Welcome to the week.
Below are the most notable stories that came across my inbox in the past seven days…
Passing of legendary advocate: Tim Blumenthal had a vast impact on US cycling advocacy in the decades he led the International Mountain Biking Association, Bikes Belong, and then People for Bikes. I knew him from about 2007 to 2013 when we’d attend the National Bike Summit in Washington D.C. together. Tim was also a regular at the Oregon Bike Summit. He passed after a battle with cancer. He was 70 years old. Rest in peace, Tim! (Bicycle Retailer & Industry News)
Mamdani going full Hidalgo: I was waiting to see which US mayor would be the first to embrace the urban planning gusto of Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo and it appears NYC’s Zohran Mamdani is up for the task with a plan to ban cars from a street that separates a major plaza and park. (NY Times 🔒)
Best e-bikes: With the new e-bike rebate program now in full swing, here are some of the best models, according to Wired Magazine testers. (Wired)
On your left: A well-known car company (that began as a bike company) has innovated a new bicycle bell that was scientifically engineered to pierce through noise-cancelling headphones so that pedestrians are more likely to hear it. (Skoda)
‘Menace on the streets’: This is a deep dive into the myriad problems posed by the growing number of fast and unregulated small electric vehicles swamping many cities. (Maclean’s)
Cautionary tale from Seattle: This is the story of how Seattle deployed its e-scooter fleet, where things went awry, and what’s at stake if they don’t take action to make things better. (Post Alley)
Oregon ‘Trail Towns’: Cascade Locks and Klamath Falls have both won designation as official “Trail Towns” according to the International Mountain Bicycling Association. The award is given to, “places that have made exceptional commitments to developing, stewarding, and celebrating trail systems that strengthen community life.” This is great news for advocates like NW Trail Alliance and volunteers who work so hard to build and maintain trail systems. (IMBA)
Easier e-riding: Last week we learned more about Lime’s new “Glider,” but they also launched a major redesign of their e-bike with many of the same goals. The new model aims to be easier to ride for more types of riders. (Fast Company)
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.
That Wired list of best e-bikes is bylined by Portland’s own Adrienne So!
And in Portland transportation news we have a new City Council action meriting an editorial from the Oregonian:
“Another ‘death to capitalism’ proposal from Portland City Council”
“….city leaders keep looking to their regulatory toolbox to see how they can pound companies into doing what they want and seem puzzled by the worse outcomes that result.”
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2026/04/editorial-valley-another-death-to-capitalism-proposal-from-portland-city-council.html
Yes, Angus, Uber drivers should get paid more. Saying that workers should be paid a fair wage is not “death to capitalism” and I find the entire uproar over the proposal to be extremely overblown.
Dw
Did you read the article?
Yes, I did. The thesis is “the government should never regulate markets because putting workers in a race to the bottom is good, actually”. So I’ll repeat, Uber drivers should get paid more.
You’re describing this like it’s just “pay workers more,” but that’s not what’s being proposed.
This is the city capping what Uber and Lyft can take (as low as 20%), while also keeping some of the highest per-trip fees in the country. That’s not free money — it just shifts who absorbs the cost.
And the likely outcomes aren’t mysterious: higher fares, fewer rides, fewer drivers, or companies scaling back service. Even the proposal’s supporters admit costs go up, they just assume companies will eat it.
They won’t.
So yes, drivers deserve fair pay. But pretending you can dictate a fixed split in a high-cost, low-demand market without consequences is exactly the kind of thinking people are pushing back on.
And it fits the broader pattern, policies that quietly discourage driving and ride-hailing, while assuming everyone can just switch to biking, walking, or transit.
That’s not how most people actually live or get around.
Meanwhile, my bike remains free, no one makes any money, and I’m happy.
You never replace the chain? Brake pads? Middle ring? Cables? Cassette? Tires?
I can’t make it 6 months without doing that in PDX conditions (Aug-Dec, 3000 miles).
I’m also assuming you true your own wheels.
But, while bikes are not free if they are used as transportation tools, they are far cheaper than transit, cars or taxi type services.
I have to replace stuff, sure. But not every 6 months. I take my bike to the shop once every year or two, but the mechanic there isn’t making much of a living off me.
2 years? Even splitting time between trike and gravel bike 2 years would result in a very poor experience.
4,000 miles on a chain that sees Oregon winters (road spray carries grit into the chain and shortens life immensely over fair weather riding), and by that time there’s enough wear on the middle ring to warrant changing. The cassette may have life in it, but it’s usually not worth the degradation in performance to eke out much more. Cables bind in housings within 2,000 miles in the rain, so I swap those more often. Avid BB7 brake pads last about 2,000 miles.
Marathon+ last about 4,000 miles (you go from no flats to frequent flats when the tire gets thin enough).
All of these things so degrade the experience that it’s worth a couple hundred bucs every 4,000 miles to replace them.
And not having wheels trued/tensioned is a recipe for a broken spoke. 200lbs of rider + gear on east portland roads requires attention.
These numbers come from about 70,000 commute miles and 30,000 other miles over the last 20 years.
All I can say is it works for me. I ride a chain until it slips; my brake pads until the make that grinding noise, and my tires until they fail. In my whole life I’ve probably had my wheels trued once. Lately, at least, I’ve managed to ride in the rain only rarely, generally on good streets, I’m not heavyset, and my bike is well sheltered, all of which probably help.
Huh. I just can’t do that 🙂
The first time I had a failure in a 40 degree driving rainstorm made me be a lot more proactive.
Of course, I’m not anywhere near perfect. I forgot to swap my cables at 2,000 miles this last time and at 3,000 my rear shift cable on my gravel bike snapped – at the head. That small piece of cable got loose in the brifter and *poof* I had to replace it asa well as the cable.
I really need to convert the gravel bike to a fully enclosed housing instead of the inane interrupted thing that’s so popular on bikes and many performance trikes these days (ICE does that on their Vortex and its descendents). Every interruption is a place for water and grit to enter 🙁
Talk about things I can’t do… unless you meant 2,000 miles after one broke, in which case, sure, I’m right there with you.
Nothing prevents uber from charging less. If they don’t want to operate in our city if they have to allow their drivers to make a decent wage, I would rather they left.
Why are we acting like ride hailing is some amazing, irreplaceable part of the transportation network? It’s just someone else driving you around in a car, not really any better than single-occupancy vehicles and certainly not shifting the transportation system to a wider diversity of non-car options. It didn’t even exist 15 years ago and people got around fine. If regulating Uber means that it isn’t profitable for them to operate here and they leave, is it really so bad? Maybe people can take taxis again or however else they used to get the symphony and the airport (which are the arguments being made)? Apparently people won’t leave their homes or visit any businesses to spend money if they aren’t ferried there by an Uber? That behavior was learned because Uber pushed it on us, and folks can learn about other transportation choices just as quickly. Now, we can still quibble about whether this particular regulation is a sensible way to ensure drivers are paid higher wages–I really have no opinion.
No — people use Uber because they like it better than the alternatives, some of which, like transit, biking and driving, are considerably cheaper. Portlanders who had used Uber elsewhere wanted it here.
The only functionally equivalent mode would be a taxi, and it seems likely they would get more expensive if their primary competition left town. And there is a long tail of dislike for taxis that people remember, even if they’ve forgotten exactly why.
Yes, please. Let’s do this.
The “death to capitalism” is being caused by the capitalists wanting to pay workers less and less.
People trying to make sure that the workers are paid enough to live in the city they work on is the exact opposite of killing capitalism.
I dont know, but maybe bending over backwards and getting fucked by the capitalists is not a good thing. Constantly giving them more and more is not a good things.
Go on and explain, what worse things will come from putting more money into workers pockets. What bad thing will come from the capitalists having a tiny bit less profit?
Sky — no one’s arguing drivers shouldn’t earn more.
The issue is how you’re trying to force it.
If the city caps what Uber and Lyft can take while already layering on high fees, that money doesn’t just appear out of thin air. The likely outcomes are higher fares, fewer rides, or reduced service — which means fewer opportunities for drivers.
That’s the “worse outcome” you asked about.
You can call it sticking it to capitalism, but if companies scale back or riders disappear because prices jump, drivers don’t come out ahead, they get squeezed by a smaller market.
Want drivers to make more? You need more demand and more rides, not just a mandated split on paper.
Every attempt to regulate exploitative employers is met with this same argument (if we don’t let the corporate overlords screw us in the exact manner of their choosing, they will take their economic activity to someplace with fewer worker protections). By this logic, minimum wage laws are a terrible idea. It ignores the power differential between workers and employers. I disagree that ‘drivers’ will not come out ahead if uber leaves. Not all economic activity is good.
That’s not really the argument; they’re not a carpet mill that can move to Alabama if they we impose too many regulations.
It seems obvious to me that if we pile too many restrictions on Uber, they will stop operating here. I don’t know where the line is, but if this is it, then there will be a political price to pay for being the one that drove Uber out of town.
I won’t pay that price, and I won’t be out of my driving job if they leave, and I’m not an Uber user, and I don’t really care about them one way or the other, but it does seem that there are real consequences to pushing too far.
If Uber does leave Portland, it will probably be seen as more “doom loop” and discourage people from moving here, so on balance it will probably be a good thing for me.
I’ll leave this to the big brains on City Council — I’m sure they’ll get it right.
How is this argument different? Seems structurally identical to me.
I’m offering my meager political support to anyone who is taking heat for regulating predatory and exploitative companies. If uber wants to be part of the future of Portland they can abide by our regulations. If they want to threaten us, I’m willing to work to make it so they do leave. I feel the same way about autonomous ride services, which you have frequently commented on — they can play by our rules or they can go ruin other cities.
If I move my business to Alabama, I still have my business. If I stop doing business in Portland, I now have less business. It’s not wildly different from Portland’s viewpoint, but it could be a bigger deal to Uber than simple relocation would be (or not, depending on how important Portland is to Uber).
I am sure there are some who would cheer Uber leaving town. I suspect those voices will not heard above the roar of those who are upset, including both customers and drivers.
I could be wrong. Maybe we’ll find out.
Like I said, I don’t want Portland to continue to grow, so I’m happy to have us look like a backwater to the rest of the country. My lifestyle and livelihood will be unaffected.
If Uber leaves the city, Lyft will stay and reap all the profits. Doordash will stay and keep all the profits. Uber leaving would be a boon for the other companies since there would be less competition. So I doubt that Uber would leave.
But if a company cant pay the workers a “living wage,” then the buisness model isnt viable and needs to die.
There ate consequences in pushing to far, which is them leaving, and there are consequences of not pushing them at all, which is workers being paid slave wages. This is a contradiction, one of many within capitalism, which shows how incredibly flawed it is.
Man, I love capitalisms race to the bottom…
I’m curious what will happen to the workers of the non-viable business model who, presumably, can’t find a better job and are driving for Uber because it’s the best deal available to them.
When that goes away, what do they do?
I presume the economics of Uber and Lyft are similar, so I am using “Uber” as a collective noun.
Most uber drivers do so as as sideline, but without uber, they’ll spend less on gas, maintenance, and insurance for their cars. Many of them would have to go longer before buying a new car, or even buying a newER car. In return they’ll have more time for family, hobbies, or whatever they want to do.
Apparently, they want (or need) to be earning extra money. It’s true that if I lost my job I would have “more time for hobbies”, but that’s kind of beside the point.
What it really sounds like is that rideshare companies are not a viable buisness.
It amazes me that everyone is saying drivers deseve to earn more, but every attempt to make that happen is met with the exuses you and others give.
So, whats the real solution? How do you actually get tje drivers to be paid more without the customers having to pay more?
Subsidize their income with PCEF money.
Let’s just be real here – the thing that will kill Uber in Portland and pretty much every other city will be Waymos and Waymo-alike companies. No drivers means no drivers to be upset about pay. Until that happens, yes, drivers should get paid more.
Sexual violence used as an exclamation point isn’t really what I want to read as I peruse the comments. It might be fine for you and JM, but it’s not really fine for everyone.
How can we have an intelligent discussion of this topic without a common understanding of the availability and value of taxi licenses in Portland?
I presume that there’s not artificial scarcity causing a taxi license to be worth hundreds of thousands and taxi operators have achieved regulatory capture here but I’ve moved here recently enough that I don’t have a clue.
And in this juicy bit of Portland transportation related news…..Earl Blumenauer wasn’t cited but is accused of running a red light and injuring someone…..
“Former U.S. Rep. Earl Blumenauer has been accused of running a red light and entering the path of another motorist, causing a crash last year.”
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2026/04/lawsuit-claims-ex-oregon-congressman-ran-red-light-injuring-portland-motorist.html
Your threshold for news being “juicy” is apparently far, far lower than mine. A crash incurring a $6000 hospital bill is barely more than a fender bender.
So when a driver runs a red light, it’s proof “cars are dangerous.”
But when it’s Earl Blumenauer, suddenly it’s quiet on Bike Portland?
If the allegation is true, running a red and causing a crash is dangerous — no matter who does it.
Consistency matters. Otherwise this isn’t about safety, it’s about picking sides.
You’re never going to see this blog let a comment through that links to that story!
Seriously, that Oregonlive article (not the later update) was published yesterday, April 13th at 5:50 PM. This Monday roundup was published yesterday.
Maybe that’s a factor in the “quiet on Bike Portland”.
It’s still proof cars are dangerous. Even in the hands of someone I actually believes cares and tries to drive well.
In fact, this just bolsters the case that most human beings aren’t competent to operate heavy machinery near other human beings without serious safeguards in place.
My reckless SUV driver is good but your reckless SUV driver is bad.
The apologia for traffic violence in your comment is thicker than the exhaust from a jacked F250 dually.
Surely you’re joking! Trike Guy in no way dismissed or excused what Earl did. Sure, he suggested Earl might have cared and tried to drive well, but he attached that to the idea that such isn’t enough to ensure safety, a point further emphasized by his second sentence. Seems you’re the one laying down something thick.
I didn’t see any apologies for traffic violence in Trike Guy’s comment. I also didn’t see anything remotely saying they thought Blumenauer’s driving was good.
I think it’s important to separate a few things here.
“Reckless driving” has a specific meaning: knowingly disregarding safety. There’s no public evidence that applies in this case—there isn’t even confirmed evidence he ran the light.
That doesn’t mean nothing went wrong. It just means we shouldn’t jump straight to the most severe category without facts.
More broadly, most crashes aren’t malice—they’re misjudgment, attention limits, or timing errors. That’s exactly why I tend to focus on systems and design. If a single human mistake can cause serious harm, that’s a system problem as much as an individual one.
At the same time, when there is clear recklessness—speeding, texting, deliberate violations—I’m very comfortable being harsh about it. I try not to assume recklessness without clear evidence—whether it’s this case or any other.
RE: Cautionary Tale From Seattle
I feel like we’re already in the same bad spot as Seattle with the scooters. They are a constant source of clutter on sidewalks, paths, and bike lanes. There’s not enough busybodies in the whole city to keep up on reporting improperly parked scooters. In my view, the only solution is docks. All shared micro mobility should be required to use street docks (aka not taking away limited sidewalk space).
The scooters ought to form a union and demand equal curb rights with private cars, cabs, bicycles, and other mobility devices! Down with their oppressors, those nasty Capitalistic pedestrians, demanding this and that! Scooters of the World, Unite!
Glad someone is finally saying it. I’m so tired of people walking all over my personal chudmobile parking space in front of my office.
Thanks for including the trail town story! Exciting stuff happening for mountain biking in Cascade Locks, with more to come. Huge kudos to the NWTA, as IMBA specifically cited “a strikingly strong volunteer ethic” in their write up for Cascade Locks.
The trail town designations are great news. Congrats to NWTA and everyone involved. I can’t help but wonder why Oakridge didn’t make the list.
“Trail Towns” are largely meant to draw attention new/emerging ride destinations. Oakridge, Bend, Hood River, etc, have been MTB destinations for at least two decades if not more.
Mamdani full Hidalgo
Allez Allez Allez Mamdani !!!
PBOT CAN DO THIS TOO !!
LET’S HAVE SUPERBLOCKS NEAR SCHOOLS !!
MORE SPACE FOR CHILDREN NEAR SCHOOLS !!
The streets inside Grand Army Plaza have seen 135 crashes that have injured 221 people — including 26 cyclists, 20 pedestrians, and 121 motorists — over the past decade, according to NYC Crashmapper.
Community feedback gathered from a 2024 survey indicated that 85% of the 3,600 respondents supported a plan that would connect the arch with the park entrance, according to the mayor’s office, and Brooklynites have long proposed changes that would prioritize cyclists and pedestrians in the plaza.
“Every time NYC DOT has provided more space to pedestrians at the park, it’s been an instant success, and it becomes impossible to think of how the space could have functioned before,” said DOT Commissioner Mike Flynn in a statement
The revamp would also realize the original vision of the plaza’s designers, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux; they had wanted the plaza to be a grand entrance to Prospect Park. But the introduction of the automobile in the early 20th century foiled that vision, and the plaza has been divided by traffic lanes ever since.
Mamdani’s announcement would also fulfill a long-sought dream of transportation and community advocates to reduce vehicular traffic in Grand Army Plaza.
“Right now, you have to cross four lanes of traffic to get from the vegetables to the bread during the farmers market,” said Ben Furnas, executive director of the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives.
“People from all over Brooklyn come to Grand Army Plaza,” he added. “It’s like the crossroads of so many different neighborhoods and communities in Brooklyn, and it’s a great opportunity for it to be the model for what great pedestrian space could look like through the city.”
https://www.brooklynpaper.com/mamdani-propose-eliminate-cars-grand-army-plaza/
The Maclean’s “Menace on the Streets” pieceit overemphasizes the devices themselves and underemphasizes two key things.
First, it cites big increases in injuries without really accounting for the surge in micromobility ridership. If usage is exploding, raw injury counts alone don’t tell you whether things are actually getting more dangerous per trip.
Second, many of the serious cases described involve riders without helmets. That’s not unique to e-scooters, it’s a general head-injury risk across bikes, skateboards, etc. If we’re concerned about traumatic brain injuries, helmet use seems like the most obvious place to focus.
I’d rather see more attention on basic safety behavior than framing the entire category of devices as the problem.
One small gripe about all the e-micromobility share bikes and scooters is their mass placement on some neighborhood bike racks. I’ve been to locations like the grocery store and popular spots like food cart pods or cafes where they have taken up all the available bike parking leaving a person, like me, that gets around via my own pedal power, no place to lock up.
It’s a bad business model being coddled due to a lack of forethought on the part of city government. If all regulation is “complaint driven” that means there has to be a nuisance or a crash or some other negative outcome before there is action in the public interest.
Bike racks are there for people to use in the course of their business or pleasure activities. If bike racks become the dispenser for rental vehicles while the Biketown racks are often deserted, that’s a mess. Do I remember that orange Nike logo kiosks replaced bike racks in some places?
And in sad Portland transportation news:
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/crime/man-injured-in-stabbing-near-northeast-portland-transit-center-police-search-for-suspect/283-c726f74f-2d07-4886-9a22-279cc32defa2
I didn’t realize we were allowed to have transit police in Portland. Good on them!
https://katu.com/news/local/eight-arrested-in-parkrose-transit-area-drug-trafficking-probe-warrant-yields-drugs-cash-crime-police-portland-oregon-local-trimet-ebike