4/25: Hello readers and friends. I'm still recovering from a surgery I had on 4/11, so I'm unable to attend events and do typical coverage. See this post for the latest update. I'll work as I can and I'm improving every day! Thanks for all your support 🙏. - Jonathan Maus, BikePortland Publisher and Editor
The Portland Bureau of Transportation isn’t sitting idly by while their once-heralded bike ridership numbers head in the wrong direction.
As we’ve reported, a recent report from PBOT found that bicycling in Portland dropped by 34.9% between 2019 and 2022. The news was not a surprise, but finally having the data (since it was the first bike count report the city released since 2014) to back up our hunches has crystallized the issue and adds urgency to calls to reverse the trend. For our part, we have hosted conversations about what’s behind the drop and have read hundreds of your comments and emails.
Despite behavior changes due to the Covid-19 pandemic, so far the City of Portland hasn’t offered any official rationale about what might be behind the numbers. A PBOT staffer shared some of his views at a recent Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting, but it was based solely on only well-informed speculation and anecdotal evidence.
Now PBOT wants more direct input about what might be going on.
PBOT Communications Director Hannah Schafer shared with us last week that one step they have already taken is to contract with a well-known pollster to find out more. “We’re working with the Oregon Values and Beliefs Center to put a poll into the field soon,” Schafer wrote in an email to BikePortland. “It will include a couple open-ended questions as well as a few yes/no questions that are designed to determine what Portlanders at this time freely associate with “bicycling,” the number of bicyclists for any purpose, and the reasons why bicyclists are riding less than in the past.”
The Oregon Values and Beliefs Center is a nonprofit that describes their work as, “accurate, inclusive opinion research” that is, “independent and nonpartisan; representative of rural Oregon and communities of color; valid and statistically reliable; and quantitative and qualitative.”
It will be interesting to see what OVBC comes up with. One thing we’ve learned is that there are myriad overlapping reasons behind the decline. Socio-political changes, the rise of tele-commuting, dangerous drivers, vast public safety concerns, and a lack of traffic enforcement are just some of the concerns we’ve heard about most.
Once the poll is completed, OVBC will process the data and provide a report to PBOT. “Once we have that information,” Schafer says. “We’ll use it to inform future steps.”
We’ll get another chance to hear from PBOT about the decline on April 18th. According to the agenda for the Bicycle Advisory Committee that was just released, PBOT Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller will present on the 2022 counts report and then, “present some thoughts on factors contributing to the decline.”
Welcome to the Comment of the Week, where we highlight good comments in order to inspire more of them. You can help us choose our next one by replying with “comment of the week” to any comment you think deserves recognition.Please note: These selections are not endorsements.
I try really hard to stay well-informed but, try as I may, grasping the ins and outs of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program usually gets the best of me. That is why I was so happy when one BikePortland commenter wrote up a handy cheat sheet for all of the conflicting interests. I keep mine on the refrigerator.
But you could also print it out in a really small font, laminate it, and keep it in your wallet.
Yes, they are trying to solve all the competing transportation challenges with a single project. Hence why the common sense alternative proposal is so appealing.
The bridge can’t be too high, or the FAA won’t approve it due to Pierson [sic] Field.
The bridge can’t be too low, or the Coast Guard won’t approve it without a draw bridge.
The DoTs don’t want to stop freeway traffic for bridge lifts.
Clark County doesn’t want transit.
Portland won’t support it without transit.
They have to accommodate interstate traffic traveling long distances.
They have to provide local connections for downtown Vancouver, Hayden Island, and the industrial areas.
Clearly all of those would be better serves by a series of smaller, focused projects, not a single one, but that’s not how our funding system is set up. Instead of long term, sustainable (financial and environmental) thinking, we throw billions at giant capital projects, but not at maintaining them once they’re built. We just assume that in another 50 years there will be another mega-project that will replace the current mega-project.
But wait!!! There’s more! Apparently John D left something out. Luckily Chris caught the oversight.
You forgot one, the Coast Guard doesn’t want additional bridge piers between the existing I-5 bridge and the railroad bridge. It will further complicate the currents for ships.
Welcome to the week. Here are the most notable stories our writers and readers have come across in the past seven days…
The truth hurts: It makes me very happy to see a driver-centric outlet frame infrastructure complaints in a way that centers bad driving. (Jalopnik)
Portland and Paris: I’m scanning everything I read for lessons for Portland and this deep dive on how Paris has reduced cars in its central city — and the influence of its history and politics — offers some important ones. (Slate)
Just install the damn things, would ya;?!: While we continue to wait for the City of Portland to install long-awaited automated enforcement cameras, here’s an article that explains why traffic engineers in Canada are in love with them. (CBC)
With friends like these: Washington Democrats want to fund a highway megaproject because they say it will decrease emissions and provide jobs. Hmm, where have we heard that before? (KREM)
Driving costs: We often hear that anti-driving policies hurt the poor, but missing from that debate is just how extremely expensive cars have become in recent years. If we care about lower-income people, we need to reduce reliance on cars. (CNN)
Carmageddon: Author of a new book on the vast impact of cars on our lives says their cultural impact is on the wane and now is the time to ween American off of them. (Esquire)
Mind the gaps: A new bill introduced by U.S. House Representatives Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Jame Raskin (D-MD) would make it easier for cities and counties to get federal funding to fill bikeway network gaps. (Streetsblog USA)
Pretty please: Japan has a new national law they hope will lead to more helmet use; but enforcement will only be a warning. (Japan Today)
MAMIL study: A new bit of research found that middle-aged men who ride bikes have major benefits in terms of muscle mass and ageing; but the catch is you’ve got to get a lot of miles in. (Cycling Weekly)
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee has two openings for people passionate about supporting active modes of travel. The committee is seeking a new youth/student member and a new at-large member to advise ODOT on bicycle and pedestrian issues across the state.
All Oregon residents are eligible to apply. To be eligible for the youth/student position, you must be under the age of 21 (at time of appointment to the committee). Appointments are non-binding, and appointees may serve a maximum of two 4-year terms. Appointees are eligible for a stipend and travel reimbursements for their service on the committee.
The Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, or OBPAC, strives to have committee representation that reflects the diverse geography, demographics, and abilities of everyone who walks, bikes, or rolls in Oregon. The committee encourages individuals with an interest or background in disability rights and accessibility, racial equity, climate justice, and active transportation to apply. OBPAC envisions Oregon as a state in which people of all identities, including age, income, race, and ability, can access destinations in urban and rural areas on comfortable, safe, and well-connected active transportation infrastructure.
Materials must be submitted before April 16, 2023 to be considered in the first review. OBPAC will invite selected candidates to participate in a Q & A session with committee members and staff prior to making a final recommendation to the Governor’s Office. Finalists will be asked to complete a full board/commission application in Workday.
Please forward this announcement to your friends, family and colleagues!
About the committee
The Oregon Bicycle Committee was first formed by Oregon Statute 366.112, a bill passed in the 1973 Oregon Legislature. In 1995, the Oregon Transportation Commission officially recognized the committee’s additional role in pedestrian issues, and the group became the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. The eight-member committee, appointed by the governor, acts as a liaison between the public and ODOT. It advises ODOT in the regulation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic and the establishment of bikeways and walkways. Members serve four-year terms.
As a member of the committee, you help inform policy and investment decisions to implement the Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and improve conditions for people walking and biking throughout the state. The committee meets up to six times per year, with primarily virtual meetings held from 1:00 – 4:00 pm on the 4th Tuesday of odd months. The Committee also participates in one overnight travel meeting each year hosted in locations across the state. Committee members are reimbursed for travel expenses and paid per diem for meals. Committee members that are not reimbursed by an employer for their participation on the committee are also eligible for a cash stipend.
Throughout the year, the committee gathers input from residents, officials and ODOT staff as it considers bicycle and pedestrian transportation-related issues. Upcoming work items include advising on use of funding from the new federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, selecting projects for funding through the Oregon Community Paths grant program, and informing decisions related to the Safe Routes to School program, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan implementation, urban design guidance updates, and other policies. OBPAC’s work plan and other background materials are available on the committee’s website: https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Get-Involved/Pages/OBPAC.aspx.
For questions about the committee, contact:
Jessica Horning, ODOT Pedestrian & Bicycle Program Manager, 503-910-7178obpac@odot.state.or.us
“There’s not a lot of funding towards actual services in Portland that would provide a more reasonable way of handling this situation than just being active in the community.”
– Royal Johnson
Our story last week about a bike theft incident under the freeway overpasses in the South Waterfront district, created more questions than answers. I tried to clean it up with a separate post explaining what we learned after our initial story, but for one group in town — and one person in particular — damage had been done.
Portlander Royal Johnson and his crew behind Timberwolves Cycle Recovery felt the story connected them to the incident in an unfair way. Yes, Royal was involved in the incident, but he says the person who reported it to police was not only in possession of a stolen bicycle, but they made false claims about a gun being present. He also says someone in the community who has it out for him seized on the opportunity to tarnish Royal’s reputation.
Royal, who is Black, posted online this week saying it was all just another example of racism in the cycling community — something he has dealt with many times since moving here in 2014.
So Royal and I decided to sit down in the Shed and talk it out. He rolled up with two other leaders of the T’wolves, Laura Dallago and Rich Baker.
Laura Dallago, Royal Johnson (center), and Rich Baker in the BikePortland Shed on Thursday, March 30th. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
“I’ve literally been called the N word, like, just on a TNR [Thursday Night Ride]… I’m not perfect, but I’m loud, I have fun… there is no reason why a person should be persecuted for being who they are… I am persecuted by individuals in the cycling community. And I am probably the only person who looks like me.”
– Royal Johnson
Known by some as the Sith Lord Vader Squadron Timberwolves, this grassroots, all-volunteer group has taken the law into their own hands to recover stolen bicycles.
Royal started the group in Austin, Texas in 2011 and he maintains a chapter of the group there, as well as one in Los Angeles, Colorado, and Houston. Their modus operandi is to enlist people to help them spot stolen bikes, research online to find out of it the bike is indeed stolen, and then if it is, hit the streets and try to recover it.
As you can imagine, when a group of people decide to fight crime — especially when they often interact with and accuse homeless Portlanders of stealing bikes — things can get messy.
In this episode, you’ll hear how the Timberwolves approach their work as professionals who are simply doing the job of an inadequate police force because they want to end the epidemic of bike theft in Portland. We talk about the inherent risks of what they’re doing, what Royal says really happened in that South Waterfront incident, how they interact with unhoused people, racism in Portland’s cycling scene, and more.
Listen in the player above or wherever you get your podcasts. View a full transcript below:
The BikePortland Podcast is a production of Pedaltown Media, Inc. If you liked this episode, subscribe and browse our archives for past shows, leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, and tell your friends about it. BikePortland is a community media source that relies on individual subscribers to stay in business. Please sign up today if you aren’t a subscriber already.
Walking down SW Gibbs St on the fog line. (Lisa Caballero/BikePortland)
If you can’t get a sidewalk built here, you probably can’t get one built anywhere in southwest.
Yes, I realize this is my fourth post about a new 43-unit apartment building going up on SW Gibbs Street on Marquam Hill near the OHSU campus. I appreciate you coming along on what I’ll admit is something of a personal journey. I keep coming back to this project because it exemplifies how walking and biking interests get short-changed in Portland’s building permit process, at least in the southwest.
This post focuses on decisions the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) made early in the design phase — decisions which ended up determining the fate of bike lanes and sidewalks long before the public was even aware of what was happening.
The Gibbs scenario is important because it happens repeatedly in southwest Portland, and maybe in other areas of the city too. However, the southwest’s standing as last in the city for sidewalk coverage and bikeway completion is not improving with growth. New development is not bringing active transportation infrastructure to the area.
When I looked into the permitting of the Gibbs building, it struck me that no one from the city was vigorously advocating for active transportation interests. By the time random neighbors or the Neighborhood Association weighed in for safety, the application was nearing completion and everything had already been planned out and decided.
This particular development is a tell tale for me: If you can’t get a sidewalk built here, you probably can’t get one built anywhere in the southwest.
So, why no sidewalk?
Public right-of-way on the shoulder of SW Gibbs Street, looking east. (Lisa Caballero/BikePortland)
I confess to having gotten obsessed with discovering why PBOT thought that shoulder-widening would provide safe pedestrian passage along this banked, blind curve. On a street which sees 3,000-4,000 vehicle trips daily, and where speed monitoring just uphill clocked people driving 10 mph over the posted 25 mph limit.
The approved plan (drawings below) has people walking on six feet of asphalt between a fog line and a guardrail. It enforces this with assertive landscaping which will prevent pedestrians from walking in back of the guardrail. It’s as if the guardrail is there to protect the plants from the pedestrians.
Site plan for 1325 SW Gibbs St showing new guardrail location and the widened six-ft shoulder. (Steelhead Architecture for Winterbrook Planning)Landscape architect plans for foliage in the right-of-way. (NNA Landscape Architecture for Winterbrook Planning)
So I began a journey through building permit documents in search of the first mention of shoulder-widening in hopes that there would be some technical explanation for why the PBOT engineers nixed a sidewalk. Several city record requests later, I think I found that first mention, in the notes from an “early assistance” conference.
“Early assistance” is a meeting between representatives from each of the seven reviewing bureaus and the developer. It’s a chance for the bureaus to tell the developer what they will be requiring—in advance of the developer’s architectural and site planning. This particular conference happened in the spring of 2019.
Here’s what PBOT wanted along the frontage:
Given the potential complexity of the proposed project and some uncertainty with regard to the placement of the primary new building on the site, along with the topography of the site in proximity to edge of the existing SW Gibb [sic] /SW Marquam Hill Rd roadway pavement, and the “recreational trail” designation along the street, at this time, PBOT’s [sic] informs the applicant of the following frontage improvement requirements:
The applicant shall provide a minimum 6-ft wide paved shoulder widening.
On-street parking must be removed.
The existing guardrail must be replaced with current AASHTO-compliant guardrail.
And that’s it. “Potential complexity” and “topography,” but missing a specific explanation for no sidewalk.
Over the course of the following year, designs and requirements solidified around the 6-ft widening. It became baked into the plans, with no one questioning PBOT’s decision.
Finally, a year later in 2020, the city approved the building permit with the widened shoulder. A couple of neighbors raised concerns about pedestrian safety, but they were not savvy to the quasi-judicial structure of the approval hearing, in which a “pro” and “con” side present arguments to a Hearings Officer. Neighbors neglected to cite relevant city code and their concerns did not end up carrying much weight.
So, in the face of inadequate neighborhood opposition, PBOT’s decision to disregard its numerous policies about pedestrian safety (and even plans specific to this site) held. PBOT’s development review office had decided against a sidewalk early in the process, and that was that.
On site with Don Baack
Don Baack in front of 1325 SW Gibbs St. (Lisa Caballero/Bike Portland)
Cross-section comparison. (Graphic: BikePortland)
Given that construction was nearing completion, I met with SW Trails founder Don Baack on the Gibbs site earlier this week to see if he had any 11th-hour ideas to salvage pedestrian safety. Don knows the site well. The 4-T trail passes along Marquam Hill Rd/Gibbs St, and where that street changes name is a trailhead for SWTrail #1.
He was quick with a solution, “I don’t have a problem with a six-foot asphalt widening, but it needs to be in back of the guardrail. Place the guardrail near the fog line. There’s probably a rule against it, but who cares?” The idea seems feasible. Cyclists could possibly use it too, there is even an exit back to the road on the west end, at the building’s driveway.
Don is a practical man, but I’m more like a dog with a bone to pick. I still wanted to find out why PBOT didn’t consider a sidewalk.
Trying to get to the bottom of it all
As I went through hundreds of pages of documents, I came across a review which caught my attention. Did PBOT tip its hand a little too far?
Apparently the PBOT review was about to be held up by an outstanding Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) “special circumstances” request to use the stormwater pipe under Gibbs to convey run-off from the 6-foot shoulder widening.
You have to squint hard, and read deep between the lines, but it looks like PBOT was becoming exasperated with its sister bureau. (The bureaus are tracked for “timeliness” and BES was about to mess up PBOT’s stats.) So PBOT went ahead and wrote its review without waiting for the BES decision. Here is part of what they wrote (the underlines and highlights are mine):
The applicant has submitted the required Public Works Permit(s) for the above referenced required improvements … The review process has been ongoing since July of last year – to date, the applicant has not yet obtained Public Works Concept Development phase (30% plans) approval.
PBOT typically requires an applicant to obtain this approval prior to a decision being rendered on the associated land use request. This has historically been required because of potential complications related to public stormwater management facilities associated with work in the r.o.w. – property dedication is often required to accommodate the necessary stormwater management facility and said dedication could have implications with on-site requirements.
In this case, the shoulder paving/widening requirement triggers compliance with the City’s Stormwater Management Manual. However, there is nearly 18-ft of public r.o.w. at the eastern end of the site frontage and approximately 90-ft of public r.o.w. at the western end of the site frontage. Regardless of any type of stormwater management facility the applicant’s civil engineer may design in this case, there will not be a requirement for any property dedication – there is more than adequate existing public r.o.w. to accommodate any designed stormwater management facility.
Moreover, PBOT is aware that the applicant’s civil engineer has submitted a “Special Circumstances” request with BES, that, if approved, may allow the applicant to pay a fee in lieu of constructing a stormwater management facility.
Given that there is “more than adequate existing public r.o.w. [right of way] to accommodate any designed stormwater management facility,” and that the building sits only three feet from its property line, (leaving a swath of public land between the building and the street) I found myself wondering why a sidewalk couldn’t go in.
I never did get to the bottom of that, even after a few emails to the PBOT press office. None of my questions received more than a boilerplate reply about constraints. As I was working on this, I realized that the story had shifted, it was no longer about the reason this particular street wasn’t getting a sidewalk. It became, “why is it so hard to find out why this street isn’t getting a sidewalk.” In other words, it became about transparency.
A car-centric conclusion
It appears to me that packed gravel or asphalt on a six-foot shoulder has become PBOT’s de facto frontage requirement in southwest Portland. I have even seen the required shoulder width reduced to three feet. The justification is always lack of stormwater facilities and/or topographical constraints. And those things are sometimes true.
But those constraints never seem to prevent the feats of engineering which allow the buildings to go up in the first place. Why, in those same constrained locations, are frontage improvements expected to be inexpensive? Why is this six-foot shoulder policy in the southwest de facto? Why not shout it from the rooftops? It takes keeping an eye on land use cases for several years to even notice what is happening.
The way things are going — with little existing active transportation infrastructure in the southwest and none being required of new development, and with TriMet’s Forward Together plans cutting the area’s bus service — each new housing unit in southwest Portland will just put more cars on the road. Everyone in the city will feel that.
The complete case file for this project from the December, 2022 is available here. The original hearing from 2020 can be found here.
Something Cycles owner Nicholas Sorenson outside his shop. (Photos: Taylor Griggs/BikePortland)
“There is so much going on in a large shop, and I want to have a more simple aesthetic that can feel more welcoming to people.”
-Nicholas Sorenson, owner of Something Cycles
The latest addition to Portland’s bike shop ecosystem is Something Cycles, a small storefront that just opened last week on East Burnside in between 8th and 9th avenues. It’s exciting to see another new business join the burgeoning Central Eastside community — especially since this spot is just a few blocks from the carfree Blumenauer Bridge and the planned Portland Green Loop.
It’s just another example of bike-oriented development and a welcome sign as Portland grapples with negative headlines about cycling and the city in general.
Something Cycles owner, Nicholas Sorenson, told BikePortland in an email that he’d describe the shop as “friendly, convenient, affordable and fun.” And the proximity of the Blumenauer Bridge definitely makes him more optimistic about the future of his business.
Here’s what else Sorenson had to say about his new shop:
Can you share a bit about yourself and your relationship to biking?
I grew up in the middle of nowhere Washington, on 10 acres, spending my free time riding dirt bikes and building dirt jumps for my BMX bike. After high school I spent a couple years going to community college until I decided to move to Portland and go to school for photography and design. After not really riding bicycles throughout high school, this was the first time that having a bicycle was sort of a necessity if I wanted to have my own way to get around the city. This was in 2009, so of course the first bike that I bought was a fixed gear conversion.
From then on, I just continued to fall more in love with cycling as a way to get around the city, which then led to riding off-road and exploring more of what the PNW has to offer.
The inside of the shop is unassuming — just what Sorenson wants.
What unique qualities will Something Cycles bring to Portland?
A new sign of cycling on East Burnside!
I am focusing on rebuilding used bikes in a way that I find that makes them more enjoyable to ride, and look better than before. New bikes can be great, but you don’t need a new bike to get out there and have a great time riding. I also think the price, and overall environment of big bike shops can be overwhelming for someone that wants to get into riding a bike. There is so much going on in a large shop, and I want to have a more simple aesthetic that can feel more welcoming to people.
Then finally, I will be hosting weekly afternoon rides that depart from the shop and go hit different parts of the city in hopes to get folks to meet and start creating a larger network of people that are stoked to get out and ride.
How has it been to open a bike shop in Portland right now with the negative news about bike ridership and overall city morale?
It’s definitely a little discouraging to have that in the news, especially as someone who is putting everything they got into opening a new bike shop. It’s also a problem that isn’t going to fix itself. BUT, luckily for us, I think it is pretty easy to get people stoked on riding bikes. It just takes putting some extra energy out there to host rides and events that get people excited to ride their bikes, which we are going to do!
How do you feel about the future of biking in Portland?
I think the future of biking in Portland will be great! Especially if the city continues to commit to making more bicycle infrastructure throughout the city so that people feel comfortable to commuting or just exercising via bike. Riding a bicycle through the city with cars can be really intimidating for people, and for good reason. Having more actual protected bike lanes on busier streets and limiting car traffic on our greenways is crucial.
Can you talk a bit about the location of your shop?
I wanted to be located in a central location that would be easily accessible to both residents and visitors of Portland. With the Blumenauer Bridge being a major new connection between two neighborhoods, a part of the bigger Green Loop, it’s really exciting, and I think that it will be a major draw for people who want to bike or walk to our shop! I believe that these projects like these will make Portland an even better place to bike, and I’m excited to be a part of it.
What are you looking forward to in the upcoming months?
Other than warm weather??? Definitely meeting people and being able to help them out with their bike goals, getting out there and hosting some fun rides and other events that will help promote biking in Portland.
Also my neighbors, Our Store (a rad vintage clothing shop) host a monthly Night Market at our building during the summer, and I think it will be a great opportunity to get some folks into the shop that might not usually have a reason to wander into a bike shop. The first one of the year is May 20th! (More info on Instagram.)
Sorenson added that “if your bike needs some love…now is the time to bring it in to get it fixed up!” You don’t want to miss out on all the bike fun during the upcoming warm months.
Find out more about Something Cycles by following their Instagram or sending an email to someone@somethingcycles.com. Sorenson said he’ll be sharing information about the weekly rides on the shop’s Instagram account, so make sure you stay tuned. The shop is open Wednesday-Sunday from 10 am to 6 pm.
You could get $400 or $1,200 Specialized’s new Haul e-cargo bike. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
“I think in many ways, particularly for lower income families, this can be a powerful anti-poverty measure.”
– Khanh Pham, Oregon House representative
The bike bus bill wasn’t the only piece of legislation on our watchlist that moved forward on Wednesday. House Bill 2571, the e-bike rebate bill, was voted out of the House Committee on Climate, Energy & Environment by a vote of 9 to 1.
The only lawmaker to vote against the bill was southern Oregon Representative Kim Wallan, a Republican who represents District 6 in Medford.
As we reported earlier this month, HB 2571 has been significantly amended since it was first introduced in November. General Oregon residents can receive up to $400 toward the purchase of an e-bike and those who qualify for the low-income tier (80% of average median income) can receive $1,200. The bill also takes responsibility for processing the rebate away from bike shops and leans more heavily on the Department of Environmental Quality for administration.
The bill’s chief sponsor is Rep. Dacia Grayber (D-28). At the committee work session yesterday, bill co-sponsor Rep. Khanh Pham (D-46) asked Grayber’s Legislative Assistant Barrett Johnson how this bill would mesh with a Portland e-bike rebate that is likely coming as part of the Portland Clean Energy Fund grant program. Johnson said they’ve contacted PCEF and that, “We believe these rebates will be able to stack, similar to the way rebates for electric cars stack at the state and federal level. That’s something that we are hoping to see to help additionally alleviate cost burden and that the DEQ is in support of at an agency level as well.”
Rep. Pham, who sits on the committee, touch on affordability in comments she made prior to her “yes” vote:
“Particularly for low income families that can’t afford a car, these kinds of e-bikes can be a really critical replacement for trips to the grocery store. I bike my daughter to school [on ours]. We were able to avoid having to buy second car. So I think in many ways, particularly for lower income families, this can be a powerful anti-poverty measure.”
From here the bill has been referred to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means. While this vote is a step forward, insiders know that many bills die at Ways and Means where final decisions are made about bills with budgetary implications. That committee will weigh the urgency of this rebate against many other statewide priorities.
In an email to supporters of the bill, Barrett Johnson wrote, “This is a point in which a number of great bills and popular policies lose steam. Not because of their quality, nor how well they were advocated for, but because there is simply not enough money for everything.”
Johnson said he’s “cautiously optimistic” it will move forward based on the fact that it has bipartisan support from lawmakers and public demand signaled by the “overwhelming success” of a new rebate program in Bend and the possible PCEF investment.
Stay tuned as this and other bills work their way through the legislative process.
Screen shot of CityRover via Oregon City Public Works.
Artificial Intelligence is moving into our lives at a very fast pace. Even here at BikePortland HQ we’ve been playing with some forms of it and pondering how it might help us serve the community better. Yes it’s scary and needs to be regulated; but there are some very cool applications and I’m looking forward to seeing how it impacts the realm of transportation.
This morning I learned that Oregon City, a town of about 37,000 people about a one hour bike ride south of Portland, is using AI to help fill potholes. According to a statement just released by their public works department, they are the only city in Oregon currently taking advantage of the technology.
Here’s more:
Called CityRover, the Public Works department has been testing the AI device to help identify and mark the location of potholes. The device works by continually scanning the road ahead while in a City vehicle, in this case, the street sweeper. It then marks spots it identifies as a pothole and relays the data to a database accessed by the City. Officials say it has been an incredibly helpful tool.
“The street sweeper drives every street in Oregon City several times a year,” said Jayson Thornberg, Street Operations Manager for Oregon City. “With this tool out there every day all day looking for potholes, it helps the City find problem areas quickly.”
The data sent to staff includes precise mapping as well as images showing the issues the machine identified. That information is then reviewed by staff who determine if what the device marked is indeed a pothole, is it within the City’s jurisdiction, and prioritize it into the team’s workflow.
It’s great to see a city taking advantage of AI like this. Portland could obviously use a lot of help with street maintenance these days as their strained work crews and lack of upkeep of protected bike lanes has become a major issue. Of course just identifying the problem spots is only half the battle — too bad AI can’t actually do the pothole filling and the sweeping.
But who knows? Are we really that far away from a Roomba-type vacuuming/sweeping robot that autonomously patrols streets and sweeps up messy bike lanes?
The Street Trust’s 2023 Oregon Active Transportation Summit is less than a month away. For those not yet in-the-know, this summit is an annual meeting of the minds for advocates, community leaders, city officials, and politicians across Oregon and beyond. It features interesting panels and opportunities for exchanging ideas about how to reform our transportation system.
This year, the summit’s theme is “move into action,” and The Street Trust (TST) says their goal for the event is to “take big ideas for our transportation future and make them actionable.”
“The challenges to building a safe, accessible, racially equitable, and climate smart transportation system are getting more complex every day,” TST states. “Now is the time to build our capacity to take the lead with urgency and enthusiasm… we’ve curated a program that will move interaction beyond discussion into coordinated action for specific outcomes.”
This year’s summit will be a mix of in-person programming at the Lloyd Center (where TST’s offices and ‘Hub’ transportation coworking space is located) and virtual content. Guest speakers will include Ryan Sharp, the Director of Transportation and Parking for the City of Hoboken (which is known for its effective approach to Vision Zero), TriMet General Manager Sam Desue, Jr., who will present on the state of Oregon transit, and Metro Council President Lynn Peterson, who will do a reading of her recently-published book.
The panel discussions will cover a large range of active transportation topics. Here are the various tracks attendees can explore:
Resiliency & Prosperity – how do we prepare our transportation system for changing conditions and how do we withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions, including pandemics and climate change?
Accessible & Inclusive Mobility – how do we center disability, race, age, and gender to achieve transportation equity and a system that works for all?
Future-Proofing Transportation Funding – in 1919, Oregon led the nation with the first gas tax, but rapidly changing society and technology demand new solutions – how will we equitably pay for transportation in the future?
E-bikes & Micromobility – how do we move light individual transportation options from emergent tech to mobility workhorses, solving problems for people and places?
Safe Routes & Great Streets for All – how do we work better together encompassing and surpassing Vision Zero and Safe Routes to Schools?
NEW! Tools, Tips, & Tricks for Making Sh*t Happen – a community curated track for you, by you – Have an activist toolkit to share? An organizing success story to celebrate? A potentially transformative idea or innovation that needs workshopping? This is your venue.
Each morning of the summit will include two networking events for transportation people to mingle and swap ideas. There will also be a “Sunday Fun Day” multimodal scavenger hunt and kickoff party on Sunday, April 23rd as well as a PechaKucha ideas/pitch session on the evening of Tuesday, April 25th. Both of these events will be open to the general public, not just summit-goers. TST will have more information about how to sign up for the PechaKucha event soon.
Here are just a few of the talks and events that have caught our eyes:
Activate Portland’s waterfront and waterways;
Houselessness and transportation safety;
Cross-Section Trade Offs:
Achieving Complete Streets within Limited Space; Artists Organizing on the Streets; Steps towards a multi-modal delivery system – blending cargo bikes, autonomous vehicles, transit, and more to create synergistic magic.
If you work in transportation or are interested in improving active transportation in the Pacific Northwest, you might be interested in this event. You can buy tickets to the summit here. TST is also looking for volunteers to help with the event — if you sign up for a four-hour shift you will get free admission to the event! Sign up here, and quick — volunteer slots are filling up fast.
You can find out more about this year’s summit at TST’s website. And check our past coverage to get a feel for what to expect.
“We’ve really tried to tighten the language as much as possible…The idea is to give districts more flexibility in how they use their dollars, not to give them more dollars to do things differently.”
– Stacey Michaelson, Multnomah Education Service District
Oregonians who want to see bike buses and walking school buses proliferate across the state have reason to cheer as the House Committee on Education voted unanimously in favor of House Bill 3014 Wednesday night. It’s a much different bill than lawmakers heard about at its first public hearing last month as backers have made major revisions to address concerns about fiscal responsibility and how it might impact traditional school bus service.
Also known as the “bike bus bill” after a bike bus at Alameda Elementary School in Portland helped spark unprecedented enthusiasm for how kids get to school, the original version of the bill would have simply added a list of new activities that would be eligible for reimbursement from the Oregon Department of Education as part of a district’s transportation funding expenses. Instead of only traditional school buses, the bill sought to expand the law to let districts fund things like bike buses, walking school buses, crossing guards, and public transit passes.
The amended bill (now six pages instead of two) voted on Wednesday creates a separate process and introduces significant bureaucratic hurdles for those reimbursements. The bill creates a statutory definition for “alternative transportation” (“the arrival to, or departure from, a school by means other than a school bus or school activity vehicle or transportation provided under contract with a school district”) and then lays out several steps districts would have to take in order to receive state funding.
The key changes to the bill are as follows:
Districts must receive a waiver from the State Board of Education to transport students via a method other than a school bus (as laid out in ORS 327.043, which requires districts to provide transportation for elementary students who live more than one mile from school and for secondary students who live more than 1.5 miles from school).
Or districts must submit a supplemental plan for the “alternative transportation” method and get approval from the State Board of Education prior to receiving a reimbursement.
Costs will only be approved when districts have demonstrated that traditional busing is not a viable option. For instance, the state will only reimburse programs that serve students who do not live along an existing school bus route.
Reimbursements for public transit passes will be allowed only after all state funding for local transit (as laid out in ORS 184.758) has been exhausted.
One source described the changes as “guardrails” added because some stakeholders feared schools might look to spend “millions” for new, non-bus programs. Others were concerned that the administrative overhead associated with the bill would strain the workforce and incur more personnel costs at the Oregon Department of Education.
Rep. Nguyen
The bill is championed by Representative Hoa Nguyen (D-48), a former school attendance coach and walking school bus leader who worked in the Portland Public Schools district and saw first-hand how limited access to school buses left many kids without reliable transportation. “I used the walking school bus as an intervention to chronic absenteeism,” Rep. Nguyen shared with me from her office in Salem this morning. “It improved our tardy rates, attendance rates, behavior in the classrooms, and by just learning about the communities that the students live in.”
Since current law only funds bus service for students that live more than one mile (for elementary) or 1.5 miles (for secondary) away from their schools; and with many students not living near a bus stop or in places buses don’t reach, Rep. Nguyen says her bill creates more local control so districts can fund solutions that work for their specific needs.
“For for a long time, [instead of taking a step back and thinking about a transportation plan] districts just said, ‘Oh, a school bus driver.’ That’s all we did. And so hopefully this bill will open up the gateway to let school districts sit down and think about, ‘What can we do?'”, Rep. Nguyen said.
“It’s a start! And it can be a toehold for proving how active transportation can be a full-fledged tool for getting kids to school safely.”
– Zachary Lauritzen, Oregon Walks
In the last month, Rep. Nguyen and other chief sponsor Rep. Khanh Pham (D-46) realized the bill must undergo considerable revisions or risk losing key support. They are also aware that all bills with a fiscal component are closely scrutinized this legislative session as lawmakers are hesitant to start new funding programs; and with some school districts still reeling from a school bus driver shortage that started during the pandemic, supporters realized the bill would not move forward if it threatened funding for existing programs.
That concern was evident in testimony on the bill (shared prior to recent amendments) from leaders of the Oregon School Boards Association and the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators: “We do not know how other districts will be impacted if new districts may seek new funding reimbursement. We do not know how many districts would seek supplemental transportation plans. Or how well these alternative programs work in adverse weather. Or the potential impact across general and special education student populations. Or how safe students and staff will be outside a physical bus,” they wrote.
Rep. Nguyen addressed those concerns when she introduced the bill at the committee meeting Wednesday. “I would like to remind us what I believe our main objective here is to serve our students and families. I’m here to represent the students that have no safe or reliable means to get to school, because they do not have anyone else in the room to speak for them,” she said.
Bob Estabrook with the Oregon School Employees Association, a union that represents 22,000 public school workers, told lawmakers that the problem with HB 3014 is that is does nothing to address the school bus driver shortage and he’s worried it would divert funds from busing. “Even with the greatly improved amendments… it’s not addressing the core problem, which is that we do not have enough bus drivers and other district staff to make sure that we are safely getting our students to and from school,” he said during testimony in Salem on Wednesday. “We are already not adequately funding our educational system… and if we divert funds towards other purposes, then we never are going to have enough money there to hire the bus drivers that we need to support our students,” he added.
Stacey Michaelson, government affairs administrator for the six school districts in East Multnomah County, reassured lawmakers that the bill will not jeopardize existing budgets. “We’ve really tried to tighten the language as much as possible to make sure that we’re not requiring any additional funding out of the transportation grants,” she explained. “The idea is to give districts more flexibility in how they use their dollars, not to give them more dollars to do things differently.”
The Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office, the state body that determines budgetary implications of new bills, says the fiscal impact of HB 3014 would be “indeterminate.” Further analysis will be completed at the bill’s next stop: the House Committee on Revenue.
Oregon Walks Interim Executive Director Zachary Lauritzen said his organization is “thrilled” at last night’s vote. “It goes to show that supporting active transportation policy doesn’t have to be left or right, Democrat or Republican. Getting people out of cars is just good policy,” he shared with us via email. Lauritzen acknowledged that the amended bill included major compromises from the original version, but added that, “It’s a start! And it can be a toehold for proving how active transportation can be a full-fledged tool for getting kids to school safely.”
Another sponsor of the bill, Rep. Khanh Pham (D-46), called the passage a “big win for giving schools more flexibility in supporting multi-modal transportation choices.”
While the new version of the bill adds considerable red tape that might limit its use and impact, Rep. Nguyen says earning the trust of taxpayers is paramount. “We have to build trust of the public… we have to be fiscally responsible as well… We have limited funds and there are challenges,” she said.
And Sam “Coach” Balto, captain of the Alameda Elementary Bike Bus who is currently at the Bike Bus Summit in Barcelona, Spain, told us, “I am excited bike bus bill is still rolling.”
Somewhere between Tillamook and Newport on Highway 101. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)
“With insufficient resources the Oregon Transportation Plan becomes more important than ever…unprecedentedly difficult tradeoffs lay in front of Oregonians.”
– Draft Oregon Transportation Plan
The Oregon Department of Transportation has released a draft of the Oregon Transportation Plan (OTP) and the agency is asking for public feedback about it. I realize that is not the most enticing way to begin a story, and I’ve been hesitant to even write about this. Transportation agencies seek public feedback on plans all the time, and we write about those efforts almost as often — in fact, we just covered the OTP update in November, the last time ODOT wanted input on this plan.
So before I ask you to take time and learn about a 100-page plan, I want to make it clear what the OTP actually is and why Oregonians should care about it.
From the draft OTP. (Source: ODOT)
ODOT describes the OTP as the “umbrella” transportation plan for the state, under which all of ODOT’s more specific plans — like the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and Transportation System Plan — fall. The OTP was first adopted in 1992 and was last updated in 2006 — eons ago, as far as the transportation landscape is concerned. The updated plan will lay out the vision for Oregon’s transportation policy from now through 2050.
As a document, the draft OTP is an interesting read (for nerds like me, at least). It lays out a global overview of Oregon’s transportation system, detailing the problems we face as a state and the ideas ODOT has for solving them. Since it’s the blanket plan on top of a lot of other, more nitty-gritty ones, it doesn’t get too specific about anything.
I emailed Adam Argo, a principal transportation planner at ODOT who has been a lead member of the OTP update team, to hear his pitch for why this plan matters. He said the OTP provides a “vision and policy foundation for the state’s entire transportation system” including “locally-managed streets, bridges, and public transportation fleets Oregonians depend on in their respective communities.”
“The OTP guides impactful transportation decisions at all levels, down to communities and neighborhoods,” Argo wrote. “The Oregon Transportation Commission (OTC) ultimately adopts the OTP and the scenarios in the OTP will help guide their decisions around investment priorities.”
One thing that’s very clear from perusing the draft plan: ODOT is very worried about money. It’s not a revelation that the state’s transportation funding system is unsustainable and drying up, but it’s interesting to see how planners intend to deal with these financial woes in their long-range planning framework.
“With insufficient resources the OTP becomes more important than ever to help ensure that what little money is available is directed in ways that can best support the movement of people and goods. Unprecedentedly difficult tradeoffs lay in front of Oregonians,” the plan states. “What this means…is that while there will be some gains and investment in some areas, there will also be nearly impossible trade-off discussions that will have significant impacts to people’s lives, communities, and the economy.” (Stay tuned for more coverage of ODOT’s budget.)
According to the OTP, ODOT needs four times more funding than it currently has in order to “fully realize the vision” of the plan. In order to reach this funding level, ODOT will likely have to charge higher user fees for the system, like tolls and road use fees (which the OTP states might have “potential negative impacts to equity”). But in this funding scenario, the state could have a “more resilient system, less affected by climate and natural events, a more reliable system, and a system with more travel options for everyone.”
The OTP states that if Oregon can’t acquire more funding for its transportation system, “limited to no progress is made toward accomplishing the desired policy outcomes in all investment areas,” rendering the whole plan essentially meaningless. The dire language used in the draft plan makes it clear that regardless of what ODOT officials say to the public about charging higher road use fees, they’re going to have to get serious about it at some point in the near future.
Argo wrote that ODOT is interested in hearing from the public so they can gain understanding of “how Oregonians use the transportation system now, how they see themselves in the OTP’s vision (for connecting people and goods to places in the most climate-friendly, equitable, and safe way), and how the OTP goals, policies, strategies, and actions could impact their everyday lives and their future.”
Technically, the Oregon Transportation Commission isn’t beholden to the OTP when making funding decisions. But at the very least, an umbrella transportation plan that takes a strong stance on reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), improving multimodal options and addressing the climate impacts of transportation is something advocates can use to hold the agency and the commissioners who oversee it accountable down the line.
Right now, some advocates think the language in the draft plan isn’t strong enough about reducing VMT in order to achieve statewide climate goals. Climate activist Bob Cortright is a particularly strong critic of ODOT who voiced his qualms with the OTP in a recent OTC meeting, saying the plan is “really silent about the scale of reductions in VMT and mode shift that are needed.”
You can comment on the OTP here from now until May 12th. There will also be two opportunities to learn more about the plan: a webinar on April 11th at noon (Zoom link here) and a virtual public hearing on May 3rd at 10 am (Zoom link here). The OTP is expected to be adopted by the OTC later this summer. Find out more at the OTP update page.
