Now maybe that 25% biking rate may actually happen, if they tax us to get that 1.5 Billion. Nobody will be able to afford to drive.

Knowing full well the firestorm this comment will ignite, I will still say that these funds would not be necessary to protect the life and limb of cyclists if there was not such a pervasive mentality of absolute ownership by motorists.

In my (unscientific sample) experience, the majority of motorists, while not "out to get" non-motorized road users (i.e. cyclists, pedestrians), believe that roads exist solely for motorists. Roads, whether minor residential or major arterial, exist for all, however, motorists have staked them out as their sole domain.

The majority of motorists I've spoken with believe that bikes have no place on a road. Anecdotal evidence backs this up: I routinely see vehicles drive down bike lanes to get around slow moving or congested traffic. I routinely see vehicles use bike lanes for turn lanes. I routinely see vehicles use bike lanes as parking spaces. And, I routinely see vehicles move around cyclists at distances that would be terrify the motorist if another vehicle was that close to them at that speed. Yes, this is not all motorists, just as the egregious behavior oft-cited against cyclists represents very few. But, the mentality of motorists of absolute, sole ownership is still a widely held belief.

Would the city need to construct dividers and bike-only areas if more motorists respected the non-motorized users of the road? I do not believe so. The costs of the "bike utopia" are the costs of motorist's beliefs of entitlement to the road. The costs of "bike-friendly" construction is the result of pervasive law-breaking by motorists. Where regulation has failed, the only alternative is physical construction.

Finally, I believe that, for most motorists, the costs of construction to move cyclists away from "their roads" is preferable to the change in mentality required to "share the road."

And....Cyclists are not all obeying the rules either. I see cyclists "routinely" ride outside the bike lanes. They blow red lights & stop signs downtown. I see them on the sidewalks downtown (which is illegal), and almost every day I see one going the wrong way up a one-way street. I think most motorists see the problem as being (in Portland anyway) that cyclists want to share everything but the rules.
And, lets face it...cyclists in this town see themselves as "morally superior". And City Hall backs them up.

Jon,

Cyclists are not legally obliged to use bike lanes if the use of the lane is hazardous. They can take the street instead. My old commuting route into town was down Terwilliger Blvd. I rode down in on the road and up on the path for several reasons. First, I could travel downhill as quickly as other traffic and the path was filled with joggers, walkers and people with dogs and children and (during winter months or shortly thereafter, road debris). Coming home - uphill - it was possible to negotiate my way around the people and dogs at a slower speed on the path, although I'd still stick to the road if the city hadn't swept the path of debris (and it didn't happen often).

I've seen anger on the part of motorists who don't understand that bicyclists are not legally obliged to use bike paths.

And please, don't lump all cyclists together when making comments.

$613M is just the trial balloon number.

My guess is that most people who want this stuff (I am not saying it is not a good idea - at a price), think they won't have to pay for it. Besides why would you believe anything Sam says anymore? He gets confused by the truth.

Good luck when the fall into the sinkhole that'll open up on SE Hawthorne.

The friction between motorists and cyclists also stems from the lack of rules that apply to cyclists. Sometimes cyclists ride in bike lanes, sometimes they run red lights and stop signs and dart around in unpredictable ways, sometimes they feel entitled to "take a lane"; it is very unclear which rules apply to cyclists, and cyclists take advantage of this. The City throwing money around for bike infrastructure is only empowering the bike militia, when we should also be discussing exactly which rules apply to them. In other words, educating motorists and enforcing traffic laws on cyclists would go a long way.

I'm generally happy to share the lane with cyclists IF they are moving at a speed approaching the speed limit.

Encountered another one the other day taking a lane north on MLK. This is a long uphill stretch on which even good cyclists can't approach the speed limit. MLK is also incidentally a state highway.

It only takes one cyclist like that to back up a major arterial for quite a few blocks, inconveniencing 20 to 30 cars. Unlike cyclists who seem to exist in a perpetual childhood of no responsibilities with no where to be any time soon, some people do have places to be, kids to pick up, business to attend to.

I believe that Vanderslice and a few other CoP officials have committed fraud based on the emails and city statutes. Giving false dollar numbers to/from the Budget office before passage by Council is fraud. It's simple. We've experienced this same scenario with the Tram under Sam, and now he does it again.

Northwest Portlander, PD, Jon and Chris Coyle - First of all, Oregon Revised Statute 814.420 mandates bicycle-lane use where there is a lane present. Northwest Portlander you go from stating that the lane-use is mandatory under certain circumstances, and not when there is a hazard present, to stating that there is no time bicycle-lane use is mandatory for bicycle-riders. While there are provisions for avoiding hazards, these hazards are defined by statute as well, and are simply not a matter left to an individuals' judgment. Furthermore, it's ill-advised to be making such assertions because pre-arguing a legal defense (Called affirmative-defenses in statute.) prior to appearing in court will afford you the surprise of a life-time. These safety provisions are not, in spirit, meant to lend a defacto opt-in-status to bicycle-lanes; and their use. There is a provision too, that states no bicycle-lane can be made mandatory until such time a vetted state inspection has occurred, and the lane has been determined to be safe. However, recently the spirit amongst the authorities have changed, and in court many cyclists are finding out that the argument is that by merely existing, these lanes have all had a default 'inspection'; and are therefore safe. So, if you are like me, I've been counting on this lack of an inspection as a way to opt-out of using the bicycle-lanes I neither need, nor want. This is no longer a viable affirmative-defense. You'll note that I'm a fairly notoriously infamous opposer of bicycle-lanes; and it is their mandated use that is the crux of my position.

The argument that cyclists break more laws than motorists is ludicrous. Jon you cite examples of lawlessness such as failure to obey signalling devices. Ever hear of a California-stop? Motorists routinely run yellow-lights too, which is illegal in Oregon. You also mention bikes not riding in bicycle-lanes, but fail to cite that motorists routinely drive in them, also a violation of statute. You also cite sidewalk use 'downtown' as a violation. The exclusion of bicycles from downtown Portland sidewalks is limited to a fairly small area, and explicitly not all of downtown. The ban extends from the Willamette River west to SW 13th Ave., and from W Burnside St. south to SW Jefferson Ave. There are lots of bicycles on the sidewalk south of this ban-zone, as one might expect with the PSU campus right there. In all other parts of the incorporated city there are no bans, but bicycles using the sidewalk are under a mandate to ride safely; and to not interfere with pedestrians.

Jon, I am as opposed to any bicycle-specific infrastructure as you are, or more-so. Check out my site and you will quickly see I am quite vociferous on the subject. I also haven't owned a car in more than two decades, a bicycle being my sole means of transport during this time. So, I assert that not all cyclists are buying into the hoopla, in fact there are quite a few of us adamantly opposed to a vast majority of the goings-on of late. You would be well-advised to avoid alienating this type of cyclist because together we can combat the take-over of city-planning by the Chruch of Green elitists, and their clergy from the BTA, and those within the BAC.

Back to the topic. Slovic did a good piece here, but sort of failed to unearth anything truly damning. It appears as though she first states that the price of implementing the PBMP is double what the public was told, but then reports on all the authorities busily debunking this; and ultimately does not answer the question: How much will this cost? I'm a little disappointed with that. She backed off it a little predicated entirely upon the notion that the authorities said, in essence, "This will cost X, 'cause we say it will cost X!". Well, not good enough, and I wish she'd kept pushing a little harder.

Folks, there are cyclists, then there are Church of Green cultists giving cyclists a bad name. Painting your bulls-eye on MY back doesn't do you any good 'cause I'm all in like Flynn and have access you don't. If outraged motorists, angry with such low-levels of service from the authorities, would band together with outraged cyclists like me, we could overwhelm the Church of Green, and take our streets back.

At some point, you are going to have to ally with me, and those whom I am allied with, cyclists to the last, because clearly a lot of motorists are also Church of Green utopianist-fanatics on bikes too. I advocate for zero bicycle-specific infrastructure in lieu of advocating for clear, and efficacious laws, and statute. I have ridden these streets for 25 years, and the problem, as always, come from people moving here from other cities with foreign ideals regarding proper use of public space and money. These troglodytes don't have any manners and it is no surprise to me they're greedy bastards to boot.

Please, don't blame all cyclists. Some of us are on YOUR side.

If you read the entire Willamette Weak (sp intentional) page, down through all the comments, you have to conclude that Beth Slovic must have been having a slow news week and was fabricating a controversy where none exists.

Sheesh, Adams wants $20 million this year to get the bike plan started. Multiply $20 million by 20 years and you get $400 million. Inflation will probably pump up that figure quite a bit--if everything in the bike plan gets built. Most of the projects in the 1996 bike plan have yet to get funding, so at this point,it's all a pipe dream.

I've read the entire 2030 Bike Plan and there are a lot of questions to be answered. For instance, there's a total of about $18 million scheduled for three very small (in terms of distance) projects centered around East Burnside and Couch Streets from MLK to 13th. Smells like the infamous couplet. If so, is the bike program subsidizing this boondoggle?

As to running lights and stop signs, I coast through stop signs on residential streets when there is no traffic. Yet every day at 33rd and Powell, where I wait to for the light to change to cross Powell, a car runs a red light. Every day.

Investing in bike infrastructure is wise and prudent. Cost for road maintenance not including adding more vehicle capacity would cost more if every cyclist were using a car. All of you who hate to spend a dime on bicycle infrastructure, do you really want 15-20% more people on the road, in the parking lots. this money being spent is over 20years. Bust out the crayon do a few calcs and its a no brainer; quality of life thrown in for free!

Road maintenance? Haven't seen much of that in CoP.

Motorists "entitlement to the road"

um, err, what roads existed prior to the automobile? Look at the remnants of the Oregon trail. Would you drive a car or ride a bike on it? Sure, mountain bikes but commuters?

Look at the Interstate Highway mandate. It was mandated for motorized vehicular traffic, to the point that non-motorized traffic is banned, with some variations (like hitchhikers) left up to the states.

The selfishness of BTA in the light of the current economic picture is too apparent. They see them selves as privileged, for which the rest of us should gladly sacrifice our well being.

If one wants to bring up quality of life issues, one needs to examine the complete picture, not cherry pick favorites.

Finally what does taxing our water bill have to do with bikes? One can live 3 days without water, but I certainly can live a life time without bikes. (Or cars, for that matter!)

And while I am at it, let me say this:

I no longer ride my bike in any right of way. Why? Because the arrogance of the biking public has P.O'd the driving community. Inasmuch as the sheer mass of an automobile far exceeds the mass of the bike, and inasmuch as there are far more motorized than non-motorized, it is only a matter of time that I may be accosted by such a vehicle, and I don't like those odds one bit.

um, err, what roads existed prior to the automobile?

Well, let's start with all of downtown Portland, and work our way east. Your move.

'church of green elitists' , dude where can I get that kool-aid. Guess who is the number one group of bike users -
---wait for it ----- KIDS.
Now for you car addicts who gotta have the road , all of it all the time , Bike riders pay the same damm taxes you do , and deserve to use the 'right of way' safely and without your holier than thou
whining. If a bike is in front of you on the road , he or she has the Right to be there. Take a deep breathe and enjoy the view. Unless you are a ER doc , you don't need to get anywhere that fast.

.....whining.....

Can't. Wait. To. Leave. This. Place.

Ex-Cabbie, now you understand why I did. I've been a bicycling junkie and advocate for my entire life, and the humorless and arrogant bicycle brats in Portland made me want to run down a few of them.

Maybe it's been raised here before, but why isn't anyone offering up an explanation why the first 300 miles of bike lanes and infrastructure would cost the city $60M to replicate (their own numbers), yet the next 600 miles is anticipated to cost $600M? Has inflation hit the paint and cone industry or what? Or are they envisioning idiot ideas such as "bike only streets" and "bike only bridges" that cost just as much as a regular thoroughfare, but end up using a tiny tiny percentage of the capacity to move people along?

As a casual bicyclist, these bike nazis PO me, too. I would be really happy if COP maintained the neighborhood roads, since that's where I (and many of those kids riding to school) most often ride. But, no, let's let the roads fall apart, because bicycles sure don't use 'em.

Bike nazi's, elitists...give me a break. I drive, I ride a bike, I am a pedestrian. I cannot believe how many people want to turn this into us versus them. Should bike advocates not be asking for more? Advocating, thats what they are doing...duhhhh. As someone who uses all three modes often, the unquestionable #1 risk is bad driving which is endemic. A few bike users ride poorly, a significant proportion of cars do so only with much greater capability to damage. How many of you do not see a bad driver every single day, every single trip? Forget about the petty arguments, we all, yes even, gasp car drivers benefit from everyone driving better. Look how many drunk driving deaths every year. We have to have a law to tell us not to drive with cell phones? I'd be amazed if most people could pass the basic driving test these days...so before we complain about bikes anymore, lets refocus on the real problem and stop making a huge deal out of bike riders wanting safety and amenities. Instead of trying to take away from others, ask for what you want instead....and good lord all you "I'm glad to be out of Portland" people...why are you even commenting?

Sigma, I think the reference is to PAVED roads. Of course there were roads before bicycles, that's not the point. But if you think paved roads in Portland, even downtown Portland, existed much before the automobile, you need to reread your Portland history. There is a reason we're known as Stumptown. Look it up.

While Portland's bicycle ridership has supposedly increased, so has its auto use. In fact, in very US city where bicycle ridership has increased the past decade, so has auto use, and to a greater degree. In fact, there is no existing model where bicycle ridership actually resulted in a similar decrease in auto use.

But the key premise of Portland's half-billion dollar, 20-year bicycle plan is that it will result in reduced auto use.

Isn't that strange?

"If you read the entire Willamette Weak"

If you read it, the $613M is for actual construction. The remainder is for "project mgmt" and other stuff which Sam conveniently forgot about.

Why would this be any diferent from any other spending lie we get told when the actual cost is up to 10x more (a la the Tram) of what we get told to get approval?

Maybe being dishonest and not telling us the truth up front because we are too stupid or shifting around $600M when schools are still lousy or we need $400M to fix streets for cars that we can't get is OK with you?

On page 196 of the 2030 Bike Plan, there are tables that summarize all the capital projects listed in the plan. The total for all those projects is $568 million, not $613 million. Where the other $45 million goes, I don't know. Perhaps project management, perhaps education.

It seems to me that most government projects start with lowball estimates and then balloon. Though some of them seem high to begin with. It's no different whether the government is building roads, trams or bike paths. That, however, is a different issue from whether bicycle infrastructure should be continuously improved.

billb- Bike riders pay the same damm taxes you do

Not for roads....unless you own a car as well, and pay registration fees, license fees, and gas taxes.

As for bikes slowing cars down....read up ORS 811.130- "impeding traffic".