The Portland Bureau of Transportation is facing pushback on a planned bike lane project in the Goose Hollow area. According to KOIN News, some residents of the 214-unit Tiller Terrace apartments on the corner of SW Alder and 17th are concerned about how changes planned by PBOT will impact their ability to park cars near the entrance to the building.
Here’s more from a story by KOIN on Tuesday night:
Miriam D’Arco lives in Tiller Terrace, caring for her 92-year old mother who has late-stage Alzheimer’s… She said she relies heavily on the ability to park a car in front of her apartment, in an area that she said is already tough to find parking. “If they’re going to limit parking even more, that’s a problem,” she said.
Later in the story KOIN reported that D’Arco, “said she feels displaced,” by the project and that removing the parking spots is tantamount to denying her access.
The project has been in the works since 2019. This specific phase was on hold while Tiller Terrace was being built. Sections of the bike lane have already been built and the plans to build them predate the existence of the apartments (the building opened in summer of 2024). PBOT’s plan (see below) is to build a two-way bike lane on the south side of Alder between SW 16th and 17th. It’s the last phase of a neighborhood greenway project that connects Northwest and Southwest and is slated for construction this summer. The two-way bike lane is necessary because the southbound route crosses Burnside on SW 16th, but SW 16th is one-way only at Alder, so the route needs to jog over to 17th to continue south.
To make room for the bike lane, PBOT’s plan is to re-allocate space currently used as free parking for 8-9 private cars. There would still be on-street parking on the north side of the street.
PBOT sent a letter to 2,500 addresses in the immediate area in January 2025 warning them that parking removal on Alder was coming. “This change will require removing parking on one side of SW Alder Street between SW 16th and 17th avenues,” the letter reads.
When asked about the concerns by KOIN reporters, PBOT spokesperson Dylan Rivera acknowledged the shortage of parking in the Goose Hollow area. “That’s why we need to get more people biking and walking, as much as possible. And that’s what a project like this is part of,” he said.
A meeting is scheduled for this evening between PBOT staff and tenants of the building. KOIN said it was organized by Tiller Terrace management. I’ll reach out to PBOT tomorrow and will post updates here.
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.
I’m having a hard tome figuring out what PBOT is trying to connect here. It sems like a lot of work to connect across Burnside on a 2-way bike path that ends a block later, at Couch. I don’t see a lot of value for the southbound travel from 16th being able to head west on Alder. It looks like it would only connect to 17th to continue south, and that is only a few blocks long. Would it be simpler to extend the 2-way on 16th to Morrison? What am I missing?
I’d guess connecting from Providence Park & the 18th/19th bike lanes and the 2 way bike lanes on 16th?
mD, same thought – what is the 2 way bike lane for one block about? I can’t untangle the logic from the schematic, but seems like it’s intended to allow you to go from the southbound counterflow bike lane on 16th, west on Alder for a block, then continue south on 17th,,?
Very sad to see people fighting the revitalization of central and downtown Portland.
Why not ask the people who live there if they see this project as revitalizing, or what would make their lives better. As is often the case, those who want the “revitalizing” are those who live elsewhere.
If we want to attract more people to the central city, we should be doing things that make living there easier and more attractive.
So you agree.
Why are the people who live there now the best to ask? This sort of infrastructure is supposed to be around for awhile, serving people in the now and the future. I agree that living in the present is great, but planning for the future needs to take more into account than the now.
Disagree; the people living downtown ARE revitalizing it. They’re probably spending more of their money and time downtown than any of us. They have a right to have opinions about the street they live on.
More people need to live downtown to make it work. There is not enough room for people who live in a dense downtown area to have parking directly in front of their building.
I guess if you describe the pro-parking people that way, you could describe the pro-bike-lane people as people fighting against the needs of elderly and disabled people.
Creating an environment that is safe to walk and not car dependent is pro-elderly. Transportation for disabled people can be incorporated into a populated area without providing a prime parking space for each person.
“you could describe the pro-bike-lane people as people fighting against the needs of elderly and disabled people.”
In some cases, they undoubtedly are.
I’m curious if there’s any reserved (“handicap”) parking? Is that a thing for on-street parking?
If not, could it be?
Should the city just implement a parking permit system in central city?
If she needs a handicap space in front of the building she can have PBOT reserve one. Otherwise it sounds like she prefers the convenience of being able to park in front when the spaces aren’t already taken up.
If the city wants to reduce on-site parking, they should expect more pushback when they want to take away the on-street parking that people in low parking buildings consequently depend on.
People, even low income people, have cars, and they need to park them somewhere.
This should surprise no one.
Nothing stopping developers from putting in on-site parking though.
4WheelsGood, then?
You’ve probably figured out by now that while I drive around Portland less than almost any other car owner here, I do not hate cars or car drivers. I like bikes, but I simply do not care how other people choose to get around.
So yes, sometimes 4 wheels are fine if that’s what works for you. Who am I to judge?
Of course there’s no blame on the property management company for not disclosing to incoming tenants that the on street parking is going away.
If I were to move downtown it would be because of how walkable/bikeable/transitable it is. I wonder why someone who could feel being displaced if their public parking spot was removed would move to an area with such poor parking. I don’t know all the mechanisms of the cost of this unit/building etc. On one hand I can’t help but feel this is car-brained mentality. On the other, I wonder if there’s more to the story/situation than this article paints.
It is subsidized housing so most people there probably didn’t really choose to live there; that’s just where they were able to get in.
I have always wondered why there was a gap in the “bike lane” at 17th and Alder and now I know why.
Personally, that two way portion looks horrible, especially since its not going to have any barriers from traffic but whatever. We need to be removing parking space from downtown and screw this car-brained person for moving to such a bikeable/walkable area and wanting it to stay more care centric.
Some empathy goes a long way here. How do you transport your infirm mother around town?
Yes. Screw them and their needs.
I am sensitive to the woman who needs to drive in order to take care of her aging mother. I think that calling it “displacement” is a little hyperbolic though. Good on the building management for setting up a meeting between the tenants and PBOT. I hope that some useful dialogue can happen.
My wonder is this; could the two-way bike lane be narrowed just a little bit so that the buffer space could be converted to parking to create a parking-protected lane? I think that given the low volume of bicycle traffic (really traffic in general downtown) taking a foot or so from the two-way bike lane wouldn’t really make much of a material difference for cyclists. They could put concrete drums at the corners to prevent people from parking too far up and restricting visibility. Or perhaps they could remove a travel lane from 15th – 16th in order to add a parking-protected bike lane? Seems a little silly to
For anyone who lives in the area that is reading this, please understand that this is an important and useful connection for cyclists. Life is all about compromises and sometimes that means a couple parking spots being repurposed.
It seems like they could accommodate one disability parking spot in the buffer.
Looking at Streetview, this site was a parking lot before this building was constructed next to a rail stop and other transit. [For a deeper look: Would need to check what parking replacement the developer / development agreement required or reduced. Can anyone post the link?]
Given that the bike project was postponed for the building construction – it would have been akamai (smart) for the CoP to have made sure that the developer communicated that this curbside parking was only temporary. At a minimum, place signage on the street that this parking was “temporary”.
Oh. My. God.
The audacity.
The sheer, breathtaking audacity of demandin’ that public space — paid for by everyone — be permanently reserved for the private storage of your personal fossil-fuel machine.
Eight parking spaces. Eight. And we’re carryin’ on like civilisation’s circlin’ the drain.
We plan bike infrastructure for years. We send the notices. We build housing in a dense, central neighbourhood. And then — gasp — the city suggests usin’ a strip of asphalt to move actual human beings instead of storin’ two tonnes of metal.
And somehow this is oppression?
It’s honestly wild how quick “I’d prefer to park right out the front of me building” turns into “Me rights are bein’ trampled.”
Parking is not a constitutional guarantee, mate.
And let’s talk about the loudest voices in the room — the ones insistin’ they need that exact curb spot for their car, as though the universe itself will unravel if they have to walk half a block. Not the folks with genuine accessibility needs — that’s a different conversation entirely. I mean the fully capable adults who’ve decided mild inconvenience is a moral injustice. These people already have subsidized housing with taxpayers paying all or a large portion of their rent and now they want the taxpayers to subsidize their parking place for their steel cages as well. Let’s supersize the dole with parking spots too. Huh?
If your entire worldview collapses because you can’t store your private vehicle precisely where you’d prefer, it might not be the curb that needs redesigning. It might be the attitude.
The curb doesn’t belong to whichever SUV bags it first. It’s public space. Public. As in shared. As in adaptable. As in sometimes it serves somethin’ more useful than long-term car storage.
But nah. We must defend the sacred ritual of circlin’ the block. Protect the divine right to burn petrol on trips that are perfectly bikeable, walkable, or an easy bus ride away. Because askin’ adults (yes even poor ones with cars)) in a city to adjust their transport habits is apparently cruelty now.
And the expectation! That dense urban livin’ should magically come with suburban parking convenience. That the city must bend, halt safety upgrades, and freeze progress so nobody experiences the unbearable hardship of walkin’ an extra 200 feet.
Imagine the horror. A bit of movement. Fresh air. A slightly elevated heart rate. Tragic stuff.
If we’re fair dinkum about climate, safety, and streets that actually function, then yeah — we should absolutely reallocate more curb space. More bike lanes. More bus lanes. Wider footpaths. Fewer free storage zones for private vehicles.
Cities aren’t climate-controlled garages with apartments bolted on.
The real audacity isn’t buildin’ bike lanes.
It’s demandin’ everyone else subsidise
your parking spot — and chuckin’ a tantrum when the answer’s no.
Definitely not the take I expected you to prompt chatGPt to spit out for you on this one, Angus. Surprised you aren’t siding with the tenants.
Honestly, this feels like a non-story. “Car Dependent Tenants Whine.”
Get over yourself already.
Put the bike lane through, as planned, and ignore the hyperbolic nimbys.
What about emergency response times for the whambulence?
“Located directly across from the Providence Park MAX station, Tiller Terrace…offers 214 apartment homes in a variety of floor plans, including studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom layouts, and lofts are available in select homes.”
So there is the potential here for 214+ cars if EVERYONE in the building has one. But, of course, lots of people don’t, and that’s why they chose to live in a building and location like this that is walkable and served by transit. 8-9 spots isn’t much when there are 100+ cars that need to park. What percentage of on-street parking do they really “lose”, even though it was never theirs to begin with? The streets belong to everyone, and a bike lane seems like a better use of space than private vehicle storage.
I hope PBOT holds firm to their plans to make downtown more accessible and safe for everyone traveling — not just those in a car.
Replacing parking is actually extremely good for safety for everyone and mobility for people who can’t drive! But squawking about parking is just one of the phases of every improvement we fight for
Why is this parking singled out for being fareless? I can’t believe that the parking is actually that scarce if the city is giving it away.
We should try to have some compassion since people who live in subsidized housing often get in where they can and don’t really have much choice about what’s available to them at the time they need it. Maybe the lady would rather live in Beaverton but it wasn’t an option.
Ultimately though the lady needs to be mature enough to adapt and figure out how to make it work for her while PBoT should continue as planned. I don’t have much confidence unfortunately and give it about 50/50 they’ll crumple like they did on 33rd.
Stop making this so complicated!!! Every street in that neighborhood has a different way of solving bicycle traffic which then changes on the next block! My god! Both cyclists and drivers not intimately familiar with the area will have no idea where to go or where to expect other road users. Bikes on the left side of the street. Right side of the street. Two-way bike lanes! One-way bike lanes! It’s F’n insane!!!
So much of driving and cycling is based on well-established norms. When you throw them out, things just get more confusing and more dangerous for everyone. When I see novel bike facilities that often rely on an overabundance of green paint and signage to make things “safe” I always say, “Have a motorist drive this at night. Then have them drive this at night IN THE RAIN!!” So much of driving at night, especially in the rain, is done practically blind making that green paint just about useless and drivers operate based on normative expectation. Safe night time operation of both bicycles and cars is greatly aided by following those 125 years of established rules and norms. When designing bike amenities everything should be done so bicyclists get amenities that make them feel safe but are also grounded in these long-established norms so that both drivers and bicyclists are where both parties expect to be.
Anyway, as you can imagine I’m not a big fan of two-way bike lanes on one side of a street (there are exceptions), but maybe just run the two-way down 16th Street and traffic calm 17th some more like it is the block south of Morrison where it is already a shared use street. This way you eliminate the need for a bike lane on all of 17th and free up all that curb space for parking. Alder can be a parking protected one-way bike lane like it is just to the west but a conventional bike lane would likely work just fine as is planned east of 16th.
Finally, I’ll admit that I’m not from Portland (I follow because I work in the profession), but how bad is the traffic stress on these narrow streets? All the streetview images seem to show quite a bit of traffic calming and very modest traffic volumes. Could some additional traffic calming, with sharrows and/or conventional bike lanes with painted buffers, also get the job done for 95% of cyclists??