Welcome to the week. Here are the best stories we came across in the past seven days…
Latinos and family biking: A Harvard study about cycling preferences showed that Latinos and Latinas are, “far more likely than other Americans to say that friends or family are a major factor in their choice to ride.”
Bike share a gentrifying force? But in the Latino Cultural District of San Francisco, residents and business owners successfully blocked a bike share station based on the belief it would lead to gentrification. The SF Examiner also reported that business owners feared they’d lose auto parking.
Lance is back: Floyd Landis isn’t the only former pro bike racer pedaling back into the public eye after drug scandals ruined their careers. Mr. Armstrong has found a massive audience for his Tour de France podcasts and likely has a bright future in the media.
Going carfree, more easily: The Frontier Group says cities should create transportation policies that make it easier for people to choose to live without owning motorized vehicle.
Distracted walking crackdown: In Honolulu a proposal would make walking while using a smartphone more illegal than driving with one.
No touchy in WA: New distracted driving law in effect in Washington says you cannot touch your phone for any reason while driving. And you can’t scarf down your lunch either.
Advertisement
Slow down on ‘self driving’: We’re seeing more and more headlines based on concerns that the auto industry is moving too fast with plans for self-driving cars.
How bike riders will fare: NPR looks at the latest efforts to make biking next to self-driving cars safer. (Our advice: The ultimate solution is to vastly improve bikeway infrastructure, which will lead to more predictable cycling behaviors.)
Bus-only inevitability: A town in Massachusetts had the guts to put up a few traffic cones in an auto parking lane to create a bus-only lane. It worked so well the bus lane is now permanent. Why can’t Portland do this?
Projects over products: The mainstream media is obsessed with the idea that cool new bike products will be enough to create a biking revolution. (Hint: It won’t, only great bikeways will do that.)
3,000 car parking spaces for Nike: The sneaker giant announced a $1 billion (with a “b”) expansion in Beaverton that will come with 3,000 new parking spaces. I sure hope the City of Beaverton gets them to pay for excellent bikeways to and from the expanded campus.
No helmet needed: From Canada, some sensible talk about why it’s not always necessary to wear a helmet while biking.
Innovation over maintenance: Great NY Times opinion piece about the curse of pursuing new projects and “innovation” instead of making what we already have great. Bike advocates suffer from this too — always attracted to a new project instead of fixing gaps and making existing bikeways excellent.
Thank you to all our readers who sent in suggestions or flagged articles on social media.
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
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.
going carfree – fascinating! I’ve long wondered why those who currently live carfree are so invisible, all the while we as a society give thousands of dollars in subsidies and rebates and tax breaks to those who buy an electric car.
“One group of people asking these questions are the academics affiliated with the Demand Centre in the U.K. In one investigation, researchers examined the role of the car in 265 everyday activities”
“Barriers are also not always practical or economic – they can be social and cultural.”
The Island of Oahu ,from a transportation perspective, is paradise lost. As an island with high population density and perfect weather it could have been a car free paradise. But it has one of the most backward autocentric transportation systems imgaginable. Cycling is a sad afterthought, and the elevated light rail they have been planning and trying to implement for decades is stuck in a morass of corruption and failure. They have horrible traffic jams and no hope of improving their auto infrastructure. It seems par for the course that they should single out pedestrians for harsher distraction enforcement. I love Hawaii, my wife is from there, but whenever we go back ,the cars infesting the beautiful island make me sad.
Agreed. I will go back to every other island first before I step foot on Oahu. Sitting in car traffic because you have no other options for getting around is not my idea of a vacation.
Yep…that is why I left the island after studying transportation planning at UHm and working on the 1996 Bike Plan…I realized there was little future for progressive/ alternative transportation design/ ideas [outside of Waikiki tourist zones]…thus becoming a occupational “refugee” of sorts…
I realized that much of this disfunction was do to main issues then unique to Oah`u, back in the mid-90s:
– the crazy cost of housing created a situation where for many their car was their most comfortable personal space (AC, leather seats, stereo, no in-laws/ kids trouble) and thus became their most valuable asset and more intense expression of “self”;
– the failure of most neighbourhood public schools [especially where housing is “affordable”] causes much of the middle class to shuttle kids to far off private schools in-town;
– few families can exist on two full time jobs…so often a couple needs an extra “side job; and
– jobs are not spread where affordable housing is located.
All of the above drive up the miles driven and push many off on cycling to work and play…
Meh, I’ve sat in traffic here in Portland every bit as bad as Honolulu.
Yes, but at least in Portland, you have a few alternative options. Honolulu has minimal mass transit, and basically no bike infrastructure.
…and I am comparing todays Portland to Honolulu of 20 years ago…and yes the Interstate Bridge is a mess…
I enjoyed the Lance podcast for a few episodes, but he can hide his a@#hole tendencies for only so long and it got uninteresting.
His ‘cameo’ appearance in the movie “Tour de Pharmacy” is more entertaining.
I have been around the Nike campus at the end of the day and it is a little surprising how many SOVs you see leaving the campus. For a company founded on sport, there aren’t nearly as many muscle-powered commuters as I expected.
Also, an unfortunately large portion of Nikes new build out consists of cleverly disguised parking garages.
Do you mean that these new parking structures convert into affordable housing after work hours?
Or convert into mushroom farms in 20 years…once we pass peak [personal] car?
I think that after happy motoring is over in a few years these snazy parking garages will make dandy multilevel farmers markets to serve the citizens squatting in the old Nike buildings which are much better suited as dwellings. This will be a highly desirable dwelling location as the berm surrounding the campus will make a good fortification to protect the inhabitants from marauding bandits , grifters and busted property developers.
Nike is hip and hot, etc, etc. The type of business many cities would do about anything to have set up shop in their city. The company does a lot of good things too, for the community in addition to providing employment; donates product, helps by doing things like rebuilding basketball courts in neighborhoods, being a major sponsor of Portland’s bike share.
Nike though, still is very much locked into the same old model of business operation. In this respect, its physical impact on the environment and the community Beaverton and the surrounding areas of Washington County, is very visible. It’s world campus has a huge footprint on land that was almost entirely open land of treed meadows and wetlands before the company.
I don’t recall how many acres, but a lot. Jay St is one of the more visible examples of how the company regards open land. Up until, I think three years ago, the parking lots the company built on land to either side of Jay, were open land, some of which still can be seen from the street, beyond the parking lots, and from Jenkins on the south. With its determination to provide auto parking, why is this astonishingly successful and wealthy company, not at least providing for the auto parking it must think it needs, only through multi-story parking, either above or below ground? Nike’s use of huge areas of land for surface level parking, is very wasteful of natural land.
Nike, being a business, does need to accommodate the travel needs of its customers and employees, if the company wants to stay in business. Seems to me a fair question though…Does the company really need to support motor vehicle use to the extent that it does by availing such great amounts of motor vehicle parking on its own campus? All the vehicles parking on the campus, represent traffic that adds to more and more and congestion every year on roads surrounding the campus.
Nobody I know, wants Nike to leave Beaverton, but it would be very helpful if the company started to be a bit more circumspect about continuing to provide more parking for motor vehicles. As a means of doing away with the need for more car parking, and towards helping reduce traffic congestion it is contributing to by its employees driving to work, why is this company not doing more to encourage residency of its employees in housing within walking and biking distance of the campus?
“Nike is hip and hot, etc, etc.”
I don’t know. They do spend a lot of money to convince their publics that they are but I’m not so easily hornswoggled.
“Nike, being a business, does need to accommodate the travel needs of its customers and employees, if the company wants to stay in business.”
Or they could, you know, Just Do It; stop talking out of both sides of their mouths, that is, and resist the siren song of Car-head in their infrastructure decisions, and commit to building a car-free campus. How hard could it be?
The idea that without big parking lots they might not stay in business is hilarious.
The parking situation at Nike was always a source of contempt among employees. Nike appears to do all the right things: offers TriMet passes for employees (not contractors, though), operates free shuttle buses from MAX stations, and has a free bike share program. However, none of these actively discourages driving. Instead of building more parking, Nike should probably have just started charging market rate for the existing parking. That and fund protected cycling infrastructure surrounding their campus. I’m sure they could find the money, what with all the cash they save on all those corporate tax breaks the state keeps sending their way.
It appears the market rate for a Nike employee is free.
I wonder though — maybe Nike is required to add additional parking to account for the additional floor space. What are the parking minimums in Beaverton?
Nike is not in Beaverton though. The land their campus is on is conveniently unincorporated. Take a look at a map and note the hole where Nike is located.
Washington County has parking minimums. See section 413-7:
http://www.co.washington.or.us/lut/divisions/longrangeplanning/publications/upload/413.pdf
I’m not sure how you define the Nike campus in here, but as an example, “Industrial or research establishments, wholesale establishments, and industrial park” require 1.6 parking spaces for every 1000 sq ft. Nike is adding 1.3 million sq ft, which equates to 2080 parking spaces mandated by law.
Good sleuthing. I wonder, how OHSU has handled this sort of thing. My sense (from reading this blog) is that they have done a lot of innovative things that go in the other direction, or at least give that impression.
“Washington County has parking minimums. See section 413-7: …” dan a
Nike couldn’t simply cut the amount of parking it provides, without causing big problems to the surrounding neighborhoods for example. People working at the company would be scouring nearby neighborhood streets for places to park. Big companies like Nike, devising ways to eliminate employees’ need to park cars, would be a more satisfactory and effective way for the company to reduce the amount of parking needed.
One way this could happen, is if more of the company’s employees lived nearby within walking and biking distance from the campus. Which kind of gets back to an ongoing question: if the housing is there (in this case, some definitely is, and more is possible.), would the employees live there?
“Nike couldn’t simply cut the amount of parking it provides, without causing big problems to the surrounding neighborhoods for example.”
This is the same zero sum logic heard in the context of (new) apartment buildings going in without off street car parking provisions in Portland proper. Fortunately the actual world is more dynamic, Not reflexively requiring or building car parking is a key ingredient in moving away from this lose-lose screwed up situation we’ve inherited. Are other strategies helpful to realizing the goal? Sure. Sticks + Carrots. It is just too bad that our Car Head predisposes so many of us to reflexively dismiss the sticks, not because they have failed but because they offend our sense of entitlement.
OHSU was there before the laws were passed.
OHSU’s the location is absolutely idiоtic. Yeah, I know the land was donated to get it started, but this had boondoggle written on it from the very beginning.
They do the best they can but the only reason I like it is that I think riding up and down the hill is fun. Speaking of which, despite hopeless logistics for everything except bikes as well as good storage and shower options, hardly anyone rides up.
“Yeah, I know the land was donated to get it started”
… by my great-great grandfather, no less.
Not that you asked 😉
Was he part of that railroad deal? For those not familiar with the history, the land for OHSU was originally purchased to be a railyard — the map the folks were working from apparently did not indicate he topographical features… 😉
The hillside is and always has been steep and unstable — why anyone would want to put a hospital up there even on free land is beyond me.
Funny how Apple has hornswoggled everybody too. Enjoy those Macs and iPhones.
Didn’t see this before I posted. I rode by the Jobstrosity on Saturday, and the bike lane has literally disappeared on Homestead (eastbound). One fellow (several of us, not riding together) said, “No way they’ll get rid of this permanently!”. I chose to take the lane, which looked only about 10′ wide where they had marked the paint to go.
It reminded me of the early meetings we had on Levi’s Stadium planning when I first moved here and bike advocates warned that they wouldn’t be able to avoid closing the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail for events. “The San Francisco 49’ers aren’t made of money”, I remember Jim Mercurio saying, “and we can’t afford to spend $1.2M to build you a bike bridge.”
Reminds me, I should mount up the GoPro tonight and go see if they’ve added construction signage or otherwise made any ‘progress’.
Sounds exactly like Apple.
“Construction is expected to begin mid-2017, with a completion date set for 2018.”
I don’t believe the quoted article is accurate. Nike did not just announce the beginning of a construction project that’s been going on for a couple of years now.
Most of the roadways leading to Nike campus are unusable for the largest group of cyclists (interested but concerned) but the good news is that they are not unfixable.
Bike lanes protected by planter strips, curbs, or plastic wands along with plenty of signage and green paint are the way to go.
Yep. I used to work out at Nike and would take my bike on MAX.The roads out there suck. Merlo Road is unridable on a bike, as its bike lane is a glorified gutter. The road is in the process of being widened, however, and I hear it will be getting both a buffered bike lane as well as an off-street path. We’ll see how that pans out. Every other street surrounding Nike is also unridable unless you’re a racing type. Walker Road (ironically!) doesn’t even have sidewalks! It was supposed to be getting a protected bike lane, but there’s been zero word on that since this article was posted about it back in 2014. Desipise every street out there having plenty of room for protected cycleways, Washington County has chosen to prioritize cars, and it shows – from the endless traffic jams to the beg buttons that are clearly not timed for anyone on foot.
As of last year, the best way to get to Nike from MAX is the new path though the woods from the Beaverton Creek station, although crossing Jenkins is still a bit dodgy. Once you’re on campus, there is zero cycling infra, but you can usually weave around the drivers who are stuck in 5 mph traffic.
adam…geez, I don’t mean to sound like I’m beating up on you, but you wildly exaggerate the severity of riding the roads around Nike. In a positive sense, what exactly is it you think you’re accomplishing? Instead of trying to give good, helpful advice to people biking about how to safely travel the roads around the campus, it sounds like you’re throwing that all to the wind so you can bash away at the city and county’s roads for biking.
Traffic on the roads, 158th, Merlo, Jenkins, Walker and Murray, is heavy, but it’s not so bad as to make those roads insufficient for riding by anyone but a ‘racer type’. Walker has a decent main lane adjacent bike lane. So does Merlo. Part of 158th, and also Jenkins has one.
Use of all of these roads by people biking, regardless of the type of bike they’re riding and how fast they ride, does definitely require the use of effectively displayed turn signaling and careful advance route prep and planning for turns.
Neither the city or the county, created the traffic congestion problems surrounding Nike’s campus, or the relative difficulty in using the roads on foot and bike. Population and economic growth manifested in big companies like Nike, created these problems. City and County, are struggling with the task of catching up. Nike, I don’t think, is helping enough in this effort.
I’m not exaggerating. I’ve ridden on those roads before, and it’s not something I’d ever like to do again. Those five-lane roads are absolutely terrifying. The bike lanes are glorified gutters, cars and trucks are moving at 45 mph, and the monster intersections leave you wide open to right or left hooks. It’s not an environment conductive for safe and comfortable cycling. When I was working out there before the Nike Woods path was built, I’d ride up on the sidewalk.
I commute past NIKE with plenty of non-racer types. Perhaps you are just the outlier?
Well, considering that probably 99% of people in that area are driving, I’d say we’re both outliers.
That’s a different discussion. I find riding in Beaverton to be much better than Portland these days, including the roads around NIKE. It used to be the opposite for me.
“I’m not exaggerating. I’ve ridden on those roads before, and it’s not something I’d ever like to do again. Those five-lane roads are absolutely terrifying. …” adam
I’m going to venture to say I really believe that you don’t feel comfortable or safe, biking on roads around the Nike campus. The way you feel biking on those roads, is the thing that people need help overcoming in order to achieve more road share by people biking. In think perhaps one of the best things that could happen to improve the functionality of those roads, even in their present state, for all road users, would be for many more people to routinely be on those roads, riding.
And more people could be riding those roads, if they were to if they were to become good at using them, by way of techniques and procedures I touched on earlier. I’m not saying that riding among all the motor vehicles, or alongside them on the bike lane, is wonderful, because it’s not, but it’s definitely doable, even for slow traveling riders. Ability or need to ride at a high speed isn’t a requirement during rush hour, because motor vehicle traffic is congested to the point of stop and go.
It’s going to be years, if ever, before this part of Beaverton has the idealized European bike infrastructure that some people idolize. People in our area have got to become good at using the gradually improving bike infrastructure we have now, if biking is ever to have the chance of displaying to the general public, what a benefit towards dealing with traffic congestion, the provision of better bike infrastructure can be. .
You’ve fallen into the usual trap of thinking that training/education will get more people riding. It won’t and never will. Quality infrastructure is really the only thing that can get more people riding. We’ve seen this in other cities and countries. In none of the oft-cited bike-friendy cities has the training/education angle ever worked, and there is no reason to think it will work in Beaverton.
Ideas about what constitute “…Quality infrastructure…”, vary widely. Your idea of what this is, if I gather correctly from references you make from time to time about what you consider this to be…is physically or distance separated bike ways, or cycle tracks, and other similar infrastructure referred to by various names.
From a perspective of what is ideal infrastructure for biking for practical travel purposes; commuting, shopping, etc, that type could probably do a fair bit to help some people feel better about biking. From a perspective of what is practical and doable, it seems to me that the opportunities for providing that type of infrastructure is limited…in Portland and in cities in neighboring Washington County, including Beaverton, Tigard, Hillsboro and so on.
The fact is, I’ve not said as you’ve seem to be suggesting I have, that “…that training/education will get more people riding. …”. I haven’t said anything like that. What I did write, was that it seems to me your description of the roads around the Nike campus being unsuitable for riding except for “racer types”, to be highly exaggerated.
I wrote that the conditions for riding on those roads are less than ideal, but manageable, if…people are provided with help and encouragement in acquiring good, effective skills for riding in the kind of traffic that occurs regularly on those roads. I’d like it if this kind of help would result in more people riding on those roads and others, but I don’t know that this kind of help would be a major factor in increasing bike travel mode share.
Still…I don’t see there being much to lose by having an upbeat attitude and an enthusiastic, supportive willingness to help people familiarize themselves with basic road use procedures they can easily avail themselves of the opportunity have their use of a bike on busy roads be reasonably safe and manageable.
I fail to see how what you suggest is not “training/education”.
At any rate, the problem is we keep asking cyclists what kind of cycling infrastructure they want. We instead need to be asking non-cyclists what kind of infrastructure would get them to ride. You ask any Nike-area cyclist who is already comfortable with sh!tty bike lanes, and of course they say that they’re fine. If only we could convince people to use sh!tty infra, all would be well!
Infrastructure is relevant, but it’s hardly the only major factor. Asking non-cyclists what keeps them off the roads is important, but the stated reasons for behavior and the actual reasons for behavior can be different things entirely.
I cannot help but notice that our bike infrastructure can be busy under primo conditions — i.e. it must be judged safe enough. However, it is lightly used overall. Even on Better Naito which I ride every weekday has little bicycle traffic (thankfully), I see a lot more cars than bikes even though the cars are often going nowhere.
What gets people riding is thinking they want to be riding. Few people have an actual goal of being on a bike. This means getting messy, not being able to get where they’re going efficiently, and being uncomfortable are not sacrifices they’re willing to make — particularly since the consistent message on this blog is that cycling is some kind of death defying battle.
Why on earth would anyone ride if it were really like that? I ride virtually every day, but I’d quit in a heartbeat if I actually believed what I read here.
“This means getting messy, not being able to get where they’re going efficiently, and being uncomfortable ”
Are you talking about driving?
Sitting in a hot car, idling in traffic with hundreds of other metal boxes giving off heat and glare is not my idea of comfort or efficiency. Last summer on one of the over 90F days I hauled lumber over and around Mt. Tabor with my bike. I was surprised how much more comfortable I was doing that, than I had been the day before sitting in a stuffy car on I-205.
These are all fixable with proper infrastructure, save for maybe the messy part (though what respectable Portlander doesn’t already have a good rain jacket anyway?) The goal should be to remove as many barriers to cycling as possible. Greenways that zig-zag and take you blocks out of the way aren’t going to cut it. Cars get all the most direct routes, so we should also make sure bikes get direct access as well. Comfort is a function of the amount of separation from motor traffic, again is totally fixable with good cycling facilities.
I can pretty much guarantee that our cycling rates would skyrocket if we built protected facilities on all major thoroughfares (Williams, Hawthorne, Division, 82nd, etc.). People will be willing to put up with getting a little wet if they also didn’t have to worry about getting lost on a zigzag greenway or being clobbered by an inattentive driver.
The messy thing is a big deal for many people — especially those in professional settings and especially for women. A lot of people gripe about walking distances measured in feet when they’re in the elements. They make a big deal of walking from a building to their car or another building.
Likewise, people aren’t losing time going a couple blocks out of their way on bikes. It’s moving along at low speed that won’t get you anywhere in a reasonable amount of time — don’t forget you have to make it back. There are traffic controls and other things that slow you down. Only a few paths even have the potential to hug a limited access road or river. And those are MUPs, so you can’t ride fast on them. Most people don’t have and won’t realistically get the level of fitness it takes to cover distance quickly by bike anyway.
Cycling works great in crowded places where you have short distances, mild weather, and individuals who don’t need to lug much stuff. Beyond that, it’s a hard sell for most people.
I do think that more people might ride if the cycling infrastructure were better along some of the routes you mention. But it would still be low. To give some examples of why weather is so important, the Esplanade, Waterfront, Springwater trail, Willamette Greenway, and Better Naito all see a decent amount of use right now (though they’re hardly packed). And they should, being super high profile projects near the core. When it’s cold and wet, they will all be desolate. I ride some major bikeways myself, such as Interstate. That also gets very empty of bikes when the weather is bad. Even at times like now, the number of cyclists out there is low.
When I ride home late at night, I often see *zero* cyclists even though I go miles and see plenty of cars. BTW, I never ever ride separated bike infrastructure at those times because I like riding through ambush points even less than I like sharing the road with drunks.
Portland bike infrastructure is still pretty lively in the winter months. If you want to see desolation, try riding Chicago’s Lake Front Trail in the dead of winter when it’s snowing and the wind is blowing at 40 mph.
Weather is more of an impediment in Chicago than it is here. What passes for hot, cold, rainy, humid, snowy, thunderstorms, etc. would make people in most parts of the country chuckle. It’s like listening to someone from Florida talk about hills…
I would not describe Portland bike infrastructure as lively during the winter. Rather, I would say there is a a small percentage of riders that go out in anything. I suspect this group is not especially infrastructure sensitive. Which is good, because if the requirement really is for people to have point to point infrastructure before they can start modest rides, we’ll be waiting a very long time before many people start cycling.
“…I fail to see how what you suggest is not “training/education”. …” adam
I was referring to the correlation you’re drawing between training-education, and your dismissal of the idea this could help to increase the number of people that might accordingly decide to ride. There’s no guarantee that more people would decide to ride. It can’t hurt though, to show to them they could possibly manage while riding, traffic that they’re presently uneasy and even afraid with.
You look at the infrastructure for biking on the roads mentioned, in such unnecessarily negative terms. I guess I’m not seeing what good you think describing the bike lanes this way, is supposed to be doing. Maybe you’re thinking if you just keep it up, some benevolent civic minded giant will kick down a huge pot of money to be used to install a complete, fully separated system of bike lanes throughout the cities of the tri-county area. Even if something like that were to happen, it’s going to years from now before it’s realized. Meanwhile, the down in the mouth, poor me, negativity, can’t be having people that like listening to that sort of thing, feel encouraged about deciding whether or not to try riding.
Without a lot of problems, there are ‘non-racer types’ riding these roads. I see them on Nike bikes when I’m in the area. In central Beaverton, I see people riding all kinds of funky junky bikes, not racing style bikes. Not great at using the road, but they’re there. The farmer’s market has opened up more people’s use of bikes with trailers, going down Hall Blvd north.
Because I cannot in good faith recommend that anyone ride in those inadequate bike lanes. They are dangerous or at the very least scary and uncomfortable. The likely outcome will be they will try it once and the experience will be so bad that they will never ride again. What person who is accustomed to driving in a personal vehicle would want to switch to riding in a gutter lane unless they were really dedicated to cycling – in which case they wouldn’t need the convincing.
In practice, I generally do not recommend cycling in Portland to my friends or colleagues. The only people who regularly ride in this town do it because they really want to. Biketown is helping change that a bit, but we really need high-quality infrastructure to get to the numbers PBOT wants.
Pete…hope you don’t mind that I’ve copied and pasted your comment (in response to one of adam’s), that seems to have missed been misplaced:
” “The likely outcome will be they will try it once and the experience will be so bad that they will never ride again. What person who is accustomed to driving in a personal vehicle would want to switch to riding in a gutter lane unless they were really dedicated to cycling – in which case they wouldn’t need the convincing.” adam
Yeah, that’s a bit dramatic. I rode in those lanes long before I’d consider myself ‘dedicated to cycling’, simply because they were an easy way to get to work and get some exercise and not be stuck in Beaverton traffic (which I can only imagine has gotten way worse).
Again, I didn’t get into bike commuting because I liked bicycling, I grew to love bicycling because I decided to try bike commuting, and it felt good. Yes, even there in Beaverton and Tigard and Hellsboro. Most bike lanes up there are a walk in the park compared to where I ride now, but maybe they taught me to become comfortable biking near cars… who knows.
My wife was scared of riding near traffic, but now she’s a daily bike commuter – we even just sold her car. The employee lot at her hospital was under construction and she got so frustrated trying to park that she decided to try it. She started out with a circuitous path on quiet roads, but the more she’s been riding the more comfortable she is on higher-speed roads, using her mirror and timing gaps, signalling, and she’s slowly getting more confident with strategically taking the lane (which she still thinks I do a little too much, especially when we’re on the tandem…).
Now, 99 in Tigard is a different story… you must think K’Tesh is the Man of Steel! ” Pete
I like to think the following excerpt (link) from my earlier comment here: https://bikeportland.org/2017/07/24/the-monday-roundup-lance-gentrification-via-bike-share-family-biking-and-more-235784#comment-6817876 is also relevant to road riding conditions typical to the roads around Nike, and to what you describe as your wife’s experience:
“…The thing I think people need to be shown, is that there is a way, compliant with the law, to effectively manage the traffic while riding. Stick your arm out for a turn, and someone driving is going to slow down and let the person rding make the turn, lane transition, whatever. Not every person driving will do this, but many will. So a certain amount of patience, concentration and determination is involved. When people riding just give up, get nervous and flustered, and don’t even try to use the road, that can send a wrong message to other road users. And has…it seems to me.” wsbob
The road conditions for riding between Central Beaverton, some of its neighborhoods and Nike, and Aloha and Nike, aren’t that bad. With care, definitely rideable for people not particularly speedy on a bike. The potential for some people taking advantage of this though, can be cancelled out if they’re willing to accept doom and gloom descriptions of the conditions, issued by people ticked about there not being perfect for biking infrastructure on every main route road.
Correction: “Pete…hope you don’t mind that I’ve copied and pasted your comment (in response to one of adam’s), that seems to have been misplaced: …” wsbob
I thought Murray was a piece of cake. Wide, clean, marked bike lanes that you Oregonian drivers tend to stay out of. A little bit of a bump that some might call a “hill”. Only problem I had on it was where the St. Mary’s MUP forced you to unexpectedly ride in traffic or jump on the sidewalk, but I understand they just fixed that. Jenkins has sketchy spots, but none of those roads I’d call suicidal, and encountered plenty of ‘interested but concerned’ types on a typical morning there (yes, some riding on sidewalks in places like SW Hall, etc).
I second Brian, I’d take riding in the Beav over short city blocks in Portland with people trying to enter and leave parking spots and stop signs and pedestrians adding to the mix. But I’m a suburbanite, I guess. (I completely disagree with the frequent comments here that living in the suburbs requires driving – quite the contrary, in my experiences).
Oh well, to each our own! I’d rather argue with you over pros and cons of protected bike lanes instead of some jackass who says we don’t pay for roads.
I actually prefer riding out in Hillsboro vs. Beaverton because pretty much every road in Hillsboro has decently wide sidewalks. Beaverton is far more dodgy in that regard. Hillsboro also has a decent network of off-street paths, though I wouldn’t want to ride them at night. The West Side Trail near Nike is nice because it runs along the road in places and feel’s almost Dutch!
Yes, I know the West Side Trail near Nike is Beaverton… I forgot to mention that I think Beaverton has decent paths as well. Sure, maybe they’re for recreation, but if I can include part of a path in a commute route, then I’m more likely to ride somewhere.
I bike commuted year round on those roads for decades – to Tektronix, Nike, and Intel Ronler Acres. While I’d welcome actual bike lanes, I didn’t ever feel in danger around the Nike campus. We’d also ride between Tek 58 (Nike has the 2nd floor) and the main campus all the time for meetings; again, not a big deal.
Note: am westbound/pm eastbound
I love heavy/stopped traffic; ever so easy to do those left turns.
Now, SW Walker Rd, back in 1978 – I rode out to Tek Walker Rd (now the Capital Center), and was sufficiently terrified that I bought my first bike helmet. And didn’t try the bike commute thing again until we moved to the main campus.
(See also: woman, contractor, no access to showers, and I managed just fine)
“Neither the city or the county, created the traffic congestion problems surrounding Nike’s campus, or the relative difficulty in using the roads on foot and bike.”
Huh? The city and county are not responsible for the 45mph speed limits?
ODOT sets speed limits. The City and county are responsible for the other nonesense
The city and county are certainly responsible for parking minimums that create huge surface lots, further distancing humans from the places they’d like to go. For selling us ‘road improvements’ that turn 2-lane roads into de facto highways. For leaving major connecting roads without sidewalks or bike lanes. For a policy that dictates that they don’t paint crosswalks, or install curb cuts to connect MUPs. For failing to fund their neighborhood greenway program. For failing to step away from their 1970s playbook and try some new ideas. Etc.
It’s not posted speed limits that I would think are major contributors to road congestion. At least not on the scale that population and economic growth are, and also, local, state and federal government’s procedures and philosophies for accommodating the resulting travel needs of people.
I think planners are provided with long term forecasts of such things as the travel needs they need to build for, but things can happen in the meantime; rate of growth can exceed the capacity of road projects that have been planned and that are in the process of being built. Business and the real estate market, I think, are big factors too in terms of supplying roads with the amenities necessary to adequately provide for a given area’s travel needs.
The housing just west of the Nike campus’s west bordering street of 158th is an example of all of this for me. Between Baseline and the light rail tracks maybe a 1000′ feet to the south, all of that housing is less than maybe 20 years old. Some brand new, is being built now, right on 158th. With Fred’s a quarter mile to the north, and Nike literally across the street, this could be a very walkable-bike-able neighborhood. Unfortunately, unless the new MUP (that’s what I’m hearing it will be.) on the east side of 158th that’s being built now, is supremely wonderful for walking and biking (hard to imagine with the heavy volume of motor vehicle traffic regularly occurring seven days a week.)…there’s really no great infrastructure for residents of this neighborhood to walk or bike Fred’s for the basics.
There’s the segment of the Westside Trail, but c’mon….that segment is hilly, and it’s a recreational trail, heavily used by people for recreation. I find it hard to believe it can be good for people that are in a hurry to get home from work, or whom are off on a trip for groceries, etc. There is a fair but roundabout way to get to Fred’s from this neighborhood, by zagging to the west across Baseline to 166th and through some other streets in that neighborhood (pull out your google map finder.), but how many people are going to do that very soon, if they can just jump in the car and drive instead?
That segment of the West Side Trail is really nice because it runs along the roadway, rather than though the woods. I don’t mind the hills so much because it’s better than 45 mph motor traffic. I’m really looking forward to the path along 158th to the Merlo MAX! I think it will make commuting to Nike’s west campus much easier.
Ironically, commuting those roads you mentioned is pretty much what made me into a ‘racer type’.
Good for you! For me, being sleek and fast on a fine tuned racing style bike is a great feeling…and this has a practical function too. Of course, some people react the exact opposite way, refusing to ride roads on which the traffic presents challenging conditions for riding.
The thing I think people need to be shown, is that there is a way, compliant with the law, to effectively manage the traffic while riding. Stick your arm out for a turn, and someone driving is going to slow down and let the person rding make the turn, lane transition, whatever. Not every person driving will do this, but many will. So a certain amount of patience, concentration and determination is involved. When people riding just give up, get nervous and flustered, and don’t even try to use the road, that can send a wrong message to other road users. And has…it seems to me.
Re: bicycles needing to provide feedback to self-driving cars.
I’m sorry, I’m not buying a new bike or modifying my existing fleet to feed data to your poorly-designed self-driving car. If your technology can’t effectively operate around cyclists, it is not ready for the real world.
chris…I don’t know if your read the story, but here’s the link again: http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/07/24/537746346/bikes-may-have-to-talk-to-self-driving-cars-for-safetys-sake
It’s kind of an odd story, made so partly by some things about the statements of the several people interviewed. Anyway…the story is simply about ongoing tech R&D towards the objective of autonomous motor vehicles eventually being able to more effectively and safely anticipate the movement of bikes being used for travel. That’s where the ‘bikes talking to cars’ idea comes in. This isn’t a ‘now’ thing, but a ‘maybe someday’ thing.
I see that you read the article, but did you read between the lines?
This is all part of an effort to push the burden of responsibility onto other road users. Autonomous vehicles will be on the road, and they will hit and kill cyclists and pedestrians at some point. Will society blame the cars for not being advanced enough, or the pedestrians/cyclists for not having adequate technology on board? Is there a point in the future where all cyclists and pedestrians will be required by law to carry technology that will talk to autonomous vehicles to “keep them safe”? The helmet debate and bicycle licensing discussions come to mind…
I wouldn’t read the pessimistic, paranoid perspective into the lines that you seem to have done. Digital communication between vehicles being used on the road, is pioneering technology being developed. From my perspective, vulnerable road users whether they’re walking, biking, skateboarding etc, can benefit from all the help they can get.
If eventually, a cell phone app could function to advise motor vehicle road users’ vehicles of the presence on the road of vulnerable road users, with the help of devices carried by vulnerable road users, I think that could hold the potential for much greater safety in using the road than often is the case today.
The day that happens could be many years off, especially considering Oregon is a state in which people riding bikes aren’t legally required to display on their bikes, something so simple as a tail light for enhanced visibility of themselves to other road users.
“If eventually, a cell phone app could function to advise motor vehicle road users’ vehicles of the presence on the road of vulnerable road users, with the help of devices carried by vulnerable road users, I think that could hold the potential for much greater safety in using the road than often is the case today.”
For real?
I can’t see any risks to turning cell phones into safety equipment in motor vehicles. Moral hazard, anyone?
What the story suggests, is that possibly some day, bike location and movement data info provided to autonomous motor vehicle systems, would be carried in something like a cell phone device mounted on a bike. In other words, reference to ‘cell phone’ in that story, does not imply people driving and riding bikes, actively talking on their cell phones while in motion.
Exactly. Go far enough where autos are required to have technology to read these things, and it makes it safe to cycle in areas that would otherwise be too dangerous that you can’t cycle in now.
This is not a new concept. Those who pilot small aircraft and boats need equipment to be visible to bigger craft in some areas.
I live in one of the richest, most developed countries in the world. We have the means and the technology to eliminate most accidental deaths, yet we see 40,000+ killed every year on our roads. Please excuse me for being a pessimist when it comes to this topic.
Because we couldn’t possibly just get drivers to slow down or limit auto access to pedestrian-heavy areas. That would be too easy.
“Digital communication between vehicles being used on the road, is pioneering technology being developed.”
Your tax dollars at work!
https://www.its.dot.gov/research_archives/safety/v2v_comm_progress.htm
Maybe a $15 fee on every transponder installed, so that motorists ‘have a seat at the table’ regarding where my income tax is going?
That ‘modern technology’. Watching cbs or abc evening news today…rarely do because it’s so junky, I caught part of one of the throwaway items. Sounds like fake news. I should do a web search to check on it. Story was, some company has persuaded employees to have chips surgically implanted under their skin, so they can just wave their wrist over a skanner to buy snacks or whatever. Unlock doors? Don’t know, didn’t catch the details on the short segment. There was video.
…illogical extension of this, is vulnerable road users could have chips implanted so smart cars could more readily detect them so as to more effectively avoid colliding with them on the road. How soon should little johnny have his chip implanted, so we know he’s got a better chance of being safe when he’s playing ball out in the front yard and forgets to check for motor vehicle traffic as he chases after a stray ball rolling out into the street?
Non-sequitur… speaking of little Johnny playing near the street, I’m just blown away by car commercials these days. Mercedes has an ad where little kids are playing, chalking sidewalks, ball with dad in the front yard, jax, etc. The comes this big group of red cars racing into the residential area revving their engines and everyone stops and looks at them in awe. Reminded me of this Audi commercial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F6ByueIrx0.
Also, little Johnny’s chip will be hacked by the time he reaches puberty, guaranteed.
This morning I had a pedestrian yell at me because I stopped to let him cross the street. Pretty weird.
I was heading downhill on Salmon by the MAC club, and there is a frequently-used crosswalk there, where I often need to stop. As I approached, a man wandered into the crosswalk while looking downhill and away from me. He stood there for a bit, about 5 feet into the crosswalk, watching cars come up the road towards him and slowing down, as if expecting him to cross. Eventually it was just me and him on the road, with him still facing away from me. I asked, “Are you crossing the street?” He flung up his arms and yelled, “You are NOT waiting for me to cross?!” I said, “Well, you’re standing in the cross walk.” And then he yelled out something like, “Jesus Christ, you have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!” So I asked him again, “Are you crossing the street?” He shook his head and walked out of the road, muttering something about how ridiculous this all was, and then I proceeded down the road.
When I encounter bizarre situations of that flavor I usually just invite the person to call the police if they have a problem.
Maybe it was part of an elaborate sting operation to try & catch cyclists who don’t stop for people in the crosswalk. Never can tell.
In your description, it sounds like the drivers weren’t stopping.
Wouldn’t matter if one was fishing for cyclists.
That particular crosswalk is the only one I have ever encountered where the pedestrians feel comfortable enough to walk right out into traffic without looking. I’m not saying that’s bad, but I wonder what it is about that spot? The flashing lights? The clientele? The relatively slow speeds of cars? The design of the road?
Should say: “That particular crosswalk is the only one I have ever encountered where the pedestrians -consistently- feel comfortable enough to walk right out into traffic without looking.”
Privledge.
That’s funny, because I have peds top when they see me coming and look surprised when I stop there. I usually say something to the effect of – “Well, I’ve got a red light down there anyway” and point to the read light 200ft away at 18th.
He was just waiting for his Uber.
Late for a meeting, and disgusted at the idea of having to talk to a member of the “unwashed masses” riding a bicycle by his athletic club.
My Heavens, what is this rifraf doing riding down the clubs promenade, doesn’t he know this is road is really only for members. I will have to call the valet and have him fix this.
No helmet needed: The linked reaction piece at the bottom of the shifter article and comments are worth reading too. Almost all are well thought out and informative. The piece about Tara Goddard’s new research into driver attitudes towards cyclists isn’t surprising but is pretty disappointing.
Washington’s cell phone rule doesn’t mean anything because traffic infractions are not enforced in Washington.
Are they enforced here?
Irrelevant – The article is regarding a “New distracted driving law in effect in Washington”.
If we’re being nit-picky, your statement is untrue.
Ok nitpicker, in what way is the subject of the article “New distracted driving law in effect in Washington” about laws of any kind in any state other than washington, per your inquiry regarding the enforcement of laws in oregon?
You’re really interested in having a back & forth regarding whether or not traffic infractions are enforced in the state of Washington and how that may or may not be relevant to neighboring states? Sorry, that discussion doesn’t interest me at all. I’m pretty sure traffic infractions are indeed enforced in Washington, at least sometimes.
I’m pretty sure no one has ever received a traffic ticket in Washington, in its entire history as a state. I mean, I haven’t personally received one. If we extrapolate that to the rest of the population…
You’re really interested in having a back & forth regarding whether or not an article regarding a “New distracted driving law in effect in Washington” has anything to do with whether or not specific laws are enforced in Oregon. The article has nothing to do with laws in Oregon, laws specific to Washington applying in Oregon, or the enforcement thereof. Feel free to argue otherwise, you clearly have enough free time to do so.
I know, weird right? Why would anyone mention Oregon in a BikePortland post??
…like in most states, Oregon etc…correct?
Irrelevant – The article is regarding a “New distracted driving law in effect in Washington”.
calling Lance’s audience “massive” is a bit of exaggeration. His videos may have gotten a few thousand hits at most. He’s still an ass and should be no where near the sport. He’s also really boring to listen to so I doubt he’s got much of a future in broadcasting whatsoever.
Except all his doping pals got to stick around cycling. Lance received the additional ay-hole penalty.
bike helmet story: https://www.marketplace.org/2017/07/19/business/can-better-designed-bike-helmet-make-people-safer-road
The idea of the creator of the featured new bike helmet, is that more people that currently don’t use bike helmets while riding, would use bike helmets for riding, if the helmets looked differently than what else is available on the market. Creator, Gloria Hwang, likes old school helmet aesthetics; something like race car drivers from the early sixties may have used. The writer references Steve McQueen.
I don’t know that I think Hwang has a very keen sense of the market for bike helmets. There already are some decent, even good evocations of nostalgia aesthetic helmets, like Nutcase for one. People seem to like what that company does. I still like Bell’s more aerodynamic styling from some years back…the Bell Solar…which consumer product safety groups gave the thumbs down, leading to more rounded helmet designs that theoretically are less inclined to prevent head roll leading to a neck injury in a crash.
The higher tek evolved double liner MIPS system seems to be gaining popularity too. More of them available in shops now. The company Scott, has some good looking helmets recently, expensive. To me, they evoke some kind of spacey look. And then, there’s the Lumos helmet, with its innovative lighting, turn signal and brake light system, which I try keep ears open for news of. Never have seen anyone around here, using one. Company apparently still in business and increasing production. Started out with a kickstarter campaign, as did Huang’s helmet idea. She’s raised 250K.
I suspect that people don’t wear helmets because they mess up peoples’ hair, they’re uncomfortable, and a pain to manage.
It seems like every time someone is trying to figure out how to get more people to wear helmets, they focus on styling. Solutions like these, air free tires, etc. feel like they come from people who ride little to none themselves.
These unvented buckets will cause people to overheat quickly in all but the mildest conditions and lowest levels of exertion, hardly an incentive to use them.
I think that the use of a bike helmet imposes limitations on people’s options for what they can do with their hair, definitely is a factor in their deciding whether or not to wear a helmet. Wearing a bike helmet is definitely going to mash down any teased, puffed out, bouffant things people do with their hair. Seems like dreds, at least any with much thickness, would make helmet use near impossible. Thick hair presents a challenge, especially lots of it. It has to be washed, or should be. Takes a lot of time.
For wearing a helmet, short hair, whether thin or thick, is probably the easiest to deal with. I have thick, bushy hair. It gets very uncomfortable for me unless its fairly short, so I’ve never let it grow long, like a beatle cut, or shoulder length. So on that count, wearing a bike helmet has been easy and comfortable for me. I understand this is not a universal experience. If it’s practical for them to do so, and people can comfortably and wear a bike helmet while riding, I think it’s great if they do. If bike helmets don’t work out for them, that’s fine too, though hopefully they are aware of the lack of impact protection they’re missing by not using one, and ride accordingly.
BikeSnobNYC has a good write up about the “bikes should communicate wth self-driving cars” article. Spoiler: he thinks it’s BS. As do I.
You can’t take the Beaverton out of Nike.
As an expert on languages, I just had to note that in English there is no such word as “Latina.” In English, the word “Latino” can refer to both male and female individuals. The meaning of Latino in its language of origin–in this case, Spanish–is completely irrelevant as to its meaning in English. A similar example would be that the word “deception” comes from French, but it means something very different in French than in English.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Latina
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/latina?s=t
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latina#English
I took another look at the legislative revisions for the distracted driving law and how it will effect bicyclists in WA State, my initial comments would be:
– bicyclists riding traditional bikes should be able to continue to eat energy bars, talk on a phone, or read maps on their handlebar mounted smart phones – so long as 1 hand remains on a handlebar, as the legislation expressly uses the terms “driver” and “motorized vehicle”;
– but those bicyclists riding motorized bicycles (electric and “whizzer’ style) would likely risk being ticketed under the motorized portion of the law and additionally the use of a motor would make a bicyclist an “operator” included under the definition of a “driver”; and
– bicyclists pedalling larger commercial freight bicycles (3 or 4 wheels) and using a powered motor would likely NOT be protected under the “commercial” uses of communication devices due to how the law defines commercial vehicles (size and weight) and that the operator has a commercial operators permit (CDL, etc.)…assuming local PD were to be aware of these details AND chose to use such an enforcement “tool”.
Amen. I’m pretty unconscious about my appearance in cycling clothes and really started to appreciate my racer-like helmet about seven years ago when, descending a long grade in central Washington, a couple of yellow jackets blew through my Specialized S Works hat without getting stuck to sting me as has happened a number of times before. I just don’t get the logic in riding an unvented Wehrmacht-looking helmet so that you don’t look like “some weird bike rider.”
Venting aside, if you ride in a horizontal position much it’s worth paying extra to have a really light helmet. I bought a Giro Aeon for ~$200 at WBW a few years ago and have never regretted it. It weighs less than half of what a size medium Nutcase weighs, which is a huge difference when your head is sticking out horizontally from your body.
The best! I just got one for my wife from a local cyclist on eBay for $129, and she absolutely loves it. I actually just bought my third one for $65… it’s an older “Livestrong”. For some reason they don’t seem to fly off shelves anymore (plus I take Small so probably an outlier in size), but the stickers peel right off, and the black and yellow matches my Masi Evo perfectly. (I’ve shattered two in previous crashes, so I’m confident they do their job just fine for their weight and breathability).
My Aeon is so light that I rode 15 miles to work once without it and didn’t realize that it was missing from my head until I got there.
Downside of all that venting is when you’re screaming down a 40-MPH descent, it sounds like a truck is about to mow over you! (That’s what the mirror’s for tho…).
Light weight for bike helmets is kind of nice, alright. Definitely an individual decision about how important it is to have a helmet that’s comparatively lighter than others.
I decided to find out the weights for a few helmets, I’m thinking of: Giro Aeon, approx 200 bucks, 231g/7.5 oz. Bell Solar, approx 30 bucks, 294g/10.3 oz. Lumos, approx 199 bucks,440g/15.5 oz
From a pic of it, I could see easily that the Aeon has quite a lot bigger vent openings than my Solar. Not a problem for me, because my head doesn’t tend to overheat at all while wearing a bike helmet. With what he says is his inclined to overheat head while wearing any kind of bike helmet, the Aeon might be one of those that works best for John Lascurrettes.
The Lumos, for those that don’t recall, is one of the kickstarter supported illuminated helmet projects. Twice as heavy as the Aeon. Still under a pound though. An additional 8 oz for all the lights and the battery. A deal breaker for some people for the type of riding they do. That additional weigh may not…be a big deal for other people, especially considering how some people are comfortable attaching all kinds of stuff…go–pro cameras, lights, toys…to their bike helmets.
Don’t mean to be pitching the Lumos, but I’m excited to mention that I saw one first hand this last week. The Bike Gallery is carrying it. Staff gave a little demo. It’s worth a look. A very interesting concept realized, utilizing modern technology.
Nicely designed, well constructed. Front LED display looks quite visible. I’d like to see one in use on the street at night. Decent back light illumination. I have to be quite skeptical about the potential effectiveness on the road of turn signals that are as close to each other as they have to be, mounted to a bike helmet. The brake light? I’d have to see it in use. By the way…just one size, and its big. Trust me, if you’ve got a big cranium (I sort of do.), this helmet is probably going to fit it. People with smaller heads are going to have to use a bunch of pads to get it to fit right, I think.
Do we know the percentages of Nike HQ employees who commute by car, carpool, MAX/bus, bike, etc? A 2015 BP story said 78% drive alone, 6% use transit, 3% bike or walk. Don’t know if that has changed.
With acres of free parking, subsidized gasoline, and preferential routes, it’s pretty tempting to drive alone.
It would be tempting to bike. One of the advantages of cycling is that the parking is usually far, far more convenient.
I can only think of one place I regularly go where bike parking is more convenient than car parking: Western Bike Works. I can roll inside the shop and park near the front counter. Other than that, I don’t think lugging along a U-lock and locking up outside (where my light/pump/computer/tool bag/seat/front wheel can be stolen) is more convenient than car parking.
That is one thing I wish people would advocate for — more secure bike parking. There are secure rack systems that would not require people to carry U-locks that literally weigh as much as their frames.
I ride a different bike if I need to lock up. Just so happens I need to do that today since I have to work at a different site than normal today and then check in with a coworker’s cats. Unfortunately, there’s no way to leave stuff on bikes or unsecured wheels unless bike lockers could be provided. Why this can’t be done here is beyond me. The other places I commuted to before I came to PDX had them.
I actually negotiate my cycling habit when I get a job. I get to keep my bike in the building, same with the previous job where they had a no bikes in the building policy that was actively enforced against everyone except me.
One of the reasons I shop at WBW is their indoor bike rack. I frequently stop in on the way home from work, and I don’t stop anywhere else because I never carry a lock with me. At work, I’m able to park in the Lloyd Cycle Station where I keep a U-lock stashed, and I used a bike locker before that ($15/month, but worth it to me). I would happily pay for bike locker storage anywhere that I currently shop, and would go out of my way to frequent those businesses.
I have a folding bike and just bring it inside with me wherever I go. Most jobs I’ve had in Portland have indoor bike parking, but the ones that don’t, I just tuck my bike under my desk. I will also bring it in with me to bars, restaurants, doctor appointments, etc. I’ve got a cover to hide the fact that it’s a bicycle, but so far haven’t had to use it. It’s also super easy to bring on the train or bus. I can’t really overstate how transformative getting a folding bike has been for me – it removes a fair amount of the hassles of cycling – theft, combining with public transport, etc.
I remember recalling from someone formerly commenting here somewhat regularly, and that worked at Nike for awhile, having said the company allowed people to park their bikes inside the buildings.
Nike was a big client of ours when I worked at a consulting firm in Beaverton. Lots of the people we worked with biked there. One of the project managers was hit by a car on his way to a meeting with us one morning, but he was OK, and he admitted that he had tried to take a shortcut across traffic that in retrospect wasn’t a smart decision.
I don’t recall if they had a dedicated bike room, but there was certainly a good number of folks we knew to bike there, so they must have had someplace secure to store them. (Nike also was a big sponsor of Cycle Oregon and hosted many launch parties back when I was there, ~2004 or so).
Yes, this is true. Many people park their bikes in entry areas or lean them up against their desk.
Back when I was shoe testing, and not working at Nike, I wondered why all the bike racks were so empty. A few years later, when I was contracting there, I found out why. As long as the bike isn’t blocking an aisle, you can park it there. My bike was next to my desk. When I was at meetings on the main campus, I could leave the bike in the lobby or under the stairs, or outside the meeting room of any building, UNLOCKED, and not worry about it. Folks had bikes stashed everywhere.
John…thanks for digging up the reference. Are you familiar with the caliber of housing in the neighborhoods surrounding the Nike campus? Particularly the one just west of 158th that I’ve mentioned elsewhere in this discussion? I don’t know much about who works at the Nike campus, or what the range of pay or salary is. I wonder how many of the people working at the campus, would seriously consider living in one of those neighborhoods virtually walking or biking distance from the campus.
I used to live in a house less than a mile north of Nike. When we listed our house, we included a map with a route drawn on it to show how close it was. I don’t think any of the potential buyers were Nike employees, but it was worth a shot. Zillow shows homes are $200K to $500K in that neighborhood.
How is it that Hwang was able to attract 250K in kickstart pledges for her helmet design, is what I wonder. Established manufacturers of bike helmets can put a lot of money towards R&D, and explore design innovations like MIPS, different materials for lightness and still retain helmet impact absorption performance. I don’t think a bike helmet with a shell having no ventilation would work for me, unless such a helmet had an alternate means of venting heat and perspiration from the noggin. Maybe from the lower edge somehow.
Maybe the market Hwang has in mind, are people whose rides don’t involve very strenuous exertion. Just cruisin’ around the block kind of thing. Or that ride in very cold climates.
Almost every car sold in the past 20 years in the US has air conditioning . . .
Yes, of course. Though some of us ‘forget’ to use it.
It is hard to think of a more efficient or poignant device for accelerating climate change, and via at least three distinct mechanisms: refrigerant leaks, decreased fuel economy, and waste heat generation.
“The likely outcome will be they will try it once and the experience will be so bad that they will never ride again. What person who is accustomed to driving in a personal vehicle would want to switch to riding in a gutter lane unless they were really dedicated to cycling – in which case they wouldn’t need the convincing.”
Yeah, that’s a bit dramatic. I rode in those lanes long before I’d consider myself ‘dedicated to cycling’, simply because they were an easy way to get to work and get some exercise and not be stuck in Beaverton traffic (which I can only imagine has gotten way worse).
Again, I didn’t get into bike commuting because I liked bicycling, I grew to love bicycling because I decided to try bike commuting, and it felt good. Yes, even there in Beaverton and Tigard and Hellsboro. Most bike lanes up there are a walk in the park compared to where I ride now, but maybe they taught me to become comfortable biking near cars… who knows.
My wife was scared of riding near traffic, but now she’s a daily bike commuter – we even just sold her car. The employee lot at her hospital was under construction and she got so frustrated trying to park that she decided to try it. She started out with a circuitous path on quiet roads, but the more she’s been riding the more comfortable she is on higher-speed roads, using her mirror and timing gaps, signalling, and she’s slowly getting more confident with strategically taking the lane (which she still thinks I do a little too much, especially when we’re on the tandem…).
Now, 99 in Tigard is a different story… you must think K’Tesh is the Man of Steel! 🙂