworthy or not, and the routes could be rated on a scale and compared to other rider’s routes. If an app like that saw wide use, it would be much more reliable and expansive than a printed city map with standard bike routes that must be revised regularly, or even Google maps.

    Also, if PDOT doesn’t step in and create warning signs for riders on bike-hell streets. We could do it ourselves.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Carrie December 17, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Wow Jonathan. Thank you for the analysis. I don’t have anything substantive to add, except this is scary to me, as my teen is out riding around Portland armed with one of these maps to help her navigate parts of town she’s not familiar with. And I did trust them — not to be perfect, but to also not put her in direct danger like riding on Lombard would be.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Bald One December 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    “Bike lane full of debris and gravel”

    this is a constant problem that I wish the city would fix by scheduling more frequent sweeps of bike lanes that are in gutters on busier streets. seems like they should have a priority schedule of street sweeping for major arterials with bike lanes, but I think their current schedule just fits these into an annual calendar. They should get on these more often, and they should know where the bad spots are and take care of them with more regular sweeping and special sweeping after big storms dump extra debris in them (bottom of the hill on N Greeley).

    I have a couple of spots that I call the city on for sweeping whenever the bike lane is overflowing with garbage and rocks – but, it doesn’t usually seem to get them to move any faster on it than their regular schedule. The 823-safe number usually gives you a fun excercise in goverment outreach – “this might be an ODOT maintained section”; “this is handled by the night shift, can you call them?”; “it’s hard to believe there is that much debris in the road – are you talking about the bike lanes?” These are some typical responses I get at 823-SAFE on my regular call about the same section of N. Lombard street. With patience, I can usually get through to the point where they recognize it is a PBOT section of Lombard, and they will contact the night shift for me in order to schedule the sweeping. Sweeping usually takes 2-3 weeks to happen after the call. One section of N Lombard is part of the so-called “40 mile loop”.

    40-mile loop has a nice gap in the bike lane at N Lombard/N Columbia intersection – the bike lane just ends for about a mile before there is a chance to get into the greenways in ST John’s. The new $1M bridge in the N-Portland Greenway over UPRR tracks to Chimney park unceremoniously dumps any cyclist right onto N Columbia, where it is a desparate 1/2 mile (of 50+mph auto/truck traffic) to get to the bike lanes (if you can see them under the dirt/debris there).

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala December 18, 2015 at 9:08 am

      Immediate maintenance needs are better directed to 823-1700 – Maintenance Operations, staffed 24/7.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anne Hawley
    Anne Hawley December 17, 2015 at 1:04 pm

    I can’t guess the number of hours I’ve spent (had the leisure and privilege to spend) poring over Google Maps and Streetview to find a safe-feeling route to some new destination. I’m a native, I’ve been biking here for several years now, I don’t usually have to go to super-unfamiliar places, and these days I have all the time in the world.

    Even while I was still working, I had the kind of job in front of a computer every day where I could take the time to research my after-work route if I wasn’t going straight home.

    I learned very early in my scaredy-cat bike commuting life that the maps (and nav systems based on them) would route me to places that were way too dangerous for me.

    It shouldn’t require my level of privilege, leisure, luck, and fear to get home alive on a bike in this town. It really shouldn’t.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Brendan Treacy December 17, 2015 at 1:41 pm

    Such a sad story. I feel bad so bad about this. It’s so easy to imagine that being me. That’s not the Portland we want to be, not at all.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BLINKY December 17, 2015 at 2:11 pm

    Good article! I’m not a map nerd but I enjoy a well designed hiking map and carry around a bunch of the neighborhood maps in my pack for handing out to new riders I encounter. I generally dig em.

    Reading this got me wondering, would it be a good/bad/ or even possible to put fatality count markers on the neighborhood maps or have an overlay with this info? I was biking around SF on a vacation last summer and a few intersections I passed jogged my memory of collisions I’d read about and elevated my alert level.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • todd boulanger December 17, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Back to the question: ‘Why bike on NE Lombard / NE Portland Highway’…in general there is bike traffic and ODOT/ City / drivers should expect bike traffic here since:
    – people live and work on this arterial highway;
    – people bike to where they typically would drive to (to buy things, etc.);
    – novice cyclists (or cyclists riding in a district for the first time) typically bike along routes they have driven on (until they know the ‘good-cuts’ and bike friendly connections, since our bike network is not perfect) – thinking like a driver in route selection [vs. those of use who drive like we bike – in route selection];
    – bike map/ guideway signs (?) guides them there;
    – the district’s poor roadway network and access control (dike and railroad over crossings) naturally funnels traffic to the routes of least resistance like Lombard;
    – the green neighbourhood bikeways are sometimes best to avoid for commute trips since they often have lots of stops signs and long delays crossing unsignalized intersections with major cross town arterials; and
    – ditto

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • todd boulanger December 17, 2015 at 3:19 pm

    This situation and the issue of successfully implementing (not just adopting) Vision Zero will cause more of this type of discussion and professional soul searching.

    The critical discussion should be is re-looking at legacy bikeways design upgrades – routes designs that may not always be ideal now (‘make it fit the best you can’ for a few ‘Strong But Fearless’ riders attending meetings) and have aged poorly as they are used more (bike traffic volume) and used by more novice commuters (was Martin a ‘Enthused and Confident’ rider). Portland and ODOT has changed a lot since 1998/1999…but some of its facilities have not.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gerald Fittipaldi December 17, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    When I was new to Portland I did the same thing as Martin, only on Killingsworth. I needed to get from Alberta Park to somewhere in East Portland. I looked at the Portland Bike Map and thought, “Sweet. I can take back roads until I get to 42nd where the bike lane on Killingsworth starts. Then I’ll head straight to the I-205 path.” … Never. Again. Now if I have time I go through the hassle of looking on Google’s Street View before getting on my bike to see what I’m getting myself into.

    I’ve learned to avoid streets with the blue bike lane lines in general, as most of them are door-zone-bike-lanes on high-volume, often high-speed streets (NE 47th, NE 57th, Lombard, Killingsworth, NE 42nd, NE 7th/Sandy, NE Weidler, SE 26th, NW & SW Broadway, etc.). ALL. DEATH. TRAPS. To be avoided whenever possible.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Gerald Fittipaldi December 17, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      Didn’t mean to bash the City’s Bike Map, as overall it’s a very well done map. Good scale and readable. Seeing where the Neighborhood Greenways are is very helpful. I also like that many of the dangerous intersections are highlighted. My gripe is with 5-ft wide bike lanes squeezed between parking and narrow (10-ft or 11-ft) travel lanes, on high-volume streets. That would never fly in places that Portland is supposedly trying to emulate, such as Holland.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • paikiala December 18, 2015 at 9:07 am

        Change takes time.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Stephen Keller December 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      Just for grins I asked Google how to get by bike from Martin’s work place to his home (based on the map shown above). Here are the alternates Google proposed:

      None put a cyclist on Lombard. Columbia features in both (one takes the cyclist through the 33rd exchange (tricky at night) and another puts the cyclist on Columbia from 33rd to 60th (not a good choice at all).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • todd boulanger December 17, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    Dusting off my 1993* Sign Up For the Bike, Design Manual for a Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure, #10, CROW, Netherlands…the question to ODoT & PBoT would be do the bikeway facilities in this district adhere to the Programme of Requirements set forth (below) by one of the world’s top cycle infrastructure groups:

    The cycling-infrastructure forms a coherent unit and links with all departure points and destinations of cyclists.

    The cycling-infrastructure continually offers the cyclist as direct a route as possible (so detours are kept to a minimum).

    The cycling-infrastructure is designed and fitted in the surroundings in such a way that cycling is attractive.

    4) SAFETY: and
    The cycling-infrastructure guarantees the road safety of cyclists and other road-users.

    5) COMFORT:
    The cycling-infrastructure enables a quick and comfortable flow of bicycle-traffic.

    *I remember picking up this guide when new. It still rings true today after almost a quarter of a century.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • John Lascurettes December 17, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    This story reads at about a 99.9999% preventable tragedy – none of it on Martin. This is simply horrible.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • John Lascurettes December 17, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    I kind of wish Martin’s family would bring a civil case against the city or ODOT over this; because unfortunately, it seems like sometimes only compensatory damages money makes officials take action more quickly. It’s the family’s choice not to though and I can respect that.

    The exact details put into this piece show how everything steered Martin to taking this path. It’s not that he was being reckless, the advice available to him from the map, and the infrastructure available to him from ODOT were at odds. It’s simply tragic and horrible, but it’s not Martin’s fault. 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • kittens December 17, 2015 at 5:27 pm

    I’ve ridden Lombard on this stretch before and will in the future because it is by far the shortest and fastest route if you are starting in Cully and going to Delta.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Racer X December 17, 2015 at 5:32 pm

      No one would dare to run over a big cat like you ‘kittens’.

      How do you fit into the bike lanes without Trimet buses brushing up too much fur, I gotta ask.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Todd Boulanger December 17, 2015 at 5:35 pm

    Oh…and PBoT, please remember to rush in a map update for your electronic versions too. This may be the quickest what to address not having a big red “X” on this bike lane drop zone.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Alan 1.0 December 19, 2015 at 8:36 pm

      I just checked and the online NE Portland Bike/Walk Map has not been updated for Lombard at 42nd. I dropped a note about it to ‘Active.Transportation’ and ‘SAFE’ at The auto-reply message says, “Due to the current high-volume of requests, PBOT Traffic Engineering staff have an investigation response time of 16 weeks from now for an engineering review.” Here’s hoping they expedite this small but important item.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • eddie December 17, 2015 at 9:10 pm

    I’m going to use this as a textbook case when people insist that the existence of a bike lane means a safer – for – biking street. I hope they change the damn map. That’s just dumb. Lombard should be red, just based on how fast the cars go there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Kocher December 17, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    Another needed map fix: Hwy 30 west of town.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Eric Leifsdad December 17, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    Can we bring back the law about stopping at the bar / sign / crosswalk instead of 8ft later? And maybe that thing with driving the posted speed or under if conditions aren’t perfect? I know asking for turn signals is too much, so I’ll stop there.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • David Lewis December 19, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    I came to Portland to go to United Bicycle Institute, and I now I own a bicycle business here. When I first got here and opened a cycling map, I thought it was some kind of sick joke map I had accidentally opened. It was painfully obvious that Portland bike routes are a combination of the following:

    1) Activists’ routes to work
    2) Routes to nowhere
    3) Full of side streets and turns

    It doesn’t help that street signs here are often only painted on one side, so it’s often impossible to know what street you’re on if you didn’t already know. It makes exploration less enjoyable.

    We live in one of the most progressive cities in our country, the richest most powerful in the world. It does not have to be this way.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • NikBike January 20, 2016 at 6:36 pm

    I remember when we moved to Portland 10 years we biked on all the streets because we came from the east coast where there were no bike lanes, maps or bike routes. I remembering biking up 39th completely unfazed because that’s exactly what biking everywhere was like where we came from. When we found the bike maps it was awesome. I’d probably never bike on 39th now.

    Recommended Thumb up 1