The City of Portland has has reached a key design milestone for the Rose City Recreational Trail project. This is the project that will build new biking and walking trails and paths in Rose City Park and Rose City Golf Course.
According to a project update released by Portland Parks & Recreation last week, the $4 million project will build a total of 2.2 miles of new paths around and through the park. Boundaries of the project are NE Sacramento to the north, NE Tillamook to the south, NE 60th/62nd to the west, and NE 78th/McDaniel High School to the east. The project consists of three distinct trail segments that would create a loop around the park and golf course, as well as a north-south trail along NE 72nd Drive which bisects the parcel.
As you’ll recall, there was a bit of a dust-up with this project when it first went public one year ago. Parks planners initially overlooked the inclusion of bicycle users on the new paths and it took some pressure from BikePortland coverage and local trail advocates to correct the oversight.
The trail plan is broken into four distinct segments: the Primary, Trail, the Bluff Trail, the 72nd Connector Trail, and the Back Nine Trail. Below is a short summary of each one.
Primary Trail (Red): A 1.2-mile, 10-feet wide paved path that will be fully ADA-accessible and open to bicycle riders. This will be the main off-street, east-west route across the site. There will be ramped entry points at NE 62nd, 65th, and 80th. PP&R plans to build a trailhead and kiosk with new signage and tree plantings at the NE 65th entrance (near the old Rice Elementary School building).
Bluff Trail (Green): A 0.6 mile gravel and natural surface trail that will vary between three and four-feet wide. This trail exists today on a bluff just below NE Sacramento Street, but PP&R will update and restore it with a more consistent surface, bump-out areas, new fencing, seating and rest stops. Bicycles will be allowed on this trail.
72nd Connector Trail (Yellow): A 0.4 mile gravel surface trail that will connect to the existing one-way road on NE 72nd Drive (that was recently updated as part of the 70s Neighborhood Greenway proejct). At the northern end where it connects to the bluff, PP&R will create a series of switchbacks to create an easier grade to NE Sacramento. Boulders will separate the road from the new path and there will be new seating, fencing, and even a row of new bike racks for park users. Bicycle riders will also be allowed on this new segment.
Back Nine Nature Trail (Blue): This is the closest thing the new trail system will have to singletrack, but for some reason I don’t yet understand, PP&R says bicycle riders are not allowed. The current plan is for a 0.8 mile gravel trail to complete the loop in the northeast corner of the golf course. This is in the most remote section of the golf course. I’ve asked PP&R for clarity on their decision-making since last summer, because the initial plan was for the alignment to go along the outside edge of the property and bicycle access was still under consideration. Now they appear to have switched to an alignment that dives into a grove of trees. PP&R said this week both alignments are currently under review. I’ll share an update on the bicycle access question when/if I hear back.
These new paths and trails will be a very exciting addition to the biking and walking network and will give folks a much safer and pleasant option than local streets. I imagine all of them being well-used and well-loved by locals as walking, jogging, and slow cycling paths.
It would be a real shame if the Back Nine Trail prohibits cycling, because it would mean folks couldn’t complete the loop. Perhaps they can construct both alignments and have one for cycling and one for walking. Or folks can simply share the trail.
From here the designs will be reviewed by PP&R staff and leadership. Once all the feedback is accounted for, the permit process will begin and other city bureaus will need to sign off on the designs. Once that process has played out, 100% designs will be completed. Stay tuned for more project updates this summer. If you have questions and/or want to connect with PP&R staff with feedback, find contact information and more details on the official project website.
If all goes according to plan these trails will be constructed next fall.
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.
The other reason why the other alignment of the back 9 trail that was proposed to include cycling is important in my opinion is that it is the obvious point for the trail system to connect to the high school, this new alignment further to the west seems unlikely to do bikes or no bikes. I am hoping this shift in alignment does not indicate that NIMBY’s in the neighborhood who view children trying to get to school as a problem have not succeeded in blocking a direct connection to the school from the south.
Why is there no proposed trail at Red Tail Golf course in Beaverton? Portland Parks owns it. It would be amazing to have a trail that connects SW Scholls Ferry Road to SW Oleson Road.
I think you answered your own question. Because Portland Parks owns it, but it’s located outside the city boundaries.
Any Portland money spent wouldn’t directly benefit Portlanders. If they did start studying it, it could also raise uncomfortable questions as to why the city is operating a golf course in the suburbs.
They also probably don’t want to put in public trails in case they do decide to sell the property (see the MLB proposal a few years ago).
For the record, I completely agree that a trail system would be wonderful. It looks like they could also install an entrance on SW Dolph for an East/West connection.
Looking forward to poaching the Back Nine and then enjoying some cold beers at Von Ebert. Cheers!
different golf course?
Actually a pretty good beer selection at the Rose City Grill, so you can still do the same!
“This is the closest thing the new trail system will have to singletrack, but for some reason I don’t yet understand, PP&R says bicycle riders are not allowed.”
I’ll tell you why: because the present leadership of PP&R will never allow the creation of shared singletrack trails. “But,” I hear you say, “the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan allows for trails.” Yeah, it was, as Admiral Ackbar famously said, a trap. The goal was to placate NWTA/mountain bikers with supposed future trails, while finding “reasons” that those trails will never get built. It’s the ultimate Lucy-Football-Charlie Brown situation. And the NWTA still, after nearly a decade since the idea of a ORCMP was announced, believes the answer is to keep playing nice with the PP&R. The answer is to (metaphorically & literally) is to start flipping desks.
Care to elaborate on what flipping literal and metaphorical tables would look like in the broader off-road cycling context?
In this context, it means pretty much going ape-shit.
Instructions unclear. I flipped over the desk in my office and now IT is telling me I have to pay for the monitors that I broke.
Try going ape-shit on IT. You know you want to.
Absolutely. And, just be clear, a more detailed version of this has been mentioned (multiple times) to the leadership of NWTA. Here it is:
I mean, we already did #5 with Rocky Point. After May 26, there will be over 40 miles of single track open.
I also don’t think raising $2.5 million from sponsors and members with the pitch “we’ll find a place for this, I swear” would go over well or be a very successful campaign.
Antagonizing the Parks employees sounds like a “fun time”, but NWTA volunteers typically spend their Saturday mornings doing trail stewardship. Hell, January through April of 2025 we had over 1400 hours of volunteer time at the new Cascade Locks trail system alone (yes, in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area). Probably *at least* 5x that at Rocky Point.
I’m sorry, but you straw manned and caricatured what I was suggesting.
First, the idea behind a fund to fast-track trails would not be some amorphous slush fund. It would be specifically aimed at getting trail mileage in city parks.
Second, the idea of protesting is not about a “fun time”. It’s the directors that are killing singletrack trails, even where they are supposed to exist. It’s those directors who are having cocktails with Marcy Houle on Saturday and telling staff no singletrack on Monday. The same directors that sit across a table from NWTA are the same ones that later laugh at you guys for believing that they will ever green light singletrack. And that will continue until they feel pain. The protest idea is to deliver that pain, while directing public (and political) attention to why they are removing items in master plans by fiat.
Lastly, two things can be true at the same time. An organization can be doing great on some great things and be failing in a specific point or process. NWTA can both be doing great on trails outside of Portland and failing to actually get trails in Portland. No offense, when cities in Iowa have more miles of trails total and put more mileage in per a year, that doesn’t exactly create a ringing endorsement of NWTA’s work with Portland.
My idea above might be the worst ever. Really, it might. But at least it’s an attempt to actually get trails by changing the approach. Because, doing the same thing that hasn’t worked over the last decade isn’t the answer.
When PGE with all of their corporate lawyers and paid environmental consultants can’t convince the city council to let them clear some scrubby new growth in 4.5 acre of FP’s 5000 total acres for the sake of adding capacity to account for the electrification of cars and appliances to reduce fossil fuel dependence, do you really think MTBers stand a chance?
Honestly. If PGE can’t make that happen, who can make anything happen? Rich west hills NIMBYs posing as environmentalists will do and say anything to keep the rest of the city out of their “private” forest.
In the North Tualatin Hills, they argued against changing the parcel’s land use from “commerical timber” to “open space”, b/c leaving it commercial timber meant Metro couldn’t build a park there and therefore no new trails could be built. It also would have meant that the trees would have to be harvested every 30 to 40 years. But in their twisted minds (or at least their public testimony), that’s far less damaging to the local red legged frogs than a couple of kids on bikes riding down gravel paths specifically designed to avoid sensitive habitat.
There’s no reasoning with these people. Any outward indignation is immediately leveraged against the MTB community as evidence that we’re entitled thrill. We have a path forward with the City. It’s just quieter and slower than people would like.
But your outside perspective lacks important context and frankly your rude emails to the board make it hard for folks to take you seriously. Maybe start by questions and using those to kick off a more productive discussion.
I am so excited to see the designs for this project coming into focus. The whole Rose City Park/Golf Course space is a beautiful area that is mostly off-limits to, and unused by, the majority of people living nearby. Unlocking areas of this greenspace for trails is going to be so great. This will also make the 72nd lane closure even more useful as a connector between trails. Hopefully they can renovate the club house someday and restore it to its former glory, old fireplace and all. Add a tasteful mini golf course and you’ll get non-golfers and walkers hanging out, making a day of “going to the park,” and spending money, too. Von Ebert has been successful at Glendoveer, it could likely do the same at RCP.
Nice!
This looks like several Parks projects I’ve seen over the years:
1–start the process with some bad ideas based on wrong assumptions
2–get the attention of people who want something better
3–see that the people objecting have some good points
4–revise the designs to address the objections–generally pretty earnestly
5–end up with something pretty good
The biggest variable seems to be how contentious things get going from #2 to #3.
I just came in here with my half measure tape, and yep, this project measures right up.
Expect lawsuits galore when someone gets hit by a golf ball, not to mention the 10 foot path through the Groves of trees and the natural habitat for bald eagles that are currently nesting in the golf course.
This city just loves to cut down trees.
Or not water until they die. For a place that constantly extolls its green virtue, the city is really anti-tree for some reason. Reality matters.
Did you see the Sunday Oregonian article about the giant street tree in NE Portland that met its fate in the maws of city bureaucracy? I no longer wonder why some people have lost faith in the power of government to do good.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2025/05/she-tried-to-spare-her-blocks-beloved-tree-portland-put-her-through-a-bureaucratic-buzz-saw.html
I hadn’t. That was a depressing read. It gets harder to understand how PBOT is taken seriously as an organization let alone an organization that is interested in anything that alternate (to cars) transportation activists can say.
With the I5 widening, the bridge replacement (plus 7? miles of freeway), the apparent inability to keep cycle lanes clean or really anything positive and the constant bureaucratic nonsense I would suggest PBOT is trying to harm Oregon more than any MAGA could dream. But let’s have another die in cause all the others have worked so well.
Giant tree of an invasive, non-native species, to be specific…
Lets hope the miles and tons of concrete and asphalt are native to the area or we’re going to have some serious problems.
Except when the trees are threatening to annihilate your single family home.
Which more than a few people around here would probably cheer
The tree wasn’t doing that. It was just providing shade and succor. If it was threatening a home, the city foresters would most likely have denied the removal permit.
Turns out when it comes to cutting trees down for concrete curbs, the city is all about the strictest interpretation of the letter of the law/regulation. When it comes to doing crime, drugs, public defecation or any of the things that are actual problems, not so much.
Our next mayor will be the golfer who lands a ball in the bald eagle nest.
If the ball hatches into an eaglet, they get to be President (I don’t make the rules)
It’ll be fine. How do you like living next to a golf course?
I’m curious if this claim of lawsuits-from-stray-golf-balls has any legal merit. I know there are many people claiming it’s going to happen, but haven’t seen any evidence or precedent cited. I’m assuming (probably not a safe thing to do!) that the city attorneys gave the green light. Curious if there are any lawyers (or people who play them online?!) who have insight.
Seems that no one is forcing anyone to use this path, ie people are assuming risk by the act of using the (future) trail. Also, golfers play next to each other all the time and we don’t hear claims to shut down all the golf courses for fear that a golfer will sue the city when they get hit and injured by another shot. And to another commenters point: there are already trails next to this course and I don’t hear any compelling arguments that they need to be closed immediately for fear of lawsuits.
Strikes me as a pretty obvious red herring by people that just don’t want this trail. Curious if anyone with legal training/experience have thoughts.
About the bird nesting: The Bird Alliance of Oregon are supportive of this project. Perhaps people think they are a compromised organization? Otherwise, if they’re onboard, I’m inclined to defer to their expertise that this isn’t going to harm the birds. In fact, I’ve heard their staff say that native plantings along the trail will IMPROVE the situation for birds. Plus, there are already people all over this place all the time (golfers, maintenance people) and tons of herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers—not to mention monoculture and constant mowing—on every inch of this property. Is there evidence that this trail is somehow different than the already-present human impacts? Or, is this just another red herring? I’m going with the latter.
Yes and I will be leading the litigation charge.
Not to mention that the homeless in that neighborhood(Schuyler St. anyone?) and foot traffic from 82nd will absolutely adore the convenience for camping and other illegal recreation.
The idea that the thing that is keeping people from camping on the greens is a lack of trails through the park is preposterous. Trails already exist in this park!
Since about 2020 there’s been an on-again / off-again problem with vehicle squatters on the turnouts along 72nd Drive.
How do trails fit into that?
Activating the space is the best thing we can do to avoid that.
Single track at Rose City Golf Course? First, not going to happen. Second, what self-respecting MTB rider wants to ride on a golf course?
I frequently ride my MTB through Rose City Park on my way to Gateway Green. Ride the bluff trail and then up the “shortcut” off 72nd to Sacramento. Then head over to Glenhaven park and then take the Siskiyou pathway over to the Dharma Rain property and ride the singletrack along the east side of it. Then over to Cadet Ave, and then Rocky Butte adds a nice hill climb if you go to the top, or just cut over the shoulder by the bible college and then down into the dirt trails on the NE side of the Butte. Go north on 92nd and then east on Fremont and then you’re at the 205 path and loop into GG.
The new trails/paths at RCP will add to this, and some new singletrack would be nice to be able to link into the ride.
Me! I do!
Build an interesting trail and we will come.