Was it worth it? Metro seeks feedback on active transportation projects

Posted by on January 20th, 2021 at 12:14 pm

Active Transportation Return on Investment map.

Metro, our regional elected government, has hired a team of researchers from Portland State University to better understand how people feel about key active transportation projects they’ve invested in. Typically this work would be done in person by flagging down path and bikeway users, but the pandemic has forced a different approach.

The researchers have put together an interactive Google Map (above) with 25 different projects. Clicking on a project brings up a short survey with detailed questions about your experiences on the route/facility. The goal is to garner a deeper understanding of the return on investment on these projects — so suffice it to say the data will play a big role in future advocacy efforts.


Whether you walk, use a wheelchair, push a skateboard, bike, run, or whatever — Metro needs to hear from you.

One of the researchers says, “We are especially in need of comments about the 20s bikeway, 50s bikeway, and the Cully Cycle track in addition to Division and Burnside improvements.”

Learn more and find the map link here.

For more information, contact Marisa Zapata (mazapata@pdx.edu), Lacey Friedly (rlacey@pdx.edu), or Jennifer Dill (jdill@pdx.edu).

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.

NOTE: Thanks for sharing and reading our comments. To ensure this is a welcoming and productive space, all comments are manually approved by staff. BikePortland is an inclusive company with no tolerance for meanness, discrimination or harassment. Comments with expressions of racism, sexism, homophobia, or xenophobia will be deleted and authors will be banned.

Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
nic.cotaeawristeChristian SamuelJonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)ivan Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The link leads to a Google Doc that requires permission to access. Is that intentional?


I appreciate Metro’s commitment to connecting trails, building bike infra and acquiring parkland (eg No Fk Deep Creek). Metro did not design the Cully project, so the blame for its poor design does not fall on them.

I typically support physically separated infrastructure. They are one of the biggest reasons other cities have increased their modal share while Portland has stagnated. But the Cully PBL is an incredibly poor design. The purpose of a PBL is to create physical separation primarily at intersections where most injuries occur. On Cully at each intersection people on bikes swerve from behind a parked car to within a couple feet of the car lane. This design is actually less safe than a standard bike lane, and embodies the rather founded criticism most people bring up when PBLs are done poorly. The project cost, at $5.4 million, would have adequately funded multiple concrete protected intersections for the entire project. Cully exemplifies PBoT’s experimentation with a street design and concluding with something more dangerous than the baseline.


Shout out to the 20s! I use it almost everyday.The fact that it connects all of the inner east PDX ‘corridors’ makes it a go-to route to most of my destinations. I don’t know what I would do without it…Thanks for sharing, Jonathon.