Support BikePortland

Reports: PBOT’s Lincoln-Harrison greenway meeting goes off the rails

Posted by on December 5th, 2017 at 9:59 pm

PBOT’s proposal for diverter at 50th.

Remember earlier today when I told you tonight’s PBOT open house for the Lincoln-Harrison Neighborhood Greenway Enhancement project might get interesting? Well from what we’re hearing so far, interesting doesn’t even describe it.

I wasn’t there, but several sources are reporting that it was completely bonkers. The crowd that’s vehemently opposed to a diverter at 50th and Lincoln was apparently very aggressive and nearly took over the meeting.

Here’s what what we’ve gleaned so far about how it went from emails, comments and tweets:

Aaron I:

“It was a disaster. They never should have agreed to give a presentation and let the pitchforks form around them.”

Cory P:

“The nimbys were out in force for this one. I don’t think I’ve seen a more hostile open house. One guy was actually asking to see people’s drivers licences to see if they had lived here long enough to be ‘real’ Oregonians.”

Anonymous text:

“2nd Lincoln Harrison meeting blowing up. Commandeered by anti group.”

Joe Bike (via Twitter):

“Judging by hands raised, the anti group didn’t have anywhere near the kind of majority they had in the last meeting. They were just really loud.”

BikeLoudPDX via Twitter:

“Wow. Just left Lincoln greenway open house. Anti diverter spokeswoman actually hijacked mtg during Q & A and then only called on anti ppl 2 speak, despite strong pro-diverter support. Appalling behavior from small group of neighbors & shocked @PBOTinfo didn’t stop it sooner… They brought signs that looked like official signs and one guy actually put his sign over @PBOTinfo’s until I asked him to move it. Outrageous tactics.”


vs via a BikePortland comment:

“Just back from the open house on this project and I am shocked and disturbed by what was on display from the opponents of this project.

The opponents were well organized and angry. Dare I say belligerent. One person was assertively questioning a PBOT staff person about, ‘who thought up this thing, everyone who lives around here hates this project.’ A couple of us spoke up saying we live in the neighborhood and we think it’s a good project. We were curtly told that ‘bikers need to learn to share the road’.

The event was intended as an open house and the ‘no on 50th’ crowd demanded a person to speak. A city staffer was trying to explain the reason for the project (the greenway is failing and if we are to follow our plans as a city we need to lower traffic and slow it down) only to be shouted down. When he said, “as a city we decided we aren’t going to build freeways’ people shouted that down and shouted out, ‘who decided that?’

Remember, this is Mount Tabor in SE Portland. I felt like I was watching the Tea Party shouting down someone trying to talk about Obamacare. It definitely had a mob-like and hostile feel.

I am shocked by the way the opponents behaved. I was holding a bike helmet and had a few people angrily say, ‘you cyclists need to learn to share the road’. When we replied that we don’t think Lincoln is safe for kids, people said, in direct response, ‘well, I don’t want to have to drive on Division, it’s too busy.

Yes, in SE Portland, liberal mecca, where we all hate Roy Moore, a few minutes saved is more important than the safety of kids. I am extremely disappointed in my neighbors tonight.

That said, PBOT staff were great, super professional and they kept their cool despite treatment no one deserves.”

Andrea B via BikePortland comment:

“Fortunately at that point the Bikeloud contingent arrived, it was like the cavalry, they all hauled their bikes in there and we wished them well. The meeting being co-opted by the neighborhood was a big fail on PBOT’s part but they held their own well and I hope everybody here sends a short note of appreciation to their staff. I am really starting to think that the public comment venues are counterproductive. As somebody just noted on Nextdoor, “No stage, no drama.””

I’ve seen some pretty racuous and angry crowds at PBOT open houses over the years, but this one sounds like the worst. It will be interesting to see what PBOT does from here. Remember that there’s also an online survey that PBOT will likely lean on heavily in tallying community response to this project.

Were you at tonight’s meeting? Please share your thoughts so we can gain a better understanding of what happened — and what is likely to happen next.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

  • John December 5, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    Kudos to the PBOT staff for keeping their cool… very tough crowd!

    However, I was a bit dismayed that PBOT allowed an anti-diverter ‘spokesperson’ to choose who got to ask questions during an impromptu Q&A (note that anti-people all wore stickers stating so).

    Some of the anti-comments were laughable… may favorite: ‘diverters will create a food desert.’

    Overall, I was a bit shocked by some of my neighbors and disappointed that the pro-crowd (which was present) was pretty much ignored / not allowed to speak. People were too worked up to listen and have an actual conversation about the problem / impact of possible solutions.

    Recommended Thumb up 21

    • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 9:56 am

      I was very disheartened at what I saw at last night’s Lincoln diverter open house. I had arrived a bit late and was planning on discussing with PBOT staff my support for the diverters as designed. I live just a few streets over from the proposed diverters and am greatly looking forward to a safer and more comfortable Lincoln Street for cycling.

      When I arrived, I was disappointed to see a large crowd in front of the stage, shouting questions. This seemed vastly different from every PBOT open house I have attended – usually there are PBOT staffers standing next to posters scattered around the room, and you are able to ask them one-on-one questions. I was not able to hear anything the woman on stage was saying, as I have a minor hearing disability. As I made my way to the front of the stage, I realized that the women holding up the poster map of the route were not actually city employees, and that the poster was not an official city one.

      I do not understand why this group was allowed to take over a city meeting. This made me feel like my voice was not being heard by the city (the women never called on me despite having my hand raised). Allowing what can essentially be described as an “angry mob” to commandeer a city meeting with their own agenda is downright antithetical to the democratic process. Allowing everyone to have their voice heard is important, but not at the expense of shutting out others. In our current age of democratic breakdown, should we assume more city meetings will go this route? Why should any of us outside the mob mentality bother to try and make our voices heard if others will just shout over us? All this over one measly diverter?! What will happen when the topic is actually something of great importance?

      I hope in the future PBOT can tame the angry crowd better and allow everyone to have their voices heard, not just those who yell the loudest.

      Recommended Thumb up 23

      • soren December 6, 2017 at 10:18 am

        “This made me feel like my voice was not being heard by the city (the women never called on me despite having my hand raised).”

        When I confronted the protest organizers one of them admitted that they were only calling on people who opposed the Neighborhood Greenway safety project.

        Please contact the commissioner and city staff and let them know how you felt (;;;

        Recommended Thumb up 22

  • Allan Rudwick December 5, 2017 at 10:26 pm

    These open houses always felt useless to me… Supporters assume it’s going to happen, opponents show up assuming it’s their only chance to fight it and it gets a weird vibe. I’d politicians had backbone they would just make stuff happen and the electrons would be the consequences for bad decisions. But we don’t trust ourselves to be a functioning republic

    Recommended Thumb up 19

  • Betsy Reese December 5, 2017 at 10:31 pm

    The “open house” was indeed turned into a presentation/Q&A from the stage initiated and emceed by a woman who I don’t believe ever identified herself. She seemed to be a member of the community who was in opposition, but the role she adopted made her appear to be officially in charge.

    I’m not sure of the thinking of PBOT staff in deciding to obey her and try to explain the project and to answer questions from the crowd. Many times they were booed down.

    Three times I picked up materials from the PBOT information table displays that were provided by the opposition and handed them to the PBOT person monitoring the sign-in, information, and comment card tables. In classy contrast, a low-key guy holding a folder off to the side asked me if I was a supporter and when I said yes, he asked me if I would like to take a flyer.

    The two shows-of-hands up until 6:55 PM when I had to leave showed supporters outnumbered opponents by maybe 3:2. As several of us supporters were leaving the meeting we were heartened to be tag-teamed by a large contingent arriving on bicycles together from an earlier open house for the Sullivan’s Gulch overpass.

    I question the utility of holding a meeting/open house “asking for public input” like this. It openly pits neighbor-against-neighbor as though the resulting acrimony is worth what seems to be represented as a some kind of wholly democratic process of decision-making based on votes cast by those present. I think there are other ways of “getting to yes” that don’t leave people feeling so bitter and unheard or like they have been played by PBOT saying they want public input but “doing what they want anyway”. We went through this on Clinton. Anyone have any ideas on what could be a better way?

    Recommended Thumb up 31

    • Betsy Reese December 5, 2017 at 11:38 pm

      Correction: “The two shows-of-hands up until 6:55 PM when I had to leave showed *opponents* outnumbered *supporters* by maybe 3:2.”

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Doug December 6, 2017 at 12:01 am

      I believe I heard that the woman who took over the meeting was Molly Hilts, who wrote the inflammatory flyer with the map showing comparative out-of-direction travel, the original of which she was holding up. The flyer said she was Mt Tabor Neighborhood Transportation chair from 1997 to 2005.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Doug December 6, 2017 at 8:50 am

        Molly was not the original “take over” person, but she was up there with the woman who was, and was holding up the other end of the map.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Catie December 6, 2017 at 12:23 am

      The sticky thing about this project is that the greenway is not compliant with PBOT standards. This isnt really a majority rules decision making process-these policies get set in the TSP.

      I agree…there was got to be better public engagement strategies..If PBOT offered 3 diverter choice options and made people feel part of the process, instead of presented to, I wonder if the reaction would be the same. Maybe someone in that crowd has a better idea than PBOTs plan, but you cant hear them over people who want no chnge at all.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Shoupian December 6, 2017 at 8:52 am

      There are a couple of reasons why we see public meetings like this.

      One, the planning profession beholds public meetings as the surest way to guarantee that the planning process is democratic, open and equitable, which is not true. It has become an end rather than just a tool. What most planners don’t think about is that when public outreach is open to anyone and not targeted at underrepresented communities, those who show up and provide input are generally white, older, higher income, and more privileged.

      Two, planners depend on public meetings especially when a project does not have strong political support. PBOT is not technically required to hold public meetings anytime they want to do a small scale bike improvement. These meetings occur because planners on the project don’t feel supported by the very top level of the agency and they are uncertain that if they face public push back, their agency leaders will stand behind them and push the project through.

      Ultimately, it speaks to the political culture on active transportation investments. Our elected officials and top agency leaders still don’t feel confident directing their agency to make decisions to improve health and safety without knowing that neighbors won’t be upset.

      Recommended Thumb up 60

      • Brian December 6, 2017 at 8:55 am

        Well said. And the same could be said for other agencies within Portland.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 6, 2017 at 9:24 am

        many solid points Shoupian. Thank you.

        Yes I absolutely agree that the politics and the lack of strong partnership and focus on a shared vision for the future between PBOT/City Hall/The Public are lacking right now. Transportation has no champion. Saltzman is a “yes” man at times, but he’s hardly a visionary. Wheeler has been completely out of the picture transportation-wise.

        I keep thinking that Portland still doesn’t know how to function to its potential without a dedicated, professionally-staffed advocacy group that focuses on projects like this.

        Newsflash: The Street Trust — formerly the BTA that once sued PBOT for not building a bikeway — no longer does local, project-focused advocacy. Think about that. The BTA no longer does direct advocacy for bike projects in Portland. I think that has big ramifications for the political/PBOT environment, for organizing on the ground at meetings like this, for the narrative in general.

        Recommended Thumb up 32

        • Catie December 6, 2017 at 10:41 am

          Its disheartening that we need advocacy groups to be involved at all when all we want is PBOT to adhere to their own policies. BikeLoud fills the gap somewhat but does not have nearly the fundraising or paid staff of Street Trust. At the point when we need salaried people to advocate for road changes to keep roads compliant with the TSP classification, it seems like PBOT should be able to fufill that role themselves. Portland can pass all the policies they want but they are meaningless unless they are willing to abide by them.

          Recommended Thumb up 18

          • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 6, 2017 at 11:14 am

            I hear you Catie. Good points. I see this community as an ecosystem. Yes of course we can all expect and want PBOT to simply do what’s in their adopted plans (many of them full of policies we have all shed blood and tears over to create in the first place!)… And in a perfect ecosystem perhaps that’s how it would go. Unfortunately our system isn’t perfectly healthy right now. (And bear in mind that PBOT plans/policies are not enforceable laws. And I think we all understand why that’s a good thing.)

            So how can we make the ecosystem healthier? I think having stronger, more organized, project-based advocacy would go a long way. We’ve seen how effective it can be when BikeLoudPDX or other groups are able to pull something off. But that’s hit or miss due to a lack of capacity and bandwidth from orgs without any paid staff. For the first time yesterday I heard Street Trust acknowledged publicly that they “don’t have the capacity” to do this type of local advocacy. That means they are choosing to use their capacity in other places. This is a big deal IMO. I’m trying to build something that can help in the way I know how with BP. I’d really love to see BikeLoud fill the hole left by Street Trust, but I realize part-time volunteer orgs have limits as well. I’ve often thought it would be a good move for Street Trust to simply “buy” Bikeloud and bring it under their umbrella with perhaps one paid staffer. Bikeloud could keep its name and style and focus, it would just have more stability through its larger “parent company”. If not that (which might be a bad idea, it was just a thought), maybe it’s time for Bikeloud to go to the next level on its own? I’d certainly be a supporter (financially and professionally)!

            Maybe I’ll do an opinion piece on this Friday to open up the conversation to a larger audience.

            Recommended Thumb up 11

            • Anon for this December 6, 2017 at 2:09 pm

              I’m involved in a new advocacy group in a city that is not Portland. We started because we felt that our statewide advocacy org was failing our city. They focused on dubious programs that brought in grant monies, promoted tourism (that presumably brings in donations), and did almost nothing at the local level. We’re entirely volunteer-run at the moment, and many of us have grave concerns about moving to a model that involves paid staffers. Your budget suddenly balloons, you have a responsibility for your employees, you’ll need insurance for your board of directors, you need to manage the staff, and it seems highly likely that any additional support you get from a paid staffer you then have to turn toward fundraising to paid that staffer. I think paid staff changes the character of your organization. Not necessarily for the worse, but I think it’s important to acknowledge the risk of becoming yet-another-non-profit that spends most of its energy fundraising.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

              • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 6, 2017 at 2:12 pm

                Anon for this,

                Thank you for sharing that. I completely agree there’s big risk in growing. Let’s just say I’m not attached to my idea for Bikeloud… I just want to see them — or someone else — mature and do even more of the work they already do. They’re definitely on a great trajectory and I’m here to support them as necessary.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • David Hampsten December 6, 2017 at 8:21 pm

                We have the same issues here in Greensboro NC. The main advocacy group got so bogged down in fundraising that they stopped advocating effectively, a case of “mission creep” much like the Street Trust. They would go to key meetings and just sit there listening, contributing nothing, neither ideas nor opinions. City staff told us they stopped even talking to them or city elected officials; basically the old activist group was waiting for things to happen without being proactive. So I got together with the most vocal and frustrated activists and we’ve been making great progress since, not officially organized but very inspired, more than a bit like BikeLoud. This past year we got the city to add more than 11 miles of new bike lanes and sharrowed streets, our first green lanes and buffered bike lanes ever, expanding the local system by 50%; we already are preparing for next year, when we will likely double the bike network by this time next year. It helps to have 1,000 Limebikes locally (we were the first East Coast city with LimeBike), it makes the conversation with politicians easier; apparently up to 10% of our population has used LimeBike since June of this year and our overall commuter rate has risen from a paltry 1.39% to over 4% in just 6 months.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

            • Richard December 8, 2017 at 11:51 am

              I LOVE the BikeLoud idea and would donate in a heartbeat.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

        • bikeninja December 6, 2017 at 10:58 am

          Jonathan, your earlier post with the podcast that focused on bridging the gap between us and them has an ironic foreshadowing quality to it now with the disappointing behavior of the anti-diverter crowd at this community meeting. Hmm

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 11:05 am

          What does the Street Trust even do anymore, other than throw parties for themselves? I honestly have no idea.

          Recommended Thumb up 14

          • Evan Manvel December 6, 2017 at 11:51 am

            The Street Trust was instrumental in getting nine figures (before the decimal) of funding for Safe Routes to School in the transportation package. That’s $125,000,000 for Safe Routes.

            Long-term funding efforts are never the most visible, sexiest, immediate or tangible battles. But they are among the most important.

            Corralling a hundred twenty-five million dollars to get safe routes to schools (i.e. safe travel routes for everyone in nearly every neighborhood) built across the state is huge. Next time a crosswalk, a bikeway, etc. is funded and built instead of running into the “there’s no money” excuse, you probably have The Street Trust, in part, to thank for it.

            “Don’t tell me what you value. Show me your budget, and I’ll tell you what you value.” – Joe Biden

            (Yes, we always want advocacy groups to do everything, but they nearly never can fund more than a couple-few advocacy staff for thousands of possible projects and battles across the state. So they have to be really limited and strategic, and miss out on a lot of high profile battles).

            Recommended Thumb up 15

          • buildwithjoe December 6, 2017 at 9:52 pm

            This is the best comment of the year “What does the Street Trust even do anymore? other than throw parties for themselves? ”

            Answer: The “Trust” Executive director wrote members (me) a letter saying the 1/2 Billion to put caps on the freeway was “needed”. So much for a NGO that does not get involved in local issues.

            Someday Portland Will have a PAC that allows members to vote on endorsements like the San Francisco Bike Coalition PAC. If members can’t agree there is no endorsment. That’s pretty cool actually. Portland had a very questional bike pac called “bike walk vote” but it only endorsed the candidates and issues approved by a closed door board of a few unknown people. Thank god the BWV group died out.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Gerik December 6, 2017 at 1:18 pm

          Jonathan, while we focus on active transportation policy and funding issues at The Street Trust your characterization of our organization here is a bit unfair. When we have the capacity to engage in project-level decisions, we engage. As we set our new strategic plan we are working to balance the impact we can create through influencing funding decisions and the importance of centering community voices in project planning. I hope we can learn from this experience and continue to build capacity with our partners to make more streets safe for biking, walking, and transit.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Eric Leifsdad December 9, 2017 at 1:14 am

            Portland needs an on-the-ground cyclists’ union to push for steady progress, regular maintenance, and demand more priority for bicycle transportation. The street trust can provide or support that role, but largely seems to have abandoned it.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Kate December 6, 2017 at 3:36 pm

        But this wasn’t billed as a public meeting. This was supposed to be an open house. When we’ve had those in the past, they involve visual displays of the proposed project, opportunities to speak with the staff and opportunities to provide written comments. If it were intended as a public meeting, it required a neutral facilitator, a microphones so that people could hear each other, and adequate seating, none of which it had. It was not publicized as a public meeting. It should not have been allowed to deteriorate into people yelling. I was appalled by the conduct of my neighbors.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Eric December 8, 2017 at 12:27 pm

        It doesn’t helping bicycling advocacy to throw around the word “privilege” as a way to question differing views. Let’s face it — Those of us who can afford to live within a reasonable biking distance from work and school are privileged. Those of us who have a job that allows us time to ride to work, especially during daylight hours, are privileged. Those of us who can afford to own and maintain a good bike with good gear and clothing are privileged. Those of us who were given a bike and taught to ride as a child are privileged. Those who are physically able to ride at all are privileged.

        It’s not productive or helpful to suggest that someone who may have it better off is out to thwart our efforts. There are so many more valid and powerful arguments to support building a more bikeable community.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • paikiala December 6, 2017 at 9:13 am

      An open house has always been primarily informational. Any wishes otherwise are just that, wishes.
      That said, when meetings derail, being flexible enough to let those that want to vent is important. Fear and feelings of powerlessness have to be acknowledged. How many here have complained the city doesn’t listen to them?

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • soren December 6, 2017 at 9:36 am

        This derailing involved harassment, intimidation, and silencing of other residents.

        Recommended Thumb up 23

  • shirtsoff December 5, 2017 at 10:54 pm

    It was odd. The hands raised bit was unusual and amounted to not much at all.

    Put the diverters in. If it is the end of Portland as we know it, tear them back out six months later. Try it out first and see what happens. I’d bet money that it won’t ruin the NIMBYs lives and we can go back to our favorite scapegoats of congestion, Californians, people without stable housing, et al you name it.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

  • John Liu
    John Liu December 6, 2017 at 12:03 am

    I think PBOT might have done well to initially involve the neighborhood in devising the diverter plan, e.g. at a meeting where different alternatives were presented and people got to put stickers on the plans they favor. It sounds like PBOT decided what it wanted to do and then told the neighborhood as a fait accompli.

    That said, PBOT should look at all information to judge neighborhood support or opposition. The entire number of voices, not just the loudness of voices. When PBOT sent flyers to the neighborhood, it could have included a return postcard. What’s the yes/no split on Nextdoor? The show of hands at tonight’s meeting? The tally of online responses? The number of people signing yes vs no petitions?

    Suppose a clear majority of the neighborhood does in fact oppose the 50th diverter. Should PBOT just ram it through, without exploring alternatives with the neighborhood? Well, that may cause other neighborhoods to oppose greenways, and damage support for cycling. Are the problems on Lincoln serious enough to make that worthwhile? Not a rhetorical question: I don’t know.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Doug December 6, 2017 at 9:10 am

      PBOT already held an initial open house, and then also presented to the HAND neighborhood, to Richmond, and to Mt. Tabor. They made changes in response to what they heard at those meetings, where they felt those changes would better accomplish the policy objectives (added the diverter at 30th, e.g.). As with many policies that the Council has adopted, designed to best serve the entire city, the opinion of those who live in one small area should not be the only determinant of what gets done.

      Recommended Thumb up 27

    • paikiala December 6, 2017 at 9:15 am

      PBOT actually presented a different diverter design at the pre-meetings with the neighborhood associations, all three, and changed the diverter at 50th to enable left and right turns, when the original diverter was like the one at 20th, right in right out only.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • maxD December 6, 2017 at 10:58 am

      John, as I understand this, the plans are based on traffic predictions and are designed to reduce traffic to an acceptable threshold for a greenway to meet safety standards. I realize this is not purely objective, but it is based on quantifiable data and proven methods and is working toward a quantifiable goal. I do not think you can achieve this by presenting options and letting consensus drive decisions. I think there is a time and a place for community input, and safety improvements is not the time. I think the openhouse should have been framed as as a presentation of coming changes and opportunity for PBOT to explain the rational behind the decisions, and an opportunity for the neighbors to express concerns. This should not have turned into a “should we do the safety improvements or not” situation, it should have been a “what options do you support to deal will impacts from the coming safety improvements?”

      Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Clark in Vancouver December 6, 2017 at 12:25 am

    All this for a little diverter? Crazy. If they think this minor tweak to the street is an affront then they’re really not ready for the future.
    You know some car people have become so accustomed to being able to drive everywhere that any tiny inconvenience like this is seen by them as a huge threat.
    This is why I no longer support compromises like this. They’re never happy no matter what you do. Trying to appease them by meeting them half way doesn’t work so you might as well go all the way.

    Recommended Thumb up 75

    • axoplasm December 6, 2017 at 11:18 am

      All of this.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Jay December 6, 2017 at 3:57 pm

      Is there. ‘Comment of the week anymore?’

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Kyle Banerjee December 6, 2017 at 4:24 pm

      If being willing to spend a huge percentage of your energy on small projects by adopting a no compromise attitude towards opposition that is way stronger than you doesn’t work, I don’t know what will 😉

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Eric Leifsdad December 9, 2017 at 1:21 am

        The support will grow from people riding bikes instead of giving up because all of our bike infrastructure literally puts cars first over and over. Urban transportation is a geometry problem and the people who complain loudest are the worst at math. Make it more convenient to ride a bike than drive a car, and voila.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Bjorn December 6, 2017 at 2:00 am

    Thanks for all the reporting on this and the links to how to comment. I couldn’t attend but took the survey and sent out some emails. This story and the impact it has is a perfect example of why I am a bikeportland subscriber and I urge others to consider joining if you haven’t already.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

  • Brian December 6, 2017 at 6:25 am

    Wow, this sounds like a meeting to discuss whether or not to add trails in Forest Park.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • flightlessbird December 6, 2017 at 11:35 pm

      id have to say it was worse than any MTB related open house I have ever been too. I don’t intimidate easy, but I felt very uneasy being surrounded by so many anti-50 stickers…poor form…

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Bikeninja December 6, 2017 at 6:49 am

    ” There is no more potent force in the modern world than stupidity fueled by greed”

    Edward Abbey

    Recommended Thumb up 21

    • paikiala December 6, 2017 at 9:18 am

      “There is more to life than simply increasing its speed.” – Gandhi

      Recommended Thumb up 18

    • paikiala December 6, 2017 at 9:20 am

      “If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” -Woodrow Wilson, 28th U.S. president

      Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Justin December 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm

      The best things in life covfefe – Aesop

      Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Alan Love December 6, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      “People. They’re the worst.”
      George Costanza

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 4:54 pm

      “Don’t believe everything you read on the Internet”

      – Abraham Lincoln

      Recommended Thumb up 11

  • VS December 6, 2017 at 6:51 am

    Another of the silly anti diverter arguments were that property values will drop. There was a man at the mtg arguing that Clinton street has killed property values in that neighborhood.

    Property values are an issue around Clinton, as they have gone up like a rocket and it’s hard to afford.

    Recommended Thumb up 24

    • psyfalcon December 6, 2017 at 7:01 pm

      I think you could close the entire street to car traffic and property values would still go up.

      Try it maybe? If they drop maybe I can afford to move back?

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Ted December 6, 2017 at 7:14 am

    Yes, the descriptions accurately portray what happened. The opposition was well organized. They had someone stationed at the door with a poster of “statements from cyclists” in opposition to the diverters and someone inside passing out PBOT’s comment cards only to others in the anti-diverter crowd. I noticed someone smirk and nod when I made that observation to a friend. Many of those in opposition who spoke in the hijacked portion of the evening claimed to be a cyclist, but their comments ultimately ended up being about driving.

    The flyer passed out among residents seems to have had a strong effect, but is dishearteningly misleading. Has the post-fact world made its way to progressive, well-educated Portland?

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • bikeninja December 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

      You may have noticed that many “well educated progressives” will morph in to stealth republicans when confronted with these three issues: 1) the market value of their real estate, 2) changing the attendance boundaries of the school their child attends, 3) anything that impedes their ability to drive little Britney to Soccer practice in the Yukon ( hybrid version of course).

      Recommended Thumb up 38

      • Middle of the Road Guy December 6, 2017 at 10:33 am

        Those are not valid concerns?

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • 9watts December 6, 2017 at 11:53 am

          privileged people also have concerns, but it is good to keep things in perspective.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Kyle Banerjee December 6, 2017 at 4:26 pm

          Of course not — they live there. For their concerns to be valid, they’d need to want to close the street to “outsiders,” particularly those in motorized transport that is not technically classified as a bicycle.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

      • buildwithjoe December 6, 2017 at 9:57 pm

        You may have noticed that MLK said the “white moderate” was worse than the KKK. This is why Portland has a developer who started a right leaning housing coalition called “Portland For Everyone” (PFE) This developer evicted black renters on Albina then flipped the condos. A real Portlandia story. It’s also no shock that this developer opposes rent control, and is white, and well off financially. One of the nice landlords people might say. Who is the twitter manager for PFE?Answer: Michael Anderson from Bike Portland.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • 9watts December 6, 2017 at 7:40 am

    One wonders what role Nextdoor plays in this polarization? This hardening of an oppositional position? I’ve not seen the conversations on Nextdoor fostering mutual understanding, examining, interrogating the thinking on both sides, giving everyone opportunities to hear and perhaps even understand each other. Which is really too bad because it would in theory be well positioned to do just this.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • Middle of the Road Guy December 6, 2017 at 10:35 am

      Next door really does not have the structure to support that. If those kinds of discussion arise, it is usually an organic occurrence.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts December 6, 2017 at 11:54 am


        I was thinking of some guidelines for self-policing that recognized the propensity of this particular format to send conversations off the rails.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Mike Quigley December 6, 2017 at 7:51 am

    I don’t see why people find this kind of behavior shocking in the age of Trump. It’s America’s new normal. Make it work for you. Have fun with it.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Manville December 6, 2017 at 9:06 am

    This sounds a lot like the ORMP meetings. It’s funny that in such a liberal city the “I am fourth generation Portlander” nationalist type argument is so prevalent. I guess people don’t see the correlation.

    Recommended Thumb up 16

  • soren December 6, 2017 at 9:06 am

    I entered the open house with the BikeLoudPDX group and several others who entered at the same time. There was a large cluster of people surrounding two people on stage conducting a Q&A. Many of the these people were physically blocking access to the informational posters and to PBOT personnel. When I and others started asking what was happening we were aggressively “Shushed” by the cluster of people surrounding the stage, many of whom were wearing anti-diverter badges. I was told to be quiet in a very rude way by one of these individuals — essentially told to “shut up”. Others were were also told to be quiet in a hostile manner. I later spoke to several people who said that they moved away and/or “zoned out” because the aggression of this group was so high. I noticed people leaving the meeting while this was happening and it’s not a stretch to assume that they were intimidated by this aggression.

    I pushed through this aggressive crowd and climbed onto the stage and found PBOT staff essentially hiding behind the crowd. Because I was confused about who was leading this Q&A, I asked Roger Geller (PBOT bike coordinator) if either of the people leading the discussion were PBOT staff. To be blunt, it was hard to get a straight answer to this simple question. When it became clear that neither of the people leading the Q&A were PBOT personnel, I told Roger that allowing a crowd to silence and intimidate people at a public city open house was inappropriate.

    I began to have “discussions” with some of the protesters on stage and was once again told to be quiet. The protesters and action-leaders told me that it was their right to have a “spontaneous” discussion at this city meeting and that if I wanted to be heard I should get off stage and raise my hand. I disagreed strongly and stated that since I had arrived only people who were opposed to the Greenway project were being called on (many of the protesters wore badges with a 50 and a slash symbol). Several of the protesters on stage admitted that this was true and one even admitted that this was a problem (this was the only brief moment of civility I experienced).

    At this point, I became irate and once again looked for Roger Geller to voice my concerns. As I patiently waited for Roger to finish talking with a protester (wearing a badge), another protester moved very close to me and loudly proclaimed several times that they were next. I politely let them have their say. However, when I attempted to speak with Roger, the protest leader loudly interrupted me and spoke over me despite my telling her multiple times that I had patiently waited to speak with Roger. Despite my attempts to break into the discussion, the protest leader continued to ignore me and continued to loudly speak over me. When I tried to speak to the PBOT engineer (Scott Batson) a protester once again tried to shut me down using a similar tactic. IMO, there was a coordinated attempt to surround PBOT staff, block access, and shut down those who were perceived to be pro-diverter.

    As a socialist, I am not opposed to direct action and support the right of Portland residents to hold actions at city events. What I found very troubling and unacceptable about this direct action was the strong hostility and aggression directed at other residents (who none of these badge wearing protesters knew personally).

    I urge all Portland residents who were affected by this aggression and intimidation to write to Commissioner Saltzman, Director Treat, Projects Group Manager Art Pearce, and Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller:;;;

    I also urge people who want to preserve the comfort and safety of our Neighborhood Greenway network to use the project survey form here:

    Recommended Thumb up 42

    • Middle of the Road Guy December 6, 2017 at 10:38 am

      You should step on their feet and pretend it was unintentional.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • David Hampsten December 6, 2017 at 8:34 pm

      Now democracy is dead in Portland too. (It’s been dead here in NC for quite some time, long before Trump.)

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Terry D-M December 6, 2017 at 9:24 am

    As I have told neighborhood leaders there are ways to improve the functionality of the Diverter at 50th by improvements in auto capacity in other areas, signage or even an uphill curb tight eastbound bike lane combined with a semi-diverters.

    But that means the residents would have to accept compromise and talk rationally.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Toadslick December 6, 2017 at 9:26 am

    There is no debate to be had when the people driving 4,000-pound exhaust-spewing SUVs yell that the people on 20-pound bicycles are the ones not “sharing the road.”

    We know from nearly every example in recent history that ignorant people will fight tooth-and-nail against any minuscule effort at street-calming, only to embrace it after the infrastructure is in place.

    PBOT, please do the right thing and install these diverters.

    Recommended Thumb up 47

  • Robert Spurlock December 6, 2017 at 9:32 am

    I showed up about a half-hour into the meeting and witnessed an ugly seen. There were several PBOT staffers up on the stage with a mob of about 80 people gathered around them, and a woman in front (who I was told was on the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Board) directing a question and answer session. I have hosted several public engagement events, and I can honestly say that this is a worst-case scenario for any public open house because it actually limits the opportunities for Q&A and cuts off productive dialogue by only allowing one out of nearly 100 people to talk at any given time. This format actually limits participation by creating an intimidating environment where people with differing views, people who don’t speak English well, people who can’t speak loudly, etc, feel silenced.

    I hung out around the perimeter of the mob, engaging my neighbors (I’m a Richmond resident) and fellow bicyclists in conversations about the pros and cons of the project. But to my astonishment, each time a new side conversation picked up, we were summarily sushed by the mob. We were literally being silenced. To me this was the ultimate insult and was unacceptable, so I took matters into my own hands.

    I worked my way to the front of the crowd and told the woman “facilitating” the Q&A that she should disperse the crowd to allow the open house to continue as planned. To my amazement, she heard my concerns and complied. The mob broke up and dozens of one-on-one conversations picked back up. I left shortly after and didn’t witness how the rest of the evening progressed. I felt like I had done my part, but it was not a positive experience.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

  • Brian December 6, 2017 at 9:48 am

    I am impressed that you all stayed so calm after being treated like children. Nice work. I’m not so sure I would have had the same resolve.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Smarty Pants December 6, 2017 at 9:59 am

    “….very aggressive and nearly took over the meeting.”
    “….They were just really loud.””
    “…Outrageous tactics.”
    “…well organized and angry. Dare I say belligerent. ”

    Wonder if most of those folks were Democrats?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Middle of the Road Guy December 6, 2017 at 10:40 am

      There are good people on both sides 🙂

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • CaptainKarma December 6, 2017 at 1:11 pm

        Do you mean that to be a quote by our (p)resident, and if so, is it ironic or not?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Dan A December 6, 2017 at 7:52 pm

          Did the President even say that? If you asked him today, he’d claim otherwise.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • David Hampsten December 6, 2017 at 8:35 pm

      So Sad.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • soren December 6, 2017 at 10:03 am

    I also want to add that some who arrived with the BikeLoudPDX ride are low-income folk who rent in outer east Portland. To have their access to city staff blocked and to be told to be quiet by generally wealthy home owners in the Mount Tabor Neighborhood is an EQUITY issue.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

  • Todd Hudson December 6, 2017 at 10:09 am

    The last place in which I lived was in the Mount Tabor. I stopped following anything the NA did because it seemed like it was controlled by the NextDoor stereotypes – how they acted during the decommission of the Tabor reservoirs bordered on unhinged.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Andrea Brown December 6, 2017 at 10:39 am

    I have an old friend who lives in Mt. Tabor neighborhood and we certainly do not see eye to eye on this. But we sat down for coffee and talked things through. I didn’t convince him to change his mind one bit, but as we talked, I asked him if, given that Lincoln no longer meets Bike Greenway standards, does he think that Lincoln will remain the way it is, a long stretch with no/few stop signs? Because it doesn’t seem to me that it could, and if not, what might happen to its designation from there? What would the neighborhood think if it returned to a regular neighborhood street with stop signs every two/three blocks? Or if it were to become a collector or arterial to absorb auto traffic from eastern neighborhoods? Do they want their neighborhood divided by a heavily used street like that? Maybe they would be just fine with that, but based on the histrionics that a diverter on 50th has engendered, I’m guessing not. I have been a cranky and sarcastic commenter on this topic, I admit. I am just pretty stunned by the hypocrisy, facile virtue-signaling, and aggressive dishonesty of the anti-diverter folks. My friend and I made a pact that this would not come between us, and it won’t, but it’s been really, really discouraging. The statement that Clinton street values have cratered is risible. “Division Street is already at capacity!” I heard last night, which begs the question, “So where do you all go once you get to Cesar Chavez?” I’m all for logical resistance but over and over when you question people’s declarations of disaster (not everyone’s, but many) what they are saying makes no sense. Just, “I don’t want to change my driving habits. Period.” cloaked in righteous language.

    Recommended Thumb up 30

  • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 10:45 am

    I went to the meeting last night as well. I think the common theme of the neighborhood is simple, every other street is either a dead end or doesn’t go through. Not every situation is the same. What works for one neighborhood may not for others which seemed to be a key element brought to the discussion last night. PBOT desires only the local community to use the roads. The problem happens that when the only access point that connects everything is slapped with a diverter. The local folks then get shoved onto Hawthorne or Divison. Anyone love those those two streets? I can’t say that I have in my 3.5 years living at 60th and Division. In my estimation, PBOT created a monster with Division and Hawethorne to make them more “friendly” but i don’t think people are feeling the kindness. If PBOT didn’t create the current mess of making major thoroughfares “calmed” then this probably wouldn’t be an issue but not everyone can or is able to ride a bike. I am thankful that I am and do but we have to be reasonable with the needs of the community and our own desires.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 11:00 am

      I just don’t understand this thinking. You’d think that one less entry point into a neighborhood would result in less cars in the area but that’s not the logic people from this opposition group are taking. How long does it really take to drive four blocks over to Division, anyway? Can’t be any more than a minute. It’s not like PBOT is forcing them to get on bikes and pedal half a mile uphill.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 11:07 am

        When it’s the only one, then one less one has more value then one that doesn’t.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 11:20 am

          It’s not though. You can access every avenue from Division or Hawthorne (which is a local street east of 50th). The area bounded by Hawthorne, 60th, Division, and 50th really isn’t that large. An extra minute-long drive really doesn’t seem that big of a deal to me. I ride a bike as well as take the bus everywhere and both of those modes require some level of indirect access to my destination – whether having to cycle out of my way to get to a quieter street or having to walk a few extra blocks because the bus doesn’t go to exactly where I need to go. It’s really not that big of a deal and you learn to adapt. I suppose if you’re used to direct access by car, then it can seem like a huge problem, but I think the greater problem is that people get too used to personal convenience.

          Recommended Thumb up 14

          • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 12:04 pm

            I think we have found a place where we agree. They already do. With Hawthorne and Division already succumbing to the calming gods, people use Lincoln as the way to get home. This takes extra time to do so as it is the only access point. If it wasn’t then I’m sure less people would have showed up last night to voice their concerns. Even women who identified as cyclists were against this measure.

            There’s plenty of streets in Portland that are unimproved, dead ended, and “calmed.” I do expect more resistance to the last few streets that are remaining as a result.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • David December 6, 2017 at 12:49 pm

              Even women?!?!

              Recommended Thumb up 10

              • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 2:05 pm

                Despite what others have reported, there were women who were present and who spoke. That is until a male approached the neighborhood association leader and told her that he wanted to say something. She backed down from his intimidation.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 1:12 pm

              Sure but traffic calming by definition means taking extra time. It’s about trading some time for added safety. When I ride, I purposefully slow down so that I have more time to react to hazards. This probably adds a few minutes to my overall commute, but it’s worth it because of the safety benefits.

              I just don’t really buy the “only access point” argument. Not wanting to use Hawthorne or Division is a matter of personal preference, as the city is not adding any diversion there. Plus, there have been very few projects on either of those streets east of Chavez, so saying they have “succumbed to the calming gods” is inaccurate. More accurate is that they have succumbed to traffic congestion, which is a very predictable result of a city that has failed to prioritize more efficient modes of transportation.

              Recommended Thumb up 11

              • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 2:16 pm

                You wouldn’t call Division from 60th to 82nd an improvement? I wouldn’t either. It’s a disaster. When I lived there I couldn’t pull out in any mode of transportation from 6:30-9am and 3p-7:30p. That’s a “traffic god calming” measure.

                I do wonder what role sidewalks still play in all of this. Do we remove them? Expand them to accommodate more cycling uses? At this point the runners don’t even use them? Oops I was daydreaming again.

                Thanks for your input as I do appreciate it.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 2:32 pm

                Sure, but the issue is accessing the neighborhood from the east, and at 60th, you’re already past the area of concern. There are certainly better things PBOT could have done with that stretch, like bus lanes or protected bike lanes. Although the data does show that crashes and speeding were reduced there by 50%, while volumes and travel times stayed about the same, so I think it’s a decent tradeoff.

                Honestly, maybe the compromise solution is to build protected bike facilities on Hawthorne and Division instead of trying to play whack-a-mole with neighborhood street calming. Let cyclists use the same commuter routes drivers do and give them quality safe facilities to do so. Hawthorne certainly has the room.

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 3:28 pm

                Sorry, that first sentence should read “the issue is accessing the neighborhood from the west

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • I'll Show Up December 6, 2017 at 4:08 pm

                Doug, you are one smart cookie! I agree! I mean, aside from the 40% reduction in pedestrian injuries since the Division 60th-80th project it completely sucks! I’m totally fine with more people getting hurt so you can drive faster. Thanks for making sure that the car as king perspective stays put! People need to just run faster across the street. And wear different clothes. And dress like a Christmas tree, tis the season!

                Recommended Thumb up 8

              • Belynda December 7, 2017 at 9:50 am

                This is a reply to one of your later replies about bike facilities on Hawthorne and Division. Bike lanes were proposed for Hawthorne years ago and the Hawthorne businesses and people on Clinton had a meltdown.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

            • anna December 6, 2017 at 9:46 pm

              what the covfefe

              Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Toadslick December 6, 2017 at 3:22 pm

      not everyone can or is able to ride a bike

      Gods, I’m so tired of this trope. Nobody is expecting everybody to walk, ride a bike, or take transit. But if the people who easily could did, then car traffic would not be a problem for those people that depend on them.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 3:31 pm

        It is equally true that not everyone can drive a car.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Dan A December 6, 2017 at 7:56 pm

          There are WAY more people who can’t drive a car than people who can’t ride a bike, walk or take transit.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 9:54 am

            Public transit, walking, and cycling are not viable for many people.

            The average Portland commute is 7 miles. That is unwalkable and will translate to a couple hours or more on transit for most people. Most people would think of that as long, particularly in the dark in inclement conditions when they have to haul stuff and be presentable.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 2:10 pm

              Driving is flat-out impossible for some people.

              Isn’t it curious that ‘safe routes to school’ are not already provided for as part of our transportation grid, and so a non-profit organization must devote much of its resources in lobbying for table scraps?

              Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Kyle Banerjee December 8, 2017 at 10:54 am

                This is certainly the case — I know many people who cannot drive.

                But your contention that there are many more people for whom driving isn’t an option than those who can’t use public or active transit simply isn’t true except in certain areas.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Dan A December 8, 2017 at 2:43 pm

                Are you only considering people over the driving age? Wouldn’t surprise me — our transportation planners pretty much ignore kids too.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Kyle Banerjee December 6, 2017 at 4:38 pm

        Not sure how that follows.

        If you reduce the number of cars, there is much less congestion so the remaining ones move much faster with less need to constantly adjust to other road users making it easier to “multitask.”

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • Dan A December 6, 2017 at 7:57 pm

          You should send this to the NMA as another propaganda point they can use.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 10:20 am

            I stay out of these turkey shoots — even when I live right where they occur. When everyone lobs grenades at each other on small stuff, there’s little to gain/lose and the cost of involvement is high because everything is accomplished by force.

            Identifying areas where you can engage reasonable people to bring about improvement is a far better way to go than investing whatever it takes in specific targets — game theory describes why this works and why the methods advocated by many here result in marginalization.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 2:12 pm

              I probably wasn’t clear enough. You said:

              “If you reduce the number of cars, there is much less congestion so the remaining ones move much faster with less need to constantly adjust to other road users making it easier to “multitask.””

              Are you saying more cars is better, because it reduces the number of drivers using their phones? This sounds like a great bit of propaganda that you could share with the National Motorists Association.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Kyle Banerjee December 8, 2017 at 11:00 am

                I was agreeing with Toadslick’s observation that if everyone who could use active or public transit did, there would be no traffic problems.

                Traffic problems slow everything down so if you eliminate the problems, the remaining cars on the road speed up. To see this dynamic in action, try riding the same sections of busy road at 5pm and 2am.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala December 7, 2017 at 11:37 am

      “…every other street is either a dead end or doesn’t go through”
      You must mean 50th to 60th and only in the east-west direction.
      There are about 16-18 access points to Lincoln from the higher order streets around that area of the neighborhood, and PBOT was proposing to partially close one of them.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Mike Sanders December 6, 2017 at 11:08 am

    Clearly an attempt to kill the project outright. Everyone should be concerned that this incident might end up throwing this project into the gutter forever. And future diverted projects might now be very much in doubt.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • John Liu December 6, 2017 at 11:16 am

    Public meetings on controversial topics have to be tightly run lest they turn unproductive and rancorous. A person with authority has to lead the meeting. At the start of the meeting, rules of conduct have to be clearly stated. Presentation materials have to be visible to all, either via projector/screen or large posters mounted high. Audience questions have to be limited in time (e.g. 2 minutes). Microphones and a PA system help the softer-spoken be heard. Conspicuously videotaping the meeting tends to encourage civil behavior. It may be preferable to have the audience write questions on comment cards and have the leader read the question and have the appropriate person answer. There needs to be a way for everyone at the meeting to make their view known even if they don’t get microphone time, e.g. comment cards or comment sheets circulated and collected. The leader should call for a show of hands as each topic is discussed, and announce the count of hands yea vs nay, to further allow input and let everyone know what the majority sentiment is.

    Advocates attending these meetings also need to do certain things to be most effective. Show up early. Bring and distribute handouts. Plan out the key points you want to make. Participate. Don’t leave early.

    I’ll make this next point with trepidation, knowing it’ll be unpopular. You have to be sensitive to the concerns of both the undecideds and your opponents, including the concerns you consider baseless. They probably aren’t baseless, and usually they can be addressed, in a creative compromise that works for everyone – if people feel like they are being heard, not dictated to by central planners and non-residents who they might perceive as treating their neighborhood as nothing more than a commute route.

    In other words, get out of the echo chamber, listen and exchange ideas not hardened positions, find areas of agreement, build on those.

    There must be a way to find common ground here! Even the local residents who don’t ride bikes must realize that high volume of cut-through commuter traffic zooming through their neighborhood is bad – not just today’s volumes, but the 2-3X higher volumes that are going to come.

    Find residents of the neighborhood who support this project and are knowledgeable and willing to lead the local effort. They should sit down with a couple opponents of the project, someone from the neighborhood’s board (whoever works on traffic/safety), and someone from PBOT who is very knowledgeable about the data for traffic volumes and the possibilities for diversion and mitigation. Do it over coffee, a small meeting in a quiet place to clear the air and explore options in a non-adversarial, open-minded way.

    It will take time and it will be frustrating.

    The alternative is to steamroll the project over what sounds like significant local opposition, and feed the backlash/opposition to cycling.

    P.S. I’d point out that the behavior described in these comments sounds not unlike the disruptive protest behavior that has shut down some city council meetings in the past year.

    Recommended Thumb up 22

    • soren December 6, 2017 at 11:28 am

      This was not a presentation, a Q&A, or an organized forum. It was an informal open house with posters. I have attended many city open houses over the past 18 years and the hijacking of this event was a unique occurrence.

      Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Bjorn December 6, 2017 at 11:39 am

      Contrast this to events around the Riverview Cemetery acquisition where city officials absolutely refused to allow people to say the word bicycle out loud. I am very surprised to hear that Roger allowed the meeting to be commandeered in this manner as I would have thought he would have kept better control. Likely he just blindsided by what happened I guess.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • soren December 6, 2017 at 11:43 am

        Yeah…I think city staff were in shock.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Brian December 6, 2017 at 12:09 pm

          At that point they should have just shut it down.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

      I actually talked with a few people with the NO/50 pins and they seem like reasonable people when talking one-on-one. I explained to them that I live in the area and ride the greenways often and how much better the diverters on Clinton improved the situation for me. We all agreed that we didn’t want more cars on streets and they seemed like they understood why I support the diverters. They seemed more willing to listen to me because I live in the area, but I explained to them that that shouldn’t be given extra weight because people outside the neighborhood might want to use the facility too and their voices also deserve be heard. They actually agreed, citing how the Mt Tabor Reservoir issue affected the entire city and not just their neighborhood.

      We agreed that we actually need more diversion on a neighborhood-wide scale, rather than the corridor-based approach. PBOT really doesn’t properly address the issue of parallel streets getting additional motor traffic, other than telling people “it still meets our standards” and essentially telling residents to suck it up and deal with it. No wonder people are upset! While still a minor increase, the fact that PBOT really doesn’t do anything to address parallel streets is what seems to anger the neighborhood the most.

      Point is, actually talk to these people face to face and they seem to listen for the most part. This is why the “large crowd talking at PBOT” set up doesn’t work – it encourages groupthink and doesn’t allow people to converse with each other on a more personal level.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

      • Clark in Vancouver December 6, 2017 at 2:48 pm

        This sounds good. A neighbourhood wide traffic calming plan, that people who live there can be part of creating. PBOT (or somebody) could set up workshops where people can identify what their needs are, identify what is currently a problem, learn best practise from around the world, make a plan and go from there. It’s a big step of course.
        In general it’s better to involve opponents in the process instead of fighting them. They can then let go of their anger and do something productive to improve things. If they are there only for political gain then that will be found out in the process.

        Vancouver, BC has done things like this successfully. There was the South False Creek improvement project that brought together all sorts of interested folks, people from interest groups (seniors, handicapped, cycling, walking, environmental, etc), city engineering department staff, etc. They held workshops to figure out issues and solutions. The process resulted in a project that included in a really good plan. It also transformed those opposed into allies.
        Now they’re doing another one with the new Arbutus Greenway rail-to-trail project. A group was formed and they’re holding workshops and will work out a plan over the next year.
        It’s a slow process but worth it in the long run.

        I think this diverter is a tiny thing but people latch on to it because they’re not offered anything better. They really should be transforming the entire neighbourhood with an overall plan. If they just put in this one diverter and leave it at that, other issues will come up later anyway.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • soren December 6, 2017 at 2:57 pm

        PBOT really doesn’t properly address the issue of parallel streets getting additional motor traffic, other than telling people “it still meets our standards” and essentially telling residents to suck it up and deal with it. No wonder people are upset!

        PBOT installed stop signs and speed bumps to mitigate additional traffic on parallel streets for both the SE Division and 52nd diverter and the SE 32nd and Clinton diverter. Recent data shows that parallel streets around the 52nd diverter have typical very low traffic counts.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 3:39 pm

          Oh, well that explains those speed bumps on 51st then. Still, seems more complaint-driven than a meaningful effort to mitigate on a holistic manner. I’d still rather see a more proactive approach. If the data show that the neighboring streets had low traffic counts, how do we convince people to actually look at the data? It’s not as if the city hasn’t done project like these in the past that we can point to.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • soren December 6, 2017 at 3:55 pm

            The mitigation was agreed upon before the diverter was installed. Here is the link to the count data:


            Recommended Thumb up 1

          • paikiala December 7, 2017 at 11:39 am

            ‘Mitigation’ implies post project, not pre-project. No one has a crystal ball to predict how people driving will shift.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Anne December 6, 2017 at 11:33 am

    The sticky thing about this project is that the greenway is not compliant with PBOT standards.
    Wait, I’m confused. Doesn’t PBOT create Greenways?!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • mark December 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

      I think the point is that the street now has too much motor traffic on it for the Greenway classification. The diverters are meant to address this issue by lowering the amount of through traffic on the street.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Catie December 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm

      There are recommended standards for the speed and volume of auto traffic on greenways. Preferred 1000 autos/day, 2000/day max. Over the years the number of autos using this greenway has increased over these numbers as people use it to avoid higher traffic streets. This Greenway Report has a nice analysis of the situation.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • soren December 6, 2017 at 2:47 pm

      Lincoln-Harrison was built as a bike boulevard (different standards) and never fully upgraded to Greenway standards.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Art fuldodger December 6, 2017 at 6:58 pm

        The initial Traffic calming on Lincoln and Clinton (circa 1987), which consisted of the much-reviled traffic circles (speed bumps not yet having arrived on the Portland scene) and traffic diverters at Chavez née 39th, was not in any way a bike project. The diverter cut-throughs were very much an afterthought, since the space needed to be there for emergency vehicles anyway. Speed bumps were added later on as part of a bike project, and more were added later as a byproduct of the Hawthorne streets ape project.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Bjorn December 6, 2017 at 11:36 am

    My take is that the only decent option these folks have left PBOT with is to install the diverters today. If they give even the appearance that these tactics worked to delay or derail the project then this nonsense will become the playbook for NIMBY’s throughout Portland and that definitely doesn’t seem like a road the city should want to go down.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • Jim Lee December 6, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    Forget PBOT.

    Forget BTA.

    Learn to ride our bikes better!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • CaptainKarma December 6, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      Perhaps mor inclusively phrased
      – “learn to use our streets better” ?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Doug Hecker December 6, 2017 at 2:18 pm

      Like wearing a seat belt in a car, helmets and lights should be a requirement for biking.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Captain Obvious December 6, 2017 at 3:05 pm

        Lights already are — at night, much like they are for cars. Hope that’s not news.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Dan A December 6, 2017 at 8:00 pm

        How’s that working out in other countries where helmet use is mandatory? Let’s ask Australia.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • X December 6, 2017 at 8:59 pm

        This relates to traffic calming how? Are you just outing yourself?

        I’m guessing that 80% or more of Portland bike commuters wear helmets already. Ditto readers of this blog.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • 9watts December 6, 2017 at 9:04 pm

        People in Denmark and Germany and Holland also wear setbelts, but they don’t wear helmets (in cars or on bikes).

        You’re not the first to try this equivalency but it isn’t, really.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • B. Carfree December 6, 2017 at 9:42 pm

        Why aren’t helmets a requirement for motoring? People in motor vehicles are 12% more likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries per hour of use than people on bikes. In other words, you first.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 9:43 am

          Can I see the source? Sounds useful.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 10:25 am

            So the logic is we shouldn’t do the smart thing because someone else isn’t? What a winning approach.

            Given how much faster cars move than bikes and that crash energy is a function of the velocity squared, a 12% differential per hour is testament to the safety of cars.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • 9watts December 7, 2017 at 11:27 am


              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 12:54 pm


                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 12:01 pm

              What’s the ‘smart thing’ you’re referring to? Wearing a helmet, or mandatory helmet laws?

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 1:00 pm

                Wearing the thing.

                But it’s a total waste of energy to examine the merits of vehicle legislation with no bearing on cyclists for deciding cycling issues.

                Speed limits, passing clearance distances, and a bunch of other things that affect cars directly affect cyclists. Whether a motorist who has already crashed is more or less injured does not.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 2:14 pm

                The initial point and counterpoint were regarding mandatory helmet laws.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Kyle Banerjee December 8, 2017 at 10:24 am

                My point is that it is a waste of energy for cyclists to worry whether motorists wear helmets.

                It is also a waste of energy to resist laws that mandate minor behaviors that people generally should be doing anyway and won’t be enforced if they don’t bother.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Dan A December 8, 2017 at 2:51 pm

                “It is also a waste of energy to resist laws that mandate minor behaviors that people generally should be doing anyway and won’t be enforced if they don’t bother.”

                Sure, if you put on blinders to

                1) decrease in ridership everywhere that helmets have been made mandatory
                2) decrease in safety due to the ‘safety in numbers’ rule
                3) more reasons to harass minorities
                4) liability laws that will reduce the victim’s damages when run over by a drunk driver because they weren’t wearing a helmet

                Recommended Thumb up 1

  • John Mulvey December 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm

    Clicky Freewheel
    In our current age of democratic breakdown, should we assume more city meetings will go this route?

    If they succeed in getting the Council to cave then you can bet we’ll see more of it.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • vs December 6, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    I just checked the online petitions pro and con. As of this moment there are 281 on the ‘yes’ to diverters petition and only 261 on the ‘no’ to diverters.

    If you haven’t already, do the PBOT survey at and then go sign the supporter’s petition at

    Those mean people last night are a minority opinion, let’s show our support for this project.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • vs December 6, 2017 at 1:55 pm

    Actually, a huge chunk of the signers on the ‘no’ petition are anonymous. I think the mean people last night are signing their own petition multiple times.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • John Liu December 6, 2017 at 2:04 pm

      Or they are worried about being personally targeted. Which does happen, sadly.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Kyle Banerjee December 6, 2017 at 4:47 pm

      Let no one say that useless tactics belong to any political affiliation.

      I’d encourage this behavior. Whatever you think you’re up against, this would not be it…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    In the Netherlands, they install movable bollards in the street that only allow drivers with a transponder to lower them. All cyclists and pedestrians can access by going around them, of course. Couldn’t this be a good compromise? I imagine the cost spread out over all the affected residents wouldn’t be too much. We could even use fees from a theoretical parking permit program to build them.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • John Lascurettes December 6, 2017 at 4:33 pm

      I’ve seen this in the suburbs of Paris as well. It’s almost like a gated community without the gate — that is, it only keeps out non-neighborhood cars, but not the public’s access to the neighborhood.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Smarty Pants December 6, 2017 at 2:17 pm

    I would say that the people who own homes along the route should be the only ones providing input to PBOT. Any changes to their street may affect their property values and/or the usability of their property.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 6, 2017 at 2:49 pm

      I disagree with this completely Smarty Pants.

      People who live adjacent to roads aren’t the only ones who use them. Therefore they shouldn’t be the only ones who have input on how they are designed.

      Using your theory, only people who live adjacent to freeways should have a say on how they are managed/changed. If only that were true! Fact is it’s often the opposite.

      Recommended Thumb up 15

    • John Lascurettes December 6, 2017 at 4:12 pm

      There isn’t a universe where that diverter would lower one’s home property value. Anything that lowers traffic in front of a home and makes it more livable and walkable is going to be a plus for property values. Only a diverter that would cause a neighborhood becoming cut off from another neighborhood (e.g. a new freeway bisecting a neighborhood) would lower the property value. No one is being cut off from anything except using Lincoln as a moderate-speed cut through, but there are literally several nearby alternate routes (both major and minor).

      Recommended Thumb up 18

      • Smarty Pants December 6, 2017 at 8:50 pm

        Apparently the folks in the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood are the ones opposed to the diverter. What reasons are they giving for their opposition? And is the street that is proposed to be modified in their neighborhood? I’d agree that less traffic on residential streets would probably be desirable by the majority who live there.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • maxD December 7, 2017 at 11:08 am

          I think a few of the Anti-Diverter organizers are trying to keep additional traffic off 55th. They live at 55th and Hawthorne and are well-known nimbys.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • LB December 7, 2017 at 11:57 am

            I oppose the diverters at the location at 50th & Lincoln for many reasons: as a person who drives a car, rides a bike to work, and walks my dog in the area. I live on the corner of 55th and Hawthorne and I AM ABSOLUTELY NOT an organizer and actually take offense at the implication. Jeez – I am not a bad-guy (gal) and I am not a NIMBY. I am not old (well, kind of) and I am a far cry from being rich. We purchased our house for well under $100,000 35 years ago and are fortunate to live in a nice neighborhood.

            Yes, I would like to keep significantly more traffic off the stretch between SE 50th and 55th, which is a designated neighborhood street. Stand on the corner of 55th and Hawthorne sometime, especially at am and pm peak times and on weekends, and observe. My biggest concern is SAFETY. Most cars moving East at 55th and Hawthorne actually use the oncoming traffic lane in order to make the turn because Hawthorne from 55th to 60th is so narrow. Go to Portland Maps street view and google SE 55th and Hawthorne and look at the configuration of that intersection. Hawthorne is only 20′ wide or so and the sidewalks abut the road. Truly, it is not a safe intersection.

            I remember a few years ago when there were two motorcycle police officers that hid behind the large hedge on the SE corner of 55th and Hawthorne who pulled over vehicles, and bicyclists (my best friend’s son got a ticket-seriously), that rolled through the stop sign on the NE corner of 55th and Hawthorne going West. As soon as they pulled someone over and got back to their hiding spot at the hedge after writing a ticket they would immediately pull the next person over. This happened all day long (it must have been a weekend). They also pulled over vehicles and cyclists that rolled through the NW corner stop sign, which happens all the time.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I December 7, 2017 at 7:40 am

      That’s an argument for thousands of “micro-cities” within Portland. Do we want to have fiefdoms, or a city? Good luck trying to drive or bike across the city in a reasonable amount of time.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • John Lascurettes December 7, 2017 at 11:13 am

        Those are usually called the suburbs and tract developments. No thanks.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Gary B December 7, 2017 at 9:22 am

      Can you show me your deed for the road?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • John December 6, 2017 at 2:55 pm

    Clicky Freewheel
    Honestly, maybe the compromise solution is to build protected bike facilities on Hawthorne and Division instead of trying to play whack-a-mole with neighborhood street calming. Let cyclists use the same commuter routes drivers do and give them quality safe facilities to do so. Hawthorne certainly has the room.Recommended 0

    The greenway ‘action thresholds’ for daily auto traffic (the threshold that triggered the whole proposal) are designed around making people who are new to cycling comfortable.

    While Division / Hawthorne bike lanes may be effective for commuters, they will not help to increase cycling among newbies / children / etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Clicky Freewheel December 6, 2017 at 3:44 pm

      While Division / Hawthorne bike lanes may be effective for commuters, they will not help to increase cycling among newbies / children / etc.

      They can be if properly designed. Would you feel comfortable cycling with your kids on this street?

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Patrick December 7, 2017 at 4:19 pm

      Because people not cycling now are just a traffic diverter of encouragement away from becoming cyclist…? I don’t think so. I do not believe this diverter is standing between a non-cyclist turning into a cyclist.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John December 6, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    Actually, a huge chunk of the signers on the ‘no’ petition are anonymous. I think the mean people last night are signing their own petition multiple times.Recommended 0

    I observed more than one person filling out multiple comment cards last night…

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Ryan Janssen December 6, 2017 at 3:21 pm

    I was going to ask “Is fact-based, civil discussion dead in the USA?” Dumb question.

    This is so disappointing.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Kate December 6, 2017 at 3:28 pm

    We were there and it was horrendous! The anti-diverter crowd was completely out of control and rude. Their behavior was atrocious. It was supposed to be an open house, but the first part turned into an unfacilitated meeting, where people were yelling and booing. There was no mic, so you couldn’t really hear what people were saying. Whoever was calling on people was only allowing the antis to speak. The night before the meeting the antis put inaccurate scaremongering flyers on people’s doors, with things like “1,000 cars on your street!” in red. They also have flagged the pro-diverter petition on Nextdoor to try to get it removed. We live in the neighborhood and will be slightly inconvenienced by being required to drive around the block, but welcome the chance to improve safety on Lincoln. These people are snobbish and entitled. Their responses to reasoned argument are things such as anyone supporting the greenway “doesn’t live in the neighborhood” or “live in Portland.” However, many of us in the neighborhood do support this project. Or there is the woman who keeps suggesting that “children live on the side streets” or that parallel traffic isn’t dangerous for bikes, just perpendicular traffic. ?? This comes down to their unwillingness to be even slightly inconvenienced for the greater good.

    Recommended Thumb up 19

    • sami December 6, 2017 at 5:11 pm

      Hey Kate, what’s with the snark? It’s not funny. It’s a fact: many children live on the side streets. They also live on the in-between streets and thoroughfares. Walk or bike around and look at the signs on the side streets between Division and Lincoln. They already say slow down, kids playing and drive like your kids live here. You’re saying the safety here doesn’t count? From the mouth of PBOT the Greenway isn’t a safety initiative. Where do you think people from Division or Powell will go when they want to get through the neighborhood? They’ll go on the side streets. It’s basic. They already do. The comments on this post sound disappointingly similar to rushing a tax or healthcare bill through the House just because. If you listened to the crowd it’s largely anti-diverter for really good reasons. It’s not anti-greenway. The city has many options to calm traffic that don’t require blocking 50th. How can the Greenway continue without blocking that intersection or the intersection at 60th? Everyone here seems mad because other people spoke in opposition as loudly as Critical Mass. Srsly drop the we’re so horrified we were angels at the open house facade. What about that really tall person who was pro-diverter, yelling and trying to drown out voices? Did you forget about him? Or the person in the yellow jacket who climbed on stage to shout at people. Or the other person who said the opinions of people there didn’t count because they’re old? All so sad and disappointing from such a supposedly progressive group of people. This message doesn’t matter anyway. Jonathan doesn’t seem to publish opposing comments to provide the full perspective of opinions here.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Catie December 6, 2017 at 5:54 pm

        What are the many options to calm traffic other than blocking 50th? Do you mean slowing traffic or reducing the amount of traffic? Both are an issue here. I genuinely wanted to hear people’s suggestions to improve the design (such as 50th diverter as an inlet vs an outlet, locating diverters at different blocks) but did not hear anything specific at this meeting.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • sami December 7, 2017 at 7:01 pm

          Hi Catie, Both speed/qty are on my mind since the city-planned density along 50th is bringing with it more vehicles, but it’s still so low key around here right now. If the main goal is to restrict access only to local traffic I’d like to hear from engineers re: ways to do that without shifting the sw inbound burden of the entire neighborhood to the side streets between Lincoln and Division, that permit access to locals without adding congestion to Division in front of the two schools or to the generally dangerous Hawthorne area around 50th where a girl was killed last year. We’re probably looking for similar things, I just don’t believe in this diverter solution because given the options: put more traffic on side streets with kids, put more traffic in front of the schools, or funnel more traffic to the area where a person was just killed, I have no problem saying none of the above, especially when the reason is bicycle “comfort.” A solution that doesn’t shunt drivers to less safe intersections to enter or exit the neighborhood is also desired. And to the person who somewhere on here said 55th and Hawthorne is really dangerous already: yes, that too. Don’t need to add more cars to that sshow.

          (Catie, this isn’t in response to your comment) In general I hope options can be presented without rhetoric or sanctimonious speeches about the value of bikes over other modes of transportation since not all have the privilege of a commute within cycling range or the health needs required. It’s a nice thing when you have it. What’s with chastising people who don’t? People need equal safety consideration regardless of what they’re getting around by, what their income is, their age or ethnicity…riiiight??? My neighbor isn’t a friend when he’s biking and my foe when he’s driving a car. Yes, there are older people in Tabor too because they’ve lived on Tabor for decades. I’m not sure why that’s a problem for some people. I hope we can leave the sad prejudices and stereotyping from some voices in the bicycle community out of future conversations. PBOT can come up with something on point and creative that addresses neighborhood input, and the future and changing state of the city vs. ramming this one idea through.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • 9watts December 7, 2017 at 7:07 pm

            I’m finding this conversation very interesting, and appreciate the diversity of opinions here. Agree with much of what you said, except this:

            “transportation since not all have the privilege of a commute within cycling range or the health needs required.”

            I find it noteworthy that this is always and only mentioned in connection with bicycling, as if everyone can drive but only the rare, fit, beautiful(!) are able to bike. As others have pointed out here, it is almost certainly the case that more folks are able to bike than drive.

            “People need equal safety consideration regardless of what they’re getting around by”

            I think this is a categorical mistake. This entire fracas is not about the safety & comfort of those in cars (or buses); it is about those outside of them. Full stop. We’ve spent more than a century prioritizing comfort and safety of those in cars. It is hight time for a correction.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

          • Catie December 8, 2017 at 2:50 pm

            Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I drive a car and bicycle and I think most people who bicycle fall into that camp as well. Comfort = safety in my mind. I dont think there have been major injuries here, but I have had experiences with being honked at and passed aggressively on this road which does feel unsafe, especially for younger kids or people new to biking. One of my best friends just bought a bike and is a bit hesitant to go out on her own still. When we bike together instead of driving, I still carefully select the greenways that have the best intersections and calmest routes. Many places in the city look safe on the map, but not in reality, and it can discourage people from biking when they accidentally turn on to a higher traffic street or have a car act aggressively towards them. I’ve been lucky to live within a few blocks of or right off a greenway in 3 different places I’ve lived and love the easy bike routes. Its also nice to live on a quiet street and watch the bike commute with a cup of coffee in the morning. I wouldn’t mind going out of my way a few blocks to get home to make the greenway safer but I also try to avoid driving on greenways in general.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

      • buildwithjoe December 6, 2017 at 10:14 pm

        Sami. Could you put those “really good reasons” to oppose diverters into some detail. ?

        I’ve not seen a single detail as to why the anti diverter crowd would oppose these diverters. They might be afraid that traffic from Lincoln will now be going another route and putting the quiet street kids at risk. The point is that cars put all kids at risk. How do you get more people out of their cars?

        A) Get them on other modes

        b) Make the mode of driving less speedy. Yes time is what this is all about. Let’s be honest.

        If we add to car trip times and promote other modes we will wind up with streets that are safer. So what’s other modes? Bikes. What makes bikes work for people, quiet streets with diverters.

        Please sami don’t just sit there in silence now that the loud crowd can’t control the stage.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • soren December 7, 2017 at 8:39 am

        “Where do you think people from Division or Powell will go when they want to get through the neighborhood? They’ll go on the side streets. It’s basic.”

        Some of your neighbors said the same thing about the diverter at SE 52nd and Division…and the increase in traffic did not happen.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • sami December 7, 2017 at 7:07 pm

          Data please?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • sami December 7, 2017 at 7:13 pm

          PBOT “diverted vehicle traffic will generally find alternate routes” Do you have new data about 51st, 53rd, etc. I have conversation input from residents. Do you have traffic measurements? Please do share here.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • paikiala December 7, 2017 at 11:44 am

        “From the mouth of PBOT the Greenway isn’t a safety initiative.”
        Reducing auto traffic and speed on Harrison-Lincoln is entirely about increasing safety to encourage more people to choose bikes for short trips.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • sami December 7, 2017 at 7:07 pm

          Incorrect. Words from PBOT at the open house at one of the tables “It’s not about safety. It’s about comfort.”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jojo December 6, 2017 at 3:46 pm

    In case you want to vote/ comment on the portland Reddit site…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • vs December 6, 2017 at 4:58 pm

      Wow, the reddit feed turns into Mt Tabor residents threatening to cause physical harm to cyclists. Disgusting.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Dan A December 6, 2017 at 8:03 pm


        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • vs December 6, 2017 at 3:49 pm

    Smarty Pants,

    Last night someone who lives East of 50th told me that my opinion didn’t matter because I live West of 50th. The diverter in question would be west of 50th, so on my side of the tracks, so to speak.

    I agree with Maus that those adjacent shouldn’t be the only ones with a valid opinion, but if we use your logic, those on Mt Tabor should have no say, as they are adding traffic on the street within 2 blocks of my house.

    The comments on the ‘no’ petition say as much. They want to be able to drive from the Mt Tabor neighborhood down Lincoln through the Richmond neighborhood. By your logic all the Mt Tabor folks should STFU. Your logic.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Smarty Pants December 6, 2017 at 9:04 pm

      I agree. Those who don’t live on the street to be modified should STFU. Perhaps those who DO live on that street would welcome the change?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Chris I December 7, 2017 at 8:09 am

        You sound like a tyrant.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jay December 6, 2017 at 3:58 pm

    Is there a ‘Comment of the week’ anymore?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alan Love December 6, 2017 at 4:00 pm

    “People. They’re the worst.”
    George Costanza

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Alan Love December 6, 2017 at 4:45 pm

      Whoops, double post. This was a response to the Great Philosopher Quotes thread up above.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Lascurettes December 6, 2017 at 4:16 pm

    There isn’t a universe where that diverter would lower one’s home property value. Anything that lowers traffic in front of a home and makes it more livable and walkable is going to be a plus for property values. Only a diverter that would cause a neighborhood becoming cut off from another neighborhood (e.g. a new freeway bisecting a neighborhood) would lower the property value. No one is being cut off from anything except using Lincoln as a moderate-speed cut through, but there are literally several nearby alternate routes (both major and minor).

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • X December 6, 2017 at 9:03 pm

      SE Portland property values are golden unless and until several large ice sheets break up and slide into the ocean. Mount Tabor beach front? Happy motoring.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Smarty Pants December 7, 2017 at 1:10 am

        Just think of the awesome scuba diving in downtown PDX.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MJS December 6, 2017 at 5:18 pm

    Silly question: is there any way, based on what transpired last night, for PBOT to do a 3-6 month diverter trial? It wouldn’t be “pretty” but wouldn’t it be relatively cheap to set up a few concrete Jersey barriers or planters (like what was originally at Lincoln and 34th?) and watch the data? I have a feeling data will win this argument pretty convincingly if we give it a chance.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

  • John December 6, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    Ryan Janssen
    I was going to ask “Is fact-based, civil discussion dead in the USA?” Dumb question.This is so disappointing.Recommended 3


    Facts were presented from a traffic engineer (traffic count from rubber hoses) but people questioned whether these facts were real because they never saw the rubber hoses.

    Conspiracy theories about falsified traffic count data!

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Clicky Freewheel December 7, 2017 at 10:47 am

      Probably because they were driving. I see those hoses all the time from my bike.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Ryan Janssen December 6, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    I don’t even know what a winning strategy to combat this nonsense would be.

    They’re behaving like spoiled children. At least with a child you can send them to their room and wait the tantrum out before continuing the discussion. What do you do when adults behave this way and it impacts the safety of so many others?

    Serious question.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Mike Shaver December 6, 2017 at 8:02 pm

    A couple of people have alluded to the mis-information being distributed by those in opposition to the diverter and I agree this is simply fear mongering. I wish PBOT had laid out the actual numbers to neighbors right away. Here is how the numbers could very well break down. The diverters could reduce the volume on Lincoln by 1,000 cars a day and of those only 20-40% would be local neighbors or cars continuing to cut through. Let’s say for arguments sake it’s 50%, so you have 500 cars a day that need to find an alternative route on the side streets. That is 500 cars a day that need to use one side street between 50th and 60th. That means there is no way any one street will get close to 1,000 cars a day as the opposition is painting the picture of. It’s much more likely that some side streets will see small increases with some increasing a few hundred. Many of the side streets between 50th and 60th already experience very low volumes by any PBOT standard. Many are less than 200 cars a day.

    In many ways the diverter will reduce overall neighborhood cut through much better than the Clinton improvements did, since there is no adjoining East/West route like Woodward.

    It’s very possible presenting this to neighbors would have little effect to change their minds, as they are more focused on the slight inconvenience of not using their current route. But I certainly think it would at least of put some of the hysteria at bay.

    How can PBOT and advocacy groups get the true numbers out? It’s something everyone that is a supporter should point out to city officials.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • John Liu
    John Liu December 6, 2017 at 10:06 pm

    After studying the map and the traffic counts (thanks Soren for posting), I’m wondering if a diverter blocking westbound traffic at Lincoln/60 and, maybe, another diverter blocking westbound traffic at Lincoln/50 might be a compromise. These would discourage morning westbound commuters from using Lincoln as a cut through alternative to Division. Eastbound traffic volume seems lighter than westbound, and turning off Division eastbound to use Lincoln eastbound involves a left turn across Division.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • John Liu
      John Liu December 6, 2017 at 11:39 pm

      I see paikalia responded to this idea in the other thread. He said a diverter at 60 wouldn’t reduce traffic as much. Maybe so but perhaps it would reduce commute cut through traffic while not impeding local traffic? Which might ease the residents’ concerns.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala December 7, 2017 at 11:48 am

        The diverter at 60th would have to accommodate transit as long as transit uses Lincoln.
        I doubt the no crowd would agree to any form of diversion.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • John December 7, 2017 at 8:58 am

      I like the idea of a compromise. Westbound diverters could be effective.

      However, many Mt Tabor residents want to retain access to the westbound Lincoln route to Chavez. Ironically, this kind of use is exactly what is driving the city to take action on the Greenway (Mt Tabor residents using Richmond neighborhood as a cut-through).

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • buildwithjoe December 6, 2017 at 10:24 pm

    I spent much of Saturday in this area as a volunteer going door to door by myself. One woman was willing to share why she opposed the diverters.

    The defense came out quickly….. Joe did not live in the neighborood. Joe’s voice should not count as much as people who live there.

    I pointed out that is not a reason to exclude me. I don’t live on Clinton or Division, but I need those 2 streets when I go to/from work.

    So the choice is
    a) Joe in his Honda Civic on streets.
    b) joe on his bike on Clinton.

    What do you want folks?

    I might just find that It’s nicer to drive to work in my Honda civic up and down Lincoln at a very slow speed to keep everyone safe. It’s right on my path. It’s much faster than Division. I would encourage people with cars to be a bike ally. Bike the route. And use Lincoln/Harrison as much as possible in their very slow moving motor vehicle the next few weeks. Perhaps we can get some type of button too. It can be big enough for the people who live there to see it as we drive by slowly on our way to/from our jobs.


    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Kyle Banerjee December 7, 2017 at 10:45 am

      So the choice is a) Joe in his Honda Civic on streets. b) joe on his bike on Clinton.What do you want folks?

      If that’s all it takes to get a strong bike advocate in a car in an area that’s pretty easy to ride, I’m not sure why we have any reason to believe that people who have no affinity for bikes and don’t like being in weather will suddenly start riding everywhere with some infrastructure improvements.

      I’m not a huge fan of drivers on greenways, but I don’t blame them for taking them — especially to avoid Division which can be absolutely hopeless. Curiously, I find myself cycling on busier roads that move or that least have sufficient space to greenways because once you get a driver behind a really slow cyclist, everyone is scrеwed.

      The diverters would obviously help with this problem in the case at hand, but unless those who support them have a better response to those legitimately concerned about aggravating a bad driving situation than something that boils down to, “suсk it in because cars suсk,” you shouldn’t be surprised by the response you’re getting.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Daniel Patrick Johnson December 7, 2017 at 12:17 am

    Sorry I missed it. I’m a genuine Mt. Tabor neighborhood resident now. I often use that intersection on my bike. The car traffic has gotten terrible, and with insanely expensive cars. I just freeboxed a suit on my walk home. At least the brand new expensive cars have automatic breaking. Last year I witnessed a teenage girl die in the street when she was hit by a speeding SUV. A few months later people barely jumped out of the way in time when an SUV crashed into a vision clinic waiting room. The street side wall was touching chairs on the far side of the room. These were both on Hawthorne. Stuff like this happening and they are worried about a minute once a week grocery shopping.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Dave December 7, 2017 at 1:55 am

    This is my first time writing on this forum site. I view myself as biker. I have lived on Lincoln street for 31 years. 56 Street would go through my housei if it didn’t deadend. I drive a car, use mass transit and bike to get around. I have commuted to jobs using a bike as far away as Lewis & Clark in the SW and Cascade Parkway (by IKEA) when My job did not require a vehicle. for the job. I personally have never felt unsafe riding my bike on Lincoln Street which I continue to do quite regularly now that I am retired.

    I oppose the diverter because despite the measured numbers exceeding the recommended standard for a greenway I experience Lincoln as very Bike friendly place to use. I ride that street at all times of the day, afternoon and night. For long stretches it’s empty of cars. I do not mind the level of traffic on the street nor the bus since it provides easy access when I use it.So to travel an extra 1/4 of a mile down to Division, plus whatever the % of waiting at the light to turn east on Divison and than another quarter of mile to Lincoln doesn’t make sense to me.

    I also oppose the plan because of the process. I think many of my neighbors who don’t ride including even myself where not even aware that this was a proposal or project. I think many neighbors including myself who are Bike users and supporters in other ways think the funding could be better used to target areas to mitigate other Bike traffic issues.

    I personally reached out and introduced myself to folks who where in support of the plan because after this has been decided you are still my neighbor. My sense is that most folks are annoyed with the city not the folks who support the plan unless they have made some of the remarks mentioned in earlier entries.

    I am gathering from the content and tone of some comments that several of you are Bike advocates for the increase of alternative transportation options throughout the city. I think this contributes some tensions because although everyone has a right to voice their opinion because as someone mentioned we all use the road or have an ideal vision that we promote
    we are affected different ways.

    The trust level in the neighborhood for the city bureaus is suspect because of past history with the Park And Water Bureaus. The folks who oppose this who live in the affected area simply don’t see a problem or a policy despite what the numbers say that warrants what’s being asked for as a remedy.

    I am happy to meet with anyone who agrees or disagrees to better understand each other or find
    Other ways to address the multiple interests.

    Thanks-Dave Striar

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Dan A December 7, 2017 at 9:45 am

      Sorry, you lost me at “biker”. I have a hard time trusting cyclists who call themselves “bikers”.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • John Liu
        John Liu December 7, 2017 at 9:55 pm

        What a strange litmus test.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Dan A December 8, 2017 at 2:53 pm

          I’ve found it to be pretty reliable. Like when people say, ‘I’m a biker and I support mandatory helmet laws’ or ‘I’m a biker and I think we need to start paying our fair share’.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • I’ll Show Up December 7, 2017 at 9:55 am

      I’m your neighbor. The way that I and other neighbors were treated and shut out by the opponents of this project at the open house already has changed the way I feel. Having coffee so I can hear the exact same talking points doesn’t sound like a good use of time. You didn’t share anything here that every other opponent doesn’t say every time.

      There doesn’t seem to be room to hear that I couldn’t ride a bike to school with my kid when she went to Bridger for Spanish immersion because of the amount of traffic on Lincoln. She’s one of the much larger group of people that can’t drive compared to those that can’t bike. Everyone under 16 can’t drive. Many seniors and people with disability can’t. But our neighborhood “advocates” respond that going out of the way is too much of an inconvenience to have a way for a kid to ride her bicycle to the park. Do you think that families actually feel safe letting their kids ride on Lincoln?

      Perhaps start in your own circle. CharacteriIng supporters as the bullies the other night is propaganda and divisive and there’s no way I’m engaging until there’s a toning down so that we can have a voice within the official process.

      As of now, I just feel under atrack. Change the tone and maybe more opportunities will arise.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • John Liu December 7, 2017 at 1:05 pm

        I’d encourage you, Dave, sami, and the other Tabor residents who have spoken up on this thread, on either “side” of the issue, to find a way to get in touch and meet up. Things like this can divide a neighborhood, or they can bring the neighborhood together. Everyone has to be open-minded, put themselves in the other persons’ shoes, not vilify either drivers or cyclists/bikers, and creatively look for common ground. I have to think there is a broadly acceptable solution here. Not sure how you’d make contact but perhaps Jonathon can help there?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • I'll Show Up December 7, 2017 at 3:49 pm

          If you and your wife had been bullied in the manner that we were the other night, you would not be happy either. I’ve seen nothing that lends support to an open minded conversation. I do appreciate Dave’s follow up and I’ll post there. But, over the past 15 years, I’ve regularly been bullied at neighborhood meetings by overly-entitled people that are fighting against any change. This isn’t a new thing. This is the way things roll in inner-southeast neighborhoods like Mt Tabor and Richmond.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala December 7, 2017 at 11:51 am

      New to the neighborhood? Since you don’t, apparently, follow the NA meeting notices? PBOT presented at all three NA’s in advance of the first open house.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • q December 9, 2017 at 7:24 pm

        I think the City overestimates the value of presenting to neighborhood associations. Many neighborhood associations don’t communicate well with residents, and aren’t particularly representative of residents’ views.

        There may have been lots of other outreach beyond PBOT presenting at NA meetings–I don’t know. But presenting at them is no guarantee that more than a few percent of residents will be aware of a project or supportive of it.

        As one extreme example of what I’m talking about, I had a case where County staff were meeting on the street in front of my house with NA officers discussing condemning and tearing down my house. I was home at the time. Of course I would have been interested in knowing what they were discussing. But nobody knocked on my door, or contacted me before or after. Either it didn’t occur to them to tell me what was going on, or they were afraid I’d oppose it.

        When I was a neighborhood association president myself, City staff often seemed taken aback that I wouldn’t speak for the whole neighborhood, but instead would tell them to contact residents directly.

        Again, I’m not saying there wasn’t adequate outreach, but that NA outreach is of limited value, and if there’s not a lot of outreach beyond that, it almost guarantees bad feelings among residents.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • soren December 7, 2017 at 12:47 pm

      I have commuted to jobs using a bike as far away as Lewis & Clark in the SW and Cascade Parkway (by IKEA)…I personally have never felt unsafe riding my bike on Lincoln

      Neighborhood Greenways are facilities for people who do not necessarily feel safe cycling near cars. Moreover, if we want to reduce congestion, encourage healthier travel options, address pollution, and help fight climate change then we need cycling routes where children, families, and cautious/new riders (and their loved ones) feel comfortable and safe.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • VS December 7, 2017 at 6:21 am

    Hey Joe, Which area did you walk exactly?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Janssen December 7, 2017 at 9:02 am

    This is really shaping up to look like an organized marketing campaign, complete with talking points and a smear element.

    All the talking points are the same from everyone. When a discussion doesn’t go so well for the opposers, their comments are just deleted. Hell, last night on nextdoor I asked for a fact-based take on this BP article and one response was “You’re disrespecting me, FAKE NEWS!” Those comments are gone this morning.

    It’s looking like we better get organized, and quick. I guess one of the upsides to this is that they’ve convinced me that I need to get more involved with and bikeloudpdx and start showing up at these meetings! I have to assume this has motivated at least a few others as well.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Cyclekrieg December 7, 2017 at 10:29 am

      Astro-turfing you think?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Ryan Janssen December 7, 2017 at 11:01 am

        It’s sure starting to look like that, in my opinion. The talking points are all eerily similar, and it seems everyone that is opposed is a also cyclist, but doesn’t cycle, really. But did one time. And their kid/husband/wife is also a cyclist. And the greenways are fine, never had a single issue, ever. Diverters are great, but not here. Also, PBOT was unprepared and there were only 3 pens.

        It looks very organized and coordinated to me. The messaging is very consistent, like it was calculated and part of the plan. I’d be giving them credit for doing a great job organizing if they weren’t using these shady/threatening methods and dishonestly/fear mongering as their primary tactical approach.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • John December 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    Ryan Janssen
    It’s sure starting to look like that, in my opinion. The talking points are all eerily similar, and it seems everyone that is opposed is a also cyclist, but doesn’t cycle, really. But did one time. And their kid/husband/wife is also a cyclist. And the greenways are fine, never had a single issue, ever. Diverters are great, but not here. Also, PBOT was unprepared and there were only 3 pens.It looks very organized and coordinated to me. The messaging is very consistent, like it was calculated and part of the plan. I’d be giving them credit for doing a great job organizing if they weren’t using these shady/threatening methods and dishonestly/fear mongering as their primary tactical approach.Recommended 0

    I think this same group of organizers led the reservoir resistance… they have experience…

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Dave December 7, 2017 at 12:27 pm

    Look people I just speak for myself. I don’t condone how others on either side represented themselves at that meeting. I am just offering my personal experience and perception in my own imperfect words in as respectful and open manner as I can.

    In terms of organized campaign, what I observed is that there are a lot of people who when they
    Learned of about these up coming changes attended sponsored neighborhood meetings. It just so happens that people independently have arrived at a similar reaction.

    Now the point you are making about kids being able to ride to School on Lincoln to Bridger for Imersion which my kids did at Atkinson for Spanish is new information to me to consider. I would have to hear more about that one. My kids walked with us to Atkinson and walked to Mt Tabor on there own or got a ride. Biking to school was not a concern for my family or others they socialized with or was not viewed as problematic for those who did and several did in many iterations.

    I am not trying to persuade anyone hear to my point of view, but I am persuadable based on new information to me even if it is wrapped in a less than hospitable manner than I would prefer.

    I don’t claim to be a true blue “cyclist” just a guy who rides his bike recreationally and to take care of errands and to feel like I can still do it when I want to. I ride a lot more than most of my friends but probably less than you. I wave my hand thank you to 90% of the drivers who wait for me to pass at a street whether they have to because
    Of a stop sign or not just because I want to create good will between everyone on the road to counter some of the negativity that exists. I don’t have in my mindset that they are lazy, thoughtless, selfless because they choose to drive their car to where ever they choose to go to do whatever it is. I move to side of the road or as close to parked cars so the cars can pass me because I don’t keep up with them and 15 miles an hr is about as fast as I can sustain anyway for any length of time if I am pushing it. I try to to alert the few cyclists I might pass that I am comming up on their left despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of folks forget to exercise this courtesy. I can usually hear cars unless electric but I get surprised by cyclist more often. So those are just a few of my preferences and I suppose define I live on the rode as someone who cycles and drives.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • I'll Show Up December 7, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      Dave, I appreciate your response. The amount of hurt caused the other night isn’t going away any time soon. It’s also not the first time going to a neighborhood meeting in Mt Tabor or Richmond where we came away feeling bullied and beat down by neighbors. I literally can’t talk about this right now without getting flooded after the complete disrespect and devaluing of our thoughts we experienced the other night.

      As for my view: Just sit on your front porch and watch how many kids you see riding past. Not too many because it’s so high stress, particularly in rush hour when people are cutting through our neighborhood instead of staying on streets designed for heavier traffic. That’s just when kids are going to school.

      As I understand it, the current volume on Lincoln is high enough to warrant a bike lane. Would you rather see all the parking removed so that a bike lane can be installed? I wouldn’t. I’d rather it be a calm residential street. Do you think that we can continue to use cars the way we always have into the future?? I mean should Lincoln just turn into a major street? Should we widen Hawthorne or Division? Should we take out all of the houses and businesses that the Mt Hood Freeway would have so that we can just keep driving, just keep having obese children, just keep having seniors live in isolation once they can’t drive?

      Yes, there will be inconvenience. But, the majority of traffic entering would be our neighbors if that Lincoln cut-through is gone. There’s no time savings at that point to cut through. Can we not trust our own neighbors to not speed on our streets? Who’s going to be the people that everyone is saying will zoom around our neighborhood? Those drivers are us.

      The meeting the other night should have been where neighbors could talk to neighbors and get info from PBOT. Instead, a huge portion of the room was summarily dismissed and the other half domineered.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Alex Reedin December 8, 2017 at 6:06 pm

      “I wave my hand thank you to 90% of the drivers who wait for me to pass at a street whether they have to because of a stop sign or not just because I want to create good will between everyone on the road to counter some of the negativity that exists.”

      I salute you for mentioning this; I do the same – and carry the same mentality into the rest of my life! Whenever I encounter one of my betters, I make sure to thank them however possible. Society has spoken: their wisdom in choosing an important career in financial services or software is rightfully rewarded, both monetarily and otherwise. If one of these gods on earth does so much as walk by me without spitting on me, I aim to kiss his hand or his boot.

      I’m doing my little part to reduce the negativity that exists between us lessers and our betters. Our choices to teach or work at non-profits clearly mean that we shouldn’t be provided nearly as good services by society, so I don’t understand why some of my fellow lessers keep on asking for more than a pittance from our local government. Why, our local government has been so kind as to raise our funding from 0.05% of resources for the past seven decades to 3%, which is almost in the ballpark of our percentage of population (6%)! And, we’re finally getting some dedicated space for housing. Yes, it’s just tents separated from our betters’ mansions’ outhouses by six inches and a white sheet, but at least it’s something!

      (Note: I obey laws almost to the letter, and I make an effort to thank any road user who does something that’s beyond reasonable expectations. But thanking people driving for just doing the bare minimum – waving when someone driving gives me a safe amount of space while biking, scurrying across a crosswalk with a mouthed “Thank you!” when someone actually follows the crosswalk law and stops – I think perpetuates the all-too-common attitude that doing these basic things is optional and that driving fast and unimpeded by other road users is a right).

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • soren December 8, 2017 at 6:34 pm

        “our local government has been so kind as to raise our funding from 0.05% of resources for the past seven decades to 3%, which is almost in the ballpark of our percentage of population (6%)!”

        i don’t think this is accurate, alex. i would love to see pbot separate active transportation funding from the broader “safety/vision zero” pot.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex Reedin December 11, 2017 at 9:06 am

          Yeah, I made it up for my bitter analogy… not sure which way it’s wrong, though. I recall that during the Adams administration, they tried hard to get cycling dollars up to mode share, but I don’t know whether they’ve stayed that way. Maybe they’ve even increased, though I highly doubt it. Regardless, the seven+ decades of neglect are what really tips the scales.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Janssen December 7, 2017 at 12:58 pm

    Well, now I know!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Janssen December 7, 2017 at 1:27 pm

    Dan A
    “How to Build Opposition to Traffic Calming”, by the National Motorists Association 0


    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Anonymous December 7, 2017 at 11:07 pm

    One of the anti diverter protestors was described as asking for drivers licenses of people at the meeting. For sure this is the same individual who has accosted people at several RNA meetings. Most if not all RNA board members could name this person easily just by hearing this story and the quote by Cory P at the top of this post.

    This person needs to be called out on his behavior – it is borderline assault. He is basically responsible for one RNA board member resigning, as that person felt unsafe around him. He is intimidating and rude. We could use some help in making sure this person does not intimidate people at board meetings (and evidentially now at community meetings like this as well). His approach makes it obvious that he isn’t able to reason with people. He is trying to “win” this issue by seeing it as a battle rather than a discussion with neighbors.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • mark smith December 9, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    Nobody filmed this with everyone having a camera in their pocket? Wow. Come on folks. Get serious.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Ryan Janssen December 10, 2017 at 12:19 pm

    Mark, why would someone expect to have to record a public open house? This was a blindside for almost all of us. Rest assured, if it happens again, someone will have a video. I doubt these antics will go unchallenged again after this stunt.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Cyclekrieg December 11, 2017 at 8:37 am

      When I worked for a realty developer, we never went into a public meeting without audio/video recording it.

      Which modern technology there various methods to do this with various levels of intrusiveness. Both members of the public and officials will act different if they know a record will exist of their discussions.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • LB December 10, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    Mark, I took video of the Q&A with my iPhone because my husband couldn’t attend the Open House and I wanted him to see it. I had no ulterior motive and I will not be sharing it.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 9watts December 10, 2017 at 12:44 pm

      = tease of the week?

      Recommended Thumb up 1