Happy Monday everyone. I’ve removed the special notice from the site about my knee surgery recovery. I’m 24 days or so post-operation and feeling better every day. Still can’t bike around or cover events yet, but I hope that’s coming soon. For now I’m still only able to work from home, but I can work almost normal hours — except for getting to PT appointments and getting my leg up very once in a while. Thanks for your patience and support!
Here are the most notable stories that came across my desk in the past week…
Concerts and carbon: A study found that 80% of concertgoers arrived by private vehicle, but that only 60% wanted to. Learn about the latest thinking from major artists and promoters about how to make concert transportation greener. (Rolling Stone)
Boston bike troubles: Looks like the honeymoon is over for Boston’s cycling-friendly mayor as advocates feel progress has slowed — and even reversed — as the east coast city has similar challenges to Portland. (NBC Boston)
London did it: People on bikes now make up 56% of all traffic in downtown London’s “Square Mile” district during peak commute hours and the city has seen a 50% increase in ridership since 2022. (BBC)
Trucker bribery scheme: An investigative journalist uncovered wads of cash tied to peoples’ names and learned that trucking companies in Oregon and Washington were paying CDL training services to pass their drivers. This has created a huge safety risk. (The Oregonian)
$125,000 for Pee Wee’s bike: Given how iconic the movie is and the huge role his bike played in it, I honestly thought it would be worth way more than $125K. (TMZ)
Good distracted driving news: European regulators are helping push a very good trend — the return of analog buttons and dials to car dashboards. Overly digital displays are extremely unsafe and apps like Apple Carplay pose huge distracted driving hazards. (Wired)
Vehicular cyclists won’t go away: It’s truly exhausting how some veteran U.S. cyclists are preventing our country from leaving the dark ages of cycling infrastructure because their egos and self-oriented perspective cannot fathom that by advocating soley for their own interests they are needlessly hurting others. A protected bike lane debate in the southern California coastal town of Encinitas lays out this debate. (The Coast News Group)
Harsh crackdown: I can’t help but think this new policy of writing criminal citations for bicycle riders (instead of traffic citations) is tied to Mayor Eric Adams’ embattled reputation among progressives. Or maybe it’s just typical NYPD being out of touch bike haters. (Streetsblog NYC)
America, welcome to the War on Cars: Rising prices in every aspect of car ownership have led to an over 13% decrease in the number of Americans who expect to buy a car in the next six months. (Newsweek)
Video of the Week: The delightful duo of Rimski and Handkerchief on their bassicle and bicycle piano playing music as they pedal to a gig. (Thanks to reader John B for sharing this!)
Thanks to everyone who sent in links this week. The Monday Roundup is a community effort, so please feel free to send us any great stories you come across.
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.
Vehicular Cyclists: It may be tough for the ‘youngest’ active transportation activists to fathom…but there was a time when we transportation planners and engineers used to have to fight with other “cycling advocates” for protected bike lanes etc (and not just drivers and merchants)…as this article reminds us and my experience back in the 1990s/ 2000s. I just shake my head and think of the 50 years of lost momentum for this gap in protected facilities in federal design manuals (~1974 to ~2024). If I had a “Way Back” time machine this would be one of my first visits…to talk to John.
They still have to fight it. Just prior to the pandemic the city of Raleigh NC wanted to put in a series of buffered and barrier-protected bike lanes (mostly to imitate Charlotte NC, the largest city in the state, but also to reduce traffic crashes by removing traffic lanes) and they got fierce opposition from their own bike community who wanted painted bike lanes and sharrows. Ultimately the city went ahead with the better infrastructure but they were stunned by the opposition and who was opposing it. Basically what they found was that the opposition was mostly white, high-income, and used to driving to a location to then bike on their racing bikes; those who were students, or minorities, or state workers (Raleigh is the state capital) were generally in favor but were not vocal enough to have any noticeable impact.
We have similar issues with our local critical mass rides – the main opposition isn’t our government or police, but men and women in lycra.
The City of London (aka the square mile) IS a tiny portion of “downtown London” and is only 0.03% of metro London. This is also not the first time BikePortland has made this mistake, so please do better.
Thanks I’ll edit that
Thanks…although the square mile is small the low-emission zone and associated massive reduction in parking spaces* that was first established there is something this city should urgently copy.
*they did not “price” parking (libertarian economics), they got rid of this social evil entirely (socialist economics).
There’s only about 8,000 residents in the City of London (as opposed 14+ million in the metro area). It’s the medieval core of the city, it used to be walled – most of it burned to the ground in 1665 and was heavily bombed in WW2 – and it’s now mostly offices, government and tourist attractions.
I don’t think it’s fair to say that The City of London is a “tiny portion” of downtown London. It’s the main financial sector and has 678,000 jobs, something like 10% of the jobs in all of metro London. It’s like calling Lower Manhattan downtown New York. Is it strictly true? Not really – of course Midtown exists, as do a huge number of other central clusters.
Honestly, “downtown London” is probably clearer than City of London. If you say “the City of London” (even properly annotated as the square mile, or the medieval core, or whatever), people will inevitably think of the entirety of urban London. It’s a confusing term, there’s a reason there’s a cottage industry of YouTube videos talking about the quirks of the City of London.
“Downtown” is a bit of a ‘murricanism and people in the UK tend to use central London as opposed to greater London (which is the actual city governed by Mayor of London). “The City of London Corporation” is a small part of central London and a miniscule part of greater London in terms of geography (and population).
That’s fair, but this is an American website so downtown London makes some sense, even if it’s not strictly accurate.
Yes, the City of London is small with few residents but it’s the heart of the regional economy and the historic center. Calling it a “minuscule part” is not really true. Downtown Portland has relatively few residents and isn’t very large in the scheme of the metro area, but it’s definitely not a minuscule part of Portland’s human geography
SHOCKED, Shocked I say, that criminality is knit into the fabric of the trucking industry
I’m expecting the delivery of my (our) new car by the end of May! Traveling around the US this summer! Here we come!
Vehicular Cyclists: I heard an alarming reflection of this sentiment at the OATS conference: A planning director for PBOT was on a panel, and during the Q&A, he answered a question about Portland’s declining ridership. His answer was the Portand bike infrastructure has never been better, and the solution to increasing ridership is cultural. I nearly wept when I heard that! From the very top of PBOT on down, they DO.NOT.GET.IT. They honesty seem to believe that a few blocks of improved bike lanes scattered around town plus putting up greenway sing on dozens of streets without any accompanying diversion, stop-sign turning, daylighting intersections or improved street lighting is meaningful change. This focus on the “low-hanging fruit” started with Sam Adams. It seemed exciting at the time, make progress quickly and cheaply where you could, piggyback on other projects, etc. But there has been no follow-through. PBOT never came back and did the difficult stuff that takes design, engineering and commitment. People like this transportation planner who has been riding the streets of Portland for decades apparently lack the empathy or awareness to realize that a few sketchy block for them is a non-starter for most people, and that network is only as effective as its weakest links. If you took a map of Portland’s bike network and deleted every route that had a serious, safety deficiency, I think you would be left with a dozen or less isolated segments strewn around the City. Bike routes need to to be direct and simple to navigate, safe with buffers or diversion, easy to navigate and find, consistent along their length, and well connected to each other and to destinations.
“Portland’s bike network has never been safer” -PBOT claim. Maybe, but it has never been less safe either. PBOT has failed to move the needle on safety because they build incomplete projects. The Blumenauer bridge has to be the biggest bike-specific expense in the City in the last 20 years. They built it from scratch, but they still could not deliver a simple, straight connection on the north end- bike have to make a series of awkward 90-degree turns. There is still a stop sign on 7th at NE Davis FOR BIKES! We spend tens of millions on a bridge but can’t prioritize bikes here?! There is still no bike route north of Tillamook. Covid emptied out our streets while this bridge was being finalized, it is inexcusable to have such atrocious designs and utter lack of infrastructure. For a veteran cyclist, this probably works fine, but this is not how you support cycling as transportation for a broad swathe of the City. PBOT has spent the last 10-15 years building isolated segments of bike infrastructure and trumpeting their own “success” of building a network. I am truly afraid that they actually believe their own bullshit and do not actually know how or what to do. I read this article and despair the people who are supposed to planning our bike network are so steeped in VC mindset that we may not see progress for decades.
Please make this COTW Jonathan et al.
Particularly when those few sketchy blocks are often at extremely important places at the center of a network or entrance to downtown Portland (e.g., East Broadway). Simply separating that one half-mile connection to Williams/Vancouver would be a lynchpin. It is almost as if we need an 8 year old to design our network.
As much as Roger Geller and a few other PBOT folks has been a great part of Portland’s bike world, this appears to be the case.
It honestly feels like this is exactly who’s been designing our bike system, with all it’s weird doodly facility designs and lack of any kind of unifying concept from one place to another.
It started long before Sam Adams or even Bud Clark, it’s always been part of Portland’s civic mindset since 1851 (or lack thereof) – build it cheap and build it quick. Even the early paved bikeways of the 1880s and 1890s paid by subscription were disconnected.
By these criteria the discussed bike lanes are inadaquate because they are not safe nor, apparently, are they simple to navigate. I’m probably guilty of being “steeped in the VC mindset”, but I think we should try to advance cycling routes broadly — even segments that are not (yet) accessible to the extrema of the 8-80 distribution but may have high utility for a lot of people.
What bothers me about the described situation is that the acrimony divides the bicycle advocacy community to the detriment of our shared political clout. I want to help more people bike. I hear you when you say that protected infrastructure like separated lanes are desirable for a lot of folks. Let’s get them built! But it’s crazy to push for facilities that aren’t compatible with the way people actually ride.
With respect Micah I think you have summed up the VC (and PBOT’s) mindset very succinctly.
This is exactly what PBOT has done for decades, with very little effect.
I would say just the opposite: it is insane to continue the status quo and build solely for people who are currently biking, because it’s difficult to avoid stating the obvious, but: They are already using bikes. It’s like building extra sports car lanes for people in sports cars.
An uncoordinated array of a thousand small projects across a vast swath of ~130 sq mi city to broadly improve cycling routes has a similar effect to peeing in the ocean. One single connected segment such as Vancouver/Williams and 1000′ of East Broadway allows everyone who would bike in that area of town to go to/from downtown. Until that basic concept is accepted by PBOT, we’ll get the status quo.
Hi eawriste, I always enjoy your responses to my comments — they really help me sort out my thinking. Here are a few points in response.
1) You characterize efforts to date as “solely for people who are currently biking.” I don’t think this reflects what has been built, and certainly doesn’t reflect my experience. As many have pointed out, there does not seem to be any rhyme or reason to what PBOT has installed (I think the relict ped bridges over I5 on Bryant and Skidmore attest to the absence of any long-term vision at PBOT). The fundamental problem here is not that the city has been overly responsive to VCs. Your rhetorical framing precludes designs that serve the diversity of current and prospective cyclists from inexperienced/slow cyclists to experienced cyclists. Connectivity also benefits VCs.
2) Even if the growth potential for cycling is dominated by timid users who require more robust protection from autos, which I don’t think is true but is plausible, the most available political support for bike projects is certainly from current users. I think it behooves us, as a movement, to cultivate this group as a political base. Telling them (us) we are the problem is counterproductive.
3) If a bike network is to be useful for transportation it needs to carry traffic that is fast enough to complete trips in a reasonable time.
Hey Micah.
I think we fundamentally disagree here. The city has built a vast number of miles (>100) of standard bike lanes. Those largely serve VCs. Out of the many miles of greenways, there is a very limited number of functional “greenway miles” with 500 ADT or lower and no evidence that they serve anyone but existing riders because of the lack of diversion. New projects such as East Broadway are designed with buffered lanes. These all largely serve (current) avid cyclists, not everyday people who don’t identify as anything, but just want to get somewhere.
Again, fundamentally disagree. The vast majority of current cyclists that exist in Portland today are people who are willing to ride with cars for some portion of their trip as well as forego very grounded concerns about safety on a daily basis (because of the lack of infrastructure). Separated bike lanes, carved out carless spaces and auxiliary greenways with <500 ADTs do not “preclude current cyclists.” This is a very old and tired argument. The idea that current cyclists will stop riding because they have to slow slightly on occasion is totally absurd. It’s like the parking debate: convenience vs safety.
This is a red herring. Look at the SW Broadway separated bike lane, the Naito cycle-track, or the Esplanade. A rider might not be able to go 30, but they are certainly able to go a reasonable pace. Again, I think this is a very old argument based on an antiquated idea that people using bike lanes (and other people who are not in motorized things) are all 1) always trying to get somewhere as fast as possible 2) always athletic 3) on a sports bike.
I understand your concern, and I think it’s hard love. With respect, you are not the problem. The idea of VC is. It is inherently counterproductive. Keep in mind this is not merely an academic argument here. As Todd said above, we have wasted decades of advocacy, organization, money and time building things almost exclusively for VCs, and continue to do so today. We should be building things for everyday people of all abilities who exist now in Portland who just want to get somewhere without being afraid of injury, not exclusively for people who identify as cyclists.
These are all facilities that are “compatible with the way people actually ride” that, in my estimation, are not “exclusively for VCs”. All of those facilities work for regular (>10mph) cyclists and for slower users simultaneously. They would have significantly less utility if they did not work for regular cyclists. I value these facilities (and use them all the time). They didn’t used to exist. They are not all seamlessly connected, but I think their construction is more consequential than “peeing in the ocean”. I hope they do become more seamlessly connected in the future. I think it would be good for the community to identify important missing links (it sounds like you feel the E approach to the Broadway Br. is one such location — I have an extensive list of my own). What I don’t think we should do as an advocacy community is splinter ourselves into warring factions over who will benefit more from a given project.
I agree that PBOT is bureaucratic and slow, but to say they have done nothing for anybody except VCs does not reflect reality. What is true is that many VCs use the infrastructure that was built for “everyday people”. Guess who’s going to be well represented on whatever PBOT manages to get done for us in the future? I’m perplexed by the hostility to a major user group, TBH. Just because “avid cyclists” like something doesn’t mean “everyday people” can’t enjoy it, too.
After scanning comments, I’m not convinced your views really reflect VC. Here’s a great vid that explicitly shows John Forester and its essential ideas. Yes, a lot of people still believe this nonsense. And it’s one of the primary reasons why we only have a basic level of separated infrastructure and general non-car mode stagnation in cities where it’s prevalent.
I’m not hung up on the nomenclature. VC is not a term I introduced, and I should have avoided it given my relative ignorance of its meaning.
I think Portland has good biking opportunities for “all ages and abilities” as you say, but, to really use bicycles as bread-and-butter transportation, riding with some car traffic is necessary. That’s just the reality of our situation — it’s not a reflection of lack of empathy by me or PBOT or anyone else.
I think the arguments about whether to advocate for PBOT to build for those already cycling or “interested by concerned” disguise quite a bit of consensus — we have quite a few good facilities that work for many, including capable, fit cyclists and slower folks. What we need is to do more of it.
“Let’s get them built!”
But only where they don’t degrade rider safety.
I’ve heard this same statement in the BikePortland orbit, specifically from Steve Novick but from others as well.
The infrastructure definitely used to be a lot worse.
…back when ridership was a lot higher. I am skeptical of the claim that infrastructure is the major factor driving ridership, but if it is, building infrastructure has suppressed riding, at least in Portland.
Since that doesn’t really make sense, an alternative explanation is that there are cultural factors in play, and that they are more important than infrastructure.
Claims that infrastructure is the dominant factor, without a clear explanation of why ridership has fallen, is like RFK and vaccines and autism. It seems like there’s a plausible connection, but it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
maxD: Sam Adam’s focus on the “low-hanging fruit” was refreshing at the time for the other reason that cyclists were invited into his office/ administration to make these bikeway updates AND for the fact that City Hall had (Mayor Potter) stopped the tacit order for PPB beating / bullying cyclists advocating for street space (Critical Mass rides).
I think that this planner is off base when it comes to PDX’s infrastructure because it is insufficient and disconnected but also because its quality is negatively impacted by increased driving — and most especially increased aggressive/reckless driving. That being said, I do agree that “culture” explains the increasing lack interest in cycling and transportation alternatives. The USA and Portland is increasingly a culture of lonely narcissists with very short attention spans and the benefits of transportation alternatives and decarbonization are of little interest to someone far more interested in online hyper-consumption and watching algorithmic slop on screens (often designed to encourage more online shopping). Empathy and consideration of a basic social contract is increasingly abnormal behavior in this society.
While it’s clear that “vehicular cyclists” are a despicable group of nasty people who should be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, it is unclear from reading the article if they were the ones promoting the current “feels safer” bike lane configuration, or the ones claiming it would be dangerous (correctly, as it turns out). Or maybe they’re another group altogether.
From what I could glean from the article, this is a classic case of tension between people who prioritize a sense of safety (think of the 8-80s!) over actual safety. Both are important, but if I could only choose one, I know which it would be.
Love the old school dials on my 2001 Outback.
Regarding the reported bribery for certifying truck drivers CDL, when I looked it up this seems to be a much bigger traffic safety / accountability issue in North America with cases in Toronto, Massachusetts, etc.
Given that our local occurrence involved operators in Vancouver USA and occurred up north I wonder when the local press (The Columbian and the Seattle Times, etc.) will wake up and dig deeper into what likely is a bigger issue?!
For PSU TREC students…this might make for an interesting research project: compare reported truck crashes with recent graduates of this driving school…and see how strong of a correlation there may be.
Trucking CDL School: The follow up article by Ted Sickinger of The Oregonian paints and even worse picture of the situation…Washington does not seems to be “willing” to retest ALL students of this instructor after retesting failure rate of 80%…so there may be over 600% more “poor” CDL operators sharing our roadways! The problem will be much bigger once OR and ID regulators investigate.
https://www.oregonlive.com/watchdog/2025/05/5-things-to-know-about-alleged-bribery-scheme-allowing-unqualified-truckers-to-hit-pnw-roads.html
Marco Gonzalez’s quote in the Encinitas article is interesting, it’s not clearly right or wrong but gets to the heart of what the tension is when we talk about safety. If there’s a barrier, he says, and it’s the thing that lets more people enjoy the roadway, and people are crashing into the barrier, that’s their fault. They should slow down and stay in their lane. That’s what a lot of cycling and safety say when a driver manages to wreck their car on a Jersey barrier. When we argue that “breakaway” poles designed to protect drivers that run off the road and crash into them are absurd.
That’s the mode in which we can have obvious sympathy for the barrier crowd. More people should be able to use this bike lane, and if that means roadies have to slow down, then roadies have to slow down.
But… maybe a lot of us have also been in scenarios where barriers have put us in danger, or where proposed barriers might put us in danger. Median bollards on bike trails are an example. They can keep cars off the trail but they can also be a hazard to riders. Different riders with different experiences might come down differently on their merits (in general or in specific places). Unexpected barriers, curbs, and lips at lane edges can be extremely dangerous — especially at night. As someone that rides at night a lot, though I do take care to have good lighting and to not be too drunk, Gonzalez’ “coming home from a bar late at night” comment really got my hackles up. It’s all too common for leaders and designers to completely ignore the needs of people riding at night, or even to regard us with contempt, wishing us away entirely. Are the barriers or other surface hazards actually visible at night? Are they clearly visible under the lighting conditions that are common in the area? After the (low-quality, temporary) reflective elements on flex-posts have worn away? With oncoming car headlights blaring in riders’ faces? Even for riders without lights (as few bikes are sold with them, and you shouldn’t have to be a wonk to ride your bike places)? Usually people promoting barriers to protect bike lanes are associated with “Vision Zero” thinking, but… if they look at solo bike crashes against barriers and immediately blame rider error, that’s literally the opposite of the true “Vision Zero” concept, which states that safety is a public goal and that public policy and infrastructure factors should be held responsible, often supremely so.
When I read the Encinitas article I see some right and some wrong on both sides of the issue. There’s clearly a community of roadies that’s been riding on this road, that finds the barriers a hazard, that sees a design that leaves no real space for them and forces them into more conflict. But some appear to be selfishly promoting their narrow interest over enjoyment by the wider public. Meanwhile barrier proponents are trying to make the road safer and more inviting for a broader group of people. But in some cases they seem needlessly hostile to people that have suffered injuries and unwilling to reflect on how their design is actually working.
One possibly relevant point of interest: I have no data to support this, but it seems highly likely that average/median/typical riding speeds are increasing with the adoption of motorized bikes, with the side effect of reducing the correlation between speed and skill. At the same time, the speed of the slowest riders is likely not changing.
Mixing an 8-year-old learning to ride with a 16-year-old testing the limits of his new bike-shaped riding machine is not going to create a conducive environment for either, and designs that rely on people self-moderating and riding slowly are more likely to fail as time passes.
I also don’t have hard data to support this, but it’s my perception that a large number of lower-cost ebikes don’t have geometry that’s particularly well-suited for their fully-assisted cruising speeds. I think we’ve moved past the days of slapping 1200 W onto beach cruisers, but not far enough.
Such great points Al. It is great to hear some nuance. One word that might be helpful here is “functional for all.” That is, everyone has access to the space, regardless of ability and transport.
I think it’s great to point out how much highway design and crash prevention/mediation is baked into our roads. And if we gave just a small fraction of that attention we give to drivers to other modes, we’d save a lot of pain.
I’ll push back a little on this idea. Vision zero doesn’t mean there is no personal responsibility, but I see your point. It very much depends on context. Even in Helsinki there’s a road death every year or so. The point is to design and have policy so that those deaths/injuries are not predictable.
…and it sort of seems that’s close to what exists in Encinitas (please correct me if I’m wrong here). From the image here on March 2025, both standard bike lanes and a separated cycle track exist. Which makes this whole argument between “camps” a little confusing.
I tried Pee Wee’s trick at the Alamo in the search for that bike. People just stared. Still an icon, even if a bargain basement one.