The Portland Parks & Recreation plan to create new trails and paths in Rose City Golf Course and Rose City Park leaves cycling out of one leg of the new loop. When I covered their plan earlier this week I lamented that fact, because I understand how a connected loop without a gap would have exponentially more value than one where cyclists are told to turn back.
To refresh your memory, Parks plans to build four trail segments to circumnavigate the park and golf course as part of their Rose City Recreational Trail Project. A total of 2.2 miles of new routes will be added thanks to this $4 million investment; but just 1.8 miles of it will be open to bikes. I’m not one to demand full bike access to everything all the time, and I certainly understand the art of compromise. That being said, Parks’ latest update on the project didn’t explain the reason why cycling would not be allowed in the northeast corner of the golf course — on what they call the “Back Nine Nature Trail”. I’ve golfed this course, and that area of the park offers the most remote and topographically interesting area of the entire parcel. It seemed to me there was ample space to make some sort of cycling route that would be compatible with golfing and stay inside various permitting requirements.
To learn more about why this decision was made, I reached out to Parks for further clarification. I heard back yesterday from PP&R Capital Project Manager Johnny Fain. He offered several reasons why PP&R decided to not allow biking on the Back Nine Nature Trail.
First, Fain said golf course staff and operations folks said having bicycle riders move the through back nine area (between holes 14, 15, and 16), “presents significant detriments to the playability of the course.” I take this to mean that because of the way the holes are laid out, unlike all the other planned trails, the back nine area would put bicycle riders in the direct line of fire of golfers. Yes, walkers and joggers would do the same thing, so I assume the feeling is that bike riders would be harder to communicate with and might be less likely to have the situational awareness to hear golfers calling out “fore” as a warning.
Fain also said the project provides over 1.8 miles of new or improved cycling access and that excluding bikes from one trail segment represents a “balance of uses.” “We have heard a split response from the community with many voices opposed to cyclists on trails, and many in favor. The current design approach seeks to balance trail uses within the project scope and budget.”
Then there’s the environmental aspect of what type of trail would be feasible in that section of the golf course. Fain says they are dealing with a requirement that the Back Nine Nature Trail be under 48-inches wide. According to PP&R’s existing trail design guidelines, that width does not allow for a shared walking and cycling space. In order for trails to be used by cyclist and walkers, the guidelines state that a trail must be six-feet wide for a one-way cycling path and 12-feet wide for a two-way trail. I can appreciate following guidelines, and maybe this project isn’t the place to do it, but I feel like we need a broader debate about how that width requirement severely limits Portland’s ability to improve off-road cycling access. Narrow, shared trails are extremely common and successful all over the country and there’s no reason Portlanders can’t figure this out too.
Since Fain said PP&R is considering two different alignments in the northeast corner of the golf course, I asked if it was possible to build both so we could have one for cycling and one for other uses. Fain said they are exploring two different routes to see which one fits the budget and feasibility requirements of the project. “It is unlikely both routes will be constructed,” he added.
So there it is: While we won’t get a full loop to bike on, it will be really cool to have all these new, off-street and unpaved bike routes and the planned trail upgrades are very exciting.
Learn more about the project on the city’s website.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Parks will just have to open the access trail to the Gateway Green for bikes so Madison South and Roseway residents can actually get to a Parks facility within the neighborhood.
Can’t. Too dark and scary and homeless people might camp there.
the City Council can/could direct the Parks Bureau director to implement the entire path. I suggest this topic be brought up in Committee during public comment.
Ride it anyway. They can’t stop us. And we all know that laws in Portland are mere suggestions.
Poach a trail that’s something like 1/4 mile long? The juice isn’t worth the squeeze.
It will be for some people so what they are designing is a system in which we are guaranteed to have people riding on trails that they are not technically supposed to be on because there is no alternative for the loop and this will lead to complaints which will then be used to justify future restrictions… It is all so predictable.
You think any would get ticketed? Honestly, I wish people would just start poaching trails more frequently. Problems get solved and until there is a problem, we won’t be getting any additional trail access in Portland.
I am not really concerned about tickets or no tickets, I am more concerned about the planned failure of designing a place that will inherently encourage people to ride on something that is going to create unnecessary conflict rather than designing it to reduce that conflict. This area has some very loud nimby’s who granted are going to complain no matter what, but why is the city designing this to magnify and lend creedence to those complaints rather than using a little common sense and figuring out a solution that encompasses the full loop.
Similarly if they don’t connect the park to the high school I think what they will get will be desire trails created by students both on foot and on bike, at which point people will be lobbing accusations of destroying the park by not staying on the trails. How about we just build the trails so they meet the needs of the users instead of sticking up some signage and hoping those kids are willing to detour over to 72nd and back.
As a cyclist and hiker, I am concerned and frustrated by the bike/ped conflicts! The firelanes in FP are so frustrating to ride on and hike on due to the unnecessary bike/ped conflicts. We should have 40 miles of bike-only trail in FP. PP&R is totally dropping the ball, and Metro is not living up up to their promises for providing trails either. I agree that poaching is justified, but riding on an under-designed trail can be dangerous.
What a terrible, self-entitled attitude.
That attitude is exactly why there are many people that don’t want bikes on the Rose City Trail Project. Shame on you.
This is exactly why no bikes should be allowed. I do not believe you are above the law.
Take a radar gun and sit on any surface street in the city, and you will see that nearly everyone thinks they are above the law. This is not unique to cyclists.
You also notice this with people with who let their dogs run free in the park and smokers who throw their butts on the ground.
Remember when skiers thought snowboarders were going to ruin the mountain?
They were right!
But in your other comments you’ve said they shouldn’t be allowed at all, without regard to how they’re behaving.
And if they’re allowed, their riding would be within the law.
“We have heard a split response from the community with many voices opposed to cyclists on trails, and many in favor. The current design approach seeks to balance trail uses within the project scope and budget.”
Whether they knows it or not, Fain has perfectly encapsulated the dilemma of cycling in the US.
“Some people don’t like bikes, so bicycling will always only get a fraction of what is needed, because…. “balance.”
Sorry future generations who are dying and starving from climate collapse, it was obvious what we needed to do, but we had to please the reactionary haters.
Electrify transportation, ASAP.
Everywhere but Portland it looks like…..
The predicted brown outs followed by overall collapse arriving ahead of schedule.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2025/05/07/city-council-rejects-pge-plan-to-run-new-transmission-lines-in-forest-park/
Goodbye clean water.
TBF, even if we opened every trail in Portland to MTB, I don’t think it would help avert climate collapse. For that, we would need to start giving bikes equal treatment on the roads.
Agree. I think Fain’s comment reflects the treatment of every non-car travel mode and all of the built environment that accommodates car-centrism. Bike’s especially.
All the pressure from the neighborhood worked on this one part. The Back Nine is hands-off as it is a protected wetland area and in case anyone has forgotten, it’s a working successful golf course. Biking and Golf Courses do not go together. Each one is fine on their own, but not together. No golf courses anywhere allow bikes on the course.
So you’re saying Portland is an innovative trailblazer. Now golf courses around the world can start putting bike trails in because Portland led the way despite a handful of desperate loudmouths. Good point.
That’s not even close to what Mel L was saying.
I detected a lot for sarcasm in SD’s comment.
This is simply not true. I grew up around here, and despite the bike path being close enough to be reasonably hit by a stray ball, it never seemed to be an issue. And the path on the west side of the golf course is in fact a bike path on golf course property.
Here’s another example in Bend of a bike path closely paralleling a golf course.
Here’s another example in Sunriver where a bike path crosses a golf course between holes 16 and 17.
Here’s another example in Kent, WA where the Green River Trail closely parallels a golf course for a fairly long section.
Here’s another example in Tacoma. Per OpenStreetMap, bikes are allowed on the loop of Chambers Creek (and cross the course in at least one point).
Here’s another example in North Bend, WA where the Snoqualamie River Trial crosses the Mount Si Golf Course.
Here’s another example in New Glarus, WI where the Sugar River trail crosses the Edelweiss Chalet Country Club course.
And look, here’s the Oak Leaf Trail crossing the Greenfield Park golf course just outside of Milwaukee.
There are surely many more examples, I only looked at three states. If you’re curious how I found these, I queried OpenStreetMap for places where a bike path is within zero meters of a golf course and then picked a few good examples. OSM isn’t perfect, but the above places are pretty unambiguously places where bike paths cross golf courses.
Yes, some golf courses do have bike trails, but it’s not a universal feature. Some courses incorporate designated bike paths, separate from the golf cart paths, for recreational use. However, many golf courses prohibit biking on the grounds due to potential damage to the landscaping, especially the greens and fairways.
Here’s a more detailed look:
Circumstances where golf courses may have bike trails:
*notice the wording that you used above? parallel was used in most of those cases. You should look at Glendoveer Golf Course which is only 4 miles from Rose City and it has a 2 mile walking path around the course…not through. So maybe the bikes could go around the course?
You said, “Biking and Golf Courses do not go together” and when other people pointed out that you were wrong, you shifted to goalpost by saying “but it’s not a universal feature…many golf courses prohibit biking on the grounds”.
No one was claiming it was a universal feature. No one was asking to bike on the grounds. But your statement implies that that *some* golf courses do allow biking on the grounds, which I find interesting.
So what are we arguing about again? You could have said, “Oh I guess I was wrong. Well, here’s why I don’t think it’d be compatible in this case: …” and then laid out a cogent argument for why it’s a bad idea here. Instead, it looks like we got ChatGPT output. According to https://sapling.ai/ai-content-detector, there’s a 99% chance that that’s exactly what you’ve posted (everything but your footnote). So I guess I’m the dumb one for arguing with an anti-bike robot.
Did you just copy/paste an AI search above?
Yes.
5 of these examples cross the course at at least one point! They go through the course in a similar way to the Back Nine Nature trail. There are very clearly examples of golf courses where bikes and golfers interact, you are being obstinate
I am absolutely shocked that an anti-bike zealot is arguing in bad faith.
(I’m not actually shocked)
Careful. Mel is used to posting on Nextdoor and receiving accolades for complete fabrications. This may get awkward.
I’m not sure if you are trolling or actually don’t know that there are A LOT of urban golf courses with biker or shared hiker/biker trails between the fairways.
This article is nearly 20 years old and not exclusive to hiker/biker singletrack trails, but took one Google search to find: https://www.americantrails.org/resources/golf-course-bike-trails-examples-from-several-sources-nationwide
The statement that “No golf courses anywhere allow bikes” is easily disproved as there are many such examples. Here is an article from american trails listing a bunch of courses with trails that allow cycling either running alongside or through them.
https://www.americantrails.org/resources/golf-course-bike-trails-examples-from-several-sources-nationwide
Some have adopted mitigation for safety others have determined that none was needed. While user conflicts are an important consideration in designing trails you statement is false Mel.
I mean heck we even have an example of a trail that runs adjacent to a golf course here in Portland that you can bike along, the columbia slough trail goes right past heron lakes golf course, you pass within a few yards of people teeing off, never heard of an issue although I have stopped to watch a few people take their swings before.
key word….adjacent to the golf course….not through Heron Lakes Golf Course.
Many bikes ride right through the middle of Rose City golf course on 72nd every single day.
No, they ride on the street. Not through an active fairway that players are hitting golf balls through. Stop posting that 72nd is the middle of the course.
But 72nd literally IS in the middle of the course.
But this project literally involves biking and a golf course existing together. And they (along with pedestrians and vehicles) already exist with the golf course.
I ride this (see link below) popular shared bike/walking path a few times a month. It is in Portland and adjacent to a golf course. Also, the Springwater corridor goes through wetlands and Portland is currently a bike/ped connection to SE 117th Ave.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZDYMC53eabr59hXPA
Bikes are compatible with wetlands and golf courses in Portland.
It is interesting that the “bike community” who wants this are commenting to poach it and ride it anyway and who cares because nobody will get a ticket….THAT….THAT RIGHT THERE IS THE REASON…WE SHOULD CARE…as someone who has personally known a person who was killed by a stray golf ball, why is it so important to invade an area that is not necessary? Why not go set up a bike path through a football stadium or Nascar track or I know, the Thorns would love it if you came and put a path through their field. It doesn’t quite make sense does it. I am all for walking, biking, nature and sports but all in one place? Please, take a step back. Think about that one stray ball…. think about the why.
If I’m following you correctly, you’re saying that people on bikes would be in dire risk of death from golf balls. Is the same not true for people walking? What if they’re walking and listening to music on headphones, or having a telephone conversation. What if they’re hard of hearing?
Who’s really at risk here and how far should we go to protect them from this risk?
I am concerned for walkers too. It is not only the bike trail but the walkers too. Why put yourself in that kind of situation? Why walk on a side walk….might as well just walk down the middle of the road.
Then add to all that–bike riders are the only ones who wear helmets!
Not even golfers wear helmets–none of the millions of rounds of golf played every year are played by golfers wearing helmets. Yet every golfer is exposed to potentially being hit by stray balls several times every time they play.
How many golfers who bring up the hit-by-golf-ball argument against bike trails wear helmets when they golf?
I looked up the stats. It’s something like 2-3 deaths per year from stray golf balls in the US, and the specific cases I saw were elderly or very young people.
The risk of getting killed by lightning strike is roughly 10 times higher in the US.
I had a friend get nailed by a golf ball back in high school. He was in pain, but it was nothing more than a bruise in the end. I think this risk is being pushed by golfers because they don’t want to share their massive open spaces.
Remember, this is city property folks. We aren’t talking about a private club here. City golf courses like Rose City are absolutely subsidized:
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/04/13/selling-redtail-golf-course-portland/
It took a potential loss of Red Tail to expose the subsidies:
Why would a golfer care about someone riding a bike on the perimeter of the course?
You should ask mb and the other “concerned citizens” who are commenting here.
Are they golfers?
So walking on the path is okay, but cycling is not? Since walkers are slower, they would spend more time in the danger zone.
Also, golf sounds like a dangerous sport. Maybe we should ban golfing on city property?
I shared at one example of a singletrack hiker/biker trail within a golf course, namely Theodore-Wirth. I used that example for a simple reason: when the lack of shared trail access is discussed in Portland, a lot of national examples get bandied about, but Minnesota (the state) and MSP Metro (the Cities) get mentioned the most. (Which is fair, they wrote the book on how to do shared trails in urban parks.) But I used it for another reason: the trails (a mix of hiker/biker and biker only) are natural surface, singletrack trails, built to sustainable standards – exactly what could have been created here. And they are intertwined with the golf course. (And the archery range, but that is a different use case.)
A lot of these “ideas” in Portland of what works for trails are just wrong and based on what people think trails are, not what they actually are. This is true here.
When I was learning to mountainbike in the mid 80s most bikes had 25″ flat bars and riders were praised for riding as upright as possible as being efficient in their riding style. Now bars are often 32″ wide (800mm) and riders are leaning this way and that way through their rides with massive suspension and dropper seat posts, so yeah, I see Fain’s point about needed wider trail width.
This won’t be a destination trail. This would be a safe, soft-surface trail where commuters and children can ride whatever bike they want away from cars. Maybe the kids are learning how to ride. Maybe adults and other kids are getting to school or the grocery store.
And in any case, mountain bikes of that type share trails all of the national forests with hikers and equestrians, so it’s not even an issue to begin with.
Jon, I might suggest that when you are going to talk to Parks about MTB trails, that you do a titch of research first. Trails, including shared trails, within golf courses are not rare. Mr. Johnny Fain was, to put it mildly, blowing smoke up your butt. For example, Theodore-Wirth, which often gets used as an example for what Portland could do for urban shared use trails (hiker/biker) is intertwined with the golf course, with some sections of trails being feet from tee boxes, fairways, and greens. So, the idea that golfers and trail users are incompatible is… odd. There needed to be severe push-back to that claim.
You are correct about this, though: “…I feel like we need a broader debate about how that width requirement severely limits Portland’s ability to improve off-road cycling access. Narrow, shared trails are extremely common and successful all over the country and there’s no reason Portlanders can’t figure this out too”. The “new” Portland Standards are a repeat of previous ones. This is even though, as part of the ORCMP, they supposedly adopted the 2007 MN Trail Guidelines.
I love this line: “Narrow, shared trails are extremely common and successful all over the country and there’s no reason Portlanders can’t figure this out too.” Extra width is nice when you can get it but shouldn’t be a deal killer when infeasible.
McDaniel is my neighborhood high school. Both my daughters attended, and I work there (and bike commute from the south) occasionally. I’d love to see the trail go right to the western edge of McDaniel property. But if this compromise stands, it would be almost as good if there was an entrance/exit on Sacramento just north of the junction with the multi-use and pedestrian only paths. I suspect, however, that would involve acquiring right of way from a property owner? Jonathan, can you check and see if this is an option that’s being explored?
The Western side of McDaniel that is adjacent to the golf course is all athletic fields. Most all High Schools limit access to the fields. This is done because they charge entry fees to many sporting events. Having two kids that played multiple sports I have seen a great number of High School fields with only one entrance open. I am sure that security issues these days may also be considered before allowing another path onto school grounds. Interesting to note that my daughter was playing soccer at fields at Glenhaven Park (Northside of McDaniel) in the mid 2000s when we heard shots fired as Police were taking someone into custody. I hope for you and your daughters sake the area is much safer.
Why?
This seems stricter than what I see in the online Parks’ Trail Design Guidelines:
This does match Fain’s statement in that the minimum trailbed-plus-clearance areas would equal 6′. But “one-way” or “two-way” isn’t mentioned in the manual, and the idea that a two-way trail needs to be double the width doesn’t make sense to me, because you’d rarely have a bike rider alongside a pedestrian at the same time you’d have a bike rider and pedestrian coming the other direction, with all four passing one another at the same time.
Also a two-way trail would not need wider clearance areas–if 1′ on each side works for one-way, it would work for two-way. So a 12′ wide trail would allow for a 10′ wide trailbed, which is way more than double the 4′ one-way width.
On top of that, they are “guidelines” which guide rather than require. If there are many places where people can move slightly off the trailbed when passing (which I’m guessing is the case) that would certainly be a reason to accept a narrower trail than in more constricted locations.
Ironically, when Parks’ presented some trails in Washington Park a few years ago, and people objected that they seemed too narrow, and well UNDER Parks’ own Trail Guidelines, Parks responded that they are just guidelines, and that Parks often builds trails below the minimum recommendations.
Finally, the fairly new Willamette Greenway Trail through Willamette Park has a paved trailbed less than 12′ wide, and it has sometimes-heavy bike/ebike/runner/walker/stroller/dog/scooter traffic, all 2-way. So Fain’s 12′ two-way minimum–even if it includes the 1′ clear sides yielding a 10′ wide trailbed–seems excessively conservative.
https://www.portland.gov/parks/documents/trail-design-guidelines-2009
Wow! Mel and Ginger Neil have dropped in from NextDoor to join the chat! These neighborhood ladies normally just walk around the course by themselves, but now may need to actually share it. Though, this BP post isn’t nearly as off the rails as Mel’s 188+ comment ND post! Watch out for the big Bike Portland bicycle-industrial complex!
All of these comments are Mel’s, but Ginger throws in a lot of the same rhetoric and such. Plus the rest of their any-kind-of-positive-change-opposed group. Since they’re quoting BP over there, I figured I’d share a quick glimpse over here.
“Bike Portland wins again. A large group of us in this neighborhood have been warning all of you & and begging for help to stop the proposed trails by PP&R on the Rose City Golf Course. It’s almost a done deal so enjoy that lower trail along Sacramento while you can as it is now been deemed a mountain bike trail. They will destroy a lot of the wildlife habitat & Flora on either side of the trail, most likely have to remove trees as they want ‘bump outs’ and seating areas. ‘Bump Outs’ are for the walkers who must jump out of the way of the bikes as those who ‘roll faster’ get priority.
Key note: Walkers will be going East and West at the same time. Bikers will be going East and West at the same time. What could possibly go wrong?
Rose City Golf Course has been on Bike Portland
“Hit List” for at least 2 years.”
“ Please understand that the bikers are taking over the entire golf course. That will financially sink it and no more wildlife; no more beautiful small green space. Bikers have miles and miles of trails to ride and they want all of us to pay for it. This is an extremely tragic decision which is being made by Jonathan Fain – PP&R and all because they have gotten down on their knees to pay homage to Bike Portland.”
“ The money was from Metro who gave PP&R the money based on their original application which clearly stated “NO BIKES”. PP&R got the money and Fain, who has a huge conflict of interest, then changed the whole plan and it is now all planned out for the bikes. Read Bike Portland. It’s an eye opener. They are something like 20+ parks they have take over plans for.”
“ How would you feel if Bike Portland got their way and put single track, pumping tracks and burns for mountain bikes all over and throughout the kids playground at Rose City Park or Glenhaven? I see lots of Green space there and they could manage to put in at least 3/4’s of a mile of bike trails. I’m sure the kids and parents won’t mind bikers running the children down.”
Well, that is some excited language.
These nimbys are always whining about losing precious wildlife! If its not bikes driving every single animal to extinction, its the off-leash dogs! What a load of crap! It is pretty well documented what kills urban wildlife- cars and cats. This path will have a negligible effect on wildlife even if it the put an 8′ path through the back 9. If anyone actually cared about enhancing widlife, they would advocate for removing space for driving, spaying/neutering cats, getting PP&R to adopt some modestly sustainable maintenance practices (they are about 30 years out of date).
And adding to your excellent list is keeping your dog on a leash. It’s unacceptable to let them roam.
Thank you for spreading the word. No bikes on the trails for numerous reasons. It is a small golf course with a Federally Protected Wetland area on the back nine. Wildlife trumps spandex.
Mel, I write Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for trails and do trail design. (If you would like, I can link to some.) And boy… are you wrong about the best science we have regarding wildlife impacts and who creates the largest of those impacts. While this gets species specific, the fact is that 1 acre of cleared space (like, you know a golf course fairway) has the same number of direct impacts to over 2 miles of trails. That isn’t county the indirect effects of a golf course, including herbicides, pesticides, fertilizer, invasive species, and irrigation.
Additionally, since 2007 trail standards actually default to shared trails as part of what is called “sustainable trails”. These trails are considered passive use by the EPA (that’s the Obama EPA, not the new idiots running the EPA). Additionally, hundreds of cities across the USA have found that share of narrow (<42″) trails is quite easy and safe/serene for all users.
Wildlife trumps polyester also. Maybe it’s time to remove golf, and convert the fertilized, mowed, leaf-blown lawns with incredible wildlife habitat, with a greatly-expanded wetlands area. You could work trails for biking, walking, birdwatching and running in with that, and even a fenced off-leash dog area, but with less disturbed area than a couple holes of golf.
The environmental value would soar even as it serves far more people.
BikePortland seems to forget that the back 9 is Federally Protected Wetland. There shouldn’t be any trails for walkers or bikers in that area.
And you seem to forget that I have nothing to do with this project. The City of Portland is the entity that wants to build these trails… not me!
And it might be a protected wetland, but there’s already paths out there for golf carts!
Are you not part of the BAC? Are you telling me that you never talked to Fain about why bikes are not allowed on the trail plan. “At a meeting with the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) last night, Parks project managers acknowledged missteps in how the project was first presented to the community and said bicycling access to new trails is now firmly part of the plans. For a project that was initially framed as only including walking trails, it’s an important turnaround that bodes well for future Parks projects — and it validates the Off-Road Cycling Master Plan which recommends bike trails at this and many other urban parks around Portland.”
I’m not in any advisory committees. My role on this has been as a journalist asking questions and then sharing the answers.
Just because you don’t agree with the answers, doesn’t mean something nefarious is going on.
I’m fairly sure you have personally spoken with Fain and your ending statement on the latest blog “Here’s why cyclists won’t be allowed to play on new ‘Back Nine’ golf course trail, your final paragraph, “So there it is: While WE won’t get a full loop to bike on, it will be really cool to have all these new, off-street and unpaved bike routes and the planned trail upgrades are very exciting. The word WE, tells me you have influence on this project.
Jaeger,
My job is to speak directly to people like Fain.
I never said I have no influence.
The original plan was to have a pathway for walkers on the outside of the course. It was changed to the inside and then changed to have trails for bikes after he talked to you and other cyclists.
Hi Jaeger… it’s me.
I am the bicycle lobby and I pull all the strings in Portland to destroy all those who don’t ride or worship bicycles.
I’ll be honest, my most effective op has been to corral all of the worst, most reactionary people on NextDoor and whip them into a frenzy of pearl-clutching absurdities that are so repugnant that any self-respecting city of Portland employee is compelled to ignore or reject them to save face.
The golf course’s fertilized lawns that drain into it are certainly more damaging to the wetlands than trails for walkers or bikers would be. And like Jonathan said, there are already trails for golfers and golf carts. In fact they run right against the wetlands (see google view).
If there shouldn’t be walking or biking trails there due to impacts on the wetlands, then there shouldn’t be a golf course, either.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5415603,-122.5833643,3a,50.1y,147.96h,89.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7GkJCmgi-CRHJUyv_UPPog!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.008916659705803909%26panoid%3D7GkJCmgi-CRHJUyv_UPPog%26yaw%3D147.96192755616423!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
The groundskeepers at Rose City Golf Course are stewards of the course. They use fertilizers and pesticides that eco friendly to wildlife and fauna. The course is close to be certified by the Bird Alliance of Oregon (Audubon Society) which have strict rules. The cart paths go around the wetland area and construction of new paths would disrupt the area.
“ They use fertilizers and pesticides that eco friendly to wildlife and fauna. ”
You’ve got to share where you got this info and what you think is eco friendly and in what quantities. I hate to be confrontational, but I just don’t believe that statement from my own work at cemeteries.
I have a list that is being used on the golf course and remember, they are close to be certified by the Audubon Society like Heron Lake. Your work at the cemeteries obviously have different guidelines.
Since you won’t offer the list we’ll never know, will we? It seems you might not be used to people asking you to back up your statements with some kind of reality?
I note you also mentioned the Audubon society have strict rules, but you forgot to mention about what those rules are even about.
So I’ll ask, what makes the Audubon rules pertinent to anything being discussed?
Golf courses have become more environmentally friendly. The golf course has a series of ponds to recapture water. There are dozens of species of songbirds, owls, coyotes, wild rabbits, ducks, geese, several kinds of raptors including bald eagles, peeping frogs and fish that live on the golf course. The Rose City Golf Course is in the process of getting Audubon certification for meeting certain requirements for wildlife habitat and stewardship. Because the golf course is quieter (at least for now), there is actually more wildlife and habitat than you would find in a typical multi-use city park. Much of the wildlife will leave if the trails go through.
A lot of verbiage telling me nothing and not answering a very simple question. I kind of doubt you have a list of chemicals they use.
Close to calling me a liar, but that’s ok, I know I have the list. I don’t have to prove anything to you. The proof is from the Bird Alliance of Oregon that has strick standards. If the chemicals being used did not meet their standards, the course would not get certified. Rose City Golf Course is close to getting certified.
“ I know I have the list. I don’t have to prove anything to you.”
Laugh out Loud! What is this, Kindergarten?
Oh my gosh. I am thrilled you actually came back to confirm you have no idea about knowing what they are treating the grounds with or probably anything about turf maintenance.
How about a link to the Bird Alliance of Oregon Standards? Or perhaps a letter or link showing the golf course is super duper clean? (Or is sort of on its way to being clean in an undetermined length of time?)
Or is that made up as well?
When you are ready to tell me the chemicals or additives on the list (it’s not a long list as there are only so many things to use) I’ll share my list of double secret probation things as well.
If you are a decent representative of the NIMBY’s still desperately trying to keep cyclists off of the planned golf course trails then those cycle trails can’t come soon enough so more of the citizens can enjoy that area and improve overall transportation goals.
It’s apparent we are not going to change each other’s minds, but thank you for not being confrontational.(LOL) I did my homework and asked for a city records check. If you are that interested, you could do the same thing. You guys love using the word NIMBY…who’s being childish now by name calling. You are right, I want the golf course left alone. Bikers have many places to do their biking, but there are only 5 municipal golf courses and this one is historical.
“I did my homework and asked for a city records check. ”
City records check of what?
“Bikers have many places to do their biking, but there are only 5 municipal golf courses and this one is historical.”
In what way is it historical? It’s from 1923. It also replaced a race track and I’m really starting to think it needs to be replaced by an actual park. However, I must admit that you have a new and unique argument that because it’s somehow historical than everyone just needs to stop trying to use that land.
The site has been a golf course for over 100 years, and remains largely intact, which are two components generally regarded for something to be “historical” (actually, 50 years is a more typical age limit for these things). A third common factor is “significance”, which I don’t really know if or how would apply to this golf course, but I suspect someone could find a way.
I don’t know if being “historical” has any bearing on bike access to the site, nor am I expressing any opinion, but I think it would be hard to argue that the site did not qualify as “historical” at least for Portland golfers.
Being the second oldest municipal golf course in Portland probably makes it historical to some, but I wouldn’t know why. Of course, I don’t know why we have historical roads either so I’m not an expert by any means.
The course’s clubhouse, built in 1932, is now on the National Register of Historic Places. The course has seen several upgrades, including additions of water features and improvements by the Works Progress Administration (WPA).
I was coming to that conclusion that you want the golf course closed. I disagree with you.
Have a good life, Jake.
Fair enough and I appreciate the response. Sounds like we should keep the clubhouse and let the citizens enjoy their tax funded land. I hadn’t wanted the golf course closed, but the pushback you and the others are giving to simple access that benefits everyone has made me rethink my position. If the few golfers are so resistant to others sharing a tax funded largesse, perhaps its time for the City to get out of the golf business and turn its attention to all its taxpayers?
“Have a good life, Jake.”
Jaeger, I am definitely trying, thank you!
The golf course has a series of ponds to recapture water. There are dozens of species of songbirds, owls, coyotes, wild rabbits, ducks, geese, several kinds of raptors including bald eagles, peeping frogs and fish that live on the golf course. The Rose City Golf Course is in the process of getting Audubon certification for meeting certain requirements for wildlife habitat and stewardship. Because the golf course is quieter (at least for now), there is actually more wildlife and habitat than you would find in a typical multi-use city park. Much of the wildlife will leave if the trails go through.
The wildlife that’s fine with a street running through the golf course, parking lots, buildings, and constant use of motorized carts and huge gas-powered tractor mowers will draw the line at living next to some bike riders?
Does the Bird Alliance of Oregon oppose the proposed trails because it shares your belief that much of the wildlife will leave?
I live near a park 1/5th the size of the golf course that has all the types of wildlife you mention (except perhaps that type of frog) plus others. It also has parking lots, tennis courts, sports fields and heavily-used paved multi-use paths, So it seems unlikely adding some additional trails at Rose City will drive most of the wildlife away.
It’s a golf course. Trails don’t belong INSIDE a golf course. If that’s the case, put a trail inside a football field while there is a game taking place. The Rose City Golf Course is a sustaining business and golfers are not going to like walkers, bikers, dogs on the course while they PAID to play a round of golf. The wildlife is use to activity on the golf course, but the construction of putting in an asphalt pathway combined with a soft pathway and moving t-boxes will. I doubt that you have Red-Tailed Hawks and Bald Eagles at your park. Probably squirrels and crows. Also, where the planned pathway is very close to trees and that is concerning for the root system of the trees. A lot of money being spent when the money could be used for a sidewalk on NE 72nd Dr. since bikers took over the North bound lane and fixing the stairs on NE 62nd and NE Sacramento to make it ADA compliant.
Did you just equate a golf course to a football stadium? This just keeps getting better and better 🙂
A sustaining business? You do know the city owns it, right? Any profits goes to plug the leaking holes of the other golf courses.
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/05/portlands-city-owned-golf-courses-are-essentially-broke-auditors-find.html
Granted, a little out of date, but I’m guessing the pandemic didn’t help things.
Anyway, I’ll leave the rest (and there’s plenty more good stuff in there) for someone else.
Hmmm, 2019. That’s during the beginnings of Covid, like you mentioned. I’ve been to GAC meetings, have you? To date, the Rose City Golf Course is not in the red. I’m sorry you don’t see the comparison of at trail going trough an area where people have paid to play a game. Of course I know the city owns the golf course, but they are self sustaining. It makes money through green fees, course usage, and concession sales. The city’s golf program is designed to be self-sufficient, meaning it relies on revenue from these sources to cover operating costs without relying on taxpayer funds. Golfers won’t play if there are bikers and walkers on course. There goes the revenue and there goes the golf course. On another note, there isn’t any money for maintenance for this project. Are you going to be the one to pick up garbage and maintain the paths? SDC funds capital projects, but the funds can not be used for maintenance. That’s why PP&R is $615 million in the hole for maintenance. Build something and then let it fall apart.
“Golfers won’t play if there are bikers and walkers on course. ”
Why wouldn’t they? You said yourself there are only so many places to golf that are affordable. The golfers will either continue to play or they won’t in which case…..well, I can’t think of anything bad that happens if the golfers stop playing.
Thank goodness we will soon be able to test your assertion. When the trails go in (and they will) it will soon be apparent if there is a drop in people golfing. If there is a drop, what then??
“I’ve been to GAC meetings, have you? ”
You don’t even have the list you claimed to have that started this, why should I believe that you’ve been to any meetings?
I don’t think you understand that when conversing with adults it helps to back up what you say with real world examples and/or real things. You said we’re not going to change each other’s minds, but I’m not trying to change yours and not helping me or anyone else see any truth behind your statements isn’t helping you change any minds.
All I really started out wanting from you was the chemicals used because I was curious what they were using, but since that turned out to be a fabrication then it just went downhill from there.
Don’t be lazy, Jake. Do a records check. You made it go down hill because you didn’t get your way. One small battle won. No bikes on the back 9, but of course there are people that will poach it and that tells me everything about certain bikers. Make sure you call me a NIMBY. I know you will want the last word, but I won’t be responding any longer to you.
Nothing you wrote is remotely convincing.
Ridiculous comparison.
Golfers pay a fraction of the cost of the course. Bikers and walkers don’t like being excluded from public land that they support with their taxes, especially while subsidizing the activity of a small segment of the population.
You didn’t finish your thought, but “…will be temporary” would work.
Bald eagles and hawks are common. I’ve seen hundreds there. Don’t know what type of hawks they are.
Parks if fully aware of impacts of trails on trees, and how to locate and build them properly.
Money for anything can always go to something else. You could say the same about money spent on operating the golf course.
Rose City Golf Course, like other Portland’s municipal golf courses, makes money through green fees, course usage, and concession sales. The city’s golf program is designed to be self-sufficient, meaning it relies on revenue from these sources to cover operating costs without relying on taxpayer funds.
Even if every course covered its operation and maintenance costs–which isn’t true anyway–they’re getting free rent of acres of valuable public property.
Allowing people who don’t golf, but own that public property, some access to it via trails is a really small ask.
I’m not sure why you’re even arguing with people here. Parks already made the decision to allow the trails. And given that Parks also owns and operates the golf course, Parks must be confident that its decision is fair and won’t unduly harm its own golf course.
Nothing you wrote shows that anything I wrote is wrong.
The golf course may use eco-friendly fertilizer, but bike paths use none,
I know the cart paths go around the wetlands–I said they are next to it, and showed the google view of that.
Construction of new paths would cause some disturbance (I never said they wouldn’t) but so does maintenance of the golf course (not to mention the impacts when it was constructed) and so does driving carts next to the wetlands.
Bike trails would not be located in the wetlands, either, and bikes don’t cause greater impacts than golf carts.
Since you brought up the Bird Alliance of Portland, what do you think it would think of converting the golf course to a nature preserve with walking and biking trails?
“the impacts when the golf course was constructed”
Since the golf course sits on a former race course for motorized vehicles, I’m guessing the impacts were mostly positive for the site and the surrounding community.
That golf course gets the most use when it’s snow covered. On snow days, the golf course reverts back to community property. It’s a beautiful anarchy. Kids sled the hills. Dogs run free. More people use the golf course on snow days than on the busiest day during golf season.
Close the golf course. Turn it into a park and build some high rises and a new elementary school. Add a new max station on 74th.
Skiing the back 9 at Rose City is one of my cherished Portland activities. I wish we had more snow days.
Seriously? Cue the future articles where authors are lamenting (and commentary) that some riders are “poaching” the trail and “ruining it for everyone” and “this is why we can’t have nice things”. When right here, right now, staff is intentionally EXCLUDING BIKES because of the “playability “ of the course. Yep, a silent bike is gonna ruin it for a sport that is overwhelmingly by any measure WHITE, RICH and MALE and not to mention, senior.
So where are portlands true priorities? Listed above.
Not to be uncharitable — maybe I’m wrong — but I get the sense that people don’t truly understand network effects and the importance of connectivity. 1.8 miles isn’t 82% as useful as 2.2 miles. It’s much less. For a lot of people, the gap in the network means that they simply won’t use this bike route, I assume. And if so, those 1.8 miles aren’t providing any benefit.
I’ve heard connectivity described as following an S-curve (connectivity on the x-axis, value on the y-axis).
At first, as connectivity improves, it’s still low enough where it doesn’t provide much value: the bottom horizontal part of the S.Then connectivity becomes strong enough where people actually want to use the network: the vertical part of the S.Finally, there’s enough connectivity where diminishing returns set in and additional connectivity doesn’t really matter: the top horizontal part of the S.I’m not sure how much a lack of understanding is the issue here though. Even if the stakeholders all deeply understood the network effects, it still seems likely that some sort of power politics is at play here where the pro-bike people don’t have enough power to get more than this 1.8 mile compromise.
On your map, there is several green lines coming off of 72nd Dr. and by the clubhouse. What is that?
Ask Google. No not like a Google search. I mean that it’s a screen shot of Google’s trail data overlaid on Google aerial’s imagery from maps.google.com. BikePortland didn’t make that map.