‘Portland Car Master Plan’ among notable topics at upcoming PSU research seminars

Posted by on April 25th, 2022 at 11:41 am

The Transportation Research and Education Center (TREC) at Portland State University has hosted its Friday Transportation Seminars for more than 20 years. These are free events open to students and the public. During the pandemic, the seminars were 100% virtual. But they’re now returning to the PSU campus (though you’ll still have the option to watch online, too) and the upcoming slate is worth your attention.

On May 6, PSU’s resident e-bike experts John MacArthur and Cameron Bennett will present their latest findings about how e-bike incentive programs can expand the market.

We’ve covered TREC’s electric bike research in the past, looking at how rebate or incentive programs can encourage people to buy e-bikes and help people drive less. Electric bikes have experienced a boom in recent years, but to keep it going we’ll have step up the incentives.

Then on May 13th, local activist and Bike Loud PDX volunteer Cathy Tuttle will share a presentation on her Downtown Portland Car Master Plan, where she’ll put a new spin on the car overuse problem with new data about their dominance in our city. “To move to a new paradigm, cities need to acknowledge car dominance and focus on cars with the same rigor they do other modal plans,” Tuttle says about her novel approach to the issue.

Advertisement

On May 20, PSU’s Nathan McNeil, April Bertelsen and Jamie Jeffrey from the Portland Bureau of Transportation and TriMet’s Jamie Snook will present on Portland’s Rose Lane Project. PBOT and TriMet have worked on these dedicated bus lane projects for several years now and this presentation will report back on early lessons learned as part of the design, implementation and evaluation of these facilities.

And to wrap up this interesting slate of Friday Seminars, on June 3 you can hear from students in TREC’s Master of Urban and Regional Planning (MURP) program who are working on the issue of safety for people who live on the street. This presentation will focus on how to implement safety interventions to protect unhoused people. “The solution is more complex than simply sweeping camps near high-crash corridors and moving people experiencing houselessness to safer locations,” says the seminar blurb.

If you love learning about transportation topics like these, check out the Friday Seminar website where you can sign up for emails to hear about future presentations.

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.

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Bryan MorrisSolarEclipseAustinhamiramani Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Austin
Guest
Austin

We need a regional transportation ballot measure that dedicates funding for just biking and walking. Funding that could be used for building more protected intersections, bike and ped bridges over the river, downtown bicycle parking garages, master plans, etc. The measure could also require cities surrounding Portland to develop their plans for bikes and pedestrians and then implement their plans.

Bryan Morris
Guest
Bryan Morris

I’m sure that would pass. Not.

Austin
Guest
Austin

What would you do if you could improve the bike and pedestrian network? (Not asking sarcastically).

Bryan Morris
Guest
Bryan Morris

I’m not taking your question as sarcastic, and neither is my answer. I’d start by clearing out all the drug camps that make our existing MUPs, bike lanes, and sidewalks dangerous and/or unusable. Then I’d keep them clear. Only after that problem is solved on a permanent basis, does it make sense to start creating new infrastructure for bikes and pedestrians. Otherwise, the new ones will end up the same way our current ones are.

SolarEclipse
Guest
SolarEclipse

As a city/region we need to stop with the group think that every good cause needs a ballot measure (aka bond) that would more than likely make living here even more expensive that it already is. Aren’t we also wanting elderly to be able to live in their own homes and not be taxed out because of every feel-good bond?
Once upon a time I used to vote for those feel-good bonds, but then I saw how much my taxes went up and up and up. I no longer vote for any bonds, no matter how I feel about the useage for the bond.
As a walking person I do want improvements, but what I find facinating is PBOT/ODOT don’t seem to have funding issues when it’s a project they (or a politician) wants. The money just appears. But for others to ask for some of that money be used for other road users they claim there is none.

So sorry, if such a ballot measure came in my ballot I would vote a resounding NO.

Bryan Morris
Guest
Bryan Morris

I share some of your thoughts, but I would probably vote for it. It wouldn’t come close to passing though. Some people would vote against it because of taxes. Some people would vote against it because they see the state of our existing bike/pedestrian infrastructure and say no thanks, I don’t want to create any more defacto drug camping zones.

hamiramani
Subscriber

Thank you for this heads up. Really interesting and important subjects.