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.
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.
“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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.