A new Portland Public Schools building that is set to open this fall will have one of the coolest bike parking facilities in the city. While riding home from Bike Happy Hour last week I peered over the construction fence at the forthcoming Multiple Paths to Graduation building on Northeast 16th (near Benson High and Buckman Field). What I saw was a three-tiered roof covering over 50 bike parking spots in the main front courtyard of the building.
This building is being constructed as part of the 2020 PPS School Improvement Bond. It will house student programs, a gym, makerspace and other services.
The bike parking structure, which PPS refers to as the “bike canopy,” consists of six rows of eight staple racks (two rows under each roof) and several other staples assembled around the edges. There are also overhead lights mounted on the ceiling of the structure for visibility at night. I’m not sure if any security measures will be in place, but the high-visibility location should help deter some theft.
This bike parking is yet another example of how PPS is not cutting corners when it comes to giving students and staff ample places to park bikes. Last year I was amazed at the bike parking I saw at the new Lincoln High School campus in southwest. And when Roosevelt High School in north Portland was renovated in 2018, PPS installed quality, covered bike parking there as well.
The only quibble I have with this bike parking is the rack spacing. People with cargo bikes or other types of oversized bikes might have trouble when the racks are full. Other than that, this is really great work by PPS!
And the icing on the cake is that this new building and bike parking sits atop what used to be a lowly parking lot. This building is set to open to students this fall. Learn more here.
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.
Just want to get in here and say this is very cool before people start taking dumps all over the place. I wish this setup was the norm!
Are the racks within 50 feet of the main building entrance, per City of Portland code? From the photo you have, it looks further away than that.
If it is further than 50 feet, then it’s for bicyclists in much the same way as the painted bike lanes on 122nd are for bicyclists – it checks a bunch of boxes, but only idiots would actually enjoy using it. Instead, the shelter is clearly designed to protect smokers, people who vape, drug users, people hanging out, people having sex, people defecating (thanks PTB), bike thieves hard at work, and to keep them all well away from the main entrance.
However, you can bet the car parking in the back, for the main administrators, is VERY secure and well within an easy walk out of the rain to their (private) entrances.
It’s unfortunate that the electrical conduit is exterior to the structural steel on the posts in the foreground. It makes me suspicious that the solar installation was a performative afterthought and not well integrated into the design.
…I’m sorry, but what are you on about. It looks like a quality facility, directly in front of a school. Let’s let good things be good, and not just shit all over everything for no reason.
Besides, the standard states that for schools, the distance is 100 feet, not 50, as seen on page 31 of the code:
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/code/266-parking_3.pdf#page=31
Looking at Maps, considering that the sidewalk is less than 100 feet from one of the entrances (you can see multiple entry points in the photo in this article), it’s safe to say that the racks are well within compliance. I placed the measurement point on the sidewalk approximately where the article’s photo is taken from.
So Portland has a lower standard for kids than for adults, 100′ from the door rather than 50′? Why is that? Shouldn’t the most vulnerable users have the facilities closer to the door and not further away?
I’m shitting all over this because the leading complaint in Bike Portland is bike theft, yet their public school tax dollars are going towards very nice looking facilities that utterly fail in providing basic secure bike parking that meets general city code for businesses and public facilities – having safe secure bike parking near entrances and exits, so presumably to catch the thief in the act.
No, the distance standard is NOT lower for kids than adults, it’s STRICTER.
Schools: “For Schools, long-term bicycle parking must be placed where the closest space is WITHIN 100 FEET of a main entrance.”
Businesses: “In an area where the closest point is within 300 feet of the site”
So, 100′ maximum distance from a main entrance for schools, but 300′ max. from the very edge of the site the business is on.
Also, the distance-from-entrance requirement isn’t to “catch the thief in the act”, it’s to make the parking close enough that it’s convenient to use.
The 50′ distance requirement is for short-term spaces, meaning for visitors, delivery persons, etc.–not for long-term spaces that building occupants (such as students) use. It makes sense to require a shorter distance to entrances for those people making quick stops, and/or unfamiliar with the site, than for regular building users who park for hours.
So where is this visitor and delivery bike parking? It looks to me that they’ve combined the two, or else not provided the spaces you list.
The point of this is to give a good parking area for students of the school. That’s what this is. It is student parking. I’m sure there are other places to lock a bike, but I don’t know, but the point is it doesn’t matter. You’re grasping desperately for something to complain about and there isn’t anything here. This is good bike parking directly in front of the school, it doesn’t get much better.
My point is that you and many others are lowering your standards and giving PPS a free pass when if this was a city building you’d be screaming bloody murder and insisting that they at least meet city code, if not exceed it. This is your taxes at work, not mine (I live out of state). PPS levees property taxes which you either pay directly if you are a land owner or indirectly through your rent to your landlord who then pays the taxes, which then pay for the school bonds.
Catching up on this after a few days, and I gotta give kudos, this is some Olympic level goal-post moving. First the bike parking sucks because it doesn’t meet codes. Oh, it meets codes? Well the codes suck. Oh, y’all think the codes are fine? Well then, you all suck for thinking that the codes are fine.
They DID meet City code, and they DID exceed it, for the parts of the code that are possible to evaluate from the photo and information.
Maybe nobody’s “screaming bloody murder” about them not meeting the other parts of the code, because there’s no evidence that they didn’t.
It actually looks like there may be (too indistinct to tell) some bike racks in the background on the right of the photo, which could be the short-term racks.
In any case, how can you say it looks like they’ve combined the short- and long-term, based on one close-up photo that only shows a fraction of the site, and not even the main entrance, where the short-term parking would be near? It’s literally impossible to know from one photo.
There’s no reason to think that a project that’s providing parking that’s much better than the code requires (for the things that can be determined from the photo) would not provide code-compliant short-term spaces.
Bike theft: I’d feel pretty safe, as a student, locking up in front of a school during the daytime when many people come and go, security people are nearby, and a person who is not evidently a student or staff member might be challenged. If I had doubts a second lock or a length of chain might resolve them–the movie theater lockup.
The public spaces that devolve to camping, drugs and sex are often afterthoughts put in second class locations. Really valuable real estate gets oversight, protection and regular use. The third thing is the most important.
People don’t squat in a busy location, they squat in a place that seems underused or abandoned.
I’m willing to give PPS credit for giving this parking space a serious effort. I think it’s well worthwhile because I’ve seen some full bike racks at schools in Portland. Maybe they’ll have to expand it, or turn the covered space into valet parking with tired racks and full time staffing.
It would be nice if there was some way to use some of that solar energy to charge e bike batteries.
It is, sort of. Think of it like water; there’s one big reservoir providing water to all the thirsty e-bikes out there (and everything else connected to the grid). Systems like this solar canopy are helping fill the reservoir, and some of that contribution will end up in an e-bike.
If you tried to create a bike-only reservoir, it wouldn’t work as well; sometimes it would run dry (bikes not charged), and other times it would overflow (wasting power), depending on how many bikes were there and how sunny it was. Connecting to the big reservoir smooths out those ups and downs (and is easier to build).
Thanks. I understand how an electric grid works. The point that I wanted to make is that there is electrical wiring connected to the roof over the bike parking. Why not take advantage of that fact to integrate some charging infrastructure into the parking area? That is all I meant to imply.
My guess is that there’s simply no point in doing that. AFAICT, charging ports on e-bikes vary quite a bit.
That’s a good point. I wonder if the industry will ever standardize charging equipment the way that the US EV industry has belatedly started to do with the NACS charging standard.
That would be convenient, but I could see why they wouldn’t die to the liability of fire risk and campers congregating.
Here’s a weird, disturbing thing I noticed looking at the zoning code requirements for security, in order to respond to a comment about that.
The PURPOSE section of the code clearly notes security as a purpose of the regulations:
“Bicycle parking is in areas that are reasonably SAFEGUARDED FROM THEFT and accidental damage”, and
“Long-term bicycle parking is in SECURE, weather protected facilities”
But the way the code is written it does NOT require that for non-residential uses. Under “Security Standards”, it states for non-residential uses:
a. Long-term bicycle parking must meet the following security standards
(2) Long-term bicycle parking for all other uses must be located in one of the following locations. For Schools, a minimum of 10 percent of bicycle parking must be located in the following: • A restricted access, lockable room or enclosure; or • A bicycle locker.
The way I read that, which is the way I believe the code’s instructions for use would require it to be read, is that the only requirement for security for non-residential uses is that 10 percent of bike parking in schools must be in “a restricted access, lockable room or enclosure; or • A bicycle locker”. There are no security requirements for other non-residential uses.
The way the code writers may have INTENDED it to be read might be that ALL the bike parking for non-residential, non-school parking must be restricted, lockable, etc. but only 10% of school parking must be. That makes sense for the non-school bike parking, but it’s poor for school parking. But it’s not at all how it’s written.
So in the best case, 90% of school bike parking does NOT need to be secure, and in the worst case, neither does ANY non-school, non-residential long-term bike parking. Neither case matches the stated purposes of the regulations.
Or maybe I just read it while tired.
Re-reading the code today, I think it’s a bit awkwardly written, but still clear enough that this is what is required–ALL long-term bike parking must be secure in non-residential, non-school projects.
But it’s also clear that the code only requires 10% of school long-term bike parking to be secure. That seems like a really low standard.
So David Hampsten, in a comment above, has a point that this parking may not be very secure (it depends if there will be fences or other measures) in comparison to what businesses are required to provide.
This looks awesome. I think the cargo bike parking comment is interesting, but not that relevant here. The staples on the edge would work for cargo bikes, and students don’t ride cargo bikes anyway, which is who this is for. Now, for something where a lot of parents are expected to show up with their kids (I don’t know, school plays or something?), that might be the time when it makes sense to have a lot of cargo bike parking. Although I imagine if parents and kids *can* ride, they would not be using the cargo bikes.
Now I just wish more places would do this. On the other hand, it’s very rare that I can’t find a spot directly in front of the entrance of wherever I’m going. Except The Matador on Williams (boo hiss! no parking in sight!).
This is a high school for problem students called “Multiple Paths to Graduation”, so I dare say there will be plenty of students who are already mothers (and likely fathers too), so why wouldn’t they have (publicly subsidized) cargo-bikes? This school isn’t for little kids. In other words, it’s for young adults. Which is why I find the condescending conversation about secure bike parking at this location so odd.
Good point, I didn’t read closely and thought it was a younger kids school. In that case yeah, they really should have considered cargo bike options (and better security).
Yes, what about all the teen parents in the alt. high school program riding their publicly subsidized cargo bikes with their little tikes to school??
I asked one of the contractors (I ride by this daily) if it was for photovoltaic. “No,” I was told, “it’s bike parking.” Apparently didn’t have a clue that it could be both.