Portland NBC affiliate KGW has chosen to highlight the concerns of a downtown hotel manager who says a new bike lane is hurting their business and is a danger to their customers and staff.
Here’s the opening salvo from KGW reporter Mike Benner:
“It’s no secret that downtown Portland is still trying to come back from the pandemic and all of that civil unrest back in 2020. But there are business leaders who believe this new guarded bike lane is not helping the cause one bit.”
“We had an incident where a guest [car] door got hit by a bicyclist.”
– Heathman Hotel general manager
The “guarded” lane is the new parking-protected bike lane on SW Broadway the Portland Bureau of Transportation completed this past fall. This project was the final phase of a 13-year project to update Broadway and create a safer space for bicycle users on this crucial downtown main street. Prior to the creation of this wide, curbside lane, bicycle riders were forced to ride in a door-zone lane with just a few feet of space between people driving and people swinging open their doors. The bike lane was a relic that was long overdue for an update.
But to KGW and the general manager of The Heathman (who was the only non-PBOT source in the story), none of that matters. The only thing that matters is how some hotel guests and a few hotel staff must now deal with a bit more traffic in order to access this business. The story centers the stress felt by the hotel manager for about two months, but not one word is shared about the mortal fear and daily stress posed to bicycle riders for decades before these changes were made.
Both the KGW reporter and the hotel manager spoke of “close calls” between people getting out of their cars and bicycle riders using the lane. At one point the hotel manager said, “We had an incident where a guest door got hit by a bicyclist.” That is a very odd way of describing what was most likely an illegal act by the car user as defined in ORS 811.490 which states that drivers or passengers must not open their doors, “until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic.” Why on earth would a bike rider purposely hit a car’s door and risk injury?
None of that matters in this story because it’s sole purpose is to center the feelings of one business owner and portray the bike lane (and by association, the people who use it) as the antagonist and troublemaker.
Toward the end of the segment, we see a perfect example of how these type of stories tend to over-inflate an idea simply to establish a false narrative that local TV news viewers can sink teeth into.
As the KGW camera ran, the reporter narrated a scene where two people pedaled bicycles slowly and calmly in the bike lane. As they approach someone on foot, the person crossed in front of the bike riders and easily stepped onto the curb. It was a totally normal and sane interaction that happens hundreds of times in our city every single day. But to the KGW reporter, it was a nefarious act by the menacing cyclists in a dangerous bike lane. PBOT’s goals to encourage more cycling, the reporter said in an ominous tone, “Won’t come without hiccups as we saw while shooting video near the Benson Hotel. Close Calls like this one are what bothered [the hotel manager].”
Thankfully, even though KGW didn’t bother to represent a bicycle rider’s point-of-view, they did give a PBOT spokesperson an opportunity to defend the bike lane. Interim Communications Director Hannah Schafer did an admirable job given the circumstances (I can relate to being involved in stories like this where the framing is stacked against you and story editors won’t let your words change the narrative they desire).
This is just the latest example of a lopsided local news story that centers the experience of business owners and drivers over everyone else. Late last month, a Portland Tribune story focused on changes to the lanes on SW Capitol Highway through Hillsdale with a similar framing. The article presented the new bus priority lanes as a problem that was hurting businesses and limiting access for drivers — but it never mentioned how bus users benefit and included no sources who used the bus.
The SW Broadway story ends with a warning that the manager at The Heathman plans to install security cameras to “keep an eye on what she says has become a hazard.”
Hopefully she makes good on that threat. Judging from what I’ve seen in front of the hotel (above), PBOT Parking Enforcement officers could use all the help they can get.
And hopefully, our city’s media and business leaders will move past this tired and false narrative that bike lanes and bike riders are the source of their problems and realize these projects are not perfect because managing streets for a variety of uses (instead of just cars and drivers) is an inherently messy task that requires everyone to compromise, mitigate risk, and muddle through — something bicycle riders have been forced to do out of necessity and yet never this this kind of media attention until one of them is killed while doing so.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Seems like a good solution would be to install a floating island, similar to the island outside the Courtyard by Marriott in Seattle.
It does look like the hatched door-zone area in front of the Heathman is about as wide as that Marriott island. The Marriott also has a defined crosswalk across the bike lane, vs. the Heathman’s free-for-all. I don’t see a curb cut at the Heathman, (unless it’s hidden by the leaves in the middle top photo) meaning the Heathman spaces aren’t ADA compliant, and you can’t roll luggage.
If you put a railing at the bike-lane side of the island, with a break only at a crossing (either raised like the Marriott’s, or at bike lane level with curb ramps) then people could only cross at the defined spot vs. wandering into the bike lane everywhere. There could be “watch for bikes” signs, putting some responsibility on the hotel guests to be careful, instead of placing it all on bike riders as is true now.
Also add green paint, although many guests won’t know what that means.
All that would also make the bike lane look less like a place to drive a car.
It sounds like overkill, but the current design puts all the safety responsibility on riders, and makes it more likely they’ll be blocked by people meandering in the bike lane. All it really means for people using the drop off is they’d have to walk a few feet to get to the crossing area, instead of being able to cross anywhere. On the positive side for them, it would be ADA compliant, allow rolling luggage, and be safer for guests.
Went there tonight, and it made me much less sympathetic to the Heathman, and PBOT.
The bike lane is strewn with leaves. If PBOT isn’t going to keep it clean, the Heathman could easily have someone sweep it long before it looks like this. If PBOT and the Heathman want people to stay in the lane and ride predictably, at least keep the lane in a condition that allows that.
Similarly, the hatched door zone is actually deep enough that people should be able to load and unload, set down luggage, etc. without wandering into the bike lane except when crossing it–IF IT WERE CLEAR.
But the Heathman has a large parking rate sign right in the way, and PBOT has several cones and barricades strewn in it. I realize some are related to the work in front of the adjacent Schnitzer, but (Heathman and PBOT) don’t create conditions where hotel guests have to stray into the bike lane to maneuver around the barriers you’ve created in it.
Finally, there’s no curb cut, so the loading isn’t ADA compliant, and there’s no sign indicating any alternative accessible loading area. That’s a serious violation, and dangerous because a person needing a curb ramp has to get out of a vehicle amidst the cluttered hatched area, then work their way south the the intersection’s curb ramp, but the barricades make that impossible without using the bike lane or traffic lane. The curb also means guests are in the bike lane that much longer trying to roll luggage over the curb.
I think this MIGHT work with an island separated from the bike lane with a railing, and a defined crossing area with no curbs, per my earlier comment. But as it is, it’s an illegal, dangerous embarrassment.
I’d love to see the Heathman and PBOT respond to this.
Things like this are why I have so little faith in Portlanders’ actual desire for change. If people in this city were actually as liberal as they claimed to be, such one-sided media coverage would be laughed off of mainstream networks. Instead, this attitude seems to be broadly reflective of (in my experience) what most people here think of people who cycle and use transit: either too poor to have a choice about it, or dedicated enough that the willingness to deal with TriMet’s poor services or PBOT’s poor cycling network overcomes the hazards involved, i.e., fanatics. Ergo, the bus rider and the cyclist’s experiences can be discounted as unrepresentative.
I really wish that people here were more honest with themselves about how they lean politically. Moving here two years ago from New England, I thought I was moving to one of the country’s most radical and progressive places; come to find out, there is no such thing as a radical and progressive place in America. The conservative, classist attitude of the people who live here about something that should be as objective as transportation proves it.
I hear that you’re disappointed in us; idealized distant places are rarely as good as they seem when you get up close.
Much of what you say about TriMet is true: since Covid, TriMet has become mostly (though not entirely) the last resort of people who have no choice. As for cycling, things were better when more people rode. Cycling has been declining here for years, and while I suspect we’re near the bottom, I think it will be a long time before we’re back up to the 6+% mode share we had in the 2010s. I actually think Portland is still a good place to ride, though I’ve come to prefer walking where that’s a reasonable choice.
I do think Portlanders are overwhelmingly progressive, but reality has been catching up and people have started to realize that not every policy labeled as progressive is a good one.
Interestingly, to my eye, New England looks pretty utopian by comparison.
We have some good, old downtowns, but due to a lot of choices over the past several decades, a lot of what’s made the rest of the U.S.’ autocentric sprawl hasn’t skipped New England: Euclidean zoning, stroads, prioritizing parking over and at the expense of home-building, and the kind of car-brained mentality that is basically de rigeur of anyone who doesn’t think twice about how the U.S.is built and how people get around it. This is especially true of northern New England (north of Boston), which was its own little Rust Belt perhaps until just after the ’08 financial crisis.
A lot of the good urban fabric of those old northeastern town centers have–just like Portland’s–failed to spread beyond themselves. Hence, the entire Greater Boston area’s insanely high home prices; the income-to-home-price index in Boston is second worst in the country after San Francisco. When I tell people I moved out here for cheaper housing, they’re surprised, but the truth is that New England (especially the fools’ refuge that is New Hampshire, where I fled from) really isn’t that different from the rest of the U.S.
The extent to which Portland could be called progressive is like might be said of a lot (though honestly, probably fewer; we seem to subject ourselves to the sort of honesty that I think OR’s progressives importation of CA’s self-deception forbids) of “progressive” New Englanders. We’re progressive about the things that shouldn’t matter (abortion, LGBTQ rights, etc.; things that should just be okay by default), but not about things that’d inconvenience us, like changing our urban and economic modus operandi.These are the kinds of issues that make Europeans say that there is no Left in America.
Europeans say that, and the way they mean it there’s some truth to it, but it’s different than the way you mean it. They mean it the way Soren would.
I lived in Europe for many years, and have visited friends in many countries, and once you get out of the urban cores, Europeans are really not so different than Americans. Many lead quite auto-oriented lives.
And yes, I agree with you about the urban morphology of the northeast; much of it developed too early and is too unplanned.
I can assure you that few, if any, european leftists coddle developers and landlords.
When it comes to transportation goals, urbanists may have something in common with european leftists but definitely not with their methods. For example, the socialist mayor of Paris and her coalition of communists have funded the tens of thousands of social(ist) housing units and hundreds of miles of ped/bike facilities by taxing the crème pâtissière out of the property class:
Note: property taxes are somewhat progressive/means-tested in France.
I’m right there with you Luke. I’ve been in Portland a bit longer than you, but I moved here from out east expecting a transit and active transportation utopia and a region on the cusp of a land use revolution. I’ve since come to realize that Portland residents really aren’t all that progressive in their attitudes toward urbanization, housing, and transportation, and that their attitudes are largely in line with those of Americans in general. Transit service is underwhelming compared to any major east coast city, the bike system has isolated chunks of quality infrastructure, but nothing approaching a network, and reactionary nimby neighborhood groups and business associations are empowered to derail any efforts to improve or transform the urban landscape that doesn’t favor sovs and single dwelling home development patterns.
KGW serves the whole Metro region. The further out from the center city you go, the less progressiveness you’ll find. KGW is playing to the suburban masses. Why anyone bothers to watch news on television anymore (local or otherwise) is beyond me. It’s very rarely well presented by any source. I prefer to read my news.
Let’s not forget who Pebblebrook Hotel Trust, who owns the Heathman, brought in to manage it. Provenance Hotels. And who own Provenance Hotels… Gordon Sondland.
I’m guessing this is an opinion piece. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will do much to convince people that cyclists are rational, constructive people who want to solve problems — it mostly just feels like you’re lashing out against anyone within shouting distance.
Perhaps a responsible party, like BikeLoud, could work with the Heathman to figure out a better way to reduce conflicts, then take that to PBOT and ask them to fix the mess they made.
I feel like I’m stating facts so there’s no need to label is as opinion. The story is lopsided and they want people to be afraid of something that is not inherently dangerous or unsafe at all.
If it feels like “lashing out” to you then I think that says more about you than about me.
But yes, I do agree with you that the issue is best handled by working with PBOT and bike advocates, not by running to the media and playing the victim.
“Fear-mongering”, “nefarious”, “menacing”, “ominous tone”, “thankfully”, “tired and false narrative”, dripping sarcasm, and vague accusations of “illegal acts” are not the words of an objective, factual story.
I suppose this difference of opinion does say a lot about me — I want to find solutions rather than villains, and I am disappointed because I believe this story could have helped set the stage for stakeholders coming together to make this dangerous friction point along a much needed bike facility work better for all involved. And you could have done that while still highlighting the biases and blind spots you observed in the KGW story.
I totally hear what you are saying here Watts and yes it’s not the cleanest way to approach the issue. It could have passed for opinion I suppose. But all the things you point out are facts IMO. It was an ominous tone, and that driver is performing an illegal act.
I do think deeply about how to get tone right on stuff like this. I chose to authentically share my feelings because sometimes I feel like it’s important for BP to point out what’s going on and not sugarcoat or take the high road. It takes all types of approaches to make change and I have often taken the approach you describe in your comment. This story really bothered me and I felt it needed to be called out for what it was. I stand by what I wrote and if someone else wants to work toward a solution they still have every opportunity to do that.
Which driver was performing an illegal act? If it’s the one the hotel manager mentioned in passing, neither you nor I know any facts about that whatsoever, so your claim is a rather heroic assertion to make.
After reading your story, one would conclude that the main problems here are the reporter and the hotel manager because they have “windshield bias”. Maybe they do (as do most people), but how does that help? They’re biased, and this story makes it look like you’re biased, so is it all a wash?
It would be far more useful to focus on the sorts of conflicts this design engenders, and urge everyone involved (especially the hotel and PBOT) to find ways to mitigate them. No need to sugarcoat KGW’s reporting, but use that to get somewhere actionable, like “Hey PBOT, let’s get this fixed before someone gets hurt!”
Maybe the biggest problem here is that I expect too much. Sorry.
If you open a door into a cyclist you are at fault and have done something illegal, full stop.
Did that happen? And if so, how do you know?
KGW’s video/article includes a quote from The Heathman’s general manager. It reads, in part, “We [the Heathman Hotel] had an incident where a guest door got hit by a bicyclist.”
As Jonathan points out, “ORS 811.490 states that drivers or passengers must not open their doors, ‘until it is reasonably safe to do so and it can be done without interference with the movement of traffic.'”
Moreover, the “guarded” bike lane gives right-of-way to bicyclists. With the aforementioned law in-mind, it is the responsibility of the person opening their car door to give right-of-way to cyclists in the bike lane.
The article frames that incident as though the person opening their car door as the victim. The quote reads, “…a guest door got hit by a bicyclist.”
In reality, given how the law is to be interpreted, a more accurate reflection of what happened is the person in the car failed to give right-of-way to an oncoming cyclist and consequently hit the cyclist with their door — not the other way around, as the article again implies.
You have no idea what happened, so no way of knowing what is accurate.
ORS 811.490 not withstanding, what the hotelier described (“a guest door got hit by a bicyclist”) was not a passenger opening their door dangerously, but a cyclist striking an already open door, which, given sufficient chaos and poor lighting is not completely implausible. That’s probably some other “crime” we can ponder.
If we’re going to take the story at face value, let’s take it at face value. Otherwise, we’re just making things up.
Y’all are in such a hurry to find some way to blame a passenger in a car for… something. The real issue is how can we make this bad design safer?
Why do you defend absolute crap bike infrastructure?
Why should bikes be shoved in the gutter out of traffic?
This is just gaslighting the problem.
KGW has no clue but this just this is a terrible design, why do I have to ride in the gutter where no one sees me?
It’s just dangerous for cyclists, Broadway is just a mess of green paint and weaving in and out for bicycles.
Why don’t you address that?
I agree wholeheartedly. The KGW reporting was terrible, but both KGW and Maus have missed the main issue: “parking-protected” bike lanes are terrible. They inhibit visibility while greatly increasing the likelihood of getting doored by passengers who have close to zero experience with needing to watch out for anything coming up from behind the car when they’re opening their doors.
There is a key point that I think needs emphasis here – the street is a shared area. Almost every driver (at least the ones who complain about things like this) strongly disagree with this. To the average American, the street is a place for cars – either to drive or park, and not a place for anything else. Except maybe a bus in mixed traffic, or a crosswalk for a pedestrian to scurry across.
I’m of the opinion that PBOT does nothing at all to fight this attitude, despite it being obviously needed to meet the regions stated goals. But then how can we get to 25% mode share by bike while it remains deeply unpopular to give even the smallest pittance to a cyclist for fear of upsetting “traffic” or “parking”? PBOT needs to aggressively combat things like this – and until they do, we will never be able to make significant progress as a city towards a sustainable future.
Comment of the week.
Downtown’s big business owners are used to getting what they want by badgering and lobbying, using a range of approaches, including news stories like this. This is clearly part of an anti-bike approach, similar to when the Portland Business Association fought Better Naito and lobbied and won against other bike infrastructure downtown too.
Folks who want to know more about how dirty PBA can be might be interested in Ashley Henry’s piece here.
Just goes to show that most business people shouldn’t be asked about anything that doesn’t directly involve their business. What intelligent business person would prioritize a transportation mode that inherently cannot bring in as many customers as another? I mean really, which type of downtown seems to be more bustling: one built like Amsterdam, Copenhagen, or Montreal, or Portland’s?
I once heard someone say that Portland love to be very concerned but entirely clueless at the same time. There’s plenty of criticism to be leveled at PBOT for some funky designs, but most of what I hear/read is just criticizing the existence of the bike infrastructure in the first place.
I think this is spot on Jonathan. Whenever your articles get posted on Reddit, people pile on that “He’s biased toward bikes!!”. I mean, yeah, it’s the damn bike website, it says it literally in the url. Most people – the hotel owner and KGW reporter – have such a huge windshield bias that any other perspective seems like some radical plot to destroy America.
Drivers will know where to park.
Guests will know where to stand.
Cyclists will not get doored.
If the car was parked to the left of the painted buffer, then how did the door open into a bike? Or were they just parked fully/mostly in the bike lane and the bike was trying to pass?
In a more bike-friendly country, the hotel would embrace this, and have someone out there to greet people, warn passengers, flag the lane, etc.
Seems like a crappy PR stunt to try and get their way, shame on you Heathman Hotel.
I wondered that, too. Another theory–was there a car parked in the bike lane (as in the photo) or people standing in it, or luggage piled in it, and the bike rider moved into the hatched area to get through, and got doored by someone getting out of a car parked in the correct place?
It makes me wonder also–it is illegal to ride in the hatched area to get around something blocking the bike lane? Or are you expected (and/or legally required) to wait, or to get off your bike and walk on the sidewalk, or walk in the hatched area? When a car lane is blocked on Broadway, the driver can just move to the adjacent lane to get by. When a standard bike lane is blocked, you ride into the adjacent lane to get by. What happens with this hotel zone lane?
The single biggest problem with protected bike lanes right here. In an ordinary, preferably buffered, bike lane I just look behind me, then move out.
I ride in the car lanes on Broadway, if you prefer to be shoved in the gutter in the Door zone, go ahead.
Based on a recent story here, you might get ticketed for not riding in bike lane.
That last photo is confusing. With signage on the curb saying “Hotel Zone” and pavement words “Passenger loading ahead,” I can understand how a driver unfamiliar with protected bike lanes could make the error. The City should change the pavement paint to “Bikes Only,” and remove the curb signage.
Yes, and I think it’s even worse than you describe. There’s also a “NO PARKING” sign, with an arrow pointing towards the corner, meaning you CAN park where the white car parked. There’s also a “PAY TO PARK” sign right in front of the parked car. And in the middle photo at the article’s top, there’s “PASSENGER LOADING” on the pavement. And there’s a “BIKE LANE AHEAD” sign on the folding traffic barricade, which can be taken to mean, well, that’s it’s up ahead somewhere, not that you’re currently on it.
If I got a ticket for parking in the bike lane there, I’d bring all this up and say I was parking EXACTLY where several signs told me to. How was I to know the loading area was out in the street, contrary to all the clues the signage was giving me?
Clearly (to people reading this article) the pavement markings were intended to be warning signs to bike riders that they were entering a zone where people will be walking between the sidewalk and the drop-off parking area, but they can easily be interpreted as identifying that area as the place to park.
Hotel zones are a traffic study unto themselves.
Bike lane or not, it’s a cluster f#@& outside of every hotel in central Portland.
Jonathan, the law concerning “dooring” does not say “driver” anywhere. It says “a person” commits the offense – so that includes passengers in the vehicle.
good point thanks! Should have been more careful there. will edit
Look how big that buffer zone is between hotel parking and the bike lane. The hotel would be wise to put some signs there reminding guests to look to their right before crossing the bike lane. And PBOT should paint that strip green in front of the hotel to give guests an extra reminder that they’re walking across a bike lane.
Oh, I wish this section of bike lane was truly a “new guarded bike lane”…just to keep those jerks out from parking in it has Jonathan’s photo showed an example of.
“Why on earth would a bike rider purposely hit a car’s door and risk injury?” Daily cyclist here, Oregon native living in DC. I’m shocked at the aloofness and negligence of some riders in the downtown core here, to say nothing of those flagrantly breaking the law by riding the wrong way down one way streets and bike lanes. They threaten me as well as pedestrians and drivers. Your manichean divide between riders and drivers is at odds with the real world.
You have not made a case in negating the incredulousness of the hypothetical question posited. Even with “aloofness and negligence” of some riders, under what conditions (other than eyes closed) would a rider ride directly into an open door?
Can riders walk their bikes in this area?
Can drivers get out and push their cars in this area?
Possibly your best story ever!
Maybe if the police get funded again, you can have a police presence to warn off cagers from doing these things. Until then, this is a mute point. Barely see more then 2-3 riders a day,PBOT keeps bending the knee for the bike nation. Must commuter’s are tired of this state and looking elsewhere from the ridiculous that is PBOT. Can’t wait to see the bikes pay at the tolls……
The police budget is at it’s highest point ever.
https://www.streetroots.org/news/2022/08/03/ppb-budget-2022
“The story centers the stress felt by the hotel manager for about two months, but not one word is shared about the mortal fear and daily stress posed to bicycle riders for decades before these changes were made.”
Agree! During the decade (2000-2010), when I commuted by bicycle to/from my workplace downtown, I took the right lane on NW and SW Broadway. I recall riding past the Heathman was often unnerving, regardless of the season. I don’t recall riding past the Benson being problematic though.
When I began commuting on foot to a new workplace in the Lloyd District, I had a different set of issues to content with. That’s a discussion for another day.
Too bad they didn’t bother go look at the other corner of the same block where PBOT has dug up the street (new bike lane included) which is a much bigger danger.
What the City really needs to do is simply get rid of all cars on Broadway. Make it a pedestrian street — people staying at the Heathman can walk there or get dropped off from a cross street. European cities have lots of streets closed to cars, and the hotels along them are some of the most popular — and expensive — in town.
I’ve lived here all my life 56yrs, the bike lanes and cross walks are getting ridiculous I reside in the NE SE area of Portland and PBOT has made the traffic and road ways a mess and there is little to no bike riders using them I will never use the mass transit system I love owning and driving my vehicle and before you start assuming things I use to be an avid cyclists no more though to much traffic to many distracted drivers and to many criminals I avoid downtown like the plague and do almost all purchases and shopping on line Portland liberal progressive ideology is out of hand it seems all that runs for elected positions is the LGBTQ people and nothing ever gets done nor improves, take a drive down Division from 82nd to 122nd what a mess, all the cross walks center dividers its distracting and dangerous to say the least.
Another view