The Street Trust (formerly the Bicycle Transportation Alliance) is going through a major transition. With 15 paid staff and an annual budget of $1.3 million, the organization is currently looking for a new executive director and a communications director, forming a new 501(c)(4) political organizing committee, and launching a new strategic plan to guide their work for the next five years.
These major initiatives come on the heels of a name-change and expansion of their mission last summer.
No matter how you slice it, this is a lot of change for an organization that continues to search for that magic mix of leadership, vision, political power and community support that will allow them to lead the ever-growing transportation reform movement in Portland and beyond.
And it comes at what The Street Trust describes as “a critical time for the region and Oregon.” Here’s a snip from the description of their executive director position that gives us an idea of where the organization sees itself now and in the future:
In recent years, we have seen the limits of focusing our work solely on bicycles. As a result, we made the decision in 2016 to expand our mission to include all modes of active transportation. Our mission expansion comes at a critical time for the region and Oregon. This region is in the midst of an intense growth period, and our transit, bike and pedestrian investments are not keeping pace with the needs. Seattle and Los Angeles have invested billions in local transit, for example, while Oregon continues to fall behind. We believe Oregon and the Portland Metro region needs to think bigger, if we’re going to remain competitive and ensure that every community has access to safe and high-quality bike, walking and transit facilities.
Advertisement
As part of our strategy, we will launch a 501(c)(4) advocacy arm and Political Action Committee, to strengthen our hand as we seek to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for investments in safe streets.
The Executive Director will lead our efforts to build a broader coalition of non-profits, governments and the private sector to advance transportation investment needs. This will involve research, campaigns, regional leadership and representing the Street Trust in high profile opportunities.
As The Street Trust searches for two new director-level positions, they have also just launched an online survey to garner input for their five-year strategic plan. The survey will help the organization gain a better understanding of the people it serves, what types of projects are important to them, and what their top transportation priorities are.
Founded in 1990 as a small and scrappy activism group, The Street Trust has shifted in recent years to a more staid approach. Willing to cede street-level activism opportunities to all-volunteer groups like Better Block PDX and Bike Loud PDX, The Street Trust has focused primarily on three fronts: delivering programs like Safe Routes to School classes and Vision Zero advoacy; hosting and promoting the annual Bike More Challenge; and advocating for funding at the regional and state level.
The Street Trust’s former leader Rob Sadowsky acknowledged the group’s chosen tact in an in-depth story we published in 2014. “I could go scream at Steve Novick and I could go get 1,000 postcards or phone calls,” he said, “but that’s not going to help me the next time with [former City Commissioner of Transportation] Steve Novick. I’m not going to lock my neck to City Hall with a u-lock.”
This year the organization has spent considerable time in Salem as their Policy Director Gerik Kransky works to make sure that active transportation is a top priority in the funding package being put together by lawmakers.
The challenge facing The Street Trust — and its new directors once they’re hired — is to build the organization’s power and relevance in the eyes of elected officials and people who walk, bike and take transit. It’s hard to have the former without the latter.
A focus on program delivery and long-range funding goals is laudable and important; but those initiatives mostly happen behind-the-scenes. And they rarely make headlines. Provocative rallies, high-profile events (like locking oneself to city hall with a u-lock for example), and watchdogging politicians and bureaucrats to get better local projects and policies are the type of “wins” most people notice — and that help frame the narrative.
There’s value in having an advocacy group that’s seen as more conservative and part of the power establishment; but it’s also important to carry a pitchfork in the back-pocket of your suit. And not be afraid to use it.
The classic, in-your-face activism that defined The Street Trust’s beginnings in the ’90s and the more conservative diplomacy that defines them today don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Doing them both well however, is easier said than done.
If they can find the right leadership and manage that balance, and combine it with the formation of a new political action committee and a coalition-building approach to advocacy that isn’t centered solely on bicycling or inner-Portland, The Street Trust could usher in an exciting new era of success.
We’re waiting and hoping that they figure it out.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation 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.
Access versus criticism: the struggle is real. I think we know how the PBA gets around it.
The one advantage the Street Trust has to become a more effective advocacy group is that it is Oregon has some of the smartest advocates, bureaucrats, and leaders who “get it”. The goal for the Street Trust should not be to reinvent the wheel but to figure out effective ways to harness and support this energy.
I remember walking into the BTA door one day after college and asking, “how can I help?” The Street Trust needs to find ways to engage these energized people, not just unpaid internships. I would love to see the Street Trust provide organizational support in a similar way that Umbrella does but with more money and staff. Would also love to see bikeportland and the Street Trust team up at some point. Understanding the ever changing way that we use media with the internet is crucial. We need an organization that isn’t afraid to make mistakes and tries creative things and an organizational leader who inspires our politicians to take risks.
The need for great streets has never been greater.
“will allow it lead the ever-growing transportation reform movement”
Not sure about the ‘lead’ part. On issues I track, they seem quite consistently to follow.
Follow, and then take credit for leading later on. Sort of their specialty.
“There’s value in having an advocacy group that’s seen as more conservative and part of the power establishment”
I’d like to hear others’ views on this.
My sense is that if the MO is (and it seems for quite some time to have been) to compromise, cozy up to the cheeses, and in so doing to lose sight of the original goal, then the value seems, well, negative.
I hear you 9watts and agree in some respects.
What I see happening too much in this town is that people think you have to make a choice as an activist/advocate: Either throw bombs and break windows — or be respectful and and get “A seat at the table”. We often forget that there’s a very effective middle ground to be had where orgs and individuals can be tough and honest and frank when necessary; but do it in a way that’s also respectful and leaves the door open for compromise (when possible) and future diplomacy.
I agree that once you get too cozy it’s very hard to change the status quo. And yes, when you are more worried about maintaining friendships with powerful people than achieving your mission (or your sense of mission is clouded by those friendships), you are on a path to irrelevance and possible negative consequences.
Independence and unbending commitment and clarity around your goals is everything.
Bottom line to me is that people in power must be afraid of you. If you are in the minority, the people in power must have a certain level of fear in you/your people before they will take major actions to benefit you.
Incremental gains will always happen and should be expected… but to really upset the apple cart (which is what I personally feel is imperative to do right now) I think the movement needs a more powerful and aggressive element that isn’t in place right now.
Bike Loud PDX has has an immense impact on the local level. If they had a few paid staff and could eventually impact regional/statewide policy and projects, I think we could see some interesting things happen.
Can Street Trust instill fear into the power structure without having the connection to the grassroots that Bike Loud has?
Can Bike Loud move the needle with no dedicated leadership, no budget, and a small core of scrappy volnteers?
I just feel like Bike Loud and Street Trust are both doing very important and great work… But that there’s much more work to do to really move the needle. Put another way, there are a lot of bases to cover and we don’t have a full team on the field right now.
Also keep in mind that advocacy and nonprofit organizing is really hard and complicated work. There’s no perfect method or clear rules to follow that will get you success. Everyone is working hard to do the right thing. I’m just trying to share what I see to help us work smarter and do better as a movement.
Yes!
Hard work, and important too.
Results speak. 😉
Quite frankly, speaking as a community activist with over 25 years of experience, I think groups like Bike Loud are much better off on the long run without hiring staff. When you hire “professionals” (i.e. staff) to do your advocacy, your organization (any organization, not just BTA) often suffers on the long term, as your volunteers are both sidelined AND the organization gets “soft” and dependent upon that same staff to do what the organization set out to do. The staff themselves are there primarily to earn a paycheck, so quite soon the organization finds itself chasing down funding rather than doing advocacy, and “mission creep” sets in. When the funding gets cut from a lack of either new donors or a change focus of existing donors, then staff is cut, and the organization finds itself without the capacity to organize it once had.
I think it is also easier to engage people in action; fundraising is soul-killing work.*
*Though I acknowledge that there are some people who both enjoy it and are very good at it. I’m grateful to them because I don’t and I’m not.
“Seattle and Los Angeles have invested billions in local transit, for example, while Oregon continues to fall behind.”
So what about the $1.5B spent on the Orange Line? I certainly agree that transit could/should be better in Portland, but this seems a little hyperbolic to me.
The Cascade Policy folks’ favorite dog to kick is transit.
If you look at costs this is not hard to do, but also of rather questionable value since the comparable costs for automobility are usually hidden.
Right. For Mr. Charles to whine about “massive subsidies” for transit while advocating ever-more-staggering subsidies for roads is the height of selective blindness.
Their (to me hilarious) retort is that, well people choose cars and therefore it isn’t a subsidy (free market, get it?) but that no one actually chooses transit, therefore transit = big bad gov’t.
They see roads as a public good, and therefore as worthy of government attention as the water system. They see transit as a government service, and therefore not market based. While I wholeheartedly disagree with them, I see their dichotomy and understand how it fits into their world view.
That is a great point. But I still think it is mostly specious, as the chief difference between transit and cars is that cars fit their individualistic worldview whereas the collective dimension of transit does not. Both needs roads which the private sector didn’t create nor would, and both have benefited from vast and incalculable subsidies from the state. If they were consistent they would be all over bikes rather than constantly sh!tting on transit.
>>> the chief difference between transit and cars is that cars fit their individualistic worldview whereas the collective dimension of transit does not <<<
That's it, exactly. If they were consistent, they would support bikes while still opposing transit. I suspect they don't because they don't think bikes are a serious alternative to driving. And for most people, they're not.
“they don’t think bikes are a serious alternative to driving. And for most people, they’re not.”
Kind of circular, no?
Who is finally going to attempt to get out in front of this situation? There’s certainly momentum around the world (China!) for rediscovering bikes as serious alternatives to the car. CPI profess to be leaders, why always and predictably trail?
Not at all circular. Just read it the other way around. For most people, bikes are not a serious alternative to driving. Therefore, CPI does not include bikes in their transportation agenda. That’s pretty linear.
The CPI’s main failing is that they rely on a fundamental misunderstanding of the way people work, and are basically a cult masquerading as a political philosophy.
OK, circular wasn’t the best term. What I meant was refusing to stop looking in the rear view mirror. Both of your examples reify the status quo, fail to realize that by reframing the subject, taking a fresh view that isn’t slavishly beholden to what happened yesterday or ten years ago, we could actually get out of the place we’re stuck in.
Yes, and that’s what they’re doing with their proposals to get rid of public transit.
Their vision of the future is much different than yours or mine.
Put another way, the power of suggestion is not recognized in these examples. This topic we’re discussing here was about *leadership*. Leadership is bound up with what I’m talking about; the opposite of this fetish with rear view mirrors.
CPI are not leading much of anything. But rather than discuss it here, why not make the case directly to them that bikes are the ultimate libertarian vehicle?
Mr Two First Names and I had a back and forth here in the bikeportland comments some years ago. I don’t remember it changing hearts or minds…
Oh look here it is:
https://bikeportland.org/2012/11/12/the-monday-roundup-203-79937
“…I suspect they don’t because they don’t think bikes are a serious alternative to driving. And for most people, they’re not. …” h kitty
For many people that drive, bikes aren’t an adequate or realistic alternative to driving. One of the reasons bikes aren’t an adequate or realistic alternative to driving, is poor infrastructure for biking. That’s where T Street Trust could perhaps get its game on. Continuous and more easy to use bike lanes could be a great result, if TST could get broader interest from the public, in bike and walk infrastructure of this quality.
Neighborhoods should have a little better than skinny sidewalks under dark trees and bushes, for residents to walk or bike a mile or so from their homes to the nearest shopping center, school, church, and so forth. Street Trust might think some about focusing on the widespread lack of that type of active transportation infrastructure in neighborhoods.
Neighborhoods should have some sidewalk that is nice to walk to the store on, even in the kind of wet weather in spring we’ve been having. So much of sidewalk design, seems to suggest their puny configuration is due that infrastructure being a comparatively low priority element of the overall street design. It’s possible that residents of many neighborhoods, haven’t had anyone help them consider that they might actually feel good about a walk to store in light rain under an umbrella, if they had more than an anorexic sidewalk to walk and bike on.
Infrastructure that would enable biking for travel, to be a serious alternative to driving for longer commutes than one to three or more miles one way, may be a much tougher challenge to accomplish, than might be shorter distance infrastructure. Still, the street trust, with its revised, wider focus on street functionality, might be able to help raise greater interest from the public than exists now, on such an objective.
I think there is value in having a more middle-of-the-road advocacy group, but only if you have a more out-there (“extreme” as some might put it) group really pushing the issues and helping the other group look mainstream. Think Nature Conservancy vs. Earth First!, for example: BTA and BikeLoudPDX could play that good-cop/bad-cop game with politicians.
But that strategy is undermined if the more-mainstream group capitulates to the opposition, as the BTA has done on CRC (which is baaaaaaack!) and again on the latest freeway debate. You still have to have a backbone.
And the Nature Conservancy is in bed with frackers…..
Yeah, I was going to say Sierra Club, but just look at them too.
If you want to get projects both funded AND implemented, you need to stop going to bed with politicians and instead get into bed with the junior-level staff, especially engineers and program managers, who make all the mid-level administrative decisions. Basically they feed what gets fed to supervisors, who then feed bureau directors, who then feed politicians.
So really you should be sleeping with the Prexies and not the Junior Veeps?
It all smells like a bit of a racket to me.
I appreciate the sentiment that there’s room for a “middle way” but I don’t really see where it could be.
The Middle CLASS is shrinking. Political clout often depends upon both social and fiscal capital, and if you have fewer people with both, then you have fewer people positioned to effect change from the inside. And you have people already immersed who are too comfortable to risk their comfort. That’s why politics as usual is not really effective.
While the more radical folks in bike/ped advocacy may not get a seat at The Table, perhaps its a table they don’t aspire to be seated at in the first place.
Time for a new table, and a new paradigm. I fear that cozying up to the suits and taking the VERY gradual route to make them feel less nervous will not achieve anything meaningful in the long run, and will waste resources that could be better spent agitating for — and building — that new paradigm.
hear, hear.
>>> you need to stop going to bed with politicians and instead get into bed with the junior-level staff <<<
This is true for a number of reasons.
Where is their support for the mountain biking plan or Portland’s community-initiated trails program ?
In all fairness, they used to be the Bicycle TRANSPORTATION Alliance, and now they have STREET in their name. I’m OK cutting them some slack on the mountain biking, since by the standards around here it is neither on streets nor transportation.
Unfortunately, in most of the USA (outside the West Coast, anyway), mountain biking and street riding are both considered “recreational sports” by the vast majority of both drivers and transit users. Here in Greensboro NC I can get far more funding from Parks for mountain bike trails and multi-use paths than I can from Transportation for bike lanes and bike boulevards, even though the latter are much cheaper and serve far more people, especially people of color (43% of this community.) I have met folks here, usually white, who do in fact mountain bike on their way to work here. There’s even a fire department unit that is made up almost entirely of mountain bikers here (they have a special bike trailer for moving crash victims and send out a boat on the lakes here for the same purpose.) The police bike patrol, a 15-person unit, mostly patrols downtown and forms part of the riot squad. But the general public sees none of this. If they think of bicycles at all (which is rare), it’s either as an exercise option or as a damn nuisance along the road.
“I have met folks here, usually white, who do in fact mountain bike on their way to work here.”
I’ve used mountain bikes for the past thirty years – to get where I’m going. But I was told in no uncertain terms here that that is not Mountain Biking.
9watts, do you ride your mountain bike on any trails these days?
Not really.
Do you mind if I ask why?
Not at all.
I have for most of the past almost 30 years lived in cities, had various asphalt commutes, managed to stay busy with other pursuits. When I was 15 I lived deep in the woods, and getting to school involved several miles of single track and gravel roads before meeting asphalt. I loved it, and still do, but it isn’t presently very relevant to my situation. Pursued purely as a recreational activity, unrelated to getting somewhere has never seemed urgent to me, though I certainly recognize that it does for others.
I rode up Mt. Tabor a few weeks ago. Surely that qualifies as “mountain biking”.
Did you ride up on dirt? If so, then I think it is. Also, did you have a beer afterwards? If so, then it most certainly qualifies.
We lack most sidewalks and have very few paved paths. Most of the mountain bikers I’ve met here literally ride on single-track to get to work, both trails in not-yet-developed woodlands (we have a lot) or on unpaved unintentional/informal sidewalks along roadways (the kind that Don Baack of SW Trails often touts.) Yeah, I’ve also met a few who ride their mountain bikes on the street, but not many. And here it is both legal and officially encouraged to ride your bike through public parks and open spaces.
I think you mentioned that you’re in North Carolina…in a really small town, or rural part of the state? I’m not sure, but some small towns in Oregon east of the Cascades may not have an abundance of sidewalks, because they cost money. People get tired of walking in the mud, so when the town’s economy grows and has some money for infrastructure, sidewalks are one of the things people think of.
Out here in Oregon, around Beaverton and Portland, I’ve wondered a number of times about there being very little for hiking and biking trails connecting the two cities The recreational MUP idea has done some to bring about connecting paths for biking and walking that are asphalt or concrete paved, but there’s no such paths that have been kept just as unpaved dirt paths.
For example, I think it could have been a great hike, but there’s no woodland foot path from Central Beaverton, up over the Sylvan hill and down into Portland. When the land on the hills and even on the lowlands was plotted out for development, I’d guess that the idea of officially designated and created unpaved dirt foot and bike paths connecting towns together, never may even have been on the minds of people then. Today, the challenge of going back into already existing neighborhoods to try and get easements to create such trail, may be insurmountable.
Easier walking around and biking around, and of course, driving around, are among the reasons people like small towns.
“Small town”. Greensboro NC. 288,000 residents (2015 est). Over 500,000 in Guilford County; part of Piedmont Triad metro area. City itself covers the same area as Portland, but half the density (we gotta alotta sprawl). Founded 1808, named for a Revolution Quaker general from Rhode Island, Nathaniel Greene. Dead industries include cigarettes, furniture, and fabrics (now mostly closed); new industries are Honda Aircraft, Volvo & Kenilworth semi-trucks, and Crest Toothpaste (P&G). City famous for Revolution battle (Guilford Courthouse, 1781), 1st successful Woolworth civil right lunch counter sit-in (Feb 1960), and Vick’s Vapor Rub. Jesse Jackson got his undergrad degree here at one of the 2 public universities here (one traditionally just for blacks, the other traditionally just for women, both integrated in the 1960s.)
…And in spite of having 288,000 residents within city limits, we really are a “small town” Deep South community, in that people here are ridiculously trusting of each other – homes are often unlocked; most murder victims (almost entirely black) know their attackers; city council hearings are intimate; 11% turnout for local elections; nearly every community advocate knows all the other community advocates, who is sleeping with whom, who has fallen out, etc. I have yet to see a single sign or piece of public art get tagged or any graffiti, and bike theft here is rare. The local society column in the newspaper show club group photos where the smiling faces are either all black or all white, but never any mixed-race or Latino/Asian/South Asian.
David Hampsten at April 29, 2017 at 9:33 pm
…I think your description of your town may help some to explain what you’d written earlier about the town having fewer amenities like sidewalks, that some of us here in Oregon’s metro areas take for granted. The town sounds entirely different than Portland, or most of it, especially in recent decades. Much different than Beaverton too. Hillsboro before hi-tech, when it used to be largely agricultural, was more of a small town, but it’s grown up and getting slicked up.
Here, the small town common ethics and morality that once allowed people to be confidently secure in leaving their doors unlocked, has been long gone for a long time. Due to population growth, and subordination to fast travel, some people have lost a lot of neighborhood livability from their neighborhoods.
The good thing out of that bad, is that more people, are becoming aware of this loss that’s occurred, I think, and they may be feeling a growing interest in restoring some of what they’ve lost. Helping them get it back is what walking and biking advocacy groups, including the Street Trust, may be able to help them do.
The Street Trust working for the broader objective of community active transportation infrastructure, is I think, a major advance from the limited objective of simply, better conditions for biking, which it had confined its efforts to in past. Far more people that travel by ways in addition to motor vehicle travel, can relate to and likely be willing to support this broader objective.
Towards getting things done, it’s far more constructive for a group to be working with people that can align themselves with the group and its objectives, as friends, rather than having to try counter attacks by people that feel compelled to oppose the groups’ objectives. Adversarial relationships aren’t that great, so if the Street Trust recognizes the value in building more of a friendly relationship, I’m glad to hear this.
Thanks for the reply. Makes sense. Even though I am hopeful for more trails for recreational purposes for my family and I, I am also hopeful for trails that I can use for commuting up and over Washington Park. Honestly, I would bike commute even more if my commute involved less time on the road.
Here is Adam H’s chance to get involved!
That would be awesome if Bike Loud PDX staff got paid!
This is going to sound so pedantic.
The “The” in “The Street Trust” has been driving me crazy, especially because they included it in their logo. it makes me think they didn’t work with a professional agency for their new name and branding.
For example, BTA was called “the Bicycle Transportation Alliance” but “the” wasn’t part of their formal name.
This will undoubtedly also annoy their new communications person (unless that person convinces them the drop the “The.” Good luck!). It’ll lead to lots of confusion about their name (as you can see in some of the comments on this post).
Having a good communication strategy is important. That name weirdness makes me wonder what else they’re trying to wing.
Sometimes we need pedantic. Hey, is that the same room as pedal and pedestrian? Guess not. More like the same root as pedagogue. Three cheers for the “person who trumpets minor points of learning.”
And they’re not a trust.
There is one thing no one has really mentioned either in the article or comments from what I can tell: no one seems to recall the last time TST/BTA got an actual win for bike/ped/transit infrastructure? Odds are you can’t.
People will give an organization latitude if they think it is relevant and accomplishing things that have broad impacts. That turns into apathy or frustration if the results never arrive. I agree that having an organization focused on the larger things matters but they have to deliver. Securing just under $20 million for Safe Routes to Schools at both the regional and state level is certainly something (assuming HB 3230 passes), but the next step of securing meaningful funding for the infrastructure component is absolutely vital to the long term success of the program and they have not demonstrated the ability to do this.
For anyone within Portland, TST is not going to seem relevant until they are able to do more than educate the populace and the $10 million for state-wide SRTS infrastructure improvements over two years in HB 3230 will hardly move the needle. I’m tired of reading the obligatory article every few months about the 2030 Bike Plan on pace to be implemented in a couple centuries rather than decades. Moving policy and funding from a leadership position matters and from what is visible right now TST is not able to move that needle much.
I’m not normally one to defend TST/BTA, but…
One of the things that organizations like TST, OPAL, and EPAP do relatively well, better than most others anyway, is to try to “grow the pie”, to expand the amount of statewide and local funding available for bike/ped/transit projects. TST & OPAL does it by talking with legislators, their staff, and state agencies in Salem, an arduous and thankless task. EPAP does it by talking directly with the 10 state legislators who represent the various parts of East Portland, as well as their staff, METRO councilors, Multnomah County commissioners, and each of the 5 city councilors, both individually and as a group. Both ways can be very effective both short-term and long-term, but it’s a lot of behind-the-scenes work by volunteers and staff. All three groups have already been effective at redirecting funding that would have gone just towards freeways and repaving highways, and instead have ODOT projects include substantial sidewalk, transit stop, and bike way components that they likely wouldn’t have had.
I’m not the most regular of Bike Portland, I tend to check in every week or two and see what’s been happening. In my 6 years of reading BP, I’m always surprised that staff from the Street Trust aren’t on record on a majority of stories. I can barely recall ever seeing Rob Sadowsky on record in BP. BP, to me, is a major resource for the thousands of Portlanders who are wonk-curious. If the Street Trust is unwilling to push its narrative in such a readily available forum, how do they expect the public to fall in behind them. I’ll additionally add, the one year I did become a Street Trust member, I was shocked at the lack of general organization communication from them. If you can’t tell your members what you’re hoping to accomplish, how can you expect them to stick with you?
“…lack of general organization communication from them.”
Since February, they’ve sent at least one email a week to their public list. They had slipped below one per month for awhile before that. So far this month they’ve sent seven (that’s above my saturation point). Anyone can sign up, you don’t have to be a member, and they also have a Survey Monkey asking for 5 Year Plan Input, both linked on https://www.thestreettrust.org/.
It does seem as though BP and TST could build more buzz by playing off each other.
“It does seem as though BP and TST could build more buzz by playing off each other.”
…especially if tST would get behind some of the positions Jonathan (and his readership) support, rather than the milquetoast freeway expansion/crumb fest or the CRC.
I agree! And I’ve always encouraged and wanted this to happen more and better. It’s something I have always made available and hoped would happen but after all these years I still don’t believe that we are both using each other for the best amount of impact/leverage possible.
I am very hopeful (once again) that a new ED and Comms Director will usher in a new era of TST and BP collaboration that helps move our issues forward more quickly.
And if you have ideas about how we could “build more buzz” together, i am all ears. Thanks!
So, all I had in mind were fairly simple trades. Maybe TST does a post on BP every quarter, maybe about a particular issue or maybe just TST’s status in general, and in return Jonathan writes a guest newsletter for TST, again about current issues as he sees them. Whether or not those opinions are in lock-step agreement or not is irrelevant, and both parties need to understand and agree about that. The important part is that their combined audiences see that discussions and actions are ongoing, and that both sides recognize the other as legitimate and respected parties in the public arena.
Another idea that just came to me is a live public forum, or better, a series of them. City Club is an example, but it’s too big and too diluted by ‘equal time for all sides’ agendas. Something smaller, 50-200 people, each one focused on a particular hot topic like the Green Loop, or particular bills in Salem, or even the respective roles and goals of TST, BP and BLPDX (all included on the panel). Sort of like podcasts you’ve done, in fact it could be podcast, too. A moderator/MC would be mostly a formality as all panelists are reasonable, civil and generally aligned. Or not…get a bigger venue, a bouncer-moderator, and invite ODOT’s Matthew Garrett into the crossfire! The results of that would (IMHO) illustrate that general alignment of diverse parties in the face of opposition.
Oh, how about if both TST and BP made photo and mic ops at all BikeLoud protests. Wording needs to be careful, might not be “approve” or “endorse,” but sympathetic public support to be consumed by mainstream media. BLPDX could offer similar backstopping for TST (in appropriate circumstances).
And I’m no social media mage but are y’all linked together on those channels? Do y’all provide cross-support, promotion, and constructive comments?
Umm…err…ahhh… That all leads me down the rabbit hole of thought trails I was going to ignore upthread. I am talking about those groups and people (and no doubt others; OPAL, B4HPDX, CCC, NWTA, Go By Bike, Shift, Bike Clark County, VBC, etc) as if they really do have some general – if entirely non-formalized – alignment; fellow travelers, pulling in the same direction, shared values, common goals…things like that. I’ve always thought they do. I want to think they do. I want to share with them, and share means give and take.
Then I read comments from people I respect like 9watts, Beth H, GlowBoy and others, and their tone and implication is that if you ain’t with us yer agin us, not toeing the party line is a deadly sin, all negotiations are fraternizing with the enemy, those that sit at The Table will be the first Against The Wall. I’m exaggerating, I mean no offense, I honestly respect their opinions, they influence my thoughts, but those sorts of highly radical, divisive, us-v-them innuendos…well, they challenge my beliefs and leave me in doubt about society’s route forward.
In our national and world culture I see polemics, political fracturing, polarization, extreme ideology, and uncivil discourse as becoming more and more normal. Corporate fascism rules our country and much of the world. Populism is approaching totalitarianism. Within that brutal, political jungle of our own making, each of us decides where to draw our personal lines. For example, the BikeTown vandals drew their line with a few hundred bikes containing imagery they didn’t like. Me, I’d rather draw lines that get people out of their cars, into public space, and on to creative and productive endeavors. If I have to accept some amount of corporatism or automobilism or other compromise in order to gain some amount of the values I believe in…well, that’s what compromise is, and the deal must be a net gain, but it doesn’t have to be ‘my way or the highway’ as long as it’s moving the right general direction.
I like coalitions (meaning politically; personally I’m rather independent). Coalitions are the alliances of similar but not necessarily homogenous parties. They are the basis of consensus and democracy, but they operate not only in democracies full and flawed but even in totalitarian and failed states to bring diverse groups back to a more centered and “fair” balance. Especially among minor positions (and I think that – unfortunately – even in progressive Portland, political support toward human powered transportation, dense urban living, jobs close to homes, social diversity, etc., is still in the minority), the power of coalitions is the best if not only way to move the needle, to actually progress toward desirable goals.
When I think of people at TST, some of whom I have met and some that I know only from their online words, I think of people I respect and generally agree with. I think of activists and wonks and people who have learned the ropes around Salem and ODOT and Portland city hall and bureau mazes, all the while retaining their enthusiasm for bikes and a livable city and greener society. I’d violate my own ethics if I didn’t call them out on specifics I don’t agree with, but HELL YES they have my general support in a consensus/coalition sort of way.
And so, to sort of swing this dissembling back around to the original question of how we could “build more buzz” together, I’ll offer some aphorisms that I like:
– lead by example
– air differences with respect
– seek common ground
– my strength is in my family (extended)
Excuse my rambling and run-on writing style, pls.
Thank you for taking the time to write that all out, Alan 1.0. I do appreciate it and take your criticism to heart. I used to suggest something along the lines of what you outline above but with staff from PBOT coming on BP once a month and fielding questions, with the explicit hope that this could help us break down the sometimes acrimonious tone that arises, I think, at least in part from the fact that so often we’re left to guess as to why PBOT, e.g., decided to lop off the last block of the (planned) Foster bike infrastructure before they merged with the (existing) 52nd bike infrastructure. Those guesses, in the absence of a thoughtful defense from someone at PBOT, an explanation, can and do lead to some of us taking a dim view of the thinking we infer, the priorities at PBOT, and at some level I think the onus is on PBOT to get out in front of that animus, or potential for mistrust and defend their priorities.
As for (my) comments criticizing the BTA, I could no doubt modulate them better, but I’ve also often asked myself why every time they take a stand, raise their voice, mix it up it seems that they have chosen a position that at least to me seems not just weak but often antithetical to what I would see as progress, as something worth fighting for. I’m sure I’ve missed some good stuff the BTA fought for—and I used to be a dues paying member—but in the last six – eight years my sense has been that there’s really very little evidence of potential common ground; I see rather little sticking-out-of-necks, and once when they did (infographic about how we pay for roads) ODOT disagreed, and they did an immediate retraction without putting up any fight (a fight which I’ve incidentally tried to revive with ODOT staff, BTA staff, and here in the bikeportland comments, to not much avail).
You wrote above:
“… all negotiations are fraternizing with the enemy, those that sit at The Table will be the first Against The Wall.”
I hear some of that too in the comments here and I hope I haven’t drifted thither myself. I will contrast your imagery with a different concern: As some have suggested in this thread, the institutionalization of a critical, even radical perspective often so waters down those original passions, and the tendency to drift into mealy-mouthed so-called compromise that then leads nowhere is something that must be guarded against, continually. My comments here were intended (though probably not as well phrased as they could have been) to call attention to this danger, provoke a spirited defense of the principles and/or actions of said organization.
I’ll end with my favorite statement in your post above, Alan 1.0:
“the deal must be a net gain, but it doesn’t have to be ‘my way or the highway’ as long as it’s moving the right general direction.”
I couldn’t agree more.
For this to work, however, you BTA-in-this-case have to throw us a bone. Make your case. Articulate what you stand for. Tell us why I should change my dim view of the BTA as an advocate for alternative transportation, for bicycling – in plain language. Because right here, right now I am not persuaded.
Good points, 9watts. I don’t disagree with their essentials.
I wrote my post extemporaneously but a political pro backed me up with a couple sources I’ll leave here:
“Moderation in all things.” — Aristotle
“When citizens can associate only in certain cases, they regard association as a rare and singular process, and they hardly think of it.
“When you allow them to associate freely in everything, they end up seeing in association the universal and, so to speak, unique means that men can use to attain the various ends that they propose. Each new need immediately awakens the idea of association. The art of association then becomes, as I said above, the mother science; everyone studies it and applies it.” — Tocqueville
I may or may not be fully understanding de Tocqueville, but as someone who grew up in a different country I’ve long wondered if the opportunity (for PBOT staff, BTA policy directors, etc.) to see how the problems they encounter, frame, attempt to wrestle with, are approached by their counterparts in other countries were presented, that we’d be much better off, or at least have more interesting conversations.
He’s endorsing association among people, similar to what I called coalitions. In France at that time, such associations were viewed as threats to the state, and he’s pointing out how in the US they promote “science,” which I interpret from him as innovation and progress. (Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition, vol. 3, if you want to track it down.)
PBOT staff (and others?) visited Netherlands and Denmark a few years ago, yeah? I think that was a wise bit of education and I’m pretty sure it opened up some ideas for them. Leah Treat has implemented large bike and ped facilities that work (but not here). PBOT people I’ve conversed with generally “get it” regarding bike infrastructure and curtailing automobile dominance. I’d support even more cross pollination with bike-friendly countries but I don’t feel like that set of knowledge is the choke point in Portland right now.
To me, the problem looks political: lack of will by the Council and its constituents. Was it Geller who suggested that a louder voice from the bike community would back up some PBOT choices, and that led to BikeLoud? I remember something like that. Anyway, to me it looks like city powers have all the knowledge they need about bikes, they just aren’t willing to deploy it. I read that as a political decision at the highest levels, where their tenure is beholden to other interests. Some of those interests are coalitions like Freight and PBA, but a large part is simply the entrenched majority (I mentioned that in my first post).
Now, if we could just have all of Portland visit Utrecht without burning any petroleum…
I think you’re right; it is (a lack of) political will in the upper reaches, at PBOT, and probably also at the BTA. Calling for, as you correctly note, more grass roots pressure always rubs me the wrong way, though. I get where this sentiment comes from, but as it is never ever expected from those in cars or trucks the fact that it seems perfectly OK to expect it from us (with the ratified if perhaps unfunded Bicycle Master Plan already on the shelf) just seems bogus. Why are we supposed to continually lead this fight? Why go to the trouble of drafting, revising, ratifying the BMP if there’s no spine to implement it? Why can’t staff say, Hey, what about that? Why does everyone with a salary in the institutions we’re discussing here play (or appear to play) the functionary in this system? Abdicate or appear to abdicate any role in actually making it happen? As much as we’ve grown accustomed to this sort of perpetual-passing-the-buck, I have never understood why we accept this from those whose salaries we pay through our tax dollars or membership fees.
I’m not necessarily against ultimately compromising to throw the road lobby some of what they want in exchange for what we want. I’m not quite as militant as I may have come across above: timing is everything. I can support and agree with BLPDX’s more militant stances while also ultimately supporting the Street Trust in promoting some sort of compromise, but not yet. It’s too early for them to be giving away the farm.
Anyone with even the slightest negotiation skills knows that your initial position should be more than you’re willing to settle for. Somewhere in there you should have a bunch of stuff that would be nice to have (or, if you’re really good at this, don’t even care about) but would be willing to give up during negotiations – things like zero freeway expansion – so you have room to keep the things that are really important. It’s the BTA’s failure to even go in with a strong position that leads me to accuse them of lacking backbone.
Our nation’s new chief executive is nothing if not a skilled negotiator. His style is trickling down, and to achieve anything in politics in this era we’d better at least try to lock down the basic skills of negotiation.
In your full comment, you’re using words such as:
“….. throw the road lobby some of what they want in exchange for what we want. …. militant …. timing is everything. …. BLPDX’s more militant stances…. the Street Trust in promoting some sort of compromise, but not yet. It’s too early for them to be giving away the farm. ….” glowboy
Your word choice has it sound as though you believe, or are suggesting that the way to achieve better conditions for biking, is by an ‘us vs them’, adversarial approach. Maybe not “…as militant…” as some people favoring better biking conditions might take, but adversarial all the same.
There are other reasons this is a bad approach for achieving better conditions for biking and walking in an environment in which travel by motor vehicle is the primary means of travel…but I think one of the biggest reasons against taking an ‘us vs them’ approach, especially in a militant context, is that biking and walking advocates, have no edge that can force local and state government against its will, to not do what the greater population is asking be done.
Advocacy groups’ support for biking and walking, though those groups have good intentions, is very small compared to the support lent by the greater public to road construction, design and maintenance for motor vehicle travel and transport. It may get some people’s adrenaline running more readily, but the ‘us vs them’, approach sounds like a dead end.
I think that gaining improved conditions for biking and walking, is going to require recognizing and pursuing common interests of people and all the modes of travel they use to get around, with their mutual support.
In that case I invite you to compare for us the recent achievements (for bicycling) by the group that takes (more or less) the approach you are suggesting (TST) and the one that has taken (more or less) Glowboy’s approach (BLPDX).
What I know of bikeloud, is from mention of that group in bikeportland stories, and just today, from browsing over the group’s website. The group did ok in focusing attention to the city’s designation of a particular section of Clinton St as a bike greenway, and speeding up the timeline for installing motor vehicle traffic diversion on that street. The group has put together some ideas and positions which it’s posted to its website. The city seems to be listening some to what the group has to say. What else the group may have done, I’m not sure.
Personally, I’m not keen on the name ‘bikeloud’, because I think it’s more important to bike smart. People riding bikes are vulnerable road users, and they, more than any other road user, do need to bike smart just for survival if nothing else. Lots of people do bike smart…unfortunately, not enough do.
I think, to make gains, bike advocacy is going to do better with a broader set of objectives than just trying to make conditions better for biking. And it’s going to do better if the approach to the chosen objectives is done in a non-adversarial way.
…I meant to include the url for bikeloud’s website. Here’s the link to the group’s statement page:
http://bikeloudpdx.org/index.php/Statements
Hey, I know I may be a broken record on this or just OCD, but it’s hard for me to read anything or approach this organization now that it has named itself THE STREET TRUST. The organization is about human powered transit (whether that be via bike or on foot) that, for the moment, must interact with heavier motorized machines on shared paths. Is it really all about the Streets? Not very forward looking.
I just feel like they did not take advantage of the hometown talent that could have helped name and branded them with something that more accurately reflects what they’re about. The Street Trust sounds stagnant, their new logo is static. Is THE STREET TRUST a financial institution? Sorry, but it sounds and looks dull. There is nothing aspirational about The Street Trust. It sound like a relative to Street Roots (sorry, Street Roots). The Bicycle Transportation Alliance t least told you what it did and conveyed some aspiration
Combine this with the disarray they seem to be in and it just compounds the problem.
They need one good thing and that could be their identity.
This is a classic case where they need to rebrand, yeah it’s a bit of a goof to change it so quickly but holy cow, if you broke your arm as kid and it was set poorly, you would not wait to have your arm grow into some sort of mis-shaped Jai Lai racket, you’d get it fixed asap.
Also, this is not a corporation making a product but a group of active, well meaning people that are trying to make active transit safer for all of us. They are our peers and comrades in arms. They have a super tough needle to thread given the competing interests within this rapidly growing city.
Many of you may think the name doesn’t matter but it does. It’s kind of like why you’re parents made you wear braces or why cleft pallets are fixed. it may be seem superficial to have straighter teeth or not have a bifurcated lip but we are visual creatures and we want people to hear us, not be distracted by our crazy teeth or different upper lip. A good identity is like welcoming smile, it draws you in and you want to take part.
Its not too late.
“…Is it really all about the Streets?…” toren orzeck
Streets are important. That is, the quality of their usability, functionality and livability to the neighborhoods they pass through and surround, is important. There’s a great tendency for some people to abuse their right to use streets; they use them for hotroddin’, or just plain going too fast for the setting, and using them for cut-throughs for ‘short-cuts’, or to try avoid thoroughfare congestion.
The distressing effects on neighborhoods, through misuse of streets can get so bad that residents barely dare cross the street for fear of getting knocked down or killed. The roar of far too many vehicles just passing through, having no business in the neighborhood. This puts neighborhoods in the position of being hosting too much traffic not being produced by themselves.
Without a lot of stress arising from motor vehicle use being a major condition, people from the neighborhood, and guests from outside the neighborhood, ought to be able to ride a bike down neighborhood streets. On some neighborhood streets, use of the street for travel, probably is low and cautious enough that a kid could cross the street, or play on it with friends, without the parents fearing the kids are going to get run over.
It seems to me, what I’ve been able to gather about the revised direction of The Street Trust, that this advocacy group still very much considers improving conditions on the streets for biking to be a top priority, but has also come to realize that there is a much bigger group, consisting of neighbors that like to walk, bike, occasionally play out on the street in their neighborhood, who may be interested in representation with the help of a group like the Trust, that has interest in that sort of thing.
Use of the word ‘trust’, isn’t limited just to financial institutions. With this group, I think what use of the word essentially has a philosophical meaning, which is that The Street Trust seems to be committing itself to look out for, protect and improve conditions on streets for everyone using them, and working to not allow streets to be subordinated almost entirely, or entirely to the movement of motor vehicles.
A rather well known group that uses ‘trust’ in its name, is The Trust for Public Lands. It’s not a financial institution. It’s different from what TST does, in that it actually uses donation money and buys land to be established as parks. Essentially too though, it is looking out for quality in important public resources.
“…Names like Active Transit Alliance, ATA ( yeah, I know there are many cities that use this) or Human Powered Transit Alliance HPTA are just, in my opinion, better. …” orzeck
Those names might be alright. Personally, especially after having thought it over a bit, I appreciate what I believe TST’s name means, because of its similarity to the name of the land conservation group that I earlier mentioned, The Trust for Public Lands. I feel it’s a good name choice.
Very significant about that group, and others like for example, The Nature Conservancy, is that I believe they likely have an amazingly large ‘constituency’, if you will…in other words, a huge base of support for the objectives they’ve set out to attain. And they have managed to accomplish many of those objectives. Maybe people don’t think enough about the idea that streets and roads, almost all of them with the exception of private roads, are a huge public resource that has many of the same general needs for protection that natural lands do.
So, even though many people now, aren’t familiar with the concept of TST’s name, it seems to me that it’s meaning is solid.
Not finding or being able to build a huge, or strong base of support, is I think, where advocacy groups can fall flat in their attempts to get good things done. Exclusivity, or limiting the focus to too narrow a selection of the interests of the public, is only going to produce an accordingly small base of support. We’ll have to see what things The Street Trust tries to get done, and how much interest its efforts attract.