"the plan would require a new steady revenue stream."

Time for the bike owners to have to purchase a license to operate on the streets. Also they should be made to carry liability insurance and their bikes checked for safety, no fixties, no double bike frames, outfitted with lights front and back and have helmets.

"Time for the bike owners" to get handsfree cell phones.

Actually, I'd like a bike tax with revenues dedicated to bike improvements.

It would be interesting to see how much could be generated from bike user-fees. Any such plan like this should not solely be the responsibility of everyone, but hopefully the individual users of the system.

613 million is the cost over 20 years.

This is actually to the benefit of the bicyclist community, than anything else (not meant to be punitive).

I also think that the negative pressure that biking puts against congestion, public safety services (although bikes I have seen are terrible at traffic laws and do create some problems), air pollution, environmental issue, oil trade deficit, etc., etc. should be factored in to how much bikes get in regards to transportation funds.

These are all economic negative externalities that auto-users currently do not pay for and that bike users would help aid in.

A 5 dollar tire tax would be a start. If that went to Bike infrastructure, that's a win for bicyclists in my book.

A 5 dollar tire tax imposed by the City or State would simply push most tire purchases online to avoid the tax. Just like most Oregon cigar purchases are made online. Or most Washington citizens buy their jewelry and electronics in Oregon.

I have been trying to sell my SW Portland house for 5 months without a single offer. I do believe the $6,000 annual property tax bill is part of the problem. The higher you raise the property tax, the more likely a home buyer will choose to live in Tigard, Lake Oswego, Beaverton, or Vancouver.

At some point in the near future, the City of Portland will realize it cannot tax it's way to prosperity. You'll know it's here when active duty rosters of Fire and Police Departments are slashed by 30% (or more) to cover the pensions of those already retired and/or disabled. It won't impact your life unless you are the victim of a crime, an accident, or a fire. You will have to wait a few extra minutes for the first responder to arrive. Those few extra minutes feel like forever when your life is in jeopardy.

Since buildings contribute more to pollution and climate change than automobiles, why isn't the City planning to spend a half-billion dollars on improving them, instead?

That's a rhetorical question.

One truth is contained in a familiar refrain of bicyclists demanding their "fair share" of the road: most bicyclists own a car.

Another truth is contained in a recent report blogged about here and written about at WW: bicycle ridership is *down*. The likely reason for that, I believe, is the passing of a fad.

But most of all, this kind of planning is myopic and agenda-laden. Focusing on *one* kind of transportation, throwing over a half-billion dollars at it, and *hoping* that over the next several decades that a fraction of trips will be made by bike isn't doing something for the environment--it's doing something to get elected.

I drive in inner SE everyday and I have yet to see a person on a bike stop at a stop sign....and I have yet to see a person on a bike get a ticket. I pay taxes to drive my car....let them pay taxes to ride their bikes.

"And in the future, we're all going to ride bikes! And there will be gumball fountains, and herds of unicorns, and all we'll do is play and eat candy all day long!!! Weeeee! Oh, doesn't it sound like a magical place?"

Mister Tee:"A 5 dollar tire tax imposed by the City or State would simply push most tire purchases online to avoid the tax. Just like most Oregon cigar purchases are made online. Or most Washington citizens buy their jewelry and electronics in Oregon."

ws:I should not have used the word "tax" to describe a user fee on bicycle tires. That was my fault, but a user fee is different from a tax. Property taxes can be seen as a user-fee but also a tax. They go to services that people use, but they are also spent on other superfluous gov't items that are not necessary.

A $5 fee is not a tax because it is not filling some arbitrary gov't spending budget. It would go to the very things that the bike actually uses. Just like the "gas tax" on gasoline is actually, truly, a user fee because it goes to the construction and maintenance of mostly auto infrastructure. It's not going to medicare or social security; it goes to the Highway Trust Fund.

I'm just throwing out bike tire tax as a possibility. It could be a registration fee. 5 bucks probably won't sway someone too much to pay extra in shipping (online) or go to Vancouver instead and actually have to pay a sales tax.

Regarding your high property taxes, the greatest thing we could do to reduce it is to employ more user-fee methods for public services. The individuals pay for most of it, not the collective body.

ecohuman:"Another truth is contained in a recent report blogged about here and written about at WW: bicycle ridership is *down*. The likely reason for that, I believe, is the passing of a fad."

ws:Not from the Census, ACS or Portland Survey data that I have seen. Do you have a link?

Journey to work mode:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/portland-another-challenging-chart.html

That's just journey-to-work...

Portland's survey shows something like 8% bike ridership.

Maybe we can learn from Toronto. I mean, that's like, almost European, right?

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/02/critics-eye-portland-ore-bike-plan/1

See the comments after article.

Simple arithmetic. At least half of the two million people miving to Portland over the next decade will get here by bicycle.

Its pretty sad, but I refuse to get on a bike, not because I am some evil suburbanite, but because I can't stand what the bicycle image has become and do not want to be grouped with that bunch of losers.

That brings me to my story. Yesterday, around 6pm, I was coming across the Hawthorne bridge after a long day at school. I got past MLK and Grand in the center lane, only to have a smug bicyclist stick his hand out and pull out right in front of me--- causing me to slam on my brakes and honk--- just as Id do if some jerk driver did the same thing.

Of course honking at an elite bicyclist in lower SE must be some kind of blasphemy because the jerk came up to my window and told me I need to make way for him because he was part of the solution. I told him to "f*** off" and he threw his bike at my car! No joke!

I decided to follow him and call the police; told the operator exactly what happened.. she actually told me I need to stop following him and get out of that neighborhood before other bicyclists catch on, group up, and mob my car. She then asked if I wanted to file a police report. I hung up.

Bikes need to be BANNED from the asphalt.. its just getting out of control.

ws:Not from the Census, ACS or Portland Survey data that I have seen. Do you have a link?

I do:
http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/12/17/bicycle-count-2009-heres-the-report-city-officials-dont-want-you-to-see/

For starters. And "WS", I think you're often faking it. For example, the ACS Bicycle Commuting Trends report cites 6% for 2008, the most current ACS data available. You can google that report for yourself.

It's obvious you support the plan. Fine. But like I've stated above, spending over a half-billion dollars on wishful thinking that, in fact, has minimal environmental impact, is perhaps one of the most irresponsible things the city can do. And so far, the most expensive.

Don't be fooled that this is a story is about bike riding in Portland. Remember, there is signature collecting going on for a recall. This is a story to make the mayor look like he is doing something to bolster support from his base. Plain and simple. The timing is no coincidence.

Most likely, this story will fade into the distance, like all the big ideas to gain media attention and supporters do. Remember the street tax and Flanders Bridge fiascos, to name just two? This is what he does.

Timing...

Not that I question Creepy's lack of ethics, but take a look at the Bicycle Master Plan - It's a 32+ MB pdf. That's not something just whipped up overnight. And, by the way, how much did that 258 tome cost us taxpayers? Download it and laugh. Or weep.

1. I think a small tax on the sale of bicycles (say, $5, not enough to drive the sales to Washington or online) would be appropriate to help pay for all this.

2. Those who gripe about bicyclists not obeying traffic laws should remember that when a bicyclist doesn't obey a traffic law the main loser is the bicyclist. Well, I suppose the bicyclist could run over a pedestrian, but the ability to cause serious injury in that situation is a lot lower than the auto/pedestrian interface.

Oops - 258 "page" tome.

And if you're not doing anything important tomorrow - like working, perhaps - there's always this:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=254595057014&ref=mf

"The stakes, however, are high. Our health crisis will not end without an end to business-as-usual. Please consider arranging your schedule so you can attend this event."

I guess if this is the solution to our national health crisis, Half-a-billion ain't so bad after all.

Two more thoughts:

When I ride a bike on a public street, I watch out for the cars and defer to them even if I have the right of way. I don't want "But he had the right of way" to be inscribed on my tombstone. I remain amazed at the number of bicyclists who don't follow my example.

I also thought it was interesting that $613 million to build up a complete bicycle system over 20 years costs the same as one new 12-mile freeway. I think providing safe and good facilities for more bicyclists has a lot greater potential for overall societal happiness than a new limited-access roadway that will fill up with cars and become chronically congested within that same 20-year period.

"Its pretty sad, but I refuse to get on a bike, not because I am some evil suburbanite, but because I can't stand what the bicycle image has become and do not want to be grouped with that bunch of losers."

I believe the idea of a bike system is to allow more people to bike. Perhaps the reason the cyclists you've meet are so confrontational is because they see themselves as having to constantly 'battle' cars for space. (this leads to surly 20 year old males dominating the current biking demographic)

If bikes had their own system of paths and secure lanes, more people like yourself would be willing to ride, and these current 'bike image' issues you see would fade or be washed out by more non-agressice cyclists on safe paths.

The money spent to build up this system would be well worth it, if it increases bike ridership (thus decreasing car use) and creating safer interaction between transit modes.

ecohuman::"It's obvious you support the plan. Fine. But like I've stated above, spending over a half-billion dollars on wishful thinking that, in fact, has minimal environmental impact, is perhaps one of the most irresponsible things the city can do. And so far, the most expensive."

ws:Your link just showed that bike riding in Portland, in general, had dropped 6% is due to outside forces and nothing to do with a "fad".

1) It had to do with high gas prices in 2008 which spiked biking numbers. That is not a fad, that is reality (high energy costs). That's not a fad. It's not Atkins, parachute pants, or Twitter. It's not "hey, let's get on a bike 'cause everyone else is doing it". It's the current state of energy supplies in the world. People are not going to spend 40% of their incomes on transportation costs. That is not economically sustainable (and neither is our trade deficit due to importing 20 million barrels of oil a day, but once again, I digress).

2) The subsequent decline also occurred during a recession, where people would be using their bikes less to go to work, consume, have a drink, etc. resulting in low bike numbers overall (VMT is down too).

You have two polar extreme scenarios occurring at the same time. The reality of the situation is that energy prices never will be low ever again and the economy *probably* will recover in the future. Economies go through swings all the time -- they have done so for thousands of years.

3)The 6% bike to work for commute is actually the highest in the nation. That's nothing to sniff at.

4)I've never seen the Portland Bike Plan. I can't comment. The only thing I agree with is that if bicyclists want better infrastructure, they should be able to tax themselves and have the ability to improve upon it.

I'm arguing for a progressive cause (alternative transportation) through conservative/libertarian financing methods. You'd think that would at least appeal to many on here, but apparently everyone's got a bone to pick.

Gordon:"Those who gripe about bicyclists not obeying traffic laws should remember that when a bicyclist doesn't obey a traffic law the main loser is the bicyclist. Well, I suppose the bicyclist could run over a pedestrian, but the ability to cause serious injury in that situation is a lot lower than the auto/pedestrian interface."

ws:Well, yes, as far as physical dangers. However, the criminal punishment of a car hitting a bicyclist is often on the driver. And we're not talking about the possibility of a fine, we're talking 1st degree Assault (measure 11), vehicular/negligent manslaughter type stuff.

You could very well have a bicyclist run a red light, but some investigator who misinterprets the scene, overzealous DA, a witness w/o a good views says it was *your* fault and you're in a heap of trouble. Or say you have two drinks and your BAC is .04 at the time of a bicycle running a red light -- a DA would charge accuse you of being reckless so fast you wouldn't know what was coming.

Laslty, I don't want the death of a stupid bicyclist who speeds through traffic on my conscious.

I will argue for the advancement of bicycling, but I have seen some very bad behavior by many, many of "them".

Its pretty sad, but I refuse to get on a bike, not because I am some evil suburbanite, but because I can't stand what the bicycle image has become and do not want to be grouped with that bunch of losers.

Funny, you don't seem all that self-aware.

They've got a long way to go to hit that target of 25%. It's really pretty rare to encounter a cyclist here in the SW Portland hills. Of course, we don't have a lot of bike lanes or other amenities. And while the downhill leg of a trip may be a real gas, the uphill portion is a whole other story.

Bicycles may be great in downtown, or the relatively flat east side - but those areas don't need that kind of cash outlay for cyclists.

I believe that PBOT takes it's bike ridership numbers in the summer. I would expect the numbers to be lower in the winter. Downtown only I believe as well.

Pick the day and pick the location and let us count cars & bikes. I would make a sizable wager that bikes will not be 6%.

Sam and PDOT's pie-in-the-sky 25% bike ridership is like Sam, PDOT and PDC claiming that SoWhat will have 40% transit ridership.

Even after dignified questions concerning the validity of such claims you never get an answer how they are validated, where the studies come from that supports such claims.

It was usually just a smug look with a smirk smile that Mr. Brown of PDOT would give those that asked the hard questions when asked for proof of SoWhat's 40% claim. He's gone now, working for Homer Williams. But his legacy remains.

Bigswede:

They do either three or four counts a year, obviously the numbers are highest during the dry season. The counts are done all over the city... maybe 20 different places around town, maybe only 10. I can't remember.

There was huge spike in 2008 due to the huge increase in gas prices, you couldn't buy a bike in any kind of condition for less than $200 on Craigslist because everybody was buying. That's leveled off, but the decline we saw this year wasn't massive, and the decline was apparently matched by the decline in auto traffic crossing the bridge as well. Apparently when unemployment increases rapidly fewer people cross the bridge during commuting hours, who knew?

The 600 million dollar sum is transparently ridiculous, but these plans are meant to be "best case scenario" plans, they'll build out some portion of what the plan calls for, try to hustle the feds for more dough, and then kick the can another 20 years down the road. It's nothing different than what any government body does with highways or transit.

pdxmick:

September 8th, 2010, Hawthorne Bridge. If I get to pick the time I'll say between 8 and 9am. If we have to go a full 24 hours that's fine too.

What's your sizeable wager?

Not everyone should commute by bike and if the city says they should and tries to make it safe for everybody, they've set themselves an impossible task.

The Oregon Human Society takes the same mistaken tack with its cries of a pet for everyone, when not everybody is in a position to take on the serious reponsibility of caring a dog or cat over its lifetime.

Bicycles are vehicles and must follow the same rules of the road that any other vehicles does. Separated bike paths not only require regular sweeping and cleaning (which they haven't received very regularly in the past and are unlikely to receive in a dismal economy), there are three other problems with them:

(1) They are often taken over by joggers and doggers (Terwilliger, Marine Drive)

(2) If there is a bike path, motorists assume that bicyclists must use it and sometimes become belligerant when they don't. Bicyclists aren't required to use a separate bike path when it is dangerous to do so (litter, people, fallen trees, unswept gravel, etc.)

(3) It perpetuates the idea that bicyclists must be protected and kept separate. So people believe they don't have to be serious, careful or follow the rules of the road. Back in the day, bicycle commuters and drivers respected each other and bicyclists did not expect concessions, except for occasional striping in places and places to park their bikes. When I was commuting in the 1970s and 80s, there wasn't much of either and getting it was like pulling teeth.

Remember when the city started talking about setting up bike rental kiosks in downtown Portland? I don't recall seeing a word about money being put aside to educate riders, or putting requirements in place such as the rider must have a helmet or a repair kit before a bike would be rented to him or her.

All the striping, boxing, PDFs, etc. in the world won't make anyone a better bicyclist. I used to think that commuting by bike (especially in the winter) was the province of the educated and hearty rider. The only scoflaws I ever saw were bicycle messengers who seem to have disappeared. With the economic downtown, I saw it as an expensive alternative to commuting by car (impossibly expensive for some). Now if there are new licenses, fees, etc. there's no benefit over riding the bus.

I'm waiting for the city to come up with a way to tax those who must resort to walking everywhere. I'm picturing toll booths around the city center.

By the way, I was one of those rare SW riders who used to commute each day from Garden Home to Tualatin, and later from Garden Home to NW 19th & Irving, via Terwilliger. Definitely more work going home.

Oops, third to last paragraph in the preceding screed should have read, in part:

" . . . With the economic downtown, I saw it as an INexpensive alternative to commuting by car . . ."

It's sad to see so many bike haters on this site...I think it's an age thing mostly...the youth having fun, asserting themselves, overstepping boundaries, behaving recklessly and/or stupidly in some cases....the oldsters resentful, slighted,jealous....throw in a helping of class conflict and lifestyle politics....

I drive and bike about equally in terms of time maybe 3-5 hours each a week....short trips on bike...long ones in car...

While driving and biking I have never witnessed any of this reckless biking that I constantly hear about (aside from biking without lites which is dumb and occasionally seeing someone riding on se 39th ...perfectly legal...but also suicidal...
bikes and cars both roll stop signs...almost always safely...bikes blow stop lights but almost always safely...

I see alot more people driving distracted (cellphones, etc...).... cars are about as carefull as bikes I think ....BUT...CARS WEIGH TONS AND GO MUCH FASTER....it is obvious that cars are much more dangerous....how many pedestrians killed by bikes vs killed by cars?...

Alllll that said, I am somewhat skeptical of some of the big money bike projects proposed. And obviously 613 mil of our $ is not going to be spent on bikes overnight. The money actually spent will be a fraction of the overall transportation budget spread over 20-30 years. Hopefully the improvements in infrastructure will encourage more people to ride bikes and reduce conflicts between bikes and cars.

More people riding bikes means less wear and tear on the roads, healthier people, less congestion, less pollution.....

I would be willing to pay

oooo forgot to finish that thought...I would be willing to pay for some of these proposed improvements (on top of the vehicle and property taxes I already pay) through some sort of voluntary system. I am not sure a tax on bikes or bike parts would work...people would just buy on line or in the Couv....A mandatory bike licensing/taxing thing will never work and would cost more money to run/enforce than it would generate....

The reason for the decline in bicyclists is that the dillweeds arriving here with the expectation of being in bicycle paradise have come to the realization that Portland is not flat like Amsterdam and that seven to eight months of the year, the weather sucks for bicycling.

Get real, guys. That money could be much better spent improving existing roadways AND ESPECIALLY UPGRADING THE SELLWOOD BRIDGE for ALL public right-of-way users.

Still...I'd support vehicle registration (with fee), vehicle licensing (with plate charge), and rider licensing of bicycles and bicyclists.

The "bike haters" on this site love bikes but hate obnoxious, self-righteous,and smug little bastards who have sucked all of the joy out of bike riding by making it a political statement and a cause rather then the simple joyful pleasure that it is.

1) It had to do with high gas prices in 2008 which spiked biking numbers. That is not a fad, that is reality (high energy costs).

WS, you're still faking it. Give me some proof to read about how "gas prices" and "unemployment" lowered bicycle ridership, and I'll gladly read it. Not conjecture, not analysis, but proof.

In fact, many might make the case that bike ridership would go UP in times of higher unemployment. Unless, that is, a city tries to count its ridership by focusing on one part of town.

The 6% bike to work for commute is actually the highest in the nation. That's nothing to sniff at.

Sure it is, and I'll tell you why: it's a self-reported number, one of the least statistically reliable ways of determining something possible. Local activists even staged "get out the vote"-style efforts to get people on bikes to report that they rode bikes.

I'm arguing for a progressive cause (alternative transportation) through conservative/libertarian financing methods. You'd think that would at least appeal to many on here, but apparently everyone's got a bone to pick.

I like alternatives to cars. The financing method you suggest (taxes) sounds reasonable to me, but it won't raise a fraction of the necessary cost. I'm focused on the larger picture--that the plan, and the intent focus on one particular, infrequently used, limited form of transportation that *might be used slightly more* is profoundly myopic and misguided. There are so many ways to spend far less money for far greater, more easily meausurable impact.

But they're not as sexy. And sexy is what's being aimed for here. Like several commenters here and elsewhere have said, it's largely a political effort by Mayor Twitter and Randy the Ram and others to build and appease a political base.

And again, I say: buildings in Portland are far more responsible for pollution than cars--why not spend such a ridiculous sum on them?

Oh wait, I guess we did. You're welcome, Merritt Paulson.

Frankly, there are a lot of bike riders who are pure menaces. My least favorite thing of late (besides morons on bikes who cut in and make you slam on your breaks - why they'd be in the left lane in rush hour on Beaverton-Hillsdale is another stupidity) are the ones who ride at night without lights or reflectors in dark clothes and no helmets - have seen this a couple of times recently both on East and West sides. I don't get this at all unless it's a death wish.

I heard that part of the money was to be used to create a bike path alongside Springwater Corridor. Huh??? I thought that WAS a bike path.

Before they add MORE bike paths, maybe they could first put in some sidewalks and crosswalks out here in east Portland? Just a thought....

" It's really pretty rare to encounter a cyclist here in the SW Portland hills. Of course, we don't have a lot of bike lanes or other amenities. And while the downhill leg of a trip may be a real gas, the uphill portion is a whole other story."

Aren't they all downhill legs, what with the $100m+ tram going up to the top?

For "WS" and others--follow the bouncing ball of statistical hand-waving:

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2010/02/04/the-story-behind-bike-count-2009-portland-bureaucrats-mad-search-for-context/

This is the kind of shoddy, agenda-laden story creation that I'm talking about.

The idea that 8 percent, which I believe is COPs offical number, or even 6 percent, of all trips or commutes in the city or Portland (year round - entire city)) are by bike is absurd. Even the Bike Commute Challenge numbers - the 30 days of September when people at public agencies and private businesses are encouraged to log their bike trips through BTA website (and they get great participation)only shows about 2 percent -if the ridership is at best 2-3 percent for that event, how can anyone really believe its 6 or 8 percent year-round?

ecohuman:"WS, you're still faking it. Give me some proof to read about how "gas prices" and "unemployment" lowered bicycle ridership, and I'll gladly read it. Not conjecture, not analysis, but proof."

ws:You_have_got_to_be_kidding_me. From *your* WW article posted:

"So what explains the decrease?

Gas prices, of course, dropped significantly in Portland from about $4 a gallon in June 2008 to $2.60 a gallon in June 2009, according to the American Automobile Association. That could mean more people were driving again in 2009. But bicycling numbers increased in both D.C. and New York City this year despite a sharp decline in gas prices nationwide.

Unemployment in the Portland metro area also rose significantly in the past year, from 6.3 percent to 10.7 percent in October 2009, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That, too, could account for fewer trips by bike.

But consider this: TriMet’s ridership numbers for 2009 so far compared with 2008 show only a 2.9 percent decrease. "

http://wweek.com/editorial/3606/13475/?SOURCE=RSS

1) My retort to the last Tri-Met "factoid" by WW is that the opening of the Green Line in '09 erased any big losses for Tri-Met's numbers, making the 2.9% decrease look manageable.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/10/green_line_boosts_max_but_bus.html

2) The claim about NYC and DC's rates is not backed up by anything. The only data I can find is ACS's 2008 survey, which shows NYC's bike rate at barely above 2%. A simple .0000000001% rate increase would technically be an "increase" in the city's respective bike rates.

There is no 2009 ACS survey data to compare to, thus making the comparison iffy at best. Using two different sources is not scientific in any way.

3) Most journalists don't even understand the data they write about. I'd argue that the WW journalists would routinely conflate an MSA or urbanized area (UA) with actual city lines. I see it all the time from so called "respectable" papers that wouldn't know the difference between Portland and Portland metro area.

4) ALL modes of transportation are down. VMT took a hit too. We should stop expanding roads too, I guess.

ecohuman:"And again, I say: buildings in Portland are far more responsible for pollution than cars--why not spend such a ridiculous sum on them?"

ws:Most of the buildings in Portland are private. Even when the city does endeavor in TIF it uses the money for public infrastructure to entice development. I can't afford most of the places in the Pearl, but I sure as hell can enjoy the nice Parks, streets, and shops.

Giving money to private buildings w/o some sort of public good at bay is not good policy. A bicycle master plan at least is for the entire public to use.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pollution". Co2 is not pollution, if that's what you mean. I think you mean energy use. Yes, buildings use a lot of energy, but the bigger energy equation are buildings + land-use + transportation.

You could have the "greenest" building in the world, as long as it was served by polluting sources from its surrounding land uses and transportation systems -- it's not going to matter one bit.

Anyways, when Portland does try to make its buildings more energy efficient, it gets criticized by you too. So, what's the point? You've offered nothing in ideas for the future, just criticism of life. No one wants to live in a straw bale home -- if you didn't know that already.

PDX already has at least 600 miles of bikelanes. I call them sidewalks where we as kids rode bikes all the time. There sure is much less damage to all mixing bicycles and pedestrians than bikes and cars. Put bikes back on the sidewalks where they belong!

ws:You_have_got_to_be_kidding_me. From *your* WW article posted:

No, "WS", it's not "my" article--I didn't write it. I posted the link because of what it says about the report, not because I agree with that causal conclusion. Which is obvious.

ws:Most of the buildings in Portland are private.

And most of the buildings in Portland are required to follow a host of *public* rules, regulations, and code requirements. In other words--it doesn't matter who owns them.

Giving money to private buildings w/o some sort of public good at bay is not good policy.

It's done all the time. And, there are many incentives and tax breaks given to *private* building owners to effect change or conformance. Since you're attempting to speak authoritatively about it, how could you not know this?

You could have the "greenest" building in the world, as long as it was served by polluting sources from its surrounding land uses and transportation systems -- it's not going to matter one bit.

You could have the "greenest" transportation system in the world, and as long as it served polluting buildings--it's not going to matter one bit.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pollution". Co2 is not pollution, if that's what you mean. I think you mean energy use.

Ah. This one says a lot about the gaps in what you know about pollution, and how buildings pollute. I thought as much.

Anyways, when Portland does try to make its buildings more energy efficient, it gets criticized by you too.

Absolutely, because nearly all of those efforts are boutique and ineffective at accomplishing a meaningful goal.

So, what's the point?

My thought about the bike plan exactly.

You've offered nothing in ideas for the future, just criticism of life.

Conversely, you've offered no proof at all that what's being done actually makes the necessary difference, or if it's just spending money for the sake of doing so.

No one wants to live in a straw bale home -- if you didn't know that already.

There are straw bale homes all over the world, and the number's growing.

But your'e missing my point. You need me to propose a solution? I will, and already have: since we cannot live "sustainably" in the manner we do now--dense cities and vast sprawl combined with monstrous consumption--we must both have several magnitudes less of population, and several magnitudes less of modern technological lifestyle and consumption.

If I sound cynical, it's because I am. it won't happen voluntarily, either long or short term. There is no way to "invent" our way out of the problem. The way is simple, and the hardest thing ever: downshift.

But to the average reader, that doesn't make it past their ears as anything other than "luddite", or "sticks and caves".

Now, "WS": explain to me how a bike plan and green walls are going to make a difference that matters. Because if you can't even do that, why should I not be critical of them?

ALL modes of transportation are down. VMT took a hit too. We should stop expanding roads too, I guess.

You didn't read the last link I posted, else you'd see how the "facts" about auto transport being down was "scientifically" determined.

Most journalists don't even understand the data they write about.

In this case, the WW reporter understood it perfectly--it was the city that didn't get its facts straight.

I'd argue that the WW journalists would routinely conflate an MSA or urbanized area (UA) with actual city lines. I see it all the time from so called "respectable" papers that wouldn't know the difference between Portland and Portland metro area.

Just wanted to throw that in as a bonus to try and discredit the article, didn't you? Even though it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This is what I see you doing in most of your posts--nibbling and sniping around the edges of the issue, while unwilling to debate the core issue.

ecohuman:"we must both have several magnitudes less of population, and several magnitudes less of modern technological lifestyle and consumption.

If I sound cynical, it's because I am. it won't happen voluntarily, either long or short term. There is no way to "invent" our way out of the problem. The way is simple, and the hardest thing ever: downshift.

But to the average reader, that doesn't make it past their ears as anything other than "luddite", or "sticks and caves"."

ws:I believe in correcting market failures and behaviors through reasonableness.

You apparently want to install the "Eco Reich" through very coercive and involuntary measures. I don't disagree with small areas of behavior corrections such as taxes on paper/plastic bags -- but you're taking it to a whole new level, man!

I'll give you some advice: People aren't going to drastically change their ways until something bad already happens. It's human nature. They will, however, make small adjustments here and there. You'd have better success screaming at a bare wall than whatever idea you've got to get people to involuntarily change their entire lifestyle upside-down.

ecohuman:"And, there are many incentives and tax breaks given to *private* building owners to effect change or conformance. Since you're attempting to speak authoritatively about it, how could you not know this?"

ws:Tax incentives and outright free money (grants) are two different things. Even subtleties such as "Enterprise Zones" used to help Intel and other tech companies in Hillsboro's Silicon Forest could very well be viewed as a "subsidy" to certain companies.

There's a lot of gray area regarding this matter.

And how did Oregon's tax breaks for wind farms work out? Great, we gave money to companies that probably would have come anyways and created a huge hole in government (and then raised taxes).

ecohuman:"Conversely, you've offered no proof at all that what's being done actually makes the necessary difference, or if it's just spending money for the sake of doing so."

ws:I have mentioned I have not read the plan. I am only defending for the advancement of alternative transportation methods contingent upon the biking community helping to pay a good portion of it.

I'm not defending spending 630 million dollars or else (over 20 years, or whatever) if that's what you think. It may or may not be a good project.

ecohuman:"explain to me how a bike plan and green walls are going to make a difference that matters. Because if you can't even do that, why should I not be critical of them?"

ws:It's not a panacea. Nothing is. I support "green walls" for buildings not for their enviro effect, but for pedestrian micro-climate control and aesthetics in urban environments (I talked about the urban heat island effect before).

Regarding bicycling, the transportation sector of our economy emits 30% of all GHG emissions -- of which small and medium cars/trucks emit about 15% of that pie.

A 25% modal share of journey-to-work for bicycling in Portland would mean a reasonable reduction in our localized GHG output. Now, if other cities were on board too, it could be a decent impact at the national level as well.

I support bicycling (I do not own a bike, btw) moreso due to its ability to reduce congestion, increase transportation options, better air quality, aid in a healthy population, and reduces our use of fossil fuels and our huge trade deficit, and increases stormwater quality in run-off events (cars are pretty dirty for stuff like that with motor oil, brake dust, dirt, etc).

Every small piece helps. And no, I am not against building renovations as you mentioned, just the idea that money in transportation projects such as this should be diverted to buildings instead because it would be better overall.

ecohuman:"There are straw bale homes all over the world, and the number's growing."

Let's see the numbers. We can compare them to biking rates in Portland :)

ecohuman:"Just wanted to throw that in as a bonus to try and discredit the article, didn't you?"

ws:No, just that a newspaper article is not the best place for an actual factual analysis. It's not a bad start.

And I retain my opinion that a lot of news sources regarding census-like data are bad at actually deciphering city vs. metro area boundaries. How many rankings of cities that these news outlets do actually use metro data to prove for the baseline of their rankings -- but instead mention the city alone? Too many, I'd say.

Now, is WW guilty of this? No, but they mentioned NYC and Washington DC's *supposed* increase in "bicycle numbers" in 2009 w/o showing how much they increased. Was it 5% or .05%? Was it journey-to-work % or was it overall bike trips, bike miles, bike purchases, bike lanes painted, bike underwear etc.

You get the drift.

"Bicycle numbers" can mean a lot of things. It's not a very thorough article, in my opinion. It's just trying to stir up controversy.

And I already pointed out their points about Tri-Met being baseless and sneaky.

It's just trying to stir up controversy.

Like I said--sniping around the edges of the issue.

Mike Landfair -

Put the bikes on the sidewalks?

What sidewalks?

There are almost no sidewalks in SW outside the downtown core, and the streets are narrow, few shoulders, mostly deep erosion ditches caused by storm water run off that the City refuses to deal with.

Walking is far more practiced out here than biking and the Council needs to pay far more attention to pedestrian safety needs than the selfish clamoring of the immature Narcisstic (sp?) bike jerks.

$600 million dollars of political posturing by vote hungry pols.

Portland! Wake up and stop the insanity by recalling this guy. Time and time again, this mayor has shown that he will do whatever it takes to cater to small but vocal groups at the expensive of the common good.
Bike paths, street renaming, soccer stadiums, and composting....these are the important issues we want our mayor focusing on? Please get real....and at least pretend you care about bring JOBS here....recall this guy.

One of the biggest schisms in the transportation cycling world is the pro or anti "effective cycling" movement: whether bikes should act and expect to be treated as rightful road users or would be better off with separate facilities. The challenge is that trails only will cover part of the trip, in the best of circumstances. Sooner or later you will have to leave the trail to get to wherever, and then what?
The BMP looks to provide a mix of separated and on street routes, relying on the separated facilities to act as 'trunk lines' where local travel will be on street. And one of the goals is to get 80% of Portlanders to be within 5 blocks of a bike boulevard or more enhanced facility.
I support the BMP,in spite of its high projected cost. Remember, this is a PLANNING document, not unlike dreaming what you want to do with your house when time/energy/money happen. Without the money, nothing is going to happen. Parts of the plan will happen because there is a manageable cost/benefit ratio. Some aspects will take longer or never happen because it was too much SOMETHING. The long term benefits (freeing congestion on roadways, affordable transportation for workers,health,improved environment,reduced wear on existing roads,supporting the '20 minute neighborhood',etc) far outweigh the cost.Just complying with EPA guidelines by reducing 20% of car trips will benefit local polluters that much ($613M).
Its easy to point fingers at drivers or cyclists as self centered, irresponsible,etc and the answer probably is 'yes, they are'. Bad behaviors can be corrected or shaped. But the core arguement of whether its time to shift the paradigm away from almost complete reliance on the usually single occupant car as our primary mode of transport. We didn't get to where we are today,overnight. It will take years to get to a more appropritate transportation system. But we need to start somewhere.

"...whether its time to shift the paradigm away from almost complete reliance on the usually single occupant car as our primary mode of transport."

This is getting to the core of the reason why the anti-bike contingent is becoming so unhinged. It's not just anti-bike, it's also anti-MAX, anti-streetcar, and anti-bus. Maybe even anti-walking. These folks want to remain in their insulated, climate-controlled cocoons where they don't have to interact with the great unwashed, and can sip their coffee, check their e-mail, and listen to Lars in peace. Who cares if they're just going half a mile to pick up a quart of milk? By God, they're taking the car, come hell or high water.

MBC:"It's not just anti-bike, it's also anti-MAX, anti-streetcar, and anti-bus. Maybe even anti-walking."

ws:It comes down to the baby-boomer generation. They grew up in the prime of automobiles and sprawl and see nothing wrong with driving their single-occupancy SUV for every little item they need in life. Anything deviating from that is perceived assault on their way of life.

My experience is the generations before them is much, much more accepting of so called "progressive" movements of actually riding a two-wheeled vehicle in the outdoor elements.

Just an outside observation, but I couldn't agree with this statement more.

I see a lot of auto drivers breaking laws all the time but I never see it used as a reason to deny funding for roads or highways. So why don't you all stop using it as a reason for not funding bike facilities OK?

There seems to be some confusion about how PBOT collects and reports its bike counts data. Here's a summary:

"The Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Annual Summer Bicycle Counts are the City’s principle means of establishing baseline bicycle ridership throughout the city and tracking ridership trends on the bikeway network. Each summer, approximately 100 volunteers assist the City in counting bicyclists at various locations around Portland during peak commute times (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM) and recording information such as helmet use, gender, and turn movements. Additionally, 24-hour automated counts are conducted using pressure-sensitive pneumatic hoses on Portland’s bike-friendly bridges and certain off-street paths. This bicycle counts data is used in a variety of analyses, including:

* Ridership growth on Portland’s four main Willamette River Bicycle Bridges
* Bicycle mode share on Portland’s four main Willamette River Bicycle Bridges
* Comparison of ridership trends and bikeway development over time
* Comparison of ridership trends and indexed crash rates
* Total ridership, helmet use, and gender split trends over time, throughout Portland, and within distinct neighborhoods

The longitudinal data collected through Portland’s annual counts has many applications, such as:

* Identifying opportunities for improving the bikeway network
* Informing the development of the City’s bicycle wayfinding system
* Forecasting bicycle demand for new, retrofitted, or improved infrastructure
* Validating travel demand models
* Validating other sources of information on ridership and mode split trends, such as the City Auditor’s Annual Service, Efforts, and Accomplishments Survey and the Census, among others"

The number of locations the City counts at has increased steadily over time. In summer 2009, I believe there were approximately 140 locations counted. The full summary report is available on the Bureau of Transportation's website.

Some comparatie facts about Amsterdam vs. Portland:

Amsterdam proper has over five times the population density of Portland, less than one-half the land, and is dead flat. Also, street sizes are often about half the size of a Portland street, with severe restrictions on cars in the city center.

Amsterdam ridership is often measured in the city proper, not its metro area. Amsterdam does not have "suburbs" per se, like Portland does.

Both cities measure bicycling in select areas where bicycles are most likely to appear.

Both cities have about the same life expectancy, despite a significant difference in bike ridership.

Amsterdam land: 64.1 square miles
Portland land: 134 square miles

Amsterdam population: 762,000 (11,500/square mile)
Portland population: 582,000 (4,200/square mile)

Amsterdam routinely fails to meet EU air quality standards.
Portland routinely fails to meet EPA air quality standards.

Amsterdam elevation: 6' above sea level
Portland elevation: 5'-about 580' above sea level

Average Amsterdam residence size: 780 sq. ft.
Average Portland residence size: 1483 sq. ft.

Amsterdam average age: 40.2 (and falling, due to immigration from Caribbean and Mediterranean countries)
Portland average age: 35.3 (and rising, not falling)

Average life expectancy, Amsterdam: 80.1
Average life expectancy, Portland: 78.1

The reason such expensive "improvements" are desired is because of the perceived lack of safety when traveling by bike. Why is there a perceived lack of safety? Because some (not all) motor vehicle operators cannot be bothered to pay attention to what they are doing and give half a crap about the lives of others. If everyone knew the law, thought rationally about travel times, and was willing to cooperate rather than fight, we wouldn't need but a fraction (if any) of the changes proposed in this plan. To all those motorists who never ride or walk anywhere and are complaining about the comparatively small cost of making "improvements" (of dubious safety value--it's all about perception here), you did it to yourselves by making all other road users feel so threatened by your dangerous careless, distracted, inattentive, drunk, or otherwise incompetent or impaired driving that they dare not attempt to encroach onto "your" sacred roadway for fear of being wiped out!

The other issue nobody wants to admit is that all the sidepaths and bike lanes proposed in this plan are desired not only by novice cyclists who might feel threatened on the "real" street, but BY MOTORISTS who are constantly complaining about bikes being "in their way". Well, if you can't learn to navigate around bikes in the street, where would you propose they go? I know, many of you would propose they go "away", wherever that is, but assuming that isn't going to happen, you, as a motorist have two choices: learn to drive more attentively and carefully around cyclists legally using the existing streets, or somehow create a way to move them all off into a "bike ghetto" where they will be out of your precious way. Since it seems that in general, folks have de facto ruled out the former by continuing to drive in a careless fashion, it means that MOTORISTS, as a group (notwithstanding those conscientious drivers among you) have made the choice to opt for "expensive" improvements to the road system."

it means that MOTORISTS, as a group

Most bicyclists also own a car. all bicyclists depend on commercial road transport of goods.

In other words, there is no "motorists" and "bicyclists" group. We're all in the same group, despite your screed.

Since I sometimes actually have to have a rea life, I can't attend City Council meetings.

What happened to the vote yesterday on spending $ 640 million, which the city does not have and cannot get, on bike idiocy?

The Oregonian seems to not have covered it.

for those out there that dislike the bicyclists...

You don't realize what benefits there are for drivers. Imagine how difficult it would become, to find a parking spot downtown, if no one bicycled in? Imagine the extra cars on the road, causing traffic backups. Imagine how much fuel prices would go up. Would you prefer bicycles just "Take the lane" everywhere they go, rather than use designated bicycle lanes?

No, it's not a fad. It's a reality. Car culture is showing cracks, and the thrill is gone.

The truth is, that I drive a car. I drive a car, because I don't have any other option at this point. I do, and will continue to give bicycles the space they need, because I can see the bigger picture. As long as bicycling is an option, for many people, the oil companies will have to be careful how much they charge for fuel.

For those of you talking of a bicycle tax. What about a shoe tax, for all those pedestrian projects. How about an additional tax on boats, to maintain the bridge lift components. Perhaps a tax on skateboards? A toddler tricycle tax? A shade tax, for tree maintenance? You have no idea what you're talking about.

For those of you talking of a bicycle tax. What about a shoe tax, for all those pedestrian projects.

You're trying to compare what's largely a public good that serves all to something that serves a small minority of citizens (and may or not be a public good).

How about an additional tax on boats, to maintain the bridge lift components.

Private vessels pay a tax through licensing. Commercial vessels do too, and in some cases pay a fee.

No, it's not a fad. It's a reality. Car culture is showing cracks, and the thrill is gone.

You're wrong, and here's why: most people *depend* on a car just to live--not because they (like you) consider themselves part of some gimmicky-named "culture". The current way of life--density or not--requires it, just to have a job, and especially if you have a family. Got any kids, "mrdennmann"? Ever cart two kids, a week of groceries, and supplies, all on a bicycle? Most can't, for a variety of reasons.

And you've proved that point yourself, when you said "I drive a car, because I don't have any other option at this point." Guess what? Most people are in the same boat.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually, it seems fairly clear that that applies to you.

the plan would require a new steady revenue stream.

Time for the bike owners to have to purchase a license to operate on the streets. Also they should be made to carry liability insurance and their bikes checked for safety, no fixties, no double bike frames, outfitted with lights front and back and have helmets.

Commence bureaucratic jizzfest and concomitant delusions of relevance and budgetary grandeur.