As promised, opposing views on the city’s proposed Bicycle Master Plan for 2030 surfaced last night at the Portland Planning Commission.
About 50 people packed the hearing room and heard Bike Gallery owner Jay Graves urge adoption of the plan. Portland resident Randy Miller added that the plan would bring a “young, new, and highly educated community” to the city.
But not everyone was so optimistic. Don Arambula of urban design firm Crandall Arambula commended project manager Ellen Vanderslice and city bicycle coordinator Roger Geller for their work on the plan. But Arambula said the proposal wasn’t bold or aggressive and should not be adopted until “fundamental changes” were made.
Arambula said the plan’s proposal to add bike lanes doesn’t address the issue of getting people into city centers, which he described as populated streets like Hawthorne or in the Lloyd District. He said the plan does a poor job at tackling the issue of a “20-minute neighborhood,” where a biker’s commute to get to businesses and “where they need to go” is less than 20 minutes. He gave a recommendation to start bike lane development in the city centers and then extend into or connect neighborhoods.
Additionally, Arambula said bikers would not want to use the bike boulevards if they weren’t in designated protected lanes. “Studies have shown that people will not ride their bikes,” he said, “even with lanes available, if they don’t feel safe.”
“We can only adopt a plan that is successful,” said Arambula. “As of right now, we do not have that plan.”
If you want to comment on the plan, you have until Nov. 8. Comments can be sent by email to bicyclemasterplan@pdxtrans.org or by snail mail to Ellen Vanderslice, PBP Project Manager, Portland Bureau of Transportation, 1120 SW 5TH Avenue, Suite 800, Portland, Ore. 97204
Tags: bicycle master plan, bicycling, Portland
Whatever the plan is will be wonderful, unless you’re one of the 90% of households who regularly drive a car. But who cares about 90% of households?
This city doesn’t give a rip about the 90%. They are so backward in their thinking, you wonder if they are intentionally trying to destroy all independent motorized travel? They aren’t ‘progressive’, they are ‘regressive’.
That 90% includes people who ride bicycles, Schemes. It’s not one or the other.
Amos says:
October 28, 2009 at 2:46 pm
That 90% includes people who ride bicycles, Schemes. It’s not one or the other.
WOW, so this is the meeting I got called on for not attending.
Some guy who’s handle was “HONDA CIVIC”, ranted that if I was “Jack, are you all talk or did you actually go to the planning commission last night and testify? ”
Well fine, let me say a few words right now, the mission of the bike community and the mayor who will be recalled or voted out, is to kill cars in the city.
Cars will be all electric before to long, so say SAM,these cars will still be stopping at redlights, while unaccountable riders run them.
The C02 they blow out huffing and puffing to and from the city, it seems will only increase..so a moritorium on heavy breathing needs to be factored in..and of course..TAXED.
Bike racks on Tri-met bus’s are no longer free…25cents a ride.
I
Jack Peek says:
SORRY..HIT THE WRONG KEY, NEVER FINISHED.
October 28, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Amos says:
October 28, 2009 at 2:46 PM
That 90% includes people who ride bicycles, Schemes. It’s not one or the other.
WOW, so this is the meeting I got called on for not attending.
Some guy who’s handle was “HONDA CIVIC”, ranted “Jack, are you all talk or did you actually go to the planning commission last night and testify? ”
Well fine, let me say a few words right now, the mission of the bike community and the mayor who will be recalled or voted out, is to kill cars in the city.
Cars will be all electric before to long, so say SAM,these cars will still be stopping at red lights, while unaccountable riders run them.
The Co2 they blow out huffing and puffing to and from the city, it seems will only increase..so a moratorium on heavy breathing needs to be factored in..and of course..TAXED.
Bike racks on Tri-met bus’s are no longer free…25 cents a ride.
In fact, if you hook your bike to the front of the bus, you should pay a bit more,taking a seat you should be riding on.
Bike insurance, you hit me, my car, I don’t want a get well card…I want a check.
Lastly…license plates..front and rear, if your riding in unsafe manner, I want to report you.
Meet me half was on any of this, I’ll “share the road.”
“Is my time up?”
Peeling off a small fraction of transportation dollars to ensure the safety of the skyrocketing number of taxpaying bicyclists in Portland is sensible policy for this City.
The people who want to fight against the City’s sensible and overdue bike program are insane.
JJ
RE: “Portland resident Randy Miller added that the plan would bring a ‘young, new, and highly educated community’ to the city.”
So little that has been reported to have been said at this gathering would appear, like Mr Miller’s utterance, to have any foundation in actual data or experience.
BTW, in a related matter, Paris, one of the reference cities for another local attempt at a bicycle-sharing program, would seem to have experienced a rude awakening, as a few grafs from Steven Erlanger’s piece in today’s NYTimes suggests:
“Residents here can rent a sturdy bicycle from hundreds of public stations and pedal to their destinations, an inexpensive, healthy and low-carbon alternative to hopping in a car or bus.
But this latest French utopia has met a prosaic reality: Many of the specially designed bikes, which cost $3,500 each, are showing up on black markets in Eastern Europe and northern Africa. Many others are being spirited away for urban joy rides, then ditched by roadsides, their wheels bent and tires stripped.
With 80 percent of the initial 20,600 bicycles stolen or damaged, the program’s organizers have had to hire several hundred people just to fix them. And along with the dent in the city-subsidized budget has been a blow to the Parisian psyche.”
In truth, the NYT article http://tr.im/DMeV was a bit more nuanced than your comment. Read the other “grafs”.
All bold schemes have growing pains. This one is for a good cause–to lessen the stranglehold that autos have on our way of life.
The City of Paris and its private company collaborator are pushing on, the article says, learning as they go. They are trying. They are inventive and creative and they may overcome the problems described in the article–despite the constantly negative naysayers.
Either way the effort is worthwhile. There is a value to healthy, low-carbon changes in lifestyle on many levels. There are also hidden subsidies and costs to the commons in overemphasizing auto travel as we have done at great cost the past eighty years.
I hope the city can create safe, designated lanes, as Mr. Arambula recommends. I will make that longer trip on the bike when I know my lane is as safe as possible for the whole journey.
Adrian, could you be considerably more explicit with your perceived nuances? “All bold schemes have growing pains” is hardly justification for the enormous expense Paris has realized.
There is a broad and explicit difference between wishful thinking and planning, though perhaps not as broad and explicit as the distance between quasi-religious belief and knowledge-based planning. “All bold schemes have growing pains” is the sort of quasi-religious tenet that has been employed far too often by the alleged mayor of this city.
Indeed, it is not beyond possibility that you are employed by our alleged mayor, even that bicycle sharing is your particular endeavor.
I began cycling to work in 1966; I have commuted by bicycle in several major East Coast cities where there was no special provision for bicyclists. This city is far more dangerous for cyclists than the cities of my experience.
For example, Portland recently made a cash settlement to a cyclist naive enough to believe that a bike lane made her safe from drivers turning right across the bike lane; yet no one who was responsible for the planning, design, and execution of the bike lane took personal responsibility for the accident that was bound to happen.
Similarly, Portland encourages bicyclists to use public streets without requiring knowledge of or experience with a state driver’s manual. The city is, that is, luring cyclists into danger and fomenting conflict between drivers of motor vehicles and cyclists.
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/10/28/what-portland-residents-have-to-say-about-the-bicycle-master-plan-meeting/comment-page-1/?replytocom=100830#respond
Gardiner, you are wrong on several fronts. And I’m not hearing any specifics from you other than a selective excerpt from a poorly-researched article, and the generalized experience you felt bicycling on the East Coast (which I find, having myself biked Boston, NYC, and many smaller cities back east a good bit, to be simply unbelievable). “This city is far more dangerous for cyclists than the cities of my experience.” I’d like to hear what metric are you using? Or is it wishful thinking, perhaps.
Secondly, many cities in many countries have bicycle-share programs, and they are successful, you may be sad or shocked to learn, albeit none have been problem-free (no surprise there, is there?), none without, yes, growing pains.
There are 173 comments from all over the world on the NYT article you excerpted, and most give good reviews of the Paris program and many others, based on first-hand experience. These comments also point out many significant factual errors the reporter has made, e.g. the price of the bicycles: 400 to1000 euros, not $3500. But believe what you’re gonna believe.
Even if it does fail in Paris, which is unlikely given the extreme popularity and high use of the program, as well as changes which will be made from lessons learned, it is indeed a worthwhile effort on the road to a sustainable urban environment. And it has already been successful in reducing the carbon footprint of the Paris’ daily commute by millions of separate trips. The total cost has been much less than a single additional overpass, and that cost will likely be recouped. The benefits are obvious, and quantifiable.
You reference a scare story of a cyclist in Portland, one among how many thousands? How many auto on auto and auto on pedestrian accidents, injuries, and deaths occur here, and at what cost? What your point is other than to generally tear down the efforts being made here I just can’t tell.
I certainly don’t disagree with your contention that when we create half-assed bike lanes we are “luring” casual bicyclists into a dangerously false sense of security. I have always favored very well-marked and defined lanes, as they exist in many European cities and towns. I also favor targeted and rigorous biker education about safety and the rules of the road that they share with vehicles, which has got to be a part of the mix. Both of these things have to be in place in order to encourage more casual cyclists out of their cars in a secure, inviting way. And that’s important because it translates to less congestion, less noise and pollution, and better health. Or don’t you believe that? Is that quasi-religious belief?
As for the possibility of my being a lackey of City Hall, “employed by our alleged mayor, even that bicycle sharing is your particular endeavor”, well, I think that says more about your state than about me, Gardiner. It sounds very much like you have a cranky vendetta against bicycling in Portland, and also against the mayor.
The truth is that I have loved Portland for a long time, but only as a visitor. My partner has family here, and we are just now in the process of selling my house and moving from Port Angeles, where I am now, to the Portland area for her new job.
I have lived in several bike-friendly cities, and I have an interest in and desire for sustainability. I came to this article while doing research on the web on Portland, where I’ll be living during the week — and commuting by Trimet and bicycle a good bit of the time. I was happy to see the bikes on the bus program http://trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/bikelockers.htm and will be using it as well as Portland’s bike lanes to get around.
I’m not in the transportation planning business, I’m just a user of services and a voter. I support in a general way intelligent movement towards encouraging broad use of alternative forms of transport. It’s a good, worthwhile thing, long overdue, and Portland should be proud of its efforts, which are recognized the world over, despite the failures and imperfections. Mr. Arambula’s suggestion about how to make bicyclists safe and feel safe sounds sensible to me from my experience as a long-time urban cyclist, as I bet it does to many others also.
It’s very challenging to encourage bike travel and mass transit in a packed urban environment in our car culture, but some are trying. I’d like to hear your “knowledge-based planning” if you have something to offer in good faith, in a non-cynical way. What I’ve seen in your comments, which kind of insult the mayor and also myself, is so far not indicative of the critical thinking you say you’d like to promote on this subject.
This whole thing is a farce. According to the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, a bike is a form of transportation, and as such must fallow the laws of the road, the same a car does. This should include licenses and insurance, but until we can get that through the thick skulls of the cyclist, then everything thing else is mute.
I certainly don’t disagree with your contention that when we create half-assed bike lanes we are “luring” casual bicyclists into a dangerously false sense of security. I have always favored very well-marked and defined lanes, as they exist in many European cities and towns. ADRIAN
Dear “PITA” you guess what it means.
You’re kind of like most dumb lib’s, “well defined” bike lanes.. WTF DO YOU WANT, you have not recieved now?
“luring?” new riders, You all think you’re Lance Armstrong, but like him missing half his gonards, your losing the half brain part.
Sam doesn’t even ride that much, he should, he is dangerous with a car.
YOU SAID: I’d like to hear your “knowledge-based planning” if you have something to offer in good faith, in a non-cynical way. What I’ve seen in your comments, which kind of insult the mayor and also myself, is so far not indicative of the critical thinking you say you’d like to promote on this subject.
Typical..You people call us all kinds of names for our ideas, you don’t want to hear a word from us unless we speak “softly” NO, some of us are so pissed off…We might need counseling for self preservation
You are heading for a wreck alright, if you like Europe, may I suggest you do just that.
“in good faith!” COME ON.. If you people really wanted that good faith crap, you would show me one example of yours..AIN’ T THERE.
“from my experience as a long-time urban cyclist” YOU SAID.
My experience as a long time driver of things as long as 105 feet on the highway, and as powerful as 650 hp, your going to lose this fight, because there is no compromise, only attitude.
You get, what you give…YOUR BILL IS COMING DUE.
My insurance agent is tracking now for his employer the stats that are forming quickly for your “urban bike way”, numbers of bike VS car..bike VS someone walking, and the good one…BIKE TO BIKE…you’re not paying your “fair share of the road” ..but you will.
Dear Jack,
Here’s a clue: You don’t make much sense. Your semi-literate ranty insults communicate only that you can’t control your non-specific anger. And you can’t find the Reply button under my post.
You don’t have something to say, you just need to say something. There’s no trace of a single useful idea in your spew.
Look into anger management. And maybe turn off the TV and read a book sometime.
Good luck.
Peeling off a small fraction of transportation dollars to ensure the safety of the skyrocketing number of taxpaying bicyclists in Portland is sensible policy for this City.
Dear JJ: “PEELING OFF”, you mean stealing transportation dollars.
The floating drug platform/homeless sleeping/fishing dock were transport dollars as well.
No JJ, I’d rather take those dollars, and make the SELLWOOD bridge safe ..BEFORE WE KILL A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.
ZUSMAN: For gods sake, please do the right thing and come out for priorities not feel good BS.
We no longer can afford any toys for these people who move here for the “PROGRESSIVE” utopia they wish to have.
The people who have 10-20-=30 yrs invested here better come first.
Cause those clouds of “enough is enough” will start raining over someone’s parade, next election cycle, or for at least one right now..a full blown, well financed recall effort that is chomping away, and wants a piece of anyone in the way.
Give Unemployed Jobs to Rebuild Infrastructure
Nov 03, 2009
It is clear that much work needs to be done to deal with the nation’s crumbling bridges, roads, and power grid to strengthen our nation for the decades ahead.
NO FING BIKE PATHS..NONE!
Fix the SELLWOOD NOW.
Jack Peek
Dear ADRIAN: Adrian says:
November 3, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Dear Jack,you can’t control your non-specific anger
Non-specific?? …No Babe, It is very specific, and I’m “shocked” you aren’t getting that from my posts.
I have watched this place “slide” for 30 yrs, your moving here has no investment here in this city, not when other people have been here 30 yrs or more.
Pedaling here, and demanding your “right” to own your own special transportation situation with no frigging investment in it, has hit many people, and if you think for one minute, it’s just me, think again.
Hard to imagine the ‘young, new and highly educated’ folks opting for bikes during the rainy season that dominates Portland weather when the ‘young, new and highly educated’ could be driving Saabs, Audis and Volvos. They would drive Smart cars but they understand the impact on the carbon footprint that is made by 30+ year old battery technology.
The people who ride bikes, do so out of their own choosing. Why should the rest of the community have to pay for that? Bike planning in Portland has never included the restriction of bicycles from busy streets. Why are bicyclists subjected to this kind of thoughtlessness? If there are thoroughfares that are ‘bike only’ why aren’t there surface streets that bicyclists are restricted from using?
Having been a bike rider for a good 40 years or so, I have learned that all of the Bicycle Assisted Suicides laws in the world, aren’t going to repeal the laws of physics. I got hit by a guy who ran a red light. Thankfully, he was on a bicycle. I can’t say how relieved I was that he survived so that I could threaten him with his life over his stupidity. Yes, I am aware, not all bicyclists are stupid. The smart ones use the side streets and don’t assert their right to a death in traffic by riding recklessly.
Planning for bike traffic in Portland is one sided, not weird or even progressive. To say that bicycling cuts down on the carbon footprint and cuts green house gas is daft.
What about all of the chemicals in bike lane stripes and the diesel that is burned to put them down? What about knee replacement at an earlier age? What about all of the sweat shops that pay a bowl of rice for cool bike stuff? What about the insurance premiums of the vehicle driver that is involved in a car/bike accident? What about bike theft?
Bicyclists are just suckers for the people who exploit them.
What about all of the chemicals in bike lane stripes and the diesel that is burned to put them down? What about knee replacement at an earlier age? What about all of the sweat shops that pay a bowl of rice for cool bike stuff? What about the insurance premiums of the vehicle driver that is involved in a car/bike accident? What about bike theft?
YO..Adrian: What about the above, I know you don’t drive, but of course if you did, it would be a Subaru.
The rear of the thing would be plastered with Bush this and that stickers, but what about those poor people you have oppressed by making you a helmet, you never use.
And by the way..Subaru’s and bikes are made for a “bad word here” PROFIT!
What are you some capitalist PIG?
As for the possibility of my being a lackey of City Hall, “employed by our alleged mayor, even that bicycle sharing is your particular endeavor”, well, I think that says more about your state than about me, Gardiner. It sounds very much like you have a cranky vendetta against bicycling in Portland, and also against the mayor.
ADRIAN: The above is just to “city hall” the words, the nuance of the statements scream Bike lobby, or city hall plant.
One thing I DO know for sure having dealt with city hall on another issue(or the county or state for that matter),it is not out of the norm, for them to plant or load a meeting or a blog with just another “concerned citizen”.
“employed by our alleged mayor” about the only thing you did say that leads me to thing your not a “lackey” ..a lot of us say alleged mayor, for damn good reasons.
Never hurts to ask, don’t need to know exactly where you work(you do work ..don’t you)..I’d love to know the field, if your a stay at home type..what does your “friend” do?
I have a strong sense of the field, but do let me know, if it’s what I THINK, then the old saying “birds of a feather” WILL apply.
You’re starting to spell a bit better, Jack, and that’s a start, so I’ll address a few of your moronic points. Yes, I am a driver, with a Ford truck and a motorcycle, no Sube though, and no slogans. So you are wrong in your lame stereotyping, yet again.
Ozzie’s arguments, well, they’re kinda dumb and silly, too. Anything we do creates some toxic side-effect. Duh? There’s no escaping this in the modern world. The point, given the world situation, is to generally go in the direction of less carbon footprint. Does biking, when and where it’s possible, do that. Yes, it certainly does. Less than driving autos and trucks. It’s not that easy to understand, Jack, unless you’re determined to be dense.
What else…because you can’t pedal doesn’t mean others won’t. With good bike parking, safer ways to bike, more bikers on the road and in lanes, the culture begins to change in the direction of less pollution, congestion and more health. Not without problems, not without adjustments, not without some ruffled feathers, but the direction is a good one. Deal with it. I won’t give up my truck. But I won’t also give up my bike, and I’ll ride it more if the infrastructure is in place. So will others.
Where I work, or what I do, or what my “friend” does is none of your pea-brained biz, big guy. Kind of creepy of you to ask.
I have zero, and I mean zero, connection to any person connected with Portland gov’t, or anyone connected with the Portland bike scene. Your certainty says that you are a bit delusionally paranoid on this (Glenn Beck much?), as you’ve been in your general snarling spew here–these ideas about biking exist outside of Portland, believe it or not.
Now try typing a whole post without using CAPS. The next step would be a post without stereotyping. The next would be a post with actual substantive argument. Go.