The pre-ride gathering at Peninsula Park on July 31st, 2022. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
There will be no World Naked Bike Ride in Portland this year. Think of it as a well-deserved year off for a ride that’s been working overtime for two decades.
Organizers announced today they plan to take a one-year hiatus to “retrench” and work on the ride’s vast, behind-the-scenes foundation and make it even stronger in the future.
As we shared in 2015, the nonprofit Portland World Naked Bike Ride (PDXWNBR) takes an army of volunteers and dedicated do-gooders to pull off. Imagine several thousand naked people on bikes — many of them novice riders who haven’t dusted off their bikes since last year’s WNBR — rolling through public streets open to other traffic, with or without a police escort, and being led by volunteers. And they expect a big, fun, safe gathering before the ride and a party afterward.
That’s a huge undertaking for a grassroots nonprofit without any paid leadership or staff and that features new ride leaders each year.
In a statement today, organizers said they simply don’t feel like they’ve got the leadership and help in place to do justice to such an important, iconic ride. “The planning for 2024 didn’t start in September as expected, and by springtime we realized we were behind on our leadership recruiting goals,” the statement reads.
Here’s more from the statement:
“Making the protest safe and accessible is a huge undertaking, months in the making. For many Portlanders, the PDXWNBR may be their only ride of the year, so we hold the event to a high standard, with comprehensive volunteer organization, neighborhood outreach, and coordination with agencies like TriMet and Portland Parks & Recreation. Our history has also shown us how a little more planning can make the protest even more welcoming, with local artists, musicians, medics, bike mechanics, and other community partners all on hand…
Portland deserves the World Naked Bike Ride to be done right, so we are retrenching and focusing on growing our diverse, all-volunteer team this year.”
Meghan Sinnott, a former lead organizer and dedicated volunteer of the ride over the past 10+ years who I spoke to for this story said the ride — and all the people it means so much to — deserve a year off. “As this ride continues to grow in popularity, there are persistent struggles that are real,” she said.
I got a feeling from Sinnott that she was crushed the ride wouldn’t happen this year, but that it would be a disservice to everyone if it went forward. “There’s such a deep, deep reverence and love and joy around this event,” she shared. “This ride is bigger than Bike Summer. It’s bigger than Portland bike culture. It’s iconic. There’s a lot of emotional investment in this.”
Now Sinnott and other organizers want to focus on volunteer recruitment and finding great leaders for next year’s ride. They’re especially looking for people with varied perspectives beyond the bike community. If you’re curious and want to be on next year’s Leadership Committee, use this form to apply. The deadline is 11:59 pm on September 6th.
Sign on the west side of SW Shattuck Rd at the mouth of the Red Electric Trail. (Photos: Lisa Caballero/BikePortland)
The area surrounding the Alpenrose site, bounded by Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway, SW Oleson Rd, Vermont St and Shattuck Rd.
On Monday night, I listened to the most informative neighborhood association meeting I’ve ever attended. Tammy Boren-King, a senior planner at the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), was invited by the Hayhurst NA to bring it up-to-speed on last week’s Alpenrose Public Works Alternative Review (PWAR) decision. Boren-King is a member of the PWAR Committee, and the NA wanted to better understand what PWAR was all about.
As BikePortland reported last week, the city’s PWAR decision regarding frontages on the proposed 51-acre, 269-unit “Raleigh Crest” subdivision was quite positive. The city accepted (in concept) the developer’s proposal to build a multi-use path (MUP) and bio-swale along the frontage on the west side of SW Shattuck Rd. The MUP will narrow as it crosses a stream to intersect with Vermont, and then split along the short Vermont frontage into a more traditional sidewalk and bike lane. The PWAR decision also described its reasoning for using the Red Electric Trail on the north of the property as an east-west connection which runs at a relatively level grade and with little disturbance of a sensitive environmental area, as well as the potential road connecting the proposed subdivision to the west, into Beaverton.
Admittedly, this is pretty dry stuff. But I see it as an “as-it-unfolds-in-real-time” opportunity to tell a story that I have struggled with for my three-and-a half years writing for BikePortland. Namely, how to explain to a mainly east side audience, with its largely complete street grid, what is involved in trying to get a sidewalk or protected bike lane built in southwest Portland. It’s complicated, and frankly, I’m not going to try to make it seem less so. That it is difficult is my point.
You might not care. Maybe how government works isn’t your thing.
But maybe, just maybe, you are sick and tired of riding on disconnected bike routes. Why are bike facilities, particularly in southwest Portland, so piecemeal? Why can’t Portland just connect things?
PBOT’s Boren-King, in a forthright and expansive discussion, answered a lot of those questions, at least indirectly.
She began by explaining that the City of Portland is organized, “as a series of bureaus that are run independently … we are working on changing that, moving to a city manager form of government. But as a result, a lot of our codes operate kind of independently of one another.” One of the tasks of the Public Works review is to reconcile the code requirements of four different bureaus operating in the right-of-way — PBOT, Environmental Services, Water and Parks.
Shattuck Rd looking north from north boundary of Alpenrose property.Looking west over the northern edge of the Alpenrose property, with collapsed Land Use notification.Looking east at the the Red Electric Trail.
With questions about PWAR answered, neighbors turned to what is becoming the bigger issue for them: how to get an off-site sidewalk and bike path that continues from the Alpenrose frontage all the way to Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway (BHH) to the north. Shattuck Rd is one of the area’s few north-south connections to the commercial centers and bus routes on BHH, and it currently lacks a sidewalk all the way from BHH to Vermont.
Boren-King responded:
The policy of the City of Portland is that the streets are built at the expense of the abutting property owners. So the goal is that over time, as things redevelop, we will get a complete system. Of course, that doesn’t happen and we end up with capital projects. But for this large of a chunk of land — it feels like we can’t with a straight face say they don’t need to build a sidewalk, at all. So I feel like, I have to require a sidewalk, a multi-path to connect people especially from Illinois, which is a neighborhood greenway, along the frontage of Shattuck and up to the Red Electric Trail.
But this is our shot of getting a sidewalk for this property. Hopefully some day in the future there will be funding available to build the next segment and the next segment and the next segment. But I hear what you are saying, that this is another “sidewalk to nowhere.” I don’t have a perfect answer for you.
Hayhurst NA President Marita Ingalsbe then asked how to advocate for funding and prioritization for the rest of Shattuck Rd. “Is there any chance of the System Development Charges (SDCs) that the developer is going to be paying, [to] have those allotted to the rest of Shattuck? How would we go about that?”
Boren-King said she’s not an SDC expert but that funds from a specific development aren’t necessarily spent nearby. “It’s a priority [project funding] list based on the system-wide plan,” Boren-King explained.
This is just one snippet of an information-dense evening. I’ve been limiting my reporting to Shattuck Rd, but meeting attendees had questions about all the frontages, the crossings on Shattuck, traffic impacts on surrounding streets and more. Boren-King touched upon the legal limits of what a city can require a developer to build on public land and the city’s request for more information in the Traffic Impact Analysis.
That is a lot to understand for your average Portlander who just wants a safe space to commute by bike or on foot. One Hayhurst neighbor, Claudio Mello, captured the frustration of someone who doesn’t want to become an expert, but just wishes everything were more coordinated. Mello wanted to know why, given that the city wanted more people to take the bus, it wasn’t providing the neighborhood with a safe way to reach the bus stop on BHH. Indeed.
But there is good news too. All parties — the developer, the city and the neighborhood organizations — appear to listening to one another and working together. Boren-King, the city staffer, even praised the developer. Neighbors emphasized they were advocating for safe streets, and appeared sincerely interested in, and knowledgeable about, transportation. The developer has submitted early frontage plans which, in some instances, go beyond city requirements. So far, relations appear to be cooperative and free of the animosity that can often arise.
My take on the process, though, is that it eats the time of volunteers. Neighbors should not have to become mini-land use experts to get a sidewalk built. Couldn’t Marita Ingalsbe’s efforts be supported by a representative or three on a city council which is attentive to local issues? I noticed at least one District Four candidate, Bob Weinstein, on the zoom call, and that gives me hope that in the future neighborhood associations might not have to shoulder these issues alone.
The Friends of Alpenrose will be hosting a Community Conversation on June 24th which will be moderated by Metro Councilor Duncan Hwang and State Representative Dacia Grayber. My recommendation to the moderators is that they come prepared. This is a very knowledgeable group of neighbors.
[Correction, 6/13/2024: An earlier version of this story misidentified Tammy Boren-King as the Chairperson on the PWAR committee. That is incorrect. Boren-King is a member of the committee. We apologize for the error.]
Late night road users will be seeing red when they approach SE 28th on Powell. (Photo: City of Portland)
The City of Portland is testing a new traffic signal technology that makes red lights the default. (Don’t worry, it’s only during late night and early morning hours.)
Last month, the Portland Bureau of Transportation flipped the switch on their first intersection with “rest on red” signal timing. Traffic signals on SE Powell Boulevard at 28th Avenue now display red lights in all directions during late night and early morning hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays or 7 a.m. on weekends) when no drivers are approaching. Previously, this intersection displayed green lights during late-night hours.
Powell Blvd is a state-owned highway with a long history of crashes and speeding. City data shows it’s Portland’s second deadliest street (behind only Marine Drive). The crossing at 28th is adjacent to Cleveland High School and is a designated crossing for walkers and bicycle riders. In addition to this new signal technology, it has a center median island, a bicycle-only signal, and other elements owing to its important role in the 20s Bikeway route.
Since nearby 26th is infamous for its dangers, many people prefer to cross at 28th. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
PBOT says the new technology aims to, “slow down drivers on one of Portland’s deadliest streets.”
Here’s how PBOT explains the new signal operations:
When a person driving a vehicle approaches a “rest in red” intersection, the traffic signal may stay red until it detects that the driver reached the intersection. Assuming no cross-traffic is approaching, the traffic signal will turn green to benefit people that are driving within the speed limit.
This change communicates to people driving on Portland’s second deadliest street to slow down as they’re approaching the traffic signal, which will turn green before they come to a complete stop (as long as they’re driving at or below the speed limit).
A Portland resident is being hailed for his role in taking down a major bike theft ring. In a feature story in Wired that was just published this morning, Bike Index co-founder Bryan Hance is credited with uncovering, “a bicycle-theft pipeline of astonishing scale.”
The article details Hance’s biggest catch yet: a man named Ricky Zamora who Hance estimates sold about 654 bikes worth as much as $1.2 million between 2020 and 2024. Zamora operated out of Jalisco, Mexico but partnered with a co-conspirator in San Jose, California. Their massive operation sourced bikes from up and down the west coast, including Portland.
Hance has spent countless hours in the past four years working with victims, law enforcement officials, and pulling all the threads that led to an indictment by the US Department of Justice back in February. The story in Wired pieces it all together while sharing more about Hance’s background.
And don’t miss the amazing story from Wired that perfectly captures how Hance uses his unique skills and dedication to find justice for bike theft victims and reconnect them with their beloved steeds.
Screenshot from police video of shooter on SE Washington. Inset: Photo of damaged camera on SE Washington and 103rd sent in by a reader.
Portland Police have apprehended a man suspected of shooting a handgun at automated traffic enforcement cameras throughout the city. In a crime spree that spanned at least two weeks, 28-year-old Chase Grijalva allegedly fired his handgun 17 times at more than a dozen traffic cameras owned by the City of Portland and caused more than $500,000 worth of damage.
When the judge considers his case, Grijalva’s motive will become clear. According to court records, he’s received five speeding tickets from three separate traffic cameras in southeast Portland in the last four months. The video PPB shared last week of Grijalva pulling over and shooting the camera at SE Washington and 103rd was taken just three days after he was cited by that same camera for driving 56 mph in the 30 mph zone.
Grijalva must have really had it in for that camera on SE Washington because that was his third citation from it since early March. On March 5th that camera nabbed him for driving 43 mph (13 over the limit) and on April 1st it caught him driving 41 mph (11 over the limit).
Two other speeding citations on Grijalva’s record — one on March 2nd for driving 44 mph in a 30 mph zone on SE 102nd and Stark, and another on April 6th for driving 43 mph in a 30 mph zone on SE 122nd and Steele — were also at locations where cameras are installed and were coded by police as coming from “radar” so we can assume automated cameras are what issued them.
The PPB say they arrested Grijalva after he drove recklessly through southeast Portland “at times into oncoming traffic.” Once Grijalva was stopped by police, they say he left his vehicle “in a very non-compliant, agitated state,” and it took a physical altercation to subdue him and bring him into custody. (These details contradict a statement released Monday by PPB that said he was taken into custody “without incident.”)
Police have evidence that ties Grijalva to shootings at cameras along Stark at 122nd and 148th, and on NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd at NE Oregon. He faces 17 counts of Criminal Mischief in the First Degree and Unlawful Use of a Weapon, as well as a charge of Resisting Arrest. According to The Oregonian, Grijalva pled not guilty at his first court appearance Tuesday.
The Portland Bureau of Transportation currently operates about 27 traffic cameras that enforce speed and/or red light running. The speed and intersection safety camera program is considered a major pillar of their Vision Zero efforts.
On Tuesday afternoon, PBOT Mingus Mapps posted a statement to social media. “An alleged shooter damaged cameras that reduce deaths and serious injuries from traffic violence — while firing a gun on busy streets in our city,” Mapps wrote. “These reckless actions make our community less safe.”
PBOT is working to repair damages and Mapps appears to be undeterred. “We will continue to expand our use of this life saving technology,” he said.
One is “traffic.” The other is not. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Republican lawmakers from both sides of the river are concerned that the project to widen I-5 between Portland and Vancouver and replace the Interstate Bridge is too focused on non-drivers.
In comments made Monday during a meeting of the bi-state legislative committee for the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR), Washington lawmakers questioned the wisdom of devoting lanes to walkers and bicycle users, and one wondered whether bike riders should have any access at all. And an Oregon House representative floated the idea of tolls for pedestrians and bicycle riders.
These are not random elected officials speaking out of their lane: these are influential legislators on important transportation committees that decide the fate of billions of taxpayer dollars.
The IBR is estimated to cost upwards of $7.5 billion, with $1.1 billion each coming from the states of Oregon and Washington and the rest split between tolls and federal grants. The project will widen five miles of I-5, build seven new freeway interchanges, and replace the existing bridge over the Columbia River (see graphic below). Despite delays due to traffic modeling disagreements, permitting negotiations, and environmental analyses, IBR Administrator Greg Johnson said at Monday’s meeting they are “steaming toward a path” of construction in 2026.
“I have a concern that we’re paying more attention to modes of transportation that are not at the top of mind. We need to be paying attention to, and directing our building of this bridge, according to the majority of what the bridges should be used for, which would be traffic and freight.”
– Lynda Wilson, Washington state senator
Left to right: Sen. Lynda Wilson (State of Washington), House Rep. Ed Orcutt (State of Washington), IBR Admin Greg Johnson (IBR), House Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis (Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Monday’s meeting was a chance for Johnson and other project staff to convince lawmakers that the project is doing great and moving forward as planned. There was a real “nothing-to-see-here” vibe to the presentations from project staff. As for legislators, beyond pointed questions from Oregon House Rep. Khanh Pham about modeling projections and concerns voiced by Washington reps about the possible loss of buildings on the Vancouver riverfront due to the freeway’s wide footprint, the most notable exchanges were, surprisingly, about bicycles.
Washington Senator Lynda Wilson, a Republican who represents the 17th district that includes rural Clark County, doesn’t seem to think that bicycle riders, transit users, or walkers are “traffic.”
“Traffic remains below 2019 levels and transit is actually lower than that. So I think we cannot lose sight of the fact that we’re building this big bridge with this big train on it to move very few people —and the important thing is that we have traffic moving,” Wilson said during the meeting.
Sen. Wilson also expressed concern about figures she read about in a story published in The Columbian on May 23rd, that despite the new bridge being almost three times as large as the existing one (208 feet of surface area compared to 75 today), it will devote only 55% of its lane space to “cars and freight” versus the 89% currently devoted to those modes.
Scope of the project (told you it’s not just a “bridge replacement”). North Portland is on the left. (Source: IBR)
Johnson knew what Wilson was getting at: “We’re not neglecting the highway mode,” he said, in a diplomatic but forceful tone. Johnson explained that while the new bridge will still have three through lanes for car and truck drivers, they will be wider (12 feet instead of 10 and-a-half today), there will be two auxiliary lanes, and four, 12 to 14-foot wide safety shoulders (in addition to the light rail and bike/walk lanes).
Then Johnson offered a question of his own: “Folks who believe we can widen this thing and put more through lanes in it, I ask the question: ‘What do you want us to tear out, Fort Vancouver or downtown Vancouver? Because if you widen and put more through lanes, that’s exactly what you will end up doing.'”
Then later in the meeting when Johnson was sharing a series of bridge visualizations, Wilson asked another question.
“Biking, walking, rolling, whatever you want to call it, ‘active transportation’, we can do that [on the bridge] now,” Wilson said, as if to question the wisdom of funding a major bikeway upgrade. “I would like to know what percentage of the rolling, walking biking is happening now compared to traffic?” she added, once again making it clear that in her mind, bike riders are not “traffic.” Then Wilson dropped all pretense:
“I have a concern here that we’re paying more attention to modes of transportation that are not at the top of mind, right? We need to be paying attention to and, and directing our building of this bridge, according to the majority of what the bridges should be used for, right? Which would be traffic and freight.”
Once again Johnson was ready with a quality response:
“I have walked across the bridge back-and-forth 42 different times. And it is an unpleasant experience on the best day. You have very narrow walkways, you have folks who are hauling bottles and cans on large conveyances on that pathway. You can’t hear well because if someone is coming they have to basically holler to get your attention for you to slide into the truss members. So the current bridge does not encourage walking or biking… I’ve been a bike rider all my life, and I refuse to ride across the bridge.”
Then Johnson made it clear that it doesn’t matter what his personal opinion is because quality bike and walk facilities are called for in the project’s adopted “Purpose and Need” statement so the project is obligated to build them or jeopardize federal funding.
“So we’re not neglecting any mode,” Johnson repeated. “We’re making sure that we’re building something that if you choose not to be in a car, you can safely have an enjoyable trip across this bridge.”
A few minutes later, Oregon House Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis followed-up on Wilson’s comments. Boshart Davis is a Republican who represents rural Willamette Valley, owns a trucking company and is co-vice chair of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation.
Rep Boshart Davis was also hung up on how much space on the new bridge would be allocated to non-drivers. “As we’re talking about that great percentage of space [going to bikers and walkers] — which in my mind says money and costs — in that aspect, is that part going to be tolled?… We’re talking about a $7 billion budget and how we’re paying for the project. Is it equitable across the modes of transportation, and the people actually using the bridge?… I want to make sure that as we’re paying for the system, that we are looking at equity, as we’re talking about it all the time.”
“We’ve heard the question of whether there will be tolling for bicycles or pedestrians,” Johnson replied. “I’m not aware of situations across the country — or even across the world — where bicycling or walking is tolled. We’re trying to create options to to decongest the freeway system and that would be at odds with that purpose.”
Then Johnson took it a bit further as he sought to reset the narrative. “The thought that the biking and walking is an add-on is a misnomer. This is part of the Purpose and Need of this project. So as freight is a part of the Purpose and Need, so is biking and walking a part of the Purpose and Need. We can’t pick and choose which Purpose and Need statements we’re going to meet and which ones we’re not.”
Beyond their clear bias against and misunderstanding of people who can’t or don’t want to drive, the comments of Sen Wilson and Rep Boshart Davis are in part motivated by cost concerns, which became clear when Wilson asked Johnson to give her the total dollar amount the project will spent on the “extra lanes” for biking, walking, and transit. (As in “extra” because they’re non-essential.)
Even the bi-state legislative committee’s chair, Washington House Republican Ed Orcutt, got in a dig at bicycling and walking. Orcutt challenged Johnson’s reference to biking and walking as an important component of the project: “There’s about 308 miles of I-5 in Oregon, and I believe 280 in Washington. You say part of the need for this project is bike/ped. Can you tell me how much bike/ped is allowed on the other 590 miles of I-5 in Oregon and Washington?”
And again Johnson kept his cool while responding to another bad faith question. “Representative,” Johnson responded, “one of the one of the issues is that we have very limited crossings of the Columbia River in the Portland-Vancouver area. So when we have an opportunity to connect biking and walking facilities on each side of the river, that was part of the Purpose and Need that was established and agreed to by the transportation partners. So once again, we can’t ignore it… this is a unique opportunity that would be missed if we ignored the bike/walk community at this location.”
It’s good to know Johnson won’t be cowed by these legislators. But it’s not good to know we have such high-ranking public officials in positions of influence over transportation funding who suffer from such intense windshield bias.
