With River View access in the balance, NW Trail Alliance urges attendance at council meeting

public process

Alright, this might ruffle some feathers here, but I think it can be a healthy debate.
First, some bona fides: I’m a mountain biker and a NWTA member. I’ve ridden at Riverview, and, since I live nearby over the river, was really looking forward to enjoying both the new Sellwood Bridge and a new, improved trail system. I showed up to the community meeting months ago to chew out PP&R for shutting us out of the process (I was the guy in the suit asking “who will be the next generation of conservation voters?”), and wrote a letter to Commissioner Fish that earned me a “calm down” reply.
–
Second, the angle: I’m reading both in NWTA communiques and on bikeportland that the big problem with this current plan is that since it’s not made with bikes in mind, it won’t be good enough if and when (fingers crossed) bikes are allowed back in; in that case, the plan cannot be approved because we’d presumably have to go in and alter things at a later date.
–
Here’s the rub: the trail plan is identical to the original plan, the very original plan, which was, if you recall, submitted with bike access in mind. Go back and look at the original document from before Commissioner Fritz pulled the rug out. The only change is the removal of “mountain bike” from the list of uses. The trail alignment is identical, the mileage is identical, the design specs are identical. The only difference is that bikes are no longer welcome. This is the plan that the ecologists came up with for having the least impact on natural values while still providing great recreational values.
–
This was the trail plan we were going to get access to. It’s not amazing. Not Duthie (love it), surely not Sandy Ridge (love it), and not even I-5 Colonnade Park (love it, too). It ain’t bad, though, and it’s a heck of a lot better than nothing. Had we been offered that improved system of flow trails, we’d have been fools not to take it (uphill and downhill both on all the trails, better rideability for new and younger riders, more sustainable design, proof-of-principal that we can fit in and belong in a healthy way, yadda, yadda, yadda). I like challenging trails, rock gardens, some drops, sure, but PP&R isn’t going to reproduce the Gunsight Ridge Trail for us in the West Hills. Their interest is in kids on bikes, people having a good time on sustainable trails, and so on. We could do a lot worse. I’m not privy to NWTA’s internal workings (I’m on two not-for-profit boards right now, and have two jobs, so I’m just too busy to make it into leadership and make meetings), so maybe there’s some jujitsu going on that I don’t know about. It could simply be that they would have advocated against the original plan, even if bikes were allowed. Could be, they’re taking a maximalist position now just to make a compromise more likely (like, asking for a true bike park in hopes that we’ll just get access to 4 miles of flow trails, period). If they think that works, then I wish them the best! I just. . . feel like the original plan was okay, and was a likely model for increasing access in other places like (ahem) Forest Park.
–
I’m not able to come to the meeting tomorrow (I’ve got work), but if I could, I’d say this:
This plan for the park is fine. Except one glaring, inexcusable error: Commissioners Fritz and Fish trashed an inclusive public process to remove cycling from the list of approved activities in the Park. There’s no scientific evidence against allowing bikes, and the community listening process clearly showed that there is very high public interest in allowing them. A unilateral decision by one commissioner or two, made at the eleventh hour, cannot be allowed to derail months of serious, careful ecological and community planning. At stake is the community involvement model itself: who would bother to volunteer to take part in any community planning if the outcome could be the subject of such whim? The plan, as it is now, cannot be approved. Only when the Commissioners respect the process, and, at the very least, allow the process to finish with all uses in mind, can this plan be approved. Any other outcome now is a rejection of both the science on the ground and the community planning process. Please don’t reject either. Vote no.

It was a very interesting afternoon at City Hall. One of the biggest takeaways for the MTB community has to be that our city council, with a full audience in attendance, spent almost 3 hours talking largely about trails and off-road cycling. We are ON THE RADAR like we’ve never really been before. And perhaps more important, the whole tone of the discussion, certainly from the bike advocates but also from the mayor and the commissioners, really seems to have turned toward inclusion and legitimacy when it comes to bicycles on dirt. Mayor Hales and Commissioner Novick in particular expressed clear concern about the tension and conflict that was created by the city’s mishandling (my word) of the trails element in the RVNA Master Plan. Lots of people (30?) spoke before the council.

Alas, it wasn’t enough to delay adoption of the RVNA MP, which, in my opinion, might not have done cyclists any good anyway, and it wasn’t enough to get an amendment as strong as was warranted regarding the bungled trails element. Commissioner Novick, perhaps not fully understanding the subtleties of the trail planning process, did add an amendment saying that bicycles can and will be considered for inclusion at RVNA if the Off-Road Cycling Mater Plan (ORCMP) calls for it when it is completed hopefully in 2016. The big problem with that, of course, is that it did not put a complete hold on all trail planning or implementation at RVNA. However – and this is a big however – Emily Roth of PPR gave clear testimony that the trail alignments indicated on the RVNA MP maps were merely suggestions and that actual trail (or multiple trails) could possibly be planned and built anywhere in the 300-foot wide corridor bordering the entire parcel. That is very different than being forced to fit some potential, future, MTB-friendly experience onto the existing blue line alignments on the map that were drawn with no regard to cycling at all. It will become critical to refer back to that testimony if and when the ORCMP calls for some accommodation of bicycles at RVNA.

What does seem firm is the Master Plan is to leave the entire interior (inside of 300 feet of the borders) of RVNA closed to all recreational access. While some may lament the loss of interior trail access, the fact that everybody (not just cyclists) is excluded is a big step forward for bicycle equity. Personally, I’m not equipped to argue with the assertion that the interior of the parcel must be preserved exclusively for habitat even if it seems easy to question how much benefit to the entire Willamette ecosystem can possibly be derived from an 87 acre conservation effort. It may be little more than symbolic, but symbols can be important.

What I found to be most annoying and pernicious (and familiar) about some of the flagrantly anti-bicycle testimony that came from about half of the 30(?) or so audience speakers was the totally unsubstantiated drumbeat of insistence that bicycles are somehow inconsistent with the conservation goals of the RVNA easement and Master Plan. The mayor and commissioners didn’t seem to be very receptive to that kind of inflammatory hyperbole, which was very refreshing to witness. Still, it shows that the old guard of anti-bicycle rhetoric is still kicking, although they seemed to be represented almost entirely by relatively older, retirement-age folks who seem to have a great capacity for showing up at midday meetings like this. Proponents of sharing and modern trails management were relatively young and many did a great job of pushing back on the tired old fear mongering that is all too familiar from the anti-bicycle folks. It’s always painful to watch misinformed people rail against bicycles because the same people are often dedicated conservationists as well. How they can claim to be defending nature for nature’s sake and for future generations while slandering most of the relatively young people in the room is truly remarkable. Where the hell do they think the next generation of conservationists is going to come from?

In the end, there were a lot of hard core anti-bicycle activists looking pleased (as they should) with the adoption of the RVNA MP but very anxious about all the bike-positive statements coming from council and the prospect that bicycles will very much be back on the table at RVNA if the ORCMP indicates it. I’m sure some folks will disagree with me, but, all in all, I think it was a fairly good outcome for the city, for conservation and even for off-road cycling. It’s still going to take a lot of patience, but today felt like continued progress and momentum toward the future that we all know will eventually come.