Advocacy & Safety - Portland Proposes Dutch Style 'Cycle Track' on Street that Needs No Improvement

I'm about fed up with what passes for bicycle planning and infrastructure in Portland these days.

http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/23/cycle-track-coming-to-north-park-blocks/

Portland bicycle planning, caught in a trap. It is painful to watch.

EDIT: Just noticed the proposed dimensions of this. Six feet is quite narrow, not nearly as wide as most people envision. Six feet is the width of a standard suburban sidewalk. It is fine for a single rider but passing will be a problem. Furthermore, the three-foot buffer puts riders on the left side of the track in the freaking door zone.

This is planning for beginners, by beginners.

All this will do is provide ammunition to the chainguard crowd and the bicyclist-haters of Portland and elsewhere, and stand in the way of good infrastructure projects that could actually improve conditions.

...
All this will do is provide ammunition to the chainguard crowd ...Yeah, that horrible chainguard crowd. Who do they think they are, pointing out problems with such ill conceived facilities.

Yet, in your post, it was OK for you to do so. Go figure. :rolleyes:

All this will do is provide ammunition to the chainguard crowd

<humor>
I'd be offended, but I just remembered that the pure commuter machines in my fleet are chaincase equipped.

No sissy, silly, worthless, tiny chainguards for Real Commuter Cyclists™!
</humor>

-Kurt

i would rather see the tracks on the inside of the parked cars, in the event of opened doors or pedestrians you would have somewhere to freaking go, instead of into a door/car/etc.

(i just imagined a scary combo of being doored and hitting a child in a stroller, scary)

I'm having a hard time understanding this thread.
How exactly are bikes going to be in the door zone?
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s262/toronto505/200423A9-1D09-3519-AD787C449F559E60.jpg
You guys realize the Montreal photo depicts a different layout, right?
Am I missing something written between the lines here?

3' from parked car is not enough to be out of DZ

Oh yeah, the Impala effect.
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z17/bracyd211/Maroon%201967%20Impala/PICT0889.jpg
I would have thought everyone in Portland would be driving Priuses by now.
So, how many feet does the 'shy zone' need?

http://www.labreform.org/blunders/BL-dwg.gif

Take up more roadway and have a narrower bike lane that's out in the traffic?
That's the concensus?
Or is it just that it should be left alone, because the street's not wide enough?

I was only giving illustration of need for at least 5' from car to avoid DZ

I definitely made my opinions known on that thread, perhaps more than some would have liked. This is nothing but another attempt by the city officials to get write-ups in magazines about how "progressive" they are, rather than focusing upon the boring but necessary services that they are paid to work on, namely maintaining sewers, fixing potholes, and funding the police and fire departments.

Portland is already sufficiently bike-friendly for my tastes, the exception being the outer eastside. If they want to improve the bike-friendliness of the "hundreds", they can finish paving the side streets, many of which are gravelly mud puddles. It's amazing to me that we are the second largest city in the Northwest, and yet we still have streets that are unpaved. But why focus upon such essentials when there are condo high-rises to subsidize and agonizingly slow streetcar lines to build?

What's wrong with bike lanes in traffic. If the cruising speeds are between 20 and 35mph it's not bad. The few lanes we have here are between two traffic lanes. The speed limit is 25 and if you drive faster than 22 you're stopping every block. It gets you out of the door zone. If you can ride a straight line it's perfectly safe.

I'd think that on these bike lanes you'd hug the right edge giving up 4-6 feet of distance from the parked cars. The left edge would be for passing really slow riders and you can do that at your own risk.

Since they're already dropping a lane they could just paint sharrows on the lane and put up signs saying that lane prefers bikes: Meaning you don't have to ride to the right and they can't expect you to keep up. If no bikes are present there's no reason not to drive in that lane. If bikes are present, well, they're not in cars and they're probably reducing congestion.

the city is basically using the 'think about the children' argument to skew the selection process towards completely separated facilities

'think about the children'

In other words, 'think about the cyclists.'

This is a tragic situation for Portland. If the many commenters to the story are correct, this is a street that a side-path won't really improve the lot of cyclists as would many other streets in the city.

This could make any good future facility project harder to fund and implement. A backlash from non-cyclists may erupt because of the great expense and inconvenience for a facility that will be under-utilized by the very cyclists it is supposed to benefit. Whatever has motivated the selection of this street and this design was most certainly something other than a way to help cyclists.

Is this to be the last project for the separate facilities advocates? Or will they continue their quest until an entire separate cycling structure is built that can take a cyclist from any point in the city to any other point? What is a cyclist expected to do when they come to the end of their side-path short of their destination?

Will the good citizens of Portland continue to countenance building side-paths while tax revenues are increasingly scarce? Perhaps those longing to import European streetscapes have over-reached.

The fact it is in an area that doesn't need it is a biggie as is the fact it seems that it will inconvenience drivers and cyclists alike.

In other words, 'think about the cyclists.'


Um, invoking dead children will pretty much get you anything you want in the US these days...

but I wouldn't figure you to be a supporter of this project, either

:wtf:?

I don't understand the outrage here...am I missing something? It seems very similar to the cycling lanes in Amsterdam and those would be great if incorporated in most cities in America. I would think this would be a little annoying for racers but for commuters it seems like a good idea. What am I missing? I didn't complete read the article...just saw the pic.

This is a tragic situation for Portland. If the many commenters to the story are correct, this is a street that a side-path won't really improve the lot of cyclists as would many other streets in the city.

The two streets that border the Park Blocks are one-way, one-lane thoroughfares that are not very heavily used by cars whose destination isn't on the Park Blocks. The streets are very comfortable to ride on, even for a very slow cyclist.


This could make any good future facility project harder to fund and implement. A backlash from non-cyclists may erupt because of the great expense and inconvenience for a facility that will be under-utilized by the very cyclists it is supposed to benefit. Whatever has motivated the selection of this street and this design was most certainly something other than a way to help cyclists.One commenter who actually favored the project made the point that it would be difficult to push for the repeal of the Oregon state law that mandates that cyclists use bicycle lanes when one is available, while simultaneously pushing for more bike specific infrastructure -- it would make it appear as if cyclists want to "have their cake and eat it too". Of course, it wouldn't be the same cyclists pushing for each of those respective goals.

I would love it if both vehicular cyclists and bike infrastructure supporters would simply push for more interconnected streets as "bike infrastructure". I realize I drive this point home in every thread, but cities that are laid out on a grid are already bike friendly because there are both high speed and low speed routes that can accommodate cyclists of different speeds, abilities, and riding preferences. A push for greater connectivity in the suburbs -- perhaps for a law mandating that there must be a low-speed route that runs roughly parallel to every arterial, or that there must be X number of crossings per mile over highways or railroad tracks -- could make every urban area extremely bikeable. I don't think that this type of infrastructure would offend either camp. Further, it wouldn't be a special handout to cyclists -- it would be a general improvement that would also benefit pedestrians, emergency vehicles, and even motorists.



Will the good citizens of Portland continue to countenance building side-paths while tax revenues are increasingly scarce? Perhaps those longing to import European streetscapes have over-reached.What bothers me regarding this discussion of Europe is that it assumes that cycle tracks are the cause of high-ridership. My understanding is that ridership was high in Amsterdam even prior to the cycle tracks. The city was built hundreds of years ago. It is densely populated, has very narrow streets, and few spaces for parking. Driving is not convenient or cheap there. Cycling would be a more convenient means of transporting oneself there even if the cycle tracks were absent. Large Chinese and Japanese cities are not built out with segregated cycleways, but their ridership is high as well, namely because both are too densely populated for driving to be efficient (and because many people in China are far too poor to own a car).

I don't understand the outrage here...am I missing something? It seems very similar to the cycling lanes in Amsterdam and those would be great if incorporated in most cities in America. I would think this would be a little annoying for racers but for commuters it seems like a good idea. What am I missing? I didn't complete read the article...just saw the pic.

It fixes what is not broken. The streets bordering the park are one-lane and unidirectional, and have very slow automobile traffic on it. They are fine for cycling. The cycle tracks are a waste of money. Further, we have a state law that mandates that we use bike lanes when available (although it isn't enforced very strictly). It would open up riders for left-hooks, and it would reduce the passing clearance for overtaking riders.

I don't understand the outrage here...am I missing something? It seems very similar to the cycling lanes in Amsterdam and those would be great if incorporated in most cities in America. I would think this would be a little annoying for racers but for commuters it seems like a good idea...

+100

My sense is the cyclists who are complaining are those who are comfortable with riding in traffic and all that entails. They don't want that challenged by a more, for lack of a better term, 'gentrified' cycling culture in Portland. If it's true that Oregon has laws that specify bike lanes must be used if available, then Amsterdam-style cycle track lanes would certainly challenge their ability to ride in traffic.

Frankly, I think it's a selfish position.

If we as a cycling community -- and who knows if we exist as one cycling community -- want to integrate cycling into our American culture, we must welcome what's being proposed in Portland.

Cycling will never be mainstream in America until soccer moms can put their young kids in a Bakfiets and ride in what they perceive as a safe environment, and non-roadies can ride a Townie with a handlebar basket across the city to run errands. The Portland plan provides exactly that, where the current situation of riding in Portland's areas of 'slow traffic' does not.

If it means the further growth and integration of cycling into American urban cores, I'm willing to sacrifice my enjoyment of riding in traffic in certain areas -- and gladly ride in cycle track lanes. I would hope others would be willing to do the same.

+100

My sense is the cyclists who are complaining are those who are comfortable with riding in traffic and all that entails. They don't want that challenged by a more, for lack of a better term, 'gentrified' cycling culture in Portland. If it's true that Oregon has laws that specify bike lanes must be used if available, then Amsterdam-style cycle track lanes would certainly challenge their ability to ride in traffic.

Frankly, I think it's a selfish position.

If we as a cycling community -- and who knows if we exist as one cycling community -- want to integrate cycling into our American culture, we must welcome what's being proposed in Portland.

Cycling will never be mainstream in America until soccer moms can put their young kids in a Bakfiets and ride in what they perceive as a safe environment, and non-roadies can ride a Townie with a handlebar basket across the city to run errands. The Portland plan provides exactly that, where the current situation of riding in Portland's areas of 'slow traffic' does not.

If it means the further growth and integration of cycling into American urban cores, I'm willing to sacrifice my enjoyment of riding in traffic in certain areas -- and gladly ride in cycle track lanes. I would hope others would be willing to do the same.

I understand your position and am sympathetic to it, but it is based on false assumptions.

People using these cycletracks will still be riding in traffic, just in a different way. It almost always seems like a better way to beginners, but isn't necessarily a safer or better way to deal with auto traffic. While there are some streets that might be improved for cycling with such a sidepath, this does not seem to be one of those streets. And this calls into question the priorities of the planner-politicians who are pushing this project.

If you've been around this forum for a while you should notice that the people who are telling you this are not necessarily the same people who can be expected to attack any plan for any facility anywhere. People who are open-minded, practical and highly experienced are telling you this plan stinks. People who have ridiculed Vehicular Cycling ideologues and chest-beaters repeatedly on this forum are telling you this.

I wish beginners would listen to those with experience. It's generally a good policy. The current plan in Portland is planning for beginners, by beginners. It's a trap. The bicycle mode share of Northern European cities is based on culture, history, physical geography and tremendously expensive fuel relative to North America. Infrastructure is probably down the list a bit. It's silly to think we can start to transform our cities -- even Portland -- into Amsterdam with token cycle tracks, when we can't even mention raising the price of gas through taxation.

Um, invoking dead children will pretty much get you anything you want in the US these days...

but I wouldn't figure you to be a supporter of this project, either

:wtf:?

I was attempting to make a (in hindsight, poor) joke about Portland assuming children = cyclists and vice versa. Plans such as this one demonstrate that there are those out there who assume cyclists need to be given all of the "protection" they possibly can presumably because they are too childish to take care of themselves.

With most every proposal, there are those who offer critiques that an be rapidly identified as attempting to demonstrate superior wisdom or denigrate a particular point of view.

+100
My sense is the cyclists who are complaining are those who are comfortable with riding in traffic and all that entails.


The streets that border the park are already very low traffic, and the cars that do travel along them go slowly due to only one lane and stop signs every block. Portland already has a good combination of both high-speed and low-speed routes that connect up and get you where you want to go within the city. People of varying abilities are already accommodated.



If we as a cycling community -- and who knows if we exist as one cycling community -- want to integrate cycling into our American culture, we must welcome what's being proposed in Portland.

Cycling will never be mainstream in America until soccer moms can put their young kids in a Bakfiets and ride in what they perceive as a safe environment, and non-roadies can ride a Townie with a handlebar basket across the city to run errands.

Firstly, I don't care if cycling becomes mainstream or not. I hate the fact that it has become an evangelical religion for some (like some sort of Christianity substitute). If people want to bike, fine. If they don't want to bike, also fine. It isn't my goal to get X percent of people on a bike. As long as a sufficient number of people are into it to keep the bike industry alive, who really cares anyway?

Secondly, no amount of dedicated cycle paths are going to cause soccer moms to abandon their SUV for a utility bike. Cycling is mainstream in Holland because cities are compact and densely populated, the parking spaces are few, the streets are narrow, and the cost of owning a car is very high. If you want to get a lot of people on bikes, the key seems to be: make driving miserable and unaffordable.

Yeah, that horrible chainguard crowd. Who do they think they are, pointing out problems with such ill conceived facilities.

Yet, in your post, it was OK for you to do so. Go figure. :rolleyes:

Even a busted derailleur works in one gear.

I would hate to be boxed in by parked cars like that. It would really limit your mobility.

As for riding in traffic... nearly everybody is capable of driving a car in traffic, so why should it be so hard to ride a bike in traffic? Really, what is the problem here? It's a different skill set, but of similar complexity (i.e., anyone can do it).

The current plan in Portland is planning for beginners, by beginners.

If by the term “beginners” you mean folks who might start using bicycles in the city if (what they perceive as) a safer cycling infrastructure existed, then we agree. That’s probably who Portland is trying to cater to -- not the experienced roadie who is comfortable weaving through traffic.

If Amsterdam-style cycle tracks increase cycling in Portland, and that ratio of cyclists is 10-1 in favor of people gladly using such a cycling infrastructure -- while upsetting the 1/10 who can’t ride in traffic in certain areas, but who will use the cycling infrastructure anyway while grumbling about it -- that will be a good thing.


It's silly to think we can start to transform our cities -- even Portland -- into Amsterdam with token cycle tracks, when we can't even mention raising the price of gas through taxation.

On that we disagree. The Portland plan is an ambitious step, and if implemented, will likely increase cycling in the city. Hopefully, such plans will spread to other American urban cores.


Firstly, I don't care if cycling becomes mainstream or not…

That clarifies your position, which is probably a similar position to some other cyclists who disagree with the Portland plan.

In case anybody is interested, Amsterdam has recently been streetviewed: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=amsterdam&sll=52.360139,4.877329&sspn=0.038683,0.109863&ie=UTF8&ll=52.36559,4.890976&spn=0.037421,0.109863&t=h&z=14

Interestingly, the cycle tracks only seem to run along their arterials. (The streets running along the Portland Park Blocks are not arterials.) Also, their "arterials" appear very tame in comparison to ours -- most have only two lanes for traffic and two tramways. Some of the side streets have standard bike lanes, and I have already seen a few shots that show delivery trucks parked in them. There are numerous shots of cyclists "taking the lane" on side streets (most of which have only one lane to begin with).

If by the term “beginners” you mean folks who might start using bicycles in the city if (what they perceive as) a safer cycling infrastructure existed, then we agree. That’s probably who Portland is trying to cater to -- not the experienced roadie who is comfortable weaving through traffic.

If Amsterdam-style cycle tracks increase cycling in Portland, and that ratio of cyclists is 10-1 in favor of people gladly using such a cycling infrastructure -- while upsetting the 1/10 who can’t ride in traffic in certain areas, but who will use the cycling infrastructure anyway while grumbling about it -- that will be a good thing.

On that we disagree. The Portland plan is an ambitious step, and if implemented, will likely increase cycling in the city. Hopefully, such plans will spread to other American urban cores.

That clarifies your position, which is probably a similar position to some other cyclists who disagree with the Portland plan.

Unfortunately hardly anyone lives along this little strip of proposed cycle track, and so to get there you will have to ride on streets with no bicycle infrastructure alongside the mean car drivers who want to kill little children.

:eek:

Furthermore, Portland will never have the funds to form a truly connective network of cycle tracks, they've been working on bike lanes and bike boulevards for over 30 years now and still haven't acheived true connectivity, I'd rather they spent the money on (1) more bike parking (needed everywhere), (2) repaving the deteriorating streets that cyclists already use (there's a huge backlog of basic maintenance work to be done), (3) true separated paths, like the North Portland Greenway, the Sullivan's Gulch Trail and the Westside Willamette Greenway from the South Waterfront to Lake Oswego (these would all greatly benefit cyclists and all include long distances of traffic-free cycling), (4) implementing a sharrows marking program (which does not restrict cyclists to a segregated lane), (5) re-educating motorists to share the road with cyclists.

Bottom line: If they really want to test cycle tracks for their future use on arterial streets, there are way better places to do it than in this location, and the design also needs to be improved significantly, specifically w/r/t (1) the undersized width of the proposed cycle track, (2) the development of better standards regarding the frequency of intersections and arterial crossings along the route (the proposed cycle track begins and ends at a crossing of a major arterial, and crosses a third major arterial in its five block length, and possibly a fourth if the city ever moves forward with the Burnside-Couch couplet plan), and (3) removal of parked cars along the route. The current design is just a recipe for hooking and dooring problems, on a street that needs no improvements for cyclists, it's already a low traffic street which can be ridden comfortably by cyclists of any skill level. The only people that really want this are the Europhiles who are dreaming when they think they can turn Portland into cycling nirvana simply by copying the Dutch.

I second randya's second suggestion. We have some bike boulevards that are in nasty shape -- long portions of Davis, Everett and Salmon are decaying fast. I have no issue with MUPs either, although I think their usefulness is somewhat limited.

Also, if you look at the Amsterdam streetview, you'll see that Amerdam's equivalents of Portland's Park Ave and 9th Ave do not have cycle tracks. Those are side streets that aren't considered in need of specialized infrastructure. Here (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=h&layer=c&cbll=45.514405,-122.683989&panoid=UCBMJ2DQ5bYrvE816cobeg&cbp=12,192.27380059560988,,0,-6.179687500000001&ll=45.515174,-122.682867&spn=0,359.972534&z=16) is a streetview shot where you can view the Portland streets where the cycle tracks are planned.

I wasn't much of a MUP supporter until recently either, but the Springwater connection between the Hawthorne Bridge and Sellwood changed my mind...The riverfront trails really do provide long distances of traffic-free riding for transportation as well as recreational purposes. If you've ever tried to ride the Willamette greenway to the Sellwood Bridge on the west side of the river, you'd know that it is a good route which needs significant improvements to make it truly useful to cyclists. The same for the proposed North Portland Greenway, which would provide traffic-free access almost all the way to St. Johns, which would be much better than current riding conditions on Willamette Blvd., etc.

:)

The Springwater is a good route to Sellwood, and I suspect that the Esplanade extension up to St Johns will be frequently used. However, I think they are mainly useful during commute hours. On sunny weekend afternoons, they will fill up with rollerbladers and dog-walkers. Late at night, they can potentially become sketchy due to their isolated nature. The eastern stretch of the Springwater has a lot of transients and thugs.

I am certainly not opposed to them, and will definitely use them from time to time.

I find that the rollerbladers and dog walkers don't go far from the nearest access points, the most crowded section is of course the downtown Waterfront Park-Esplanade loop, the Esplanade was underdesigned for the level traffic it receives from the moment it opened.

The Portland plan is an ambitious step, and if implemented, will likely increase cycling in the city. ...

It is ambitious, perhaps, in a political sense. But in practical terms it is certainly not ambitious, it is, as the planners themselves admit, easy pickins to place such a facility on the park blocks as opposed to an actual arterial street. I don't see any support for your grand assertion that this project will likely lead to more cycling.

Beginning riders seem to be laboring under the assumption that such a track is an actual separate facility that will keep them separate and safe from auto traffic. It crosses an intersection every block. The only sort of car-bike interaction it will eliminate is the least likely to cause a problem in an urban setting, the same-direction pass. Almost all the other sorts of interactions, including potential doorings, and pedestrian conflicts, are still in place and probably exacerbated with this design. Due to the width of the path and the associated problems with passing, actual bicycle commuting will very likely be made more difficult along this six-block stretch than it has been. How is that going to increase transportational bicycling?

The trade-offs with this facility will exist for the fearful beginners as well as those crazy chestbeating traffic cyclists. It's just that, without the benefit of experience and laboring under false assumptions and, yes, irrational fears, the beginners can't wrap their minds around the fact that such trade-offs exist. Yet. After a minimum of experience they look around at the lowest-common-denominator facilities and kick themselves. What we have here is Tyranny of the Beginner.

I'm all for the concept of increasing the number of people bicycling for transportation purposes. I'm not an ideological vehicular cyclist. I love a good bike path, for instance, if it happens to take me the right direction. I ride sidewalks quite often, if I find it practical to do so. I default toward cooperation with, and distrust of, my fellow road users, rather than ideological lane-taking. Sometimes it is best to get the hell off the road and out of the way. Not only do I admit this, I embrace it. I even like the idea of cycle tracks in certain applications and think they may be able to increase ridership and improve overall conditions as you say. This particular project won't do that. It CAN'T do that.

The first thing bicycling advocates in Portland and America need is a dose of reality. For God's sake, please.

Even a busted derailleur works in one gear.

Even broken clocks are right twice a day.

it is, as the planners themselves admit, easy pickins to place such a facility on the park blocks as opposed to an actual arterial street.

Well, of course. Starting with “easy pickins” is a logical place to begin with an eye toward expansion. Any increase in cycling infrastructure is a good step. Endless criticism, negativity, and bickering about how one’s specific cycling-infrastructure-wish isn’t being implemented will lead to nothing being done.

With the comments in this thread, it’s clear that the cyclists opposing the Portland plan are the 1/10 I mentioned earlier -- those who want their cake and are essentially unconcerned with the larger goal of growing cycling in America. The other 9/10s of cyclists who will likely use the Portland plan’s cycling infrastructure, and hopefully as a result, more cycling infrastructure in that city and other American cities in the future, disagree with you.

With the comments in this thread, it’s clear that the cyclists opposing the Portland plan are the 1/10 I mentioned earlier -- those who want their cake and are essentially unconcerned with the larger goal of growing cycling in America. The other 9/10s of cyclists who will likely use the Portland plan’s cycling infrastructure, and hopefully as a result, more cycling infrastructure in that city and other American cities in the future, disagree with you.

Alternate suggestions were made, and you apparently chose to completely ignore them, in addition to ignoring the specific arguments regarding why this particular piece of infrastructure is logistically problematic.

+100

My sense is the cyclists who are complaining are those who are comfortable with riding in traffic and all that entails. They don't want that challenged by a more, for lack of a better term, 'gentrified' cycling culture in Portland. If it's true that Oregon has laws that specify bike lanes must be used if available, then Amsterdam-style cycle track lanes would certainly challenge their ability to ride in traffic.

Frankly, I think it's a selfish position.

If we as a cycling community -- and who knows if we exist as one cycling community -- want to integrate cycling into our American culture, we must welcome what's being proposed in Portland.

Cycling will never be mainstream in America until soccer moms can put their young kids in a Bakfiets and ride in what they perceive as a safe environment, and non-roadies can ride a Townie with a handlebar basket across the city to run errands. The Portland plan provides exactly that, where the current situation of riding in Portland's areas of 'slow traffic' does not.

If it means the further growth and integration of cycling into American urban cores, I'm willing to sacrifice my enjoyment of riding in traffic in certain areas -- and gladly ride in cycle track lanes. I would hope others would be willing to do the same.

This is exactly right.

I honestly can't believe the negativity about something that, from a design point of view, is excellent. I don't know Portland, so I can't comment on the appropriateness of this location, but everyone has to understand that planners have a VERY difficult time getting things like this done. We'd love to see fully protected lanes everywhere, with tree lined landscape strips and 10 foot bike lanes, but that is very difficult to achieve within existing public right-of-way. This design is innovative for any city in the US, so even though it may not be implemented in the best location in this case, it should be supported so that it's used again in better locations as funding/property becomes available.

Back to Blue Roads point, things can only get better with more diverse users that include women, children and seniors. I think the comment about European cycling being attributed to density is slightly incorrect. Cycling in Europe is actually a fairly new phenomenon that is attributed to many things, probably energy costs being the most important. It's become a cultural standard because safe infrastructure allows cycling to be used as normal, everyday transportation.

Sorry if this is a bit preachy, but as someone who works as a planner in a MUCH more hostile environment (good ol' Georgia), it's difficult to see complaining about projects that are light years beyond other parts of the country.

Well, of course. Starting with “easy pickins” is a logical place to begin with an eye toward expansion. Any increase in cycling infrastructure is a good step. Endless criticism, negativity, and bickering about how one’s specific cycling-infrastructure-wish isn’t being implemented will lead to nothing being done.

False. You are laboring under the false assumption that 'any increase in cycling infrastructure is a good step.' Patently false. Again I will suggest that you at least consider the words of bicyclists who obviously have far more experience than yourself, both on the road and in advocacy. Consider for instance the words of 'BURR' from the bikeportland forum (message 100 in the comments): "A poorly designed test facility in an inappropriate location isn't going to make scaling cycle tracks up for use on arterial streets an easy task." If you like the concept of cycle tracks and increasing ridership you should heed those words.


With the comments in this thread, it’s clear that the cyclists opposing the Portland plan are the 1/10 I mentioned earlier -- those who want their cake and are essentially unconcerned with the larger goal of growing cycling in America. ...

What's clear is that you are off in your own little world and not listening. The opponents of this particular proposal come from a wide-ranging group of experienced bicycle advocates, including those who support separate facilities. I guess that the reality of it is a bit more complex than you are willing or able to deal with.

I honestly can't believe the negativity about something that, from a design point of view, is excellent. ...

I'd enjoy hearing you try to defend the 'excellence' of this design. Seriously, I would.

I think the Park Blocks are fine as they are. Money would be better spent in other places. The Springwater Corridor desperately needs Sharrows painted at regular intervals on the road to mark the route from SE Umatilla Street to SE Linn Street & 19th.

Oregon Field Guide (http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/) on OPB (http://www.opb.org) mentioned some future developments that included a bike trail and new bridge over the Willamette River to Wilsonville with the intention of a route to the Willamette Valley Scenic Bikeway (http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PARKS/BIKE/WVSB_entire_route.shtml).

I honestly can't believe the negativity about something that, from a design point of view, is excellent. I don't know Portland, so I can't comment on the appropriateness of this location, but everyone has to understand that planners have a VERY difficult time getting things like this done. We'd love to see fully protected lanes everywhere, with tree lined landscape strips and 10 foot bike lanes, but that is very difficult to achieve within existing public right-of-way.

From a design point of view, it is ridiculous -- those who oppose it have provided salient explanations for why this is, while those who support it have simply asserted that "all infrastructure is good is good infrastructure" while decrying our "negativity". (Those who oppose the measure have offered alternatives.)

Also, not even Amsterdam has "protected lanes everywhere" -- it only has cycle tracks on its arterials. The Amsterdam equivalents of the two Portland streets that border the Park Blocks don't have special lanes at all.

Does Portland intend to seek input and comments from cycling advocacy groups as well as from the local business owners? There sounds like a few cyclists here in this thread who may have valid input. Then again, designed-by-committee solutions are fraught with compromise aren't they?

Alternate suggestions were made, and you apparently chose to completely ignore them

Because they preclude the obvious beneficial first steps: ending the bickering, implementing the Portland plan, and continuing to grow cycling. Let’s stop talking and start breaking ground.

In any case, you and most other opponents to Portland's plan in this thread have made your positions clear:


Firstly, I don't care if cycling becomes mainstream or not.

This is exactly right.

I honestly can't believe the negativity about something that, from a design point of view, is excellent. I don't know Portland, so I can't comment on the appropriateness of this location, but everyone has to understand that planners have a VERY difficult time getting things like this done. We'd love to see fully protected lanes everywhere, with tree lined landscape strips and 10 foot bike lanes, but that is very difficult to achieve within existing public right-of-way. This design is innovative for any city in the US, so even though it may not be implemented in the best location in this case, it should be supported so that it's used again in better locations as funding/property becomes available.

Back to Blue Roads point, things can only get better with more diverse users that include women, children and seniors. I think the comment about European cycling being attributed to density is slightly incorrect. Cycling in Europe is actually a fairly new phenomenon that is attributed to many things, probably energy costs being the most important. It's become a cultural standard because safe infrastructure allows cycling to be used as normal, everyday transportation.

Sorry if this is a bit preachy, but as someone who works as a planner in a MUCH more hostile environment (good ol' Georgia), it's difficult to see complaining about projects that are light years beyond other parts of the country.

Yes. With the endless bickering and negativity within the cycling community -- again, I use the term 'cycling community' loosely -- it's amazing we can make any progress toward the growth of cycling.

Let's implement pro-growth cycling plans, then let the naysayers complain in the corner while the vast majority of cyclists enjoy the improvements. It’s the same pattern when implementing any public infrastructure plans.

...In any case, you and most other opponents to Portland's plan in this thread have made your positions clear:


Firstly, I don't care if cycling becomes mainstream or not.

WTF! I would like cycling to become mainstream and I am also against wasting money on the Park Blocks development as it is currently proposed. Therefore your conclusion is steaming excrement.

I would like cycling to become mainstream and I am also against wasting money on the Park Blocks development as it is currently proposed. Therefore your conclusion...

I guess you missed this part:


In any case, you and most other opponents to Portland's plan in this thread have made your positions clear:

Back to Blue Roads point, things can only get better with more diverse users that include women, children and seniors.

I don't know about where you are but all of these types of people are already cycling in Portland, and now the city is trying to play catch up with dumb proposals like this. If so-called 'planners' are the reason for these crappy designs, I say **** 'em, we don't need no stinkin' planners.