The annual adjustment of the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) Climate Investment Plan (CIP) has freed up $15 million in climate tax revenue that could be put toward a transportation-related program. On Thursday, the Portland City Council Climate, Resilience, and Land Use Committee will host an in-depth discussion about some of the ideas that have been put forward for how to spend that money.
Right now, the PCEF Committee has recommended switching that chunk of revenue from an electric vehicle subsidy program to a home energy program. But some members of City Council have ideas of their own.
So far it seems the two leading ideas are to put this $15 million toward either transit (to help TriMet stave off service cuts), and/or to make an investment in bicycling. Councilor Mitch Green supports transit funding, and Committee Chair Councilor Steve Novick has made it clear he supports an idea that would boost bicycling.
Last week I reported on a novel cycling promotional concept that Novick has gotten behind. I only shared a snippet of the plan. Today I can share the entire thing.
Dubbed “Bikeable Portland,” this plan is only in a conceptual phase. It’s based off a 2024 memo from Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller. The new, 5-page document was prepared by PBOT at the request of Councilor Novick who wanted to see a more shovel-ready version of Geller’s plan.
“This project will catalyze
– From Bikeable Portland concept plan
momentum for the next 20 years of biking in Portland by aiming to restore bike ridership
back to pre-pandemic levels.”
The gist is that both Geller and Novick believe Portland’s bike infrastructure network is much better than current ridership implies. They see that ridership plummeted while the network got better (since 2010 (when the Bicycle Plan for 2030 was adopted), PBOT has added 160 miles to the bikeway network). That’s in part why Geller has long held the view (of which he’s convinced Novick of too) that the mantra “build it and they will come” hasn’t really panned out.
Since bike infrastructure has improved at the same time ridership has declined, Novick told me last week, “we should at least consider some non-infrastructure ideas.” That’s how we got to this Bikeable Portland concept.
The idea is to focus on encouraging Portlanders to use what we already have. For example, in its proposed budget, the plurality of funding in the concept plan would go toward paying organizers to offer neighborhood rides. Imagine hundreds of mini Sunday Parkways all over town, each one hoping to light the spark in participants so they’ll keep riding on their own.
According to the concept plan, Bikeable Portland will, “Catalyze momentum for the next 20 years of biking in Portland by aiming to restore bike ridership back to pre-pandemic levels.” Below is more about the goals of the project:
As proposed by PBOT’s bicycle coordinator, the goal of this project would be to ignite and sustain the momentum we once had for making Portland bikeable by leveraging and celebrating our progress in building Portland’s world class bike network. The project’s intent is to get more people to choose to bicycle by focusing on three mutually reinforcing actions:
- Igniting a civic conversation about the ease, desirability and benefits of biking and Portland’s commitment in continuing to advance as a bikeable city.
- Creating consistent opportunities for Portlanders to get support in biking.
- Celebrating over two decades of a strong, vibrant, and inclusive bike culture.
Bike Together
The excerpt I shared last week was from the “Bike Together Program” element of the plan. The idea is for PBOT to contract with an organization who will hire coaches to lead rides. These ride leaders would fan out systematically across each neighborhood and would be responsible for organizing daily bike rides from set locations at set times. Imagine adult bike buses springing up citywide as word spreads between neighbors.
The city believes (and they have a lot of experience doing this type of work), that depending on the budget and scale of the effort, this could reach up to 181,000 Portland households in the target area which the city has defined as: Central City, Interstate Corridor, Lents-Foster, Montavilla, Hollywood, MLK-Alberta, Belmont-Hawthorne-Division, Woodstock and Sellwood-Moreland-Brooklyn.
Spark a Civic Conversation About Bicycling
The proposal would also take steps to spur a more robust, citywide conversation about bicycling. PBOT and its partners would do this in two main ways: using pavement markings and hosting cultural events.
The plan calls for doubling the number of “sharrows” (shared-lane markings) currently being used on Portland’s streets in order to elevate the visibility of the existing network. There would also be another type of special temporary markings installed with an aim to, “encourage people to change behaviors where/ when they can.”
The plan would sponsor, host and encourage events designed to, “Celebrate Portland’s determined history in creating a comprehensive network for bicycling, encouraging use of that network, and supporting the shaping of a culture that invites citywide uptake of bicycling.”
Branding, Storytelling and Evaluation
This element of the project would create a Bikeable Portland website whose main goal would be to, “elevate individual voices from community members and political leaders and give people the opportunity to share what a bikeable city means to them.” This part of the campaign would also include marketing materials like fliers, mailings, and billboards.
As these activities are going on, PBOT would do several, “relatively simple and affordable capital projects” in the target area. PBOT wants to make a few key bikeway upgrades in a way that bolsters their encouragement efforts. Here’s more from the concept plan:
These are projects that can be undertaken to improve conditions for bicycling in the project area and that will enhance other supportive encouragement efforts. The bikeway network in much of the target area is formed by neighborhood greenways. Those greenways include known areas of higher-than-desired traffic volume. Areas like SE 21st between Clinton and Division, SE 16th between Stark and Sandy, SE Ankeny between 3rd and 6th. Similarly, E Burnside between 73rd and 94th are sub-standard bikeways for this critical connection between inner SE / NE and East Portland.
Diverters and improved bike lanes in such identified hot spots will be the focus for this flexible capital funding. This program area can also augment encouragement by providing bicycle access for the specific events and activations called out in this project.
At this very early, conceptual stage, PBOT sees Bikeable Portland as a three-year plan. 2026 would be used for set-up and prep and the full effort would kick off in 2027. That would bring us up to 2030 — the end date for the Bicycle Plan we adopted 20 years ago.
This would be a very novel plan with some very innovative elements. But it wouldn’t be totally foreign to PBOT, an agency with decades of bicycle marketing and promotion under its belt. And it wouldn’t necessarily require the full $15 million that’s being debated right now. Depending on scale, PBOT could launch this for as little as $6 million and then consider expanding later depending on how it works (or doesn’t).
Even if it doesn’t get adopted this time around, it opens up some interesting conversations about how to increase ridership going forward.
I’m curious what you think about it now that it’s a bit more fleshed-out. And keep in mind, Councilor Novick told me he’ll read the comments before Thursday’s meeting.
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.
When this idea was brought up last week, it made me wonder how migration in/out of the city has affected ridership. For example, if people are moving from areas where cycling infrastructure is very poor, then they will likely never see any alternative to cars when they come here. So getting employers and local businesses on board is essential. How can we get businesses to promote cycling to their locations (whether as an employee or a customer), in a similar way to Trimet passes? The Shift Calendar is great, but I feel it doesn’t open up people’s minds beyond cycling as an occasional recreational activity. If recreational activity is the primary goal, then having some kind of official marketing from the city will go hand in hand with the Shift calendar.
And a lot of folks have no idea the shift calendar exists, or how to look for it! I met a couple two weeks ago who had lived here for five years and had no clue it exists, despite casually cycling and having some interest in cycling more.
Completely agree that whatever campaign exists should heavily leverage the Shift calendar.
QR Code stickers with the text “Ride Calendar @ Shift2Bikes.org” on as many blue staples and LBS doors as we can manage would help. Does shift have stickers?
I think the shift calendar is great, but for new riders and inexperienced riders like me, I’m more likely to join rides that are led by the City or sponsored by the City (I joined the group ride from my neighborhood to downtown Sunday Parkways).
I’d appreciate if more businesses got PBOT to put in staple racks. I’m pretty sure they’ll do it for free if a place asks.
And you lock your bike up to one and up walks someone with a battery powered saw and steals your bike.
Heck, one of the reasons I don’t bike is because, unless I can take it inside, it’s never safe outside. Even then it’s dicey with all the bike room break-ins.
I walk, I transit, I drive. Going to take a lot more than wasting PCEF money on something it was never intended for to get me out on my bike.
Do you comment on walking, transit, and MV websites? Because it seems like you would have ideas about those things.
I’m not necessarily opposed to the a bike marketing plan as a concept. With that said, these details are… immensely disappointing.
On a constructive note, something like this needs to target young, relatively new transplants. Myself, and lots of others I know, got onto bikes because it was cheap, associated with Portland’s “brand” (if I didn’t try cycling in bike city USA, where else would I try?), felt like it was something I could take into my own hands to fight climate change and honestly, because it seemed to be what “cool” people did. Not the lycra wearing older folks with expensive bikes, but the young people going to shows, bars or restaurants for a night out with friends. Get someone biking young and they’ll bike for life after getting hooked.
While I’m supportive of some of what’s outlined here (key infrastructure improvements), this reads as deeply ineffective. Sharrows, really? Most drivers don’t see these at all; if I had a nickel for how often I had to point to one on the road while a driver tails me on a greenway (because the lack of stop signs make it a great cut through route!) I’d be rich. Billboards? A website no one will visit (it’s 2026, people stay on the three social apps they use and don’t go to websites, Roger’s age is showing here).
I’m open to being convinced on hyper-local bike buses, but I feel if there’s one thing Portland doesn’t lack, it’s group rides, and a huge diversity of them! The one component of that I do like is a hyper-local ambassador to make connections.
At the end of the day, the best advertising for cycling is busy bike lanes with a diversity of people; by race, gender, size, reason for riding, social scene (metalhead, indie kid, parent, businessperson, etc). It’s what I generally like about a place like Portland, NYC or Minneapolis vs. Colorado (where, in my experience, the lanes are used primarily by sport riders in full sport cycling outfits). Lean into that.
Yes I agree… but this entire conversation is about how do we create that advertisement? We can’t just wish it. I think it makes sense to pay people to go promote biking and make the bike routes more visible. I see this plan as a formalization of some of the organic traits Portland already does relatively well at — and that we used to do extremely well. Think of this like building that brand you mention in your comment. It’s nice when a strong brand just happens organically, but it’s very rare and if we just sit around and wait it’ll never happen again.
I agree; we can’t just wish it. To create that advertisement, I’d argue the best accelerant is dense-housing communities with strong infrastrucure. Despite what PBOT and some of Council claims… we’re just not there. I understand dense housing is out of PBOT’s wheelhouse, but a trip to Vancouver, BC made it really clear to me how much PBOT dropped the ball on building out hard, robust infrastructure and connections during the 2008-2014 bike boom. They failed to build up when momentum was in their favor.
I know my comment came across as quite negative, and I am disappointed by this proposal. Again though, I could be convinced on a marketing campaign, and I see some value in the hyper-local bike ambassadors. But most of this… I just don’t see moving the needle as much as some high-visibility bike infrastructure improvements.
Thanks for the reply Calvin. And totally agree with you that density is the ultimate tool. Which is why I’m so happy that we have such amazing housing and land use activists in Portland — some of the best in the country! We are getting there but will likely never have the density of those amazing bike cities in northern Europe or even Vancouver BC or Montreal for that matter.
We have to believe we can get there; I certainly think we could do what Vancouver BC has done. If we don’t believe we can, then that’s a guarantee that it will never happen!
Appreciate your thoughtful engagement in the comments, Jonathan – as well as the comprehensive, fair reporting!
> At the end of the day, the best advertising for cycling is busy bike lanes with a diversity of people;
I think this is absolutely true, and it’s one of the reasons I think something like this program has the potential to have more impact than the money spent on it. The whole point is to try changing momentum, so that people see busy bike lanes!
Side note, to the “sharrows?” complaint, would it be better if they didn’t paint them? Seems like that was one very small detail.
I love the idea but I’m sad that my neighborhood (SW) is left out, as usual. That’s odd cuz it’s also Steve’s neighborhood – I’ve seen him at A-Boy on Barbur (maybe he moved?).
There are bikeable areas of SW that are ready to benefit from this plan (Maplewood comes to mind). How about taking TWO portions from inner SE and giving them to SW? You already have a lot of coverage in that area and it seems wrong that it gets everything while SW gets nothing.
I don’t know his address, but Steve Novick is one of my councilors (District 3) which would imply he no longer lives in SW.
It’s a great idea, but not with PCEF money. I’m thrilled the committee wants to keep the money for home energy (which it is supposed to be for) and less thrilled a few of the council want to ignore the committee’s recommendation.
Perhaps Nike can donate the money for what is hope and prayers that anything lasting comes of the n’hood bike buses.
@FlowerPower we get it already; you’re beating that same drum hard. It doesn’t make any difference to you what the PCEF committee or website says, or how much the proposal actually does facilitate use of clean energy, by golly if it’s not paying for solar panels and heat pumps you’re a hard no.
I simply do not agree that the “build it” part of “if you build it, they will come” truism is actually true! the bike lane by my house feels very dangerous because people speed on that road, there is no protection except for a few flex posts in some spots (and they get ripped out by cars all the time)! I would rather this money go toward adding modal filters on greenways and protecting bike lanes with STEEL and CONCRETE. I think we need hard and fast physical improvements more than we need cultural events to get more people cycling.
100% agreed. This is what the rose colored lens people do not understand. They just don’t get it.
Trying to explain our real like experiences to them is like talking to a brick wall.
I don’t see this impacting cycling rates at all, it’s the drivers and the destinations. Downtown is dead, wfh is the norm. All drivers lost empathy for anyone outside of their vehicle sometime around summer 2020
Refer PCEF, the Arts tax, etc. to the voters for repeal and replacement with a consistent, predictable and sustainable funding source.
Determine what it will cost to maintain streets, signs, lights, sweeping, lights, cameras, etc.
Devise a real, consistent and sustainable street fee to fund said maintenance. Make a ten-year maintenance plan and stick to it.
No more slush funds and verbal gymnastics to justify if a project is ‘PCEF-worthy’. Prioritize maintenance over new infrastructure/programs. The city has too many priorities, time to choose what we can afford and what we can aspire to
Omg, yes!
tbh I think this is a misguided use of funds. I think the decline in ridership is mostly because of a work from home related decline in commuters to downtown, combined with much riskier driver behavior. And although individual pieces of bike infrastructure are much better than they used to be, riders are still exposed to dangerous driver behavior in many trips. Even e.g. the new and improved broadway bike lanes are not *that* safe because of drivers right-hooking people, and even in instances where infrastructure improvements improve safety in the sense of “you are not likely to have died or been seriously injured from this low-speed crash,” that improvement doesn’t actually feel safe for riders in practice. I also think the lack of bike lanes on inner SE division, SE hawthorne, alberta, belmont, and basically any other street that has shops, restaurants, and actual destinations on it means that for non-commute trips, riders are necessarily forced to use at least some amount of sub-par infrastructure.
I am deeply skeptical that a marketing campaign will actually paper over those problems, and this feels like a more elaborate version of PBOT’s assertion that they would improve wayfinding on greenways adjacent to hawthorne rather than building actual bike infrastructure on hawthorne.
Obviously PBOT has real budgetary limitations, but I also feel like they waste money on incredibly stupid things, like that little section on 7th & tillamook where inexplicably they expect cyclists to ride on the world’s shortest cyclepath on the sidewalk, which seems like it was quite expensive considering the share of cyclists who just ride right past it. The bike lanes they put on skidmore near wilshire park are another example of this, where those seemed like the took a lot of time and money and encountered a lot of neighborhood resistance, and I think 100% of the benefit comes from the improvements on 33rd itself. TBH I also feel the same way about 72nd through the golf course, which, obviously it has been much nicer since they made it one way, but that was also far from the worst section of the 70s greenway, which is the crossing at Halsey. I think until there is a concentrated focus on improving the worst pain points in the network, and adding infrastructure that goes all the way to the desired destination, ridership is going to continue to be so-so.
On the other hand, I am quite confident that if that same pool of money was used to prevent trimet service cuts, there would be real benefits for transit riders.
Nail on the head RE: commercial streets and lanes near shops, etc. While NE Broadway could have been better, ultimately that’s the type of infrastructure improvement that would be most beneficial. Highly visible improvements at social destinations people want to go.
I am really skeptical of a plan that starts off with gaslighitng us that we we a wonderful, complete network just waiting to be used! That will not be people’s experience, so are setting this up to fail. There are good segments and bad ones, tons of gaps and failed connections. Why not be a bit more honest and transparent: “We’ve made some improvements, but we need support and momentum to make the upgrades and connections to have a functional network across Portland. Come join us to see how good it is now and how great it could be with your participation and support”
This kind of language is NOT helpful: ““Celebrate Portland’s determined history in creating a comprehensive network for bicycling, encouraging use of that network, and supporting the shaping of a culture that invites citywide uptake of bicycling.” Is this saying determined Portlanders have created a comprehensive bike network, or is it saying that is has been determined that a comprehensive network has been built?
Anyway, that is beside the point. I think diverters would be great, additional sharrow markers are OK, too. the website does not seem like a good use of $$, neither does billboards. Mailers, targeted emails, signs at bus stops might be a little effective, but I’m not sure if its worth much. From reading through the comments, others seem to like the idea of a coach leading rides; that might be good but I can’t imagine who would participate in that. I guess I just do not believe that PBOT can fundamentally influence culture to this extent. I think they should focus on infrastructure: control the cars by keeping them off greenways, daylight intersections, start towing delivery vehicles who park in bike lanes or add temp barriers, add no turn on red signs on streets with bike lanes like the new Broadway improvements and use camera, lower speed limits, get rid of the closed crosswalks sings and reopen/paint them for pedestrians.
The first article about this idea used a shot of bikes lined up in a narrow bike lane on n’bound Interstate Ave. I live in North Portland and have commuted on this stretch for 18 years. Pbot has made some improvement, but it still sucks. For some reason the speed limit is still 30 MPH- which is scary on a cold wet night, but it is worse when people routinely drive 40-50 (I drive this road, too, I have checked speeds by following people). All of North Portland gets funneled down Interstate Ave to visit downtown, CEID, SE, SW, NW, yet the route is fraught. There are spots where the 5-foot lane narrow to 2-feet wide. The City added some signs, but cars do not see them or ignore them- there has been no enforcmeent, and they refuse to paint a sharrows at the points where motor vehicles and bikes have to share a lane. My proposal to get more people riding: lower the speed limit to 20 mph with speed cameras, paint a 6-foot wide bike lane with a 1-foot buffer- in places where this will not fit, paint the bike green and add signs: “shared lane, cars to yield to bikes”.
You had me at “gaslighting”.
Diverters. Permanent, durable ones that can’t be easily driven around. This is what we need.
Also, daylight every intersection in the city.
Yes. This is the way.
– More Diverters on bike boulevards.
– More Bike+pedestrian-only paths.
– Plentiful bike parking (we actually do ok at this but could do better)
– Regular and reliable enforcement of bike theft.
That’s it. That’s what it takes. Anything else is noise.
I still see no estimates of the numbers of coaches, people who might take up riding, or how much they might contribute to meeting our climate and bicycling goals.
This plan does not seem particularly rigorous, and my criticisms of it last week have not been addressed here.
What should we expect to accomplish with this proposal, and why spend PCEF money on it?
Two questions:
Does the full $15 million have to go into a single program, or can they divide the funds between the bike proposal and the TriMet proposal?
Second, early in the article it says Novick requested a shovel-ready proposal, and then later the proposal is described as “conceptual.” Which is it, exactly? I’m guessing it’s the latter, because it could use some editing and obviously a lot of fleshing out.
I wonder if a more focused marketing campaign would be both less expensive and more precise. I’m not fully persuaded by this proposal, but open to more details, I guess.
Hi Paige,
As far as I know, any adjustment to the PCEF CIP needs to be supported by council, so they can agree to any combination of funding they like.
And yes, the concept plan is definitely just an idea at this point. What I meant is that Geller’s plan came out in late 2024 and this newer plan is more shovel-ready than that one.
Look, I love biking in Portland. But to say, we’ve already built it and they have not come when our miles of protected bikeway pales in comparison to other cities, is deeply flawed. Just citing two examples of the failure to put protected bike lanes in Hawthorne and Broadway /Weidler show the city’s unwillingness to spend money and resources to build high quality options for us bikers on main roads. Let alone the lack of protection in other less resources parts of the city. I live in Inner NE, arguably one of the better neighborhoods for bike way, and it’s still unsafe for me to bike on so many roads.
As a biker worried about being killed in the road, encouraging people of all ages and abilities to bike more when we are sending them out into roads where drivers are killing bikers is unconscionable. The city needs to dramatically increase protected bike ways and off street trails that allow folks from 8-80 to truly feel safe while biking. That is what will begin to shift the number. A marketing campaign is nice, but it feels like a cheap substitute for barriers that ensure I don’t die when a driver decides to text and drive and veer into the bike lane.
Let’s see PBOT build bike ways that they feel safe sending their grandma out on and their children before we say that we’ve built enough.
Hi Liz M. I agree with a lot of your comment. But I just want to point out that no one is saying, “We’ve built enough.” I think what they are saying is that what we have is better than a lot of folks think.. And that it has a lot more potential in terms of ridership.
As another person from NE, if Sandy Blvd is unbuilt, from the Willamette to the Sandy, it’s all talk.
We already have this – it is called Pedalplooza and includes all sorts of neighborhood rides and builds community. Doesn’t seem like much investment needs to go to build this very successful platform even bigger. The proposal seems redundant and also not a smart use of one-time funding. How about the funding going towards replacing the federal funding that has disappeared for the Burgard Bridge where PBOT was planning to improve the bike/ped infrastructure or other targeted location where failing infrastructure is preventing safe biking access.
Commenting only on the proposal the biggest concern is that excluding roughly half the city from this plan sends the message that it is not safe nor desirable to bike in the neighborhoods that aren’t being targeted.
While SW and East Portland are not going to hit 25% bike mode share anytime soon, given the lack of contiguous and complete infrastructure, doing nothing is telling people something. This doesn’t happen in isolation either as Biketown shares a similar geography to this plan.
We can have a discussion about efficacy and where to focus most of the energy but it feels disingenuous to call this Bikeable Portland when 14 of the 24 neighborhood areas (by my count) which equates to all of District 1 and most of District 4 getting to watch this through their windshield.
I can also see this getting challenged in court as it will likely be seen as targeting the rich whiter part of town and neglecting the poorer BIPOC parts of town. I can also see a 7-5 vote against it by city council.
Not to mention East Portlanders feel like PBOT has been doing all these ‘disruptive’ projects that involve bike infrastructure, at least tangentially, lately. I use and appreciate the new facilities, but I agree with you that they’re sending mixed messages by not at least trying to get people on bikes in SW and East Portland.
No….I and my employer did not fail at creating a safe and comfortable environment for cycling.
No…the collapse of bike mode share is just “vibes” that we will dispel with this cool and oh-so effective marketing campaign.
Repeating what some of the other commenters have said, infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure, starting with downtown! Vancouver BC had a similar network of beyond downtown neighborhood greenways but it was only after they built a network of protected bike lanes downtown that they moved the ridership needle. Washington, DC has done the same, there are seven north-south bike routes across downtown (all two-way), 17th St was a direct response to the popularity of 15th St for example. DC has plans for more east-west connections. $15 million could built out several similarly east-west and north-south connections in downtown Portland and provide a lasting impact. Marketing impacts gradually fade away.
If it’s a la carte, I’ll have the midpoint diverters on every greenway segment, with vanilla ice cream and rye whiskey for dessert.
A lot of comments advocating putting funding toward infrastructure instead of marketing. To compare these (quite different) things, we need to know how much of each we could get from the available money. For example, what were the budgets for some recent improvements, like the much maligned SW 4th lanes? Or SW Broadway. I’m sure Jonathan reported them in his excellent coverage, but my memory is poor, and my laziness is great. How many diverters could we get?
BikeLoudPDX has a Bike Buddy program to help new riders
check out: bikeloudpdx.org/bike-buddy
People have been saying Moreland who leads Mellow Mondays as well as John Russell TNR and also the FNR leaders should be paid by the city for all the bike rides they have lead and all the people they have gotten on bikes for years. I think it’s a great idea. The biking community here has changed my life and made biking so much more fun and appealing to get out even in the cold and rain. I think Portland has the potential to be the biking mecca of North America. The murals and beautiful neighborhoods are amazing on bikes. I meet people visiting from out of state all the time on rides.