Amen. Bikers in the cemetary is a good thing, but not for keeps.

You know there is an old rail line running along the river which would be perfect for a bike path. Tie that into the waterfront park and it would make a very nice trail.

Or they could put a streetcar on it, which would be riderless.

Go by streetcar!

When CoP, LO, Metro, TriMet, Multnomah Co. and Clackamas Co. contributed money to buy the railroad R.O.W. over fifteen years ago their sales job included that the line could become a bike/pedestrian path. What happened to that promise?

So a route that is already unsafe for cars is now going to be more unsafe for cars, as well as unsafe for bikes. Sounds about right for Portland.

I think everyone is missing the point. The entire rationale for putting bike lanes or useless trolleys and MAX lines down the center of the busiest thoroughfares is precisely to make that thoroughfare useless, leaving you no option but to use their transportation monopoly, walk, bike, or leave the 'colony'.

Look at what's happened to NE Burnside, N Interstate, and now SE MLK and Grand.

I've heard that SW Barbur and SE Powell are also in the queue for the 'treatment', though I wonder if there'll be complications with Powell as it's still a US Route.

Curious though, that WES got its own route.

I used to commute from Lake O to Milwaukie via bicycle on Boone's Ferry Road. The shoulder there is wide enough - but barely. Seems like there's no really safe way to get from Lake O to Portland via bicycle. I think the bike path would be nice, but at some point you have to evaluate these projects in terms of cost/benefit. I'd like to know how this project "pencils out" in those terms.

A much more pleasant, less sloped, and less dangerous (mostly) route for cyclists would be, south-to-north, to use SW Fielding Road, then place the path next to the railroad, widen the tunnel (or build a jazzy route on the side of Elk Rock) to connect to SW Riverwood Road north to Riverside Drive (Highway 43). The path would run on the east side of Highway 43 to the south end of Powers Marine Park, then join the greenway trail and run north to downtown. I've never walked through the railroad tunnel and don't know if it's wide enough to support a bike path in addition to the occasional trolley. It would need some lights.

Frank -- As for penciling out, I think that's all that the current RFP is meant to do -- to find a consulting engineer to study the feasibility of creating a bikeway along the highway.

So how does that work with widening Hwy 43 to lessen the traffic jams? Oh, they're not going to do that?

Would the Dunthorpe Dandies oppose a bike trail where the current rail line is now? I'm thinking they won't want the Portland bike culture to invade any more than those evil electric trains.

Right now the way to get from L.O. to Portland on two wheels is through Tryon Creek State Park and the Riverview Cemetery.

And unless you are pumped up on lots of steroids, you would not be able to bike this route, particularly going up through the Riverview Cemetery from Portland to Lake Oswego. Besides, the cemetery is private property - the owners have the right to prohibit bicycle usage any time they feel like it. The city could put the bike lanes on Taylor's Ferry, but I suspect there would be similar whining about that.

Bike lanes on Highway 43 - maybe even a bicycle track (separate route along the side of the road) makes a lot of sense. And perhaps if a lot more people bicycled this route there would be less demand for the dreaded streetcar to Lake Oswego.

And for the caterwauling here and elsewhere about all those expensive bicycle projects, according to "Pedalling Revolution" by Jeff Mapes, the City of Portland spends 1.5% of its transportation budget on bicycle projects, while bicyclists make up 5% of all commuters in town and a greater percentage of sometimes riders.

When CoP, LO, Metro, TriMet, Multnomah Co. and Clackamas Co. contributed money to buy the railroad R.O.W. over fifteen years ago their sales job included that the line could become a bike/pedestrian path.

Unfortunately that ROW will never, ever, EVER become a bike path. PERIOD.

Why? The right-of-way was deeded to the railroad under a federal land grant, for the express purpose of it being a railroad. The terms of the original land grant was that if the land is no longer needed for a railroad, it reverts to the adjoining property owners.

Why do you think the Willamette Shores Trolley runs on the track? There is a legal reason - to maintain the "active railroad" status. If that trolley wasn't running, the adjoining property owners - some of who have to deal with that railroad being, quite literally, in the middle of the driveway to their home (or worse, between their front door and the street) - would have a legitimate claim to the property. (And, no, they would not have to reimburse the local governments - it would be THEIR land, and the governments would simply be out the money given to Southern Pacific to buy it.)

I agree - this route would be perfect for a bike path - no grades, off of 43, more scenic, includes a tunnel - but unfortunately it won't happen. The only way it would happen would be for the adjoining landowners to sell their right to the land (even though they don't own it), thus requiring all of the local governments to effectively pay for the property twice (and now at a much higher cost, thanks to skyrocketing land prices).

I've heard that SW Barbur and SE Powell are also in the queue for the 'treatment', though I wonder if there'll be complications with Powell as it's still a US Route.

Curious though, that WES got its own route.

Yes, both Barbur and Powell are being considered for "high capacity transit" which in Metro-ese means LIGHT RAIL.

WES got its own route because it was designed to use an existing railroad route, and share the tracks with freight trains. The Westside MAX line was also built on an old railroad right-of-way which Burlington Northern had abandoned; and Tri-Met had to pay a pretty penny to Southern Pacific to allow BN trains passage over SP's tracks between Tigard and Portland, via Lake Oswego and Milwaukie. (Now both the SP and BN leased/sold off their branchlines to Portland & Western and operate as one system.)

As for Powell Blvd. being a problem because "it's a US route" - one thing you have to remember is that the United States Highway system isn't even recognized by the U.S. DOT/Federal Highway Administration. Its roots are in the AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It is the AASHTO that actually maintains the U.S. Highway designations, and in general there are NO no U.S. highways being designated, unless such a highway is being moved from one route to another route.

What DOES matter is the "National Highway System" which is the official, federal highway system. Because a road is marked as a U.S. Highway means nothing. In fact, parts of Powell Boulevard - a.k.a. U.S. 26 - aren't even considered a state highway (the part within the City of Gresham was turned over to the City a few years ago.)

In general, any "Interstate" Highway will automatically be a part of the NHS, but many "state" highways and even city streets (that bear no highway designation) are parts of the NHS. The St. Johns Bridge, as part of U.S. 30 Bypass, is on the NHS, but not N. Lombard Street (also part of U.S. 30 Bypass). Columbia Boulevard is on the NHS and is a City of Portland street. So is Marine Drive west of I-5 (the portion from I-5 to North Portland Road is a state highway, but west of North Portland Road is a city street.)

Going Street to Swan Island (but not on Swan Island) and Greeley Avenue south of Going are part of the NHS. Highway 99E between I-5 and Columbia, but not south of Columbia (where although the street - Martin Luther King Boulevard, has an ODOT designation of Highway 99E it is a City maintained street) is a NHS route.

The Broadway Bridge is an NHS route. It is County maintained. The Steel Bridge is a combination of City and ODOT maintained, but not on the NHS.

Here's the kicker: U.S. 26 west of Gresham is not on the NHS - in fact it has long been dreamed by ODOT to eliminate Powell Boulevard from the state highway system, and replace it with a highway leading north directly to I-84. Those plans are basically collecting dust...but the official NHS route does follow city streets north to I-84.

And...between Bend and the Willamette Valley - the NHS route follows U.S. 20 west to Santiam Junction - but U.S. 20 west of there is not an NHS route - both Oregon 22, and Oregon 126 (itself a former U.S. route) are the NHS routes. From Albany to Corvallis - the NHS route is Oregon 34 - not U.S. 20. In Wasco and Sherman Counties - ODOT considers U.S. 197 north, and U.S. 97 south, to be the same highway (with U.S. 97 through Sherman County a separate internal highway), but the NHS only follows U.S. 97. U.S. 730 is not part of the NHS, but most Eastern Oregon U.S. routes are.

Confused. Why not bike out Terwilliger to Tryon Creek to Lake O? That's a lovely route and doesn't require any thigh-busting uphill through Riverview.

The silly thing about this bicycle mania is that it's only practical around here about 4 months out of the year because of our famous crap weather, that is except to fanatics, endorphin junkies, and recent converts to the Temple of the Spoked Wheel.

And I have a hard time believing that 5% of all trips are on a bike - that sounds like more CoP propaganda. With the exception of a few high traffic bike routes like SE Clinton, Ladd's Addition, and a few other hipster neighborhoods, anyone who spends any time actually observing traffic with their eyeballs can do a quick mental tally of the distribution of vehicle types flowing on the roads and streets and there ain't no average 5 out of 100 bicyles. No way.

Surveys don't count - only true believers tend to bother answering them.

There is an old Burlington Northern rail line easement that was purchased, I think by the City, and used for a vintage trolley to avoid claims of abandonment by adjacent landowners. It' along the river, and off of the road. Hope that is what they have in mind.

Erik H., the rail route wouldn't work as a bike-only path, for exactly the reason you mention: some of the landowners along the route have reversion clauses that give them the land back if it ceases to be used for a railroad. It could, however, work as a bike route in addition to a rail route, and it would be necessary to run the train only now and then, as the current trolley service runs, to keep the route open.

It could, however, work as a bike route in addition to a rail route, and it would be necessary to run the train only now and then

Somehow...just somehow...I bet that could be done.

Of course it'll raise the cost extraordinarily expensive...but the idea of streetcars and bikes sharing the same exact space (not like the Springwater Trail, where the bike path is alongside the railroad track - this is because the Portland Traction Company was a trolley line and thus double-tracked)...do you pave asphalt over it (which requires much more maintenance and must be dug up and re-paved for rail maintenance), or do you use the pre-cast concrete panels (commonly used for railroad grade crossings) - however they would provide a rather bumpy ride for bikes.

In Astoria, parts of their Waterfront Trolley line is also used as a pedestrian/bike path; however it uses wooden timbers - again, providing a very bumpy ride for bicyclists. But it does allow for a pedestrian path on a very seldom used trolley line.

(Not that I support the idea out of cost concerns...but it is interesting to think about...)

There is an old Burlington Northern rail line easement that was purchased, I think by the City, and used for a vintage trolley to avoid claims of abandonment by adjacent landowners. It' along the river, and off of the road. Hope that is what they have in mind.

Um...what are you talking about?

There is an old railline easement that was purchased by the Cities of Portland and Lake Oswego, ODOT, Clackamas County, Metro and TriMet, and used by a vintage trolley to avoid claims of abandonment...it is along the Willamette River, and off of Highway 43.

But the line we're talking about, from S.W. Portland to Lake Oswego, was owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad and never the Burlington Northern.

You might have it confused with the BN's route over Cornelius Pass - there was talk in the mid-1990s for BN to abandon the route, and Metro wanted to buy the right-of-way (which was not encumbered with revisionary clauses) for use as a bike path - which would connect with the Banks-Vernonia Trail.

There was a lot of opposition to the idea...the BN had shut down operations after two trestles were severely damaged and I believe the Cornelius Pass Tunnel also had some damage. Thanks to the Westside Light Rail project, BN didn't need the route - TriMet paid SP for the rights for BN to route its trains from Tigard, through Lake Oswego and Milwaukie, through S.E. Portland, onto the Steel Bridge and back onto BN rails.

The idea died when the Portland & Western offered to re-open the railline. BN sold the railroad to P&W, and gave the underlying right-of-way to ODOT as a "donation" (along with the Portland-Astoria line, the Hillsboro-Forest Grove line, and the Tigard-Keizer stretch of the Oregon Electric Railway - it was this state ownership of the ROW that encouraged the development of WES, however TriMet/Washington County got burned when they didn't realize that Tigard-Beaverton wasn't owned by ODOT, but by Union Pacific, at the last minute - causing Washington County officials to fly to Omaha, Nebraska with the proverbial $24 million briefcase.)

P&W did buy the line, built two new trestles to replace the old burned out ones, repaired the tunnel, and restored freight service - which it operates to this day. But that is completely separate from the Portland-Lake Oswego line; and the route over Cornelius Pass would be ill-suited for any type of passenger service, except maybe a tourist train or a dinner train - except the track condition is "FRA Excepted" (as in the lowest class of track permissable to be operated - trains limited to 10 MPH, no revenue passenger movements, no hazardous materials movements).