(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)
Portland Mayor Charlie Hales wants to go out with a bang. And in the process he just might blow up his chance to make “Better Naito” permanent.
As we gleefully reported on May 2nd, Hales’ last budget proposal included $1.46 million to redesign Naito Parkway to include a protected bikeway. It’s an idea he’s been talking about for nearly two years now and it makes a lot of sense from a transportation planning perspective. That’s why it’s a shame it might go down with a sinking ship.
Naito should be a marquee street in Portland but it’s held back because it’s dominated by auto traffic. Creating more space on the street to bike and walk would enliven Naito-facing hotels and restaurants and improve safety for everyone who uses it. A report published after “Better Naito” last year showed that auto travel times were not significantly impacted by the new lane configuration, biking went up 56 percent, and the majority of public feedback was “overwhelmingly positive.”
Better Naito was such a success that the City decided to bring it back for three months this summer. Unfortunately Hales’ proposal to make it permanent might be dead within a week.
Advertisement
Hales included the $1.46 million for Naito as one of several expenditures that are dependent on a business tax increase that was immediately controversial and is now teetering on life support.
Even Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick — who has been extremely enthusiastic and supportive of Better Naito (to the point of literally singing the praises of its organizers Better Block PDX at a press conference last year) — didn’t support the business tax. Does that mean Novick doesn’t want a better Naito? Or does it mean that, once again, a mayor has thrown a much-needed bikeway project into a political fight that it shouldn’t be in. (And it’s worth noting that Novick, who could be this project’s biggest champion, isn’t likely to publicly support it until his gas tax increase passes.)
As reported in the Portland Mercury today, the Naito funding (along with a host of other expenditures Hales wants to pay for with a new tax) is now on the chopping block.
Hales has talked about improving bike access on Naito since 2014. He’s had nearly two years to do the legwork it takes to make this project a reality. But as of last week there are no preliminary designs, no project renderings to capture public and political imaginations and no details about the project that advocates could sink their energy into. It’s as if he just popped it into his budget at the last minute as a moonshot.
The mayor’s final budget could have been an exclamation point on a better Naito and instead it’s still a big question mark.
This project deserves better.
— Jonathan Maus, (503) 706-8804 – jonathan@bikeportland.org
Our work is supported by subscribers. Please become one today.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I’ve been consistently disappointed in the weak political will of the mayor. He’s using homeless services and safe transportation as political pawns.
Police and homeless services are big issues and I could imagine a coalition getting behind a revenue measure that would address them. But identifying ingredients is only the first step, you then have to ‘cook’ them to bring it together. Not just drop it all in a bowl and expect people to eat it.
I thank the outgoing Mayor for proposing a new revenue mechanism that can be used to fund neglected priorities, including active transportation. According to the Oregonian Novick criticized this proposal and highlighted the Naito Project as one the things that should be cut:
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2016/05/controversy_erupts_over_tax_hi.html
Will bikewalkvote revisit their endorsement of Novick?
With friend like these…
Soren,
I think the context and the politics here is more important than the policy. Of course Novick isn’t going to defend the Naito project in this context because doing so makes zero sense for him politically. I’m the first one to encourage politicians to lead and do the right thing when it comes to supporting transportation stuff that I love; but I feel what the Mayor has done in this situation is just not smart politics — and in so doing he has created uneccessary controversy, confused Portlanders and poisoned the public well so-to-speak.
I disagree . Accommodation of the PBA and political timidity (use “code words” for cycling infrastructure) has led to unfunded plans and stagnation. The almost-certain to-pass-gas-tax is another example of how attempts to fund road safety are watered down via backroom compromise with big money. Although I have been a critic of Hales’ initial focus on paving there has been a noticeably change in his willingness to support road safety following his decision not to run. On the other hand, Novick’s politics have been a slow-moving disaster for active transport. His PBA-inspired waffling and equivocation on the street fee have set road safety improvements back years. Given Novick’s wealthy donors, I’m not at all surprised that he prioritizes their needs over the needs of people who want safer streets.
“On the other hand, Novick’s politics have been a slow-moving disaster for active transport”
Novick has at least tried something to get more funding for AT. Where is all this outrage against Amanda Fritz, who has done nothing but impede urbanist efforts, and yet got token opposition on her way to her impending landslide reelection?
Agreed. Novick at least has a grasp on transportation planning, whereas Fritz is still worried about people biking on the sidewalk.
I don’t think most Portland voters think of themselves as “urbanists” (which I interpret as supporting a pro-development agenda) — this may be why Fritz remains relatively popular.
She definitely has the NIMBY baby boomer vote locked down.
That’s quite the stereotype you’ve got there!
Well she does claim to represent the neighborhood associations, so make of that what you will…
What do you make of it?
Baby Boomer here — I find this comment offensive. (Actually, I find the term “baby boomer” offensive as well…)
A. Fritz is sort of like D. Trump in a mirror, kind of looks lefty, but what does she really think? In an email she claimed to have ‘voted for the bicycle plan’. Well, I support the cold fusion plan and the Big Rock Candy Mountain plan.
Did she?
fund it?
Actually the PBA and Charlie Hales don’t really care for each other.
I think the street fee debacle is 100% Hales’ fault. The concept of a per household utility fee was his baby, going back to his prior tenure on city council. I think when that became untenable he dumped the mess on Novick and sat on his hands, waiting for the city to come back to his preferred solution. That lead to a stalemate that didn’t break until Wheeler came in. Novick’s error was in letting himself be set up as Hales’ fall guy.
IMO, Novick’s reluctance to support a public vote due to opposition by the PBA killed the best iteration of the street fee.
How much of that was Hales and how much Novick? Here is indirect evidence of what Novick was thinking in January 2014:
“David Sweet, a member of the city transportation bureau’s standing budget advisory committee, said Tuesday that though Novick hadn’t expressed certainty that the proposal would go up for a direct public vote, the commissioner seemed adamant that this November, which will also see two city council races, the national midterm elections and a high-profile ballot measure to allow gay marriage, would be the best time to put a new fee before voters.”
Here is Hales in March 2014:
“We will put a funding measure before the city council, and if necessary, the voters, later this year.”
I read Novick as signalling it would be smart to go to the ballot in November 2014, and Hales signalling he wouldn’t if he didn’t have to (even that’s a charitable reading, he could have been alluding to a ballot reference by opposition groups).
A commendation from Sauron.
Shocked, Shocked I say that the mayor is not displaying competence
One of Portland’s most noteworthy achievements, the removal of the Harbor Freeway back in the day, gets mentioned all the time in the urbanism and active transpo press. The irony is that Naito Parkway is almost a one-to-one replacement for it, and nobody really mentions that.
The City has been willing to rest on that aging laurel while refusing to even acknowledge that Naito is an ugly, noisy, polluting, dangerous car sewer paralleling and blighting one of the city’s greatest assets, exactly like its predecessor 150 meters to the east…let alone alter that sad fact.
Super discouraging.
Naito (or more accurately Front Avenue) existed back then in addition to Harbor Drive. No capacity was added to Front when the freeway was torn down.
See photo here:
The only reason that the Harbor Drive removal was even able to be conceived was because it was replaced by the brand-new I-5 across the river. We’re definitely still better off without Harbor Drive, but its just something to think about.
And the brand new I-405 through residential neighborhoods. Believe me, I know.
City Council has reverted back to it’s bike-timid, afraid-of-the-bikelash state, showing that the city is again caving to business interests by not allowing Better Block to succeed. Because of the gas tax vote looming, no one wants to mention bikes. Sure, the tax will fund plenty of bike projects, but it doesn’t bode well that the city is still afraid to talk about bikes, even though bikes are in the plan! We shouldn’t have to trick people into voting for bike funding. Who’s to say that after the tax passes, bike projects won’t be the first to be cut due to pressure!
We need to stop all this endless support-building outreach. Our city leadership should be convincing us why we need safer streets. Maybe if you want to fund more bike projects, then un-gut PBOT’s active transportation budget!
Vote for Sarah.
I just want to point out that the gas tax project list includes several million dollars for “protected bikeways downtown,” which could easily include making Better Naito permanent. So I can see why Novick would prefer to focus on making sure the gas tax vote is successful, and would oppose this business tax which arguably hurts the gas tax cause.
IMO, given limited revenues from the gas tax, protected bike lanes downtown would work better closer to the middle of the downtown grid than along Naito. Waterfront Park already is a decent space to ride – except during festival season of course. Don’t get me wrong, I still think Naito should get a 4-2 road diet with dual cycleways, but I’d place that at a lower priority than, say, a cycleway on SW Broadway, 3rd/4th Avenues, or Main/Madison to access the Hawthorne Bridge. Nearly every avenue downtown is too wide and could easily fit cycle tracks.
There are so many projects that need to be done to improve bike access downtown, and a cycleway 200 feet from a bike path seems like it should be a low priority.
as a fair-weather rider the festival season is the only time I ride, so the park path is mostly useless all the time for me…
I do think it would help a lot if the festivals weren’t fenced off and you could just walk/bike though rather than around to get to the waterfront path.
This would be true if Waterfront Park had a bike path. It doesn’t. Getting bikes out of the park and onto a smooth path without benches, bollards, stairs, and thousands of pedestrians should be a priority.
When riding from SW Barbur, I prefer Natio compared to SW 6th. PBOT needs to respect Tom McCall.
Jonathan,
Have you asked the city for any scoping or conceptual renderings for better Naito? Presuming they don’t exist seems premature.
no paikiala. I haven’t asked. the point is we have a situation where the mayor is asking the community to support an idea that no one knows anything about other than having a vague conceptual idea that it will “make better naito permanent.” If the city/mayor were serious about this project it seems to me they would actually engage the public in some fashion BEFORE making it a line item in a budget. Doing otherwise shows a lack of seriousness that disrespects the public and the project itself.
as opposed to
“Remember the entire idea behind [insert favorite project here] is to try something new. To see what works and what doesn’t. To learn and move forward. It’s a quick sketch, not a masterpiece. It’s a work of art we all get to help create — but if the City doesn’t hear more positive support for the project we’ll never get to see the final product.”
http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/13/lovers-of-great-streets-better-broadway-needs-our-help-183467
I’m talking about two different things here paikiala: 1) the need for Hales to put some meat on the bone of the permanent Naito project and 2) explaning what the “Better” approach is all about.
I love that Hales put a line item in the budget to make Naito permanent! But i don’t love that he did it as a complete surprise, without walking the halls and getting support, and that he made it contingent on a tax he knew would be controversial. IMO if he really cared about Naito he would have taken more care with making it happen.
Like i say.. We don’t need politicians who “get it”.. we need politicians who get it done. Naito should be done. It was a slam dunk and Hales did a great job priming the pump rhetorically, then PBOT and activists took the ball to the 99-yard line. His final play should have been easy but he’s made it tougher than necessary. IMO.
As it stands now, I would not support the idea of simply “make Better Naito permanent” without a concrete plan on how to address turns across Naito and loading zones during festivals.
Of course, I have a solution to those problems though! Instead of a two-way cycle path, make it a one-way path and add a southbound cycle path on we other side of the street. That way, turns are easier (you don’t have to block the oncoming bike lane) and trucks will only block half the path. If they are wide enough (take an entire travel lane) the southbound could even be converted to a two-way temporarily during festivals to allow for loading on the northbound lane.
Of course, Parks also needs to build a sidewalk along Naito, but AFAIK they are not open to that idea for whatever reason.
Maybe loading trucks could park on the grass instead of in the bike lane.
Yeah, it’s not like that grass doesn’t get destroyed anyway, forcing the city to waste water every year trying to grow it back. I would fully support a proposal to rip out all the sod and replace it with crushed gravel, similar to parks in Paris. Leave some green but fence it in so it’s easier to manage and won’t get trashed every year.
there’s usually a fence in the way…
If only there were a way to set up the fence 9 feet closer to the river…
Same with the food cart today!
Bad idea: Grass is basically disposable, but the roadside has street trees which represent years of growth and can not be replaced. Tree roots need the pore space in soils and driving on the soil compacts it and crushes the pore space. Parking in the tree root zone can kill the trees. AND There are enough unauthorized appropriations of our park spaces without slicing off portions to be used as truck parking.
Trees can be replaced. Parks and Urban Forestry have a formula for it.
The first five feet behind the sidewalk is public right of way from the roadway, but Parks pretty much vetos even a curb tight sidewalk.
Sure trees can be replaced, but discarding the green investment of decades and shaving away a portion of park space for parking is a bad deal. Much of the ranting on this blog rails against public support for parking. In this case I agree.
Adam,
All or nothing usually results in the latter, not the former.
Novick could have simply said he does not support the business fee increase and left it at that but he specifically singled out better naito as frivolous spending. I’m also not sure why you think the person not running for political office is playing “political football”. Criticizing a business tax and singling out bike infrastructure is the epitome of political football. I’d really like to hear the logic behind Hales’ nefarious political motivations for trying to get better naito funded.
there are Naito-facing hotels and restaurants? I had no idea… it’s a hostile area and I’m always focused on getting through it in one piece… there’s no place on Naito to slow down and pay attention to any businesses there… it’s a rush-hour freeway…
By all means lament, but remember that it’s just a show. This is more than Catch-22, it’s Genesis 22: “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
Every budget proposal has these phony sacrifices. If people say nothing, that’s exactly what they’ll get, but if they do speak up, some other priority gets slashed. City Hall now has the cover it needs, and the all-powerful, puppy-hating handsome devils of the Bicycle Lobby will shoulder the blame for cuts to parks, police, housing, etc.
Is it worth the political (or financial) capital? Comparing it to other safety projects, I don’t think so. But that’s just, like, my own opinion, man.
Charlie Hales succeeded in become a more unpopular and toxic mayor than Sam Adams. That is not an easy thing to do.
There’s no way that is true.
Kim’s whatever food cart in the lane was a nice addition today.
Once again I say,close it off from the Marriott to the Steel Bridge, demo the ramps, make the current road a permanent paved festival space complete with built in stages and seating and such. The ROI would likely be seen in a couple years of not needing to reseed the lawns. Waterfront park more people friendly, with a beach, playgrounds, some nice gardens and what not. The dead ends from 1st Ave east convert nicely into little plazas or pods or sell off that real estate to fund the turnover – I’m with such a set up a couple hotels would be willing to invest in additions to new lots suddenly appearing next door.
Most the traffic on Natio is just people bridge hopping, there are almost no businesses that require it and only one or two parking lots that access it through this stretch. Just shut it down.
Give Portland Parks Naito as described above in exchange for Eastmoreland Golf course, for a new neighborhood development. ll the golf courses owned by PP&R only net operating costs of $10 million a year. Considering my little 50′ x 100 lot in middle SE is pushing 400k recently, I’m sure the city would appreciate new taxes of developing at least a couple of the golf courses (which is a moribund sport by the way).
Naito is currently anything but better. Cell phone zombies strolling all over the street. Vendors consistently abusing loading zones and generally driving without a clue. I commute this pkwy daily. I love the folks who hate golf…funny stuff. At the rate that life expectancy increases I would not expect golf to die in your lifetime, but it is a very difficult game and that is certainly not too popular with many folks today. Is their an “app” that makes this easier…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-19/golf-loses-players-as-millennials-find-it-expensive-time-consuming
http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/04/economist-explains-1
Strangely watching golf seems to be growing in popularity. huh.
What will help is if we all contact each one of the four commissioners and tell them that we support the business license tax which will bring in $8.7 million to fund more than just Better Naito.
I went to the budget hearing meeting on Thursday. There were many people who spoke on behave of the organizations and programs that they want to continue to receive funding for next year. Only two people spoke for the business license tax. $8.7 million can get us more than Better Naito. It will support Vision Zero and more bike/ped projects. Tell Novick, Fish, Saltzman, and Fritz that this is what we want!
I have been curious to watch the Naito closure evolve over the last few weeks.
Is ODOT, COP, or Google gathering hard data on trip delays (cars) and usage by peds/bikes/unicycles? This would be key in convincing the public it’s a good idea to implement permanently.
I have my own anecdotal impressions of the project’s effects, but I’ll reserve those for now. Best, Bike Guy
PBOT did last year, blue tooth as well as other.
I commuted to work downtown from Irvington on a bicycle for over 30 years. After the ramp to the Steel Bridge was built, my route, probably over 90% of the time was over that bridge and up the waterfront to the Federal Courthouse. That was such a nice easy route that I do not see the need to put a permanent bike route on Naito, one block, at most, from the existing route. Only during festivals is there any difficulty biking on the existing footpath. Spend that money, effort and political capital somewhere else.
Surely, they didn’t lose THAT much yardage??