Hi friends. Welcome to the week.
Here are the most notable stories of the past seven days…
Seattle’s biking stride: It’s hard not to be a bit envious of the groove that Seattle’s transportation bureau is in right now. With several key bike projects lining up and solid political leadership behind adopted bike plans, their DOT has dubbed this “Hot Bike Summer.” (The Urbanist)
Auto-shifting, finally? The bike industry has chased automatic shifting systems for many years, but this attempt from Bafang, which integrates it all into a nifty three-speed rear hub looks very promising. (Electrek)
Body image: Concerns and debate over pro cycling’s dysfunctional relationship with food, body image, and personal health have reached such a high level that a rider advocacy group has called on the UCI (international governing body of pro cycling) to act. (Velo)
Not just cars: As non-car vehicles like bikes and scooters have gotten more popular, cities must adapt and create more safer space on the road for them. If not, we risk backlash from Big Auto and public sentiment will sour. (Wall St. Journal)
Manhattan revitalization: Lots of talk in Portland about how to revitalize downtown and I’ve been saying the same damn thing the entire time: Make it harder and more expensive to drive there, while boosting the quality of bikeways and walkable public spaces and we’ll see a renaissance of the central city on par with what’s happened in Manhattan. (Gothamist)
Armadillos in L.A.: Looks like Los Angeles’ DOT is also looking to upgrade from plastic posts, but instead of the nice concrete curbs we get, they’re using plastic “armadillo” curbs from Zicla. (Streetsblog LA)
No more street art: Cities are facing a mandate to remove rainbow-colored crosswalks and other street art due to an order from the Trump Administration whose DOT Secretary believes they are often political in nature and don’t belong in the street. (Washington Post)
It’s all about power: I like how this essay gets at one of my key talking points about why e-bikes are so popular: Because they alter the typical power dynamic on American roads and make bike riders feel like they’re on a bit more equal footing with car users. (WBUR)
The low-car trend: I love seeing a level-headed analysis of how it’s actually not that big a deal to live with one less car. This type of article gives me hope! (The Future of Where)
Video of the Week: OK, it has finally happened. I’ve said for years that Portland is the best city for bicycling in the world and some folks just don’t understand. Well, look at this, YouTuber David Wen visited and says Portland is the “coolest city for cycling in the world.” Now just add better bike infrastructure and we will be the Best Cycling in the World for real!
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.
For the BP readership: Regarding the plastic low mounted delineators in the photo and article… this product’s animal name is “Zebra”, a different product has the name of ‘Armadillo’ and others ‘hedgehogs’…each has either a different placement / function or profile. Whether each will have its ‘Kleenex moment’ will depend of the regionalism of exposure to the animal: Armadillo (TX / SW USA), Hedgehog (UK), Banana Slug (Cali Coast), Zebra (Spain?) etc.
“Zebra” is a rather offensive racist term in most of the USA.
No, it’s not. If you’re genuinely concerned about saying zebra though, just say it like the Brits – “ZEB-ra.” Most Americans will be too distracted by the pronunciation to be offended.
I’m 49 and I’ve never heard of this.
I found the low car trend read interesting, but the premise is slightly flawed. Cars have both fixed and variable costs that can vary greatly. My car has been paid off for 10 years, and the only truly fixed cost is insurance. Everything else varies by how much it’s driven.
And the analysis of work/kids/groceries is so annoyingly shallow too. Relying solely on work from home and grocery delivery as vectors for change is silly. I’m living (part time) in the Seattle suburbs (Issaquah) and commuting to downtown Seattle three days a week. I’m doing all that without a car, and it’s totally fine. I ride my bike in, and I take the bus back. Not every metro area has Seattle-level transit options, but still. Driving to work is the most convenient option for a majority of people, but I do not believe it’s the only one for most people.
And don’t even get me started on grocery shopping. The entire American concept of big grocery hauls is not the norm globally, and people have been eating food since long before the car was invented. I know so many people who live within walking distance of quality grocery options who drive and get more than they could carry by default, despite the fact that they could have fresher produce and be more flexible if they dropped by a few times a week instead. And it should be said that getting groceries delivered by an underpaid gig worker is a poor solution to the general crisis of housing and transportation in the US!
I also just think the default mode of operation of one car per driving age household member is insane on its face, no matter how remote the place you live is
If I had a safe walking journey to my local grocery store, yes, <1 mile away, then I’d walk. As it isn’t safe, I drive and only usually get about 1 or 2 bags of groceries a week.
I don’t know you, so can’t comment on your specific situation but I’m talking about people who live in the 20s and 30s in SE Portland and drive to Freddie’s on Hawthorne when they could definitely walk. On top of all the safety and built environment reasons people feel like they need to drive to the grocery store, the American cultural norm of mega grocery shop hauls once a week (or less) makes it so people don’t even think to walk even if they could. I find that to be interesting and worth exploring in some depth, but the piece linked is not, and I think that’s a shame
People also drive to the store because they don’t like carrying bags of potentially heavy groceries, or because of the weather, or they’re tight for time, or any number of reasons.
And plenty of Europeans do big shopping trips to big stores (though mostly not on the scale of Costco). I’d be willing to bet that a majority of European shopping occurs in American sized grocery stores accessed by car. You just don’t see it that much as a tourist.
This is just dodging the point. Blumdrew even said, he has a car. So I don’t think he was suggesting you should walk to the store in an atmospheric river. (Although you could just wait till the next day)
And carrying heavy bags is exactly what is solved by making smaller trips.
I agree, if you drive to the store less than a mile away, that is a cultural problem. There are vanishingly few good reasons for it.
If making several smaller walking trips per week to a grocery store a mile away works for you, that’s great, but there are many practical reasons why it doesn’t work for everyone, even if you don’t judge those as sufficiently “good”. It’s not like you can split a gallon of milk over multiple trips to lighten the load, and many people don’t want to spend an hour each day getting their daily groceries for dinner.
But I think it’s great if that works for your schedule and lifestyle.
Small grocery store trips take much less time than an hour, especially if you have something on the way home from work (or another daily trip). When I lived near 17th and Rhine, I’d often swing by People’s on the way home from PSU to pick up dinner, and that probably added 15 total minutes to my commute, most of which would be a longer walk home (this could be mitigated if I timed it perfectly with the southbound #70, but that rarely happened as all #70 riders know).
I sometimes think people are entirely unaware of how this works in practice. I can do a two day grocery shop in about 5 minutes if time is an issue and I’m at a store I go to frequently. There is a time trade off for making the trip a lot, but I’ve purposefully chosen to live in places where it didn’t add significant time to live my life this way
I just got back from a visit to 6 different European countries, both in big cities, smaller ones, and rural areas. We did a lot of grocery shopping, and I was on foot with bags. Here is what I observed:
In the big city centers, people are basically exclusively walking. You see bags, backpacks, and “old lady” hand carts (which I think more people here should use). If you went anywhere near the edges of these city centers, you would see parking lots, and the majority of people were driving. At about half the grocery stores I walked to, I was one of the few people walking.
Outside of big city centers with their expensive artisanal markets and tiny “Express” grocery stores, you see basically what you see at the Trader Joe’s in Hollywood. The majority are driving, even short distances, and some people are walking. You don’t see Costcos and Home Depots, but an Aldi and a Carrefour outside of the city center feels just like a Trader Joe’s or a small Fred Meyer.
Before living in Portland, I lived in Vancouver, BC. where walking to grocery store is more the norm. An additional side benefit is having many small grocery stores dispersed and more specialty providers. The last neighborhood we lived in was near Commercial Street- we had a couple of small grocery stores, a chicken guy, a couple of bakeries, a Japanese grocery and a liquor store all within a 20 minute walk. Now I live a little over a mile from New Seasons- but they seem to be getting worse every year.
I’m still not seeing your point. As a carfree household we make 1 shopping trip a week and have for decades. It’s only a 10minute walk to the store, but why make it multiple times a week?
When money was a lot tighter it was part of the economizing – which I learned from my mom. Make a menu. Make a list. Stick to it.
The massive advantage of this is there’s never the “what are we going to have for dinner tonight?” Followed by the run to the store or punting and getting restaurant/convenience food. It’s also easier to buy bigger amounts and portion them.
Though, back in the 80’s on our farm it was a month long menu and we made one big trip. 12 miles into Dallas.
Why make it multiple times a week?
I do it because I strongly prefer fresh produce, especially fruit in the summer, that I can be sure is good. I don’t have any hard data, but I also think it reduces food waste since I am much less likely to buy food I don’t want or end up cooking. In my experience, it’s no more expensive to do piecemeal daily-ish grocery shopping compared to bulk, as long as you’ve got an eye for a deal and you stick to the simple stuff. I still buy some things in bulk (olive oil, rice, etc.) and those are trips where I may consider driving, but usually manage fine on my bike.
I like deciding what I’m going to eat by what produce is on sale or looks good on a given day at the store. I usually cook enough for two days at once, so I tend to shop every other day. It’s a minor hassle, but I like my routine. I’m also a 29 year old with no kids though.
I’ll admit that my personal preferences shape this deeply, but those preferences are influenced by living mostly without a car (I own one, but my partner uses it for work and I tend to handle the groceries and cooking by default). I generally think grocery shopping norms play a big role in why people feel they need a car, and if we want to move to a more sustainable future, changing those norms are important. I don’t think there’s anything horribly wrong with doing your grocery shopping once a week, but I do think implying that you need a car to grocery shop cost-effectively is – even if you don’t factor in just the marginal cost of the car trips.
I’m sorry, I stil think the notion that the 1/week shopping paradigm is somehow a cause of more driving isn’t born out.
Keep in mind that the median distance from home to a grocery store for the average *urban* dweller is .9 miles. (3miles for rural dwellers)
That means that to walk to the store, shop and return would take (for 50% of urban americans) at least 45 min a trip. At that point, if you are determined to not use a car, a single trip a week is just good sense. If you don’t want to walk that far (most Americans won’t) and use a car, then 1/week shopping *reduces* car trips.
So, the thing leading to more car use is the long average distance to food, not 1/week shopping.
A weeks worth of groceries for a two person household is more than most people are willing to carry on a walk, so shopping for a week at a time typically means driving, regardless of distance. And I would say that the relatively long distance between grocery stores and where people live is just evidence of the strong cultural preference for larger car-based grocery trips. But I would also say that median statistic is not useful without a good definition of “urban”, and the ability to walk to a nearby grocery store is very context dependent
It’s not so much that typical American grocery stores habits directly cause more driving, it’s that the habits and norms around grocery shopping make it hard for people to imagine how they would fulfill a critical basic need without a car. I think this presents a real barrier to people ditching cars, which in turn causes more driving, and reducing driving on a 1 mile grocery trip is more important as it fulfills a social or cultural end than a strictly VMT accounting one.
Most people’s longest trip is a commute to work, so it gets a lot of focus on policy towards reducing car use, but I find that short trips are much more interesting and important for reducing the need for a car writ large. You’re welcome to feel otherwise, but that’s the broader idea I’m trying to touch on
Nope. It really doesn’t. It means having something to carry the stuff in. My GF is 56 years old, 4’10” tall and 105lbs. When I was injured she easily did a 2 store/week long shopping trip for the 2 of us. She has a good rolling cart that handled the nasty surface between us and the store pretty well. The new trip is marginally longer but much better surface.
The issue isn’t weight – it’s distance.
Interesting discussion. I’m not really informed enough to know whether weight or distance is a more predictive variable for frequency of grocery shopping. I only have anecdotal evidence having lived overseas (mostly in/around Germany). My experience generally reflects Chris I above, i.e., frequent, smaller shops within the city and Carrefour-type stores on the edge.
Here is a chart from a report on “Eco friendly grocery stores.” Small Supermarkets (SSM), Large Super markets (LSM) and Hypermarkets (>2500m^2). One important variable that leads people in the US to drive to stores is the type of store available. Look at the chart to find out how the US is an outlier in comparison to nearly all developed countries.
Our car-oriented development, and the corresponding streetscape tends to favor larger, more sparse grocery chains. My parents, for example, live in a food desert in E Po. and often drive ~5mi one way to get groceries. When I lived in SW Portland I rode my bike ~2mi and carried 6 bags of groceries. The absence of smaller stores (like bodegas in NYC), means a sort of vicious cycle where people drive to the store because there are few options within walking distance, and stores perpetuate this demand by building big and with greater distance between.
“My parents, for example, live in a food desert in E Po. and often drive ~5mi one way to get groceries.”
How close would the store need to be for them to do their shopping without a vehicle?
This is almost entirely incidental to the larger point. I’m not really doubting that distance to the store plays a role in people not walking, because the relative sparseness of grocery stores is itself a reflection of the auto-oriented grocery shopping cultural norm. My point is to at this norm is pervasive enough that even when people could walk to the store, they often don’t, and this increases people’s perception that they need a car.
A vigorous and dedicated walker can reach anywhere in Portland. I’ve walked to the airport, for example. But there are plenty of places that have no grocery stores in walking range for ordinary folks (as defined by them, not by me).
There’s precious little grocery action near Lewis & Clark, for example.
And not everyone wants to shop at the store that happens to be nearest them. Different stores have different prices and offerings that appeal to different people, so just because you live next to “that Safeway” downtown doesn’t mean you’re going to shop there.
So yeah… I think the world he lives in is called “the real world”.
My comment has to do with your comment which asserted there’s nowhere (in all caps, even) in Portland where you can’t walk to a grocery store, and you were mistaken. That’s fine, we all make mistakes, but most of us don’t resort to personal attacks when they’re pointed out.
Yes; I read yours, and I commented on it. I did not misrepresent what you wrote.
Most people here are able to disagree, even strongly, without being mean. I don’t know why you consistently struggle with that.
Right?? I can’t believe JM lets all these opinions from people with different needs and abilities on his blog. The sheer audacity to think that not everyone has the time or is capable of walking where they want when they want smacks a bit of MAGA to me.
Your ableism is simply off the chart tonight. Everyone has their own level of what they consider safe and it’s truly very arrogant to decide for them what that is. You feel safe? Good for you. There were plenty of places my partner didn’t feel safe walking and that was even pre-pandemic.
Doubling down on someone else’s or their families abilities and calling them liars when you..have..no…idea what their circumstances are is hateful, intolerant and ugly.
I think the fixed vs variable cost is an interesting part of this overall story. I agree that the author underweights the value of the variable costs.
When I own a car, I’m almost buying into a “lifestyle” characterized by freedom and flexibility. I can go anywhere! But from my perspective, with a little planning and forethought, I can save money, save wear-and-tear on the motor vehicle, and get some exercise by using the car only for the kind of trip that’s ill suited to my preferred transportation alternatives: trips out of town, up the mountain, hauling lumber, etc.
Even with regards to the two vehicles my family owns (a hybrid and an old pickup truck), I have the luxury of not generally having to commute downtown or make a long highway drive in the pickup, or haul compost in the Corolla. The flexibility of owning a pickup has been great for us (I do a lot of carpentry and she does a lot of gardening), but why would I use the less efficient vehicle for a long road trip? The variable costs are always in mind.
This has made me wonder:
Is it possible that switching from gas to electric vehicles will lower the relative weight we put on our variable costs? In other words, will people be *more* willing to drive electric than gas?
With gas, we pay at the pump each time, and there’s a very visible per-gallon and per-fill-up price. With electric car, if charging at home, the cost is just rolled into one’s electric bill, and most of us use auto-pay for that, right?
In addition, residential electricity generally isn’t carbon free, but the nature of the monthly bill and distant electricity generation obscure the carbon cost, especially compared to buying and literally burning a gallon of gasoline.
I think that’s a really interesting point, and on the strictly simple microeconomic front I tend to agree. EV cars have lower variable costs and higher fixed costs (currently), so an economy minded driver may end up driving more.
In practice, it’s probably more complicated than this, and I’m generally of the opinion that most driving habits are only loosely related to microeconomics. Of course, there’s some relationship between cost of driving and amount driven, but most people also have a hard floor until they make some substantial life changes (a move, choosing transit, etc.).
This is why we should stop advocating for e-bikes and instead advocate for gasoline powered mopeds where “there’s a very visible per-gallon and per-fill-up price. With electric bikes the cost is just rolled into one’s electric bill and most of us use auto-pay for that, right?”
In addition, residential electricity generally isn’t carbon free, but the nature of the monthly bill and distant electricity generation obscure the carbon cost, especially compared to buying and literally burning a gallon of gasoline.”
Gas-powered moped revolution!
Steel and gasoline are real!
PS: It’s always some guy with a gas-guzzling truck/SUV coming up with absurd rationalizations for their continued burning of fossil fuels.
Jonathan, I’m curious why you chose to publish this comment — it is nothing but a personal attack, not relevant to anything. Could you speak to the tone you want in the comments section?
I’m taking a closer look now. I’ve been worried about BB so I’m not surprised.
Watts is using another Name but persists in doing what he does which a lot of people ( not just me ) got tired of.
I am pointing out the obvious.
Solar Constantly trashes this city and Watts pile on and calls in “name calling” like most MAGA victims do.
Go ahead and get rid of me and continue publishing MAGA BS from Watts and Jake.
It’s your website.
Hi BB,
You continue to lob personal insults and do name-calling – both of which cross my red line when it comes to being a member of this commenting community. And yes, it is my website and I am the judge of who does what and whether it’s OK or not. It also does not appear to me that you are making any effort – or that you care at all – about trying to keep this space productive and supportive. And yes, that’s possible even if you strongly disagree with others. I don’t feel like I can trust you yet and I don’t have time to closely monitor each individual person, therefore I am adding you to our list of folks who cannot comment. If you would like to continue to comment, feel free to email me maus.jonathan@gmail.com and we can talk about it privately.
“how it’s actually not that big a deal to live with one less car.”
…and as a lifelong non-driver, here’s where I part ways with the movement in general. Plenty of families in my neighborhood—including the periphery of BikeLoud—live with ONE car, but mine continues to be the only household with none, and we’re not looking to make the cycling experience more familiar to auto ownership.
Thank you Jonathan!!
Here are some thoughts on the low-car trend piece:
I went to grad school in New York City, and didn’t own a car, so I was excited, when I moved to Portland, to ride a bike and take the MAX everywhere. I didn’t have a lot disposable cash to put into a car, and loved the idea that I wouldn’t need one to live here.
I love exploring the mountains, though, and when I realized the cost and inconvenience of renting a car every week to go hiking, I bought a friend’s old Civic. I was also getting tired of trips to the laundromat with only the amount of laundry I could carry in an old Kelty backpack.
I still tried to live a “low-car” lifestyle though! I would literally count the number of days I didn’t drive anywhere, and I still used bike/MAX for commuting to work downtown. Maybe the homo economicus take on this is that I was prioritizing minimizing the per-day costs of owning a car, and just writing off the fixed costs as a necessary baseline. I valued the flexibility and range the car allows me, but didn’t want to pay for uses that could be substituted with transit/bike/walk.
When I married my wife, she came with her own Civic. I thought about trying to make a go of it with a single car for the two of us, but it was a non-starter. She’s not as interested in mass transit or cycling, and since we’re both musicians, and may work odd hours, out of town, and with instruments or equipment to haul, the two motor vehicles are a godsend.
Seriously, I’ve ridden to concerts with 14 pound brass instrument on my back, and a tuxedo wadded up in a saddlebag, but my wife is not interested in combing her fancy performance clothing with rain or chain grease.
For that matter, I still like to go hiking, and skiing these days- just because I have a few days off and I take a car up the mountain to go camping, doesn’t mean my wife’s reliance on a car decreases.
I’m still less reliant on a car: my workplace is mostly fixed downtown, and with safe bike parking, a locker, a place to dry out rain gear, etc., it’s easy for me to use my e-bike to get downtown in 25 minutes, or take a MAX, or take a bus/MAX transfer, if I can stomach the longer commuting time.
Last year, when I broke my arm riding to work, I took mass transit any places that I wouldn’t normally.
When we’ve had a car in the shop for a while, I can still get around town, but it’s very difficult and complicated to get up to the mountain. I tried to go skiing one day, but the transfers for the trip (Trimet, then SAM, then Timberline Express) were brutal: getting up at 5am, hoping to make a tight transfer, then waiting a loooong time in the cold.
Why the long, navel gazing story? I believe that there are a lot of valid reasons to own a car, and drive it. In a lot of areas of my thinking, I’ve moved from an environmentalism of the “hair shirt,” Sierra club, or “degrowth” variety to a more humanistic, abundance oriented environmentalism.
Maybe that’s just the reputedly inevitable slide from youthful radicalism into middle-aged conservatism. If so, I’ll own it!
If it’s more indicative of a philosophical trend in environmental thinking, I think it represents a turn away from the “wilderness” environmentalism of Muir, with its now-obvious erasure of first peoples, to a conception of a garden planet. As a practical matter, we humans have dominion over the planet, albeit with imperfect, sometimes ignorant control of its features and processes. With respect to all the human-inhabited continents and islands, humans have been the prime ecological movers for millennia, or at least centuries. It’s time for us to own up to that fact, and own the responsibility of maintaining this, our garden! That’s a different perspective from a dualistic perspective of humanity/wilderness.
As a political manner, it’s become clear that degrowth politics hasn’t excited enough voters to win durable majorities in the world’s democracies. While anti-nuclear and anti-homebuilding majorities have managed to stifle some kinds of development in places like the UK, US, and Germany, populist authoritarian movements in those countries risk democratic backsliding, and usually those governments have a terrible environmental track record.
Environmental politics has had a good run in the US, with conservation (reforestation, carbon emissions decoupling from GDP) and preservation (popular State and National Parks, lots of interest in recreation in wild places) policy outcomes that should make us truly proud.
To build durable governing majorities, we need to come up with ways to talk about and address humans’ insatiable desire for increased quality of life. In the case of transportation, we need to address people’s desire for flexibility, speed, and predictability.
Some of us are willing to take extra time to commute by transit or ride a bike in the rain because we find driving stressful and prefer getting some exercise. Maybe some of the motivation is environmental for a number of people. For a lot of people, though, the costs of driving a car aren’t even computed, next to the benefits of auto-motivity. Substitution will require *attractive* alternatives, and the conversation around transportation needs to foreground the benefits. That’s a tough sell.
Good lord this ended up being really long.
For anyone who follows Seattle the Seattle Bike Blog guy, it’s often an interesting read. Though not half as newsworthy and current as bikeportland, it still has some decent up-to-date info. I loved his take on Portland, whose downtown pales in comparison to Seattle (particularly with the new Alaskan way trail). I haven’t been to Seattle to visit fam in a minute, and it seems to have changed markedly.
A couple years ago there was a fairly large survey from Commute Seattle, which gave some data on the mode shift pre- and post- pandemic. One thing that struck me was the bike mode share remained the same. The Pandemic Related Changes graph is very interesting and worth a look.
It was good to see some old data on Greenways, which are taking shape in Seattle. There is still some question whether they increase ridership or whether they attract current riders, but the data is here, and a similar history to Portland here. I see this as a 1) fungible definition of what greenways are and 2) a discrepancy of what people expect from greenways (e.g., very few cars, slow speeds, quiet streets), and what actually occurs due to the lack of divertors and bike route prioritization. Seattle Bike Blog’s take is spot on:
There’s a lot of difference in the geography and demographics between Portland and Seattle (one of the cities historically with the most earth moved like SF and Boston). Both Portland and Seattle still have a largely car-oriented downtown and a freeway splitting the city.
But one important difference seems to be SDOT prioritizing actual separation for modes from downtown to the surrounding neighborhoods. That’s not happening in Portland, nor is it in the works here. In Seattle lot of that change is via 2-way cycletracks probably because of the more haphazard street grid. The low-stress network remains pretty basic, and has a lot of missing connections. Ballard and Capitol Hill still remain out of reach for people who don’t ride with cars. But they’re certainly heading in the right direction.
I’ve ridden on a fair number of those separated routes, and many are converted rail ROWs or are along lakes or other barriers that naturally prevent cross-traffic (like Naito does). Those create great opportunities for high quality bike infrastructure. Portland has many fewer such opportunities because of our size, history, and geography.
Where Seattle has carved out protected lanes on real streets (such as through downtown), I found them sucky to ride on because the dedicated signals needed to prevent hooks required frequent stops which are exceedingly frustrating on a gentle downhill grade.
I have less experience on the protected routes along streets outside downtown, so maybe those are better.
I recently started a job in Seattle and am living part-time all the way out in Issaquah and have been riding in a few times a week, though mostly on regional bikeways with the last-mile connections through downtown. I generally really like Seattle’s protected bikeway network, but there are some major issues with it, especially when two way routes on one side of the road cross over, sometimes with minimal to no signage (Pine and Melrose is particularly bad imo).
Also, the map you link has a label for Capitol Hill that doesn’t really mesh super well with my experience on where the heart of the neighborhood is. Pike/Pine/Broadway are more identifiable as Capitol Hill, albeit on the southern edge, than the area around where the text is (it’s all Capitol Hill, so sort of splitting hairs here). And for Ballard, taking the route via the Locks is super chill, even if it isn’t the easiest to navigate on the fly. The Locks can be annoying to cross if its busy though, but that’s pedestrian traffic and gawkers which I don’t usually mind. I actually think it’s very bad design for them to mark the Ballard Bridge the same way as the Locks. I wouldn’t ever walk a bike across the Ballard Bridge.
I usually ride into work on 2nd, and find the light timings to be sort of bad unless you’re willing to cheat a bit and take a few calculated risks. Not really an ideal situation, and not very doable when its super busy during peak commute hours.
Overall, even with the protected routes and long trails, Portland is far easier to ride a bike in than Seattle. The hills and the crazy drivers make the biggest difference, and I have to be more careful route planning here than I ever have in Portland. Maybe that’ll fade as I get more familiar with routes in Seattle, but I find that if I make a wrong turn in Seattle it can be catastrophically dangerous in a way Portland just isn’t. Good signage and intuitive routes can really be lacking in Seattle, I suppose I’ll always complain about that
Thanks blumdrew and congrats on the part time job. I haven’t ridden in Seattle in a while so you guys would know better than I. It does seem like SDOT (in kind of typical US engineering) is squeezing two-way cycle tracks and separated lanes in on streets that might benefit from simplification. Pine and Melrose exemplifies this. Just like with Portland, engineers are likely given a political mandate to maintain car space, and told to fit it in (as opposed to in Paris and NYC where entire or half streets are simply pedestrianized, or turned into a bike lane.
One thing I think Portland is starting to slowly realize is that the residential streets we have been relying on (in lieu of actual infrastructure) are increasing in density and are frequently more developed. We can kind of look to Seattle as the future in that aspect. Seattle’s density is almost 2x that of Portland (although E Portland skews this a bit). That means the number of cars on any given residential street is much higher. So just riding around randomly on residential streets in SE/NE Portland isn’t going to get you hurt (or at least annoyed) as fast as in Seattle.
When I rode the Palouse (def recommend) to my relatives, I was astounded at the number of MUPs criss-crossing the city compared to Portland. That seems to be more a function of lucky geography than planning. But it’s a huge advantage Seattle has over Portland, particularly for longer distance commuters and rec.
One last note: The Seattle Bike Blog guy makes the assertion that Seattle actually had an increase in the number of “non-remote work trips” from 3% prior to the pandemic to 6% after. Based on the average commute distance of 3.7mi, and the BMP list of projects, if SDOT is able to connect neighborhoods immediately surrounding downtown with low-stress infra, it’s entirely possible they’ll see future growth.
I don’t know how the math works out, but, in my experience, Seattle tends to have narrower and more constricted residential streets than Portland. They are ‘naturally’ calm. Often narrow streets are filled with parked cars on both sides leaving only a narrow lane free. There are also lots of little roundabouts and rough cobbles. All these things slow down (bike and car) traffic.
Yes, Micah I also experienced narrower residential streets, which is nice (hopefully something the SIPP will focus on).
This may be just anecdotal, since I’ve only ridden in Seattle a handful of times, but the residential streets that I’ve been on seem to be frequently broken up by other faster, more auto-centric streets, sometimes related to the grid, which is much less uniform than Pland. Seattle Neighborhood Greenways appears to have a similar issue with the fragmented nature of greenways. As Blum said above, you need to pay attention much more in Seattle which residential street you’re taking.
I think where Seattle has a leg up on Portland is it’s intention in planning projects:
The city has purposely changed to an intentional network policy, not one of geographically arbitrary projects as is often the case in Portland. This is the map of current, gaps, and planned. The orange is crowd-sourced.
In 2009 I worked in Seattle for several months, and rode all over town. I found the city’s approach to cycling less amenable than Portland’s.
In short, Seattle seemed to put a lot of emphasis on its MUPs (Burke-Gilman being the star), had some “greenways”, and was frustratingly short on bike lanes for major routes. Like, between any two destinations, there’d be a few arterials missing a bike lane that would have created a fairly direct trip.
Also frustrating was the crowding on Burke-Gilman: since there were relatively few bike lanes, and I didn’t relish taking the lane on arterials, I spent a lot of time wading through crowds of pedestrians near UW.
In contrast, 2009 Portland was notable *because* of its reliance on now-maligned bike lanes on arterials. While Portland wasn’t trying to connect large areas of town with low-car-interaction MUPs, I could at least get almost anywhere I needed with some dedicated space on the road, and because bike lanes don’t get crowded like paths do, I appreciated that I could ride at speed.
Seattle has obviously come a long way!
Totally agree. I bike commuted in Seattle 2001-2009. I just spent a few days there last week and was surprised by big and little changes all over the place that made biking around nicer compared to BITD.
any last few days update on BarricadesGate? (tiny bit surprised you didn’t mention it here!!!)
Hi Jasper. I haven’t heard anything new. And yes, I could have shared The Oregonian’s story about it, but I’m sure I will link to that some other time.
Not in this week’s news: Depave’s installation at 7th/Sandy/SE Washington is making bike transit through this vital corridor even more unsafe again this summer. I think it’s great to put underused space to work but not when it blocks sight lines of traffic turning right on to Washington from sandy as you come south on 7th, or block the existing crossing to make the northbound left across sandy much more difficult. At the very least PBoT needs to do better work and close westbound access to Washington from motor vehicles, find a design that does not block or endanger cyclists, and/or not allow for installations that decrease safety in this vital corridor.
For real, the blumenauer bridge has been a game changer to connect NE and SE but this area is a vital link and really not a place for a pedestrian plaza.
I rode this on Saturday: northbound 7th, turning left at the depave install. The left turn for bikes is terrible, you have to ride about 25-feet past the intersection than make a really sharp turn. The skate ramps really block the views. The skateboarders were all lined up up uphill from the ramps so they could get speed which means they are going fast across the bike lane. The design is a mess. I haven’t really studied it, but the northbound route would be greatly improved if they just relocated the skate ramps as far east as possible and kept the bike lanes on the west side of the street
I think there’s plenty of room for a pedestrian plaza, they just have to design it around it being a bike route. Like a normal bike lane on each side of the road, connecting normally to the 7th lanes would work fine. Hell, they could even make cars do awkward jug handly turns to get around a straight line route for northbound bikes on 7th instead of prioritizing through traffic on Sandy. I think that’s the real issue, not the pedestrian plaza
Designing the plaza in a way that encourages the people who want to use it (where the plaza sits between the bike lanes) will just create ped/bike conflicts in the lanes, especially during the hosted events. Doesn’t really sound very safe to me.
I dunno, it’s a big space and I’m sure it’s possible to plan an event around occasional bike traffic. Obviously not a given, but surely we can have nice plazas and bikes interacting without issue
Seattle also removed its highway that was blocking their waterfront. Unlike Portland who not only will not open up their east bank in a similar manner, but is trying to actually expand the completely redundant, soon to be destroyed by an earthquake, i5 freeway
I mean Seattle replaced their waterfront freeway with a crazy expensive bored tunnel that doesn’t get much traffic, and is actively expanding I5 too
They replaced it with a tunnel, and their surface road is 8 lanes wide in spots:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/SBfFJdMF8WBNQx6aA
It’s an improvement over that hulking viaduct, but let’s not give them too much credit here.