Steve Novick has been out of Portland politics for eight years, but you wouldn’t know that if you’ve watched him on the campaign trail. Novick, who’s running for one of three seats in City Council District 3 (Southeast), has landed back on the scene and finds himself atop a very competitive race. This week he wrapped up the big trifecta with endorsements from The Willamette Week, The Oregonian and the Portland Mercury.
And last night he walked onto the Gorges Beer Co patio to join us for Bike Happy Hour. In his typically demure style, Novick didn’t announce his presence and he didn’t even tell me he’d be there. But he was prepared and on a mission to find good answers to specific questions about bicycling that could inform his platform and politics going forward.
Before I share his questions, let’s go back in time a bit…
For anyone around during his previous tenure as a city commissioner (between 2012 and 2016), you’ll recall Novick’s relatively solid record on bicycling and transportation. Two weeks after he received the PBOT bureau assignment, Novick made time to stop at Breakfast on the Bridges where he mingled with local bike lovers and advocates. As PBOT commissioner his entire term, Novick was the tip of the spear when it came to pushing the 10-cent local gas tax increase. Novick even earned a Comment of the Week nod here on BikePortland for his acerbic rebuttal of economist Joe Cortright’s concerns about the tax. Portlanders have voted in support of the tax three times since, so it might seem like a no-brainer, but Novick likely sacrificed his re-election by standing up for more local transportation funding. Novick was also in charge when we launched Biketown, and he was an ardent supporter of Better Naito.
The one quibble I recall about Novick is that he didn’t push hard enough to improve bike safety on SW Barbur when the opportunity presented himself. I felt like he deferred too much to Oregon Department of Transportation Region 1 Director Jason Tell. When I learned Novick’s chief of staff Chris Warner (who’d go on to become PBOT director years later) was a close personal friend of Tell’s and it felt like Novick was parroting ODOT’s position on the issue, I emailed Novick to ask about the Warner-Tell relationship. Minutes later, Novick picked up the phone and called me. When I answered, he chewed me out and warned me to never question the integrity of one of his staff again and then hung up before I could respond. I was shocked, but chalked it up to just another interesting day on the job, and moved on.
Here are the questions Novick posed to the crowd last night (I’ve also posted a video of his speech at the end of this post and on Instagram):
“A question I have for the bicycle community is, we have seen this really unfortunate drop off in bicycling as a percentage of trips over the past nine years. We sort of reached a peak in 2015 and we used to have this idea, ‘If we build it, they will come.’ If we keep on improving the bike infrastructure, the bike mode share will increase. And obviously we should do a lot more to improve the infrastructure, but the infrastructure is better and more extensive than it was in 2015 and we still have lower ridership.
So my question is: What should we focus on to get ridership back up? How much of it is simply safety — the fact that drivers went insane during the pandemic and they’ve stayed insane and people are scared to be on the streets? How much of it is enforcement?
How much of it is that… bicycling was like this sort of hot thing that in the mid-2010s every city was competing to have the best bike program. Then it sort of faded as a cause. To what extent can we just say, ‘Hey, this is a critical cause. It’s vital for climate change. It’s vital to reduce people’s spending on transportation. Is vital for health. How much could we recapture by just sort of being more aggressive cheerleaders for bicycling?
How much of it is education? Our primary tool is the greenways, but you have the population changing all the time. To what extent could we do a better job of educating new people who come here where the greenways are?
And to what extent is it improving the infrastructure? Are there some dramatic, disruptive things we could do in certain places where it’s an infrastructure improvement that makes everybody stand up and pay attention? What are some key places where we could do some big things in order to jumpstart things again?”
Then Novick shared a new (to me) plan to boost the share of transportation-specific funding in the Portland Clean Energy Benefits Fund (PCEF) from its current level of about 17% of the $750 million total to a “majority”. Novick said he’s been pushing PCEF leaders to spend more on transportation because it’s the largest source of carbon emissions. Then he shared a related question:
One argument you will run into is [PCEF funding] is supposed to be for reducing carbon emissions, but it’s also to be supposed to be benefiting low-income people and people of color. Does that mean we have to spend all of the money specifically in communities that have a large proportion of low-income people and people of color? Or can we say, ‘You know what, building out the entire bike network is important, even if some of that build-out occurs in places that aren’t particularly concentrated with people of color and low-income people, and that fighting climate change as a whole is important to low-income people and people of color, because they are going to bear the brunt of it. So making investments that reduced carbon emissions wherever they are, is still an environmental justice issue.’
Will people be willing to step up and say, ‘Yes, we think that that’s true’?
Given that Novick speaks from experiences as a commissioner who’s been in the trenches and stands a very good chance of winning a seat on council, it would behoove all of us to think about these questions and have good answers ready as the lobbying of council begins anew in January 2025.
“If I lose my election, answering those questions to me will be utterly irrelevant,” Novick said last night. “But if I win, I’d love to have you come and talk to me.”
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.
I am awestruck by the number and thoughtfulness of the comments here and will try to respond to many of them although it may take weeks!
Steve, according to the big 5 foreign transit companies (Keolis, TransDev, RAT-P, National Coach, & First Transit), all of whom we interviewed here in Greensboro NC for our city bus contract, if you want your community to walk more, use transit more, and bicycle more, the quickest and most sure-fire method is you have to make car driving a lot harder and less convenient, at least as bad as taking the bus:
_ ban all on-street parking on arterial and collector streets (and replace them with bus lanes and/or bike/walk lanes),
_ have city-wide car parking permit programs (with no free parking on any street or any public space)
_ strict speed limits, speed enforcement, and parking enforcement everywhere,
_ signals timed to 15 mph average speed,
_ Road diets and the use of public buses to block fast traffic, and so on.
It’s not so much about building more crap as much as it is about using what you got more wisely and enforcing existing rules and regulations.
In a vacuum or at a national level I agree but if Portland does that alone I think it will hurt businesses, push people out to the areas closest to them that don’t have those changes in the businesses just outside the portland city proper. It will create more inequality with wealthy being able to drive and park while others cannot. It is also much much harder for families with young kids who need strollers etc. to ride bikes or take public transit.
I agree, any new policies like those suggested above will have impacts, both negative and positive. Many people who are car-dependent would likely leave any city that implemented these policies as long as they could afford to leave and find work and affordable housing elsewhere; many others nationwide who are looking for a car-optional city would be more attracted to this community. Whether the community grew or not wouldn’t be the point, it is the ratio of car-optional users to car-dependent users that Steve is asking about – how do you increase the proportion of people who are commuting by bicycle given that Portland residents and their city council are, historically, cheapskates.
You are right, many historically under-represented groups would lose out, but one would argue the same people are already losing out with the present set of circumstances too – moms with large families, homeless who can’t easily leave Portland because of family and/or job connections, SUV owners with 7 trucks in the street and their front lawn, and so on – but on the other hand, poor people who can live without a car will be better able to get around, those with disabilities will be able to better see around corners, and many of the most dangerous drivers will likely move elsewhere.
Every moderately nice shopping/entertainment district in the suburbs adore the first two suggestions.
That is so true. Up until East Portland’s annexation in the late 80s, Multnomah County banned car parking on all arterial stroads and many collectors, and developers in response put in lots of private parking, likely too much. Gresham a few years ago re-introduced parking bans on many major stroads to add bike lanes – they banned parking but allowed a 6-month grace period before handing out tickets. Many parts of Portland still have under-utilized suburban parking lots. By banning parking on major streets even in inner Portland and by pricing parking in all residential areas, one can see in many cities like Chicago or SF the construction of private for-profit parking garages, while many cities in Europe have huge underground parking garages.
Physically. Separated. Bike. Network.
Every time a politician asks these kind of questions and uses a “but,” ask them if they really believe in the “Build it, they will come” trope. Because it really matters what you build.
You can concentrate on disconnected, random, half-assed and sometimes even decent projects throughout a city, but if they do not make a safe, low-stress, functional and separated network, they are essentially useless.
When politicians ask this question, redirect them to the near identical past 2010 and current 2024 physically separated bike networks, which have remained essentially static for decades, with little to no improvement. This is the most effective means for increasing mode share based on what the evidence suggests, and based on how many cities have been successful doing so. Anyone who would like research on this, LMK.
Remember, we are not building a network for YOU (dear cycling enthusiast), because you already ride. So asking current cyclists this question is often counterproductive. It is essential to recognized that the needs of current, primarily male, primarily athletic, and primarily white cyclists aren’t as important. We are building a separated network to increase mode share via encouraging “interested but concerned” people to ride.
When politicians ask, “Ok, so where should we build this network?”, point to the current network and say expand please, rinse and repeat. If enough people voice this basic tenant, maaaybe we’ll get some traction at city hall.
It is an inescapable fact that our infrastructure is significantly better than what it was and ridership is much lower than what it was. That can only mean that either 1) infrastructure doesn’t drive ridership; or 2) infrastructure does drive ridership but there are other, more dominant factors depressing it. It probably does not mean that cycling demand is just waiting for the infrastructure to be perfected to materialize.
In either case, a massive build out of infrastructure (which will not be on the table, no matter who wins in November) isn’t going to solve the problem of low ridership (which many would argue isn’t even a problem).
For me, personally, infrastructure does influence route choice, but it has little bearing on mode choice. But then I’m one of those rare birds who doesn’t keep complaining about riding in Portland.
“A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.” Reference
All I can do is to point back to what I wrote and say, “Please reread.” Either you are unwilling or unable to understand.
If you’re going to accuse me of making a fallacious with the intent to deceive (about what?), at least do me the courtesy of explaining why my argument is wrong.
Without that, your comment amounts to a schoolyard taunt: “I’m not wrong, you’re the one who’s wrong!”
You made an argument that better infrastructure will increase ridership. We have solid proof we can achieve much higher ridership with infrastructure that is a fair bit inferior to what we have today. There is no reason to think that people quit riding due to poor infrastructure, and there is no reason to suppose that further improving the infrastructure will entice people back onto their bikes.
I appreciate that you think this argument is “clever”, but it asks the same question any policymaker would (especially someone as savvy as Novick).
And you have no answer for it.
Agreed. Also it’s obvious that there are factors depressing ridership. WFH for one. The question isn’t how many people are riding compared to before, but how many people who need to get places are choosing bikes to get there.
Oh no, you’ve poked another hole in the completely overheated theory of “induced demand”
Pining for the things that only the left can build while being thoroughly committed to supply-side capitalism…
The left can’t build this. Given the available resources (political and economic) no one can. It’s a fantasy solution.
The left has repeatedly built this.
Randian supply-side capitalists, not so much.
I have zero faith our local governing agencies are competent enough to deliver this.
Do we need to “build the network”? Don’t we already have interconnected ways to get around? Maybe we just need to close more existing streets to car/SUV/minivan/truck traffic. No need to build! Just get real about moving the resourced away from individual motor vehicles and to public transit and active transit.
That would be cool. Some day I would hope that Portland were in the position where a lot of streets could be entirely car-free. It would certainly be a lot cheaper to build bollards to “filter” SOVs from parts of neighborhoods. A car free network can look very different depending on where it is.
Streets don’t even need to be off limits to cars, we just need to have *some* streets in the city where cars aren’t the top priority. Even our “greenways” prioritize cars. Having 2500 cars a day means 1.7 cars passing every single minute if we are extremely generous and spread it equally over 24 hours ad PBOT thinks that many cars is acceptable for a “greenway”.
PBOT wont even consider traffic diverters until we go over that threshold. PBOT considers traffic diverters “traffic exclusion” rather than traffic calming measures. Portland is a motor-city through and through.
Good points cyborg. Where did you get the 2500 number? Is that a new threshold?
Cyborg might be using old numbers? I think the current greenway spec is fewer than 1,000 cars per day with a max speed of 20 mph. I think it’s worth asking whether those figures are still to high though, especially the speed limit.
I was misremembering, but not by much.
“Greenways” can have up to 2000 vehicles per day before PBOT will do anything to help calm traffic. 1000 is the goal, which I don’t really understand why a goal needs to exist. Shouldn’t the goal just be the least amount of traffic as possible?
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/ng-assessment-report-web-542728.pdf
And at least in my case, these are vehicles that pass through one specific block on the N Central “greenway” I was asking about. N Central needs to be be passed through for Clark County <-> Washington County commuters.
The thousands of motorists who pass over N Central or are on it for one or two blocks, but not the specific block where the counting is happening aren’t even part of the conversation.
Thanks for clearing it up. A more subjective indicator of the functionality of greenways is “are kids riding in the street?” I think that is a potential sign of success.
I wonder if the Sunday Parkways crowd would be representative of the the “interested but concerned”? Ranked-choice surveys administered at all of them during a summer might yield some useful results.
Hey Belynda, this is not a bad idea!
My question is this:
Steve,
Many don’t feel safe riding bikes in current day Portland —due to crime, rampant homelessness, public drug use, allowance of our MUP’s to be linear campgrounds and lack of enforcement of vehicular traffic laws. We have a severely understaffed police force and many Portlanders desperately feel we need more police. In 2014 you were one of the first police defunders. What will you do to make Portland feel safe to cyclists again? Do you think we need more police or will you again work to defund the police ?
Here is excerpt from a 2014 Portland Tribune article:
“Commissioner Steve Novick wants to cut money from the Portland Police Bureau’s budget, specifically their Drug and Vice Division.
He said the money could be spent better elsewhere. Novick and the other city council members debated the unusual and controversial idea Tuesday during a City Council work session on next year’s budget”
https://www.portlandtribune.com/news/novick-wants-to-cut-police-drug-and-vice-division-funding/article_8054b7d8-f875-5fe4-b250-30d401267e8b.html
While these are issues to be dealt with, my immediate concern on my commutes and as a pedestrian is cars. Also the PPB budget is higher than ever so not sure what you are getting at with that decade-old article.
Everything costs more.
Your argument about budget while frequently stated by far left Portland progressives isn’t a reasonable way to assess public safety staffing.
1. Budget ≠ Staffing While the police budget may be at an all-time high, this does not directly correlate to an increase in staffing. Budgets can rise due to factors such as higher costs for technology, equipment, pensions, training, or infrastructure, rather than an increase in the number of officers. A department may have a larger budget but still struggle with recruitment, retention, or operational efficiency.
2. Inflation and Rising Costs Over time, inflation and rising costs of goods and services (e.g., equipment, vehicles, salaries) can cause the overall budget to grow without increasing the actual level of service or number of personnel. So, even if the budget is historically large, it may be absorbed by these increased expenses rather than resulting in more officers.
3. Allocation Within the Budget A high budget doesn’t necessarily mean that the funds are allocated toward hiring more officers. A significant portion of the budget might go toward non-staffing areas such as technology, legal costs, public outreach, or internal administration. Therefore, a high budget might not reflect improvements in staffing levels or patrol coverage.
4. Personnel Costs Rising Faster Even if staffing numbers remain stable, personnel costs (e.g., salaries, benefits, pensions) can rise sharply, leading to a higher budget without any growth in the number of officers. Benefits and pension liabilities for retired officers can take up a growing share of the budget.
5. Staffing Needs May Outpace Budget Growth Even if the police budget has grown, the community’s needs or the demands placed on the police force may have outpaced that growth. Population increases, crime rate changes, or shifts in community priorities may require more officers than the current budget allows, even if the budget itself is larger than in previous years.
Thus, focusing solely on the overall size of the police budget overlooks important details about where the money is actually going and how it is affecting police staffing levels.
Bitter, I hear this a lot in Portland. But that doesn’t make it true or accurate.
1. Budget ≠ Staffing
While the police budget may be at an all-time high, this does not directly correlate to an increase in staffing. Budgets can rise due to factors such as higher costs for technology, equipment, pensions, training, or infrastructure, rather than an increase in the number of officers. A department may have a larger budget but still struggle with recruitment, retention, or operational efficiency.
2. Inflation and Rising Costs
Over time, inflation and rising costs of goods and services (e.g., equipment, vehicles, salaries) can cause the overall budget to grow without increasing the actual level of service or number of personnel. So, even if the budget is historically large, it may be absorbed by these increased expenses rather than resulting in more officers.
3. Allocation Within the Budget
A high budget doesn’t necessarily mean that the funds are allocated toward hiring more officers. A significant portion of the budget might go toward non-staffing areas such as technology, legal costs, public outreach, or internal administration. Therefore, a high budget might not reflect improvements in staffing levels or patrol coverage.
4. Personnel Costs Rising Faster
Even if staffing numbers remain stable, personnel costs (e.g., salaries, benefits, pensions) can rise sharply, leading to a higher budget without any growth in the number of officers. Benefits and pension liabilities for retired officers can take up a growing share of the budget.
5. Staffing Needs May Outpace Budget Growth
Even if the police budget has grown, the community’s needs or the demands placed on the police force may have outpaced that growth. Population increases, crime rate changes, or shifts in community priorities may require more officers than the current budget allows, even if the budget itself is larger than in previous years.
Thus, focusing solely on the overall size of the police budget overlooks important details about where the money is actually going and how it is affecting police staffing levels.
I rode the 205 MUP from Stark to Marine Drive yesterday. My primary concerns were the man who flashed a hunting knife at me as I passed his tent and the three (yes, three!) unleashed pit bulls that were loose on the path.
Cars didn’t even factor into my ride…
Oh calm down about the defund the police stuff, Steve is endorsed by the PPA: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=924554099701384&id=100064404081075
News alert for Angus Peters: nobody’s tent has ever run a light and almost killed me. Stop demonizing poor people; they don’t endanger bicyclists. Entitled people in motor vehicles endanger bicyclists.
Thank you.
Lois,
It’s not the tents that people are worried about:
https://bikeportland.org/2019/07/15/man-assaulted-and-robbed-while-biking-on-springwater-corridor-302366
https://bikeportland.org/2024/08/12/more-problems-on-paths-as-driver-smashes-onto-springwater-and-man-slashes-trail-user-388980
Stop excusing destructive, antisocial behavior.
We deserve safe paths free of trash, violence and disorder.
I can’t understand why the cycling community consistently advocates for the complete surrender of our existing car-free infrastructure while simultaneously demanding we build more of it. We don’t take care of what we have, then wonder why mode share is down!
Another David Hampsten classic. His engagement with local government really shows.
—–
From Mr. Novick:
“Our primary tool is the greenways…To what extent could we do a better job…?”
I’m choosing to answer a slightly different question than Mr. Novick posed. If green ways are the preferred way of making the city accessible to bike riders, here are three ways that PBOT could improve the experience.
First, put in diverters midway between all collector streets, something that is now rare. On a car navigation app, a greenway shows up as an unbroken hot streak. This attracts both aggressive drivers and just plain tourists. Apps may be actively routing motor vehicle operators through greenways.
Second, improve intersection treatments where local streets meet greenways. It’s crazy that where a greenway crosses another, one is posted “Cross traffic does not stop” as if bike on bike crashes were some kind of problem. We do not see this elsewhere. If a greenway is meant to be a conduit for riders every intersection should be daylighted and signed for crossing bike and ped traffic. (Greenways are popular with both walkers and runners.)
Third, employ the labor and asphalt expended on speed bumps to fix the more conspicuous breaches in pavement so that riding is better, not worse.
My answers to Mr. Novick’s questions as a would-be constituent of his living east of 82nd:
The bike infrastructure outside of the central city really isn’t that great. Look at the state of east and southwest Portland, and then go ask a rando on the street if they’d be cool riding in an unprotected bike lane along 102nd south of Halsey. Ask me and my family how easy it is to find a good route across I-84 and I-205. Ask the families of Jeanie Diaz and Sarah Pliner and hundreds of other victims of traffic violence since 2015 if the infrastructure in Portland is “good enough.” Portland may be better than a lot of other cities in North America, sure, but that’s like saying the turd I dropped in the toilet this morning was nicer looking than the ones I dropped the rest of the week.
It’s also simply too easy to drive in the city. Not all of that is under the city’s control, but the fact that I can get in my car and drive right now to the southwest waterfront in 18 minutes, versus a 44 minute bike ride or a 53 minute transit ride is illustrative of my point. Fast, free highways carve through the city; fuel is cheap; and parking is free in most of the city, and only a nominal fee downtown. In short, while the bicycle network may be fairly high quality, and the connectivity is improving every year, the car is still king in Portland, and there are just too damn many of them on the road (going too damn fast and weighing too damn much)! As long as that’s the status quo in Portland, it’s going to prevent people from re-evaluating their modal choices, and scare away many of the ones who do. Portland has built a good baseline, bare minimum to continue building from, but there’s not going to be a real shift until private automobile use is deprioritized on the city’s transportation network. That’s the challenge to the next mayor, city administrator, and PBOT director to work through. Are our Vision Zero, affordable housing, and climate policy statements just words, or are we ready to commit and do the real work of becoming an innovative, world class city?
Cars are supposed to be faster.
Succinct, substance-less, MotRG.
The car paradox. They are not faster in real world circumstances.
In many cases they are, in some they aren’t. It entirely depends on the trip.
“Supposed to” is a values statement, not a statement of fact. A statement of fact would be something like, “Cars are faster than other modes of transportation, because we have made deliberate choices in building our urban environment to accommodate motorists at the expense of other travelers.”
Portland may be better than a lot of other cities in North America, sure, but that’s like saying the turd I dropped in the toilet this morning was nicer looking than the ones I dropped the rest of the week.
Best summation of Portland bike infra ever!
I miss that guy
Knowing Steve, this question was asked with sincerity. Moreover, I think it is exactly the right question to be asking. We owe it to ourselves to take it seriously.
When I think back to what we’ve lost over the past decade or so, there are some obvious things like failing to keep pace with infrastructure, and the dramatic increase in traffic violence. These are critical issues in their own right. A more subtle loss is the lack of a clear vision for how biking supports our entire community. Too often it has felt like a grim, entrenched fight, bikes against… well, almost everybody else. Too often our streets feel hostile. Too often biking simply just doesn’t look as fun as it used to.
Protected bike lanes and Vision Zero are important, but we’ve got a bit confused about what our goal is. Safety is table stakes. It is not the goal. Just making biking “safe” isn’t enough! Our true goal should be to maximize human joy- community, connection, happiness, health. These are universal values for Portlanders, and we need to show how biking is one of the best investments we can make in them. How do we do that? Let’s start by looking at what is working, because there are some glorious bright spots of joy. I’m looking at you, Pedalpalooza! And Rainbow Road! And the bike busses! These are wonderful examples of bike-supported joy that exist despite having little to no public funding.
So, Novick, to answer your question: we should focus on joy.
I completely agree with your comment, with the exception of your claim that biking isn’t as fun as it used to be.
I think it’s better than ever.
Agreed, biking is lit.
I said it often doesn’t look as fun as it used to be (admittedly without any real data to back this up). I am sure many of us are still having plenty of fun (I know I am!), but I think that your average Portlander sees biking as less appealingly fun than they used to.
I think of that as a two-part problem. First, our streets seem less fun because the general sense of danger and disorder (this is particularly true of our some of our best and most fun bike infrastructure, ie Springwater corridor).
Second, because we bike advocates have had to fight for and put up with so much during the past few years (with, it would seem, diminishing returns), I think there is just sort of a visible sense of grimness and moral determination about us. This is in a sense justified, but it’s also lot less appealing and less fun looking.
I’m forever perplexed about why so many bicyclists, who have historically used community forms such as neighborhood associations with great success to get better projects from PBOT, have turned against the system and helped allow PBOT’s public engagement processes atrophy.
One reason bike advocacy might feel full of grimness and moral determination is that it has become separated from the communities that used to support it.
But the mood among advocates probably has very little bearing on whether a typical Portlander will make their next trip by bike. “Fun” probably doesn’t weigh a lot either, when compared with “dark”, “rainy”, “cold”, “hilly”, “far”, “carry groceries”, “carry kids”, “tired”, “in a hurry”, “bike theft”, “no bike”, “flat tires”, etc., which are probably more what people think about when they imagine riding. If they do at all.
In my current condition I can go almost anywhere in Portland and even enjoy it. What’s more to the point is what I think of as the NE Broadway question. If my parents were alive, would I take them on a bike ride through that street?
Nope. It’s a fail, as with about half of the marked bike routes in Portland. That’s not a bike network it’s a waste of good materials. Surely we could have used that reflective paint for something sensible.
I’m riding less because the 205 MUP, which is a mere 2 blocks from my home, has been allowed to deteriorate into a shooting gallery. It’s depressing and decidedly not fun to use it to get to the Springwater or Marine Drive, or even up to Gateway for a grocery run.
My wife and daughters refuse to ride it at all and I don’t blame them. We used to ride bikes to Pickles games all the time… not anymore, because it isn’t safe, especially after dark.
So yeah, it’s less fun for me.
The people living on the trail seem to be having a blast, though.
I think my big grievances with bike infrastructure are:
I think overall there are just limitations in how many people will use bikes when we are still relying on the greenway model, just because that model allocates all of the most direct routes, most of the destinations, and all the safest intersections to cars.
I also question the bike count methodology a little bit because if I am remembering correctly, PBOT’s own data shows people are riding on Hawthorne more often than adjacent greenways and yet their bike count locations are all on the greenways. This is maybe an increasingly large problem as e-bikes expand the number of people who feel comfortable riding on larger streets like that.
I regret that I have but one vote to give to this comment. You covered much of what I would write.
I hear you Kyle. Good points.
So since Portland is zoned light res for ~75% of its space, it has residential streets galore. And that can be good. I grew up riding on roads with very few cars, and cars can be pretty sparse in a lot of residential streets. Greenways also are fairly cheap to build. Just put down a little bike shaped paint. They are also very popular politically, both because their cost and limited effect on free parking.
But as you pointed out they can be limited in their functional use (indirect, circuitous etc.). If you’ve been around in Portland you’ve seen this idea soar in popularity over the last couple decades. PBOT defined greenways:
“For an average of 1,000 vehicles a day, or 50 vehicles per hour in the peak direction. While not ideal, a greenway can operate with an average of 1,500 vehicles per day or 75 vehicles per hour in the peak hour.” Reference
Anyone who has used greenways knows that the most important part of most connections do not come close to abiding by that definition. Think Clinton/26th, SE Ankeny/7th, etc. Based on PBOT’s own counts and definition, much of the important parts of the greenway “network” is not technically greenway. It’s just a green line on a map.
Historically greenways were an easy and politically expedient means to do something without ruffling feathers. Greenways have been the Achilles Heel of Portland: good to have at the outset, a quagmire to rely on. And they still should have a role to play in building a separated network… but mostly as ancillary routes. As for places where a lot of foot traffic, restaurants etc. exist, and as Lois said above, “we just need to close more existing streets.” Ankeny between 11th and 6th would be a decent choice. That’s a lot cheaper than a separated bike lane or even a greenway, except nobody currently in city hall would even consider it.
Novick is more or less asking the same question as my partner’s brother. He lives overseas, and recently visited for the first time since the pandemic. Stopping at our old haunts in the city center, the burning question on his mind was “where is everybody?”
Think back to 2011 or so when BikePortland featured the Milano apartment building, right next to the Rose Quarter transit center: the comments declared that $950 for a 1 bedroom apartment was obscene.
Four years later, my partner and I were living in the Pearl until we got a usurious, now-illegal rent hike, and three digit rent was an impossible bargain just about anywhere in the city.
A baker’s dozen of years later, rent at the Milano is $1300, and many downtown commuters simply aren’t coming back. Their jobs either went fully remote during the pandemic, or depended on a critical mass of tourism and office work downtown. Jonathan’s downtown desk transformed into The Shed and BIke Happy Hour. Other folks moved farther out or away altogether, for want of lower costs or just extra space to work (offices do this too, but I digress.)
Getting back to the question: the critical mass we were building was fragile, and is shattered and scattered to the winds of harsh economic realities and a once-every-century pandemic.
One point I’ve been making with increased precision since the Charlie Hales Q & A in… I’m not sure whether to put a question mark or exclamation point after noting it was 2012… is the importance of expanding the basics. It doesn’t matter whether you’re reducing car trips downtown or within communities. Mode share is mode share.
I’m glad he is thinking about this and bringing it up. Of course, I have thoughts. The big one is that bikes are one part of a commitment to an overall restructuring of everything in the city- where there is not enough room for car-based transportation in its current form, sorry not sorry. Politicians like to pin this change on bikes either as hope or as a punching bag, but it is much more.
My main concern with this framing is that I have Charlie Hales admin flash backs to
“Get loud bike advocates!!! You got to show up!!! Oh no, why are you yelling at me?who told you to be so loud?”
I think that Steve’s questions are good, even if some of them are a bit rhetorical. In my view, the difference between 2015 and 2024 is a whole soup of interconnected factors.
He makes a valid point, but as eawriste points out, it matters what kind of infrastructure it is. A lot of good projects that physically separate bikes and cars have been getting built recently, but they all have shortcomings that keep them from fitting into a wider network of connected, low-stress bikeways. A couple examples that come to mind are the Ankeny/Sandy/11th intersection and the Division St. safety improvements.
The Ankeny improvements are good, but as soon as you get through the intersection you’re having to contend with drivers who are looking for parking to visit nearby bars and restaurants – meaning inattentive drivers. Most people who read this website are probably comfortable navigating that type of environment – but when I went through there with a “interested but concerned” friend, they commented that Ankeny was really nice up until there, when it became “really scary with all the cars”, in their words.
Regarding Division – for as contentious as the whole project was/is, I have seen a steady uptick in usage of the bike lanes. I think they are generally good and provide convenient access, but there’s a couple of really glaring gaps that I could see dissuading many riders from using them – 82nd and the 205 interchange. The intersection at 82nd is completely unprotected and basically relies on drivers’ situational awareness to make it work. The 205 interchange – while marginally better than before – is really scary to go through both ways, but especially westbound. Avoiding it requires detouring a half mile to go over the freeway at Market st.
Sorry if that comes across as a list of grievances. I’m just trying to provide examples of why “build it and they will come” maybe isn’t always true.
That’s definitely a big factor. Our Greenways are the backbone of the bike network – but unfortunately too easy for bad apple drivers to abuse. I still maintain that most drivers are careful and courteous, but it only takes one near-death experience to deter most people from riding a bike to get around. I really think that going hard on traffic-calming, diverters, and enforcement is the answer here.
There is the homeless issue too. One can feel really vulnerable when riding alone – especially at night – on the 205 path or Esplanade. I know that most homeless folks are just trying to survive, but it only takes one guy with a machete or unleashed pitbull to ruin (or end) your life. Some of the behavior that we tolerate on our most prized bike infrastructure is mind-boggling.
A very salient point as well. I think that electric cars have kind of taken the spotlight when it comes to lowering transportation emissions. A lot of folks who may have previously cycled for environmental reasons now have an “out” to drive because they feel like they can just get an EV and call it good. Electric cars are definitely necessary, but aren’t the whole solution.
I also notice a lot of “doomerism” when it comes to climate change. A sentiment I encounter a lot, especially in young people, is “everything is already screwed, why try?” Or, the position that all environmental damage is institutional and that individual lifestyle change is meaningless.
In regards to the cost – I think that housing cost is a big factor that has affected cycling. Higher income folks don’t really care about how much they spend on transportation, and the parts of the city that are the most walkable/bikeable are out of reach for working class folks. Any lower income people who do live there are probably having to commute really far for job opportunities.
In my opinion, this is actually huge. Many people move here with a very car-centric mindset, because wherever they moved from is probably hugely car-centric. People, even progressives, see any suggestion to not drive the car as an attempt to take it away all together. I think a lot of people could be reached through something like the bike buddy program.
I also think that improving transit service would create a virtuous cycle for bike ridership. On a practical level, if you get a flat or break a chain, it’s great to be able to get home using a bus or train. Taking transit also engages you at the human-scale/street level a lot more, and you’re more likely to notice bike infrastructure in the first place.
I have a sneaking suspicion that there’s a huge segment of the population in Portland that haven’t ridden a bike since they were kids, but someone could show them, “hey, this is a fun and convenient way to get around your neighborhood, and these are the streets you can use for it.” We really should strive for everyone to see themselves as multi-modal.
This is long but a really good read!
It will probably take a decade or so but I plan on really enjoying the cognitive dissonance of cycling advocates (urbanists) when they realize that zoning reform and repealing parking minimums won’t solve our chronic low-income housing crisis.
By zoning reforms, are you talking about the changes to allow adding tiny homes to single family lots? I agree, that change was just a way to make a lot of new landlords.
But repealing parking minimums? I don’t think that was meant to have anything to do with housing. Maybe someone tried to spin it that way but I don’t think anyone who cares about housing believed that. It’s just a good thing that should have been done for its own sake.
It was meant to make housing cheaper on the theory parking is expensive, and that if it were cheaper to build, rents would be lower, which, as it turns out, is bunk.
RIP was mostly about increasing the property values of the owning class. Even allowing 8-20 story apartment buildings everywhere is good but this technocratic regulatory change will not sufficiently address chronic housing inequality.
I was being snarky but, yes, there are many urbanists who believe that abolishing parking minimums will somehow ameliorate the chronic low-income crisis.
Necessary but not sufficient, is still necessary ;).
Portland had a ton of momentum on cycling in the mid 2010s, and built approximately nothing with it. Sure, we’ve gotten Better Naito, SW Capitol Hwy, and the paths around the Orange Line since then. Maybe you can throw Foster in on that too, though I find it to be a bit middling. At least it’s a rideable major road
Most of the main drags through Portland remain hostile for riding, despite generally being the flattest and most direct routes on any given trip. Yesterday, I biked to the Burgerville on the corner of 26th and Powell from my apartment near the 17th and Rhine MAX stop. It’s a 1.8 mile round trip in a car, but was a 2.2 mile bike ride (I took Tibbets on the way there and Gladstone on the way back). That’s 22% longer than the car trip.
Basically every trip is like this, but it’s especially bad for short trips where the detour is a relatively longer part of the overall journey. And guess what – it’s exactly these short trips that are most attractive for cycling in the first place! If it’s 22% less convenient in terms of distance to bike rather than drive, why would you expect anyone to bike? Given that the bulk of the city’s focus on cycling has come in the form of greenways which serve to reinforce this dynamic, I don’t find it surprising that cycling has stagnated and declined relative to the nirvana of 2014. Institutionalizing less convenient routes is a bad way to get people riding, even if greenways are a cheap, easy, and nice thing to have.
The route I would have taken would be over the bridge, through the park, cross Powell at 23rd, and up Franklin. That should be both shorter and faster than the drive, and be entirely either off-street or on super low volume streets.
Why would you use Gladstone for a trip like that if you were at all concerned with speed?
Even your route would probably be faster than going by car. Mine surely would.
PS What route did the car trip use? I can’t find any short route; it’s either Holgate or 12th and Division, both of which must be far longer than your route.
It was after dark and I was carrying two milkshakes, so didn’t love my chances in the park. It would have been mildly shorter to go back the same way I came (on Tibbets), but the light at 26th happened to be in my favor for crossing Powell. Gladstone is the first road available if you cross at 26th and need to get back to the Rhine-Lafayette crossing
This is the driving route I referenced. If you shift to cycling for the same route, the suggested route is still 2.2 miles round trip on a bike (using the underpass on Powell + Tibbets to 25th). I may be the only person in the world who actually prefers to cross Powell on 17th then use the underpass rather than the bridge (it’s always faster than waiting on the elevators at the overcrossing), but I recognize it’s not super fun to use the underpasses
I know the neighborhood quite well, and I never would have thought to take 13th; that route is probably only “available” to locals even more knowledgeable than myself (but it’s good to know about, as I sometimes get my car worked on at Morgan’s). And the return trip would be a bit longer by car.
What about the park seemed “chancy”, even on the way to get your milkshakes?
But regardless, it’s not really reasonable to compare a roundabout “milkshake friendly” route by bike with a direct route by car and make any general claims about the state of bicycling in Portland — there are good ways to get between most places (but not all) by bike.
When I drive, I usually use 12th to get in and out from Powell (since it’s usually faster to wait for a gap in traffic than for the signal at Milwaukie). 13th is a bit tight when turning right onto Powell and not heading down the 17th off ramp, but I’ve done it before without issue. So the return trip is just two blocks longer by car – maybe that puts the distance difference at 20%. It’d be 10%-15% if I had taken Tibbetts home I think, but using the underpass with my milkshake in hand would have been annoying, so then the slight detour to the overcrossing would have made it just a bit longer again.
I didn’t want to ride in the dark on poorly paved park paths while holding a milkshake. Which sure, it’s a bit of a silly contrived situation, but it also tracks closely with my experience for short trips on a bike. Here’s another less contrived and less recent example: when I lived on 20th/Morrison, I would often ride my bike to HMart for groceries. I would usually take this route (since navigating down Belmont/20th was annoying), or if I felt up for being annoyed I’d take this one. They are 1 mile and 0.9 miles respectively, while the drive was 0.8 (and with a dedicated lot for HMart and my own building, parking was not a big issue for me). And I think it’s worth considering “milkshake friendly” routes, since those are likely to be the ones that a wider array of people are comfortable biking on.
That’s a 10% to 20% difference in distance, all because the bike lane on Belmont ends in a very sketchy way at 25th. If I go to HMart now, the difference is minimal (it’s actually 0.1 miles shorter to bike – 2.5 vs. 2.6 miles), but that’s because I have more freedom to choose an efficient route. Bikes are most competitive on time with cars on shorter routes, and its those shorter routes that need to be attractive to make biking a more conventional option. Functionally prohibiting bikes on major flat and direct routes is bad, and needs to be fixed if the city ever actually wants to get a significant portion of the population out riding.
From your current location, taking Clinton to 34th takes you right to HMart without unnecessary climbing and is more direct than the rational driving routes. From your old location, it was a couple of blocks longer if you opted for Salmon, and basically the same if you took the lane on Belmont. These seem like insignificant differences to me.
I think the real lesson of your Burgerville story is that it illustrates how hard even simple trips can be by bike. If you had to carry your milkshakes in a manner that made even the underpass under SE 17th feel too much to navigate for a seasoned and committed bicyclist like yourself, that shows the fragility of biking as a practical default option for people who don’t want to put thought and work into a simple trip to get milkshakes.
I’m sure you could have had an easier time of it by pre-planning a bit better, maybe by finding the right sized saddlebags for your trip or something (if you have them), but other modes (even walking) don’t require that level of forethought.
That doesn’t make riding bad, but it is one reason (among many) that it isn’t more popular. It’s not the routes, it’s the everything else.
Salmon has an unnecessary hill between 23rd and 30th that you can avoid by taking Belmont or Yamhill, which is something I always try to do when riding in the vicinity of the 20s and Belmont (even if it usually requires some riding on 20th).
The larger point is still that short trips are most conducive for bikes for most people, and the shorter the trip is the more constrained your route options become and the more frustrating it is that major roads have slim-to-no offerings for biking. I think that’s a real issue for getting people to ride a bike for everyday non-commute related trips.
And I considered walking, but sometimes you just need a milkshake ASAP. I feel like the bike network should be able to support my emergency milkshake trips – lord knows the car network does
I fully accept this, assuming folks have their personal logistics figured out (i.e. have a place to store their bikes, have a bike in good working order, prefer not to walk, are inclined to bike, find the weather agreeable, have equipment like locks, lights, and paniers/trailers, etc.)
We can disagree on whether there are good routes for short trips in Portland (good is subjective anyway; I always seem to find something agreeable to me), and I’m not convinced that this is the primary obstacle to people riding to run their errands. But ignoring all that, what is it that you want PBOT to do about it?
What practical solutions would you propose to make your milkshake trip easier, considering why you eliminated the two most direct routes (over the Lafayette Bridge, and under the 17th overpass)?
Very true! The list of missed opportunities and lost momentum lies more with the elected of that time whiffing on key infrastructure than everyone losing interest.
A more cohesive bike network. A lot of the infrastructure (like Better Naito) is great individually, but the connections are lackluster. PBOT should be focusing much more on how to connect projects and greenways together to make neighborhood to neighborhood connections seamless.
Our bike network often just suddenly ends or switches mode (e.g., lane to a greenaway) with no signage, which drops people in a dangerous situation. Trying to find bike parking, especially for larger bikes like cargo bikes, is still a big issue too.
I think something that could explode bike use would be to fund and expand BikeTown as if it were a real transit service. Bring back the membership tier where you pay once (monthly or annually) and take as many 30 min rides as you like. Imagine if BikeTown had its own equivalent of fare-capping so low-income folks could earn their way toward a full monthly pass. Imagine if BikeTown were funded at the same level as the Portland Streetcar!
Bikeshare is such an amazing way to knit together walking and transit. Back when they had the all-you-can-ride option, I used it all the time as part of my commute to make my way to the most direct bus line. I never had to worry about whether the bike racks on the bus were going to be full.
I’m still mad that they got rid of all the non-motorized bikes and raised the prices so dramatically.
I agree so much! I found the regular, non-electric Citi bikes in NYC to be just fine for most topography with their 3 gears. Most of my trips were only a couple of miles, which is true when I use Biketown, but going 2 miles on a Biketown bike costs a small fortune! Bike share is a great (literal) last-mile solution that makes using transit a much faster and more convenient option.
Go City Bike Boyz!
Yes, I think this is a good point. BikeTown should be subsidized to the point that it is everywhere and inexpensive. I’m actually blown away by how many people I see using it as it is, given how overpriced it is. Imagine if it was affordable! Because they’re good, fast bikes and you don’t have any of the nagging worries about theft or storage or anything.
For my money this would be one of the best uses of PCEF funds. Expand BikeTown city-wide and bring down the cost significantly.
I see a lot of unnecessary mental gymnastics in Mr. Novick’s question and in the BikePortland comments section. Sometimes the easiest explanation is that people are rational. If people feel it’s dangerous to ride a bike, they are less likely to ride a bike. Traffic fatalities are up over the last decade in spite of some infrastructure investments. While I personally would point to a scarcity of infrastructure that lives up to international best practices, what good will that do if we can’t even agree on what’s causing the problem?
Steve is asking the wrong people.
We are already cycling. He needs to ask the people who aren’t.
And they’ll say:
Binary thinking. As if we don’t have friends, family, or co-workers who don’t bike much. As if we don’t ever talk to those people and ask them what would make it easier for them. As if we are already biking exactly as much as we want to and have no ideas about what would get us out of our cars more.
I really object to “we have seen this really unfortunate drop off in bicycling as a percentage of trips over the past nine years.”
This is a perservation of commuting arterials and intersections being counted. The number of cargo bikes including kids in those conveyances is not being registered. The times of day when people use bikes are often omitted. Can we count a child as biking if they are a passenger in a cargo bike? The generational effect of child being ‘biked’ about pays off in the future generation. The number of ebikes in use is dramatic along the Springwater/Eslplanade during the day compared to two years ago. The age of riders is different than the commuters along these routes as well.
We need to seriously update our counting methods. We need to look at the fact that our central city reale estate occupany still hovers near 30% empty. This and the virtual presence of workers in offices is a big factor in reduced commuting, Not necessarily a ‘drop off in bike trips over the past decade.’
This summer I conducted a bike count at Multnomah Falls Lodge. I used a simple wild life camera and time lapse of daily bike parking and cyclist behavor at the Fall’s platform. We had almost 75% ebikes compared to pedal powered bikes.
A couple of us are about to do a similar test in the NE Portland area. This method may be much more accurate a bike count on the streets. Given that ebikes sales are huge; seeing bike shops only selling ebikes should tell Steve N and others that we in PDX are not a static nor a declining cyclist city.
Z
Z, that’s really cool you’re doing your own counts! Methodology matters for sure. Have you shared with PBOT, BikeLoud or other orgs?
“Methodology matters”
I recently noticed a prominent BikeLoud organizer advertising their bike count location on social media and urging people on bikes to come ride past them. They did this before they counted and during their count. I suspect this is fairly common.
The one day, in person counts are not the only source of data. There are pneumatic tubes that are permanently installed on bridges and temporarily installed to get one day traffic counts at intersections.
I can say anecdotally that I personally see fewer people on bikes when I’m out riding than I saw eight years ago, and I imagine many others that comment here regularly would say the same.
I agree with you. I bike 5.5 miles one way from home in outer SE, to work in inner SE. It’s kinda wild how few cyclists I encounter on my commutes in 2024. I’ve got a typical 9-5 gig, too. So it’s not like I’m riding in at 4am and thinking, “oh gee, where is everyone?” Honestly it kinda bums me out. I miss the pre-covid, pre-wfh commuting scene.
The only counts that count for the transportation planners at Metro, ODOT, and in some circles of PBOT are the US Census “American Community Survey” ACS counts – which is how “mode share” is established between cities, counties, states, etc. It’s a random survey with a random sampling of respondents done every few years. It measures how people get to work (if they go to work at all) and what their primary mode of travel is.
The counts on the Hawthorne Bridge, the hand counts around Portland, and the 24/7 infrared readers that most other jurisdictions use, measure something else entirely – not just work trips, but errands, bicycling to school, recreational riding, and so on.
What Steve wants is for the ACS count for “bicycling as a work commuter mode” to go up. He’s much less concerned about the other counts and uses for bicycling.
AJ Zelada, I encourage you to look at the city’s bike reports from the last two years. City staff were concerned about changes in travel patterns, too. Both reports contain sections describing the methodology and affirming that the peak hour methodology still seems to hold true in estimating all day bike use at the counted locations. Also, the city counts intersections all over the city–not just “commuting arterials”. The 2023 count also counted e-bikes and other types of vehicles. Ebikes were 17% of the total bikes counted city wide. https://www.portland.gov/transportation/walking-biking-transit-safety/bicycle-counts
Portland has changed a lot since 2014-15 and I think all of those changes have had a cumulative negative affect on biking.
I’ve lived in SE since ’08 and the first big change I noticed is that back then SE was very conducive to walking & biking lifestyle. People could afford to live near their work and not only were other social weren’t just affordable but were also a integral part of the neighborhood fabric and culture.
In SE at least, much of that has changed with the loss of rooms to rent in old houses, expensive apartments, bougie shops and restaurants. A similar change has occurred in other neighborhoods too such as Mississippi and Alberta.
Certainly, the rise in work from home especially for people who used to commute downtown.
I think there’s no bigger indicator of how bicycling in Portland has changed than the closing of so many bike shops over the years. Quite of few of them were smaller, community oriented bike shops.
Also, the renting of e-scooter and e-bikes. People don’t buy used/new bikes, maintain them, by accessories, upgrade them or maybe buy more bikes.
Most of those shops aren’t your big, high ticket item bike shops. They’re sustained by many people making small purchases frequently, repairs and upgrades from people who ride their bikes daily and not just on the weekend.
There was a sweet-spot time in Portland when all the conditions were just right for biking to flourish.
Bike infrastructure doesn’t impact riding decisions for people like me. I learned to ride a bike & loved riding bikes at time when I didn’t know what bike infrastructure was in a place where there wasn’t any.
I’m just not even interested in riding on any of the MUPs because I’m just tried of the homeless situation out there. My point being that I don’t just go out for a bike ride anymore and I don’t commute by bike either. I ride a bike when I need to, where I need to because I can’t afford nor don’t want a car and I don’t like sitting on a bus/train, waiting and planning trips.
You asked for it Steve, so here goes!
I’m a regular cyclist, I go everywhere by bike and very rarely drive anywhere in town. And of course I like well-designed infrastructure as much as the next cyclist, but … (prepare for a hot take!) … I don’t see infrastructure or lack thereof as what’s holding folks back from riding more.
Sure, for us regulars, these things when done right can make our rides safer. But by and large what I see from other folks is it comes down to practicalities & convenience, perceived or real: time, safety, logistics (eg clothes, gear, preparedness for a flat/mechanical, where to securely keep the bike, etc), ability to carry people/pets/lots of stuff, ability to easily cover a lot of ground for maximum flexibility (eg “after I drop off the kiddo at soccer practice, I might hit the trail a couple miles away or maybe pick up the thing from that place in Vancouver if they tell me it came in”). I highly doubt it comes down to “dang, if only there was [insert inadequate/missing piece of infrastructure here], me & the kiddo would ride our bikes to X” in most cases.
I think in 2015 and before, there was a bit of a perfect storm: bikes/biking were cool, working from home was not an option for most and bike commuting was super convenient and popular – it was really enjoyable being exposed to and immersed in the Portland-scape when biking or walking, there was so much cool stuff to take in along the way.
Readiness and willingness to ride to work naturally extended to a readiness and willingness to ride to the store, restaurant, show. With the highly visible numbers of bike commuters, fun bike events, and general pdx bike quirkiness, biking looked fun – and of course it was fun! Once folks got a taste, they did it a little more and it snowballed.
Fast-forward to today. Biking is still a lot of fun for a lot of us regulars. But for a lot of other folks, it just doesn’t hold the same appeal as it did before – commuting downtown is not a thing for a lot of them, so no motivation to be ready to ride any given day. Interactions with other street users have gotten much more unpleasant, so less appeal to open yourself up to it on bike or foot and more reason to keep yourself insulated from it. The only holdovers from the before-times that seem to have kept the aura of fun are the bike events (Bike Summer, Sunday Parkways). I just don’t think that’s been enough to get casual folks on a bike or doesn’t provide enough enjoyment to hook them into riding a bit more.
Anyways, that’s a long-winded attempt to explain my guess as to what might be happening, based on nothing more than my observations. I imagine other factors may include: the riding population of the 2010s “matured” (got families/responsibilities), the proliferation of subsidized EVs that I suspect weakens the case for riding a bike for some, etc. That said, this line of thinking isn’t meant to be cynical and it does point to a way to possibly increase bike mode share.
The theory of change goes something like this:
Seeing others have fun on a bike may lead some folks to decide to get on a bike for fun and if it’s a positive experience for them then they may be more ready and willing to hop on a bike for things like going to the market, park, store which means more folks seen riding around town which gets more people thinking “hmmm, maybe I should/can do that” and so on …
Just a few ways to accomplish these effects off the top of my head (note these would be wins for all riders of all experience levels of course and I don’t think these are necessarily costly improvements but I could be wrong):
I’ll stop here!
/verbose-mode-off
¡Daylighting!
It is now the default for motor vehicles operators to carry momentum up to a point just short of crossing motor vehicles. This is toxic for most people on foot and many bike riders. It’s my opinion that people rationalize this as necessary for them since they can’t make a decision anywhere short of the interior of the intersection. The conflict with vulnerable road users is implied.
I love your public-private idea, but maybe a straight public option would be good: implement bike cages in smartpark garages that are cheap, opened by your phone, and offer good protection for your bike. I think fear/expectation of theft deters some bike trips. Maybe could be integrated with the parking kitty app?
An actionable change city council can make:
Oregon Pedestrian and Bicycle Bill (ORS 366.514) requires that pedestrian and bicycle facilities be provided as part of transportation projects. Portland has already created a design guide for protected bike lanes (https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/portland-protected-bicycle-lane-design-guide-v2021-050521-small.pdf)
To comply with ORS 366.514, city council should create enforceable requirements that all new paving projects for collector or arterial streets employ one of the designs listed in the guide. I’d even be ok with having some sort of waiver process, just so long as the default option includes one of these designs (the waiver process should be very stringent, not just a formality). City council can also eliminate or reduce the need to conduct parking studies or other red tape that can slow down or preclude the construction of protected bike lanes.
I don’t have the insider scoop on how the sausage is made, so maybe such policy/law already exists. If that is the case, we should be reworking that policy to make it more binding and enforceable.
Probably a weird take but I think the current bike lane infrastructure isn’t enough to cover biking well enough so it leaves gaps. In some ways for someone who is trying to replace car trips with biking I think the bike lanes sort of hurt biking.
Having some bike lane routes pulls bikes off the streets where they might have taken a lane on a 25 mph or even 35 mph road. Your either faced with being a lone bike trying to take up a lane on a direct route or you end up having to take more time and riding out of your way to take a less direct route that includes bike lanes. I think many opt for the indirect route and that then leaves less and less bikes taking up lanes on roads making those direct routes feeling even less safe as speeds rise and less and less people expect bikes to mix.
In other cities I’ve ridden in when there are no bike lanes you simply take the whole lane and it can feel safer – no parked cars pulling out right next to you, no cars whizzing by you, and no one trying to make a right turn to cut you off.
I guess in my opinion I love the totally separated bike paths, even just for recreational riding or planning a ride and a destination. However the painted bike lanes that are between parked cars and traffic I think are worse than nothing and discourage taking a full lane.
For me it’s 100% enforcement. I used to bike every day but the bike lanes are being used for parking. Drivers are extremely aggressive and crazy. It is scary out there.
Asking people who bike “What can we do to get more people biking?” has generated a lot of great responses. Many of them are frequently covered on this site and in the comments. Foremost- let’s fully execute greenways and protected lanes. We have tried to create a secret invisible bike network using passive aggressive implementation, but it is not safe because of drivers.
However, the question that Novick is actually asking is how to make a viable, enjoyable, sustainable, equitable transportation system politically expedient? What big change will mobilize support and dispel the haters? The answer to this question is that Portlanders are not going to stand up en masse and fight for dramatic changes to a transportation system that they are heavily invested in, even though it is killing them. This is even more the case since the most immediate deaths are people in poverty.
A strong coalition of support for the best transportation system has to be established within city government, first. I listened to Novick’s interview on OPB along with other candidates, and there were many candidates that said “bikes and transit” were important to them. We have heard this for decades. But when it came down to it, they compromised, they folded, they implemented half measures, because the political juice they got from “bikes” in that moment didn’t stand up to the political juice they got from whoever else was yelling at them.
A decade ago, Portland had a strong vision and identity. A decade later, it is still there, but obscured by self-hatred and weak leadership that was installed by wealthy individuals whose fortunes depend on car-commuters.
The way to mobilize resources from PCEF and other sources around climate and equity is to center a core tenet that is already a reality of the city for most people and needs to be applied to every decision. “Make Portland, a city where you don’t need a car for most trips.” Every decision should start with, does this decision increase car dependency or decrease car dependency. Part of this is just people waking up and realizing that it is already true. The other part is building infrastructure. The other part is looking to specific demographics, like seniors, and providing car-free living services that take the place of cars.
For me, it’s really simple: road shoulders that’ve been converted to “bike lanes” via a picture of a bike with an arrow painted on do not count as bike lanes, and should not be counted as cycling infrastructure in any roadway improvement project. Nothing is physically stopping a driver from veering over paint and knocking me off a bike, and so I won’t ride. I’ll happily enough take the bus in to work and walk on sidewalks for everything else, but until bicycles are provided for with actual infrastructure–concrete curbs, not just paint or plastic poles–you won’t find me on two wheels on a regular basis.
Nor is anything physically stopping a driver from veering over paint and hitting me head on in my car. Yet somehow this doesn’t deter drivers.
My experience in cars and on bikes and crossing the street has demonstrated to me that paint is enough (in most cases, and assuming the lanes are properly designed).
Given the number of cyclists who are killed in Portland because of the lack of concrete barriers is pretty low, I think the data bears out my personal experience.
I think you are missing the key factor of the stress experienced during the trip. It is not enough to make it objectively safe, it has to feel safe.
If there was a knife thrower with horrible aim throwing knives at me while I traveled, I would feel stress and my attention would drift to the knife thrower. Even if there was less than a one in a million chance.
When I ride in the door zone on NE 7th and cars are bulging into the bike lane and a monster truck buzzes me and my kid, I think about the number of stories I’ve heard over the years of cyclists dying from car doors flung open into the bike lane. Damage is done even though nothing physically happened.
Take it from car companies, they insulate and distract drivers from any sensation that they are hurdling through space at 70 mph and could die a fiery death. If PBOT or Novick or any of us want to compete with car-infrastructure, we have to compete. A person with no money for a car payment should feel as safe traveling around Portland as a someone who bought an F150. Remove stress, and let people experience the joy of riding a bike, which is actually very enjoyable.
Door zone bike lanes would be dangerous even with concrete wall between you and traffic; perhaps more so because you could not escape an opening door. The problem there is poorly designed facilities, not paint vs. concrete. NE 7th is a bit of a tough case because the most reasonable way to ride there is to take the lane, which can be hard if you have a slow rider in tow. I think in that circumstance, it might be better to use 9th.
“Feeling safe” is subjective. More than half of active TriMet users feel unsafe on transit — what does that mean from a policy perspective? I often feel unsafe walking past large tent encampments. I sometimes feel unsafe around “protective” unleashed dogs. What does the government and the public owe me to make me feel more secure? What is the proper balance between “feeling safe” and actual safety? I don’t know — these are hard questions without clear answers.
I’m also not sure what it means to “compete” with car-infrastructure; I think we need to continue improving streets so they accommodate all people who reasonably want to use them, and we’re on the right track with that.
On a practical level, if you find vehicles operating near you to be terrifying, there will never be enough resources to make you feel comfortable riding on an urban street. There are plenty of routes that minimize interaction with cars, but it’s very hard to eliminate that interaction altogether.
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2024/10/roughly-half-of-trimet-riders-feel-unsafe-82-say-other-riders-behavior-is-the-reason-why.html
Correction SE 7th from Hawthorne to Ankeny. Most of that street parking should be removed anyway, but a parking protected lane would be preferred.
Not to be condescending and explain the obvious, but people are often not making binary decisions “I will be a bike rider” or “I will not ride a bike.” They often make quasi-spontaneous calculations on how they feel day to day. And, if weighing a ride to the store or work vs driving, and the bike ride is associated with real stress from real threats that people have encountered, they will more likely to think f*ck it, I’ll drive.
The folks making and selling cars (and everything else) are well aware of this and the bazillion books/ articles written about how people make choices and form habits. Others and a lot of people in the bike community think the answer is giving someone a blinky light, and a sticker and expecting them to wake up the next day wearing a cape and a bike helmet.
If there’s a row of jersey barriers on my left there can’t be parked cars on my right, can there?
I’m not fan of jersey barriers but let’s keep it real.
Very simply, this is because people dramatically underestimate the chance of being in a crash. This is driven by a number of things:
I’m sure you know this one, Watts: the plural of anecdote is not data. There’s a reason that cycling advocates push hard for actual cycling infrastructure, not just paint. Yes, you may be able to safely ride in a painted shoulder most of the time. No, there is nothing legitimating a perception of safety in that case besides the always-mistaken belief that the future will be like the past.
Just want to point out that painted bike lanes are in fact infrastructure. There is some sort of bike activist slogan/meme being parroted, “paint is not infrastructure” or whatever, that is definitely making a salient point about the need for more protected and separated bike facilities. But unfortunately is is just wrong.
First, paint on roadways is a form of signage, and signs are an important type of infrastructure. Second, while the paint may not be a 3 dimensional barrier, the roadway/roadbed/pavement that it delineates for bicycles is an important and useful piece of infrastructure. For example, on dirty 30, the wide fog lane allows cyclists to get to Sauvie and the NW hills in a much safer way than if we were forced into the highway lane. While still uncomfortable and subpar for some people’s liking, I want to push back on the narrative that these painted spaces are not useful infrastructure. If that shoulder/fog lane wasn’t there on 30, there is no way I would ever ride to Sauvie on 30. But because it is there, I and many others make the trip often.
Think of it like painted zebra crosswalks. Though cars should stop for pedestrians at every crosswalk, marked or unmarked, I get a lot more safety through the improved compliance of drivers when I use a zebra crossing. I’d like to see more crosswalks marked, it would make walking around my neighborhood much more enjoyable and safe. But if the “paint is not infrastructure” lobby has their way, we’d maybe get one hardened curb extension crossing (still good infra, don’t get me wrong) vs maybe 20-30 painted crossings for the money and effort.
All I’m hearing here is, “it could be worse; be grateful”. Very motivational.
Head on crashes seem rare because they are rare, which illustrates that paint is enough in most cases, which is all I was saying.
I have no problem with better bike infrastructure; absolutely, let’s build it. I love better facilities. I’m fully on board.
But trying to build support for infrastructure by claiming that’s the key to rebuilding Portland’s bike mode share is fundamentally unsupportable, and doing so on the basis that bike riding is unacceptably dangerous is disputed by the data, and is also counterproductive to the project of getting more folks on bikes.
Is the past any guide to the future? I would say it is (as would anyone doing forecasting of any sort). The chance that there will be a huge number of bike fatalities next year seems unlikely given the low number there have been in recent years.
You know the difference but choose to ignore it. The meeting car crash scenario includes mutual assured destruction of property. Before airbags it also meant near certain serious physical injury. Drivers avoid a head-on because it always sucks. They’ll often carry on at highway speed when there are deer on the roadside.
Are you denying the asymmetry between cars and bikes that early on in life schools bike riders to avoid contact with cars above all else?
Having read a bunch of your comments I expect better of you.
I fundamentally reject the notion that car drivers would happily run down bicyclists if there are no physical consequences to themselves, which is what your statement amounts to.
We know paint works because there are so few bicycle crashes involving a failure of paint. Not zero, but not many.
Finally, I highly doubt you expect anything different from me. 🙂
I get for most they aren’t as confidence inspiring as protected bike lanes or MUPs (at least until you get to an intersection). But are painted “shoulder” bike lanes actively detrimental to cycling mode share?
In other words, would you have ridden on the road when it didn’t have a bike lane?
How does the increase in painted bike lane mileage result in fewer cyclists vs what we had in 2010 or 2015?
Even if you don’t count these lanes as added viable infrastructure, surely some people use them (I and others do). And also we have added more protected lane and greenway miles than we had in the past. Yet fewer people are cycling.
There may be something to poor quality infrastructure actually diminishing the enjoyment and perceived safety of cycling. But unless there is something more subtle going on here I don’t think painted bike lanes are actively detrimental to cycling mode share.
It’s not that the painted bike lanes are actively detrimental, it’s that they aren’t encouraging new ridership. And yes, the modal bike share over the past decade has cut in half–from ~4% to ~2%. Iin other words, basically a rounding error when considering population growth is likely coming from other, more car dependent metros bringing in people unlikely to do anything but drive to get around.
The point is that Portland’s not been a haven for non-car transit for a long while, really, and is failing to do anything to reverse that trend. I maintain that that’s because most of its growth has been suburban or exurban sprawl, rather than intensification/densification of development around the higher-speed, higher-capacity transit that is the MAX system.
People can complain all that they want about MAX being a “gift to developers”, but Portland NEEDS (denser) development; the alternative has been to shove all the new people into corners of the metro where they will do nothing but drive.
I’m not sure you can say they aren’t encouraging new ridership. That just seems to be a vibe you have about them. As some people in the comments have noted, there a whole host of large forces at play: demographic, social, economic, etc., that have influenced the rise and fall of bike share in Portland. I’d say these changes sway the overall data on cycling mode-share so much as to obfuscate any positive (or negative) signal these bike lanes have generated.
I’d like to see more and “better” bicycle facilities and a more connected network. But in order to do that, we can’t simplistically attack with modeshare data those hard won pieces of our network that we harped on for years as critical necessities. Painted bike lanes are an important tool in forming that network when used in the correct places. We sound like capricious wonks that alight onto the next shiny piece of infra after browbeating an unwilling, or at best apathetic, general public into carving out a little space for us on their precious roads.
Whining, “paint isn’t infrastructure” at a bike lane that we asked to be build comes across as unappeasable. Also, it is incorrect and that incorrectness weakens any argument it is based on. As a cyclist who, from time to time, relies on painted bike lanes, I don’t appreciate their wholesale dismissal as unsafe and useless. Especially when the alternative (a totally separated and protected system) is a much heavier political and financial lift. You can call that pessimistic, but I’d say it is much more pessimistic and unrealistic to say that bike lanes that keep me safe “do not count” as infrastructure, as if they have no utility. They have their use in places that would otherwise be unsafe or less safe to ride.
I, personally, haven’t ever asked for a painted bike lane, because *back in my day*, those were road shoulders: not “bike lanes” but clearance zones for cars making emergency maneuvers around an obstacle, areas for vehicles to pull off the road in case of a breakdown, potential passage for emergency vehicles…Basically, they’re anything but a “dedicated space” for bicycles. You can bandy on about how paint is infrastructure, and sure, it is, but it is not sufficient to provide any measure of actual, physical protection for cyclists.
If PBOT/ODOT, or anyone else was hoping to do more than just appease–if they were actually concerned for cyclists’ safety–then they wouldn’t have stopped at paint, which is what they’ve done de rigueur, such that an actual protected bike lane is newsworthy, rather than the norm. Don’t treat their breadcrumbs like pieces of cake; we all deserve more than that.
This here:
This is why cycling (and transit) continue to play almost no role in transportation in the region, and >90% of all transportation happens in cars and trucks. Pretending that this is necessarily a niche interest–instead of a very, very basic, essential concern of everyone–how to get the most and safest transportation, for the least personal and social cost–is, to be kind, just obstruction.
We need to prioritize protected connected bike infrastructure on main roads.
Around the time Portland really started ramping up neighborhood greenways is around when bike volume seems to have decreased. Makes a ton of sense to me, greenways hide bicycles from the general public making it seem like less people bike ( and thus encouraging less people to bike ) and hides businesses from bicyclists making greenways inconvenient for commuting, shopping, errands and basically everything except going from a house to a house.
Interesting graphic. The area of the city grew slowly until about 1986, then quickly expanded through 1991/2 as the city annexed private property in East Portland, Cully, Brentwood Darlington, and a few other areas, but the transfer of corresponding assets like streets didn’t happen until a couple years later through a series of inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) with Multnomah County in 1993 or so, hence the huge surge in the 1990s (MC had lots of painted bike lanes plus the ODOT bike paths, and PBOT added more painted bike lanes to East Portland stroads.)
It would be interesting to see a graphic of each type of facility divided by the area of the city during that year. Also an overlay of bicycle mode share as reported on the ACS.
Bike mode share peaked in 2014 and the chart goes to 2013 so it argues that ramping up neighborhood greenways was associated with increased “bike volume’.
It’s hard to match exact definitions without a better source on the original comment, but it’s straightforward to calculate the extent of the official bike network using whatever geospatial analysis tool you prefer.
Unfortunately, you will then have to learn how silly it is that Portland does not distinguish between a protected bike lane and a buffered one. So things like the sidewalk level path on S Moody are categorized as the same thing as the bike lanes on Vancouver/Williams which I think is a bit ridiculous personally. But here’s a summary of the current breakdown:
I don’t think it follows that greenways have had a positive association with more ridership, at least not directly from the data anyways. There’s been a 70%+ increase in greenway miles since 2013, but definitely not a 70% increase in ridership.
And while it’s tempting to look at this information and see progress (an 800% increase in “protected” bike lanes!), there’s far too much sleight of hand in the way that bike infrastructure is designated to feel very confident about any of the information (outside of greenways and MUPs, which have a much clearer and narrower definition). To be clear, the bike infrastructure situation is broadly better than it was in 2013 from what I can tell, it’s just that there is still no real coherent network and it’s hard to tell by looking at any official source if a given route will feel safe or not – especially if you are unfamiliar or less confident riding.
Sadly “protected” has lost all meaning. And even routes that are truly protected with with concrete or other real barriers often have dangerous intersections or gaps.
Maybe we should just more simply label routes as safe or not.
And lack of a coherent network is huge. It seems there’s a lot more infrastructure but much of it doesn’t connect. Wonder if Portland would have been better off picking one to two main roads, protecting the entirety of them and then continuing to the next connecting main road. That would have left large swaths of the city with no infrastructure but would have at least created a solid backbone of a truly protected route to build on top of.
“Maybe we should just more simply label routes as safe or not.”
What does “safe” mean in this context? Would the designation be based on data and objective criteria, or the personal opinion of someone that may or may not have some agenda? If, say, SE 16th had a single dicey crossing, would the entire street be marked as “unsafe”, or just that one crossing?
That said, anyone is free to create their own bicycling map using whatever criteria they want. I’ve got a great one, but it’s mostly in my head.
I wouldn’t expect greenways to increase ridership much. In the area where I ride most often, the NE above Tillamook, a signed greenway offers little more function above any neighborhood street with alternating stop signs.
When stop signs are turned to favor the greenway the benefit to a rider is countervailed by the addition of speed bumps and the tendency of car drivers to seek out a through street. The other neighborhood streets have some stop signs but they are treated as a yield and there’s little difference for a bike rider approaching any intersection.
Greenways have more riders and walkers but no indication on the cross street of a difference. I’ve had many experiences of motor vehicles crossing greenways at speed.
For me and many non-riders the Greenways are not the problem. It’s the aggressive drivers we allow to do their thing without consequences and the dirty and dangerous state of our MUP’s that hinder people from getting on a bike. I still do but many just say “no thanks”.
It’s not that greenways are a problem in and of themselves. It’s when resources are spent on greenways in lieu of true protected bike lanes on main streets that they end up a net negative.
In other words I’m 100% confident protected bike lanes on Hawthorne would generate magnitudes more bike volume than the greenways that parallel it.
“I’m 100% confident protected bike lanes on Hawthorne would generate magnitudes more bike volume than the greenways that parallel it.”
You are supposing that there is a large number of people who want to ride along the Hawthorne corridor, but don’t because the parallel streets are inadequate in some way. Where are these people coming from and going to, and how are they traveling now? Are there other projects in Portland that have increased ridership by “magnitudes”?
I’m pretty confident that you are wrong, but all I can really say is that your claim does not seem well founded.
There are a lot of good comments that are answering the question “why aren’t more people riding” with detailed observations about the type and connectivity of various bicycle facilities.
However, there are relatively fewer comments that take on the question “why are fewer people riding than 2015, even though we have a better connected and better protected bikeway network nowadays?” I don’t take seriously arguments that our bike facilities have gotten worse since then, even if I agree that the system isn’t remotely optimized! So we need to address the *decrease* over time.
The reasons for decrease hint at larger forces that may be hard or impossible for the City Council to shift: climate change psychology, the crazy pandemic era driving, the aging of the 20-40 year old riders of a decade ago, electric car availability, work-from-home, drugs/mental health/homelessness, etc.
Bikes may not seem like the City’s central answer to our biggest problems anymore, and maybe that’s okay. It’s still important that we build a safe and useful bike facility network, because lots of people still ride, and those people deserve safe and useful transportation system!
I really think a large portion of it is neighborhood greenways. Having cyclists bike parallel to Hawthorne instead of on Hawthorne hides them from general population and makes it seem like less people are biking which leads to less people biking.
Beyond that, not having the bike infrastructure on the main roads treats cyclists like second class citizens, even if there’s better infrastructure elsewhere. It doesn’t matter there’s bike/ped bridges or protected lanes in some spots if the way to get there isn’t obvious and safe.
https://bikeportland.org/2024/10/17/council-candidate-steve-novick-has-some-questions-for-the-bike-community-390690#comment-7532071
I agree that we should have more bike Infrastructure on main streets!
However, the City hasn’t appreciably *removed* infrastructure from main streets, so the increasing focus on building out Neighborhood Greenways shouldn’t have caused a *decline* in the number of riders.
In other words, if you were trying to answer the question of why ridership is *not increasing*, then a reliance on greenways would be a strong argument. However, the question we need to focus on is why ridership has *decreased* in spite of continued improvements to the bike network (if imperfect!).
Or do you mean that fewer people are riding on main streets (whether in a bike lane or just in the regular lane) because they prefer the option of taking the more pleasant greenways? And that, because these riders are less visible, other people are not seeing them ride and this getting enticed into riding themselves?
That’s a complicated argument but I suppose it could be what you mean?
Why don’t I ride much anymore?
1. I got tired of being threatened by drivers when I was in the right of way.
2. I got tired of being threatened by mental cases when I rode on the MUPs.
3. I got tired of the lack of predictability when trying to mix-mode with Trimet. Three hours to get home. C’mon!
4. I got tired of having to watch my back constantly for random behaviors from drivers (not threats, just plain stupid driving tactics like going the wrong way around diverters, for example).
5. I got tired…
I started driving. Will I change back? I don’t know. The inertia of the automobile is a powerful force of (human) nature.
Sigh…
“Are there some dramatic, disruptive things we could do in certain places where it’s an infrastructure improvement that makes everybody stand up and pay attention? “
Build the Sullivan’s Gulch Trail. It’s past time. A multi-use, car-free route from Gateway Transit Center to Downtown Portland, with a connector to the 205 Trail (and thus the Spring water) would be a true game changer, allowing people in NE and the northern part of SE a safer route downtown free of car traffic.
Add to that,
_ Create or upgrade cross-town bike routes so that they are largely free of cars with the extensive use of diverters so that only residents can access their driveways but disallow any through-traffic by car, for example along SW Montgomery, Harrison, Tilikum Bridge, (a new bike/ped flyover to Harrison/Stephens), SE Harrison, Lincoln, Mill, Market, Mill (again), Millmain, & Main.
_ Make the Hawthorne Bridge car-free from SW 1st to SE Grand – bus only on the middle two lanes, bikes and scooters on the right lanes.
_ The Burnside Mountain Bike Trail – close off Burnside from W 18th to E 162nd to allow only local car trips and deliveries, depave the streets where possible (but keep the light rail from 99th to 162nd), add lots of gravel, trees, shrubbery, playgrounds, and curbside markets and cafes.
_ The Portland SW/NE Caballero Memorial High-Speed Cross Town Bike Route – based on a similar one in Berlin, route TBD – a $billion ought to cover it, small change compared a certain bridge project. https://www.berlin.de/en/news/7425819-5559700-new-high-speed-bicycle-route-2030.en.html#:~:text=The%20plans%20for%20the%20longest%20high%2Dspeed%20bicycle,station%20to%20Spandau)%20of%20about%2015%20kilometres.
Michael,
We can’t even keep our current MUP’s clean, safe and camper free. How will building more help without first addressing that “elephant in the room”?
I’d like a Sullivan’s Gulch trail on almost any terms, from natural surface to fancy pavement. It seems like the freight rail right of way may be the resisting stake holder. Maybe a highly engineered route raised above grade would be more palatable.
Long distance high speed bike routes with minimum traffic conflicts are desirable anywhere we can find three miles or more of right of way. They could have a second level for pedestrian travel or a solar panel roof. That doesn’t sound cheap but per mile it would be a lot less than the interstate system.
As with the Blumenhauer Bridge, any major structures could double as seismically stable emergency vehicle routes.
You know why most people don’t ride a bike? For the same reason I don’t ride a motorcycle. It’s just not in my universe of options, full stop.
For it to become an option for me, I’d have to feel committed enough to make the investment in knowledge, skills, and equipment, as well as figure out a whole new set of logistics. There are a lot of unknowns, and it seems a bit uncomfortable and scary and dangerous, and what do I do if my motorcycle tips over? All that for what?
I might tackle all that if I were really into motorcycles, but it’s just not something I’m going to do. I have options that work for me, and I’m not looking for another one. I’ve got a life and I don’t need a new hobby or project.
I really can’t think of anything that a motorcycle rider could say to me to get me interested. Not even special motorcycle paths or “motorcycle fun” or even free donuts for motorcyclists one day a month (if that’s still a thing). It’s conceivable that I’d even feel a note of resentment if the city started making my life harder to make things better for motorcyclists.
That’s the best way I can think of to put myself in the mind of a non-bicyclist and see how things look from the other side.
Interesting take. I don’t see it this way at all. The motorcycle comparison makes riding a bike seem like a hobby, that doesn’t have any utilitarian advantage. It also makes driving a car a default mode, or a choice that is so rational and compelling that not driving is eccentric.
I think of the question, “what compels people to drive cars despite the personal and societal cost, frustrations, hassle, destruction of the planetary environment and turning our immediate environment into repulsive spaces that are hostile to life?” Most people I know who don’t bike for transportation, or who have biked for transportation but don’t at the moment have a desire to bike more. The interested but concerned are a significant demographic. And there are many people in cars that will just choose the default mode. If biking, or more importantly non-car transportation, starts to feel like a default mode, instead of being perceived as the hobby that you describe, those people would likely take more trips without cars.
Outside of BP, for 99.8% of Americans bicycling is in fact just a hobby, like ham radios, fixing up Model T’s, or scrap-booking. 0.2% is the bicycle mode split for most US cities, the actual national rate of bicycling for utilitarian purposes to get to work. Most cyclists in the USA bicycle for leisure, 100% of the time; a few use the bike for errands; but rarely to get to work, let alone for their job. Most bike advocacy organizations I’ve seen focus on recreational riding (mountain bike trail building, road riding clubs, community rides, even Critical Mass to a huge extent) rather than on improving routes to work. Those of us who advocate for the latter have an uphill battle just to get regular (i.e. recreational riders) onboard for any safety improvements on major stroads – most are simply satisfied with using back streets, a few bike lanes, and the odd bike path – let alone the approximate 70% of Americans who never bicycle, as many adults don’t know how, yet they run the transportation agencies.
If you include all mammals, except for a handful of monkeys and bears, that percentage drops even lower. Fortunately, repairing our cities after a century of destructive transportation practices only requires that people adapt to a better transportation system. When we talk about a new solution, like bikes, we problematically emphasize consumer choice and identity as prerequisites. When we talk about the massive problems and poor planning that we inherited, we wrap it in a false narrative of inevitability and superiority. Is it more important that people bike more or that they drive less? Probably the latter.
Bring back the (18)90s! When driving a car was a hobby, when serious men and women rode bicycles to work, paved roads were paid by subscription of bicyclists, and there was a horse in every garage.
Portland must have really reeked back then.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/795898.The_Good_Old_Days_They_Were_Terrible_
Most cities did. People forget (or don’t want to know) what the original appeal of cars was.
Treating cars like a superior technology that was adapted simply because they were more functional entirely misses the context of car and car infrastructure implementation in cities.
One of the most competitive attributes of cars, which remains important to day, is that it is much easier to kill a pedestrian with a car than a horse. Of course, cars create the problems they solve, but they also create problems that destroy competing technologies, like walking.
I’m not advocating for cars nor am I saying they were more functional.
I’m saying they didn’t leave piles of poop or puddles of pee in the streets. They also didn’t die and leave a 1400 pound rotting carcass to be dealt with or eaten. They also didn’t need feed reserves that were susceptible to rodent and bug infestation. So I guess if you factor in disease vectors and groundwater contamination, horses and mules and oxen had their opportunities to kill people as well.
My point was that cars were appealing to the people at the time as they were cleaner and didn’t need to be fed daily.
When I was in China back when near a small town of only 3 million, everyone rode bikes and everyone wanted a car. Go figure.
It’s become a bit of a comment spiral here- but can you name an infectious disease that was spread by horses in the early twentieth century? As far as I am aware agricultural use of animals was much more influential in spreading infectious diseases and any contribution of horses would not register. Particularly because people were not eating horses.
Also the advantage of cars killing pedestrians, was that it gave car clubs an argument to restrict walking in cities with anti pedestrian laws, and ultimately expand car only infrastructure. Transportation in general over the last century has been used to separate socioeconomic classes. Cars accelerated that divide in a cruel way by dumping exponentially more harm onto the lower classes. Of course, people want cars because they offer some protection and respite from the other cars and car infra.
Ultimately, what everyone wants is convenient, safe transportation. We have proven a thousand times over that current car based systems fail miserably at providing this. We have the technology and data now more than ever to plan and build optimal transportation networks and cities. We are not going to get there by basing policy on the car advertisements that people believe.
We’re never getting there if we don’t understand the historical weight of why cars became popular and how the popularity is reinforced today. Are the reasons from then and now the same? I don’t think so. Then it was cleanliness, now it’s habit.
Having all the info that cars suck doesn’t do anything unless it’s shared in a way that connects with people.
Can we use the historical knowledge to shape an argument that cars are todays horses/mules/oxen and bring filth and death to today’s streets? I think we can. If you study why the car clubs/car culture won (and they obviously did) then you can develop the same successful arguments that were used then and use them today with hopefully the same results. Cars become a hobby interest while bike and public transportation become universal.
People did eat horse meat and still do. Have you ever heard of stockyards, those places in cities of old where agricultural animals were slaughtered in their 100s of thousands? Cities back when were pretty gross. If you get out of the the USA and visit places outside the resorts you’ll see echoes of what it was like, or even in the Midwest where stockyards are still killing.
Whoops, forgot the receipts.
The Big Crapple: NYC Transit Pollution from Horse Manure to Horseless Carriages
https://99percentinvisible.org/article/cities-paved-dung-urban-design-great-horse-manure-crisis-1894/
Thank you for the article. Please take this last comment from me, not as an argument but a point of discussion. And forgive me for “beating a dead horse.” Thinking that car dominance and its requisite infrastructure today is because they are more functional than alternatives is a type of logical fallacy that ignores key factors that have put SOVs at the top of the transportation hierarchy. The foremost reason is that SOVs are the most successful way to monetize personal transportation and extract wealth from individuals. This mobilized a tremendous amount of market place resources to “select for” cars. SOV transportation also mobilizes socioeconomically and politically privileged sectors of consumers to “select for” cars out of self interest. And finally, cars and car infra does not coexist well with other modes, and literally kills off the competition and reshapes the environment in a way that causes car dependency. Viewing transportation from a best-policy perspective rather than a “what consumers want” perspective is key to creating the best transportation system. Other cities have had success, we can too, even if we are too timid to be first, we can pretend that we are brave.
Great use of “beating a dead horse”
LOL
It was a good discussion and I really like your final sentence. Well said!
Ha! Jake9, thanks for reminding me. The reason for walk up entrances on brownstones was not a quaint one 🙂
Thanks for showing how current harmful norms are perpetuated by oversimplified projections onto the past. I’m sure there are people who imagine that everyone had a horse or two instead of a car and no one walked and everything was spread far apart like it is now.
Anyway, I was thinking more along the lines of https://iqc.ou.edu/urbanchange
“The motorcycle comparison makes riding a bike seem like a hobby” ? How so? motorcycles are very utilitarian, more utilitarian than cars and bicycles I’d say. I know they aren’t as common in the US but worldwide they are more used than cars and bike I’d say, India is like 95% motorcycles for example.
In India, motorcycles, and the “scooters” that everyone drives have more advantages and less risks because there are so many motorcycles relative to cars and traffic lanes are only suggestions. In Portland, it is different. A motorcycle may have a place in some instances for daily transportation, but the disadvantages for getting around the city, like being restricted to car traffic lanes and traffic. I also think there is a prohibitive learning curve for motorcycles that limits accessibility, most people did not ride a motorcycle as a child, cost is on average greater, license requirements, etc. And there is no MotorCycleTown.
“The motorcycle comparison makes riding a bike seem like a hobby, that doesn’t have any utilitarian advantage.”
Bikes offer me a huge utilitarian advantage over other options (though maybe not for a milkshake run ). I’m sure motorcyclists feel the same way; I used to work with a guy who told me many times how fast and easy and cheap he was able to get to work on his motorbike.
I’m glad it worked for him, but I’m still not interested.
As a motorcycle and bicycle rider I like this analogy. My wife feels nearly the same about both bikes and motorcycles. Although I can get her to bike with me it’s basically just recreational or maybe to a very particular destination that happens to be inline with a separated MUP. I had to buy the bike and all her gear for her and she would never suggest it and would probably never ride again if I stopped.
Plus we have two kids and she isn’t confident enough in her own biking skills to ride with the kids on her bike and one of the kids is like 7 and 65 lbs and kind of too big to ride on my bike easily especially with the second so then he has to ride his own bike which also limits our distance and how much I want to mix with cars…. so basically we as a family end up nearly only recreational riding. On the rare occasion I’m going somewhere by myself or with only one kid I will bike if it’s within ~ 40 mins biking… but working from home that doesn’t happen much, 1-2 times a week.
PBOT needs to learn how to make forests, not just trees. They make a thing here or a thing there but they don’t do a good job of creating a system. And, frankly, we need some new blood in the bike leadership roles withing PBOT. When Roger tweeted a few years ago about how they had done all they could do and people just needed to ride, it was like a company blaming customers for not buying their product. If people aren’t buying what you’re making, you should be looking at what you’re making. PBOT doesn’t seem to have the institutional capability to be robustly self-critical.
To your comment: “the infrastructure is better and more extensive than it was in 2015 and we still have lower ridership.”
Yes the infrastructure is better and more extensive but in the meantime thousands of people have moved here and they are driving. The “better and more” simply hasn’t kept pace with the increase in the number of drivers and the toxic driving culture they bring.
I agree (as do others who have posted similar sentiments). I think what we have could be improved (relatively cheaply) by better and more signage. When you find yourself on a street that is not bike friendly, It can be hard to know if you have gotten off route or ridden into a gap in the system when riding in real time. There are pretty good online resources (the city bike map), and many enthusiasts have phone apps (RWGPS, etc.). Less prepared people can easily get lost. Maybe (more) helpful signs will keep them on the best streets for biking and improve their experience and perception of the bike network.
Attracting the interested and concerned means making riding a bike easier and more fun than using the ottomobile. Note, this may include analog or ebikes. A multi-pronged approach would include fully connected greenways with clear signage and diverters every 4-6 blocks and access to busy neighborhoods with shops, enforcement from the beefed up traffic division with enhanced penalties and better driver training, reduced parking options citywide and improved safety on MUP around the city.
Do i have real hope any of these will be implemented?? Maybe.
Safety, safety, safety! I really appreciate the impressively well thought out comments.
If there’s anything at all that I can echo it’s that the vast majority of people wont participate in an activity that makes them feel unsafe.
These safety concerns can be rational or irrational they can revolve around fear of vehicles or fear of homeless. In the end the result is the same. PBOT needs to find ways to make people feel safe on the roads. I would go so far to say that actual safety could take a back seat to precieved safety if the goal is to increase bike mode share.
I feel this acutely as I watch the intersecton at 42nd and belmont get torn up to very slightly alter the curb extensions. I’m sure this project is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and will have little to no impact on safety.
Nothing ( aside from death ) will stop me from riding the 205 path, springwater trail and hawthorne at rush hour. But I would never expect the general public to join me.
The bike network might be better than ever on the eastside between the Willamette and 205, but in SW Portland it’s still mostly non existent, small disconnected bits and pieces. I assume the same goes for east Portland. So if we want to expand ridership we need to expand infrastructure in underserved areas.
i myself bike less because I work from home more, probably a common behavior. And like everyone else I have noticed crazier/ more aggressive driving as well as more oblivious behavior from drivers (things like not having lights on at dusk or dawn, coming to a stop in the crosswalk or bikelane instead of at the stop line, blocking the intersection, ignoring „no right on red“ signs etc). I have been biking all my life and while I’m more stressed out, I’m still biking. But I can see it keeping people from riding more. I’m not sure how to solve that quickly (infrastructure changes works best but is expensive). I would like to have traffic enforcement again, including speed and red light cameras, as well as more PSAs.
Another big obstacle to riding in SW is the hills, so much so that I sometimes refer to the entire area as “The Southwest Hills”.
Thank you everyone for a lot interesting and thoughtful comments. After an afternoon recovering from a cold on the couch, I think I’ve pretty much read all of them. But I’m getting a strong sense of BP déjà vu- same important question raised by Steve Novick, mostly the same, frankly ‘small picture’ answers, year after year. If we only built better bike infrastructure. If we are not making progress on our ridership goals, surely it must be because of the infrastructure we are building is inadequate, if not contemptibly so. Usually, ‘better’ is not even really defined, outside of closing streets and protected bike lanes on major arterials. While I am confident these more aggressive approaches would help, given the tradeoffs, given the relative size of the bicycle and that of the car and business constituencies, it’s more than a little politically naïve. Hey, while we are at it, let’s get the state of Washington to pay for it! So, let’s more honest about the reality. Maybe ‘build it and they will come’ is only part of the solution. Maybe we have to explain more vigorously why its so critical for people to come and use bicycles in the first place. Back then to Steve’s question: my answer would be political leadership and education. Having worked for Steve, I don’t think he’s part of the leadership problem. But with so many others in a position to make a difference on leadership that are- there has to be a lot more education and coalition building to get our city to the next level. Pretty sure people freaking out over that homeless camp ten blocks away have much more of our collective political attention currently than bikes. So, please, work on changing that. Begin the long, difficult uphill climb of changing cultural attitudes towards our transportation choices. I’m not saying we should take our eye off building the infrastructure. I am saying our attention also needs to be much, much more focused on building a new transportation culture, through leadership and education. It’s an epically heavy lift. So unfortunately, patience too will be required.
Great comment! I completely agree. How can I contribute to “building a new transportation culture”?
I agree with this, but that still leaves the question of how. PBOT, TriMet, and Metro have been trying to change transportation culture for decades, first with transit then with bikes, and we’ve ended up in a place little changed from where we started from. The rise in popularity of bikes had little to do with anyone’s conscious efforts (though PBOT and others tried to build (sometimes awkwardly) on the organic momentum that was there).
The fact is that most people seem happy driving, and accept the presence of cars in their neighborhoods and city centers. As long as that remains true, alternatives will be niche players.
My hope is that we can transform the nature of cars themselves, first via electrification then through automation to reduce many of the negative side effects that cars bring (safety, pollution, parking, etc.) Other than figuring out how apartment dwellers can charge their vehicles (which raises some serious equity issues), this doesn’t require much policy work at the city level, so PBOT can still pursue other approaches like improving transit and building bicycle infrastructure and promoting cultural change (both of which I support).
If you were a betting person, would you bet on technology or social change to arrive first?