Most Portland neighborhoods would jump at the chance to upgrade their bike lanes. But the coalition that represents 32 neighborhoods in District 4 is different. At their meeting Wednesday night, the District 4 Coalition (D4C) plans to finalize a letter to Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Millicent Williams that outlines their opposition to $760,000 of planned bike lane projects in Southwest Portland.
These projects are part of the bike lane hardening effort I reported on in August 2024. With marching orders from a city traffic engineer directive, PBOT is going through a list of protected bike lanes citywide that were initially built with just paint and/or plastic wands and replacing them with concrete curbs. The idea is permanent curbs offer a more pleasing aesthetic, provide a stronger safety benefit, and will require less maintenance (the wands are frequently uprooted). PBOT is also responding to some bike advocates who see paint and plastic as a poor substitute for more robust materials.
In a draft version of the letter about the projects in Southwest, D4C Land Use and Transportation Co-Chair Nicole Zimmerman (who’s also a candidate for City Council District 3) says they oppose planned hardening projects at three locations: Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway between SW 39th and SW 65th, SW Capitol Hwy between SW Valona and Stephenson, and Bertha Blvd between Vermont and 13th (see map below).
Below is an excerpt from the letter that lays out the reasons for their objections (emphasis theirs):
- No practical value. B-H Hwy., the proposed segment of Capitol Hwy., and Bertha Blvd. are among the lowest performing bike routes in all of SW Portland. This can be attributed largely to their lack of connectivity with the fractured bike network in SW. Any cyclist using these facilities must be confident riding on busy streets in the travel lane to reach and leave these bike lane segments. Providing an A+ bike facility on these isolated sections will not entice more cyclists to use them. Progress must be measured not by the miles of protected bike lanes but by the number of people traveling by bike.
- This is not maintenance. Converting them into physically separated facilities is an improvement project – not simple maintenance. If maintenance is an issue, the wands could simply be removed or just not replaced. If removed, there would continue to be very good, painted buffered bike lanes, which could again be swept with conventional equipment. Reliance on the small bike lane sweeper has resulted in infrequent sweeping and B-H and Capitol Hwys. are typically plagued by gravel, glass, leaves, and weeds.
- Chronically inadequate funding. Funding for capital projects to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety is severely constrained. For perspective, D4 can expect about $2.3 million from FOS3 for the next 4 years. Other pots of funding are available, but the cost of the B-H Highway project will make it among the most expensive projects proposed in D4 and SW over the next four years.
- Higher priority needs and lack of community support. Given all the high-priority network and safety improvements, many of which have languished for decades, PBOT should not spend $490,000 on this project followed by the Capitol Hwy. project totaling around $757,000 and an undetermined amount for Bertha Blvd. when the bike lane hardening lacks community support and The BH Hwy. and Capitol Hwy. projects are not identified in the TSP or SWIM. Until bike routes are completed and not disjointed, it is premature to spend scared funds for first-class facilities on random segments.
If this sounds familiar, it’s because BikePortland reported on a Southwest-based cycling advocate who shared many of these same concerns back in fall of 2024. I reached out to that person, former PBOT Bicycle Advisory Committee member and veteran bike advocate Keith Liden, and he confirmed he was the inspiration for the D4C position. “Yes, my fingerprints are all over it,” Liden shared with me via email last week.
“We feel it makes no sense to spend scarce dollars to ‘gold plate’ isolated sections on routes with serious gaps,” Liden said. “Hardening these bike lanes will do nothing to attract less confident/inexperienced riders, while the current users will still be fine with painted buffers.” Liden wants PBOT to offer a more complete route before spending money to improve isolated sections.
Kiel Johnson with nonprofit BikeLoud PDX disagrees with Liden and has sent a message of his own to PBOT, urging them to move forward. In an email sent Thursday, February 19th, Johnson wrote that Beaverton-Hillsdale Highway currently feels like a freeway due to its design, and changes are needed to attract more riders. “Paint and plastic wands are not protection,” Johnson wrote. “Physical barriers—concrete curbs, continuous raised protection, and median refuge islands—would reduce conflict points, prevent encroachment into bike space, and narrow the effective roadway in a way that calms traffic without eliminating access.”
The D4C coalition wants PBOT to allow them to help review and evaluate the projects to find, “an acceptable approach for improving and maintaining these facilities at reduced cost and to redirect the remaining funds to improvements that support more pressing priorities in District 4 and identified in our adopted plans.” Liden and others in Southwest feel PBOT’s project selections are too “top-down” and they want a more collaborative process to determine future bikeway investments.
Learn more about PBOT’s bike lane upgrades on their website.
The D4C Land Use and Transportation Committee meets tomorrow (Weds., 2/25) from 6:30 to 8:30 pm via Zoom.
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.
Disjointed bikeway systems plague most US cities – it’s a very rare US city that has a coordinated system of connected bikeway facilities, let alone high-quality ones. And the trash, grit, glass, and other crap in the bike lanes does render most facilities so bad that many of us will choose to bike in the traffic lane instead. So yeah, I see their point.
Thanks for your great coverage, as always, Jonathan. I can think of no greater need for the local cycling advocacy community than to form consensus around infrastructure priorities. From my perspective, PBOT does try to faithfully serve us (bicyclists) as an important user group, but it’s a task far beyond their capability. This is partly because PBOT seems ineffective and clumsy, but, even if they were really firing on all cylinders, it’s not clear they could deliver services that we would be happy with because we don’t even agree among ourselves about what is needed. At all. My perspective is largely in line with what you have described of Liden’s and D4C’s positions, but I am more than happy to advocate for different priorities if there is a strong community consensus that those priorities are important.
In response to similar comment I made on a different article, eawriste pointed me to a ~decade old plan for bicycle improvements produced by the city (it’s title involved 2030, and I can locate the link if desired). It was really a great document, and I’m dismayed that this political discussion (fight?) is occurring with no reference to this or any other (extensive, existing) planning documents and need inventories. We as a community should use that document (or something better) to develop a robust set of projects to badger PBOT about when they try to do something jacked. If we let PBOT drive things like they have been, we are going to get unsatisfying results.
How often do you ride on BHH between Hillsdale and Raleigh Hills?
I can remember riding this section of BHH twice.
The 2030 Bike Plan? That was ground up and used for PCEF-funded insulation in the Moda Center years ago.
🙂
I thought it would be arcane and useless,but I was surprised at how much obvious utility it had. As I said in the previous comment thread, I would love to get some perspective from PBOT staff on how things have gone since its publication. But, relevant to this discussion, it had prioritized lists. My plea to my community is to have our discussions/disputes around that document proactively, instead of waiting until a project has some momentum (or is actually built).
It’s too bad the report had such unrealistic goals that it seems all policymakers simply put it out of their minds.
I’m all about proactive engagement with the community (the cycling community in this case), but, as we see here so often, people would prefer to cling to some pretty daffy ideas rather than engage in the art of the possible.
Magical thinking often deters constructive engagement.
I commuted on Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy for 5+ years, taking it all the way from Hillsdale to downtown Beaverton, often at night.
I agree with Keith wholeheartedly. Until and unless there is a plan for that buffered, curbed bike lane to connect to SOMETHING once it reaches the Washington County line at Six Corners, it’s pointless to build up the infrastructure between SW 39th and SW 65th when the bike lane disappears entirely two blocks west.
There is literally no connector to anything else westbound at that point. Cyclists are dumped into 40mph traffic (marked 35mph, but lets be honest, no one drives 35) without warning or recourse.
Want to head south on Oleson? Have fun crossing two lanes of car traffic to reach the turn lane that routinely backs up with drivers who are trying to turn onto Scholls Ferry one light further down the road.
I also take issue with Kiel’s assertion that it’s like a freeway in it’s current state. That’s just hyperbolic nonsense that’s insulting to those of us who remember what riding on BHH used to be like before the concrete curbs and wands were installed. Is it ideal? Hell no. But it’s far, far more welcoming that it was before. And it would be even more welcoming for riders if PBOT was better at keeping the lanes clear of debris.
All that said, I do disagree with Keith about Bertha Blvd between Vermont and 13th. Adding better infrastructure around schools should be a priority.
That intersection is such a mess. The YouTube channel “Streetcraft” made a short video imagining it as roundabouts with much more humane ped/bike connectivity.
Then try taking the side streets in Raleigh Hills to get to SW 5th Street. Problem solved for the immediate term.
Yeah tbh those bike lanes are not good at all and I do not think concrete curbs will actually solve the problems of “drivers are not looking for cyclists at all” and “the bike lanes abruptly end on a highway”. In theory they would be the most direct route to visit family in Beaverton but in practice I would go miles out of my way to avoid them and that would still be the case if their “protection” was upgraded.
Can I also just say, it annoys me a great deal when PBOT pretends that curbs that are explicitly designed so that emergency vehicles can drive over them are “protection” when i fact what I would like is protection from a drunk driver or similar driving into the bicycle lane. I was recently in Victoria BC and their protected lanes had quite tall curbs protecting them that would ruin a car’s undercarriage, which seemed much more genuinely protective than PBOT gaslighting us by calling a bike lane “protected” when it at best protects us from people parking in the bike lane quite as often. Also as far as I can tell Victoria BC’s emergency services were in fact able to carry about their business successfully, which makes me wonder if there is any attempt to validate PPB or the fire department’s concerns about emergency responses time by any sort of objective measure, beyond the fact that people who are car-brained don’t like it.
” … PBOT pretends that curbs that are explicitly designed so that emergency vehicles can drive over them are “protection” when i fact what I would like is protection from a drunk driver or similar driving into the bicycle lane. …”
I have to agree here – if anything, the shape of the curbs would more likely launch an errant vehicle at speed, let alone stop it.
There must be some research / testing done on these somewhere??
I see two fundamental flaws with Liden and D4Cs reasoning.
The first is that this project exists in some kind
of binary PBOT planning & funding scheme: if this project goes through, they seem to be assuming, then obviously the through-connections needed for cyclists in district 4 won’t get done. That’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.
The second is that hardening bicycle infrastructure is all about promoting cycling. It’s not; it’s also – and sometimes primarily – about changing the built environment in a way that calms car traffic and saves lives. I don’t see D4C acknowledging this benefit at all. “Lack of community support “ is shorthand for “this will piss off some drivers.”
PBOT: Let’s spend a million dollars on another small disconnected stretch of world class bike lane.
PBOT: We have built world class bike lanes and they have not come.
PBOT: The only explanation for this is a lack of knowledge or bad vibes. We need a multimillion dollar PR campaign!!!
PS: “scared” funds is a very accurate depiction of the way this city funds bike infrastructure.
This is a fantastic case study on the development of Portland’s network. It touches on a lot of functions and dysfunctions in the process. I rarely find myself agreeing with nearly everyone involved. In this case (if I’m to take everyone at face value) we have laudatory efforts everywhere:
1) A DOT with a directive by engineers to use temporary materials to increase access to separated space to all ages and abilities
2) A city district (D4C) in coordination with a bike advocate who is asking to prioritize a practical network that does not require “confident riding on busy streets,” and places in the city where demand for cycling is greatest.
3) A bike advocacy group leader (BikeLoud) who understands the importance of physical separation AND the prioritization of infra for all ages and abilities.
All of these people/organizations have the interest of the community in mind, and all want cycling to be accessible to more people. It’s a rare moment. The big issue here is that, as PBOT’s engineers are so readily aware, the resistance of stakeholders and politicians to directly address the above issues is the primary impediment to any project.
Prioritization of high demand connections:
Keith has a valid point. Hardening BH isn’t likely to move the needle soon based on the demand, but it’s checking the box for hardening infrastructure. We need to look at where the most people bike, and concentrate there. That means connections to downtown in inner N and the CEID. This is a top down problem where the director, mayor and council members are all looking at an empty chair for one person to direct PBOT to prioritize nearly all of the high demand connections ignored in the 2030 plan. The low-hanging fruit tree is bare.
Transition to use of semi-permanent materials for daylighting/separation that don’t require a lot of maintenance:
PBOT might disagree but they rarely use effective semi-permanent “hardened” materials (e.g., rocks), particularly at the outset of project construction (e.g., NE Broadway). Kiel is absolutely right. Separation via plastic wands is generally worthless (and largely ephemeral). This is improving (as evidenced by their praiseworthy hardening effort), but it’s not there yet. PBOT has secured funding for the planning of inner Broadway. PBOT could focus on that design and separate the space with semi permanent materials. This isn’t just an institutional bias against “gutter bike lanes.” This is largely a director/priorities problem. PBOT can develop projects in large part without pouring concrete. It’s just not a priority to PBOT leadership or the mayor.
This prioritization effort needs to come from advocates and councilors:
PBOT is fighting an uphill battle on a shoestring budget, with engineers often the scapegoats, often for crap priorities. Without a well funded, coordinated, single-goal-oriented, and savvy advocacy group to carrot and stick involved parties, it’s going to remain status quo. Many cities know how to increase the number of people on bikes when Portland is still debating what we need. It should not be a mystery.
There is nothing PBOT can do with $760,000 that will positively impact bike mode share in Portland. They simply do not have the power to reshape culture to make riding popular again.
Not creating better bike infrastructure on BH; not placing rocks in the road; not hiring coaches; not buying signs with annoying and juvenile double entenders.
PBOT’s best bet might be to put the money into weather control, or maybe hill reduction, or at least into projects that normal people will use. At the very least, give Keith and others with experience riding in SW a more meaningful voice.
The people I know who don’t bike and want to, avoid it because they’re afraid of getting hit by a car. PBOT can address that issue by installing curbs where appropriate. That is what successful cities do. Amsterdam does it. So does Seattle. We can too.
I feel so much more at ease when I ride in those cities. I wish I could feel that way here in Portland.
But I agree with the point in the article that installing the curbs on a disconnected section of highway isn’t where PBOT should spend their limited budget.
As I understand it, this is being done under ‘maimtenance.’ It is unclear if these monies can be diverted to construct unfunded SWIM projects, which almost all SW advocates want to see finished… or better yet, made into something besides half-assed “share the road” paint projects. If the funds can NOT be moved, then I would think getting the hardening done is the proper move here – that money and opportunity might never come again.
IF the monies are movable to other projects that help complete routes for peds and bikes, I would agree this is a luxury.
Some pushback on this appears to be from area residents who disliked the bus lanes as well.
To me, since resources are finite, an argument for spending the money to harden the bike lanes in question must argue for why the money is better spent here than elsewhere. Not in an “enumerate through every single alternative and do a thorough analysis of the ROI of each”, but in a more practical sense. I’m not clear on what that argument is though, from PBOT, BikeLoud or others. I’m also not clear if others agree on the more meta question of whether a “real” argument needs to argue for why resources are better spent here than elsewhere.
I think the ‘here rather than elsewhere’ considerations are hiding just under the surface of this debate. I’m sure bike advocates in SW feel like they have gotten shorted in the past compared to other parts of the city (N, E, downtown), probably feel like this could be the last investment the city makes in SW, and don’t want to see it wasted on a nice but unconnected bit of protected bike lane. I’m sure many of the regular commenters that live in SW can express this much better.
This is perhaps a bit cynical, but my guess is that for this bike lane hardening project, PBOT is taking a pretty “all or nothing” approach. Instead of thinking about whether the hardening makes sense for a specific situation, they’ve just decided to do it everywhere.
I suspect that the “all or nothing” approach is unwise. I’m not sure though. Maybe it would be impractical for a large(ish?) organization like PBOT to make decisions on a more case-by-case basis.
“I want my bike network to be built all at once!”
Sounds like the perfect being the enemy of the good.
I am sure that for every infrastructure project, there is probably one that is arguably better, that is not being done. Get out of the way, and when this is complete, come back and say “We have this protected infrastructure in place, now it needs to connect to something, better!”
I also wouldn’t be surprised if they stop this project from moving forward, the money doesn’t go to bike infra, but would instead be redirected to repairing a remote road in the SW hills that serves 5 mansions.
That’s what I don’t understand either. I might be missing it, but where does the assumption come from that if the projects are halted the money would be held for other bike projects? I agree with you, it seems more likely that someone would shrug and add the funds somewhere else as soon as possible.
A little good infrastructure built is better than no infrastructure built at all and much better than the funds building auto infrastructure.
I disagree; unused bike facilities burn political will and sour regular people on the idea of building bike infrastructure at all.
Jonathan, any chance you could a map showing where these projects are located?
Yes I can. Added to story.
I’d really like a little path from SW Capitol HW to SW 48th, right north of I-5. Taking the lane uphill on SW Taylors Ferry sucks for everybody.