BikePortland

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.

Traffic cameras coming to 82nd, Powell — and a lot more places — by the end of this year

“I think everyone’s going to start to seeing significantly more cameras on the street this summer.”
– Dana Dickman, PBOT Traffic Safety Section manager

One of the most frustrating things about Portland’s current traffic culture crisis is that we have a proven tool that would go a long way toward fixing it, yet the City of Portland has been extremely slow to use it. I’m talking about automated traffic cameras, or what the Portland Bureau of Transportation refers to as “speed safety cameras.”

Since the first one was installed in 2016, they’ve worked very well. But a variety of factors has led to a maddening lack of implementation. Fingers have been pointed at a problematic vendor, camera procurement problems, technical (electrical) issues, the bottleneck caused by the Portland Police Bureau’s involvement (an issue that is behind us thanks to recently passed legislation), and as we reported via a city audit in 2015 a lack of cross-bureau coordination might share also some of the blame.

Regardless of the reasons, Portland has only installed nine cameras at five intersections in the past eight years.

But there’s reason for optimism! Not only did PBOT Commissioner Mingus Mapps recently promise to double the number of cameras currently in use in the next year, but a high-level PBOT staffer revealed at a meeting Thursday that cameras will be coming to new locations including 82nd Avenue and Powell Blvd.

Here’s the story…

With frustrations over record traffic deaths, falling cycling rates (due in large part to fear of dangerous drivers), and a “revenue crisis” gripping PBOT (more on that later), it wasn’t a surprise when a member of the PBOT Bureau Budget Advisory Committee (BBAC) brought up the lack of progress on traffic cameras at their monthly meeting last night.

When BBAC member Josh Roll asked PBOT Traffic Safety Section Manager Dana Dickman for an update on the camera rollout, she gave the most thorough and candid response on this topic I’ve ever heard from a city staffer.

Listen to the full audio (or the edited text) below:

Roll:

“I’m really curious on what the status is on the speed cameras systems…I feel like what I just keep hearing is, ‘Oh, it’s procurement. No, it’s, supply-side stuff. So maybe that’s just still the answer. But once recent legislation has gone through some of the logjam on that side of the problem has been resolved, so I’m just curious for an update.”

Dickman:

“I would say things are getting better… All the things you mentioned — procurement, contractor issues, siting issues — all those are real. I think everyone’s going to start to seeing significantly more cameras on the street this summer. We feel like we’ve overcome some of those barriers. I’m hoping that for the expansion we have planned that we are going to have all the cameras installed by the end of this summer. That doesn’t mean all of them will be operational by then, but we should have all of the cameras out on the streets.

I feel like we’re gonna see a significant jump in the next four months. Like, things that we had hoped we were doing over two years, we’re literally going to be doing in six months; but that’s okay because we worked through some challenges. I feel like some of the logjams, so to speak, are really loosening up and we do have the authorization to use non-sworn officers and we’re working through what that’ll look like within PBOT.

We figured out some of the challenging issues with getting power to the new cameras and some of the other technical issues. And we’re going to be able to get some cameras on corridors that we’ve wanted for a long time like 82nd and Powell and some places where the community and PBOT has wanted some additional speed enforcement and intersection enforcement for a long time.”

This is a very helpful assessment of what has gone wrong and what we can expect going forward. It’s also the first time I’ve heard of cameras coming to 82nd Ave and to Powell Blvd. Let’s hope Dickman is right and PBOT is finally ready to move forward more quickly.

For more on PBOT’s traffic camera program, including a partial list of new camera locations, check out their website. And if you see new cameras pop up in the coming months, please drop me a line so we can continue to track this important program.

Interstate Bridge project hits a bump (or should we say, a lift)

— By Taylor Griggs and Jonathan Maus

The plan to expand the I-5 freeway between Portland and Vancouver, known as the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBRP), has had some success over the last year or so. It has broad local political support and even got name-dropped by President Joe Biden. But that doesn’t mean it’s been all smooth sailing.

Speaking of boats…

Whether or not they can fit under the currently proposed design has suddenly become a much bigger deal. As reported by The Oregonian Tuesday, the U.S. Coast Guard is putting their foot down when it comes to their demands that the project do a more thorough review of a movable lift-span (drawbridge) option.

IBRP Administrator Greg Johnson told BikePortland via email this morning that the Coast Guard delivered a letter to the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration in February requesting a study of a design option that provides 178 feet of river clearance. “Including only one alternative in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) introduces risk that no permittable alternative will be evaluated in the SEIS,” reads the Coast Guard letter.

In response, Johnson told us, “To do this, the program is moving forward with studying a movable span as part of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) review process.” He added that doing the study now is a “risk mitigation strategy” because it can be folded into the existing review process and could prevent more significant delays later in the process.

In his comments to BikePortland, Johnson was very careful to show unwavering support for the existing fixed-span design:

“The program understands that external stakeholders want to move forward with a fixed span. We appreciate the responsibilities that the Coast Guard oversees and acknowledge the need to better understand the full range of benefits and impacts associated with a replacement bridge across the Columbia River. Additionally, the program will continue conversations with potentially impacted fabricators and businesses, who have expressed support for the replacement of the bridge and interest in mitigation agreement discussions necessary for a fixed span.”

This all started in June of last year, when the Coast Guard informed the IBRP team that their plan for a 116-foot tall bridge across the Columbia River wasn’t going to fly. The Coast Guard wanted at least 178 feet of vertical space for ships to pass underneath. But the IBRP team was insistent that a lower bridge would work. They said a lift-span would be too expensive and complex and that it would be much cheaper and easier to simply work with a handful of individual ship operators to mitigate passage concerns. All the while, ODOT and WashDOT seemed to brush off the Coast Guard’s threats, even though the maritime agency made it clear they wouldn’t budge and some insiders rang alarm bells.

For now it looks like the Coast Guard has won this high stakes game of chicken. ODOT and WashDOT must now include a formal review of a movable span design in the federal environment review process. And keep in mind: delays are deadly for megaprojects, especially one that already died once and comes with a pricetag that could reach $7.5 billion.

Lawmakers are watching

“Does the Coast Guard have veto power?”
– Bill Hansell, Oregon senator

ODOT Director Kris Strickler faced questions about the bridge height at a March 13th legislative committee meeting.

“Yes… my hope is that it never constitutes a veto authority, though.”
– Kris Strickler, ODOT director

The former IBRP (the Columbia River Crossing) died because politicians backed away from it. Now, headlines about this latest design snafu have made their way to lawmakers in Salem.

At a meeting of the Joint Committee On Ways and Means Subcommittee On Transportation and Economic Development Monday, Oregon Department of Transportation Director Kris Strickler was asked about the bridge height issue by Senator Bill Hansell (R-29).

“I just heard today… that the federal government had some issue with our design… care to comment on that?” Sen. Hansell asked.

“At the macro scale, the design is pretty well-formed,” Strickler replied. “But when you look at the details of the bridge itself, we are still looking at the movable span portion.” Then, without being asked about the cost, he added, “Would it cost more? Absolutely. I can tell you unequivocally that the cost of a moveable span is more than the cost of a fixed span. We don’t know how much more yet, but it could be upwards of $500 million, just for the bridge portion alone.” (Strickler also took the opportunity to remind lawmakers that a drawbridge that would be raised about 400 times per year would have a negative impact on light rail headways.)

In his comments Wednesday, Strickler tried to keep things lighthearted. “The Coast Guard is one of the federal cooperating agencies that partners with FTA and FHWA through this process,” he said at one point. “So it’s not like we’re in a position where we can tell them, ‘We’re just not going to evaluate your concept’.”

Then Sen. Hansell got right to the point on everyone’s mind: “Does the Coast Guard have veto power?”

And Strickler, always careful with his comments, replied. “I’ll define that by saying yes, because they have a bridge permit that we have to get in order for us to enter into construction. So my hope is that it never constitutes a veto authority, though.”

Tunnel vision

As we’ve covered in the past, Vancouver-based engineer Bob Ortblad has been ardently advocating for the IBRP to consider an immersed tube tunnel connection between Vancouver and Portland for a long time, saying it would be safer and more visually pleasing to the city skylines than a steep, hulking bridge. This idea has received little in the way of institutional support, but last week one person of note joined the tunnel team: Vancouver Mayor Pro Tem Ty Stober.

In a March 10th Facebook post, Stober expressed his disappointment with the IBR program hurdles, saying “the economy of Southwest Washington needs an updated crossing as soon as possible” and urging them to look for alternatives.

“It would be a tragedy to replace one draw bridge on Interstate 5 with another one,” Stober wrote. “I am calling on the IBR team to do a fresh, complete study of a tunnel. The benefit would be to reconnect downtown Vancouver to Fort Vancouver and open the skyline.”

On the Oregon side, House Rep. Mark Gamba brought up the tunnel at Wednesday’s legislative meeting. He asked Strickler why it hadn’t been given more consideration.

After saying one reason they don’t like the tunnel idea is because it would requiring “a significant amount of material waste… we’re talking millions of cubic yards,” Strickler said he doesn’t think a tunnel would provide adequate access to freeway interchanges used by the ports of Oregon and Washington. “… The tunnel idea provides complications in providing access to each of those [interchanges] in a way that makes it something that is technically, relatively infeasible,” he said.

What’s next?

The IBR planners don’t want a moveable span bridge, and they really don’t want a tunnel. But they’re not going to get the federal support they need for the project if they don’t play ball with the Coast Guard. Now they have to hope the additional review goes quickly and comes out in a way that proves a lift-span isn’t a good option.

“I feel pretty confident that we’ll get a fair evaluation and we’ll come up with what’s right for the community,” Strickler said.

IBRP Administrator says now that a movable span is officially in the NEPA review process, the public will get a chance to provide public input once the EIS comes out later this year.

On the advocacy side, in a press release from Just Crossing Alliance (JCA), a coalition of organizations who want a “right sized” project, member Brett Morgan with 1000 Friends of Oregon indicated this is a moment for the IBRP to make things right:

“One ‘alternative’ is not really a choice,” Morgan wrote in a statement. “And isn’t responsive to partners. The JCA has been saying since the early days of the project reboot that we need to bring along multiple alternatives.”

Time to fix SW 6th Avenue gap into downtown, says veteran advocate

Keith Liden riding on the SW 6th Avenue bike lane over I-405 toward SW Jackson.

Keith Liden is not your average bike advocate. As we shared in our profile last fall, he’s been a thorn in the side of Portland Bureau of Transportation staffers for 30 years — many of them as a member of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee.

A few weeks ago I met up with Liden to take a closer look at one of his many personal advocacy quests: closing gaps on Southwest Terwilliger Boulevard. Terwilliger is very important street. It’s one of the two main veins that connect southwest Portlanders to downtown and other destinations. It’s also much lower stress than its parallel, state-owned cousin, SW Barbur. Terwilliger is classified as a “major city bikeway” in Portland’s Transportation System Plan and provides a direct connection to the VA Hospital and other medical buildings. Beyond its utility, it’s a beautiful parkway with views of the Willamette River (and far beyond) that was recently listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Compared to many other important bike route streets in Portland, Terwilliger is in fine shape. Liden knows that. He just has a few quibbles that, if addressed properly, could take Terwilliger from good to great. And he’s got a good point. Portland has a lot of good bikeways, but very few great ones (which might be one reason why our ridership numbers have fallen).

Looking north on SW 6th toward Broadway (Google Streetview)

In November 2022 Liden sent a 9-page memo to PBOT planners titled, “Terwilliger gaps – time to fix them!” “Terwilliger is one of the most heavily used bike routes in SW Portland,” he wrote. “The existing gaps have been identified as a high priority in virtually every transportation-related plan since the mid-90s, but oddly, correcting the gaps has received relatively little attention over the past quarter century.”

Liden’s memo detailed the existing conditions and his proposed solution to four gaps. Today l’ll focus only on the one at SW Broadway (Terwilliger turns into SW 6th just south of this intersection).

“This one’s personal for me,” Liden shared as we waited in a green bike box at a red signal headed northbound on SW 6th at Broadway. As drivers roared by, it felt like we were standing on a tiny island atop a tumultuous sea. “I got hit by somebody taking an illegal right hand turn right here [where no right turns are allowed]. The guy took me by surprise. I did a cartwheel right out in the middle of the intersection. Luckily I had a helmet on.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by BikePortland (@bikeportland)

“This one’s personal for me. I got hit by somebody taking an illegal right hand turn right here.”

When I shared a video about this intersection last week (above), a lot of folks chimed in to say how terrible it is. Set on a diagonal, and with four-to-five wide lines in all directions, the widest section of SW 6th and Broadway is about 165 feet from curb-to-curb. Adding to the stress is that it’s adjacent to I-405 freeway onramps. And if you make it the 104-feet across Broadway, you enter a narrow, unprotected bike lane on the freeway overpass. Then, just as you begin to enter downtown and begin to breathe easy, the bike lane ends just before SW Jackson. Then, as you try to decide what to do, you realize there’s a freeway off-ramp lane on your right and you’re dumped in the middle of the street sharing lanes with drivers. And those drivers on your right? Many of them want to merge across two lanes (including the one you’re in) to go left at SW College. It’s a complete “F-you” to bike riders.

Seriously? This is how we welcome people into our great city?

To their credit, PBOT knows about the problem. They identified it in the Southwest in Motion plan (Top Tier BP-02) and the Transportation System Plan (projects #20168 and #20167). One of the proposals would extend the bike lane to Jackson by removing some on-street car parking spaces on the west side of 6th.

For an estimated $15,000, PBOT says they could do this (from SW in Motion plan):

Liden says that change would be welcome, and is long overdue, but here’s what else he’d like to see:

1. On the south end of the 6th Ave. bridge, illegal right turns at Broadway [where he was hit] need to be addressed. I believe part of the problem relates to drivers who are not familiar with this area (OHSU visitors). Once they see they’re about to get sucked into downtown, they turn right to escape. They could be helped with a directional sign before Sheridan saying something like “To Ross Is. Br. /26 East & Barbur Next Right.” Directional arrows on the 6th Ave. pavement just south of the bike box could also help, and/or the overhead signage could be made more obvious

2. Provide green dashed markings connecting the south bike box with the striped bike lane on the bridge (Figure 2).

3. To complement #2 above, eliminate the curved travel lane striping immediately south of the bridge that guides NB motorists to drift right into the bicyclists’ path when it’s not necessary.

(Source: Keith Liden)

4. Shift vehicle lanes west and enhance and extend the existing bike lane (as proposed in SWIM project BP-02).

5. Prohibit the left merge from the 6th ramp between Jackson and College. Motorists intending to turn left at College typically look at traffic on their left rather than pedestrians crossing in front of them. This traffic only would need to go one more block to Hall to turn left, and it would help mitigate the crazy merging that occurs between Jackson and College.

6. Visually extend the bike lane ending at Jackson with green skip striping to College.

PBOT has done some of the preliminary planning work on this gap, but funding challenges mean it likely won’t get attention any time soon. At a budget work session today, Interim PBOT Director Tara Wasiak told Mayor Ted Wheeler and the other commissioners that her agency is in a “revenue crisis” with a 5-year forecast that demands a $60 million cut in discretionary resources and a plan to cut $6.3 million and 16 staff positions from their 2023-2024 budget.

Liden says his suggestions aren’t expensive because they’re mostly just pavement markings, striping, and signs (and he acknowledges it would take a much larger investment to bring the crossing up to ADA standards). He understands the perilous budget situation and has heard PBOT talk about it for many years. But for advocates like Liden hope and persistence is part of the job and he feels where there’s a will, there’s a way.

“This condition has persisted for way too long,” he says, “but let’s start somewhere.”