(Photos: J. Maus/BikePortland)
This post was written by the Northwest Trail Allliance, a Portland-based nonprofit and a BikePortland supporter.
Portland’s Off-road Cycling Master Plan (ORCMP) is now in its final stage of development, the Draft Plan Phase. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) is asking the public for feedback on the Draft, which will be incorporated into the Proposed Plan presented to City Council for adoption. As an off-road cyclist in Portland, this is an important opportunity for you to tell the City what you think about the Draft. If you want urban trails, now is the time to elevate your voice.
We encourage you to read the overview or full text of the Draft Plan and then submit your comments by December 31 via the ORCMP comment form, interactive map, or at the upcoming ORCMP open houses.
To assist, we’ve distilled the main elements of the Draft Plan as well as suggested areas of improvement that you may wish to include in your feedback to the City.
Key ORCMP Elements – By the Numbers
5.7 miles of natural surface, narrow to mid-width trails are currently open to cycling across the city.
To unilaterally exclude the great majority of trails from consideration, in light of the plan’s recommendation for a comprehensive trail plan, is absurd.
6 potential sites have been identified for new cycling trails. These include the “Dog Bowl” at N. Willamette and N. Jessup, Forest Park, Lesser Park, Loll-Wildwood Natural Area, River View Natural Area, and Washington Park.
35 miles of trail is the plan’s goal for its 15 to 20 year window. Notable cities offer .2 to 1.6 trail miles per 1,000 residents. In achieving this goal, we’d have reached but 7% of the current trail miles per citizen benchmark.
1 million dollars is an approximate cost to construct those 35 miles of trail. This is roughly one percent of Parks’ current annual capital budget. Sharing existing trails that are now off-limits to cycling could significantly reduce this expense, as well as the related environmental impact.
1995 is the year that the Forest Park Natural Resources Management Plan identified users of the park’s Central Unit as “… consisting mostly of mountain bikers …” (p74).
81 percent, or 36.6 miles, of existing Forest Park trail mileage has been preemptively set aside as pedestrian-only. To unilaterally exclude the great majority of trails from consideration, in light of the plan’s recommendation for a comprehensive trail plan, is absurd.
32 miles of trail access in Forest Park — comprehending statewide participation and outing length data — would place cyclists at parity with pedestrians. To meet this without cutting new trail, 72% of all Forest Park trail mileage would need to be multi-use. Cyclists currently enjoy 2% of all trail mileage in Forest Park.
Advertisement
5 Forest Park trail concepts propose 4 miles of new singletrack plus 4.4 miles of improved firelanes, 2 miles of which would open to cycling. Four disjointed segments, one of which is essentially a dirt sidewalk alongside St Helens Road, is underwhelming. In light of the environmental and economic benefit of trail sharing, or what a proper comprehensive trail plan could produce, these are extravagant misdirections.
9.3 miles of existing Forest Park trails — avoiding Wildwood —can be easily strung together as four cycling loops plus one out-and-back ride. All require re-engineering for sustainability, but that’s the case for virtually all Forest Park trails.
7 to twelve additional bike parks has been set as the citywide goal for the next 15 to 20 years.
13 potential sites identified for new bike parks, including Brentwood Park, Colonel Summers Park, Creston Park, Farragut Park, Fernhill Park, Gabriel Park, Gates Park, Hamilton Park, John Luby Park, Parklane Park or Lynchview Park, Pier Park, Rose City Golf Course or Glenhaven Park, and University Park.
3 urban off-road cycling trail corridors are proposed alongside the I-205 Multi-Use Path, the planned North Portland Greenway, and the Springwater Corridor. This is a welcome sweetener for commuters or mountain bikers riding to their ride.
1 city entity (the Bureau of Environmental Services) is attempting to circumvent established process by dictating a permanent exclusion of cycling from River View Natural Area.
0 dollars allocated, projects initiated, or trails opened to cycling by the process. While none of these potential plan outcomes were intended by the City, they were clearly expected by the cycling community.
NWTA’s Perspective
Two years have passed producing the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan, and we have gratitude for the resources put forth by the City, the efforts made by members of the Public Advisory Committee, and the engagement of the public in the process.
The Draft Plan is simultaneously promising and problematic:
➤ It presents welcome opportunities for off-road cycling within neighborhoods and alongside cycling corridors.
➤ Its approach to Forest Park is hobbled by self-contradictory guidance.
➤ It sets a very low goal for trail mileage in a bicycle-friendly city.
Making a positive impact on the Draft Plan requires every one of us to speak up. Here are our top suggestions of what off-road cycling enthusiasts should be asking for:
➤ Portland should aspire to, in the words of the current Draft Plan, “set a national precedent for integrating off-road cycling into an urban environment.” The plan’s current goals fall far below the off-road cycling reality of many other U.S. cities. Let’s envision a Portland that lives up to its cycling renown when it comes to riding off-road.
➤ The plan should elevate science above fear-mongering. Share, don’t set aside, proper trails in Forest Park, River View, and elsewhere— it’s a proven path that reduces environmental and economic cost. Let’s bring a big dose of experience and cooperation between all users to decide what’s in the best interest of each trail.
➤ The plan should illuminate the current and potential impact of cycling — the second most frequent form of outdoor recreation across all age groups — on the health and well-being of Portland’s citizens, and ultimately the livability of the city.
Submit your comments by December 31 via the ORCMP comment form, interactive map, or at the upcoming ORCMP open houses.
— Northwest Trail Alliance, NW-Trail.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
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.
1. Just another way for the city to screw cyclists while professing to love them.
2. The city planning process sucks.
what? Portland loves to make plans, make plans about their plans, talk about their plans, plan to revise their plans, let other people talk about their plans…..but never actually do a single thing.
Portland: The City That Plans
Have you seen that sweet new Walking Plan?
Yes, I look forward to printing out and walking on it.
In the spirit of Mayor Ted Wheelers call for city departments to cut budgets. I think we can solve many of our on and off-road cycling problems by following the nation wide budgeting trend of triaging roads. Instead of grinding up and returning many roads to gravel to save money, we can strategically tear up key sets of roads in Portland and re-landscape them as mountain bike trails.This saves money, solves the problems of cut-throughs and gives us hundreds of miles of urban off-road cycling. Lets face it, Portland can clearly not afford to maintain many of the roads within city limits. Lets just face up to the forces of entropy and return them to nature. Imagine commuting from 82nd and Foster to Downtown on mountain bike trails. Traveling the entire distance in a replanted forest surrounded by nature instead of asphalt and cars.
It would also “calm” traffic and provide more places for run-off.
That actually sounds pretty nice. I’d love to bring back nature into the city. (Actually, since I have an Audubon certified backyard habitat, that’s something I’m already personally doing!)
There are already trails at the dog bowl, please just leave it as-is. It won’t cost any money or require any work and you can call it an off-road bike area. Win win.
There aren’t any valid trails at dog bowl and the ones that are there are poor at best.
Citation: I live in the neighborhood and go by there frequently.
What is a valid trail? And FWIW, I live a block away and go there pretty much every day.
We going existential on this or are you really asking?
Adding more “trails” to Dog Bowl is joke at best. It’s so small. Plus its called Dog Bowl cause people walk their pooches there, maybe dog dodging can be a skills “feature”.
There could be room for a jump line in there…I probably have my hopes set too high for that, tho.
Great to see all this work done. I hope we can finally start seeing some mtb trails open up so the citizens of this city can utilize them. I would love to commute through Forest Park and avoid traffic all together on single-track.
Free Forest Park.
Work done? These are just words in a PDF and a website.
Alex didn’t you notice in the long list of facts and numbers the “0” next to funds allocated and projects accomplished.
There has been countless hours put in. The outcome of that work has not been rewarded.
I’ve read the plan. It’s really well thought out. Still, we’re talking about an off-road plan that doesn’t address what Portland Mountain Bikers really needs or wants. Forest Park and Washinton Park could be the North Shore of Oregon. Riverview should just be legalized so the trails can be maintained.
There cutting in a new trail on the Maple Trail right now in Forest Park. I guess it’s cool that they have two machines running all day plowing through the forest so people can enjoy their future hikes there.
My eggs are all in the Gateway Green basket. If the community comes together we could have a great trail system out there by the end of winter.
Love the idea of gateway green…it is just so fricking sketch to ride out there especially with kids. Serious needle gauntlet.
Some recent opinions at the Oregonian as well.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/let_forest_park_remain_portlan.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/11/portlands_forest_park_should_b.html
More trails !
The reality is, those who ride other than roads, aren’t organizing. Until they do, the grey hairs will dominate.
You nailed it Mark. I totally agree. Most in OBRA could care less and NWTA is too happy they have Gateway and Stub. In my opinion, the ORCMP is a political paperweight; a worthless document that will ensure we don’t get trails in Forest Park.
I saw this coming 2 years ago.
Not sure why you think NWTA hasn’t been active enough on this front. Without their efforts, there would be no plan. They’ve been pushing this issue for the last 6-8 years. You may not like it, but the current process/plan is what we’ve got. We have to work within it. Have you gone to any of the meetings/open houses? Riding Wildwood isn’t going to solve the problem by itself…
Yes, many interested and concerned individuals attended and spoke up at every meeting. The document is a bust. It unilaterally closed almost every existing trail to bikes in the city. Do you really think this city of NIMBY environmentalist crusaders will allow more environmental disturbances in “new” trails? The answer is NO. This plan is a smokescreen. The only riding that will be done in this city will be in hopped up urban hobo trails sandwiched between highways. If one wants to ride in nature in town, one will have to share the existing trails.
I would give you the same response as “I wear many hats.” I was at most of the meetings and open houses. I have also been a member of IMBA (NWTA when I moved here) since the late 90’s. I agree that the plan is a smokescreen that will ensure that we never receive trails in Forest Park. I see Evergreen MTB Alliance building more urban trails every week in Seattle while NWTA keeps patting itself on the back for this plan, Stubb, Sandy, and Gateway.
I agree that in its current form the plan isn’t adequate in addressing the void in Forest Park. And, my understanding from reading this post from NWTA, that they don’t think so either, and are trying to change the outcome during this final stage. If you have a sense of local politics, you understand the the Forest Park hurdle is monumental.
Regarding the other projects you mentioned, Stubb, Sandy, and Gateway – they’re all great projects and victories in their own sense. NWTA should be playing those up, and I would argue that they’re part of where we are today. I don’t agree that this has come at the expense of this plan however. NWTA (which is a volunteer organization made up of people just like yourself), has put in a huge effort on this – first getting the plan funded, getting it out of PP&R’s hands, and working out front and behind the scenes to keep it moving in the right direction. If that isn’t evident, then that is a matter of communication, not a lack of effort.
NWTA is always looking for motivated volunteers, I encourage you to step up if you have ideas you think would move this forward. Alot of smart people are working on this, and I think you should acknowledge it’s a huge push to make actual progress.
Absolutely. It isn’t an either/or scenario. Every single trail and bike park and pumptrack is a win, and contributes to the greater good.
…and where are the urban trails Evergreen is building that you refer to? The projects I’m aware of are all in the outskirts of Seattle. None that I’m aware of in the urban core.
Portland Parks and Recreation is taking comments on their draft master plan for Washington Park until November 30.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/70954
So that’s another opportunity to comment on off-road bike paths specifically in Washington Park, as well as bike infrastructure there generally.
I don’t even ride MTB and I think Portland’s record is pathetic.
Glad to see your comment, Dan. Cyclist know that the overwhelming majority of non-cyclists generally get along fine with cyclists (the overwhelming majority of whom are also hikers) but it’s not often enough that people pipe up. The place your comments really matter is here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/73284
Well, I ride road and tour in the dry season and commute year-round so I don’t think that “non-cyclist” really applies to me. I am just not personally feeling the pinch due to lack of local MTB trails.
Thank you for sharing the information. It’s great to get update with that assessment and summary of what’s in the document. I filled out the comments thanks to you guys.
Portland sucks. To grovel is humiliating . Nearly three decades of effort by people who care and yet nothing. Why piss up a tree when you are getting pissed on? To hell with this place.
A simple fix to many (all?) of the problems identified is:
*Mountain bikes allowed on most of the trails in Forest Park on Tuesdays, Thursdays, ad Saturdays. Close-in Wildwood and Lower McCleay could be excluded due to user density.
*Mountain bikes are allowed on the trails in RiverView on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays. Bikes get an extra day there given the close proximity of the mtb-free Tryon Creek.
*A quality, mtb-specific network is built in Washington Park and is open every day.
I think that about solves it.
Almost forgot:
*At least one trail in Powell Butte is re-engineered to provide a challenge for more advanced mountain bikers. It should be challenging enough that I am not able to “clear it” every time I ride it, and look forward to going back to try and ride it as a result.
I like it.
And I want to note that Powell Butte is awesome. I just brought my kids to mtn bike there for the 1st time recently and I can’t believe that I haven’t done that before. Looking forward to a break in the rain so we can return. If folks haven’t ridden there, but are complaining about “NOWHERE to ride” I suggest that you at least consider riding the trails that are already available (While we push for access to Forrest Park, etc.)
By the way, we rode with 3 other families who have kids, and we saw no other mtn bikers in the park the whole time we were there. We normally hike the bikeble trails and almost never see folks biking there.
Powell Butte is awesome, and it serves the SE Portland Community well. However, it is not a panacea (nor is Gateway Green) for mountain biking in Portland. The city refuses (this plan excluded many viable areas in its ‘fatal flaw’ analysis) to utilize existing hiking trail networks throughout SW and NW Portland. We are so dense in this city that there is very little viable land for new trails. We must share them if we wish to reduce the environmental impacts of trails and people. We can all share safely and be friends on the trails.
The plan is farce. The city and PAC spent two years handwringing and back clapping to only produce a plan that hobbles any legitimate progress for mountain biking in the city. Perhaps those that ride mountain bikes should show the city what polite mountain biking is.
Until the city comes up with a reasonable plan to accommodate MTB use, cyclists that want to ride trails will continue to ride whatever trails are available, whether they are closed to cyclists or not.
..and this attitude just helps the anti-MTB crowd even more.
That’s debatable.
I would argue that not protesting it by not riding actually slows down progress. There is no problem to fix and the mtbers just keep getting run over by NIMBYs and city council members going back on their words (Nick Fish) or other city council members just throwing up endless red tape and pulling access without notice (Amanda Fritz). I would say that if you want mountain biking, creating a problem to fix might be the surest way to getting it fixed.
Well, it worked for skate parks.
I’m going to respectfully disagree here. Despite the outcry by the anti-mtb lobby after seeing some mtb tracks on closed trails, the vast majority do not poach trails. I think this is done out of a perceived need to respect those who tirelessly volunteer to improve the status quo. Has it been helpful? Would more poaching of closed trails have led to conflict that would have forced a push of the needle? Who knows. If the results of this process are less than favorable for off road cyclists, I think many more people will be poaching those sacred trails.
After seeing the Forest Park plan get derailed, and the River View Natural Area Plan get hijacked, seeing the ORCMP PAC call for pedestrian only trails on 81% of the current trail mileage in the park, my faith in the ORCMP plan is extremely low.
I agree. The bike hate crowd needs to grow accustomed to seeing nice mountain bikers every time they hike. If they do see us, they may stop fearing us, and they’ll advocate for places to ride. Or they may just advocate for places to ride so they don’t have to share. Either way, the cups are half full if people do ride the only trails that exist. Be polite if you do.
Totally agree; they can’t take blood from a stone. I advocate for riding the trails in Forest Park. When you see foot traffic, stop and let them pass, be friendly. Until we have purpose built trails I will be riding Wildwood without regret.
“…When you see foot traffic, stop and let them pass, be friendly. …” manville
If you truly do offer that consideration, stopping your bike, moving to the side of the trail or carefully lifting it off the trail to the side, and be friendly to foot traffic on trails in natural land parks, most people walking probably won’t object too much, if at all. Ask around of your mountain biking friends…try get a sense of the number of them that offer that consideration now, or would be willing to in order to help gain access to the city’s natural land parks for mountain biking. Hopefully, many do, or would be willing to.
Either way, use of Forest Park’s single width trail for off-road and mountain biking is a wrong use of that extraordinary natural land park, that is contrary to the ethics and values upon which the park was founded, and by which it continues to be held in regard by most likely, a majority of the city’s population.
Use of any natural land for mountain biking, means bike traffic, in other words, vehicle traffic. If people are informed up front that the acquisition of some land parcel is specifically for the establishment of a mountain biking park, they might be fine with that. So it is, there’s Stubb Steward, Gateway Green, Sandy Ridge, and eventually, North Tualitan Mtn’s.
Freedom from the presence of and having to contend with vehicle traffic, I think is one of the primary reasons that residents of cities have long been willing to pay amounts of their money in taxes in order to obtain natural land to be reserved as natural land parks. This being the case, ideas that would introduce vehicle traffic in the form of bikes, allowing use of such lands for mountain biking, makes little sense.
I ride Wildwood all the time and most people don’t mind. The ones that do, are typically selfish NIMBY’s. The argument usually starts with erosion (I point out how much damage foot traffic is doing walking around puddles and that research has shown that MTB is a passive activity and doesn’t damage the trail and more than walking), moves to safety ( I point out that most runners go as fast a mountain bike and many Cities throughout the country has functioning multi-use systems) and ends in admitting that they just want the trail the way it was. Occasionally people ask me where I’m from and that is usually followed by telling me I should go back there.
See you on the trails.
You basically summed up every public meeting I have attended – a) talk about erosion/environmental impact (they are wrong) b) safety (wrong again) c) selfishness (they are showing true colors) d)they tell you to go home and stay there (thanks, but no thanks).
I am with you – I am not really a fan of wildwood, but ride it when I want to (which isn’t that often). If someone gets angry at me, I am ok with that. Hopefully they will come up with a solution that we can both agree to.
> If people are informed up front that the acquisition of some land parcel is specifically for the establishment of a mountain biking park, they might be fine with that.
Oh, that’s rich! How about the metro bond? How about RVNA? Both times people were informed up front that the land parcel would be used specifically for recreation and cycling was specifically named. Both times people were absolutely not fine with it. Both times they either decreased bicycle access or eliminated it all together.
As you have demonstrated many times before, you have neither a firm grasp of the situation in Portland and you also have a very selective memory.
>Either way, use of Forest Park’s single width trail for off-road and mountain biking is a wrong use of that extraordinary natural land park, that is contrary to the ethics and values upon which the park was founded, and by which it continues to be held in regard by most likely, a majority of the city’s population.
That’s false – a majority want more cycling. It has been proven time and again.
Please explain Cornell Rd and Germantown Rd.
Santa Cruz is touted as a mountain bike destination yet most of Campus wasn’t built legally. Food for thought.
Is it? I have ridden the area, but wouldn’t call SC a “destination”.
If you don’t think SC is a destination it’s because you probably didn’t get to ride the good stuff!
Ok – if it is that hard to find the “good stuff”, I still wouldn’t call it a destination.
Snark: pg. 13 “Existing facilities where off-road cycling is sanctioned are predominantly sited in larger parks at the periphery of the city limits”…Is Sandy Ridge at the peripheral of city limits?
Truth: pg. 34 “It’s almost counter-intuitive, but speed and danger tend to increase when mountain bikers are confined to wide roads. Bored and unchallenged, bicyclists quickly attain speeds that can bring them into direct conflict with other visitors.”
Costs/Funding: pg. 39 – $42k/mile for capital construction?? NWTA, could you comment on that number and what is your commitment to building these trails for much less. Pg.111-120 is interesting; they leave volunteer as the last option for funding. BTW, I’m a member and would work many hours to be apart of this historic effort.
Signage: definitely make this a priority! Often overlooked, it makes the experience much better for all users.
Education: there will soon be a non-profit in Portland dedicated to taking kids mtb’ing w/focus on equity.
Riverview: I addition to the gravity lines recommended, that place needs a long contour trail across the entire property with 4-5 switchbacks near property boundaries. Build bridges over the creeks.
Forest Park. pg. 61 the plan states that the FP Conservancy “works closely with the Portland Parks & Recreation to monitor trail conditions and organize volunteer restoration efforts.” What if a committed group of stewards in NWTA out-volunteered the Conservancy? That place is a loam mine ala Duthie Hill outside of Seattle..where there is a will there is a way!
https://www.evergreenmtb.org/trails/duthie-hill . In addition to dedicated contour trails surely, we can mix in some fun gravity runs, too.
And for North Portlanders: pg 93- St. Johns bridge must be addressed as a “ride-to-ride” route.
North Portland, my neighborhood: pg. 82-83 How about a pump track or dirt jumps in the ghost-townesque horseshoe court at Columbia Annex? Wonder the user data on that facility:) It could serve as a stop along the way from Dog Bowl-University Park-Pier Park corridor. Rebuild New Columbia as skills park, build pump track at University Park, and dirt jumps at Columbia Annex. What a cool choice! Also, what about contour trail along the Willamette bluff? I think it’s too steep, but smarter people than I have told me it’s possible:)
Off to the official comment site; hopefully you don’t have to re-register your info for each subject location like the initial comment site required…it’s like they tried to discourage input.
Cheers!
In fairness and gratitude, the plan is comprehensive and educational, and it seem the group is looking at proven models and expert guidance from IMBA. etc.
But the interactive map sucks. Why can’t you log on and make comments w/o having to re-enter personal info for each site? And the comment field is so small you can’t see what you wrote two sentences ago.
I’m a 40-something white guy. I’m seriously wondering if I’d have a louder voice on the ORCMP comment map if I said I was a younger or older minority.
Ironically, the 30-40 year old somethings at the PAC meetings were quite polite, interactive, and open minded. Whereas the only yelling was done by the physician claiming that we’d spoil the quiet of the park. I too wonder if the demographic tools are biased. The recent outcomes and behind the scenes torpodoe’ing of cycling in RVNA suggest that zip code, City Club, and MAC memberships are valued the most.
Yea – it doesn’t seem like being polite has won mtbers anything. From what I have read and heard from people in the government that I have contacted regarding this subject, they get some pretty hateful emails from people who don’t want mountain biking in Forest Park – or in their backyard (Metro/PPR).
It’s always easier to keep the status quo, and the anti’s have relied on hyperbole and outright untruths to stunt any progress. But, their tactics are wearing thin on City staff, many of whom see through their arguments. But, it’s still a huge push to get any real change. That’s just a fact. If it was easy, it would have been done by now.
That would be news to the fine people that worked on the 1995 Forest park Management Plan. On Page 21, Goal 2 (you know the one M. Houle & company seem to have amnesia about) that plan states this: “Forest Park should offer the citizens of Portland opportunities for outdoor recreation in keeping with the Park’s resource values. Forms of recreation must be appropriate for Forest Park and must be passive in nature. Examples of passive recreation include walking, running, bicycling, riding horses, walking with pets, and observing fauna, flora, and other natural history features. Opportunities should be created for these activities which implies the need for appropriate facilities as well as controls on the level and location of the allowed uses.
Mountain biking as a use co-exists in many cities with other users in natural parks just fine. So why can’t those uses co-exist in Portland?
In case anybody missed this: http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/portland_prepares_to_fall_on_i.html#comments