Imagine a bike tour that chases Japan’s famous cherry blossoms. Or one that chases a total solar eclipse. You won’t have to imagine it if you roll out tonight for another Bike Touring Slideshow hosted by our friend Ted Buehler after Bike Happy Hour (6:30 pm Wednesday at Migration Brewing on North Williams Avenue).
Ted is a bicycle touring evangelist who loves sharing two-wheeled adventures. As a special addition to tonight’s event, he’ll share some of the things he’s learned about touring on a budget. Check out the lineup below (as shared by Ted) and consider coming out to Migration tonight for the show. It’s free and there’s yummy food and drinks for purchase.
1) Momoko Saunders, bicycle touring in Japan, 2017.
Momoko started in the south of Japan as the first cherry blossoms were coming out. And bicycled north, following the cherry blossom season as it slowly moved up the country to the north.
Momoko stayed in hot springs, wild camped, made friends. Spring weather, of course, is not generally warm and sunny, but it was still doable and enjoyable.
2) Fred Tatch, winning the 1979 and 1980 International Human Powered Vehicle Competition road race component.
Fred and friends from Eugene travelled to Ontario, CA with their home built “Manuped” bicycles — recumbents that were pedalled with both hands and feet. And had fairings made of bamboo and vinyl.
On arrival, they met all the other teams, many of whom were designed and built by university students in engineering, who all had substantial budgets.
Fred in his HPV!
High speed bicycles were in their youth at the time, and different teams had entirely different approaches to how to build a human powered machine that could travel up to 55 mph.
Fred will tell us about how he designed and built his bicycle, and how he raced and came out at the head of the pack two years in a row.
3) Ted Buehler, international bicycle touring on a budget, 2020s.
Ted toured through nine countries in eastern and western europe in 2025, on a light budget. He will show beautiful photos of well maintained bike paths as he explains the best way to get your bike on an airplane, find good routes and regions for bicycling, and ferret out interesting accomodation that supports local economies.
4) Scott Bacheler, riding to the solar eclipse, 2017.
Scott was part of a group of Portlanders wo rode to the WIllamette Valley in 2017 for the eclipse. Scott has an E-assist bike, others rode conventional bikes. They had a group camp set up, and avoided the greatest traffic jam in Oregon history by coming and going by bicycle.
SW Main Street before it was repaved by PBOT. (Photo: PBOT)
The next phase of the City of Portland’s effort to raise transportation revenue is upon us.
This Thursday, February 19th, the Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) will kickoff a series of four open houses to garner feedback and inform Portlanders about how best to generate more funding to pay for road projects and transportation programs.
As BikePortland has reported for many years, local sources of funding for transportation are woefully outdated and ineffective. PBOT officials say after eight straight years of painful cuts, they are now in crisis mode and the time has come to ask us to pay more to make sure our transportation system remains usable. In years past, we could at least count on state and federal funding to help fill holes in local budgets. But with the failures of the Trump Administration and state lawmakers to do their jobs, even those sources of revenue are no longer certain.
Aerial view of NE 82nd and Glisan. (Photo: TriMet)
People who understand that excellent transit service is key to thriving 82nd Avenue corridor are celebrating a big win. That’s because at the project’s Policy & Budget Committee meeting on Friday, TriMet announced their intention to build semi-dedicated bus lanes on nearly the entire scope of their 82nd Avenue Transit Project — between Southeast Clatsop Street (Clackamas County line) and Northeast Lombard. One very notable compromise made official on Friday was the plan to drop the bus lanes at the Southeast Powell Blvd.
While the absence of bus lanes at Powell is a surrender to the status quo, getting semi-dedicated space for bus operators on what one committee member called “Oregon’s greatest main street,” is no small thing.
Back in October, project staff recommended just three miles of bus lanes as they faced threats of lawsuits from business owners and other serious concerns over how a major change in roadway space allocation on such a busy corridor might impact the project scope, budget, and timeline.
But on Friday, the same project officials who recommended three miles of “business access and transit” or “BAT” lanes (known as the “Some BAT” option) changed their recommendation to seven miles of BAT lanes (known as the “More BAT” option). PBOT Director Millicent Williams said during Friday’s meeting, “With this approach, the 82nd Avenue corridor will be the city’s largest investment in transit priority treatments with a cumulative 14 miles of BAT lanes. That is something to celebrate.”
The $320 million project has always come with major transit upgrades including longer buses, station improvements and signal upgrades. But given that 82nd Avenue carries the state’s busiest bus line and that many of the community leaders and elected officials around the table want a transformational transit upgrade, TriMet officials agreed to consider going even further by turning two of the former state highway’s four lanes into BAT lanes.
When they opted for a paltry three miles of BAT lanes in October, many Portlanders — including several Metro councilors and even TriMet board members — opposed the recommendation. The pushback forced project staff to reconsider their opinions and it put added scrutiny onto the final decision.
Latest design proposal. (Slide: TriMet)
TriMet was put in the difficult position of having to balance needs of many groups including: business owners (who equate any loss of driving space with a loss in business), Metro (whose regional plans call for safe, thriving main streets served by transit), the Oregon Department of Transportation (who opposes the BAT lanes on diversion and congestion grounds), the Federal Transit Administration (who wants to make sure their money is well-spent), the City of Portland (whose adopted plans call for great transit and a reduction in driving), drivers (who repel any change to the status quo), and thousands Portlanders who want better transit.
ODOT’s concerns took front and center after a meeting last month revealed their influence over the project. Since their Highway 26/Powell Blvd crosses 82nd, they have authority to veto changes they believe would negatively impact how the roadway functions. ODOT made it clear on Friday they do not want BAT lanes in the project because of how they might cause drivers to avoid the corridor and clog nearby roadways. ODOT Region 1 Policy and Development Manager Chris Ford told the Policy and Budget Committee on Friday that, “A lot of the caution that you hear from ODOT around is because we need to make sure that the system is working really well for all modes.” Ford said ODOT’s position is no BAT lanes because less space for drivers, “limits the overall system,” and, “Because it squeezes a system that already doesn’t have a lot of capacity and isn’t going to get a lot more added to it.” Ford acknowledged that while BAT lanes might add capacity to the system overall (if more people take transit), “It also just takes some (capacity) away.”
As for just how much the BAT lanes will be dropped at Powell is still being negotiated by ODOT, PBOT and TriMet. One source told me it will likely be 2-3 blocks on either side of the street.
The biggest fear from TriMet staff (and likely why they came out with the unpopular initial recommendation) is that BAT lanes require design changes that make the project significantly more expensive (adding about $8 million to the overall cost) and could slow down their timeline. TriMet has a tight window to finalize the additional funding needed to implement the BAT lanes and an economic impact study. They plan to apply for a $150 million FTA “Small Starts” grant this coming September, which means they need a rock-solid funding plan secured by August.
At Friday’s meeting, TriMet project staff and GM Desue emphasized that just because they’ve settled on the “More BAT” option, it doesn’t mean the bus lanes are a done deal. ODOT permitting and funding could still poke holes in these plans.
Because the new lanes could make significant changes to auto capacity at busy locations (like the stretch between SE Foster and NE Glisan and at the SE Stark and Washington couplet), TriMet will need to be granted “design exceptions” (DE) from ODOT in order to move forward. Both the DE and funding talks have begun, but GM Desue and TriMet staff issued clear warnings at the meeting that if either don’t resolve positively, BAT lanes might be dropped at more locations.
82nd Avenue Transit Project Manager Jesse Stemmler made it clear that the design decision made Friday needs to “retain some level of flexibility.” “Further reduction of BAT lanes may be needed,” he warned, “either in the case that design exceptions are denied, or widening is required, or a significant funding gap remains.”
TriMet Interim Director of Major Projects Michael Kiser dampened the celebratory mood when he explained the possibility of cutting project elements to save money and underscored the seriousness of keeping the project on time and on budget. Kiser explained that if the FTA feels the project has too much funding and/or design risks, they would require TriMet to have more money in a contingency fund before authorizing any grant funding.
“We could end up in September or August with too many risks, requiring too much contingency, so more of our funds would have to go towards contingency,” Kiser said. “And we’d have to look for additional cuts within the budget.”
Given what committee members said Friday, any further reduction of BAT lanes would be controversial. Metro Councilor Duncan Hwang said he believes a slightly longer commute (about one to two minutes) is well worth the added safety and reliability that dedicated bus service will provide. He also pointed out that 172 units of affordable housing near 82nd and Division have just 42 car parking spots between them. “These are TOD [transit-oriented development] projects,” Hwang said. “And we’ve made that decision that we’re going to build housing for people and not for cars.”
“So, how are our community members that are in these housing units are going to get around? It’s going to be by transit,” he continued. “And that was by design.”
Committee member (and wheelchair user who sits on the TriMet Community Advisory Committee) Franklin Ouchida echoed Hwang’s sentiment. “Those people [who live in affordable housing and don’t have cars] are going to have to get around. They’re not going to be able to afford an Uber ride everywhere they go. So [this project is] going to be revolutionary and a way to break the the idea of car-dependency, as well as having a viable community there.”
If all goes according to plan, TriMet will begin construction next year and the project would open for service in 2029.
I’ve been out of town since Thursday and just got back late last night. So sorry for the delay on the roundup — and for not covering the TriMet 82nd Ave Transit Project news. I’m working on both right now.
Below are the most notable stories that came across my inbox this past eight days…
Long live jaywalking: Don’t miss this interesting and important history lesson about the racist and legal underpinnings of jaywalking laws and how the city where they first began — Kansas City, Missouri — has worked to overturn them. (KCUR)
Waymo watch: Since Waymo wants to be in Portland, I’m now tracking Waymo-related news more closely. On that note, they just launched an autonomous fleet in Nashville, Tennessee. (Reuters)
Cyclocross in the Winter Olympics: I had no idea this was even something folks were talking about, but it’d be really cool if ‘cross was named as a new sport for the 2030 games! (Cycling Weekly)
Private or public? A video that delves into the pros and cons of publicly subsidized bike and scooter share systems in Vancouver BC has relevance in Portland as folks debate how to keep Biketown viable. (Momentum)
Gas tax politics in California: Our neighbors to the south face many of the same political challenges as we do when it comes to weaning folks off the outdated notion that the gas tax adequately funds the transportation system — and more importantly — how to find a new source of revenue. The mere mention of a per-mile tax caused a political storm. (Politico)
Backwards on climate: Another step backward for our country thanks to the corrupt Trump Administration who have decided to reverse a key, common sense EPA finding that said greenhouse gas emissions are bad and are worth regulating. (NBC News)
New LA subway: After spending billions on one of the most congested sections of freeway in the country only to see induced demand work its predictable magic, Los Angeles officials are now considering a subway under Sepulveda Pass to get folks out of their damn cars. (Bloomberg)
‘E-bike for your feet’: The geniuses at Nike HQ in Beaverton are hard at work on a new product they describe as a bionic sneaker that helps propel your feet. (NPR)
The good kind of AI?: The City of Santa Monica in Southern California plans to equip its parking enforcement vehicles with AI scanning technology in order to bust folks who park in bike lanes. (Ars Technica)
In favor of free buses: With New York City on the cusp of fare-free transit, a social justice organizer and former public defender explains some of the oft-forgotten benefits of letting people ride for free. (NY Times Opinion)
Fewer ODOT workers means more dangerous conditions for the ones who remain. (Photo: ODOT)
It’s official: Oregon lawmakers are pondering the sacrifice of program that makes streets safer for kids to walk and bike to school in order to keep our transportation system above water. A program that builds bike paths with revenue from the $15 tax on new bikes is also on the chopping block, as is the payroll tax that funds public transit statewide. It’s all part of a desperate scramble to fill a $242 million budget hole at the Oregon Department of Transportation that remains unfilled due to legislators’ inability to pass a robust transportation funding package last session and the uncertainty created by a referendum that — if approved by voters — would kill the band-aid measure that did pass.
ODOT has spent years warning these same lawmakers about the fiscal cliff caused by dwindling gas tax revenues and political choices that have tied Oregon to expensive highway projects without a sustainable way to pay for them. And with public opposition to new taxes at an all-time high, lawmakers have put themselves into a very bad position. The talk in the halls of Salem has shifted from which projects to fund to which programs to cut and which positions to keep.
To keep DMVs and maintenance shops open and avoid the ODOT doomsday scenario of bare bones operations that would put road workers and road users at imminent risk, the legislature can either identify new revenue and/or slash funding already dedicated to existing programs. Sumption and Porter shared three tiers of cuts (below) and laid out programs where funds could be redirected to operations and maintenance as a short-term solution.
The first tier would avoid the worst case scenario. It counts on the legislature to identify some new revenue and it would allow ODOT to avoid layoffs while still requiring them to cut $70 million and maintain 138 vacant positions.
The second tier would add another $70 million in cuts for a total of $140 million. It would require 279 vacant positions and 71 layoffs. (Vacancies are positions that are held just not filled, while layoffs remove the position from the agency completely.)
If no additional revenue is identified, ODOT would move to tier three and layoff 400 people. This option would reduce the total number of staff positions by 1,039 (about 20% of the total workforce) to save $242 million. This level of cuts would, “Have serious impacts to Oregonians as we move throughout the state,” Sumption warned.
The redirection of funds from throughout the bureau is another avenue lawmakers are considering. As I reported last month, Governor Tina Kotek has said everything is on the table, except transit. In documents shared with this committee, ODOT has shared which programs would provide the biggest budget impact. Keep in mind that only unobligated funds are being considered. If a project is already funded or a contract has already been signed, it would still move forward.
Lawmakers could choose to redirect $84 million currently programmed for bridge seismic repairs and/or $85 million major highway projects named in House Bill 2017. The statewide payroll tax that pays for transit is also up for consideration, as is a pot of funding created by the “vehicle privilege tax” created in 2017 that’s paid by car dealerships. Other sources that could be redirected include programs funded through a gas tax on non-highway equipment and vehicles (like lawnmowers). This program funds bike paths and other bike-related projects across the state.
Another possible source of funds that will likely get a lot of attention is the Safe Routes to School program. ODOT currently puts $15 million per year into that fund to make streets around schools safer for walking and biking. Its inclusion in a presentation slide at Tuesday’s meeting makes it a very real possibility that lawmakers will opt to pause all Safe Routes to Schools grants for the coming two years in order to plug this hole in the budget. ODOT says the Safe Routes account currently has $27 million of unobligated funds that could be redirected.
Both redirection of funding and staffing reductions will be difficult choices for legislators. Is it more difficult than passing new taxes and fees? That’s the big question. The disconnect on funding from so many of our legislators (almost all of them Republican) that we can operate a transportation system without charging people a fair price to use it is really coming into focus during this short session.
At one point during Tuesday’s meeting, committee chair and House Rep. David Gomberg asked a DMV employee who came to testify what her experiences have been with customers. “There’s a lot of confusion,” the eight year DMV veteran shared. The rest of her response really stuck with me and helps illustrate why we are at this precipice:
“I understand Oregonians don’t want to increase taxes. At the same time, they’ll tell us that we’re doing an amazing job and that they can’t believe that they were able to be helped with such friendly faces. So it’s a tale of two different things from the same person. I literally had a person both ask me if they could work for us because we’re so amazing, while also saying that they love that they don’t have to pay any higher registration fees and that they were signing the [no gas tax] referendum.”
The short session is in full swing. I’m tracking several bills with major implications for ODOT’s future. See them here and stay tuned for more coverage.
Finance Committee members at the meeting on Monday. Steve Novick and Eric Zimmerman were remote.
What was supposed to be a straightforward, procedural exercise at a Portland City Council meeting Monday turned into something more like a tense congressional hearing when a transportation bureau staffer was unexpectedly grilled by several councilors.
The questioning — led by District 4 Council Eric Zimmerman — appeared to have caused the Portland Bureau of Transportation staffer to break down in tears. At several moments, the woman (who I’ve chosen to not name) became upset and spoke through sobs was unable maintain composure while no one in the room came to her aid.
The staffer was on the agenda of the Council Finance Committee to present an ordinance that would give PBOT authority to obtain property rights needed to move forward with the NE MLK Jr Blvd Safety and Access to Transit Project. This $5 million project has been in the works since 2022 and is funded through a mix of federal and local sources. It will lead to installation of new crossing treatments with pedestrian-activated signals at several intersections along with ADA curb ramps and sidewalk upgrades.
Since this is the Finance Committee and not the Transportation Committee and the ordinance is about right-of-way procurement, I doubt the PBOT staffer — a capital projects manager with eight years of experience at the bureau — expected to be grilled about the project’s scope and its relationship to unrelated programs and policies. But Councilor Zimmerman saw this as an opportunity to criticize PBOT and grind an axe about a program he wants the agency to pay more attention to.
Councilor Eric Zimmerman speaking at the meeting remotely.
During his questioning, Zimmerman took several jabs at PBOT that were beyond the pay grade of the staffer he was speaking to. He wanted to know why PBOT was spending so much of this project’s budget on sidewalk and ramp repairs when (according to his opinion) the crosswalks are the most important safety feature. Zimmerman made it clear he might not approve the ordinance because, because in his view, PBOT was building “Taj Mahal” sidewalks on MLK where they already exist when some areas of his district (Southwest, West, and Sellwood) have no sidewalks at all.
“We are once again going to invest in bumping [the sidewalk] out and making it look like we did Fourth Avenue [a reference to the recently completed SW 4th Avenue project],” Zimmerman shared with the PBOT staffer. “I’ve seen no work by PBOT with respect to the SIPP program that was about where projects can exist that don’t have a sidewalk.”
Zimmerman was a co-sponsor of the Sidewalk Improvement and Paving Program, or SIPP, that passed council last year. The idea with SIPP is to create a nest egg of funds through debt financing, then identify places in the districts 1 and 4 where new sidewalks should be built. But for reasons unknown to me at this point (likely related to a budget crisis at PBOT), the program hasn’t gotten off the ground yet.
Zimmerman is clearly annoyed by the lack of progress with SIPP and he used this unrelated project ordinance — and the unsuspecting PBOT staffer — as a platform to drive his points home. “I don’t feel like SIPP has landed with PBOT yet, and I’d like to get a sense before I authorize this, because from Finance, we only have a couple of widgets to be able to exercise some influence here.”
The PBOT staffer pointed out that the MLK project comes from a federal grant awarded in 2022, but Zimmerman continued to press her about why the city is paying for new sidewalks when the crosswalks are the more important element.
“I’m not understanding the sidewalk part here,” Zimmerman said.
“When we install a signal, a signal pole, or rectangular rapid flashing beacon, we’re also required to update the ADA ramps,” the staffer replied.
“Who requires it? Because our ADA staff have presented to us some discrepancies in terms of how PBOT interprets that and what’s actually required, versus our own standard. Because I’ll remind you, SIPP is about places where there’s literally just gravel or mud, so we have no ADA standards. So I’m trying to understand how this makes common sense.”
Zimmerman kept alluding to conversations he had with PBOT Director Millicent Williams that ADA curb ramp work could be done, “in a small fashion versus in a large fashion.” “Which seems to be the PBOT way these days — we can’t do anything in a more smaller sense.” he added.
“It’s in my interest and the whole team’s interest to deliver this project as affordably as possible,” the staffer replied. “If there was a way to get out to sort of cost cut in that space, I would be doing it.”
Then Zimmerman replied,
“I am challenged by that, given my conversation with the director of PBOT, and given the situation that happened with the ADA ramp program and the replacement of certain staff members because of the, I’ll just say, approach that was used… I am looking for a way to get any acknowledgement that PBOT recognizes that they are able to make improvements without always completely tearing down and replacing, and I can’t seem to get that indication.”
Zimmerman then wondered if the MLK project was taking money from other projects he feels are more important. “I am supportive of these crosswalks,” he continued. “I’m just not sure that I have full faith and credit to the PBOT way of implementing the crosswalks… And that this is coming directly from my conversations with with the director looking at some programs in my own district, and saying, ‘Yeah, that didn’t have to be that big.'”
The councilor appeared to be somewhat self-aware, saying repeatedly that he understands Finance Committee might not be the proper venue for this exchange, but said, “I only get a few stabs at transportation-related things, being on Finance.”
Zimmerman wasn’t the only councilor with input. Committee Chair Elana Pirtle-Guiney invited North Portland resident Keith Edwards to testify. Edwards, a Black man, told the committee that he and his neighbors want more crosswalks on MLK. He implied that PBOT hasn’t been racially equitable in past crossing investments when he said, “The traffic signal recently installed on N Going Street is not predominantly used by citizens that look like me.” (N Going is a major bike route and neighborhood greenway used by many bicycle riders.) Pirtle-Guiney echoed his testimony and urged the PBOT staffer to expand the scope of the project. “We’re only making upgrades to five intersections. And I’ve heard loud and clear from Keith Edwards and from others in my district, that there’s about 20 intersections on MLK that need some work,” Pirtle-Guiney said.
Councilor Steve Novick then asked one of those questions that he knew the answer to, but just wanted the staffer to get on the record. He asked whether PBOT did outreach beyond one business association mentioned in the presentation, “And can you tells us why you felt that they were reasonable representatives of people in the community?” I think the staffer heard that question as a criticism and it was at this moment that she appeared to finally break and give into her emotions (video here).
“We’ve done a lot of outreach through the planning phase of this project,” the staffer said.
It was hard to watch as no one mentioned the condition of the staffer or took time to apologize or check in with her. Councilor Pirtle-Guiney eventually acknowledged the situation by telling the staffer they could take a minute recess if needed.
When it came time for Councilor Mitch Green to speak, he said he regretted mentioning the SIPP program earlier in the meeting, “Because I think my colleague got focused on the SIPP aspect of this and not the thing that you’re actually presenting.”
“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today… that’s really unfair.”
– Mitch Green, councilor
“I apologize on behalf of this committee if your if your motives were impugned today,” Green continued. “I think that’s really unfair, and we just need to keep it focused on the thing that’s being presented.”
Zimmerman couldn’t let that go. “I’m not sure why we’re talking about motives being impugned here,” he responded. “Those are fair questions. There’s certainly no impugning of the project here.”
But Zimmerman’s tone and comments said otherwise. And Councilor Green wasn’t the only person who felt that way.
I heard from several readers who were concerned about how the PBOT staffer was treated. One of them shared with me in an email that,
“I thought the exchange was pretty appalling and I’m disappointed that Councilor Pirtle-Guiney didn’t intervene at all. Zimmerman’s line of questioning wasn’t really germane to the topic at hand, and given the power imbalances, was really a discussion more suitable with PBOT Director Williams. And it came off as hypocritical, given he voted against an oversight resolution last week based on concerns that it would create a culture of fear if bureau staff got grilled by councilors in a public setting.”
It was difficult to watch this exchange. I feel bad for the PBOT staffer and I’m sure it’s sent a chill through the bureau.
Beyond the choices Councilor Zimmerman made, this incident might have something to do with the new form of government where councilors no longer have direct control of specific bureaus. This means there’s no buffer between elected officials and agency staff. In years past, the commissioner-in-charge of PBOT would have taken the brunt of Zimmerman’s questions. This new power dynamic isn’t inherently bad, but as the saying goes, “With great power comes great responsibility.”
— Watch video of the committee meeting on YouTube. This link takes you to the beginning of Zimmerman’s questions.
By 2028 this curbside lane near Trader Joe’s on Cesar Chavez and SE Schiller will be on-street parking. (Photo: PBOT)
After years of fatal collisions and a steady drumbeat of bad news, the Portland Bureau of Transportation is turning the tide on Cesar E Chavez Boulevard. Last Tuesday, Mayor Keith Wilson announced that the latest budget bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives included a $250,000 earmark for the notoriously unsafe road.
“This stretch of Chavez Boulevard is one of the most dangerous thoroughfares in Portland,” Wilson said in a statement. “This project will save lives – lives of pedestrians, bus riders, cyclists, and drivers.”
The funding was requested by Congresswoman Maxine Dexter (who replaced longtime transportation champion Earl Blumenauer in 2025) and supported by senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley. It will be invested in a one-mile stretch of Cesar Chavez between SE Powell and Woodstock where PBOT will put it toward lane restriping, street lighting, traffic signal upgrades, new crossings, wider sidewalks, and more.
$250,000 won’t go very far; but this isn’t the only iron PBOT has in the fire when it comes to Cesar Chavez. As I reported last month, PBOT already has $2.2 million set aside from a state grant for the section between SE Lafayette (just south of Powell) to SE Schiller. Since that previous story, PBOT has launched a project website, online open house, and public feedback survey.
As we expected, PBOT is proposing a major road diet on Chavez that would take the profile from its current configuration of four standard lanes (two in each direction) and no shoulder, to two lanes with an additional lane for left turns (aka “left turn pockets”) at select intersections. With the space gained from this reconfiguration, PBOT will add curbside parking for automobile users.
South of Holgate, PBOT wants to build a three-lane cross-section that would include one standard lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and on-street parking wherever possible.
Below are current views of Cesar Chavez and SE Francis (left) and SE Schiller (right) next to the PBOT proposal:
If you’re curious about why PBOT would add car parking given that none of our plans call for encouraging car use, consider that its accepted dogma that the presence of parked cars (and the humans who enter and exit them) in the curb lane has a calming effect on drivers. Put another way, on-street parking will lead to slower speeds — which is something PBOT is very interested in on a street where about half the drivers go over the 30 mph speed limit. And of course, adding parking to a street is also a way to make a road diet more politically palatable.
PBOT is also confident in their proposal because their traffic analysis shows this section of Chavez has excess capacity. “The most traffic volume in this section is southbound during the evening peak hour with 720 vehicles,” PBOT writes on the project website. “This volume is substantially lower than many of Portland’s four-lane streets.” PBOT’s analysis showed this project area has similar traffic volume to NE 33rd near Grant High School, which has just one travel lane in each direction.
Some critics might latch onto the fact that PBOT foresees a 30-60 second increase in travel times once the project is complete. But in light of the safety benefits on such a historically dangerous corridor, anyone who takes that position will have a tough row to hoe.
Some local bike advocates think there’s enough space for bike lanes instead, but it doesn’t seem like that will become a major campaign. There’s a good grid of neighborhood streets nearby, and this project on Chavez could help spur talks of a parallel greenway route that is more welcoming and pleasant. Another reason there’s not likely to be a debate about bike lanes on this section of Chavez is because it’s not a commercial main street (like SE Hawthorne or Sandy) full of interesting places bike riders want to go.
North of Powell might be another conversation. PBOT says they’re launching a study to plan for the future of that section of Cesar Chavez that will, “explore opportunities to improve safety for everyone traveling on this stretch of the corridor.”
For now the focus is south of Powell. PBOT says they plan to build this project in 2028.
If you care about Cesar Chavez Boulevard in Southeast Portland, check out the online open house and be sure to take the project survey. It’s open through March 23rd.
Construction has already begun on some elements of the project. This is a new pedestrian median at N Oatman/N Liberty. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
The start of construction on the North Willamette Boulevard Active Transportation Corridor project is a joyous occasion for many folks who’ve waited years for major safety upgrades. On a personal level, I’m beyond excited for the transformation of a busy bicycling corridor I’ve biked and driven on thousands of times in the past 20 years.
That’s why I was surprised and disappointed to see a Facebook post* last week from Oregon House Representative Travis Nelson (*note that the original post is in a private group, so that link goes to a different, public post with a different comment thread). In what I’ve almost come to expect once a high-profile, bike-related project breaks ground, Rep. Nelson posted: “Are you all aware of the dramatic changes coming to Willamette Boulevard? I wasn’t made aware and I’m the State Rep. Do you approve of the changes? Why or why not?” (The post then linked to a BikePortland story from January 2025.)
Rep Nelson — a Democrat, Registered Nurse and grandson of Louisiana sharecroppers — was first elected to represent North and Northeast Portland in 2022, seemed to be making a classic anti-bike move: shield opposition to a project by complaining about the integrity of the process. But there’s more to Nelson’s concerns than he first revealed.
“DEI matters. I’ve reached out to 2 of the peninsula’s Black Churches… They knew nothing about the project.”
– Rep. Travis Nelson
Right on cue, Nelson’s post (see it below) triggered several pointed responses. He gave some folks an opportunity to post nasty things like: “They need to get the f out of the way bikes and joggers running in the middle of the f street,” “Always fcking up traffic in this city for bicycles,” “Absolutely over the catering to bikers,” and “Make them pay for bike license.”
The more thoughtful (and readable) posts came from people who support the project and didn’t appreciate Nelson’s framing. “Super disappointed to see you posting this,” said one person who added that they’ve lived on Willamette Blvd for 34 years and have, “watched crashes in front of our house over and over again.” This resident — who posted several photos of collisions and skid marks on their lawn — worried that Nelson’s post would, “empower those who want to continue the status quo so they can simply speed on my street.”
Nelson’s post.
Another person commented: “This is really irresponsible for an elected official to post. Just because you missed something doesn’t mean it wasn’t well communicated.”
My feelers went up not just because I know how posts like Nelson’s often rile up the anti-bike base, but because I’ve seen this particular movie many times. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has a history of being relatively far along on a project like this (one that makes major street design changes that benefit non-drivers) — only to have a notable person or group stand up and say they were left in the dark. It can be a powerful tactic depending on who stands up. When the person is Black and claims the group who wasn’t included in the outreach were BIPOC Portlanders — PBOT will often change course. On North Williams Avenue, PBOT restarted the outreach process after some Black residents said the outreach process was racist. On NE 7th Avenue, a similar thing happened when Black residents spoke out and PBOT ultimately gave up on a groundbreaking greenway project design many folks were very excited about. On NE 33rd, PBOT took the extraordinary step of removing a bike lane that had just been installed.
In the case of N Willamette Blvd, Nelson told commenters on Facebook that the intention of his post was to simply start a conversation. “I posted here not to express judgment, but because I wanted to know if I was the only one who missed the memo. Based on feedback l’ve received, I’m far from being alone.”
In an exchange with Rep. Nelson on Bluesky yesterday, he explained to me that his concerns about the process are, “rooted in equity and inclusion.” “When I ran for this seat in 2022, I ran in part because of George Floyd’s murder. DEI matters,” he wrote. “I’ve reached out to 2 of the peninsula’s Black Churches near Lombard [an arterial several blocks away]. They knew nothing about the project.”
In other replies, Nelson clarified that he wanted to know how PBOT used a racial equity lens to ensure that non-English speakers were properly notified about the project. A public involvement summary on the project website reveal it went through a robust public process with over 30 public meetings since 2021. Nelson says he reviewed that information and still wants to know more about what role racial equity played. He says he’s reached out to PBOT to share his concerns.
Beyond PBOT’s outreach process, I asked Nelson if he had critiques about any other element of the project. “I’m concerned that traffic will be diverted to narrow side streets where some turns are limited,” he replied. Nelson was referring to new turn restrictions coming to some intersections.
“Do you think some traffic diversion and turn restrictions are an acceptable trade-off for the benefits of the project?” I asked him.
“It’s critical to me that the process be right,” Nelson replied. “There is a lot of generational racial trauma in N & NE. Vanport, redlining, urban renewal & the demolition for I-5 have had a long lasting impact. I don’t want people who feel like their voices haven’t been heard to be steamrolled by another project.”
This $6 million project (a mix of federal and local funds) is already under construction and should be finished by September of this year. Given the public process PBOT has done, it would be highly unusual for them to make major changes to the design. But like I said, everything can change when racism becomes part of the conversation. Hopefully PBOT has done their homework and can navigate this situation.
To be clear, while Rep. Nelson has concerns about the process, he supports the changes. “I’m 95% good with the project,” he shared on Bluesky Monday. “We absolutely need safer streets.”
I’ve reached out to PBOT for comment and will update this post when I hear back.
A Waymo AV in Austin, Texas. (Photo: Ajay Suresh/Flickr)
Seemingly overnight, local policymakers and elected officials are scrambling to respond to a question that could have massive ramifications to the quality of life on our streets: Should we allow autonomous vehicle (a.k.a. robotaxi) companies to launch fleets in Oregon cities without a fully-baked regulatory framework?
Waymo (owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet) currently operates in Phoenix, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Austin, Atlanta and Miami. Since the company declared its interest in Portland last spring, local and state officials have been in talks with the company about what that might look like.
For a handful of state lawmakers — led by Republican House Representative Shelly Boshart Davis and Democrat Susan McLain — those talks led to the current short session of the Oregon Legislature where they’ve introduced a bill that would pave the way for Waymo and make it impossible for cities to keep robotaxi fleets in check. For the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, those talks resulted in an effort to update city administrative rules and launch a process to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework — work they say deserves more time.
Those two very different responses to Waymo’s desires were on full display at separate hearings this morning when House Bill 4085 received its first public hearing at the House Committee on Transportation and Portland city councilors got a debrief on the topic at the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee.
The bill would open the floodgates for Waymo to operate robotaxis in Portland by establishing a state-managed permit program (run through the DMV), exempting them from standard equipment requirements, and by stripping city governments of the ability to effectively regulate the corporations that operate them. Backers of the bill take Waymo on their word that AVs are safer, believe they’re a much-needed mobility option, and say it’s time for Oregon to lay out the welcome in order to show our business-friendly bona fides.
At the legislative hearing this morning, Boshart Davis shared excitement for AV technology and framed it as an issue of keeping up with the times. “There’s a reason that we still don’t use the Pony Express to deliver the mail,” she said. Boshart Davis touted AVs’, “economic and tourism upsides” and said doing business with companies like Waymo would lead to much-needed investments in our state that will go elsewhere if we don’t act fast.
But when asked by House Rep. Paul Evans a very simple question about who’d be on the hook in the event of a collision, Boshart Davis went silent. When she finally answered, she said she’d have to ask law enforcement officials that question (watch a video of that exchange below).
When Evans asked if Boshart Davis is worried that Waymo uses teams in the Philipines to provide operational support for Waymo fleets, she didn’t answer directly and instead replied: “I think that we have to look at it as a risk-benefit conversation, like we do almost every piece of legislation that comes our way.”
Folks spoke up in support and opposition to the bill at this morning’s hearing (the official record of testimony is 60 people in opposition versus just 14 in support). Many backers said robotaxis would be a boon for disabled folks who don’t have reliable transit options. But others pointed out that there’s nothing in HB 4085 that would require Waymo to be wheelchair accessible. And several ridershare drivers who showed up to oppose the bill pointed out that helping people with special needs is a major part of their job that AVs simply cannot do.
A Waymo spokesperson at the meeting said they will provide a referral to riders in need of assistance, but Cassie Wilson, a wheelchair user who’s also the legislative manager for nonprofit 1000 Friends of Oregon, said other services are either unusable or unreliable. “Why shouldn’t AV networks be responsible for contributing to accessible vehicle capacity like other rideshare providers?,” Wilson asked lawmakers during testimony. “Especially if you’re all priding this innovation on accessibility, this is just another transportation service that people like me cannot actually use.”
Another concern expressed to lawmakers at today’s hearing was about the impact of robotaxi fleets on road maintenance costs. League of Oregon Cities Legislative Director Nicole Stingh said her group wants a bill that requires AV taxis to pay a road fee. “Autonomous vehicles will be electric vehicles only. That means cities are not receiving gas tax for those cars,” she testified. (HB 4085 doesn’t mandate any new fees for AVs, but would allow cities to create new fees as long as fees are already levied to rideshare companies.)
The person with the most experience at the hearing today was Jeffrey Tumlin, who served as executive director for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority from 2019 to 2024 — just as Waymo and other companies hit the streets. A frequent Waymo user himself, Tumlin said he believes in the technology; but opposes the bill because he’s seen how state preemption of cities has failed in San Francisco.
Former SFMTA leader Jeffrey Tumlin in a video call today.
“Our experience in San Francisco has not been positive,” Tumlin told lawmakers. “As the primary global beta test site, we continue to experience significant safety and operational problems from AVs on our roads.” Tumlin listed many problems with AVs in San Francisco, including how they tend to drop-off and pick-up in bike lanes and their inability to handle folks with wheelchairs or other medical equipment. “From a disability accessibility standpoint, we are finding that AVs are creating a net negative in that they are continuing to erode our regulated Yellow Cab system that has been our primary means of serving people with disabilities.”
In California and Texas, Waymo successfully worked with state lawmakers to pass local preemption laws — much like the one they are pushing in Oregon.
After the hearing, I asked Tumlin in a video press conference what it was like trying to work with Waymo. He said the City of San Francisco receives no data from Waymo and that the company, “has been mostly unwilling to partner with the city on critical issues.” “They are not a collaborator,” Tumlin added.
The absence of data from Waymo, Tumlin said, has been a big problem. “It makes it very difficult for city officials to do their job — which is to figure out, ‘How do we rework the rest of the transportation system in order to respond to this rather significant change, particularly when it comes to critical impacts like pick-up and drop-off, interactions with first responders, interaction with human traffic control officers, and the very different outcomes that AVs produce for people with disabilities.”
Tumlin warned that Waymo and the AV industry in general takes a much too simplistic view of safety. While boosters cite collision statistics compared to human drivers, Tumlin said that’s the wrong question to ask. “The relevant question is, will autonomous vehicles make it less likely for people to die as a result of traffic violence in cities? And from what we can see so far, the answer is no,” he said. Tumlin acknowledged that robotaxis are good and not running into things, but problems arise when the cars get confused and “brick” themselves, “which then creates unintended safety consequences for other users.” Tumlin cited several examples of robotaxis run amok, including running right through police crime scenes and work zones.
Like Tumlin, PBOT and City of Portland leaders see a lot of potential in the future of AVs to improve road safety and increase mobility options. PBOT Mobility Innovation Manager Jacob Sherman said he believes AVs are the “next big thing” that will ultimately replace rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft. But Sherman said Portland opposes HB 4085 and believes the conversation should move to the 2027 legislative session. In a letter to House committee members today, PBOT Director Millicent Williams laid out a detailed opposition to the bill.
Four of the five councilors who spoke at the council committee hearing today also expressed opposition to the bill. Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane said she’s worried about mass surveillance and how Waymo might use the data and video their cars record. Councilor Angelita Morillo didn’t mince words with opinion: “My position right now is that we completely halt them altogether,” she said. “To me, the net negatives outweigh all the positives.”
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Olivia Clark likened robotaxis to, “the AI of transportation.” “For me, it’s kind of disturbing all the change that’s coming. I’m resistant to change and not really into this,” she added.
Slides from PBOT presentation shared today.
Another issue that got a lot of attention at these meetings today was traffic law enforcement. HB 4085 doesn’t address this issue directly and it’s clear city officials see that as a major shortcoming. (PBOT’s letter states: “Proposed legislation remains unclear on how local officials would issue traffic citations to AV companies for cars without an onboard operator, or without a licensed driver to link an infraction to in the system.)
At the legislative hearing, bill co-sponsor Rep. Boshart Davis was asked by Rep. Paul Evans (see video below): “In the event of a collision, who goes to jail?” Boshart Davis remained silent for several seconds and appeared to have no answer. Her eventual reply was that she’d have to ask law enforcement that question.
In California, Waymo is not accountable to local traffic laws. “There’s no way to issue a traffic citation to an AV,” Tumlin told me today, “because the vehicle code requires that a traffic citation be issued to the operator of the vehicle, and that is considered to be a human. So to my knowledge, there is no law enforcement anywhere in California that believes that they have the ability to issue citations to AVs.”
While Waymo vehicles are great at following speed limits and stopping at stop signs, Tumlin said they violate many other traffic laws.
“We’re concerned that AVs could get 100s of traffic tickets,” PBOT’s Sherman told councilors today. “As we know for human drivers, when you do that, you get your license suspended or revoked.” “We feel like we need some level of accountability where if we say, ‘This is the 47th time this AV is picking someone up in a bicycle lane’,” Sherman continued. “Maybe this doesn’t make sense right now because they’re not following the rules of the road.”
Whether it makes sense right now could be decided by Oregon lawmakers very soon. House Committee on Transportation Co-Chair Rep. McLain says she intends to bring the bill — which has eight sponsors, none of whom represent voters in Portland — up for a vote next week. If it passes this committee, it’ll head to the Senate Committee on Transportation. At least there we’ll have someone who represents Portland be able to weigh in.
Below are the most notable stories that came across my inbox this past week…
It never goes well: Oh look, yet another out-of-touch lawmaker who proposed a bicycle user fee — only to be forced to walk it back after being informed about what a terrible idea it is. (Bicycle Retailer)
Mobility in rural Oregon: Meg Wade, author of a great article about transit in rural Oregon I shared here on the MRU last year, was a guest on a podcast where she talked about her life as a transit user. (The Detour/Oregon Humanities Podcast)
Frustration in Eugene: Two transportation planners and a city planning professor from University of Oregon penned an editorial calling for better road designs after two college students were killed while bicycling by drivers in similar circumstances. (Lookout Eugene/Springfield)
Stop with ‘on your left’: I agree with this article and am much more of a bell ringer than an “on your left” yeller. That being said, I do believe “on your left” has its place — it all depends on the context and tone. (Canadian Cycling Magazine)
Bad batteries: Another example of why it’s so important to buy e-bikes (and e-bike batteries) from trusted sources. Even Amazon is suing Chinese e-bike makers for false UL certification. (Bicycle Retailer)
They don’t want it: Some folks north of the Columbia River who don’t like the idea of MAX light rail coming into their state are proposing a taxing subdistrict that would charge only Vancouver residents for the light rail component of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. (Clark County Today)
Far-aWaymo: Leading robotaxi operator that wants to run a fleet in Portland told uses workers based in the Philipines to assist with driving trips. What could possibly go wrong? (Futurism)
Sneckdowns FTW: Fantastic to see “sneckdowns” – the phenomenon where leftover snow outlines opportunities for street redesigns – get another 15 minutes of fame. And the article even includes a mention of the inimitable sneckdown journalist Clarence Eckerson. (New Yorker)
Legislators and cycling advocates assembled outside the capitol building in Salem in 2009. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
Hoping to wipe out the stains of the 2025 session, lawmakers who care about transportation have their work cut out for them this session. For a short session, it feels like there are a lot of significant bills up for consideration in Salem right now. With just about a month left for laws to be passed — or be passed over — the tight deadlines mean we’ll know soon which bills have a shot. But as of right now, everything is still in play.
Given that, I figured I’d share the list of 16 bills I’m tracking so far. I’ll start with the House first and then the Senate. If you know of any other interesting bills related to transportation or something else you think I should know about, please pass them along.
House Bill (HB) 4007 – Powered Micromobility, E-Bikes, and Much More
As I reported yesterday this bill does several important things around electric bike regulation and legislation. The big one is that it defines “powered micromobility device” and should add much-needed clarity around separating bicycles from all the other types of vehicles being used on streets these days. HB 4007 also lowers the legal age for e-bikes (Class 1 only) to 14. The reasons for doing so (to acknowledge reality of the market and open up educational opportunities when kids need it most) make sense, but I could see that making some lawmakers nervous.
This bill would create a new, 21-member task force to, “Determine the level of funding needed to maintain adequate transit service statewide that is reliable, safe and accessible and allows for population growth over time; and explore funding mechanisms to achieve the funding needs…” Transit funding is a hot topic in Salem right now as Democrats caved to Republicans last session by supporting a sunset on the existing payroll tax that funds transit statewide. Governor Tina Kotek has said as ODOT moves money around to keep the lights on and fund maintenance, transit funding is the only thing that can’t be touched.
HB 4009 – EV Road User Charge for E-Commerce Deliveries
This bill would, “phase in a mandatory per-mile road usage charge for owners and lessees of electric and hybrid cars and delivery vans engaged in e-commerce. The Act would allow a flat annual fee in lieu of the per-mile road usage charge.”
Kei trucks are delightfully small Japanese workhorses that have become sought after by many Americans. But because of auto regulations, these trucks aren’t currently allowed. This bill has a ton of bipartisan cosponsors and it was vetted in the previous session, so I’d bet on it passing.
This bill would allow ODOT to create a photo radar program that specifically targets work zones. Given the folks most impacted by unsafe work zones are very popular with politicians, and its broad bipartisan support, this bill is on track to pass.
This is the bill I wrote about yesterday that would help autonomous vehicle companies like Waymo unleash fleets of robotaxis by pre-empting local governments.
Three democrats (including Senate Committee on Transportation Chair Chris Gorsek) sponsor this bill. It appears to be a way for Dems to talk up affordability by exempting lower-income folks from payment of county vehicle registration fees.
10 Democrats (four from the House, six from the Senate) sponsor this bill which would require ODOT to come up with a rate for a per-mile road usage charge every other year starting this September. The rate would need to be set at a level that, “that would sustainably raise the revenue necessary to maintain the public highways in this state.”
This is a Republican-backed effort to slow down ODOT’s clean fuels program, which mandates carbon reductions in fuels by certain amounts and certain dates. Current law requires a reduction of GHG emissions in fuel by 10 percent below 2010 levels by the year 2025. This bill would cap that reduction by at no more than 10 percent and remove the goal year. This bill also takes direct aim at Portland’s fight with Zenith oil by proposing to make it illegal to outlaw, or limit the size of, fuel storage tanks.
Status: In House Committee on Climate, Energy, and Environment.
HB 4175 – Gut and Stuff for Transportation Funding Legislation
This is a placeholder bill (don’t be fooled by the “speed bump height study” nonsense) where lawmakers will stuff any legislation they propose around a new transportation bill.
This is a bill created by transportation reform advocates and Senate Committee on Transportation leadership that seeks to improve accountability and transparency among the Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) and ODOT. It directs the OTC to create a 10-year Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that scores and ranks projects before they are added to the ODOT Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The regional Advisory Committees on Transportation (ACTs) would play a crucial roll in this process. This is intended to weed out staff that partake in “safety washing” their projects — that is, calling something a “safety project” when it actually isn’t. I’ll have more on this bill in a separate post.
SB 1543 – ODOT Debt Policy: “Guardrails for Good Governance”
A tandem bill with SB 1542, this would establish Oregon’s first debt management policy for transportation investments. ODOT debt has skyrocketed by 400% since 2007 as they lose traditional funding mechanisms and lean even harder into using their credit card to pay for megaprojects. Advocates and senators who understand the risks this poses (namely, that debt must be repaid first and obligates finances for 25 years that could be spent on other things) want to make sure ODOT’s debt practices are more sound by providing more checks and balances and by having clear policies in place.
Championed by Portland Senator Khanh Pham, this bipartisan bill seeks to compensate Oregon journalism outlets whose work is used by Google and Facebook in search results and AI products. In order to avoid a lawsuit, these massive companies would have to have a signed agreement with the outlet. The bill would give an outlet (or a consortium of outlets) the right to sue for damages and it would create a grant-making body to help fund Oregon news outlets.
Oregon has suffered inadequate laws around liability waivers for years, which means it’s too easy for people to sue any company that offers recreational services — including mountain bike parks! As a result, insurance companies won’t insure Oregon businesses and many have fled the state altogether. BikePortland commenter Jered Bogli says, “If you partricipate in anything that requires a waiver you need to support this bill. If we don’t fix this expect gym prices to go up, ski resorts will become unworkable as insurance companies continue to pull out of the state due to our antiquated recreational liabilitiy laws.”
Democratic party leaders Senator Rob Wagner and House Rep. Julie Fahey are the sponsors of this bill that would move the elected date for the referendum on HB 3991 to May. Petitioners who successfully gathered signatures to block the new taxes and fees in HB 3991 planned on the vote being in November, where it would have more voters and a greater political impact on the general election. But Democrats want it to happen during the May primary. The party line is that an earlier vote would provide much-needed clarity around ODOT funding, but everyone understands this is a political maneuver from Democrats to thwart the chances of it passing (Senate President Wagner admitted this in a press conference last week).
Screenshot from video of City Club of Portland forum held Wednesday night at St. Philip Neri Catholic Church.
The topic of transportation got a lot of attention at a forum of city council members in District 3 Wednesday night. At an event hosted by Portland City Club at St. Philip Neri Catholic Church, moderator Sophie Peel (a reporter at Willamette Week) asked councilors Tiffany Koyama Lane, Angelita Morillo and Steve Novick what they felt was a unique challenge facing the district.
Morillo and Koyama Lane both brought responded with transportation.
“We have some of our most beautiful parks and pedestrian areas,” Morillo said. “And at the same time, we have pretty high traffic fatalities on multiple corridors.” Morillo mentioned 82nd, Cesar E Chavez Blvd, and Sandy as examples of dangerous corridors in District 3.
Morillo also offered what she thinks would help make streets safer. “We are going to have to find creative ways to address how we harden our safety barriers in the street to protect pedestrians and bicyclists,” she said. “Because if we don’t do that, the alternative is that we lose our community members and we continue to fund car infrastructure without making sure that people feel safe to find other alternatives.”
Koyama Lane said she hears District 3 come up a lot when talking to cycling advocates, “Because so many people go through District 3 to get to the other districts. So I think it is something that that is huge in D3.”
Both Koyama Land and Morillo mentioned personal stories about how traffic violence impacted them or someone they know.
“There are more and more stories,” Koyama Lane said. “This is going to be something that is kind of systemic, so it’s changing systems, and it’s going to take a long time, but it’s absolutely worth it.”
The councilors also shared their views on the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s nascent new funding effort. Novick said he’s hoping any new revenue mechanism raises at least $45-50 million a year (the annual cost to keep up with paving major arterials), and Morillo expressed reluctant support for some sort of new fees. She also offered what she framed as a “creative” idea — to simply stop maintaining some streets and transition them into carfree community spaces. That’s an idea her colleague, Councilor Mitch Green, proposed a year ago.
It was good to hear politicians talk about transportation, road safety, and bicycling. It used to be much more common for these topics to come up at events like this. Perhaps this is another sign that Portland is poised to start leading on transportation reform once again. We certainly seem to have the right political environment for it.
I’ll be watching to see if the next three district councilor forums planned in the coming weeks give transportation this much attention. The next event in this City Club series is February 17 in District 4. Check out their website for more information.
