6/20: Hello readers and friends. I am having my second (of two) total knee replacement surgeries today so I'll be out of commission for a bit while I recover. Please be patient while I get back to full health. I hope to be back to posting as soon as I can. I look forward to getting back out there. 🙏. - Jonathan Maus, BikePortland Publisher and Editor
These are paid listings. And they work! If you’d like to post a job on the Portland region’s most popular bike and transportation news platform, you can purchase a listing online for just $75. Learn more at our Job Listings page.
Rendering of Locally Preferred Alternative (Source: Interstate Bridge Replacement Program)
Following a unanimous vote at the Portland City Council in favor of the current plan for the Interstate Bridge Replacement, the Oregon Metro Council voted 6 to 1 to do the same Thursday, with only staunch project critic Mary Nolan in dissent. The vote signals the incredible momentum that this $4-5 billion megaproject has as it heads into its environmental review phase.
The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the project includes four travel lanes in each direction, including one new “auxiliary” lane, as well as light rail following I-5 into Vancouver.
“Today I will be voting on behalf of BIPOC individuals in communities that I represent who deserve environmental justice in all the decisions that we make, particularly in infrastructure investments as profound and as expensive as this one,” Nolan said ahead of their vote. “Perhaps most importantly, I will be voting on behalf of the young activists who we’ve heard from in the mail and who we heard from today in person…they are pleading with us to leave them with a region and a planet that they can live in, and so I’ll be voting no.”
“I will be voting on behalf of the young activists who we’ve heard from in the mail and who we heard from today in person…they are pleading with us to leave them with a region and a planet that they can live in, and so I’ll be voting no.”
– Mary Nolan, Metro councilor
But Nolan’s other potential anti-highway allies on the council suggested that voting “yes” for the LPA was the best way to ensure that the project meets the values that the Metro council is advocating for.
“… compromise is paramount.”
– Juan Carlos Gonzalez, Metro
Juan Carlos Gonzalez, who has been outspoken on the issue of expanding highways in the past, said that the current version of the LPA is the best chance of making a new I-5 between Washington and Oregon a reality. “With this project’s scope and the fact that we’re working with all these partners, compromise is paramount,” he said. Gonzalez joins Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty as highway-skeptical voices who are framing their embrace of the project as an act that makes it better.
“This decision transforms how we do business by introducing variable rate tolling to influence demand and therefore GHG. The first time Oregon has ever implemented such a policy tool. We are also building Light Rail to provide new high capacity transit to support mode shift,” Gonzalez tweeted in response to criticism from Sunrise PDX following his vote.
Duncan Hwang, who joined the council in January, said he was deferring to the work that his colleagues had done on the bridge in deciding his vote. “While this bridge may not be the bridge that Portland would have built, or that I would have built, an organizing principle I bring to the work is that we live in a world as it is and not as we want it to be,” he said.
But Mary Nolan was the only council member to raise the issue of massive cost overruns that are popping up on other large transportation projects around the region. “ODOT has announced over a billion dollars in cost overruns on projects just within our region. This cannot do anything except add tremendous pressure on the ability of this region to invest in transportation improvements for safety and environmental justice that I think we all need,” Nolan said.
Before the vote to approve the LPA, the Metro Council voted to adopt a set of non-binding “conditions of approval”. New on that list is a demand to create a baseline level of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and to demonstrate how the project can produce a reduction in both that aligns with the State of Oregon’s climate goals. But several councilors noted how little force and effect this could actually have. “ It’s nice, and it makes us feel good,” Councilor Gerritt Rosenthal said, but that’s about it.
A majority of comments heard before the vote requested a “no” vote, including representatives from Sierra Club Oregon Chapter and the Oregon Environmental Council.
The coalition of orgs seeking to push the project in a positive direction, the Just Crossing Alliance, framed the nearly-unanimous vote as a big setback. “This is a missed opportunity for the region to make good on its climate goals, and hold the IBR team accountable for their lack of transparency and inability to provide decision makers with a viable financial plan or an analysis of the environmental impacts.” said Anna Kahler on behalf of the JCA.
“The IBR project team is repeating the mistakes of the CRC, dooming our region to an unjust, unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible massive bridge project. It is imperative that representatives hold ODOT and the IBR project team accountable to their promises. If the IBR project team and the DOTs refuse to learn from the blunders of the past, our local and state governments must,” she said.
Also among those urging “no” was State Representative Khanh Pham, who told the council that an IBR that isn’t “right sized” means one that is taking away resources from other desperately needed transportation investments. “We need to use the same creativity that our region used when we challenged the Mount Hood Freeway,” Pham said. She wanted the council to hold off approving the project until an investment grade analysis is conducted, something the Just Crossing Alliance is also pushing for.
Pham doesn’t serve on the bi-state legislative committee that will vote to approve the LPA next Thursday. If any “no” votes emerge then, they will likely come from legislators in southwest Washington who are unhappy that there aren’t more added lanes included in the LPA. But now the Locally Preferred Alternative has the seal of approval of Portland, Vancouver (which voted to approve the LPA on Monday), and Metro, so those lawmakers now have much weaker footing to push back on this so-called compromise option.
Haley Miller from Friends of Trees (green shirt) co-led the ride. (Photos: Taylor Griggs/BikePortland)
As we’ve learned firsthand recently, trees and plants make for very important additions to a bike route. Not only will a lush canopy help keep you cool riding around on a hot summer day, it’s also just pleasant to be able to look around while riding your bike and see the kind of greenery we are so lucky to have here.
It’s no surprise then, that crossover exists between bike and tree enthusiasts, and there are plenty of opportunities to experience both in tandem. One of these opportunities was at yesterday’s Sustainable Plants and Trees Pedalpalooza ride, where leaders from the City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and non-profit Friends of Trees (FOT) captured the harmonious relationship between bikes and trees by taking participants on a tour of north Portland’s unique plant landscape.
Unfortunately, FOT’s relationship with Portland has been anything but harmonious lately. Earlier this year, the City of Portland ended its contract with Friends of Trees in a bureaucratic conflict covered in detail by OPB this week. But while there has been plenty of drama, the discord wasn’t going to stop BES and Friends of Trees from teaming up to lead this Pedalpalooza ride.
I accompanied a group of about 10 people through north Portland neighborhoods and got a glimpse behind the scenes of some of elements of our urban forestry I have taken for granted.
We started at Denorval Unthank City Park in the Boise Neighborhood, where Chase Lansdale from BES pointed out a large rain garden planted a few years ago. Rain gardens contain wetland plants that help prevent flooding and contribute to a diverse ecosystem. Portland’s BES has done a lot of work figuring how to use all our rain for good, and rain gardens like this one are part of the answer.
Lansdale led us to a nearby hidden gem: the Boise Eliot Native Grove, tucked away right off of North Ivy Street and Gantenbein Ave. This little garden is a place for people to cohabitate with wildlife in the city, and even though it’s only a few blocks from I-5, it’s nice and quiet. Discovering places like this is a huge perk of going on Pedalpalooza rides!
Haley Miller, the Senior Neighborhood Trees Specialist at Friends of Trees, took over for the rest of the ride and brought the group to see a few special trees in the area. Two of these trees – a Ponderosa Pine named ‘Cindy’ in Arbor Lodge and a (sadly nameless) Oregon white oak in Overlook – have been officially designated Heritage Trees of Portland. This means they’re among the more than 300 trees that have been formally recognized by the city for their unique size, age, historical or horticultural significance.
Miller also showed us a maple in Boise, notable because it was one Friends of Trees’ early works. The non-profit planted it in 1997, and now it’s 25 years old and looking beautiful. Miller said she really values being a part of an organization that has had such a long-lasting impact.
There are other ways to experience Portland’s beautiful urban forestry and plant life, but a bike tour is the best I can think of. The moderate pace of a conversational group bike ride is perfect for taking a good look at everything around while still covering some ground. You could certainly take a walking tour, but you wouldn’t get as far. And forget about trying to stick your head out of a car window to check out the height of a Ponderosa Pine you’re passing. (The one we saw was 88 feet and still growing.)
“Biking allows you to slow down and really experience the benefits of trees,” Miller said when I asked why she thinks bike tours are the best method for tree gazing. “And I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but isn’t biking is the best method for doing anything?”
If you’re up for the trek, Friends of Trees will help lead another Pedalpalooza ride with the City of Vancouver Urban Forestry. Check out the details here, and remember to look way up every once in a while when you’re riding your bike around Portland!. There might be an 88 foot tall Heritage Ponderosa Pine right in front of you that you’d never noticed before.
“Induced demand only matters if you’re creating an induced demand for carbon-based vehicles that pollute.”
– Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland
Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler has some interesting ideas about induced demand. In fact, if you care about building healthy and vibrant cities, his ideas are downright troubling.
For the uninitiated, induced demand is a transportation planning concept. It’s used to describe how the number of driving trips (demand) tends to increase proportionally with the supply of driving space (more lanes). It’s such a well-known phenomenon that Portlander Paul Rippey’s song about it has become a beloved local folk song.
The idea itself isn’t up for debate, neither is the fact that it’s a bad thing. But Wheeler thinks he’s figured out a way to make it A-OK.
Before I share his recent comments, I want to be clear: The list of negative externalities caused by driving trips is miles long. Because of this fact, we have many city plans (which Wheeler has supported) that clearly state Portland’s goal is to drastically reduce the number of cars on our roads.
But at two recent city council meetings Mayor Wheeler has questioned whether induced demand is really such a bad thing. The core of Wheeler’s belief is that induced demand is only problematic if the increase in trips comes from dirty, fossil-fueled vehicles.
Toward the end of the meeting, Mayor Wheeler said the only analysis he’d like to see is how many people will be driving “zero emission vehicles” in the future. “Somebody raised during public testimony the issue of induced demand… but my question is demand for what kind of vehicles?… I’d like to know what the assumptions are for zero emissions transportation, because induced demand only matters if you’re creating an induced demand for carbon-based vehicles that pollute,” he said.
“We talk about induced demand. We have the debate about induced demand. It’s an important debate and I happen to support the economics behind the theory of induced demand. I think there is a great deal of evidence to support it. But then the question for me over the long term becomes, demand for what? If the region’s growing, if we care about the economy, if we care about the commerce, the shipment of goods of services, of commuters going back-and-forth — what do they drive? And my hope is we continue to move towards zero emissions. And so while I do expect over the long term there to be more vehicles, which I hope they’re very different than the vehicles we have today.”
I was aghast to hear Mayor Wheeler make these statements. I know how hard it is for political leaders to understand the consequences of driving and expanding freeways, so Wheeler’s lack of seriousness was surprising and disappointing. Nevermind that the he appears to assume “they” will always drive cars as our region grows (a defeatist view for a climate-concerned mayor of a progressive city), his techno-futurist line of thinking is riddled with holes and could reverse years of progress on transportation reform.
I reached out to Portland-based economist and City Observatory founder Joe Cortright, who attended Wednesday’s council meeting, to get his reaction to the comments.
Would it be hyperbolic of me to refer to the comments as “dangerous”? I asked Cortright.
“Yes. I absolutely do think it’s dangerous. It’s like, as if we don’t have to worry about this problem [of induced demand], or about carbon, or any of the other externalities at all… it’s his get-out-of-jail-free card.”
Cortright felt someone like Wheeler with a background as Oregon State Treasurer, should understand the financial repercussions of suggesting that more cars are not bad as long as they are battery-powered.
“If you just care about finances, you shouldn’t build capacity because that will just increase demand for roads, leading to more decentralization, which means people have to spend more money on transportation, making us all worse off,” Cortright added.
The reality of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in Oregon is that we are likely at least a decade from them having any serious impact on pollution. Today, 25% of Oregon’s electricity consumption comes from coal-powered sources (PDF) and a 2020 report by the State of Oregon said Oregonians will continue to use coal as an energy source until at least 2030. As EV adoption grows, there will be an even greater strain on all our energy sources and “There’s only so much supply of renewables out there,” Cortright warns.
And while Mayor Wheeler’s neighborhood might be filled with expensive ZEVs (the median household income of ZEV owners in Multnomah County is $69,176), the reality is that there are still only 47,000 of them on the road in Oregon today — just 1.1% of the entire vehicle fleet. Estimates from the Oregon Department of Transportation are that the ZEV fleet will reach only 3% by 2030.
Even if we could wave a magic wand and convert all cars to ZEVs, the vast societal costs associated with accommodating drivers — everything from expensive parking lots, nightmarish land-use, pollution from tires and brake pads, extraction mining for battery materials, deaths of humans and destruction of infrastructure — would still permeate our daily lives.
Adding lanes to our freeway system — auxiliary or not — makes driving easier and more efficient and will lead to more of it. Every time we do that, we sign a contract with those new drivers we cannot afford to pay.
It’s seductive for elected officials to cling onto technology as a quick fix for the serious problems we face, but Mayor Wheeler should know better.
I held this story back and gave Mayor Wheeler a chance to clarify his comments before publication. I just heard back from his Communications Specialist Shuly Wasserstrom:
“Mayor Wheeler supports the City’s goals to reduce carbon emissions and agrees about the adverse impacts of a transportation system overly reliant on personal vehicle use. He views zero emission vehicles as playing a necessary role in our transportation future. The overarching goal is to reduce the number of vehicles needed at all.”
We would also like to add that Mayor Wheeler has been a strong proponent of light rail and public transit, especially in regards to the I-5 Bridge plan.
As we get into mid-summer, the weather is just ideal for outdoor happenings: pleasant temperatures and mostly blue skies with mesmerizing colorful sunsets. Here are some of our events for the weekend, however keep in mind there is always more available on our calendar.
Saturday, July 16th
Black to Nature – 11:00 am at Oxbow Park (east Gresham) Black to Nature’s series of walks revolve around several spots of the city and around, teaching about their relationship with the city Black history and heritage. The third event is about The Importance of Water and will take place at Oxbow Park. Folks are also invited beforehand to receive parking passes at the Black Community of Portland Office in Gresham as well as to receive instructions about the exact meeting spot. More info here.
Movie Musical Sing-A-Long Ride – 1:00 pm at Alberta Park (NE) With the slogan “kids are traffic too!”, Kidical Mass movement aims to get more kids into bikes. This Saturday the PDX chapter congregates again on a ride singing along kids musicals’ songs we and they grew up with. We dare you not to get them stuck in your mind! More info here.
Abort the Court Alleycat – 2:00 pm at Irving Park (NE) In a brave and creative way to help folks get access to abortion in states where this right was stripped from them by SCOTUS recently, organizer Sofie Murray is throwing an alley cat race at Irving Park. More info here.
Art in the Bike Lane Ride – meet at 3:00 pm at Sewallcrest Park (SE) Sharrow art is more and more becoming a thing in Portland and yes!—there’s a crowd-sourced map locating a lot of bike lane drawings around the city. This ride invites you to dress as your favorite characters and tour by some of some popular spots throughout the inner city. Photo stops fun is expected! More info here.
E-bike Ride Out – 4:00 pm at Salmon Street Fountain (SW) Growingly popular e-bikes have their time this Saturday as they get their very own ride, cruising on some city hills. More info here.
Sunday, July 17th
Family Bike Campout – 10:00 am at Woodstock Park (SE) Join other families from the bike activism collective Bike Loud PDX on a two-night getaway to Oxbow Park. Both journeys are ridden at friendly pace with scheduled stops and diverse optional activities are also part of the plan throughout the trip. More info here.
Memorial Ride for Rabbitt Fox – meet at 7:45 pm at Irving Park (NE) A Portlander and a beloved promoter of the bike culture himself remembered for his audacities while on the wheels, Rabbit passed on recently. For this reason, friends from the Dead Baby Bikes Club are gathering to spend some time dedicated to his memory. Here’s a recap of our story sharing some words on him and remembering him on this year’s Ladds 500. More info here.
The author’s current set-up on the left, and an electric bike she’s test-riding on the right.
I had no intention of ever getting an e-assist bicycle. I put that in the category for grandmothers, and have been recommending one to my mom. I also thought they made sense for daily bike commuters, especially those trying to avoid showing up to work sweaty. But I’m a stay-at-home Mama who can wear whatever clothes and be sweaty all day. I bike primarily for fun and exercise, as well as to live a preferred style-of-life, closer to my community. An e-bike just didn’t seem to be a “need,” nor a cost I could justify.
But my thoughts have changed. As I have tried riding a manual bike, now carrying as many as four children, I am definitely considering an e-assist, and here’s why:
When I have to focus all my efforts on just pushing down the pedals, family biking has crossed the line into something that’s just hard.
Keep biking fun: As I have added weight to my load (more kids to pull, along with all of their stuff), it has become difficult to pedal that much weight. Part of the fun of biking is the ability to coast along, enjoying the breeze and the sights. But when I have to focus all my efforts on just pushing down the pedals, family biking has crossed the line into something that’s just hard. I have less of the feeling of freedom, and more the feeling of being weighed down. I think an e-assist could put the FUN back in all our rides.
Bike farther and more often: Because of the amount of weight I am pulling, and my limited fitness, I have to be really cautious about what rides we choose to go on. I’m afraid of going out too far, and not being strong/fit enough to get back home. I want to increase our range, but I don’t want to try a ride we can’t safely complete. An e-assist would give me the peace of mind that we can try a longer/harder ride, and have built-in help if we need it. It will also help me to get on the bike even when I am feeling depleted. I’m convinced that on days when I am tired and reach for the car keys, an e-assist would have us getting on the bike instead.
Increase my fitness: It’s intuitive, it would seem, that a manual bike would lead to better increases in physical fitness. No “cheating” with the E-assist. But some studies have shown that e-bikers get more exercise than those using manual bikes. One hypothesis is that e-bikes are so much fun to ride, people ride them more often and for longer distances. This may be especially true for those who are not fit to begin with. (Like me!)
Keep riding through low-fitness times: Currently I have to say “no” to rides that I am not fit enough to handle. An e-bike would allow me to work up to those rides, using the assist more at the start, and less as I get fitter, but without sacrificing the ride itself. It would also allow me to more easily ride through another pregnancy, and other physical factors that may inhibit my fitness or riding ability.
Safety: This reason hit me as I was struggling up a small hill last week, while towing four children. I was so tired that I had to focus all of my attention on pushing the pedals. I realized, in that moment, that I was unable to be as aware of my surroundings, watching for cars, and keeping an eye on my son riding independently in the rearview mirror. I am sure my reaction time would have been slow, as I was depleted. I was huffing and puffing, and didn’t have enough air to be able to shout a command or warning to my son, if needed. I think, in my fatigue, I was having trouble maintaining a straight line; I was wobbly and potentially weaving a little. My fatigue increased our vulnerability. My fatigue left me feeling less-safe, as I had less resources of all kinds to ride carefully and safely. Most significantly, my focus had shifted from safety awareness of my surroundings to a “get up that hill” mentality. As a result, I thought the ride was a mistake, a safety mistake. But if I get an e-bike? Serious fatigue can be something I banish with the e-assist. It won’t need to be a factor. This has become my biggest selling point for purchasing an e-bike. By preventing fatigued riding, I think we’ll bike safer. For family biking, I think it’s a very good reason to consider an e-bike.
Keep up with my son!: I previously thought, “I can’t get an e-bike, while leaving my son on a manual bike. He won’t be able to keep up!” But let’s be real folks: I’m towing four kids with library books. I can’t keep up with my boy. And I know it’s tortuous for him to have to ride behind me on hills. He can’t even ride as slowly as I’m pedaling. Indeed, I think an e-bike will help balance us out, lessening the impact of my heavy load, so that I can keep up with him.
Better re-starts?: It can be pretty discouraging to hit a red light or stop sign when I have finally managed to get a good pace going on my huge cargo bike. It’s a real bummer to have to bring this load to a full stop. And it’s a pain to get started again. I don’t know if an e-bike will smooth out my re-starts, but at least it should be easier to get back up to speed, making those required stops less of a discouragement.
Do what’s best for our family: I really want the pride of pulling my family on my own power! It feels awesome, when I manage it. And Emily Finch (my bike-mama-hero) pulled all her kids on her own power. So I thought I would too. But her way doesn’t have to be my way. And if an e-bike will help my family bike more, go farther, have more fun, and bike more safely? Then I need to toss aside my pride, take a good gulp of humility, and try an e-bike.
Have any of our Family Bikers out there made the switch to an e-bike? Was it “worth it”? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Zoom screengrab of today’s Portland City Council meeting.
There was almost no concern or skepticism about the Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) project at Portland City Council today. The mayor and four other commissioners all voted to endorse the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), a decision that helps pave the way for project staff and the transportation departments of Oregon and Washington to move forward to the next phase of the federal environmental review process.
The IBR will be Oregon’s largest-ever freeway expenditure and is likely to cost at least $5 billion. The LPA lays out a draft concept of how I-5 will be updated across at five-mile corridor between north Portland and Vancouver, Washington. The concept includes adding light rail, new interchanges, and a new auxiliary lane on the bridge.
There’s no organized opposition to the project so far. Instead, a coalition of environmental and transportation advocacy groups have formed a coalition (Just Crossing Alliance) to help influence it. They wanted Council to vote “no” today and to force the IBR project team to carry a wider range of design options into the next phase of review.
“Our job as a city has been to help the state make a project this that does not undermine the city of Portland’s goals, and this LPA does that.”
– Jo Ann Hardesty, Portland city commissioner
As Portland Bureau of Transportation leader and member of the project’s Executive Steering Group, it was Commission Jo Ann Hardesty’s job to introduce the resolution. She acknowledged it’s not the project Portland would build if given the opportunity, but since the LPA has widespread support among agencies across two states, it’s worth supporting. Hardesty’s support for the IBR LPA comes less than one month since she proudly re-engaged with ODOT’s other freeway widening project just a few miles south at the Rose Quarter.
“The investments in biking walking and rolling across into Vancouver will be transformative and we’ve reached agreement for providing no more than one auxiliary lane in each direction over the Columbia River. That’s a significant accomplishment in our effort to address and fight climate change,” Hardesty said today in her opening remarks.
Hardesty feels the City of Portland has secured commitments from project staff that whatever they build will not undermine the city’s values around community engagement, climate change and equity.
Despite those assurances, several people who testified asked council to vote “no” and it was clear there remains widespread distrust of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and IBR project staff.
Chris Smith with Just Crossing Alliance said his group still wants zero new lanes (auxiliary or otherwise), but they support the project overall. He used his three minutes of testimony to implore councilors to add more designs into the LPA. He’s concerned that the “tall bridge” monolith will be difficult to finance (because it can’t be phased) and will have grades so steep it will make active transportation trips “impractical”.
The most pointed testimony in opposition came from youth climate activist Adah Crandall. She said the project is, “climate arson in disguise”. “If you were given five billion dollars to create a project that would address seismic, climate, and economic concerns, is this really what you would end up with? Or is it just what ODOT is forcing you to settle for by providing no other options?” she said.
There’s no reason for concern about induced demand with this project, said Sorin Garber, a transportation planning consultant and member of the PBOT Freight Advisory Committee who testified after Crandall. He did his own research and couldn’t find any evidence that auxiliary lanes lead to more driving. “There’s never been a serious study that validates that hypothesis. Auxiliary lanes do not encourage more people to drive.”
Persistent freeway project critic and founder of City Observatory, Joe Cortright warned that project staff is trying to pull the wool over councilors’ eyes by waiting to share a detailed financing plan after the LPA is endorsed. His testimony also tried to sow distrust of IBR project staff and DOT leaders who he believes will expand the freeway and bridge footprint wide enough to add more lanes in the future. Cortright also said IBR Program Administrator Greg Johnson has not told the truth about bridge height concerns raised by the U.S. Coast Guard. “The Coast Guard that has absolute authority over the height of the bridge… So when [the IBR project team] presents this as somehow ‘working it out between agencies,’ that’s not true.”
When it came time to vote, Hardesty set the stage for the unanimous decision by saying the LPA vote is just, “a vision for moving forward” and heaped praise on the working partnerships between agency and political leaders. Parroting a talking point of IBR project staff, Hardesty said there will be many opportunities for council and the public to influence the project in the future.
The way Hardesty sees it, the project is very far from “climate arson”.
“When people say we are expanding the freeway, that is absolutely not true. We’re adding one auxiliary lane. It’s a smaller bridge, it’s a bridge with light rail. When we talk about mitigating climate change, how can we do that without light rail?”
“What I see us doing is something that we never been able to do as a region: To respect each others’ perspectives and vision and then move cooperatively together to see if this works. Who knows… right? There are a lot of ways for this to go off-the-rails. But it certainly shouldn’t go off-the-rails for the first vote.”
Metro Council takes a similar vote tomorrow (Thursday) and insiders say we can expect much more skepticism than we heard today. Stay tuned for our coverage.
Ryan Hashagen (L) and Madi Carlson (The Street Trust) roll to skatepark site on Naito Parkway. (Photo: Taylor Griggs/BikePortland)The ceremonial first bag of concrete. (Photo: Cory Poole)
Construction of a long-awaited skatepark in Portland’s Old Town has officially begun. Well – sort of.
Yesterday, advocates for the skate park held a ceremony to ‘break ground’ on the park. As an act of protest they created a small ramp with a wheelbarrow’s worth of concrete and even held a preemptive ribbon cutting.
Skaters hope this symbolic groundbreaking will bring awareness to the need for this skate park and convince city officials to start making some headway on the project.
“We advocate for multimodal transportation options of all kinds… And skateboarding is as big part of that as bicycling.”
– Madi Carlson, The Street Trust
A group of people from organizations like Portland’s chapter of Community in Bowls (CIB) and The Street Trust rolled on bikes, skateboards, and roller skates together from Salmon Street Springs to the lot in Old Town, where advocates discussed why this skatepark is important to them.
CIB Portland, an organization working to provide “an inclusive space for people, especially underrepresented groups, to quad skate together and form a community.” Sarah Sands, a CIB administrator, said this skatepark would create a space for people to feel “safe, included and supported.”
Madi Carlson, Community Engagement Manager at The Street Trust, said she thinks it’s important to recognize skating of all kinds as a viable transportation mode. In order to do that, there needs to be more spaces for people to hone their skills and cultivate a like-minded community.
“Skate advocacy is transportation advocacy,” Carlson said. “We advocate for multimodal transportation options of all kinds, including skateboarding, that are equitable, accessible, safe, and promote climate justice. And skateboarding is as big part of that as bicycling.”
During the pandemic, skating – especially roller skating – experienced a huge surge in interest nationwide. And Portland’s roller skating scene has blown up with the advent of a weekly Secret Roller Disco session. Skating advocates want to keep this enthusiasm going.
Skatepark design by DAO Architecture.
“Covid has separated us and made us distant with friends and family. Now should be a time for healing, and we need tools to facilitate that,” Tope Sosanya, a BMXer who runs advocacy group PDX Skateparks, said at the ceremony. “Skate parks are a great platform for people to find community, friendship and creativity.”
(Photo: Taylor Griggs/BikePortland)
The design plan for the Steel Bridge Skatepark includes a cover, which would make the space available during Portland’s rainy winters.
“If this park was covered, we would be able to expand our programming from just happening in the summer dry months to year round,” Sands said.
Advocates said they will continue pushing for this skatepark and working on DIY efforts to get construction moving.
The Burnside Skatepark just across the river is an example of a successful DIY skatepark that began as an illegal venture but remained in place once the city realized how popular it was. This time, advocates say they want the city’s help, but they’re going to put in the work to make it happen, “One bag of concrete at a time.”
Longtime skate advocate Ryan Hashagen (who you might’ve seen on roller skates among a sea of bicyclists at Pedalpalooza events), said he’s optimistic about the future of this park.
“The City of Portland is going to build this skatepark,” Hashagen said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”
One of the many electric bikes ridden at Sunday Parkways on June 26th. (Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
E-bikes are to transportation what Steph Curry is to basketball*. They have changed the game. And there’s no going back.
The e-bike revolution has been building for years, but it feels like the scales have tipped even more lately due to better and cheaper products on the market, high gas prices, climate change concerns, a growing anti-car movement, a desire for more community-centered mobility, and many other factors.
As I see a larger and larger percentage of Portland’s fleet electrify, it feels like our best practices and transportation policies haven’t kept up. For decades, bike planners have used a playbook that was created with non-electric (also called “acoustic”) bikes in mind. Put another way, all our modeling and assumptions around how to design and engineer a bike-friendly city have been done with a standard, non-electric bike in mind.
But e-bikes are different from their non-motorized cousins. Do they require a different planning approach?
I’ve kept a list of bike planning topics that might need to evolve in order to better serve e-bike riders. Give it a read and let me know if you have something to add…
Time and Distance
These estimates were made prior to the revolution.
It’s easier to go faster on an e-bike, so I think it’s reasonable to assume that most people go faster on an e-bike than a conventional bike. Most e-bikes have a 20 mph top speed, but many of them top out at 28. (Another category goes even faster, but I don’t consider those “bikes” for purposes of this discussion.)
The folks at Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) use an average cycling speed of about 10-12 mph to make all their assumptions about time and distance. Why does this matter? Well, you know those handy wayfinding signs (right) on neighborhood greenways that tell you how far away something is and how long it will take you to bike there? Those assume you ride about 10 mph. (And don’t get me started about how Google and Apple need to have an “E-bike” route option in order to display accurate trip times.)
Signal timing is another big one. Portland has many bike signals, and even more traffic signals that take biking speeds into account. If those calculations are based on people riding 10-12 mph, PBOT’s timings won’t be properly synced to actual behaviors.
The average speed of Portland’s bike fleet has gone up — and will continue to go up — in the coming years. Our bike-specific infrastructure should reflect these higher speeds not just out of respect for accuracy, but because when it comes to choosing a transportation mode, speed matters. Faster bike trip times will make cycling more competitive with driving and will encourage more people to ride.
Route Choices
Streets like NE Prescott, with ample shoulder space but no bike lane, are much more feasible on an e-bike.
A big part of local bike planning is deciding where the “bike route” should go. In Portland, many of those decisions are based on the riding behaviors of people on non-electric bikes.
But e-bikes can completely change where and how someone rides. Their larger size, hefty stature, stronger brakes, bigger tires, and so on, embue riders with a greater sense of power than traditional bikes. Add the ease of greater speeds, and you have a vehicle that balances out the power dynamic on the road in a way that adds new confidence to some riders.
Taking off from a stop at a large, sketchy intersection with a load of cargo? No problem on an e-bike. Taking the lane to make a left turn? No problem on an e-bike. Sharing the road with car users? Less of a problem on an e-bike.
When I’m in a hurry on my e-bike, I don’t use designated bike routes as much as I used to. I want the most direct route I can find. And because my bike gives me more confidence to ride in traffic with car users, I find myself on collectors (like NE Prescott or SE Belmont), commercial district streets (N Mississippi, 28th, Hawthorne, NE Alberta) and even arterials (MLK/Grand, Lombard), much more often.
Big crossings, hills, or busy streets that used to be the death knell of a recommended bike route and cause planners to scribble circuitous routes around them. But with e-bikes, we should expand our map and be less afraid to mix cars and bikes.
What would our bike maps look like if we assumed more people were using e-bikes? I think we’d have a lot more direct routes and shorter travel time estimates, both of which would make bicycling even more attractive than driving for more people.
Parking
E-bikes need to be plugged in sometimes. They are heavier, and they often have a much larger footprint than traditional bikes. Their frame tubes also have wider diameters. These are all things bike parking designs need to take into account.
For instance, hook racks are relatively popular in our city. TriMet uses them on MAX and they’re probably the most popular offering for apartment/condo builders because of how they save floor space. Hooks have always been bad in terms of accessibility, but with many e-bikes weighing 55-70 pounds, they are 100% unusable for most people.
And if you thought people were concerned about bike theft with a $750 commuter bike, wait until they drop $3-4,000 on an e-bike! In the e-bike future, folks will simply not ride to a destination that doesn’t have secure bike parking.
Misc.
Other stuff that we need to adjust to the revolution include:
Education and maintenance: Any nonprofit or government agency that offers bike clinics needs to be ready to answer questions about battery storage, charging, and other e-bike tech.
Street design: We already offer constrained infrastructure too many parts of our bike network. I’m talking about unnecessary chicanes, awkward transitions from street-to-sidewalk, bollards on paths, and so on. With larger e-bikes (especially the cargo variety), these things create even larger barriers to use.
That’s my list so far. I’m sure I’ll add to it in the coming months and years. What do you think? How else should our best practices and assumptions change to fully embrace this revolution?
*Steph Curry, a member of several NBA championship teams with the Golden State Warriors, changed the game of basketball by introducing a level of proficiency with long-distance shots (“3-pointers”) that was previously unheard of. As the greatest shooter ever he has influenced how everyone plays and coaches the game.
(July 7, 2022) The Portland Bureau of Transportation’s (PBOT) Transportation Wallet has been helping Portlanders choose more sustainable travel options since 2017, by lessening demand for car usage and vehicle storage while encouraging users to bike, walk, roll, or take transit. At a time with high inflation and gas prices, this program is more important and valuable than ever. In particular, the Transportation Wallet: Access for All, which developed from the Transportation Wallet for Residents of Affordable Housing pilot serving people living on low-incomes, will expand starting in early 2023, giving Portlanders who need it most a chance to take advantage of the program’s savings.
Transportation Wallet programs are designed to encourage people to drive less, try new travel modes, manage on-street parking demand, and lessen cost of transportation especially for people and households living on low-incomes.
Currently, the universe of Transportation Wallets is made up of three sub-programs:
Transportation Wallet in Parking Districts
Transportation Wallet: Access for All (Formerly known as Transportation Wallet for Affordable Housing pilot)
Transportation Wallet for New Movers
Transportation Wallet: Access for All: All the benefits at no-cost for income-qualified Portlanders
In 2019, PBOT launched its own Universal Basic Mobility program, known as the Transportation Wallet for Affordable Housing. The two-phase pilot program offered a limited number of free Transportation Wallets for people living in partner affordable housing sites. Due to the success of the pilot and funding coming from the new the Parking Climate and Equitable Mobility Transaction Fee, this program is expanding to Transportation Wallet: Access for All launching in early 2023 to offer more (but still a limited number of) free Transportation Wallets for people and households living on low-incomes to reduce the burdens of transportation cost and increase the ability for people to get where they need to go.
Beyond helping people try new ways to get around, like BIKETOWN bike share and shared e-scooters, the participants from the Transportation Wallet for Affordable Housing pilot reported that they save money on their transportation costs and that managing their monthly budget was less stressful because of the Transportation Wallet – “It [Transportation Wallet] gave me confidence when travelling that I’d always be able to get there and back.”
Transportation Wallet in Parking Districts: Making it easier to choose sustainable transportation options
The Transportation Wallet in Parking Districts has proven to be an effective incentive to get people out of their single-occupancy vehicles and instead use transit and shared mobility options including e-bikes, e-scooters, and car-share services. Since fall of 2017, the program has distributed nearly 7,000 Transportation Wallets, of which 48% of those represent people trading in parking permits, one of many strategies PBOT uses to manage parking demand and reduce congestion. While gas prices and inflation have increased, the Transportation Wallet in Parking Districts has expanded its benefits but remains at the same great price; $99 for qualified people in the Northwest and Central Eastside Parking Districts to purchase or free to people living on low incomes or those who trade in a parking permit.
A fall 2021 survey found Transportation Wallet holders were three times more likely to commute by public transit and bike than by driving. PBOT’s 2021 Transportation Wallet in Parking Districts report highlights how this program encourages people to choose lower-carbon transportation options, such as TriMet, Portland Streetcar, and BIKETOWN. For just $99 people can purchase a 2022 Transportation Wallet valued at $775 (Northwest Parking District) and $800 (Central Eastside Parking District) in transportation credits and vouchers. These offers are provided at no cost to people who qualify based on income or who trade in parking permits.
Survey results also show these commuters are 30 percent less likely to drive their car and are approximately 40 percent less likely to call a cab or ride-hailing service.
Are you moving soon? The Transportation Wallet: New Movers could be for you!
When someone moves into a new apartment, it’s likely they’re about to experience a new commute to work or school. PBOT’s New Mover Program aims to help people make sustainable transportation choices as they move into certain multi-unit buildings constructed in Portland. Funding for the New Movers program comes from a Multimodal Incentive Fee, paid for by housing developers to help new residents choose alternatives to car-dependent travel patterns.
Small price change, widespread benefits
On July 1, 2022, PBOT’s Parking Climate and Equitable Mobility Transaction Fee went into effect. Drivers using Portland’s metered street parking spots may have noticed the addition of a 20-cent transaction fee, which will help support sustainable transportation options for all Portlanders. This small fee is collected through parking meters and PBOT’s Parking Kitty mobile app and sends an initial price signal about the costs of parking.
PBOT anticipates this transaction fee will collect $2 million in revenue annually, some of which will directly support the Transportation Wallet: Access for All program as well as programs and projects that reduce carbon emissions and prioritize equitable outcomes while reducing traffic demand. Read more about the Parking Climate and Equitable Mobility Transaction Fee: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/equitable-mobility-taskforce/transaction-fee-overview
Even more is on the way! Web-based and mobile App aims to make Transportation Wallet easier to use
To more seamlessly allow people with a Transportation Wallet to use their credits, in 2023 PBOT will team with RideShark to launch a Transportation Wallet mobile and web-based app. This technology will allow users to more precisely track their credits and more easily redeem them. The additional user data will provide program planners with useful information to better tailor the program to customers’ needs and deliver more targeted outreach to drive program engagement. Sign up for updates about the Transportation Wallet. Subscribe to the following newsletters for updates on our Northwest Parking District program and our Central Eastside Parking District Program.
Traffic lanes just south of the Interstate Bridge. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
This week leaders from Metro and the City of Portland will make a decision on whether or not to support the multi-billion-dollar megaproject that would widen I-5 between Portland and Vancouver and replace the aging Interstate Bridge. They are being asked to endorse the project’s Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), a major milestone in the federally-required environmental review process.
The LPA is what will move forward into more in-depth analysis. If a particular design isn’t part of the LPA, the project team has every (legal and political) right to say, “Sorry, that wasn’t endorsed as our LPA. We can’t look at that.”
Suffice it to say, this is one of the rare moments when local political bodies can assert influence over this massive project. And while the tea leaves suggest it will get the votes it needs, there’s still a lot to watch as this week’s discussions unfold.
Below is a bit of context of where the project stands, followed by a few thoughts on the two big votes ahead.
Project Status
They all want more options in the LPA.
You’d think that after its spectacular failure a decade ago (when it was known as the Columbia River Crossing project), IBRP staff would have figured out how to clear the many hurdles required to reach the finish line. But it hasn’t played out that way.
But contention about the height of the bridge (too low and ships can’t pass through, too high and transit and other users can’t get over) is just one of the many little fires the IBRP team is trying to put out.
The project is being criticized for being too small and too big, and there are still many unanswered questions around how it will be funded and other key details.
The headline from the LPA is that the project is recommending the “one auxiliary lane” option; but a noted critic of the project, urban economist and No More Freeways co-founder Joe Cortright, says that could be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The Just Crossing Alliance, a coalition group that includes The Street Trust, Bike Loud PDX, Sightline Institute, Sierra Club, 1000 Friends of Oregon and many others (at right), thinks it is, “irresponsible to move forward with this single alternative.” They want Metro and Portland City Council to delay a vote on the LPA and require the Oregon and Washington departments of transportation to include another design alternative (like a lift bridge or tunnel) to be studied further.
On the other end of the advocacy spectrum, the IBRP is hearing that their LPA isn’t big enough. At a meeting of the City of Portland Freight Advisory Committee last week, several members made it clear the design should have more lanes.
After seeing a presentation by an IBRP staff person, Columbia Corridor Association Executive Director Corky Collier said, “In the CRC process, the data was quite clear that three auxiliary lanes worked best for traffic flow, but two auxiliary lanes was a close second place. And one auxiliary lane was a distant third place.” Oregon Trucking Association President Jana Jarvis also sounded skeptical of the LPA being only one auxiliary lane. “One of the things that stuck out in my mind when I looked at the numbers [of one auxiliary lane] was northbound traffic during certain periods of congestion only improved by two minutes,” she said, while asking for more analysis of two lanes.
At that same meeting, IBRP Deputy Program Manager John Willis cautioned members about equating auxiliary lanes with increased capacity. “I’m probably going to get in trouble for saying this,” Willis said. “But I think when we start describing the aux lanes from a capacity point of view we miss the real reason for putting those in… it’s safety, it’s operations, and yes, they do improve flow for the three general purpose lanes.”
“So Corky, you and I have to learn to refer to it as ‘flow’ and not ‘capacity’,” Jarvis replied, “We got it, John, we will change our terminology.”
There will be a lot of careful words chosen on Wednesday and Thursday when Portland City Council and Metro convene.
Portland City Council (Wednesday)
After her predecessor demonstrated historic opposition to the project and gave local activists a glimmer of hope, Portland Bureau of Transportation Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty just wants to get something built.
Hardesty supports the LPA and will frame it as a win for herself and activists because of how it could have been much wider. Without objections from Hardesty, no other council member will dare stick their necks out to stop this project’s inertia.
I can imagine Commissioner Mingus Mapps asking questions about climate impacts and funding, but IBRP staff will be prepared to return serve and will very likely win the point.
Metro Council (Thursday)
Metro is the vote many activists will watch closely.
You might recall back in January when they adopted a long list of detailed conditions for their support of the LPA. Councilors wanted project staff to study different design options that would be less expensive and dramatically increase transit ridership. They wanted an “investment grade” financial analysis, more details on climate impacts, and so on.
The project team has not met those conditions. Instead they are saying, essentially, “We hear you. You’ll have to trust us.”
And there have been serious concerns leveled by Metro councilors in the recent past that they’ll have to rectify with themselves — and with voters — if they endorse the current LPA. Over the past few months, the tone has become a bit more agreeable, but that was before a clear line in the sand needed to be drawn.
Stay tuned for more coverage. Follow our live thread on Twitter starting with the Portland council meeting Wednesday at 9:45 am.
The Steel Bridge Skatepark is considered the “Crown Jewel” of 2005 city council approved City of Portland Skatepark Master Plan, but has never seen any action from the City of Portland and just languished on a dusty shelf of plans.
TODAY, Tuesday, July 12th, Portland Skaters and Skatepark Supporters will take action and will host a Symbolic Groundbreaking for the Steel Bridge Skatepark by pouring the first concrete of the new skatepark. This Symbolic Groundbreaking for the Steel Bridge Skatepark is to bring awareness to NW Portland’s need for community space for all levels of skating skills and all walks of life!
The event will occur at 6:30pm at NW 1st and NW Flanders. Speakers from the Street Trust, Community in Bowls, Advocates for Portland Skateparks, and others will be sharing thoughts as we break ground and pour the first concrete for the Steel Bridge Skatepark!
A procession of skaters will lead to the Steel Bridge Skatepark groundbreaking. The procession will meet at 5:30pm at Salmon Street Fountain and depart at 6pm to head north along Better Naito to the Steel Bridge Skatepark site for the groundbreaking at 6:30pm
—-
While the Steel Bridge Skatepark has not yet been built, the skatepark design has already won multiple national and international design awards for the work done by local firm, DAO Architecture.
The Steel Bridge Skatepark award winning design is more accessible to skaters with a wider range of skills. Portland’s best skatepark, the “Crown Jewel” of the City of Protland Skatepark Master Plan, needs to be broadly accessible by public transportation. The Steel Bridge Skatepark can be reached by numerous Max and Bus lines, creating a regional destination and space for active growth and learning by a diversity of skaters. Portland needs a world-class skatepark that can attract international skate events into the heart of our city and include spaces for families and spectators.
The Old Town Community Association supports this plan, skaters support this plan, City Council has approved the Steel Bridge Skatepark…. Now the City of Portland just needs to build the Steel Bridge Skatepark! Until then, Skate advocates will make progress by starting to break ground!
Burnside Skatepark is nearby and will be closed for several years during bridge reconstruction. It is a park only for advanced skaters. Through a history of strong skater involvement, Portland is one of the best skateboarding cities in the country. Now it’s time to have a world-class facility that reflects this status and is welcome to all skaters, regardless of skill or background.
Interest in skating is on the rise including park skating, roller skating and other freewheel sports.
Portland should do what it can to make sure that future Olympic champion skaters come from our city.
