Advocacy & Safety - Portland: Bicycle Use Quadruples in 14 Years

New bridge counts for 2006 indicate almost 12,000 bicycle trips per day across the four main bicycle accessible bridges between the east side and downtown, up from about 3,500 trips per day in 1992. For what it's worth, the increase also correlates pretty well with miles of bikeways installed. See the three charts in the attached pdf file.

New bridge counts for 2006 indicate almost 12,000 bicycle trips per day across the four main bicycle accessible bridges between the east side and downtown, up from about 3,500 trips per day in 1992. For what it's worth, the increase also correlates pretty well with miles of bikeways installed. See the three charts in the attached pdf file.

but, but, that doesn't fit HH's wacky theories! :eek:

but, but, that doesn't fit HH's wacky theories! :eek:
You beat me to it! I posted once about Portland, something about wanting to ride a bike there and HH started hatin' on me for loving bike lanes...mind you, never ONCE did I mention bike lanes.

My wife and I will be adding to that number sometime next June! Hopefully....

UH OH another Fla reezedent moving to the PACNW??

UH OH another Fla reezedent moving to the PACNW??
I'm ashamed to say I understood that.;)

I've got one more bike count to do, then I'll mail mine in to the city. If my staff could just quit calling in sick...

New bridge counts for 2006 indicate almost 12,000 bicycle trips per day across the four main bicycle accessible bridges between the east side and downtown, up from about 3,500 trips per day in 1992. For what it's worth, the increase also correlates pretty well with miles of bikeways installed. See the three charts in the attached pdf file.

Why did it take 14 years to update?

Why did it take 14 years to update?
Obviously you didn't open the attachment. There are counts for every year since 1992.

Why did it take 14 years to update?

It didn't. Randy's figures are cumulative. Counts are done annually... as shown in the charts.

(edit)
Like he said while I was typing.

Obviously you didn't open the attachment. There are counts for every year since 1992.

I apologize for not opening the pdf file...I almost got burned last week by opening one by somebody else on this forum. So, I'll shut up now. I'll just continue to read. sorry.

Unlike downtown streets, bridges are often well-suited for bike lanes. They are long with no intersections and generally have high traffic speeds. I would expect that bike lanes on bridges would significantly increase cycling on them. That doesn't explain whether a network of bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets makes cycling safer.

typo corrected.

Unlikle downtown streets, bridges are often well-suited for bike lanes. They are long with no intersections and generally have high traffic speeds. I would expect that bike lanes on bridges would significantly increase cycling on them. That doesn't explain whether a network of bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets makes cycling safer.
Since you obviously know very little about the bikeway network in Portland, you should refrain from making comments that reflect your ignorance. FYI, very little of the bikeway network consists of bike lanes on the 15 mph downtown streets.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=100362
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=70221&c=34809

Since you obviously know very little about the bikeway network in Portland, you should refrain from making comments that reflect your ignorance. FYI, very little of the bikeway network consists of bike lanes on the 15 mph downtown streets.

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=100362
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=70221&c=34809
Who said anything about 15 mph streets? You should read posts before attacking.

And your attitude of "you aren't here so shut up" is very defensive and insecure. Would you reject praise from people who haven't ridden on the roads?

Under your rules, no one could comment on any accident/road scenerio in any town other then their own and only if they have ridden through that exact intersection at the same time of day on the same day of the year under the same conditions. That's just stupid.

If I (or anyone else) miss something due to my out-of-town status, you are free to correct the error.

And just to note, the first post after the OP raised the question of how HH would respond to your post. If you consider VC discussions to be thread jacks, blame chipcom and uberleet here. That's the usual pattern. Someone makes a comment about a specific location. Another person uses the OP to launch an anti-VC attack (which is perfectly fair), people start discussing the how the VC ideas apply to the scenerio. And then the anti-VC'ers blame Helmet Head for their own inability to avoid discussing VC.

Who said anything about 15 mph streets? .................................

If I (or anyone else) miss something due to my out-of-town status, you are free to correct the error.

........................................................

earlier:


That doesn't explain whether a network of bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets makes cycling safer.

The speed limit in the CBD (downtown) is 20 MPH. The Traffic signals are synchronized at 15 MPH. Traffic moves at 15MPH.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Saying that a bike lane works well on a bridge does nothing to prove whether they work well on roads with lots of intersections. It's at the intersections that bike lanes become most problematic.

Although, as Randya discovered, bike lanes on bridges can get filled with debris. At least in Columbus, I've never had anyone get out of a bus and punch me for riding in traffic.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Saying that a bike lane works well on a bridge does nothing to prove whether they work well on roads with lots of intersections. It's at the intersections that bike lanes become most problematic.

Although, as Randya discovered, bike lanes on bridges can get filled with debris. At least in Columbus, I've never had anyone get out of a bus and punch me for riding in traffic.

Portland is more than bike lanes... it is about a whole attitude that the local government tries to adhere to regarding bikes as transportation. If it was just bike lanes... then it would be no different from any other city. But it IS different. This was clearly evident to me as I biked and drove down US 101 through Oregon to California last weekend. US 101 in Oregon is a 2 lane blacktop with wide shoulders nearly everywhere... with large signs that warn motorists to watch for bikes. This whole arrangement stops suddenly at the CA-OR border with the road becoming suddenly narrower and any signage becoming the typical tiny "Bike Route" signs few and far between.

It is not "Portland" per se, but the actions of the government throughout the entire state (at least the western edge) that understands a biking mandate and tries to implement the mandate. Washington just to the north does not have the same treatment and it too is evident right across the Columbia river.

The difference is in how bike issues are addressed... look at Illinois for instance and their recent pronoucement that bikes are not reason enough to fix the bad roads, or NYC and their crackdown of CM and the use of any excuse to crack down on cyclists.

It is all about attitude and acceptance of cyclists... not bike lanes on 25MPH roads. Fix the attitude and the rest comes along. Otherwise you end up with car-centric California... sigh.

Who said anything about bike lanes on bridges? Many of the bridges have bike paths, separate from main traffic lanes. I'm confused... All bike traffic from the east side of Portland into downtown has to cross a bridge of some sort, and since most downtown commuters come from the east side, bike traffic across bridges is a good estimate of total bike traffic in Portland. The bike network in Portland involves the bridges, but it also involves many surface streets in Portland. Cyclists don't choose to ride only because of the bike facilities on the bridges; rather, the increase in bike traffic correlates nicely with the increase in bike lane and facility miles in Portland.

So, to summarize and correct DC's misconceptions:

1) Most bike commuters come into downtown Portland from the east.
2) The only way to get into downtown Portland from the east is to cross one of 10 bridges across the Willamette river. Therefor: bike traffic across Portland's bridges is representative of the number of commuting cyclists in Portland.
3) Bike traffic across Portland's bridges increase in proportion to the number of bikeway miles in place, indicating a strong correlation.

Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Saying that a bike lane works well on a bridge does nothing to prove whether they work well on roads with lots of intersections. It's at the intersections that bike lanes become most problematic.

Although, as Randya discovered, bike lanes on bridges can get filled with debris. At least in Columbus, I've never had anyone get out of a bus and punch me for riding in traffic.

This is a non sequitur. This thread is about in increase in bike traffic in Portland and it's correlation to number of bikeway miles in the city. I don't think the topic had anything to do with the usefulness of bike lanes on bridges vs. in the city. Do you have anything else to talk about?

As for the last comment: is that the best you can come up with? Why do you always barge into threads and try to pick fights? Are you just high strung or something?

. . .As for the last comment: is that the best you can come up with? Why do you always barge into threads and try to pick fights? Are you just high strung or something?

Let's see who's trying to pick fights:


but, but, that doesn't fit HH's wacky theories! :eek:


beat me to it! I posted once about Portland, something about wanting to ride a bike there and HH started hatin' on me for loving bike lanes...mind you, never ONCE did I mention bike lanes.

Somehow, I missed your post where you complained about them picking a fight. By contrast, here's my initial post (with a typo corrected) which you claim is "picking a fight":


Unlike downtown streets, bridges are often well-suited for bike lanes. They are long with no intersections and generally have high traffic speeds. I would expect that bike lanes on bridges would significantly increase cycling on them. That doesn't explain whether a network of bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets makes cycling safer.

At least you are consistent. Anti-VC'ers make non-substantive personal attacks. A VC'er makes an on-point substantive argument with which you disagree. And you claim that the VC'er started the fight.

Brian, some of your posts are some of the most thoughtful in the forum, but sometimes your posts are downright dishonest.

My initial post questioned the value of your statistics. That's perfectly fair and perfectly on topic (in contrast to the snide remarks of uberleet and chipcom that you did not criticize). Do you think that you have the right to post statistics and be immune from arguments that you have misinterpreted the statistics?

Of course, it's perfectly fair for you to try to explain why you believe I'm wrong. But that's not what you're doing. You are arguing that your posts should be above criticism. Why are you so insecure about your positions?

Let's see who's trying to pick fights:


How is my pointing out that this study does not support HH's wacky theory that cycling facilities actually reduce bicycle usage picking a fight? Last time I looked, HH had not even posted to this thread and I was hardly picking a fight with the OP. Dude you are really reaching here.

How is my pointing out that this study does not support HH's wacky theory that cycling facilities actually reduce bicycle usage picking a fight? Last time I looked, HH had not even posted to this thread and I was hardly picking a fight with the OP. Dude you are really reaching here.

Hey CC, now that we're on the subject, can you explain to me why HH is so reviled?

I understand that he's dogmatic and intolerant in his hatred of BL's, but his points are often valid in my experience.... they (BL's) do usually sequester cyclists in often less than ideal circumstances (left turns, parked cars, bus stops, road debris... et al. Not to mention, that every interesection you're going straight thru, your lane position makes you vulnerable to right and left hooks.)

It's my opinion that they are good for noobs, but only because they offer a false sense of security -- one small step up from sidewalk riding.

........................................
My initial post questioned the value of your statistics. .........................................................


The counts are done on the bridges because that is the best way to count bikes entering downtown with the least amount of people, not to skew the statistics. Doing the counts on the bridges requires only four locations. Doing it on the various east side collector streets would require dozens. It's not like the count is being inflated by folks who ride only on the bridges.:rolleyes:

How is my pointing out that this study does not support HH's wacky theory that cycling facilities actually reduce bicycle usage picking a fight? Last time I looked, HH had not even posted to this thread and I was hardly picking a fight with the OP. Dude you are really reaching here.
Umm. Read your post and mine.

The fact that you attacked without anyone making a pro-VC comment was the point.

Plus there are counts of intersections throughout the city. Some of them are machine counters like the ones they set up on the bridges and others are conducted by a human being. Most of the counters are not city employees, but volunteers like yours truly. I did 2 counts for this my first year. Very different neighborhoods and very interesting experiences. I did the last one one in a sketchier area of town just last night where I used 4 locks on my bike and had to be thoroughly questioned by the corner drug dealer as to my purposes. After I counted 4 drug deals transacted by bike in the 2 hours I was there, I began to understand his concern! :o

That doesn't explain whether a network of bike lanes on 25 mph downtown streets makes cycling safer.

My point is still that the majority of the bikeway network is not on downtown streets. You haven't responded to that at all. Did you even look at the maps?

:rolleyes:

My point is still that the majority of the bikeway network is not on downtown streets. You haven't responded to that at all. Did you even look at the maps?

:rolleyes:
I did answer the point:


Fair enough. Let me rephrase. Saying that a bike lane works well on a bridge does nothing to prove whether they work well on roads with lots of intersections. It's at the intersections that bike lanes become most problematic. . . .
There appear to be plenty of striped lanes on roads with lots of intersections.

Much of what Portland has done is good. As genec pointed out, Portland has done a lot of good things despite its obsession with striping bike lanes (and ticketing cyclists who leave them during "crack downs").

It is an interesting statistic. I stand by the point that making a bridge more accessible will likely increase cycling across that bridge, and that the number of cyclists going across bridges (even if that number is a proxy for the number of cyclists generally), doesn't say much about the effect of one of many things Portland has done for and to cyclists on the other.

Hey CC, now that we're on the subject, can you explain to me why HH is so reviled?

I understand that he's dogmatic and intolerant in his hatred of BL's, but his points are often valid in my experience.... they (BL's)...It's my opinion that they are good for noobs, but only because they offer a false sense of security -- one small step up from sidewalk riding.
Let me guess why someone who sneers at the "noobs" and doesn't have a problem with intolerant hatred can't understand the new subject.

How is my pointing out that this study does not support HH's wacky theory that cycling facilities actually reduce bicycle usage picking a fight? Last time I looked, HH had not even posted to this thread and I was hardly picking a fight with the OP. Dude you are really reaching here.

First, let me comment on the original post: I think it's great that bike usage is up in Oregon and Portland in particular. But, a direct correlation between 'bike facilities' and bike usage has not been proven, though I am willing to assume that there is a correlation. The increase might have come about to the same or similar degree with just the political campaign to promote cycling and/or with signage or minor road improvements such as wider curb lanes and better paving. The good news is there are more people cycling. Now, what came first, the cyclists or the facilities?

Now, to chipcom's statement above: I have never heard HH state (though I may have missed it) that bike facilities actually reduce bicycle usage. HH's position (all regarding bike lanes) from what I have read is: 1) bike lanes relegate cyclists to 2nd class road users. 2) once you start down the slippery slope of segregation, it's hard to get back. 3) bike lanes as currently designed and implemented make cycling less safe for the cyclist 4) bike lanes foment resentment from motorists when a cyclist is not in a bike lane.

All this time, I thought "bike facililties" were indoor tracks.

Not all the bikeways are striped bike lanes, either. Some are separated paths, like the Eastside Esplanade, and some are 'bike boulevards' like traffic-calmed SE Salmon, SE Harrison/Lincoln and SE Clinton Streets. I agree that a number of the striped bike lanes appear to create as many new hazards as they solve, and I think PDOT should go back and reevaluate some of these facilities. In particular, PDOT has not solved the problem of bike lane treatments near major intersections and in central business districts ouside of downtown where there are with many turning and parking manuevers. But most of the bike lanes on arterial streets outside these problem areas generally work quite well.

IMO, the problem that is growing in Portland is that in high bike traffic areas, the bike traffic has actually outgrown the bike lane - i.e., the bike lanes are no longer sufficient to carry all the bicycle traffic.

a direct correlation between 'bike facilities' and bike usage has not been proven, though I am willing to assume that there is a correlation.
I tend to agree with this, that's why I prefaced and qualified my comment about the correlation with the phrase 'for what it's worth'. The PDOT philosophy is that bike facilities are necessary to attract less confident cyclists who don't generally want to be cycling directly in moderate to heavy traffic, and the bike facilities appear to be doing their job in this respect.

And there is only a statistical correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease, too. So what?

Can the naysayers show us a city that has quadrupled or even doubled bicycle usage without creating any on-street facilities?

IMO, the problem that is growing in Portland is that in high bike traffic areas, the bike traffic has actually outgrown the bike lane - i.e., the bike lanes are no longer sufficient to carry all the bicycle traffic.

Use the traffic lane?

If your bike lanes have that much use, then I'm impressed by the number of people on bikes in your city. The next step is truly legitamize cycling by using the traffic lanes. After all, you no longer have to keep right when you are moving at or faster than the speed of "traffic" (which of course includes bikes). Or does that pesky stay-in-the-bike-lane law squash all those ideas of free use of the streets?

Now, what came first, the cyclists or the facilities?

That's an interesting question. I think it was cyclists, then facilities, then a heck of a lot more cyclists. From the historical slideshow that was shown at the Bike Summit, there was a good sized group of advocacy-oriented cyclists 10-15 years ago who began pushing for bicycle facilities and accomodations. Now, these were broad terms at the bike summit - those words don't just mean bike lanes in this city. We're talking about replacing parallel-slat sewer grates, adjusting the timing on traffic lights so bikes can make it through an intersection, getting good bike racks put in throughout the city. Bike lanes are just one of many issues, and they don't seem to be such a huge source of controversy and venom in this community the way they seem to be in some of the places people on this forum come from. The other advantage, the way I see it, was our commissioner-style of city government that is generally more open to citizen requests and involvement. The commissioner who ran the DOT at the time was very bicycle friendly, and things started to happen.

As the city began to make the changes that the original group of cyclists asked for, it became evident that the number of trips by bicycle in the city was going up. A new group of cyclists emerged, and the city believes these are the folks that are bringing the numbers up. They're not necessarily interested in exercising the right to ride in traffic on 5 lane, 45 mph arterials. If they have to, they'd rather have a bike lane to ride in, but mainly, they want to ride on low traffic, low speed streets where there aren't a lot of cars. Here's where Portland has another advantage - the road and street layout in the inner core of the city is perfect for bicycle transportation. For every busy, high car traffic street, there's almost always a street parallel to it and nearby enough that bicycles can easily travel on and still get to the same places that cars can. Our city blocks are about half as long as most cities, so a street that is 2 blocks away isn't far at all. Take these streets, add traffic calming devices, and divert auto traffic every few miles, and you get yourself a "bicycle boulevard" that even non-cyclists have come to appreciate, as it quiets their neighborhood and helps keep their kids and pets from getting flattened. Newer cyclists spend a lot of time on them, kids actually get places to learn how to deal with car traffic on bikes in relative safety, and even the more experienced, hard core cyclists can be seen on them. From the looks on their faces, they seem to enjoy the fresh air, the trees, and being in a real, living neighborhood. (I admit I could be misinterpreting the pleasant, relaxed looks on their faces that I never see on cyclists who are dealing with a 45 mph arterial. :) )

Hey, things aren't perfect. You get the occasional car on a bicycle boulevard who really resents all the bikes and acts like a jerk. We've got bike lanes in places where they do more harm than good, and we've got other places where one would be really useful. As earnest and sincere as our city transportation people are about increasing bicycle traffic and improving conditions for us, they do not like to admit that one of their experiments in bicycle facilities (like a bike lane in a particular location) isn't working the way they hoped. Those high arterial intersections with bike lanes need something better than what is there for cyclists to make turns and even to go straight. We've got some really well-thought out, well placed MUPs used heavily for both recreation and transportation, and the conflicts between the groups of people using it need to be addressed somehow. Law enforcement is struggling to catch up with the changing needs of the public it serves - we need them to take collisions involving bicycles more seriously, as well as motorist behavior that is dangerous to us, and theft of our bikes. The way bike messengers are treated by the police is shameful. While the city DOT is very bicycle oriented, the County and State haven't caught up. This is important because the 2 other agencies maintain and operate most of the bridges and some of the roads. The difference between what the city maintains and what it doesn't is striking. The state law that requires us to be in bike lanes when they are available really, really needs to be changed. Our public transit network is very accomodating, but there's room for improvement there, too.

All in all, we do have government that listens to us and actually wants more of us out there. Not all of their efforts are ideal, but they've sure been successful. We're out there, we're increasing every year, and IMO, it's even improving quality of life for everyone - not just cyclists.

^^+1, good post!

Hey CC, now that we're on the subject, can you explain to me why HH is so reviled?

I understand that he's dogmatic and intolerant in his hatred of BL's, but his points are often valid in my experience.... they (BL's) do usually sequester cyclists in often less than ideal circumstances (left turns, parked cars, bus stops, road debris... et al. Not to mention, that every interesection you're going straight thru, your lane position makes you vulnerable to right and left hooks.)

It's my opinion that they are good for noobs, but only because they offer a false sense of security -- one small step up from sidewalk riding.

HH isn't reviled because of his position on bike lanes...I don't like em myself, but I don't go out of my way to oppose and bash them, as HH does. The majority of cyclists want bike lanes - period. One can help make them better helping to unify cyclists in the public policy realm, or one can oppose them and continue to keep the cycling community split, and thus weak.

Umm. Read your post and mine.

The fact that you attacked without anyone making a pro-VC comment was the point.

It's called sarcasm...not an attack - quit being so...Ohio.

Now, to chipcom's statement above: I have never heard HH state (though I may have missed it) that bike facilities actually reduce bicycle usage. HH's position (all regarding bike lanes) from what I have read is: 1) bike lanes relegate cyclists to 2nd class road users. 2) once you start down the slippery slope of segregation, it's hard to get back. 3) bike lanes as currently designed and implemented make cycling less safe for the cyclist 4) bike lanes foment resentment from motorists when a cyclist is not in a bike lane.

Let me go back and find that fairly recent thread where HH threw out the notion that facilities have no impact on cycling popularity. (I did mis-speak about him saying anything about a reduction, I did not communicate that thought accurately).

Thanks. I really got a lot out of that bike summit.

All in all, we do have government that listens to us and actually wants more of us out there. Not all of their efforts are ideal, but they've sure been successful. We're out there, we're increasing every year, and IMO, it's even improving quality of life for everyone - not just cyclists.

And this IS the key to making an area pro-bicycle. Not bike lanes or stripes just painted on roads... but an overall effort to encourage cycling and look at all the problems motorist centric thinking creates.

Like I said earlier, it is not just about bike lanes, but about attitude. Portland has the right attitude.

Someone actually counts bike commuters? On more than one hand??

Seriously, as a commuter in a bike-tolerant city, I am in awe of Portland for actually getting to the point where there are too many cyclists, even for the extensive bike-friendly things that exist. I think we'd all want this attitude from our local government as well as our citizens.

The whole thing is just astounding to me. Thanks, Portlanders, for sharing and for setting an example for the rest of us...

And this IS the key to making an area pro-bicycle. Not bike lanes or stripes just painted on roads... but an overall effort to encourage cycling and look at all the problems motorist centric thinking creates.

Like I said earlier, it is not just about bike lanes, but about attitude. Portland has the right attitude.
Still, the one element that continues to be missing is motorist education. The city seems to have the attitude that motorists will learn by osmosis, just by seeing more bicyclists on the road. I don't think this really works too well for the most dangerous minority of motorists who insist on acting like yahoos in the vicinity of cyclists, but I'm not sure exactly how to reach this segment of the driving population, and I guess the city doesn't, either.

Someone actually counts bike commuters? On more than one hand??
They put out those hose-style traffic counters on the bridges for one week each year, and they also get a bunch of volunteers to count bikes at a variety of locations throughout the city. Yes, more than one hand, the number of cyclists traveling on the Hawthorne Bridge, the most heavily used bridge for cyclists, is currently something like 15 to 20% of all vehicle trips over the bridge. During rush hour, there are commonly six to 12 cyclists going by on each cycle of the traffic lights that control bridge access.