A $310,000 grant will help local nonprofit BikeLoud PDX scale up their Bike Buddy program.
It’s the largest grant ever for the plucky bike advocacy organization who launched in 2014 to fill a gap in the local cycling ecosystem. Despite a number of successes and growth in their first 10 years, BikeLoud still has no paid staff members. This grant will change that. A portion of the funding will allow them to hire a program manager to coordinate and promote the Bike Buddy program.
BikeLoud won the funding from the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF), a pot of revenue managed by the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability created by a 1% tax on retail sales of large corporations. In addition to funding a program manager, BikeLoud says they’ll establish a mini-grant fund to help low-income participants of the program pay for bike repairs and safety gear.
The Bike Buddy program launched in April 2023. The idea is to match new riders up with more experienced ones in order to help them get more comfortable. Think of it like a cycling mentorship. BikeLoud volunteers refer prospective participants to a page on their website where they fill out an application to help match them with a good buddy.
“The goal of the Bike Buddy program is to create more bicycle trips and replace car trips, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” reads a BikeLoud statement about the grant award. “Bike Buddy mentors can help new riders find Neighborhood Greenways close to their homes, practice safe street riding skills, and practice how to get to specific destinations in one-on-one mentorship.”
BikeLoud’s central organizing principle is to help Portland reach its adopted goal of 25% cycling mode share by 2030. To do that, BikeLoud leaders realize there must be more resources available for people who want to ride but who aren’t sure how to start — or who might just need a bit more confidence to integrate cycling into their daily lives.
Funding from PCEF will keep BikeLoud’s program running for three years. Learn more on their website.
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.
There are few misunderstandings I see in some of the comments regarding PCEF, transportation decarbonization, and programs like Bike Buddy.
PCEF is not supported by taxpayers like you or me, but by a 1% tax on the biggest corporations. These corporations are way undertaxed, and everyone was surprised by the benefits even a 1% tax can bring. I would not be swayed by simplistic propaganda from these highly profitable corporations that they have no choice but to pass this tax on to you the consumer.
Transportation Decarbonization was a new grant category for PCEF this year. It was highly competitive, and the expected amount of decarbonization was a significant part of the selection criteria. Choosing to bike vs drive for everyday trips is a well documented, and cost effective strategy for decarbonization. BikeLoud chose this program for consideration because we have hard evidence that it works at encouraging new riders, at retaining those riders, and creating opportunities for experienced riders to share their knowledge. You can see that reflected in the positive comments on this article from actual participants in the program.
When I read terms from detractors like “essential services,” or comparing PCEF grants to “fluff,” I am interpreting that as a coded rejection of PCEF’s companion mission to benefit disadvantaged communities first. BikeLoud will use the PCEF funding to bring the existing success of the Bike Buddy program to PCEF priority populations. BikeLoud is committed to growing the number of people who ride bikes, and the number of trips they take, and therefore must reach beyond the communities that are already comfortable and confident riding. This also means moving beyond what we are already doing, beyond the status quo that has has brought us to this climate emergency that necessitates interventions like PCEF.
One of the surprises BikeLoud discovered early on with this program was that the barriers people face are not identical. Unswept bike lanes hold some people back. Inaccessible wayfinding holds some people back. But for some potential riders, there is just a single difficult intersection crossing, or a problem with their specific bicycle. BikeLoud found that 1:1 peer mentorship is the most effective way to overcome these specific individual barriers.
Hopefully there will be a lot more specifically for bike, but plenty of regional funding is already spent on building transportation infrastructure, PCEF funding was already raided by City bureaus to help them fill in their budget shortfalls, and PCEF is already dedicating funding to help people get access to bicycles. What BikeLoud saw was that it takes more than access to a bicycle to get people riding, it takes community building, it takes relationships, and it takes buddies.
And they’d never, ever, ever pass this directly along to consumers, right? /s
If you think this tax isn’t passed along in other ways by practically every other corporation subject to it, I’ve got bad news for you…
Large retailers can choose to pass the tax on, but given the specific structure of the tax (only applying to companies with a lot of revenue) they may not since it opens them up to more competition on price from smaller retailers.
Some might just leave. I’m sure the reasons REI left are complex, but this had to have been a factor.
There is no such thing as “hard” or “soft” evidence”. Evidence is only meaningful if it can be fitted to a statistical model that has predictive value. Anything else is gobbledygook.
Represent the certainty of evidence probabilistically and now you can plug it into your statistical model. Wow, some simple math gets us back to hard and soft evidence.
I’m very glad I don’t live in a universe where “probabilistic” is not a statistical model.
Some high-school level math that explains this:
https://web.math.princeton.edu/math_alive/3/Notes1.pdf
And this is why we don’t have enough money to fund basic essential services like sweeping bike lanes. Because voters decided to create a massive slush fund (PCEF) that primarily props up left leaning nonprofits doing “fluff”. I doubt it would pass today.
The Bike Buddy program is great and has done a lot despite both outreach and mentorship being entirely volunteer-driven. I benefited from it when I first moved to the city, and have had a chance to help others since. That opportunity for 1:1 assistance is a really effective way to understand what individual folks need to get them on a bike more regularly and help them close that (often quite small) gap.
From what I’ve seen, there’s an ample supply of volunteers, but limited awareness of the program that a relatively small infusion of funds like this (~100k/yr) has a lot of potential to help address. And the result of that – more people across the city enthusiastic about biking – means more political will to fund and maintain bike infrastructure in the future.
The reason PBOT can’t fund basic services is because they need and have yet to identify a stable revenue source that doesn’t depend on people driving (creating an incentive conflict with their stated priorities). Trying to pin that on PCEF makes very little sense.
I truly appreciate the many wonderful community enrichment programs available, and the Bike Buddy program certainly seems to be a promising one. However, I think we should carefully consider whether this is the best use of taxpayer funds, especially given our city’s current challenges in providing essential municipal services. It might be more beneficial to prioritize those basics rather than funding nonprofits, which sometimes struggle to achieve their intended goals. Additionally, I have concerns about PCEF’s track record regarding effective and accountable use of its funds. Supporting a group like PDX Loud with taxpayer money feels like it might not align with our community’s needs at this time.”
No, PCEF is not why we don’t have enough money for basic services. The structural deficit brought about by the slashing of the property tax in the 1990s has far more to do with that – and given that those problems are still deeply entrenched in local government, it should be no surprise that we continually are short on cash and feel the need to introduce bespoke new taxes. We could also engage in a conversation about the impacts of Reganism on the federal budget (and by extension federal support for local and state governments).
The reason we “don’t have enough money to sweep bike lanes” is that PBOT isn’t willing to spend the very marginal amount of money on doing so. It’s not a priority.
PBOT would have enough money to fix all city streets and much else if the City Council had allowed PBOT to keep the entire ULF (Utility License Fee) fund way back in 1988, money that comes from corporations and agencies that cut up the street, rather than the 3% it gets now. So I blame the City Council and the people who keep electing them.
The ULF has always been part of the general fund though. Using it to fund PBOT was only ever in the context of general fund allocations, which are just political cuts to the agenda from council. So yeah, it’s the fault of the various city councilors we’ve had throughout the years
Voters decided to create a fund to do exactly this sort of thing with money deliberately set aside for this purpose. The fact that bike lanes aren’t being swept has absolutely nothing to do with PCEF funding, that’s on PBOT and people like Wheeler deciding not to raise the needed funds to pay for PBOT to do things (e.g. the parking fee increase he killed).
I’m totally fine with it as long as we get at least $310,000 worth of carbon reduction from the program.
From my understanding, the point of PCEF is not strictly carbon reduction but also the inclusion of historically marginalized communities in climate incentive programs.
Yes that is an important point Kristin. Helping a certain group of Portlanders fund climate change mitigation is a stated priority of the tax.
In that light, I’ll revise my statement:
I’m totally fine with it as long as we get at least $310,000 worth of carbon reduction and historically marginalized community climate-related benefit from the program.
Right, let’s see evidence that BikeLoud has done anything other than help gentrify my neighborhood.
I am a Black man and I am a Portland native. Stop infantalizing us.
Today I learned, making streets safer gentrifies your neighborhood.
To the extent that this is true, it’s that people with money tend to want to live in nicer places to live. Keeping your neighborhood dangerous just so people won’t live there isn’t going to fly. We need alternatives to prevent gentrification that don’t require keeping the streets dangerous.
You know, maybe it’s time for voters (or even the folks we’ve elected) to rethink how we’re using the PCEF funds. I’m talking about putting that money towards essential services—like protected bike lanes. A lot of people I’ve talked to are starting to feel the same way. They voted one way but now, after seeing what has (or let’s be real, hasn’t) happened with those funds, they’ve totally changed their minds. It’s like, we need to make sure this money is actually going where it’s needed, right?
I think the bike buddy program is cool. Is there a similar “transit buddy” program? I have friends who were afraid to ride the bus because they weren’t sure about paying their fare, etiquette on board, requesting a stop, etc. Once I rode with them a few times they felt confident on their own.
$300k of taxpayer money to help people… idk, use common sense and look at a map? Make friends?
I’d laugh if the grift wasn’t so egregious. Sounds like BikeLoud has gone the way of WNBR.
Not everybody is like you and is just eager to get out and ride in traffic. For that matter, YOU probably didn’t just start up riding a bike in traffic. I certainly didn’t. I distinctly remember wondering if I’m doing something wrong and feeling like I’m out of place the first time I had to get into a left turning lane. It’s intimidating to a new rider to get around town. That’s the people who need a little nudge or encouragement. They need someone to confirm “this is where you go, this is what you look for” etc.
Yours and similar toxic attitudes and responses to this need is really counterproductive. It’s just BS gatekeeping that helps ensure people don’t start riding. It should go the way of the thoroughly debunked notion of vehicular cycling. It’s a way to keep our numbers small and exclusive, as if this was some secret club we don’t want people joining.
You act like I’ve personally offended you– insults, accusations, incorrect assumptions about my riding and my upbringing.
This is why Portland is so rotten with grift, we need to put emotions aside and look at issues objectively. Far too many people are unable to do so, and it hurts all of us.
We need to stop inventing these riders who are too scared to leave the sidewalk. There’s practically a cottage industry of navel-gazing theory and catastrophicizing the tiniest of perceived imperfections in a hypothetical cyclist’s experience.
$300k just got flushed down the drain so some volunteers can show a few people how to look at a map, or follow the sharrows painted all over town.
They’re not being invented. I’ve met a lot of them. I was one of them.
I exclusively rode on the sidewalk where I lived before moving up here, and having someone show me the ropes really helped me with the confidence to ride on streets and get around more freely.
Everyone has a different comfort level, or different things they’re (very justifiably) afraid of. A program like this is highly effective precisely *because* a lot of those fears can be easily resolved with a bit of 1:1 time.
How does anyone cope with anything new ever?
Perhaps ther are a few people who are legitimately afraid to walk out their front door in the morning, but otherwise this is a solution looking for a problem.
Often, by participating in programs like the Bike Buddy program. They’re all over the place, and often publicly funded: how to apply for a building permit, how to use the library, how to apply for this or that government program, how to improve your home’s energy performance…
I’m not taking any position on this program–I don’t know much about it–but the concept isn’t unusual.
Really? Not helpful.
The absolute mind boggling irony here.
THEY DRIVE THEIR CAR
That’s how they cope, they do the thing they have plenty of buddies and role models for today, the default (but destructive) transportation option. They drive. That’s the thing that would be ideal to change.
Drivers go through the same period of acclimatization to the terror of being out in traffic that bike riders do. You’ll see this when your kids start driving.
I remember, I was there. But I persevered because everything about our car-centric society told me that is the way it is done and I really have no other option. I had plenty of car-buddies to show me how it’s done and talk to about questions.
Hopefully, the grant has some reporting requirements that can be used to determine how effective this strategy is at convincing drivers to ride bikes instead.
People don’t know how to find greenways, so instead of using maps, or looking at signs or sharrows, they drive?
You’re just making this up as you go along.
Spoken like a person who already rides a bike around the city comfortably.
Many people probably don’t even know greenways exist, let alone that it’s a good route to take on a bike. Or where they would find maps that show where they are, etc. They don’t mean anything to drivers.
And unless they’re having this interest in getting around by bike at the exact same time they’re learning to drive, they probably already have a car and license and drive everywhere. So that little bit of fear of the unknown is enough to keep them curious but in their car.
All it takes is one attempt getting somewhere and having a bike lane disappear and dump them onto a dangerous fast moving stroad, unsure where to go next, to give someone a bad early experience and keep them off their bike. I experienced this myself, trying to commute years ago for the first time. I just want to get from point A to point B – so simple in a car, straight forward, because everything is built for you in a car. If there is a road you can get there without even looking at a map. On a bike though, I remember cruising down highway 99 near 217 and the bike lane just vanished. And that area is a mess, impatient drivers criss-crossing and high speed, and me feeling absolutely unwilling to cross three lanes to get into a left turn lane. It was terrifying. All I wanted to do was get to Tualatin. Easy peasy in a car, which is what I had been doing until then. I firmly believe that many people in my position, trying that out for the first time timidly, would have said “F this, I guess Tualatin is simply inaccessible by bike”. I kept trying and finding better routes, but I fear how many people might have given up after that.
The program isn’t for you. Whining about this program is like complaining that a city is building a grade school because “I don’t go to school, reading is easy!” You already learned, don’t you understand?
Amazing John V. CoTW.
Lol, there was no insult or accusation in my comment, what are you talking about? And I didn’t even assume anything about your background, only guessed based on likelihood that you probably didn’t learn to bike by taking the lane with your training wheels down 4th. Maybe you did do that.
The only inventiveness here is with all the imagined insults and grievances you’re bringing up. That, on top of the lack of a memory or empathy of what it was like when you first learned to ride in traffic.
This is so deeply misrepresenting what this program is. I am an extremely confident rider, and I definitely had issues getting acclimated to riding in Portland. I was never going to stop riding over it, but I 100% know friends who ride way less than me in no small part because the access and comfort just isn’t there.
In the case of your friends, could that discomfort be ameliorated with some 1-on-1 time with a volunteer (or a friend who has acclimated to riding in Portland)?
I think so, but I can only offer so much. At least a few of them might benefit from the Bike Buddy program yes
Have you ridden bicycles in other cities? We have it pretty good in Portland. I’m not sure where you got your riding experience but Portland is hardly place lacking “acesss” and “comfort”.
See this comment for a brief look at other experience of mine. I also have ridden to work in Nashville TN, and Columbus OH – I’m definitely acclimated to bad cycling conditions in general.
Things are okay here sure, but the bulk of the cycleways are just neighborhood streets. This generally means that major destinations in commercial districts require either careful planning or a willingness to ride in sub-par conditions to get to the final destination. When I lived on the corner of 20th and Morrison, I would often bike to HMart on 33rd/Belmont. I generally didn’t want to ride on the bike lane-less Belmont (especially not near where Belmont/Morrison converge at 25th), so my options were to shimmy my way through Lone Fir then to HMart via 32nd, ride down 20th to Yamhill and thus cross Belmont/Morrison an extra two times, or do the “suggested” route of taking 20th down to Salmon to do extra random climbing on a very stupid greenway.
I usually chose the first option. They are all fine, and safe enough if you ride a bike long enough, but it’s frustrating that there aren’t good cycling routes on the major streets which people naturally use to ground themselves in the city. On the east side between Grand/MLK and Cesar, cars get straight shots down Holgate, Powell, Division, Hawthorne, Belmont, Stark, and Burnside. There are zero designated bike routes that are a straight shot on one road; the closest are Lincoln-Harrison (dead-ends one block before Grand, feels like one road) and Clinton (starts at 12th).
If you’ve spent enough time riding in Portland, or are familiar with the history of how each greenway was built, or you don’t mind sticking your nose out and riding on Belmont then things aren’t so bad. But I think that our current bikeway system lacks recognizable direct access to so many key destinations in the city and requires far too much localized knowledge to really be effective for newcomers. Sure, it’s reasonable accessible for an experienced rider, and I find it to be comfortable enough for most trips, but it’s also pretty clear that most people I know do not share my enthusiasm
This is true of driving as well. Even having lived here as long as I have, I need a map to find my way to destinations in many parts of the city when traveling by car. And it almost always requires chaining together a string of different facilities that can hardly be called “direct”.
Driving is so much more direct, easy, and navigable. It’s not close. Compare SE 20th or 30th or Cesar Chavez to the mess that is the 20s greenway. Or Clinton/Woodward to Division. Ankeny/Couch/Davis/Everett to Burnside. The list is literally endless. Our entire street network is geared towards cars, and our entire bike network is retrofitted around that. If there are places where it feels less navigable in a car, those places are the exception rather than the rule
If I were starting on and ending on 39th, then the trip would be faster and easier by car. But that represents exactly zero of my trips. The actual places I go are just as direct by bike as by car, and sometimes faster when I account for overhead like parking. Getting to my normal destinations in HAND from Brooklyn, for example, is substantially faster and more direct by bike.
The “bicyclists have it so hard” mindset that permeates this blog does not at all resonate with my life in Portland. I think we have it pretty good.
Hey Jeff, that’s fantastic news. I agree with the need to largely put emotions aside and look these issues objectively. The “invented” riders you refer to are the percentage of people who are often called “interested but concerned” in much of the research, and the data collected on this group is enormous. Here is a great paper on the categorization written by Roger Geller.
I am assuming you identify as “strong and fearless” according to the above article. This group “comprise[s] perhaps 2,000 or fewer cyclists in Portland, representing fewer than 0.5% of the population.” The buddy program clearly is not targeting this group, since they would bike regardless of the program.
The “Interested but concerned” group, are estimated at around “300,000…, representing 60% of the city’s population.” This is group is who the bike buddy program is targeting for the most part. I would encourage you to seek out the evidence on which this program is based:
“BikeLoud chose this program for consideration because we have hard evidence that it works at encouraging new riders.”
–Aaron Kuehn (BikeLoud)
I would be very interested in reading the evidence you base your opinion on. If you would like more research on the topic, please let me know.
I was born with a bike, ready and eager to ride in traffic, before I could even crawl. It was a very painful birthing for my mom, laboring on her 1965 Alex Moulton during a snow storm.
Me too, but we’re not normal 🙂
I did my first Bike Buddy ride along yesterday and it was fun and affirming. I helped a lady find the lowish stress route from The Pearl to Downtown and back. Mostly fine but it has some really awkward route gaps, like crossing Burnside on the northbound trip.
It’s also a great way to see how newer riders struggle to navigate our bike network. My buddy was using walking and driving directions for Google Maps to find routes but she had some negative experiences as a result. You also have to cross one-ways full of commutes in a hurry to get to the highway. It can be intimidating to assert yourself in this situation when you need to cross.
I have done about 10 rides with new riders this year so far and seeing where they struggle really underscores the importance of building a real cycle network in the dense parts of our city. The existing network doesn’t work for most people.
I think things like the Bike Buddy program are awesome, and remind me how frustrating it was to get acclimated to riding in Portland. I moved from Madison, WI and back home there’s a few key paths that formed the trunk of ~90% of my routes – mainly the SW Path (connecting my parent’s neighborhood to the south side of UW-Madison campus), the east campus mall (getting from the SW Path to downtown proper), the capital city trail/starkweather path (for travel to points further east, including two different jobs). Madison is also pretty “naturally navigable” thanks to the isthmus constraining routes
Portland has nothing like this – the Springwater ends without a great connection into downtown, the 205 path just isn’t a route I’m willing to take (plus I rarely go out that far) and that’s basically all we have for paths. I got lost basically every ride I went on trying to navigate greenways on the fly. I didn’t realize that bike lanes like the ones on E Broadway were absolutely miserable death traps until I rode them. If I weren’t willing to be a slightly headstrong and reckless cyclist, I would have quit riding before I got a month in. It’s taken a lot of personal riding around to get acquainted with which routes work for me, and why and it’s great to have more resources for folks who are new in town
Reading the negative comments about this program makes me think that maybe the whole thing should be repackaged. Instead of presenting it as a benefit for bike riders, point out that it’s a direct response to all those drivers who’ve been saying people who want to ride bikes in traffic should learn HOW to ride in traffic. That’s exactly what it addresses.
I don’t think it’s been negative comments about the program per se. It’s more about whether a city with limited resources such as Portland should be funding it with tax dollars. What are our essential services and are we funding them adequately first is the question many are asking.
PCEF was passed to address carbon emission and climate specifically. To raise tax money for one stated purpose and use it for another one does not strike me as a good way to go. Rubio’s attempts to do this do more to dissuade me from supporting her mayoral candidacy than the parking ticket scandal. As a liberal who generally supports government funding, I have to say that the city of Portland does not do a good job at giving the impression that they use tax revenue wisely or efficiently. I think using PCEF funds for basic services will further erode that trust.
Micah, an equal part of PCEF’s mission is to include/train people who are under-represented among the workers and contractors who do the work of moving a community toward carbon neutrality and resiliency. This empowers and strengthens communities, and let’s them take part in, and financially benefit from, the move away from carbon.
I wrote an unfunded PCEF grant, and the organization makes it abundantly clear at every step, that funding depends on reaching their targeted audience, both as receivers and do-ers.
And in reply to something Watts wrote, there is lots of accountability that goes along with receiving the money. They track everything.
This could be a great way to get more people near me in East Portland comfortable on bikes!