BikePortland

ODOT too quick to declare progress on emissions, advocates say

Screenshot from home page of new ODOT website at OregonTransportationEmissions.com.

“They claim to be making progress in reducing emissions, which sends a powerful message to policymakers that we don’t need to do more and we can take our time.”
– Bob Cortright, 350 Salem

Five years ago, the Oregon Department of Transportation did not have reason to be hopeful about meeting their greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. ODOT’s 2013 Oregon Statewide Transportation Strategy (STS) calls for the agency to reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990 numbers), but a 2018 monitoring report (PDF) said emissions were only projected to fall 20% by 2050. And in 2020, the leader of ODOT’s (newly formed) Climate Office said, “We’re heading in the complete wrong direction,” when it comes to carbon emission reductions.

Fast forward to 2023 and the climate crisis is more dire than ever. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released earlier this week, made it clear that time is running out to avoid climate catastrophe. But over at ODOT headquarters, the mood is more optimistic. According to a new website unveiled March 9th, the state is on track to reduce emissions 60% by 2050, which is “short of the 80% goal, but still a dramatic improvement from 2018 projections.”

Great! Now we can just sit back and relax, right? Not so fast.

A closer look at assertions made on the website casts doubt on that rosy picture. Advocates are not only skeptical of how ODOT frames their emissions efforts — they worry the website and PR push behind it could placate policymakers and the public into a false sense of progress.

What’s on the website?

The website is a dashboard detailing ODOT’s progress toward its overall goal of reducing emissions by 80% by 2050 (see chart). ODOT outlines two objectives for this goal: reduce growth in vehicle miles traveled by using “land use laws, incentives and policies to support reductions in the number of driving trips people take and how far they drive each trip”, and clean up each vehicle mile with “new technology to reduce emissions via the kinds of vehicles people drive, such as electric, and the kinds of fuels used to power those vehicles.”

In order to meet these objectives, ODOT has split their actions into six categories: transportation options (which concerns public transportation, biking, walking and rolling and transportation demand management strategies); pricing, funding and markets; vehicle technology; land use; system operations and fuel technology.

It all sounds good, but some agency watchdogs don’t think the new website provides sufficient information to back their claims.

An analysis of the website on Salem bike news blog Salem Breakfast on Bikes calls it “unconvincing…propaganda more than sober analysis, a bit of a slick farrago.”

“The structure is designed to look informative, but in fact it obfuscates. If the progress were truly so great, the structure would be more transparent and easier to parse,” the Breakfast on Bikes article states. “More specifically, it lacks any detailed discussion of what changed between the 2018 forecast and 2022 forecast.”

Salem-based transportation and climate advocate Bob Cortright (twin brother of No More Freeways co-founder and City Observatory writer Joe Cortright) also has some qualms. He reached out to ODOT staff about his concerns, writing in an email to several staff members that he was “troubled by the absence of analysis to support the broad claims about progress” on the website.

“While [the website] is very good at providing a high level description of the broad range programs and efforts to reduce emissions I do not see links to the detailed analysis that supports the conclusion in the press release,” Cortright wrote.

Suzanne Carlson, who leads ODOT’s climate office, responded to Cortright’s email last week. She said the team is “working on some updates to how information is displayed in the website to better highlight the key assumptions and inputs,” which they expect to have ready soon. In an email to BikePortland yesterday, ODOT Public Affairs Specialist Matt Noble said ODOT is working on a new webpage for the site that should be made public during the first half of April.

“The new page will give more insight into our progress since 2018, and what changed to allow for the 60% forecast emissions reduction. We’ll handle requests for deeper data dives on a case by case basis, as that level of detail is beyond the scope of the site,” Noble said.

Without this information, Cortright said the website seems to present a dubious conclusion that could cause people to rest on their laurels.

“They claim to be making progress in reducing emissions, which sends a powerful message to policymakers that we don’t need to do more and we can take our time,” Cortright told me. “It sends a message that we’ve done something in the last five years to turn this around…there are lots of reasons to be skeptical of that conclusion.”

Active transportation stats

The website features a page analyzing Oregon’s progress toward the state’s active transportation goals.

“Transportation options create opportunities for Oregonians to use active modes of transportation on Oregon’s system. Especially ones that emit less greenhouse gas emissions like biking, walking, rolling, scooters, carpooling, public transit, and passenger rail,” the website states.

Here is the vision ODOT has for what active transportation will look like in Oregon in 2030:

By 2050, 30% of short trips (under 20 miles) in urban areas will be made via biking, walking or rolling.

By 2050, a majority of urban households have equitable access to biking, walking, and rolling options close to their home.

The Oregon Department of Transportation continues to provide and expand dedicated and reliable funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure through 2050.

Sounds pretty good — how are we going to get there?

Apparently, we’re not so far from meeting the first goal as it might seem: ODOT claims that 12% of Oregonians travel by walking, biking or rolling, citing the Oregon Household Survey conducted from 2009-2011. (The survey they linked to actually said the number was 11%). Even better: they said this number has grown during the pandemic. But when BikePortland tried to find a source for this statistic, it was nowhere to be found. When BikePortland reached out to ODOT for more information about this, they walked back that claim.

“Some data we looked at suggested this, but on further scrutiny, we’re going to remove that line from the site until we have more data certainty,” Noble wrote.

When BikePortland tried to find a source for this statistic, it was nowhere to be found… they walked back that claim.

Considering Portland’s bike ridership numbers have gone down substantially in recent years, it is surprising to read the opposite is true for active transportation statewide. The Breakfast on Bikes article calls this out, questioning why ODOT would use data from more than 10 years ago to calculate progress on statewide bike goals and saying the dashboard “misuses that data for unwarranted optimistic ends.”

“There are no grounds from this one data point to infer any great progress. And from the Portland bike counts, it looks like there are strong grounds to infer a lack of progress,” the article states. “On the whole the dashboard looks like slick bells and whistles and greenwash rather than substance.”

At the same time as the website lauds statewide active transportation progress, ODOT says at the current rate of investment, it will take over 150 years to close gaps in pedestrian and bike infrastructure. But they go on to say funding for this purpose “has improved in recent years,” referencing the $255 million in federal funding for active and public transportation the Oregon Transportation Commission approved in 2020 as well as the $30 million allocated for biking, walking and rolling projects over the next five years from the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act.

To reduce VMT or not to reduce VMT? That is the question…

As mentioned earlier, the dashboard outlines two objectives: to reduce vehicle miles traveled (via things like investing in active transportation) and cleaning up the car transportation that does occur. These are good objectives — but they have to work in tandem. Advocates say ODOT’s actions have indicated they are focusing more on the electrification element than the VMT reduction part, at everyone’s detriment.

The website highlights the fact that progress towards cleaning each vehicle mile is driving ODOT’s progress and there are significant gaps remaining when it comes to reducing VMT.

“This objective has the most opportunities for improvement. Trends suggest that Oregonian’s driving habits won’t change much through 2050 if the state doesn’t make progress here,” the website states.

In a conversation with BikePortland yesterday, Cortright pointed out that the advances in clean transportation aren’t necessarily ODOT’s doing. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the agency responsible for setting fuel standards and managing large parts of the state’s electric vehicle program (including by administering a ban on purchasing new gas-powered cars by 2035). ODOT has been involved in car electrification efforts, but not all the progress can be directly attributed to their work.

Cortright said although ODOT is acknowledging the state hasn’t made adequate progress on reducing vehicle miles travelled (VMT) overall, their departmental focus on increasing car capacity through projects like the I-5 expansion at the Rose Quarter flies in the face of this stated concern.

“It’s not that we don’t know what it will take to reduce emissions,” Cortright said. “We need to stop expanding highways.”

Underlining Cortright’s message is a recent interaction he had with Oregon Transportation Commissioner Lee Beyer at the March commission meeting. At this meeting, Cortright made the case that ODOT needs to do more to reduce VMT in order to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Beyer’s response wasn’t encouraging to Cortright and other advocates.

“That’s more of a societal attitude issue rather than something that I think [ODOT] can do directly,” Beyer said. “I think as we move to less environmentally damaging cars, EVs or whatever, that people will continue to drive, because they like the freedom of personal mobility.”

All in all, it’s apparent that ODOT staff and the commissioners overseeing the agency have varied perspectives about how the state is going to reduce its transportation-related emissions. According to Beyer, electrification is the most reasonable step, because it’s too difficult to change people’s behavior. But ODOT knows VMT reduction is a crucial part of the equation.

“Yes, we need to electrify the fleet, but that doesn’t get us there. In terms of vehicle miles traveled reduction. We really need to change the way we provide options for people if we’re going to accomplish that,” Cortright said at the OTC meeting. “And I think people do respond when we provide an environment and choices other than driving.”

Job: Customer Experience Specialist – Velotech, Inc.

Buffered Bike Lane with a bike symbol and arrow pointing forward

Job Title

Customer Experience Specialist

Company / Organization

Velotech, Inc.

Job Description

Velotech, Inc. is a locally owned business that has operated in Portland since 2002. Velotech is the parent company of BikeTiresDirect, Western Bikeworks, and Trisports.

We are seeking a Customer Experience Specialist to join our team. Do you like bikes, but also talking about them? Want to help others get the gear they need to get out there? Send us your resume!

This position is responsible for responding to customer phone calls, emails, and for working directly with customers in our store. Customer Experience Specialists provide product information, advice and order assistance. Qualified Customer Experience Specialists also review orders and price match requests and assist with site content, including product reviews, photos and descriptions.

ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO:
Answer product questions & assist with the order process.
Analyze customer questions, troubleshoot, and provide clear answers in an efficient and professional manner.
Develop trust and loyalty with consumers and build value in our brands.
Navigate a sophisticated order processing system.
Generate performance reports and recommend improvements.
Coordinate with Returns to assist customers with returns and exchanges.
Assist walk-in customers with product questions and purchases.
Retrieve products from the warehouse to assist walk-in customers.

ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES/DUTIES:
Navigate a sophisticated order processing system.
Work with Marketing to assist with customer-facing content, including site maintenance, product images and descriptions.
Increase sales by genuinely helping customers learn about additional/alternative product options.

MINIMUM JOB REQUIREMENTS:
Basic computer skills.
Strong knowledge of cycling.
Previous customer service experience is a plus, as is sales, service and mechanical experience in the cycling industry.

KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, & ABILITIES:
Excellent communication and organizational skills.
Solid knowledge of cycling products.
Ability to work in a high volume, fast-paced environment.
Ability to work independently or with others to manage multiple task with minimal supervision.

BENEFITS:
Generous Employee Discounts.
Flexible Schedules.
Health Insurance.
Paid Time Off – up to 15 days your first year.
Quarterly ‘Get Outside’ days.

Velotech is an Equal Opportunity Employer

How to Apply

If interested, please click on the link below to apply (or copy/paste into browser), OR go to Biketiresdirect.com career page.
https://www.paycomonline.net/v4/ats/web.php/jobs/ViewJobDetails?job=115935&clientkey=4C6D7027145254251F7D24DAA9BDF3F7

Podcast: Portland’s Cycling Decline

The bicycling decline in Portland is very unfortunate. But it’s our new reality. The sooner we face the facts, embrace the issues that got us here, and have a productive conversation about what to do about it — the sooner we will get back on track.

Even though the decline wasn’t a surprise to me (BikePortland wrote about a major shift in local politics and culture at the start of the decline back in May 2014), reading the hard numbers from the City of Portland’s Bike Count Report still hit me hard. I’ve spent nearly two decades of my professional life trying to fan the flames of cycling in Portland, so to see us slip this far back down is a major bummer.

There are a lot of reasons why cycling is down in Portland, and Taylor Griggs and I talk about some of them in this episode, including:

The pervasive sense of danger many people feel on our streets — from drivers and their cars, to interactions with unpredictable and/or unstable people
The work-from-home shift and how it broke the cycling habit for many Portlanders
How (and why) politics and culture in Portland shifted away from cycling
The epidemic of bike theft
The lack of bike routes on main streets (the “hidden” neighborhood greenways)
The ease of driving and resulting increase in number of cars on the road
and more!

We also read a few notable reader comments and share clips from interviews Taylor did around town over the weekend. My goal with this episode was to address what we feel are the key reasons for the decline and begin a conversation about how we can dig out of this hole. I hope it’s helpful and we’d love to hear your feedback.

Listen in the player above or wherever you get your podcasts. Read a full transcript below:

The BikePortland 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.

pod-portland-bike-decline (1)Download

What really happened with that bike theft confrontation in South Waterfront?

The stolen bike posted on the Instagram account of Timberwolves Cycle Recovery PDX Saturday.

“There was no gun… This person is making that up.”
– Royal Johnson, Timberwolves Cycle Recovery

There was a confrontation between two people over a stolen bicycle on Friday. It happened near the intersection of South Sheridan and Moody in the South Waterfront neighborhood.

Given what I’ve learned in the past few days, the facts above are just about the only ones I have total confidence in. And yes, they are much different than the story we ran on Saturday when we reported that a bike rider had been confronted by gunpoint and had their bike stolen. Suffice it to say, this story has been a mess — as stories that rely on hearsay and assumptions tend to be.

First, I regret not being able to present a more complete picture of what happened. Second, I want to share why that story came out the way it did and offer new details from people involved in the confrontation.

We first learned about the incident on Friday when OHSU Knight Cancer Institute sent out an email to students and staff that someone was “robbed at gunpoint for their electric bike.” That email (which also mentioned that the gun-toter was “white male driving a grey BMW SUV”) likely originated from Portland Police phone log trackers who reported a “robbery with weapon” at this location. OHSU, and all colleges, are required by law to report to their communities when they they’ve been informed a crime may have been committed near campus.

Given those two reports, I received a call from our writer Lisa Caballero (I was in Seattle with family all day) saying that we should do a post because the community needed to know about this threat. That sounded reasonable to me, so I gave Lisa the OK to publish a story.

Soon thereafter we heard from a source that the bike and incident seemed to match very closely with a recovery of an e-bike posted by a Portland group called Timberwolves Cycle Recovery PDX. This is an Instagram-based group of folks we profiled late last year that’s led by Portlander Royal Johnson. Royal and his crew track stolen bikes and take part in regular recovery missions.

Below is the post from Saturday about the recovery (that’s Royal Johnson in the green sweater):

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Sith.Lord.Vader.Squadron(PDX)BC (@timberwolves_cyclerecoverypdx)

On Monday, I messaged Royal via the Timberwolves Instagram account and asked if he was involved in the incident. He initially said, “No, we were not.” Then I followed up with the link to the post above that described the recovery of an electric bike on Friday and included a photo showing the bike on the rack of a light-colored BMW. It was an obvious match.

Royal then acknowledged his involvement. He said the bike in question did not belong to the person who called the police and that the bike was reported as stolen in September 2022 (you can see this bike listed #4 in this list of stolen bikes Timberwolves have been looking for). Royal said he even matched the serial number of the bike. “There was no gun either,” he told me. “This person is making that up.”

Royal maintained that his group doesn’t carry guns. He also described how he approached people in nearby tents. Royal claims one of them admitted the bike was stolen and that he then took the bike back and “left peacefully.”

Royal also shared the name of the man who reported the bike as stolen. I’ve reached out to him for comment but haven’t heard back.

I then heard from someone who says they tipped off the Timberwolves about the bike and were present for the entire incident. The witness (who asked to stay anonymous) says they were biking up the path and saw the “this $3,000 electric bike” parked near some tents. The witness says they recognized the bike because it was posted as stolen on several social media accounts they follow. Upon seeing it they contacted the Timberwolves account and Royal showed up a few minutes later.

The witness says she and Royal walked up to the bike and matched the serial number and other unique features to the stolen bike report and determined that it was a match. By then, someone emerged from one of the tents. She said she stepped back and didn’t want to be involved in the confrontation, but that Royal stepped forward and engaged the man from the tent. The man claimed the blue bike wasn’t his, woke up a different person from another nearby tent, and then left the scene.

“The other guy who came out of the tent was not stoked that the bike was being repossessed,” the witness recalled. “And so he tried to confront Royal about it, but Royal was very firm.”

The witness said there was never a gun used or brandished by her or Royal at any time during the incident.

It remains odd to me (and others) that the person even called the police to begin with, given that they had a stolen bike in their possession and were living in a tent. Not that unhoused folks can’t use police services, but I would assume most of them wouldn’t be keen to invite police officers into their lives.

The witness also found it odd that he called police, and said perhaps the man who made the call, “Was just kind of not in the right state of mind to understand what was really going on.”

As we shared in the update to our initial story, the police only reported out what the caller (the man who lives in the tent) told them on the initial phone call — that he was asleep and someone tried to take his bike and then the person (Royal) showed them a gun when confronted about it. According to the man who lives in the tent, the blue electric bike was initially stolen from his sister, and was merely taking it back to her.

On a follow-up question to the PPB about the conflicting story I heard from the witness, the officer said, “We only have what the victim reported to officers. The victim is the one who made the call, and there were no witnesses who have contacted us.” (I shared this with the witness in case they wanted to contact police and share their side of the story.)

I hope this helps clarify not just the incident, but how and why we reported things out the way we did. I regret how messy the story was, but in my experiences over the years, stories like this are often just inherently messy. My job is to take responsibility for what we publish, explain my thought process, clean-up existing stories when necessary, and offer as much clarity as I can. I felt like warning people about a possible gun-related confrontation on a popular bike path was the right thing to do even though we didn’t have all the information.

Thanks for reading. If anyone has more to share about what happened on Friday, please get in touch.

Fire under Steel Bridge sparks renewed push for skatepark

Steel Bridge Skatepark rendering by DAO Architecture.

“The revitalization of our community is needed now more than ever, and [the Steel Bridge Skatepark] is the perfect way to bring people back to spaces they know and love.”
-Push Movement

On a hot evening last July, a group of skateboarding advocates journeyed to the downtown Portland site they hope will one day be home to the halfpipes and ramps of the Steel Bridge Skatepark. Longtime Portland multimodal transportation advocate Ryan Hashagen roller-skated to the site while towing a wheelbarrow full of concrete, which skaters later laid down in a “ceremonial groundbreaking.”

Right now, the Old Town site where the skatepark would be located (a lot co-owned by the Portland Bureau of Transportation and Oregon Department of Transportation bordered by NW Naito Parkway, 1st Avenue, and Everett St) is an overgrown and neglected patch of grass in the shadow of the Steel Bridge. It’s not a spot most people would gravitate toward after a trip to the Saturday Market or a stroll along the riverfront.

This point was hammered home earlier this month when a fire broke out right near the site within the base of the Steel Bridge. It turns out that people had been living inside the bridge base for an indefinite amount of time — the fact that nobody noticed speaks to the derelict conditions in the area. Now there’s a sense among advocates and others that the skatepark could help activate the space in a positive way. (We reached out to Portland Fire & Rescue for comment on the fire and potential impact of the skatepark, but have yet to hear back.)

“I am eager to learn more about what might be possible…”
– Dan Ryan, Portland Parks commissioner

After delivering a well-received testimonial to Portland City Council back in September, skatepark boosters are doubling down on their requests for political support. Last week, pro-Steel Bridge Skatepark organizations wrote letters to Commissioner Dan Ryan (who now oversees the Portland Parks & Recreation bureau — asking him to direct Parks staff to provide project management and find funding for the skatepark.

Their work appears to be paying off: though it’s still early days, we have reports that Ryan’s office is taking the initial steps to make this happen. Though Parks funding is in flux right now, the bureau is looking for solutions to fund the $10 million skatepark.

The city’s economic and urban development agency, Prosper Portland, will grant $250,000 to the skatepark for preliminary engineering and design. This money comes from the Community Livability Grants Program under the Old Town Action Plan. Advocates hope will get the skateboard wheels turning while the bureau looks for the rest of the funds.

Because of silos in Portland city government, insiders worried inter-bureau divisions could interfere with progress, and they realized it would be crucial for the new PP&R bureau leader to cheerlead the skatepark to help it kick-flip over administrative obstacles. Luckily for supporters, it seems like Ryan is willing to be their guy.

Just to make sure, advocates have written Ryan’s office more testimony asking for his help. In a letter from transportation advocacy nonprofit The Street Trust, Planning and Programs Manager André Lightsey-Walker detailed requests to the commissioner for the park that he hopes will “serve as a nucleus for human connection” and a “place of community intersection, creativity, and personal growth.” These requests are as follows.

Push Movement, a Portland organization that promotes addiction recovery through skateboarding, also expressed their support for the project. Their letter puts a fine point on why access to public space is so important for building healthy communities and how these kinds of positive environments can have a ripple effect on everyone in the area.

“While the Steel Bridge Skatepark will be an incredible place to skate, in all seasons, it’s also designed for everyone in the neighborhood to enjoy, whether a skater or not. A genuine place for a diverse crowd to feel welcome. Its central location allows for people from everywhere to come and enjoy downtown Portland,” their letter to Ryan’s office states. “The revitalization of our community is needed now more than ever, and [the Steel Bridge Skatepark] is the perfect way to bring people back to spaces they know and love.”

In an email statement to BikePortland, Commissioner Ryan wrote: “I am eager to learn more about what might be possible in partnership with Prosper Portland, and current property owners PBOT and ODOT as well as community partners. I expect a briefing on this in the coming weeks.”

This is just one plan in the works right now to reinvigorate public space in downtown Portland. A few blocks southwest of the skate park site, the O’Bryant Square rehabilitation is underway thanks to the Portland Parks Foundation. Boosters for both of these projects are excited about the potential to reimagine what our central city looks like, offering more free spaces for people to safely enjoy all Portland has to offer.

According to Prosper Portland, we should have more information about the skatepark plan in April.

Like bikes that fold? Get ready for ‘Folder Frolic’ ride

Folding bikes scratch a very particular itch in the cycling world. They are at once utilitarian, fun, and even — in some circumstances — quite stylish (see photo at right). They’re also a perfect fit for Portland’s bike scene and have long been popular around these parts.

Now there’s a gathering planned that will bring folding fans together to show off their niftily-hinged wonders. The International Folder Frolic is planned for April 1st, and organizers ay that’s no joke.

Southeast Portland-based bike shop Clever Cycles will host the local edition. They say fellow Frolics will happen on the same date in New Orleans, Philadelphia, and (in what is arguable the most folder-forward bike city in the world and home of leading brand Brompton) London. The event is produced by Trophy Bikes, a large Brompton retailer in Philadelphia.

You know the saying: The family that folds together, stays together.

Some of you might recall the fun we had in 2016 when we teamed up with Clever to co-host the Brompton Urban Challenge. At that event we welcomed Bromptonians from near and far to partake in a folding-bike Olympics of sorts. It was a genuine hoot for sure as we played all manner of small-wheel-inspired games.

Clever says Portland’s Folder Frolic will start at 12 noon. Expect a “party pace” loop ride that’s welcoming of all types of folding bikes. If you don’t have one, you’ve got a few weeks to track one down. Clever co-owner Eva Frazier recommends asking a friend, scouring local used bike shops, or even browsing online sources like Craigslist or Freeya. Of course she’d be happy to sell you one from their wonderful showroom on SE Hawthorne Blvd if you’re ready to take the plunge.

Happy folding (and riding)! More event details here.

Not just bikes: new paper says bike lane design must evolve

The types of wheeled-vehicles used for getting around on our streets these days are very different than they were a decade or so ago. Bike lanes aren’t just used by people on regular bikes anymore: take a look at who’s using Portland’s bike infrastructure and you’ll see all kinds of devices, from Lime e-scooters to large cargo bikes, and even electric one-wheelers.

But as transportation technology has rapidly evolved, bikeway design has largely stayed the same. A new working paper from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), “Designing for Small Things With Wheels,” offers tips for city planners looking to bring bike infrastructure into the new era of micromobility.

“Rapid growth in cargo bikes and trikes for deliveries and family transportation means that many devices in a bikeway are wider, longer, and have larger turning radii than typical bikes,” the paper states. “E-scooters have smaller wheels than bicycles and handle surfaces, bumps, grates, and gradients differently than devices with larger tires.”

Some people may ask if people riding all these newfangled devices be allowed in the bike lanes at all. Yes, the NACTO paper says: even if an e-bike or scooter can travel faster than a regular one, the person riding it is still vulnerable to car traffic. Design improvements can make it so everyone can travel safely without competing for space.

“In most cases, bike lanes are the best, safest, and most comfortable place for people using the wide array of (often electrified) small things with wheels,” the paper states. “To ensure bikeway design is inclusive of all potential riders — regardless of which wheeled device they ride — designers need to accommodate more people using bikeways with higher speed and size differentials.”

The paper comes up with four key areas where “updated design thinking” is required to accommodate the new breadth of vehicle types: lane width, intersections and driveways, surfaces and gradients, and network legibility.

Lane width

Biking speed varies substantially from person to person, and as electric devices grow in popularity, the range of speeds you might see people using in a bike lane is also expanding. How can we make sure all of those people are able to travel safely?

One key way is to address lane width so people can pass each other comfortably in bike lanes, even if they’re riding bigger devices like cargo trikes.

“Wider bikeways can more comfortably accommodate the increase in passing events and the increase in side-by-side riding that comes with higher bike volumes,” the paper states. “Wider protected bike lanes are especially important for children and caregivers, side-by-side riders, people using adaptive devices, and people moving goods.

The paper provides a step-by-step method for determining necessary lane widths, which differs for one-way and two-way bikeways. Ultimately, these calculations will vary depending on who a planner determines is using the bike lanes, but the paper suggests considering the widest device people will use to determine the passing space width and making sure to consider the different between the marked width of a bikeway on paper and actual bikeable width. (Remember the “shy distance”: the “unrideable surface next to a vertical object” because it’s too close to a wall, curb, gutter, etc.)

Using these guidelines, a one-way bike lane accommodating cargo bikes should be 7.5-8.5 feet wide — doubled for a two-way lane. This is quite a bit wider than some of Portland’s bike lanes, including the two-way bikeway on Naito Parkway, which has seven feet of space in each direction.

If there isn’t enough space along the entire bikeway, NACTO suggests ways to make do: “along all facilities, look for opportunities to provide and designate wider passing areas. Uphill passing opportunities can be especially beneficial along facilities where people use devices with and without electric assistance.”

Intersections and driveways

(Source: NACTO, *Don’t Give Up at the Intersection*)

Good intersection design is crucial for making sure interactions between people on micromobility devices and people in cars go smoothly. With new sets of wheels in the picture, planners have different considerations to make. The NACTO paper gives three recommendations for designing intersections and driveways, which are to:

“Design enough space for people to wait at intersections” to avoid overcrowding and conflict between pedestrians, bikeway users and motor vehicle traffic, and provide an obvious safe place to wait so people don’t “spill into a crosswalk be forced to wait very close to motor vehicle traffic.”
“Allow turning maneuvers and lane shifts at appropriate operating speeds” and make sure turning radii at intersections are “maneuverable by all devices operating in the bikeway.”
“Ensure visibility of all bikeway users at intersections and driveways,” which varies “based on motor vehicle speed, driver expectations, and bikeway speeds.” People riding faster devices in the bikeways “necessitate longer sight distances so turning drivers can see approaching riders in time to slow, yield, or stop completely.”

Surfaces and gradients

With different sets of wheels come different on-pavement experiences. Things that might be okay to someone riding a regular bike may be insurmountable to someone on a skateboard or scooter with a set of small, dense wheels that don’t absorb shock well. (And honestly, the people on bikes will appreciate smoother surfaces, too.)

“For many riders with small wheels, even slight maneuvers to avoid debris can cause the user to fall, tip over, or lose control of the device. Trash, gravel, snow, ice, and other roadway debris become a major challenge for these smaller-wheeled devices and a considerable nuisance for users with larger wheels,” the paper states.

Some tips for planners: design a “smooth but not slick” surface that has good traction in all weather conditions and consider how to make grade changes more comfortable. (The paper endorses bike-friendly speed bump designs like the ones PBOT is currently seeking feedback about.)

But, as we all know, none of this matters if the roadways aren’t well-maintained. The paper states cities need to “develop proactive maintenance practices to ensure that bikeway surfaces are maintained to a higher degree,” noting that “relatively minor potholes, longitudinal cracks and seams, and other roadway defects can pose a hazard for smaller-wheeled devices.”

Network legibility

The paper references the Better Naito scooter markings as a good example of how bikeway design can show they’re welcoming to a variety of devices. (Photo: Taylor Griggs/BikePortland)

How do people know which bikeways to use? Wayfinding and network legibility is becoming a hot topic of conversation amongst bike advocates here in Portland, and apparently the concern is relevant across North America at large. The NACTO paper states that “people rely on a combination of formal information and obvious connections when deciding where to ride” and including “comprehensive wayfinding and intuitive, comfortable, and safe transitions between facilities improves the function of the bike network and of the sidewalk network.”

“Signs and markings are not a substitute for good design, but help set expectations for how to use the bikeway. They are helpful for clarifying the variety of ways people can use the bikeway and emphasizing that newly popular device types—like e-scooters and e-bikes—are welcome,” the paper states (using an example from Portland’s own Naito Parkway).

It’s interesting to think about how infrastructure should evolve along with vehicle types. I think much of the backlash to shared micromobility devices like electric scooters has to do with the fact that their adoption and popularity has outpaced infrastructure development in a lot of cases. In a place like Los Angeles, which has rentable scooters all over the place but a limited bike lane network, people are forced to ride on the sidewalks (even though the scooter companies say not to) or the street. This can result in an uncomfortable and dangerous travel environment for everyone.

As Portland prepares to potentially adopt plans like an e-bike rebate program and a cargo bike-friendly freight plan, the city will need to work even harder to make sure our streets accommodate all of these devices. This NACTO paper provides a good framework for where they could start. You can read the full paper here.

People on Bikes: Worst Day of the Year Ride

With last week’s headlines about the decline in biking still bouncing around my head, I rolled over to North Rosa Parks Way on Sunday to remind myself that Portland is a still a cycling city. And I was not disappointed!

Yes it was a bit of a stacked deck because it happened to be on the route of the Worst Day of the Year Ride, but still. N Rosa Parks has evolved in a real bright spot of our bikeway network (more on that in a separate post) and I was happy to see this big annual ride routed onto it.

I saw a healthy mix of riders. Check them out below and see what fun little nuggets you can discover. I love this People on Bikes series because it gives us an opportunity to learn about what Portland bike riders really look like — and there are often little nuggets you can see in these images that you’d never notice if just passing by. (Hint: Take a closer look at the leg tattoo on the guy riding the Cinelli and tell me if you know what the message is a reference to.)

Keep riding Portland and hope to catch you out there soon.

See our People on Bikes archive page for more galleries in this series.

Comment of the Week: Bikes count

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.

CityLover summed it up for me, “There’s nothing I love more than browsing the comments section of a meaty BP article, but there are too many even for me tonight!”

Our article, City counts reveal data behind Portland’s precipitous drop in cycling, has received 195 comments — so far. Often when an article gets that many comments there is a, how should I say, falling off of quality. But these comments hold. And they make for poignant reading, some are like little love letters to a past Portland. A bunch of them were really, really good.

One thing I noticed was how many women commented, probably because the PBOT counts showed a big decline in female riders. Women stepped up to explain why.

Greatdane’s comment was a hybrid between the bulleted lists many people put together, and a bit of narrative explaining her situation. I liked the combination of the two. Here’s what she wrote:

I’m a female who still bikes, and has biked WAY more than ever in the last year (almost 1500 miles already this year). I’m curious when the counts are done. I used to be much more regular about my biking, but since COVID my work schedule has changed quite a bit. I still commute to work, but only ~3 days a week now, and not always during normal commuting hours. I ride a lot more recreationally and to appointments and stores etc, than I used to, but which also tends to be not commuting times.

Having said that, it’s pretty clear I’m in the minority in this regard when I’m out riding. I see way fewer people out on bikes no matter where or when I go, and considerably fewer female riders in particular, so these numbers don’t surprise me at all. Anyone I know who wasn’t a super confident cyclist rides less these days than they used to.

Being a regular biker all around Portland for 15 years now, here’s my 2 cents on why biking has declined so much in the past few years…

-Lots of people driving combined with complete lack of traffic enforcement resulting in erratic, unpredictable, and dangerous driving behavior. The number of close calls I’ve had in the past month alone is more than I had for years at a time pre-2019ish.

-Terrible conditions *of the roads* see the cracked crappy pavement of many greenway routes

– Terrible conditions *of the MUPs* see tents and trash on or blocking paths in numerous places. Most of my female friends in particular refuse to ride on these paths at this point, even where there aren’t tents because of perception

-New/improved/existing infrastructure that is nice but often doesn’t make enough connections to other infrastructure resulting in stressful situations many cyclists I know aren’t comfortable in (mostly due to point 1 above at this point)

I agree, it’s going to take a pretty concerted effort to turn things around. The infrastructure (including enforcement) will need improvements to actually support cycling/pedestrian safety. The safest infrastructure in the world won’t make any difference though if perceptions developed over the past few years are aren’t also changed.

Thank you Greatdane! You can find Greatdane’s comment, and the torrent of other good comments, under the original post.

Monday Roundup: Truth about Seattle, Chicago’s cams, Parisian politics, and more

Welcome to the week. Here are the most notable stories our writers and readers have come across in the past seven days…

Seattle uncensored: After I read the first line of this bracing op-ed on Seattle’s abusive drivers I instantly sought out the author on social to follow them. (The Stranger)

Queen Anne: In a time of terrible climate change news and declining bike use here in the states, the unabashedly anti-car, pro-cycling actions of Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo is one of the most inspiring and important stories in the world. (Financial Times)

Biden ❤️ Big Oil: Not surprised at all that self-described “car guy” and Hummer EV pitchman President Joe Biden signed off on a massive oil drilling project. (Heatmap)

We have the technology: There’s a growing national movement to use tech to help reverse the distracted driving epidemic and it can’t come soon enough. (LA Times)

The trouble with nice weather: This assessment of why and where people are killed while walking reveals that places with warmer temps tend to be more deadly. (Grid)

Mo’ cameras, mo’ bettah: Chicago is so keen on automated enforcement cameras they are doubling down and will expand them to buses and city vehicles in an effort to catch people who park in bus and bike-only lanes. (ABC 7)

Car debate: When you see a longform piece where the “freedom and frustration” of cars is debated you know we are in the midst of a healthy re-examination of our relationship with these troubled vehicles. (The Atlantic)

Thanks to everyone who shared links this week.

Updated: Stolen bike recovery leads to confrontation in South Waterfront

Screenshot from a police dispatch tracker on Twitter.

A person told police they were robbed of their e-bike at gunpoint late Friday morning near the intersection of South Sheridan Street and S. Moody Avenue.

(UPDATE: We have since learned from multiple witnesses that the person who called police might not have been telling the truth about what happened. I’m working on an update to the story and will post it soon to help clear things up. – Jonathan)

The incident occurred around 11:30 AM under the numerous overpasses of the I-5/405 interchange, near Portland’s South Waterfront Park and the Knight Cancer Research Building of the Oregon Health & Science University. There have not been any arrests.

The Knight Cancer Institute warned their community about the incident via email yesterday afternoon as stipulated by the Clery Act which requires universities to report crimes in the vicinity of their campuses.

Here’s that email:

Clery Act Warning: Incident on South Waterfront

On March 17 at approximately 11:30 a.m., a person was robbed at gunpoint for their electric bike under the overpass near the intersection of S. Sheridan and S. Moody. No arrests were made, and the subject was described as a white male driving a grey BMW SUV.

Please be cautious, take advantage of Public Safety escorts as you need and take a moment to review safety reminders below.

If anyone has more details about what happened, please let us know.

UPDATE, 3/20 at 12:20 pm: We’ve learned more from the Portland Police Bureau about what happened. Here’s what they shared with us:

On March 17, 2023, at 11:34 a.m., Central Precinct officers responded to the intersection of South Sheridan Street and South Moody Avenue on the report of a robbery. An officer met with the victim, while others search the area. The victim told officers he was asleep in his tent under an overpass when he was made aware that someone was taking his bike. He tried to convince the suspect to leave the bike, but the suspect refused. The suspect warned the victim not to approach. The victim then approached in an attempt to get the license plate number of the suspect’s vehicle. The suspect produced a gun and showed it to the victim, after which the victim left. The victim told officers the bike had been stolen from his sister, so he was taking it back. Nobody was found.

Sponsors reveal extreme makeover for Oregon’s e-bike rebate bill

In an effort to increase their chances of getting something passed this legislative session, sponsors of Oregon’s e-bike rebate bill have decided to give it an extreme makeover.

When House Bill 2571 was first released in November, it was hailed as an exciting step forward by e-bike advocates and bicycle retailers across Oregon. It was a relatively simple concept that would have given e-bike buyers up to a $1,200 rebate at the point of purchase for a standard bike or $1,700 for a cargo bike. The original bill was just two pages long and was widely praised and supported at its first public hearing last month.

But since that hearing, the bill’s chief sponsor, House Representative Dacia Grayber, along with a team of advocates and policy experts, have made significant changes. The new version of the bill is six pages long and has been almost entirely re-written. New features include a provision for people with lower incomes and a larger role for the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Summary of changes prepared by Rep. Grayber’s office.

In describing the changes, Rep. Grayber’s office said their two main goals were to make the e-bike rebate an extension of Oregon’s existing Clean Vehicle Rebate Program and, where possible, model it directly after Denver’s highly successful program.

One major addition is a tiered rebate structure to offer more benefits to low-income Oregonians — something the original bill lacked. Instead of a $1,200 to $1,700 rebate to all residents, the new bill will offer $400 for general residents and $1,200 for people who make 80% of the area median income. The total dollar amount being asked for in the bill is the same — $6 million for the first two years — but $2 million of that would be reserved for the low-income rebate.

This new funding model will double the number of people who can participate in the program. The original bill would have funded a total of 5,000 rebates. The bill can now fund 10,000 rebates.

Another interesting change is how they’ve expanded the definition of the pot of money that would be used for the rebates: the Electric Bicycle Incentive Fund. The new language says the fund could accept donations.

Beyond funding changes, the mechanics of the program have changed for both residents and qualifying retailers. The amendment calls for interested residents to fill out an application for a rebate voucher with the DEQ. All customer information will be kept in a DEQ database. The original bill required bike shop employees to gather demographic data at the point-of-sale. The bill also calls for the DEQ to include a (optional) survey question on the application that would capture the buyer’s anticipated usage and riding mileage.

This switch to a more DEQ-centric program will mean a longer timeline to get your money back (not a huge surprise for anyone that understands how government works). The original bill required retailers to supply the rebate within 30 days; the new bill gives DEQ 60 days.

Speaking of retailers, if they want to participate they’ll now have to apply with DEQ to become a qualified retailer. The program would be open only to brick-and-mortar stores in Oregon and each shop must provide in-store repairs of e-bikes. Before granting an application, each store must be approved by a DEQ employee after an in-person visit and inventory review. Once in the system, a retailer would be given computer access to DEQ software that handles transactions and processes vouchers.

The other thing you will no longer find in the bill is a requirement to own the bike for at least one year (which sponsors realized was unenforceable).

While it’s likely some Oregonians will be disappointed with the changes, the new approach gives the bill a much stronger footing in terms of governance structure. It should also provide a good runway into the 2025 legislative session where it’s very likely lawmakers will pass a large transportation funding package. If the e-bike rebate program has been a success, it’s likely supporters could angle for another large funding injection in that future bill.

We’ll get a sense of what lawmakers think of the new bill at the work session (and possible vote) in the House Committee On Climate, Energy, and Environment on April 3rd.

Note: The amendments have not posted to the Oregon Legislative Information Site yet. I’ll link to them when they do.