(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)
Besides the bikes themselves, the stations are the most visible part of the Biketown bike share system that’s set to launch six days from today. And not surprisingly, as the bright orange stations are installed on streets and sidewalks throughout Portland, their presence has stoked anger and confusion.
We’ve already covered the confusion: People are locking their own bikes to the racks which are intended solely for Biketown bikes. That issue is likely to disappear once the Biketown bikes show up next week.
Then just as that story died down a bit, we heard concerns from readers via comments that the City of Portland has torn out existing bike parking corrals in front of businesses and replaced them with bike share stations. Also yesterday, I fielded a call from a southeast Portland resident who was angry when she woke up, looked outside her house and saw that the space where she used to park her car was now a row of 18 Biketown racks.
What’s going on? Here’s what the city says…
Portland now has four fewer bike parking corrals
(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)
We’ve confirmed that the Bureau of Transportation has removed four bike corrals in order to make room for Biketown stations. The locations are: North Mississippi and Skidmore (at Prost); North Russell and Interstate (at Widmer Brothers Pub); NW 21st and Johnson (at City Market); and NW Thurman and 24th (at Dragonfly Coffeehouse).
According to PBOT Communications Director John Brady the decision to remove the corrals was based on conversations with business owners and an analysis of demand at the corrals and availability of nearby bike parking options. “In removing the corrals, our overall goal was to balance the needs of all users,” Brady said via email yesterday. “We will continue to monitor the situation, and we will revisit our decision if we find that it is warranted by the demand for bike parking.” If one of the businesses wants more standard bike racks on the sidewalk, PBOT is ready and willing to install them (note the the removed corrals and the new bike share stations were located in the street, not on the sidewalk).
Brady went on to say that the city still has over 3,000 bike racks within the Biketown service area map and more than 6,000 bike racks citywide. And for people who feel like the city should have kept the corrals and added the bike share stations alongside them, Brady added, “It is important to note that the demand on the public right of way in each of these locations is high. Our challenge was to balance the need for good parking with the need for Biketown stations and car parking.”
Want more bike parking? Brady says there’s an email address for that: bikeparking@portlandoregon.gov.
Advertisement
Welcome to the neighborhood, Biketown!
We’ve also heard directly from one Portland resident who says she and her neighbors are not pleased (at all) with the bright orange bike racks in the street in front of their houses. KGW-TV ran a story this week about a similar complaint.
As you might guess, residents of inner Portland who have seen tremendous growth in nearby commercial districts and lots of infill development are already highly stressed when it comes to parking spaces. Now they’re waking up and seeing strange orange bike racks where they used to park their cars.
We asked Brady to respond to these concerns. He stressed that all 100 bike share stations are being installed in the public right-of-way “which is shared space.” When PBOT and their contractor, Motivate Inc., chose station locations Brady said their goal was to, “balance the needs of the different types of travelers who use this shared space.”
As for the claim that Anderson and her neighbors were never notified, Brady pointed to the extensive public process PBOT started last spring. “We received over 4,600 comments on the station locations between the online interactive map and five open houses. In addition, we presented at over 40 stakeholder meetings and events,” he said. And while he acknowledges PBOT did not notify individual households, he says they did email every neighborhood association, district coalition, and business association about the project’s open houses. “We then hand walked a postcard to every business along all the main street corridors on the east side of the river,” Brady continued, “along with NW 23rd and NW 21st. To further communicate with the public, we issued a news release about the station siting process and the open houses. As a result, the planning process received widespread media coverage.”
(Photo: David G.)
Despite PBOT’s defenses, these stations are likely to continue to be unloved and highly scrutinized by some Portlanders. We’ve also heard from people concerned about stations placed on sidewalks where the bikes are likely to impact the walking and rolling (for wheelchair uses) space.
In my opinion, this debate is reasonable, worthy and completely expected. Make no mistake about it: Biketown is a new transit system that’s being overlayed onto existing infrastructure. It represents major changes to our city on many levels — both physical and mental. Add to that its hi-viz orange color and Nike branding (remember that just 12 years ago Portland residents firebombed Starbucks when it moved into inner southeast) and we shouldn’t be surprised that these changes will be uncomfortable for some people.
The good news is that Portland isn’t the first city to experience these bike share growing pains. In fact where the 66th city to go through it. And the wisdom of experience tells us that usually the pains subside dramatically once the system is actually launched and we have that collective “a-ha!” moment as happy people start pedaling around on shared bikes.
— 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.
That is a pretty mealy-mouthed way of saying “The City of Portland is committed to preserving the convenience of free/cheap, on-street parking over the accessibility of pedestrians, supporting bike commuters with secure parking or even our new bike share system”
Agreed. I had high hopes here. This is very disappointing.
Seems like a way to make “the bicycle community” look bad at the expense of pedestrians.
Thankfully CARS are here to rescue us!
Having used the CaBi system in DC for a while, I’ve seen a lot of people biking on the sidewalk (and do it myself a fair amount). Most of the stations are on the sidewalk. Paired with a lack of bike lanes, it makes for a lot of annoyed people walking. I empathize with them.
This pattern may happen in Portland as well. I’m glad to see a lot of the Biketown stations are on the street. It’s clear sidewalks should be for people walking, but when streets are designed exclusively for cars, it’s the only consistently safe place.
I agree, that 7th at Burnside station looks like it will block the sidewalk. There’s a perfectly good parking space right next to it to use. IMO, all the stations should be in the roadway. They’d be especially useful as a buffer of a protected bike lane.
I don’t think the loss of four bike corrals is a huge deal, although it does seem odd to remove them after only talking with “business owners”. They don’t own the public right-of-way any more than I own the car parking space in from of my house. They are not the ones who would be using the rack, their customers are, and it’s not like the business can speak for all of its customers.
That being said, I think these minor concessions are worth the huge benefits that bike share will bring. I look forward to hundreds of orange bikes begriming our streets. 🙂
I also wondered how that 7th and Burnside station would work with bikes in it. They’re locked through the rear wheel. I hope the system works in such a way that the only way to lock them up is with the bike facing east.
Furnishings should be restricted to the Furnishing Zone of the sidewalk (the 4 feet along the curb). This station is installed entirely within the “Through Zone, a space that is intended to remain clear for people moving along the sidewalk. The City has consistently forbidden installing any furnishings in the Through Zone as matter of sensible urban design and to meet ADA requirements. Installing these stations on sidewalks is terrible urban design, miserable placemaking, a bad precedent, and possibly iun violation of rules governing accessiblity
Except the space leftover in the through zone is wide enough to meet ADA…
I just checked Google Earth, and it tells me that the sidewalk there is roughly 12′ wide from curb to building. So if the average bicycle is say 6′ long (which they aren’t – they are closer to 4-5′) you still have 6′ to pass by the bikes.
This was my concern as well, but I think the photo has a fairly wide field of view and distorts your perception of how wide the sidewalk actually is.
I’m more surprised that business owners were ok with the parking removal… with all the customers those extra 18 parking spaces bring I would expect them to scream NO just like they do to the removal of 1 parking space…
The businesses request the corrals – that’s how the locations are usually identified. To me, it looks like Widmer now has more bike parking than before.
But would that be BikeShare™ ONLY privileged parking that has replaced general bicycle parking that everyone can use?
Has a previously PUBLIC resource now been PRIVATIZED for the sole exclusive profit genetating use of a private company?
How is this any different than Zipcar-only parking spots?
It is different because it replacing the majority of the parking for bikes on a block face. If they made just one staple in a bike corral orange and for the exclusive use of biketown, that would be analogous to creating a Zipcar-only spot
It’s not very different. I think we should question any privatization of public space.
From an efficiency of space standpoint, replacing one parking space with a zip car space makes sense. As does replacing one parking space with one bike corral.
Replacing one bike corral with one private bike corral is something else entirely. Maybe it will work out. Only time will tell.
There are still six bike posts on the block for people who use private bikes.
There are twice as many public car parking spots in downtown than there are public bike racks in ALL of Portland.
The person complaining about the removal of “their” parking space can go about 20 feet in any direction and find a place to park. For people biking, sometimes there are no places to park within a half mile or more.
Ethan,
Where would a bike rider have to go a half mile to find a bike parking spot? Let’s not go crazy here…
*Secure* parking?
The closest bike rack (of any type) to my house is exactly half a mile away. The closest car parking space is in my driveway, and I would bike by approximately 200 car parking spaces before being able to find even 1 bike rack.
And, the bike racks near my house are concentrated in the areas where businesses are.
If I were to go the other direction, the closest bike rack would be well over a mile away from my house.
There are bike racks on the same blockface or across the street from each of the removed corrals.
With removal of the corral at Prost, it now matches its sister property Stammtisch, which also has crap for bike parking.
The food cart pod next to Prost has bike parking.
I see plenty of places to park a car in that picture. And why do people feel entitled to the spot in front of their house, anyway? I don’t buy a home with the expectation that the city will enable me to park my bicycle out front. Why are cars different?
Conversely, I would like to install bike parking in front of my house, but the city only allows this for commercial zones.
There is nothing preventing you from installing a staple in your yard. For example on the 8200 block of SE Taylor there are some new skinny houses with staples installed pas part of the redevelopment.
You just can’t place them between the sidewalk (if you got one) and the road, where they’d be considered a hindrance to emergency vehicles. The rest of your yard is fair game. There are significant differences between building codes for commercial and residential and there is nothing preventing you from installing a rack on your residential property.
You can’t put a bike rack in the planter strip?
http://i.imgur.com/d3bTA3K.jpg
Did this get put in before that regulation went into effect?
I used to live in that neighborhood (Sullivan’s Gulch) and I recognize that building. It was an apartment complex that was condo-ized about 10 years ago. Presumably that is when they got a waiver for the rack. You might notice the rack style is not a PBOT blue staple.
The planting strip is the only place I would be able to install a rack. My house is built into a hill and the front “yard” is up a set of stairs and inaccessible from the sidewalk.
“I would like to install bike parking in front of my house, but the city only allows this for commercial zones.”
What’s your source for that? I don’t see any prohibition on a ROW encroachment for a bike rack on residential property. The city will only install them on commercial, but it looks like you could get a permit to install your own in the furnishing zone.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/409066
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/citycode/?c=31911&a=43223
I was referencing the city’s Bike Rack Application Form that states:
Though based on your info, it seems I could get a permit and install it myself (if I knew how).
It’s not hard. I’d be happy to lend you a hand.
Dan, I’ve got a rack that needs help installing. Could you advise me as well? thanks
I’d be more than happy to.
I’m a little confused, shouldn’t the stations all be on commercial/main streets so they are easy to find ? ie not buried in the middle of a residential area ? I agree with the homeowner in that she should have been notified since, to some folks, its may be as disruptive as having a bus stop suddenly appear in front of your house.
The stations are on main streets. The one in the picture is at the corner of SE Cesar Chavez and SE Taylor, a bike blvd. Across the street from the station is the Belmont library.
Is it on Taylor, though, or CC (where it, in my opinion, should be)? I agree w/ Anna G. And I don’t own a car.
It’s on Taylor.
There’s no (car) parking lane on Cesar Chavez there, and the sidewalks facing Cesar Chavez are narrow and fairly uncomfortable for pedestrians as-is. So Taylor is definitely the best option for putting a bike rack down there since it’ll be calmer, and that’s also basically the terminus of the system.
Notifying people of changes adjacent to their property should just be part of the process. Unfortunately, the city has decided that public notice is not particularly important. There are many recent examples.
Why do you need to be notified of something that has zero impact? On my experience, the only reason people seem to want to be notified is so they know who to scream at at the next neighborhood meeting.
Obviously, the person who was actually impacted had a different opinion.
It may be that when you actually talk to people, you can have a constructive conversation that doesn’t degenerate into screaming. Though I agree it is generally easier to insult and dismiss people without actually hearing what they actually have to say.
This is why we can’t build good bike infra in this city. A vast amount of budget goes to excessive public notification that serves no purpose but to give NIMBYs more time to complain.
So the only way to get the things you want done is to sneak them past people?
All the info is there if you want it. The city does a great job offering online surveys and documentation of future plans. I find out about things I care about because I subscribe to many of the city and Metro’s email lists. BIKETOWN even had their finalized map up for a month before the stations started to go in. Like I said before, people don’t personally own the public right of way in front of their property, it belongs to everyone. The city didn’t notify me when they did sewer work. TriMet didn’t notify me when they proposed changes to the bus route on my street. So where do you draw the line? Only when car parking is being taken away, I suspect.
A postcard is too much to ask for those who aren’t constantly tracking everything the city is doing?
I believe the city does generally notify people of sewer work and other maintenance projects.
I honestly don’t have a problem if the city wants to distribute some postcards. I just find it funny that the only people upset that the city didn’t notify them are also upset at the existence of the racks in front of their house. This leads me to believe that the complaints about lack of notification are just proxies for complaints about the bike shares existence or removal of free car parking spaces. Why even notify if the notification occurs when the rack is installed? Walk out of your house, see the orange rack, now you’re notified!
The city should notify you about sewer work. I know I’ve received trimet change of service notices before. I’m not sure why you didn’t receive either.
That’s just not how public notification works.
The city eliminated a lot of the notification processes at the start of the Great Recession in 2008. “Notification” is part of the “administrative fat” cut from PBOT’s budget that will probably never be restored, not unless folks start burning lots more gasoline, or cut police to pay for streets, etc.
How much do you really think it would have cost to send a letter to each address within 50 feet of the original 300 proposed locations, an additional letter if the owner has a separate contact address registered with the city, put up a few flyers at the nearest street pole, and do the same once the city narrowed it down to the 100 locations they wanted to move forward with?
Providing notice is a reasonable request, and one that can be met without then giving undue weight to those who contact the city in response.
Only if you already have staff paid to do it. PBOT eliminated such staff in 2008, part of cutting administrative fat and waist.
That house has a gated driveway on Chavez: https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5146862,-122.6229004,3a,75y,75.37h,83.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slcESrEHqmB3IT-JYGEq6qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Imagine you buy are living somewhere say 2 houses in from Cesar Chavez, you typically can park within a spot or two of your house. Now a bike rack appears taking 3 spots. Not only displacing you but your neighbors and anyone visiting them. Now you have to park a block away from your house when just yesterday and for the last 20 years you could park in front of your house. ***This portion of your comment has been deleted because it was insulting, unproductive, and/or just plain mean. Please be more considerate next time. Thanks. — Jonathan. ***
Yea, people with more cars than personal parking spaces cause all sorts of problems.
And yet that’s what supporters of getting rid of parking minimums are pushing for.
If a developer wants to build a house, they would need to pay mandatory development fees to cover capital costs for the sewer system, parks, schools etc…
Maybe let’s look at street parking in a similar way. If you want access to it you should have to pay capital costs to cover your use. We’ll grandfather in all existing properties, including apartments in commercial zones. But new properties would have to pay the fee.
Only it could be argued that street parking should be seen as an option. So instead of requiring the fee to build, only require it to access street parking. If someone wants a bit of a larger yard, let them pay 40k to be able to park on the street instead. Or not pay the fee and have nowhere to park. If a proposed apartment is on a small lot and parking isn’t feasible to provide for less than 75k a spot, let them pay that same 40k fee to the city. The size of the fee could easily vary by neighborhood. Maybe there’s no reason for it until streets start to get crowded with cars. Raising development fees in inner areas with high land prices doesn’t slow development the way it does in areas with low land prices. One issue with the proposed construction tax a while back was that it would hit a development in Lents about as hard as a development in NW. The variation in finishings isn’t that huge. Raise it high enough to bring in a lot of money and you cripple development in Lents. Doesn’t feel right. Keep it low enough to avoid that and you don’t bring in much money.
The revenue from this street parking fee could be used to help pay for the creation of better bike facilities, better transit facilities, improved sidewalks (sometimes but not always this will mean taking away parking spots, I’m aware) to reduce the need for cars and demand for street parking. In some cases it might even make sense to use the money to pay for a parking garage. Design it to not look awful and it could fit into an area reasonably well.
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/this-normal-looking-house-is-fake-and-actually-hides-a-1505479080
http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist-article/2011-05-02/urban-field-notes-five-parking-garages-urbanists-reluctant
Or in some cases subsidize the cost of additional parking open to the public in developments where it would be most cost effective.
Increased competition for street parking is a quality of life problem, even if it doesn’t impact readers of this blog all that much. Looking for a way to manage the issue is a good thing for the city to do. But parking minimums aren’t necessarily the best way to deal with the issue.
That’s one of the most dishonest statements I’ve read around here lately.
Please don’t post your well thought out non-polemic opinions on dealing with parking on this forum. You neglected to mention “storage of private property”, NIMBY, and “stupid hipsters parking on my lawn”, at least one of which is required in every post on this subject. Please refrain from further posts of this nature.
PS I really like this idea.
RE Dishonest: With no on-site parking, where would people put their cars?
“And yet that’s what supporters of getting rid of parking minimums are pushing for.”
What percentage of people who want to get rid of parking minimums don’t want a reduction in the number of cars? Are there any who don’t?
Your assertion that these people are pushing for a higher car/spot ratio (that is what you said right?) is not true.
Where would they put their cars? I don’t accept that they have to have a car.
We all wish for fewer cars. That’s doesn’t change the reality that not providing people with a place to park in a new development will put more cars on the street. I’m not dishonest for pointing that out.
If people realize that parking is scarce, they will consider not bringing a car at all. Lack of parking is a feature, not a bug.
And yet, even on terribly parking constrained cities like New York, most people have cars. We need better alternatives, not rules that will put more pressure on our streets. How will parking removal for a bike lane work when more people depend on that parking? Do you enjoy cycling in an area where there are lots of drivers cruising around looking for parking?
Majority of people in NYC don’t have cars. Majority of households don’t have cars. Majority of people live in households with cars.
http://i.imgur.com/rHsy1yU.png
Census survey data.
I commuted over 2500 miles by bike last year and yet I don’t want a bikeshare station in front of my house.
Classic case of the city council looking out for its own special interests first, the needs of its consituents last. This is a service to bolster Portland’s sagging reputation as a bike friendly city, nothing much more. Basically a very expensive way to promote tourism and glowing yuptastic magazine articles, burden placed firmly on people who’ll rarely, if ever use this albatross of a system.
I don’t think it’s so much for the already existing cyclists in the city but rather those visiting to check out the bike scene…
And we only had to block sidewalks and prevent homeowners from accessing their own properties from the curb… This program is being bungled from day 1, I’m afraid. I had high hopes for it, but this is serious lack of foresight when an agency like PBOT can’t even meet its own standards. It’s baffling to see these stations roll out in such a sloppy manner.
I’d be curious to hear why you are so opposed to such a bike share system. I commute by bike as well and think it could have a lot of benefits for the bike community. More bikes means more secure biking, for everyone; and it lowers the barrier for causal bike-users who we would want to reach if we want to make biking as a form of transportation more mainstream. I lived in DC and used their bike share sometimes even though I have my own bike — it was convenient to have it as an alternative.
I’m not opposed to a bike share system; I’m opposed to the approaches I’ve seen so far during roll-out, where the needs of everyday cyclists, property owners and even plain old pedestrians are being disregarded for the benefit of a big-money program that will mostly benefit tourists. Portland’s becoming a theme park.
Looks to me that non-corporate bikes are -losing- secure parking. I will be more likely to drive if I can’t expect my bike to be there when I go to return home, which is the current status quo in this city.
Conspiracy theory time! City ignores massive bike theft epidemic while promoting its own bike-share service as a way to avoid having your own bike stolen. It’s all starting to make sense…
More tourists riding around without helmets who don’t normally ride in an urban setting does not promote a more bike friendly environment, it may lead to more dead bikers more than likely.
The 7th and Burnside station looks like a disaster for several reasons. Bikes will clearly block most of the pedestrian access along the sidewalk; bicyclists attempting to use any of the middle racks will have a difficult time getting around parked bikes or between parked cars on one side and the fence on the other; extracting a bike from racks will likely cause bikes to bump into and scratch cars; car doors on the passenger side will swing into parked bikes.
Traffic engineers have learned that the aisle for cars in a parking lot requires almost as much space as the parking space itself. I don’t see any reason the same standard doesn’t apply to bicycle parking.
Massive failure to anticipate. I wonder how many racks will need to be relocated during the first month.
I agree J_R! I have worked with plenty of talented, knowledgeable people at PBOT and I have to wonder what is going on? Are they being pressured into these obviously bad decisions? If so, by who? I know that PBOT has dismantled their Active Transportation group that was very good at placemaking and pedestrian consideration. The leadership remaining is pretty bike-myopic IMO, but that does not excuse a basic review of reasonable design. That station on 7th, and the removal of the corral at Prost are absolute no-brainers- the station should go on the street and replace a parking space.
I guess I just don’t see Widmer as a huge destination for bike share for it to merit removal of the bike coral. 20 bike share spots?!
it’s close to Mississippi…
And very close to a Max stop.
I thought most people went up to the Overlook stop and walked over the pedestrian bridge to get to Mississippi. Maybe I am wrong though.
Not close enough.
‘He stressed that all 100 bike share stations are being installed in the public right-of-way “which is shared space.” ‘
This is true. But completely unknown to residents who routinely post signs telling people not to park. People turn into utter idiots when they can’t find a place to park.
Yes 100 spaces for bikes in the place of car parking out of 1000 spaces. The rest are on sidewalks. Making sure that cars parked between the racks and the street will get caved in doors. Personally, I won’t use bike share for this very reason.
The prost coral was a very popular one too
As the post states: “If one of the businesses wants more standard bike racks on the sidewalk, PBOT is ready and willing to install them.” So Prost could request bike racks (but they would be on the sidewalk).
the only reason the corrals were there in the first place was because businesses requested them… now they’ve been taken out and businesses have to go through the very long wait again for a new one…
How long?
good question, and I don’t know exactly… in 2011 they had a backlog of 73 to install… they got most of those done in 2-3 years, but by then (2013) still had a backlog of 98 to install…
so if the demand has stayed constant we’re probably still waiting for 70 more… even if the demand has dropped it still seems likely that there’s a small backlog…
Um, I hope PBOT isn’t allowing permanent removal of existing Bike Corrals in favor of bikeshare parking.
Especially on Mississippi Ave — the Bike Corrals there are very popular and need to be upsized, not removed…
Ted Buehler
That is what they ARE doing!
Ted. If you didn’t see the answer to your question in the article above, please take a quick re-read of it. Yes, the city has removed 4 bike corrals and replaced them with BIKETOWN stations. They spoke to all the businesses involved and will monitor the demand for private bicycle parking. If it warrants, they will be happy to come install additional private bicycle parking. Does that makes sense?
Scott — thanks for the clarification. I, um, didn’t read the whole article before commenting.
But, of the four, I’m only familiar with the one there at Skidmore and Mississippi. And, I’ve had a running 823-SAFE request to *increase* the parking in Bike Corrals with PBOT for four years — once a year or so I send them a photo of a jammed Bike Corral on Mississippi and ask them to expand it. And, I know I’ve personally filled the corral on Mississippi and Skidmore when I’ve been out with friends celebrating someone’s birthday or something, it’s great to have a place to park 9 bikes.
To PBOT’s credit PBOT bike parking person Scott Cohen has said that they now have the resources to add more corrals on Mississippi, but that they don’t have enthusiasm from the business association or something. So if I was to go to the biz association and try to get the ball rolling, PBOT could, in theory expand the corrals (they’re the oldest corrals in the city, and Mississippi is a much larger destination than it was 12 or so years ago when the corrals first went in).
So, that’s why I’m a little miffed to see BikeShare sacrifice existing bike parking for BikeShare bikes, rather than sacrifice car parking.
Though I guess I’m pleased that they only did this in four places in the city.
But in the specific case of Skidmore and Mississippi it is clearly not the correct choice if we want to encourage and enable neighborhood residents to ride their bikes to shop, eat and drink.
& I’m very excited about BikeShare overall…
Ted Buehler
Ted, I share your enthusiasm for Bikeshare generally. I think it is a real shame that two of the street corrals replaced are in the NW. We need that bike parking in this neigborhood. They are both in an area where there are lots of restaurants and bars, where there’s a lot of new construction so hundreds of people are moving in but there are no other public corrals nearby and not enough staples. I am perplexed that the orange bikeshare corrals could not have added a small number of public use spots to each corral.
I do think PBOT should have sent out postcards to folks who live, say, within a few houses or a block of new bike share stations, especially if it’s in a more residential area and not replacing existing bike corrals.
I get postcard from the City for lots of work happening near me. For example, there’s some drainage work happening on a different street, more than a block away from me, but the City notified us. Thanks, City!
I also think it’s disingenuous to say that this was in the news. Yes, it was, but it’s a big jump for folks to hear about a new city bikeshare system and then to have a new corral in front of their house.
That PBOT handwalked a postcard to all business owners says they got the commercial part of their outreach correct. Printing and mailing, what, 500 or so more postcards for residents might have saved them a few headaches.
Not just a new bike corral, but a new screaming orange bike corral. Yikes!
I agree with you daisy. We get individual notices when our neighbors decide they want to add onto their house–which is PRIVATE PROPERTY. The same courtesy should be extended to folks who heavily use SHARED PUBLIC PROPERTY adjacent to their house.
It really doesn’t take much effort to give folks a little notice about what is going on. As you noted, other bureaus do it routinely for much more minor impacts.
Excessive outreach drained the budget of the Clinton diverter project and prevented potential installation of additional diversion. IMO, informing people of every little thing that changes to the street holds us back and invites more backlash. This city already has a ridiculously long public outreach program.
I agree the diverter project had problematic outreach. It was an odd combination of too much and too little at the same time, and I agree it was way too expensive and went on way too long.
What does that have to do with delivering a postcard to 5-10 residences for each station in a residential neighborhood? That could have been knocked off in a pleasant afternoon by an intern on a bike.
bizarre planning
Rick,
could you provide an alternative description of a ‘proper’ form of planning?
How about not blocking the through-zone on sidewalks with 46′ long furnishings? How about referring to PBOT’s “priority triangle” when deciding whether to remove parking for 10 bikes or 1 personal vehicle?
Judging by the graph, we must be getting close to launch….
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/05/bike-share-graph-gauging-public-opinion.html
One day our grandchildren ( or even children) will look back on us as they are living in caves and hunting rats with sticks because the habitability of the earth was wreaked by climate change. They will wonder why we didn’t do something to stop it. Our best explanation will be: because we would have had to walk another 20 feet to park our car.
I contacted both Maurice Henderson and Steve Hoyt-McBeth regarding the SE 37th location, and the lack of neighborhood notification or discussion. Both men told me that they worked closely with the neighborhood association to pick the exact station location and the bar the rack was in front of approved the location. My SE uplift Richmond liaison had never heard this topic raised and had attended every meeting for 2 years.
Maurice Henderson, the assistant director told me that Rachel’s Ginger Beer specifically approved the location. This was also untrue as outlined in the email correspondence below. Both men were hostile and unwilling to talk about options and processes for moving the station.
Rachel’s Gingerbeer Email Correspondence:
Hi Madeleine,
Thanks for reaching out! I’m afraid you’ve been given the wrong information. We were never given a chance to approve (or even weigh in on) the location, we were only notified it was going to be installed (the email we received from Biketown is copied below). If we had been given the chance to approve or reject the plan, we would have said no.
It’s city parking, anyway, not sure why they’d seek the approval of a private business that isn’t even there yet. Maybe the landlord of the building approved it? Although it also seems unlikely he’d approve it, if he had any say, since both the residents and the businesses would want parking.
I’m sorry to hear they didn’t even ask the people most impacted! If I were you I’d be furious, too.
I’m going to email Biketown, as that’s the only contact I have, to see if there’s any way to stop this train from leaving the station, but I’m guessing the wheels are already in motion.
On our par, we’ll certainly do our best to be mindful of our neighbors. We look forward to meeting all of you!
all the best,
doh driver
operations manager
rachelsgingerbeer.com
> On Jul 12, 2016, at 8:51 PM, Shopify Notification wrote:
>
> Contact Form Submission:
>
> Name: Madeleine Anderson-Clark
> Email: m.anderson.clark@gmail.com
> Body: I own a house right next to your new Portland location, and my neighbors and I are upset that the Bikeshare station blocks the only two parking spots on 37th in front of your new bar. I was told by PBOT that Rachel’s approved the location.
>
> Parking on SE 37th Ave is already extremely stressed due to the McMenamins and there is a giant bike rack already placed on the street across from your bar. My driveway is constantly blocked, my neighbors and I often have to park a half a mile away from our homes. This means toting groceries and small children through the rain.
>
> Do you plan to provide alternate parking or completely discourage your patrons from driving? The residents of 37th Ave were never asked their opinion about the placement of the Biketown rack. Please know you are on the corner of bustling Hawthorne and a residential street full of homeowners and children. Respect needs to be shown to the neighbors.
Whether this program is a fantastic avenue to get people on bikes, or simply a feather in the cap of PBOT and a hassle for neighbors, the process is corrupt and flawed.
Fortunately, the Biketown rack will be paying the city just as much to use the street space as the current residents do: $0 per month. If you want to live one block off of a commercial district in a dense city, you can’t expect to find free street parking close to your home. That space is incredibly valuable, and it should be obvious that it is extremely under-priced (major indicator: the parking is always occupied).
Yes. This.
The email correspondence is only one side of a conversation. Where is the evidence of a lack of outreach? Where are your discussions with the City? The e-mails you provided appear to not include any city staff.
The Taylor/39th person is just upset about losing “their” parking space.
Many neighbors knew nothing about biketown until this one person got notice of the rack being installed in front of their rental duplex (without onsite parking) and started complaining. The pro-parking crowd suddenly became interested, with plenty of Fritz-like suggestions.
———–
That pictured Burnside/7th rack does look problematic.
Plenty of questionable decisions being made in an effort to preserve on-street parking at/near influential businesses.
Curious to know what’s objectionable enough about this post to have it deleted.
Sorry, apparently I put my comment in a different story. It was not deleted.
Go use google maps, the Taylor and 39th person has a parking spot in his back yard accessible from 39th. There’s a cut in the curb and everything.
Even without losing “my” parking space, I would still be upset with the entire frontage of my home being taken up with a bike rack like this. Considering it will impact property value, and based on the how little space there is for the bikes there will be damage to the front lawn, not to mention ongoing noise and litter issues and just the PITA it will be to even put out recycling and garbage for collection.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5146862,-122.6229004,3a,75y,77.8h,68.06t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1slcESrEHqmB3IT-JYGEq6qQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Amen. Can you imagine the red tape, fees, etc that a homeowner will have to deal with if they need to move the bike corral for repair work to yard / utilities / etc?
Plus it’s not unreaonable to expect that one can sometimes park in front of your own house. If I were shopping for a home and it had a huge “no parking / all hours” zone out front, that would be a negative quality.
And I definitely wouldn’t want strangers milling around in my front yard all day futzing with bikes and socializing. Especially after bar-time. Ask anyone with a bus stop in front of their place: their yard becomes a de facto hangout spot for randos.
I live on a bus route and I welcome all the “randos” who want to hang out to wait for the bus across the street.
I’d personally pay to get a no-parking zone installed in front of my house.
To each his own I suppose.
I’d gladly pay for a speed bump in front of my home. Not one of those wimpy designs approved by the city, but one like those you find in parking lots or parking garages.
I’m already financially responsible for the sidewalk (I’ve paid three times to have sections repaired) and for the street trees (I pay about $500 every few years to have an arborist trim them). It seems like I should get to pick the design and pay for the rest of the road, too.
My guess is that proximity to a bikeshare station will *increase* property value…
Perhaps if you’re a hotel, or a tourist destination.
Or a rental property…
that duplex, which was originally a single-family home in 1907, has plenty of parking on the cement pad through the gated driveway on the side…
Jeff, I want to respond to you. I spoke with the Taylor/39th gentleman today, and he is not at all entitled. I’m used to having to walk quite far to my car as well, and up until now have never complained. The issue is that PBOT handled this poorly and did not actually seek neighborhood input, although Maurice Henderson and Steve Hoyt-McBeth falsely swore the neighborhood associations picked the locations.
The only input was from a website the actual neighbors were oblivious to that sought suggestions for stations. I’m not sure who offered the suggestions, but it was certainly no one living on my street or Taylor. We have repeatedly called PBOT for an explanation of the process.
PBOT is also not offering any avenues for moving the stations or even discourse, and is lying about their methods. There always needs to be a system of checks and balances.
Please don’t think that opposition to the station locations is opposition to a robust cycling community, fewer cars on the road or safe streets for pedestrians and cyclists. The opposition is to the process and the lack of transparency, and neighborhood need and support. My neighbors and I all own bikes and ride them often to ease traffic. We utilize and appreciate the bike network that has been set up, but just want a voice in city policies and development that affect us.
What would the neighborhood have suggested that would have been an improvement? No rack? It has to go somewhere…
You said your liaison said they never heard this topic at a meeting. From that, you’ve reached the conclusion that the city “did not actually seek neighborhood input” and they “falsely swore.” That’s quite a reach. You’re making some bold accusations based on one person’s narrow statement (was there another forum where it was discussed? was your liaison sleeping?) against another 2 persons’ statements.
While you’re now stating concern about the public process, based on the email you sent to Rachel’s and their response, your actual concern seems to be one less parking spot for a car.
*Intended as response to Madeleine.
That’s also a pretty dense commercial area because of the bars and Baghdad (And Powell’s and the thrift stores and…), so it’s an ideal location to put a decent-sized rack since there should be a fair amount of demand for starting and ending trips within a block or two of there.
Seems like a simple compromise would have been to put it here instead…https://www.google.com/maps/place/3901+SE+Yamhill+St,+Portland,+OR+97214/@45.5158707,-122.6234743,153m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x5495a0ed26c8144b:0x21d80c393d535418!8m2!3d45.5158837!4d-122.6227584
>> What would the neighborhood have suggested that would have been an improvement? <<
Maybe we should ask them!
They would have either said to not put it anywhere or to put it in Gateway.
Oddly enough, the Gateway Area Business Association did specifically ask for a dozen of them, with specific locations, but were turned down by the City. How ironic.
Classic deflection. Claim you were left out of a process as an excuse to oppose it. Doesn’t matter how much outreach the city does or how much information is posted publicly online. I’ve attended enough neighborhood association meetings to be familiar with this trick.
The info is all there for viewing. The city does a fantastic job of using multiple channels of communication and posting all relevant documents online. Sometimes people need to take a proactive approach rather than relying on an all-volunteer neighborhood association to personally inform everyone of every single issue.
Portland, Oregon residents firebombed the Starbucks. Portland, New California residents do not care. Nike bikes for everyone!
When was the last time a majority of Portland residents were born in Oregon, 1990? 1980? I’m sure it’s been a while.
These sort of comments bother me. People who have chosen to live somewhere far from where they were born have very often done so in order to live among like-minded people; they do not generally choose to change their new home into their old one, ime. Obvious west coast example: The gay community in San Francisco, particularly pre-HIV. There were lots of Midwest and Pacific Northwest boys there, none of whom wanted to recreate the intolerant Midwest or PNW in the city by the bay. They came there to enjoy and be a part of what it was.
Gee, sorry you’re bothered by that. Know what bothers me? The absolute crush of people moving here and the out of control rise in rents and home prices. I don’t know the answer to your question and Oregon born or not isn’t exactly the issue. Portland in the last 12 years, hell, the last 2-3 years, has changed radically. And as someone who has been here to watch it I can say that I feel like the changes (some great, yes! but a lot less than great) feel like they definitely aren’t made with the interest of folks in the neighborhood in mind but rather folks who will soon be taking over your neighborhood. I’ve been priced out of a neighborhood. Have you? I never, ever thought Portland rents would be what they are. Forget home prices…
Just because your town sucks doesn’t mean I can’t be pissed when my town gets flooded and remade by culture refugees.
>When was the last time a majority of Portland residents were born in Oregon, 1990? 1980? I’m sure it’s been a while.
Not exactly what you’re looking for, but you might find this interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/13/upshot/where-people-in-each-state-were-born.html#Oregon
In 1970 48% of Oregon residents were born in Oregon. The state has always had a lot of transplants.
Bumper sticker I saw when I first moved to Portland in 1997, on a 1960s VW van: “Oregon Native Since 1987.”
The Portland metro region was the end of the country’s most famous cross-country migration trail. Oregon has always been about transplants. The only true natives are the native peoples who were here before the white people “discovered” it.
Thanks for the history lesson, guy who hasn’t been here long and is justifying his move here. What was wrong with where you were raised and moved here from?
And when those people complained about the influx of American, Irish, and Chinese immigrants, they too were called “NIMBY”.
And, Adam et al, following your line of reasoning of today re: longtime residents (‘natives’), you would have told first nations people to quitcher whining and clinging to the past, NIMBYS– “you’re afraid of change! Growth is good for ALL of us”, etc., and if they don’t like it, get out?
Crap–only just saw H. Kitty’s comment! Yeah! What H.K. said! Much more succinctly! 😉
People probably complained when TriMet removed auto parking spaces to create stops decades ago. This, too, shall pass.
growing up in portland i noticed almost everyone has a driveway and a garage? when you get a house without one its a choice you make. i love it when my neighbors complain about me parking my car in front of their home in the street. the street is public. i could see you complaining about public streets being taken over by private interests like biketown, but what about your private car parked in everyones street.
if your driveway is blocked have it towed. the person with the duplex made the decision when they got the place to not have parking that belongs to them.
all of ladds edition has parking through the alleys that have been converted into secondary dwellings. (not all but a lot). its a choice people make. buying a home, a car, a bike.
im stoked to see these orange racks everywhere. i hope this works. im stoked about hotels loaning bikes, i was stoked about portland yellow bikes back in 1990. i think its so cool there is more bikes being made available, and bikes take up probably less than a percent of street parking- anyone got a statistic on that. probably street space given to bikes is less than a percent. not so hard. i hope one of these racks goes in front of my house (although i will probably not use these). we are so lucky. also hope nike keeps it to a low profile on the advertising- though thanks nike- even though i protested you in 99. thanks for being with us.
Is Nike still using third world slave labor to make their $200 Air Jordans?
Shhhhh, quiet. It takes a lot of concentration to greenwash as well as we do here in Portland.
Kickbacks, graft and bribes. Wouldve been more sensible to subsidize a tri-met partnership. Put the sharing stations near transit stops and MAX platforms. But,….Nike money is easier to split between city council members I guess. This has become more about Nike rebranding their sad bike reputation and poor labor practices with a bit of bright paint and press releases.
low information voter.
There is a huge bike rack on the street (not sidewalk) in front of the Bagdad that is never more than half full. Bikes have a ton of parking here. My issue is PBOT was not transparent about the methods, and two leaders in PBOT lied about these methods to me yesterday.
I’m not typically reactionary, and have never been upset about anything bicycle related, but I’m sure that all of you would at least want a vote. No one told anyone on my street that this was happening, except Rachel’s, which was sent a note. I don’t mind walking several blocks to my car. I do mind the situation being made worse on a street that I pay a ton of taxes to live on without a say. We were not even given the option to evaluate the program.
You don’t own your street. It belongs to everyone. Therefore, you don’t get a say in what is put in that street – that has to go through a public process that involves everyone. Which is what the city did. For ten years. You had your chance to make your voice heard, but of course waited until after it was completed to voice complaints.
I don’t own my street, but when the PUBLIC sidewalk in front of my house breaks up you better believe the city expects me to pay for repairing it — with the contractor of THEIR choice. Sorry, perhaps not the best analogy.
Yeah, that’s a weird vestige from the streetcar era where developers build the sidewalks and the city came in later and paved the road.
A “weird vestige” or not, I just finished paying a $2400 bill to repair a city sidewalk that was made uneven by a City planted tree that I can neither remove nor trim without a City permit and a visit by an City arborist.
That bike rack? Of course the City can place it there. But do you know who has the responsibility for cleaning up the leaves that fall from that tree on the strip (or faces a fine)? I’ll give you one guess. And it’s not going to be made any easier by that rack.
So let’s have a little courtesy for a person who suddenly had a huge orange piece of metal placed in front of what, for most homeowners, is the single most important financial investment they have and without even the courtesy of a notice.
Is it legal? Of course. It is good City relations with property owners? In my opinion, no, and something they’d never pull for a business.
PBOT most definitely placed many Biketown racks in front of businesses.
Maybe this is a bit personal, but do you own any land yourself?
Technically the bank owns most of it, but yes, I own my house and the land it sits on.
I’ve had to pay for sidewalk repairs in front of my house, too, on three occasions in the last 22 years. However, you do get to choose the contractor and can get multiple bids. If you ignore the warnings from the city, they will choose the contractor and bill you for it.
I sure don’t want everyone in my neighborhood to have a vote in what the city does because there are very few people in my neighborhood that know how to properly run a city…
that’s why democracy doesn’t work and we have smart people in government to think of those projects that we don’t know that we need…
so sure, tell me it’s happening, but I don’t need to vote on it… and I don’t want a majority vote to get the city to do the right thing…
Exactly. That’s why it’s important for our elected representatives to take public input from various sources and make a decision that is good for the city as a whole.
So you agree they should have contacted nearby residents as part of collecting that input?
Sure, some time during the planning phase. Not after the decision has already been made.
Well, some decision needs to be made before you know who to inform, obviously.
IMHO, this attitude ( but I don’t need to vote on it… and I don’t want a majority vote to get the city to do the right thing…) is exactly why democracy DOESN’T work…
Although it may feel frustrating- one could also entertain the possibility that the addition of a bike share station and membership may mean fewer people driving, car-to-going and uber-ing into this little commercial node, easing the existing parking pressures and traffic in the area.
At least for 4-6 months out of the year…
A great thing about bike share is you can ride transit in the colder/wetter morning and bike back in the afternoon if it’s nicer out.
Adam, what exactly was the public process? When I called PBOT yesterday I was told my Richmond Neighborhood Association chose the site and Rachel’s Gingerbeer also approved it by Steve Hoyt-McBeth and Maurice Henderson from PBOT. I found out today that neither of these steps actually occurred. If I was ignorant and missed my chance to vote, shame on me. But this didn’t happen.
Adam, I don’t own the street, and am not entitled to park right outside of my house. But collectively we have to decide on how transportation and resources are managed, and I am sure that everyone on this forum want a voice in decisions that directly affect your neighborhood. Have a lovely day, and I hope everyone gets on their bikes in the sun:)
AKAIK, the RNA had no say in where stations go. PBOT posted a public map months ago to allow people to vote on locations. The current map was posted a month ago. I got an email when it was ready because I signed up for their email list, which was publicized many times. I stay informed because I sign up for email lists through the city, Metro, and other issues I care about. Bike share was well publicized by the media as well, so there’s really no excuse for not knowing about it.
At any rate, neighborhood associations are a poor route to inform the public. Having an NA vote on something is far from a democratic process. The city is becoming less likely to even go to NA meetings because most of the time what happens is people yell about parking or something unrelated. It’s not a constructive process.
You can’t really expect the city to take every minute transportation issue to the voters of NAs? We have a representative government for this exact reason. If you really like free car parking and hate bikeshare, go ahead and vote against all of the city councilors that supported it.
I don’t want everyone in my neighborhood to have a say in what the city does because there are very few people in my neighborhood that know how to fairly run a city…
that’s why democracy doesn’t work and we have smart people in government to think of those projects that we don’t know that we need…
so sure, tell me it’s happening, but I don’t need to vote on it…
“Southeast Portland resident who was angry when she woke up, looked outside her house and saw that the space where she used to park her car was now a row of 18 Biketown racks”
I’d be pissed if the city installed a bike rack in my driveway. i.e. If you do not own a place to park your car, you have no cause to complain about not having a place to park it.
You may have “no cause to complain” but I think it’s very possible to understand why you might not like your sudden new neon orange view, or the attendant ??? that’s going to come with it. Why are some of you so adamantly unsympathetic to the very reasonable (and polite, given the invective sneered at her) Madeleine Anderson-Clarke?
There is a huge lack of empathy amongst some of the commenters here.
Maybe that was the best location for a bike station, but not giving the adjacent residents advanced notice is BS. In many cases a simple conversation might offer a solution that works better for everyone.
Empathy for what , exactly?
OK, this made me laugh. 🙂
(that was for JeffS–not sure if you were joking or not–if so, classic! 🙂
Here’s how the conversation would have gone:
City: We’re going to put Bikeshare rack in front of your house
Resident: No! I need to park there. Why don’t you put it somewhere else?
City: Our analysis showed that this was the ideal location for this area. The sidewalks on 39th are narrow and there is no street parking to replace.
Resident: Yes, but can’t it go in front of someone else’s house?
City. No, we are going to install it here.
Do you really want to pay someone from the city to do this for every bike corral and Biketown rack?
Only the tiny subset that are adjacent to or very close to residences.
Chris, this is what lack of empathy means. “The inability to understand and share the feelings of others.”
People are complaining about lack of public notice, the kind of public notice that is routine with other infrastructure projects.
And your response is that you know ahead of time exactly how the conversation would go, so f..k em. Maybe that’s not what you meant, but that is sure how some of the postings here are sounding.
(also agree w/ paul g!)
Agreed!
Oops–that was to H. Kitty.
I want to respond to the idea of empathy when it comes to development and change in a community. Kitty (and others), I think some of the push back you’re sensing here comes from a long standing sense among “urbanists” (for lack of a better term) that neighborhood resistance to change – especially when it comes from relatively affluent homeowners – is in itself based in a lack of empathy.
Let me explain. Our urban environment is a crazy jumble of free market, government intervention, accident, path dependence, art, and luck. For people that dig in to this because they are advocates, environmentalists, wonks, etc., you pretty quickly find that our urban environment is also shaped by a very large “thumb on the scale” in support of white homeowners to the detriment of renters, low income people, people of color, and marginalized groups in general. Exclusionary zoning, subsidy of the automobile, school segregation – all of these lead to a City that is less fair, less equitable, less free, less *good* for those marginalized groups.
I think it makes a city worse for the non-marginalized people too, but that’s another story…
So, for the most part the thumb on the scale is just baked in to the cake. People don’t notice it at all. If you happen to benefit from that thumb, you naturally want to preserve it. This doesn’t make a person bad, it just means there’s a lack of understanding. A lack of empathy when it comes to how things that benefit white homeowners may come at the expense of others.
Now, bikeshare has it’s own equity issues. I don’t personally think it will do anything to help on that front. However, the arguments against it have come out sounding VERY similar to arguments opposing development, homeless shelters, public housing, and a myriad of other things that are perceived as detrimental to white homeowners.
This website attracts a lot of people that are active advocates for environmental justice and social equity. The lack of empathy you may be seeing on this board, in my opinion, is instead frustration with the lack of empathy these people find when they interact with relatively privileged communities. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle of empathy frustration.
ANYWAYS. It is super hard to be fully present and respectful with people when it feels like they are oblivious to the lack of empathy they are displaying to people who are marginalized. I know I need to do better when it comes to empathizing with everyone. We don’t get better if we don’t.
TL;DNR
It’s hard to be nice when you’re frustrated.
Well said!
This, especially. I am constantly hearing the same excuses and complaints about all these issues, coming primarily from Neighborhood Association attendees solely interested in preserving their privilege. Cities should work for everyone, not just white homeowners.
Thanks!
Did you see that Seattle is apparently blowing up it’s Neighborhood Council system?
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2016/07/seattle-shakes-up-neighborhood-council-system-to-better-represent-communities-align-with-district-3/
I would love to see a similar analysis of Portland’s NA demographics. My guess is that they would be even less diverse than Seattle’s.
Hopefully Portland can follow in Seattle’s footsteps.
It’s a self-selecting group. Everyone is welcome to participate.
I am wondering, do you think there should be no geographically-oriented citizen involvement, or that it should be different than one involving primarily interested members of the public? Why don’t you yourself help out?
“Everyone is welcome to participate” that has the time and resources to meet on a specific time and day and if you can’t attend a two-hour window once a year then you don’t get to vote. Additionally NA boards often rarely take input from non-board members. It’s a system designed to maintain power, not to be inclusive to all.
Yes, if you can’t make the meetings, it’s hard to participate, just like anything else. Last week, you said it was hard to get time to speak at your NA because of all the other neighbors screaming; now you tell us your board doesn’t take input from the public at all.
Are you sure the problem isn’t your particular NA? Other meetings I’ve attended (in many neighborhoods) are much more civil and inclusive. You might try visiting some other neighborhoods and see how things work there.
The board allows the public to ask questions to presenters, but rarely do they ask the public for input when they are voting on something.
Other neighborhoods do. You should complain to your chair for not allowing enough public input into decisions.
This does not work so well when every meeting’s agenda is jam-packed, presenters often go over time, and each meeting often has over 50+ attendees. Though I would definitely support more frequent meetings with less full agendas. Even our land use meetings are often full!
When I hear about numbers like that, I think you are getting great turn out; far more than most NAs get. That strikes me as an involved community.
Other NAs have tried a twice per month meeting cycle. That’s a lot of meetings, but maybe you should request your NA do that if there is not time to voice your opinion. Surely other residents must feel the same way.
Personally, I’m not opposed to bikeshare infrastructure. However, the way it is being implemented is super disrespectful to residents. I had NO idea that a station would be installed on my street. It wasn’t even on the map of proposed locations. Then yesterday I woke up to a crew towing cars on my block to make room for one. It also seems strange to install them every few blocks on Hawthorne. It sounds like people at PBOT contacted businesses, but would it really have been so hard to send a mailer to impacted residents? Or even delivering flyers a week before installation. PBOT and Biketown really messed up by not even notifying directly impacted residents prior to installation.
I suppose you should be glad this is a white neighborhood and the shut up and take it approach is still on the table.
Several commenters are using arguments they would not make if this were a historically undeserved location.
I don’t think “shut up and take it” is an accurate representation of the City’s outreach effort.
I think the City has an affirmative obligation to do much more significant outreach in situations that impact traditionally underserved populations.
I’m referring strictly to the comments on this thread, not the city’s approach.
I think a different approach is warranted in underserved communities.
Commenters here not using the same language with privileged groups that they do with marginalized communities seems like a positive?
I think people should get notice about changes to their neighborhood in every community.
Sure, and I would hope you would be able to see the difference. If we were talking about East Portland, the conversation would and should be different.
What should the “conversation” (and I’m now sorry for introducing that word to this thread) be different in East Portland, vs., say, NE Portland? Language (Spanish, Russian, etc.) might be one way. Any others?
“How can we implement this project without creating additional strains and hardships on an underserved community?” vs. “How can we implement this project without pissing off white homeowners that are worried about not being able to park 5 feet from their house that they purchased 30 years ago for $50,000 that are now worth ten times that amount?”
I’m being a bit facetious, but you get the idea. Complaints from well-off people should be taken with a grain of salt, when compared to communities that are struggling to afford housing and other amenities. It’s hard for me to take someone seriously when their biggest complaints are about the appearances of new apartment buildings or not wanting to live next to a triplex, when there are people struggling with homelessness, and other issues related to our housing crisis.
Our culture puts far too much weight on issues raised by well-off white people, to the detriment of communities of color and other struggling groups of people. There are real racial and social inequalities we need to be addressing, rather than maintaining power of the ruling class. So forgive me for not taking complaints about the bright color of a new bike rack seriously.
Of course, your concerns are also those of “well off white people”. The apartments and restaurants you want, the bike share you champion, the diverters on Clinton you fight for… all for the benefit of people who have enjoy economic stability and can afford to partake.
Do you think a poor family doesn’t care about parking? That someone from an “underserved” community wouldn’t care about putting a homeless camp in their local park? That only rich white people care about their neighborhood?
I believe in creating neighborhoods that everyone can enjoy, not just for me and people like me. Neighborhoods should be mixed-race and mixed-income as much as possible. The concerns of marginalized people are different and prioritized differently than my concerns. Isn’t this why PBOT hired an equity manager that everyone here seemed to chastise them for? Wouldn’t this be a good question for them to answer?
We’re talking about bike racks Adam.
This one bike rack has nothing to do with equality, equity, fairness or really anything other than someone wanting to park their car. You, however, can’t see past your self-loathing and the hatred you have for the people you live around.
All I’ve been asking in this context is that the city achieve a pretty low level of informing the public about what’s changing in the immediate vicinity of their homes (be those rented or owned, single or multi-unit). This principle has nothing to do with any particular issue; it is a general philosophy that inclusive government requires transparency and communication with citizens.
I strongly resist the notion of some urbanists on this forum that the only way to effect change is to do without public involvement. If that is true, that is an acknowledgement that that change is not supported by the public, and, further, conveys an attitude of “father knows best” that I do not subscribe to.
I have not heard any arguments against bike share, just some concerns with a small number of station locations. It is possible that those locations could be tweaked in some manner to address those concerns (or maybe not, depending on the circumstance), but the only way to find out is to communicate with those most likely to be impacted.
In this context, it’s hard to see the EJ or equity angle; bike share will primarily serve the socially and economically stable.
I am in no way arguing for a lack of public involvement. It’s absolutely necessary for a transparent and well-executed plan to take in input from various stakeholders and make an educated decision that benefits the entire community as much as possible.
What I am arguing is when the public involvement should take place. It should happen in the planning phase, not 5 minutes before implementation.
I totally agree! Even worse is 5 minutes after implementation.
So what purpose would “opening up a conversation” a day before implementation for something that underwent ten years of careful planning accomplish? Other than serving as a stalling tactic, that is.
It would serve no purpose. Postcards should have been sent several weeks or a month earlier, or whenever the station locations were finalized.
So what purpose would “opening up a conversation” several weeks or a month before implementation for something that underwent ten years of careful planning accomplish? Other than serving as a stalling tactic, that is.
As I’ve said before, it is possible that concerns could be addressed without negatively impacting the project, and that this would have resulted in a better project overall. It is also possible that the issue could not be addressed, but at least the concerned resident would have a better understanding of why things had to be the way they were, and may left with less hostility toward the project overall.
Discussing a concern is not the same as derailing a project; often it results in a better outcome for all parties.
Are you arguing for notification or opening up a conversation? Because those are two different things. A notification is one-way, a conversation is not.
As I said elsewhere, notification is the first step in a conversation, and, in most cases, is also the last. If you want me to be very specific, I am arguing for notification via postcard with contact info of a city staffer who can talk to people who feel motivated to call, and I am specifically calling for this in the very few cases where bike stations were placed in residential areas.
I hope asking for this tiny bit of transparency, communication, and respect is not too much, though in this case, it seems it was.
Why stop only at residential locations? Why not notify businesses, too? What about the racks on Division? Do you notify all of the hundreds of people who live in apartment buildings within eyeshot of the racks? Why the special treatment only for homeowners?
Who said anything about only notifying homeowners, or only people who live in houses?
Again, notification is not special treatment. Commercial streets are different than residential streets.
You said:
And from the initial complaint:
So?
So why only notify on residential streets and not commercial mixed-use ones? Why are the opinions of homeowners with children more important than everyone else? What about a bike rack makes it unsafe for kids?
I think residential streets are qualitatively different than commercial ones, but if someone wants to make an argument for notifying business owners and residents there, then I’d probably agree.
As for the other questions, I’d suggest you ask the person who made the statement. I don’t know the situation at 37th and Hawthorne in any detail, and I suspect you don’t either. The purpose of the notification would be to let that person communicate their concerns so the city can better know if there is an issue that they weren’t aware of. Maybe there is, and maybe there isn’t. I simply don’t know, and that’s kind of the point.
In any event, wouldn’t it be better to let that dialog play out in private rather than public? Does the bikeshare program look better when it appears they’ve neglected a basic civic obligation and are running roughshod over the concerns of residents? How does that help?
Don’t forget about all the jobs bike share will provide to the underserved community.
How many jobs will be created?
It’s not your space to own or say what color bike racks are installed in it.
Cool. I think I’m going to reuse this sentence structure as a retort for your future declarative statements.
Okay?
Imagine if residents could just block everything that was done within view of their house or apartments? Nothing would ever get done. I’m sorry you will have to now look at a bike rack you don’t like the color of but it provodes a public good to everyone else that want to use the system.
Imagine if the city actually talked to the people they were impacting before installing the racks. How many sites are in front of residences? How much trouble would it have been?
They don’t do this for the blue staple racks. Why is the case different now? The street is public property, meaning the public gets to decide what to do with it. Giving the people who live next to it special treatment undermines the whole point of a representative democracy. How angry would we all be if a few residents were notified of a bike lane being built in front of their house and the city let their complaints about it move the bike lane or cancel it altogether?
Also the city DID publicize the rack locations on their website!
I would hope PBOT would notify a resident if they were putting a staple in front of their residence. Public notice is not special treatment; it’s actually an important element to democracy. Publishing something on your website is not exactly public notice.
Why are you so hostile to the idea of informing people what’s being planned in their neighborhood?
Because it drains budgets of projects that should be cheap to implement. The Clinton diverter project ran out of money because of its ridiculous year-long public outreach period. It invites backlash from residents that don’t want change and gives then an elevated voice over the people the project is meant to benefit.
Remember how we were all upset at the businesses that were notified of the 20’s greenway and succeeded in moving the greenway somewhere less useful? Same principle applies here.
I think a postcard would have been sufficient; no one has called for an extensive year-long process. Just something to let folks know what was coming, and with Steve’s phone number on it.
Giving people a voice usually results in better projects and less blowback.
You seem to have changed your position from “having a conversation” to “sending a postcard” mid-argument. Those are two very different things.
A postcard allows a conversation to be started, if anyone thinks it’s necessary.
The lack of notice isn’t their complaint and you know it. It was their inability to stop it.
So, how much trouble would it have been? I suppose that depends on whether you wanted the city to just let them know the decision had been made (actually, they did that), or allow every single person in the vicinity of every single rack to weigh in.
I think the most compelling case are those near residences. This is a small minority of the bike stations. Sometimes there are small changes that can be made that don’t impact the project but makes things better for those around it. Not always, of course, but it takes so little effort to ask.
Bikeshare racks and the bikeshare system are not a public good. It costs money to use the system. I’m not sure how many public resources help offset the costs of the system, but there are profits being made.
TriMet costs money yet it provides a public benefit. Zipcar and car2go are run by private companies yet help people save money by not owning a vehicle.
It will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
With changes to the urban landscape, there will always be “winners” and “losers.”
Someone will always win big, and have the livability or sale price of their property go up significantly. A windfall. Ideally, most people will benefit somewhat from changes. And relatively few people will have big losses, like “WTF, my quality of life (or property value) just tanked.”
Good policy and planning makes for mostly winners and few losers.
In this case, BikeShare is certainly going to be a great thing for the city, and breathe new life into our somewhat stagnant mode share (creates a new gateway for nonbicycle riders to become bicycle riders). And improve the lot of downtown workers going to lunch, regular bicyclists who get a flat tire, residents hosting visitors, etc.
There will always be some losers, though. I hadn’t thought about BikeShare stations against private residential street frontage, since I’d never seen it in any city with BikeShare that I had visited. But it certainly appears to create short-term “losers” in terms of quality of life and property value. In the long run, I suspect property values will go up more than they would otherwise, and that the loss of immediate street frontage will blend into the background of pluses and minuses for living in a particular house or a particular neighborhood.
So while it’s a dramatic change, and the tenants or property owners were not personally notified, I don’t think it’s all that big of a deal in the long run. Cities change. Portland has changed for the better, a lot. Property values and livability are way up from 5 or 10 years ago. And, with the addition of BikeShare and many other positive changes in the works, livability and property values will continue to rise in the inner neighborhoods.
It will be interesting to see how these do pan out on a case by case basis, but while it is a dramatic negative change for some of these private residences, the negative aspect, in my opinion, is dramatically outweighed by the benefits that have accrued to Portlanders in the wave of steady urban improvements that BikeShare is just one element of.
Ted Buehler
Good post, Ted–thank you. But I think it’s a rosy view to say livability is up. It started to take a turn for the worse about 8 years ago, in my humble opinion. Increasingly unusable, polluted parks and trails, increased traffic and congestion, increased pollution noise, “walkable” neighborhoods so overrun with motorists driving to ‘destination eating’ to wait in lines that it’s little use walking anywhere, unless you want to wait in line for an hour. Convenience has gone out the door in my neighborhood because of this influx of people. And then there’s the big issue of people being driven out of their homes of years because they can no longer afford them. Portland more livable now? Nope.
rachel b wrote
“I think it’s a rosy view to say livability is up”
What neighborhood do you live in?
Overall, livability is measured by good transit, walkable neighborhoods, air quality. They’re up in my neighborhood, and, seemingly, all the neighborhoods I frequent in Portland. My WalkScore was 82 in 2012 now it’s 92.
This kind of thing. Granted, it doesn’t take into account needing to wait in line at restaurants, etc.
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-31939-portland-is-americas-only-livable-city-according-to-notable-british-magazine.html
I liked the Old Portland a lot. I still like the new one. Change could have taken Portland on a much worse tack. I’m still cautiously optimistic that Portland values will weather this boom.
Ted Buehler
Even setting aside Bullseye and Uroboros, air quality in Portland is really quite bad. We have some of the dirtiest air in the country. You may not see it, but your lungs do.
And still absolutely abysmal bike infrastructure east of I-205. It’s anything but rosy.
And how are we supposed to improve it if we have to “start a conversation” every time we want to take out street parking for a bike rack in a residential neighborhood?
The air quality problems have nothing to do with parking.
Parking = cars. Cars = pollution. If the city has less parking, we will have fewer cars, and thus, less pollution. Small changes add up over time.
That’s a little simplistic, of course. Trips are what really generates pollution, and it is far easier to reduce the number of trips than the number of cars. Residential parking is not driving trip generation.
Even if there wasn’t street parking in front of that residence, the bike racks are an impediment. They are an enticing nuisance, will draw vandalism, create groups of people congregating at odd hours (bar closing), and along with that will come littering. And why the need to block the entire frontage of the property. This is not something any home owner wants in front of their home.
There’s not a single allegation in that paragraph that applies to bicycles any more than it does to cars.
I’m a “home owner” and I want a Biketown rack in front of my house.
I live in the same neighborhood because I love the livability of the area. It’s very walkable and bikable, with lots of bars, restaurants, and services nearby. There are a few restaurants on Division that have long lines, sure, but most I can just walk into a get a seat right away. I live at the very eastern edge of Richmond, and new development is finally to finally replace the decrepit abandoned buildings along 50th. The node at 50th and Division is a 5 minute walk from me and has a bar, music venue with great outdoor space, coffee shop, a few restaurants, and soon to be a grocery store. There’s also some new development happening along Foster that I’m excited about.
All in all, I find my neighborhood very livable and enjoy where I chose to live, and am looking forward to future improvements.
I live in one of the most highly praised “improved” neighborhoods, Ted, and I see all the hypey press. My daily, actual real life experience is that life is more constrained, not more free, not better. I feel trapped by all the people, traffic, the noise, the ubiquitous lines.
I no longer ride my bike as much because I don’t want it stolen (again). Theft was always a fear in the past, too, but nothing like now. My sister’s back wheel was stolen during the 5 minutes she was in Kinko’s. THAT’s what we have to contend with now–a part of our new, ‘excellent’ city. I also don’t like riding next to drivers of New Portland, whose noses are buried in their phones, more often than not. Congestion breeds dangerous driving and road rage. I used to ride much more, and I loved it. So that sucks.
Walking’s less enjoyable because of fumes (so. many. motor vehicles), solicitors and sketchy dudes trying to bum a cigarette, weed, money, attention off of me. There also seems to be a legion of walking smokers here now, which is not a problem I remember having to deal with in the past (I have asthma).
I no longer ride the Springwater (which I loved and rode before it was even paved) or the Esplanade because they don’t feel safe to me, and I don’t feel like dealing with more than I already have to put up with, walking. My spouse and I no longer want to go to our favorite “just a block away” restaurants because they are always packed w/ braying newcomers. Riding the bus has become beyond unpleasant (the 4). For what it’s worth, we got rid of our only car several years ago partly because driving in Portland had become so miserable.
This is my experience, and that of several people I know. I’d say Portland was livable up to 2008. It’s the city of my birth and my whole life, and I loved it. I’d surfed the change just fine too, thank you, with aplomb. Then–kaboom. You can reach a tipping point, and too many people can make things worse (even if it’s better–for them–than where they came from)–esp. if they ignore the spirit of the place and just commence to staking territory with little regard for what exists, what existed long before they arrived.
No amount of USA Today or NY Times stories calling Division Street “America’s Best Main Street” will ever make me like what was done to that now-tourist-trap corridor. But that’s me. I do think New Portland’s probably a much better place for tourists. And that’s the problem.
Sorry I ruined your neighborhood. 😉 I happen to like all the restaurants and people about. Streets devoid of people are creepy. Btw, there are lots of restaurants and bars on Division that don’t have any lines.
You can find a hell of a lot more streets (and parks, and trails, and alleyways, etc.) chock full o’ creepy people these days in New Portland, though. TravelPortland is loath to highlight that neat aspect of our oh so ‘livable’ improved city, though. Lucky you to have the gleaming glorified mall of New Division in your backyard! 😉
You sound pretty unhappy. Perhaps it’s time to move on. None of the things you mention as problems are going to get better from here.
–
Not meant in the “don’t like it, get out” kind of way.
Good gad, is there ever any other response than this–“perhaps it’s time to move on.” ??? Some of us are not in a position to move–surely that’s understandable. We have jobs and family here and–though I know it counts for nothing with many newcomers–actual roots. Take my word for it–I would dearly love to get out of here, with all my heart. But it’s a no go at this time.
As I’ve said here before, it’s also very Manifest Destiny, this “move on, old timer!” attitude. And I don’t think the original inhabitants of these parts liked it any better.
p.s…JeffS–sorry for the vehemence–I can see you were not throwing out the standard refrain in the way I initially thought, reading too rapidly, agh.
Yea, I tend to come across as an ass online, but that wasn’t my intention.
I moved to a town in college I had no intention of staying in. It took me twenty years to leave. It took ten years after I knew exactly where I wanted to go.
It’s unfortunate when neighborhoods transform around people, in ways they see as negative.
I just recalled you making similar posts in the past and wondered if, perhaps, it’s time for you to see what else might be out there.
JeffS–I’m replying to you (below) here because there’s not ‘reply’ button under your post and hell if I can figure out where to post this! You did not come off as an ass. 😉 And I probably don’t need to tell you that my mind is like a rat in a maze anymore, what with trying to think my way out of this problem (Portland). I have actually moved three times in the past four years–something that is crazy and something I recommend to no one. I was like a panicked bird trapped in a house and still (at that time) thought I might be able to outrun Portland WITHIN Portland.
Now I know better than anyone that (ideally) I just need to get out. But I can’t, because of, you know, life. But I yearn to get out, every day, I pine for it. I’m homesick, and I haven’t moved from the city! That’s the weird thing about Portland now–people who’ve lived here all their lives like me feel like they’re the ones who moved somewhere else. That’s how alien and awful our once-loved Portland has become to us, how unwelcome we feel. Our home’s no home no more.
Rachel — points taken.
Perhaps everyone has an optimal WalkScore for their personal definition of livability/walkability. Yours sounds like it’s about 75.
Like this:
https://goo.gl/maps/d8sqtrcMsnz
https://www.walkscore.com/score/7500-ne-mason-st-portland-or-97218
or this
https://goo.gl/maps/dbLcEnHwiU82
https://www.walkscore.com/score/7500-se-holgate-blvd-portland-or-97206
Which is probably about the speed of the areas along Division St. 15 years ago.
Neighborhoods are usually changing. Going up, or going down, or going skidding sideways.
Ted Buehler
Interesting thought, Ted. But the point I’m making about much-vaunted walkable neighborhoods like mine is that–once that tipping point is reached–walkability becomes moot because of congestion. It goes beyond my personal taste or preferences–the reduction in convenience is a measurable thing, an actuality.
You might as well be living in a suburb because you may wind up (if you have a car) driving somewhere else to find a restaurant (for example) that you don’t have to wait an hour to get into!
Portland’s done, I think, a very poor job of taking care of existing residents and communities/neighborhoods, long nurtured and loved, and has focused–to the ultimate detriment of NEIGHBORhoods–on newness, tourists and transplants. Hence, several overrun neighborhoods like mine where people drive over to wait in long lines. People who don’t care about lines. Who are crazy. 😉
Livability has definitely improved in my inner N/NE neighborhood in the past 5+ years because of both commercial and city investments.
What was a gigantic, derelict empty lot is now a New Seasons, which means we can easily walk to the grocery store. More meaningfully: my *kids* can walk to the grocery store. They are getting to experience some great independence with short solo trips.
Dawson Park was given a huge makeover. A few years ago, it was run down, with a few kids, a few basketball players, and a few guys hanging out drinking. Now it has a water feature and a lovely play area, and it’s filled with families (and still a few guys drinking!).
We’ve gotten some new lights at more dangerous intersections.
We have greenways and better infrastructure for folks on foot and bike.
We’re also in the midst of tremendous gentrification. That’s not great for folks with lower incomes. But I suspect the folks who have stayed in the neighborhood are also enjoyed improved livability.
Unfortunately, gentrification is a natural and inevitable consequence of improving livability.
I see what you’re saying, daisy, but livability significantly decreased for folks who called that neighborhood home for eons. There are winners and there are losers. You and I are winners, though I don’t feel much like one.
I happen to like the neighborhood and the increase in people each new apartment building brings.
What? Really? 😉
How do you see this negatively impacting their quality of life?
I was posting in response to Ted saying “livability (is) way up from 5 or 10 years ago” and disagreeing with that assertion. To answer your question, though, there any number of negative impacts to a house w/ those racks in front. Here are just three 1) litter/garbage, 2) noise, 3) retina burn from the orange. 😉
Yes, thanks, Ted, a much more reasoned response and an acknowledgement that some may end up being harmed by this process.
What really rankles me is the assumption that counting public comments, notifying a neighborhood association or holding “stakeholder meetings” is analogous to telling actual residents who are actually impacted.
It’s funny how people figure a “dramatic change” won’t be “all that big of a deal” as long as that dramatic change isn’t right in front of their own house.
“We will continue to monitor the situation, and we will revisit our decision if we find that it is warranted by the demand for bike parking.”
If there is no longer any bike parking nearby, as in several of the cases, then how would they be able to “monitor” the situation? Monitor what?
People of private bikes just wont be able to park at those locations, so how could you possibly monitor the demand.
Monitor whether they have successfully run you off.
Yea… this is BS language that means nothing. You know it and they know it.
If, however, fifty people decide to show up and lock to the door handle of the local business, I suspect some reconsideration might occur.
>If there is no longer any bike parking nearby, as in several of the cases
Which cases exactly? Each of the four removed corrals has at least one bike rack on the block face or across the street.
Widmer?
https://goo.gl/maps/fAptmnwWz4A2
There are still several bike posts on the block to lock your bike to (or lean against? not sure his is locked)
Yes. Widmer. I count capacity for at least 12 private bicycles on the racks immediately to the East of the former bike corral location.
Hey Bike people! thanks for showing us where the good bike parking is! Now it’s ours. thanks!
-the city of portland
from the KOIN story: “I received no direct notice that it was going to be placed exactly in front of my house,” Michael Papas said. Papas said he was left in the dark, and will lose $250 in rent.
http://koin.com/2016/07/13/biketown-racks-not-welcome-in-some-neighborhoods/
I’m guessing he means that he’ll have to use his own garage now and won’t be able to continue renting it out for $250 a month…
so it looks like a parking spot at SE Taylor/39th is worth around $250 a month… we’re giving away a fortune in free parking in this city…
This is AMAZING.
If this isn’t a sign that we need parking districts, I don’t know what is.
I hope no one is making policy based on one person’s guess about what a different person quoted on TV news might have meant in a portion of their statement taken out of context, especially when that interpretation runs directly counter to everyday experience and common sense.
Unless, of course, that interpretation aligns with the current groupthink.
What?! Are you saying they might be misrepresenting the facts to promote their agenda on local TV? I am shocked.
Unfortunately, you happen to be describing the 2016 presidential election…
just found out that he’s the owner of the duplex, not an actual resident… so he valued each street parking space at $125… for some reason he’s completely ignoring the existing private parking behind the house…
do you think he’s going to lower his rent in this market? do you think the current tenants are now looking elsewhere? nope…
yea, one of the residents is making the most noise, but it was the owner on tv.
There’s a string of narrow houses here with residents who park on the street. I’m sure they realize that parking in front of their neighbor’s house will make a permanent enemy. Those neighbors consider the spots theirs, just as these tenants believed the lost bikeshare spots to be their own.
In a section of town with streets permanently lined in cars, convincing anyone otherwise appears to be a lost cause.
I rode the Alpenrose velodrome yesterday and can report that so far no orange “Biketown” racks have been installed on turn 4.
But there are plenty of OBRA rental bikes available for the Wednesday evening classes: $5 for the bike and $5 for the class.
If you get a rack, will you add a Biketown bike category?
Oh I really hope I’m there to see the first time someone races cyclocross on a Biketown bike!
http://www.sscxwcpdx16.com/
Dude, the plans for the Hyperspace bypass have been at the local planning office in Alpha Centauri for a decade.
(sorry, couldn’t resist)
You mean in the cellar, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”?
That’s where PBOT has been displaying their public notices lately as well.
I can’t believe it’s taken more than 200 comments to get to the HHGG reference. Kudos.
“In removing the corrals, our overall goal was to balance the needs of all users”
This is a self-contradicting statement. If the goal was to balance the needs of ALL users, you would have both corral staple racks AND Biketown racks.
Do the personal bike parking spots have to be in a corral in the street? At each of the four corrals replaced with biketown stations there is still bike parking on the sidewalk. (except maybe Mississippi, are those racks on private or public property?)
http://imgur.com/a/KUgtI
I’m wondering why they don’t have the racks angled like the staples in the corrals? It looks like the space where I used to be able to pedal past cars waiting to turn left onto Hawthorne at 34th will now be taken by nikebike wheels.
Head trauma professionals rejoice! More people riding around without helmets! Excellent!
Vince, yes, head trauma is a real thing, but so are at crashes and people tripping and falling on ice in the winter. I know many of us know people who have experienced head trauma, many of us also know people who have been killed or injured in car crashes. Yet many of us get in cars everyday without thinking anything of it.
Please don’t reinforce the false notion that riding a bicycle is an inherently very dangerous activity.
Respectfully, Scott
The day pedestrians stop slipping on ice is the day I start wearing a helmet on my bike, a seat belt in my car and closed toe shoes on the job.
That’s perfectly ok. Just don’t force the rest of us to wear helmets, or comment on how much disdain you might have for those that don’t always wear a helmet. 🙂
Oh wait. Did you stay “start” I missed your sarcasm there. All thos things are good safety precautions.
A helmet is a good precaution as well. I don’t think it should be mandated, but I think it is foolish to forgo what amounts to very cheap insurance against an uncommon but not rare potentially life altering injury.
Oh look. A medical expert. Tell us an anecdotal story of how many times your helmet has saved your life.
Head injuries are such not a thing.
Jeff, I presume you are speaking to Vince?
Can you please cite a source for this claim? I’m surprised by it.
I thought I had read that here. However a little research shows I was mistaken… The number of household on NYC is a little below 50 percent… Sorry for the error. http://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-cars
Thanks for the clarification! 🙂