Some cycling advocates and riders are frustrated that cycling is being overlooked in a multi-million dollar trail project.
As we reported last week, PP&R recently launched their Rose City Recreational Trail Project — a $4 million investment into trails that could circumnavigate and bisect Rose City Golf Course and Rose City Park. The design and alignment of the trails is still undecided, but a project manager shared at the April 25th launch meeting that up to 2.3 miles of new trails could be built on the 168 acres of land. “So that’s a really robust trail system and it would be an amazing asset,” said Parks Capital Project Manager Jonathan Fain.
“Amazing” and “robust” perhaps, but not if you were hoping to bike on the trails.
Much to the chagrin of some cycling advocates, PP&R’s online survey to gauge public feedback on the project doesn’t include cycling among the seven answers to a question that asked respondents to share the types of activities they’d be most likely to engage in on the new trail. Another question asks folks to list their top three priorities for the project. There are eight choices, including “dog walking,” “bird/nature watching,” even “sitting and resting.” But “bicycling” was nowhere to be found.
“Shared-use trails that are open to off-road cycling play a critical part in providing access to nature and safe cycling routes for kids,” said Lisa Olivares, executive director of the nonprofit Northwest Trail Alliance (NWTA), in a statement to BikePortland. Olivares called the exclusion of cycling from the PP&R survey a “huge disappointment.” NWTA has spent years trying to create more dirt trail opportunities for Portlanders so people can “Ride to their ride,” and avoid costly, toxic, expensive, hour-long car rides just to enjoy a trail.
But beyond, NWTA’s core members, having places in neighborhoods where people on bicycles can enjoy unpaved surfaces closer to nature than a typical bike lane, could be amazing additions to our urban landscape. Think about a mom or dad who wants to jog on these trails and have their little ones trailing along on their bikes. Why not create a trail system that explicitly allows that?
Creating unpaved cycling experiences in the city is why NWTA was a key partner in the development of Portland’s Off-Road Cycling Master Plan, which was adopted by City Council in 2023. Notably, when council dedicated city funding to create the plan, then Mayor Charlie Hales intentionally put Bureau of Planning & Sustainability (BPS) — not PP&R — in charge. At the time, advocates who felt a historic anti-bike bias from PP&R, hailed the decision because they felt BPS would give off-road cycling the fair chance it has Rose City Recreational Trail Projectso often lacked.
That context is why advocates fear PP&R is up to old tricks and this $4 million investment in Rose City Park will once again leave them at the trailhead with nowhere to ride.
Even more troubling for NWTA and their allies is that the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan specifically recommends Rose City Golf Course as a site for bicycle trails. Page 91 of the plan states:
Recommendations
• Develop a natural surface loop trail for family-friendly cycling, walking, running and enjoyment of nature. Off-road cycling skill features (like rocks, logs, or skinny bridges) could be added along the sides. The loop trail could provide safe walking access along NE Tillamook and connect neighborhoods to the south of the golf course to Glenhaven Park. Creating a full loop may require on-street segments. Care should be taken to limit potential conflicts with the golf course. Metro’s Glendoveer Golf Course’s fitness trail could serve as a model.
and/or
A small bicycle park (about 5,000 to 10,000 sf). Bicycle parks have areas for family recreation and skill building. Given the continued use of the property as a golf course, the under-utilized slope between NE Sacramento Street and NE 72nd Drive on the northern edge of the property is the most suitable location for a bicycle park. Building a bicycle park or trail here will require coordination with the Rose City Golf Course and additional planning and community input.
At the public launch meeting for the Rose City Recreational Trail Project last month, PP&R Capital Project Manager Jonathan Fain was asked by a member of the public if bikes were going to be allowed on the new trails.
“My short answer is we’re not sure yet,” Fain responded. “We have heard from some people in the community that they would like that.” “The golf course staff is very reticent to have bikers on golf property,” he added. “But there again, that might be an opportunity to make better connections with 72nd and that bike lane. So we’re definitely looking into that.”
But if PP&R is open to the possibility of bike access and is “definitely” looking into it, why did Fain never mention bikes in his presentation at the launch meeting and why wouldn’t PP&R want to gauge interest in cycling in their survey?
We can often look to the source of the funding to find clues as to what types of uses should be planned for, and ultimately, allowed. This project’s $4 million budget is made up of $2 million from Parks System Development Charges and $2 million from Metro’s Local Share program, which distributes funds from their 2019 parks and nature bond measure. In section 6.4 of the Local Share Handbook, Metro states (emphases mine):
The bond measure includes a $40 million program to “create trails for walking and biking.”… Trail program funds are limited to projects already identified on Metro’s regional trails system plan map. These “regional” trails typically connect multiple cities, are wide, paved, and are designed with bicycles in mind… These include local in-park trails or any trails that offer people a way to experience nature close to home. Examples include a new bridge over a creek in a local natural area or a new mountain bike trail network within a local park… Local share-funded trails do not have restrictions on length, width, surface material or user type (such as bicyclists or pedestrians) as long as they are consistent with ADA guidance.
So we know Metro has no qualms about their money being used to fund bike trails.
That leaves PP&R on-the-hook to clarify why they’ve decided to not prioritize cycling in this project.
BikePortland asked PP&R Public Information Officer Mark Ross about the Off-Road Cycling Plan, why biking was not an option on the feedback survey, and why bike-accessible trails are not being considered in the design.
When it comes to the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan’s recommendations for cycling at this park, Ross pointed out that the the plan is merely “conceptual” and “does not create any City regulations or make a commitment to any recommended projects.” Projects recommended in the plan will require “site-specific planning… more detailed site analysis and design,” and so on, Ross shared, making it clear that city staff can whisk away plan recommendations at their whim.
Then Ross said “the City will not be excluding bikes” at Rose City Golf Course because PP&R worked with the transportation bureau on a recent project to improve safety on NE 72nd Lane. But I wasn’t asking about bikes being ridden through the golf course in general, I specifically asked about their inclusion in the trail project. I also never asked why bicycles were being “excluded,” — I’m simply curious to understand why PP&R chose to not prioritize them in the planning of this project.
Ross went on to explain that, “When this effort was discussed with the community it was presented as a walking trail; not a cycling or mixed-use path. While the survey does not specifically provide ‘biking’ as a preferred activity, there are ample open comment sections for folks to advocate for additional activities. This practice of listing prioritized options based on project opportunities and constraints, while leaving room for additional recommendations is aligned with our engagement practices.”
That might be acceptable practice at PP&R, but it sure seems fishy. And Ross still hasn’t answered my questions.
It’s also worth noting that PP&R presents this project to the public as if the grant they received from Metro to fund it requires them to make it a pedestrian-only trail. A slide (at right) shown at the launch meeting states: “Metro grant requirements: Provide Free to Use Pedestrian Trails.” But when asked for clarification, a Metro spokesperson said PP&R’s grant application didn’t ask for a biking trail, “So Metro did not fund a biking trail.” “If PP&R wanted to add a bike trail to this local share project, it is eligible,” said Metro Media Relations Lead Nick Christensen.
The concern I’m hearing from some advocates is that leaving cycling out of the initial framing was baked-into the planning assumptions from the very beginning — and they know from experience that that decision could have a big impact on what ultimately gets built. I’ve asked Ross to clarify PP&R’s decision making around how they chose to frame the project to the community and what specific “project opportunities and constraints” were in play that led to bicycling not playing a more prominent role in the launch of the project.
While Ross hasn’t answered those questions yet, he did say PP&R would include a member of NW Trail Alliance on the project’s advisory committee. And Olivares with NWTA will likely take him up on that offer.
“While it’s a huge disappointment to see bicycling completely left out as one of the recreational/transportation options in the community survey,” Olivares shared with BikePortland. “We look forward to working with our Parks partners to ensure the groundwork the City laid out by including this site in the ORCMP is brought to life.”
— The Rose City Recreational Trail Project survey is open through May 23rd.