Priceless. And yes, you have to love the bureaucrat explaining to unhappy people that they are actually happy. And that something that is clearly worthless, is actually worth a whole lot.

Because he says so, that's why. Not that he actually ever makes it out to Holgate. He lives in Laurelhurst, thank you very much.

He's really the perfect spokesperson for Portland government.

Take a stroll down that same stretch of road on foot, and notice how 60% of the sidewalk doesn't exist. Its mostly packed gravel and mud squeezed between a curb and someone's property line.

All of the main routes are identical: wide street with the curb lane striped for bikes and parking (both of which are seldom used) and dirt sidewalks. Except Powell, which is a heavy traffic highway with only two traffic lanes, wide bike lanes, and drainage ditches for sidewalks.

Obviously, they need streetcars.

"He's really the perfect spokesperson for Portland government."

No doubt he'll be running for mayor in a couple of cycles. Maybe the mayor and the head of Metro will be melded into one office by then. "High Priest of the Bicycle Cult", or something to that effect.

Spokesperson for "The City That Puns." Though I prefer peddler. Bicycle transportation planning: it's a tonic!

Personally, I favor the term 'Bicycle Taliban'.

The one that really tightens my jaws, is that the City of Portland thought that we needed another Bike Boulevard in inner SE Portland (because apparently Lincoln and Clinton streets aren't enough), so they declared the "Center Street Bike Boulevard Project" which doesn't exist totally on Center street. In fact, west of where Center crosses Foster, it's actually on Gladstone St.

Not that they mentioned that anywhere except for at a meeting no one attended, and in documentation that came out after it was already decided...

So, after they get done tearing up the street in front of my house to install giant curb extensions to block cars, and prohibit me from being able to use the street in front of my house without driving several blocks out of my way, bicyclists will have yet another of their own streets to ride on paid for with motorist fees and unlawful appropriations from the sewer budget and so forth.

Oh, did I mention that they already ride up and down Southeast Gladstone today, without any problems whatsoever, and with exactly zero money spent disrupting the people that live there? That's ok, because they'll just be moving all the through traffic that they're trying to disrupt onto SE Boise St., which doesn't have the "traffic calming" bumps that they used tax money to install on Gladstone, which will be nigh-useless after this next car-surly construction project since no one will be using Gladstone for through traffic anymore.

Maybe we can get some of those steel tire-destroying spike things in the middle of the street too. I mean, if we're going to spend a stupid amount of money to make sure that driving in SE Portland is as frustrating, expensive, and annoying as possible; might as well go the whole way and destroy some tires too.

The idea of an increased emergency response time because fire trucks can't turn on Gladstone anymore is a really welcome thought too. Go by Streetcar!

Personally, I favor the term 'Bicycle Taliban Alliance', or just 'Bicycle Taliban' for short.

When I first saw the investigative reporting by KATU last night, I wanted to immediately let them know how much I appreciated their more recent activism in reporting city issues without relying on the spoon fed news releases from CoP's endless bureau PR types. Thank you, 2.

The city staff and neighborhood assn. member response is so typical. It's too bad that KATU didn't tie in the 17,000 vehicle trips to the maybe 50 bike trips, making for only .003% of bike usage per vehicle trips. But you'd think the city staff who specializes in transportation would make the calculation. What a spin expert.

Please KATU, do more analysis like this. There's hunger for this. We need educating after 25 years of hearing only one side of the story.

You guys are SO short sighted. You lack the planner's vision. Just wait two years, or five, or 25...well, maybe 50. Then you'll see.

To paraphrase, "you weren't at the meeting..."

The bicyclists know how to draw support. They massively announce these meetings ahead of time -- to their own constituency.

Screw the locals and anyone else. They can figure it out on their own.

Meeting date comes, and its packed with supporters - but often times nobody else.

These neighborhood associations, and the city, and most governments, do a poor job of reaching out to EVERYONE. So, by the time the decision is made, it becomes public and is reported on widely, and THEN the opposition comes out, when it's too late.

Been there, done that.

So many times, by energizing the opposition AHEAD of time, you can actually reach consensus, and build a better product, instead of getting one-sided support, to get results like this. You lost the support of the community, and those who fought tooth and nail for it, don't even live in the area or use it.

Just like WES.

The unreported part of the story is this: What really goes on at neighborhood association meetings, and how the city uses them.

The city employee interviewed, if forced to be honest, would've admitted a crucial fact: the "need" for bike lanes in Lents didn't come from neighbors--it came from the CITY. The city proposes it, directly or through advocates. Neighborhood associations can "discuss" it and express their preference. Then, both the City and the neighborhood association can claim "if you didn't show up to our monthly meetings, then you don't have a say.

In other words, it works in reverse of how its intended: narrow interests win out or broad ones.

In fact, it's obvious how the bicycle paths are working--it's part of a larger, formal plan. It's not something being demanded by neighborhoods. It's a political act, not a grassroots one.

Like, say, sewer rates.

that was meant to read "narrow interests win out over broad ones".

bikes are way more important than local small businesses.

It appears that the bike lane isn't getting used much. At least not yet. Would be interesting to see if usage increases as the weather gets nicer and more people realize the bike lane exists.

Is there any evidence that adding the bike line has increased congestion? If so, it wasn't in that report.

Is there anything more than anecdotes that the bike lane is hurting businesses? Two (2!?) people complained about a decrease in business, during the worst economic downturn in a generation. But they represent all business, and the bike line must be responsible for what's happening?

I have a bicycle, which I rarely use, but I don't mind seeing more transportation options made available to people.

Erik H. - "They massively announce these meetings ahead of time -- to their own constituency. Screw the locals and anyone else."

Everyone in the neighborhood receives notices of neighborhood association meetings. If the business owners didn't attend, it's not the fault of the folks who advocated for the bike lane. I'm not sure with neighborhood meeting you attend, but my experience has been that the opinions of "locals" are typically valued more than the opinions of "non-locals."

If it's a meeting about a land-use decision, the City provides several types of notice to business and property owners within a certain radius of the site in question.

It's interesting to see people get so upset over a bike lane.

Good job KATU. I'm sure it was worth the time to send a couple guys out to sit in the bike lane for 8-10 hours. It's not like this City has more serious problems you could've been reporting on...

You really miss the point Joey.

First, just because a half dozen people show up at some meeting at 7pm does not mean that the neighborhood wants what they want. These people are not a random sampling of the neighbors.

Second, try going to one of these cabal meetings with a dissenting voice...you will not be welcome.

And yet out in the country side (where people might actually like to ride their bikes for enjoyment and recreation) none of the roads even have shoulders.

Would be interesting to see if usage increases as the weather gets nicer and more people realize the bike lane exists.

You weren't paying attention. The video gives an example of Lents lanes that have been there for several *years*.

Is there any evidence that adding the bike line has increased congestion? If so, it wasn't in that report.

The main complaint wasn't congestion in that video. The opposite.

Is there anything more than anecdotes that the bike lane is hurting businesses?

How much evidence, exactly, would be enough to warrant paying attention?

I have a bicycle, which I rarely use, but I don't mind seeing more transportation options made available to people.

I didn't hear anybody in the video complaining that bikes shouldn't exist. I heard a lot of complaints about (a)the lack of use of such a disproportionate amount of road dedicated to bikes, and (b)the affect on traffic, a crucial factor in business location.

If the business owners didn't attend, it's not the fault of the folks who advocated for the bike lane.

It's not. It's also a lousy way tp push through narrow interests--by claiming neighbors who feel differently didn't use a neighborhood association meeting to express themselves.

If it's a meeting about a land-use decision, the City provides several types of notice to business and property owners within a certain radius of the site in question.

Bicycle lane striping is not a "land use decision", and doesn't require any kind of notice like that.

but my experience has been that the opinions of "locals" are typically valued more than the opinions of "non-locals."

Yes, that's you're experience. It's my experience that the majority of neighborhood association meetings are for two purposes: (1)To promote a City-presented agenda that's already been adopted and planned, and (2)to discuss pet interests. The rest is just housekeeping.

It's interesting to see people get so upset over a bike lane.

Why? If you had a business that you'd poured your financial, emotional, and professional life into, and you perceived local government screwing with that, would'nt *you* be upset? Of course you would. Truth is, you have no such stake in this matter. So, you can just point and snark.

Good job KATU. I'm sure it was worth the time to send a couple guys out to sit in the bike lane for 8-10 hours. It's not like this City has more serious problems you could've been reporting on

A two minute perusal of their website might've shown you three or four dozen *other* stories going on.

The annoying thing is, it might just all succeed through sheer demographic engineering, that is if it doesn't go broke first... people gotta have jobs to buy bike parts and accessories, etc.

I was just listening to TOTN on NPR at lunch today and a caller from Portland joined the discussion to say that P'land is the Gold Standard of bicycle commuting and that our poor year-round weather has no impact on our high percentage of bicycle commuters. Having 2 eyeballs, I had to disagree with that since anyone can stand on any street corner OTHER THAN the SE Clinton/Lincoln/Hawthorne corridor and estimate the percentage themself of pedalers vs everything else... it's near zero, or very low, except on nice days, when you might find even me going somewhere by pedal.

These bicycle evangelists completely fail to understand two simple facts... people live where they can afford it and they work wherever they can find a job, and to assume the two will be pedal distance within each other is not only ludicrous, it's insulting to people with a disability.

Joey, neighborhood associations are not required nor do they send out notices or agendas of their meetings to every household. Only a few groups of neighborhood associations like Southwest Neighborhoods Inc. have every two-months or more leaflets/papers mailed out to only interested households or subscribers. They mostly scratch the surface on what has happened and not what is coming up. And then less than 5% of households receive it, and then who knows how many people read it.

Joey posts 'It's not like this City has more serious problems you could've been reporting on...'

Problems that cost less than the million$ spent on (unused) bike lanes?
Yes, I believe that was the POINT of the report.

The fact is, bicycles are great for what they can do, but they can't do everything because they can't come near what a horse can do and did for thousands of years. Don't like messy polluting, fume belching automobiles? Let's think of something else then, but bicycles aren't the answer. They're just an option when suitable.

MachineShedFred

No one commutes on Gladstone now! The point of turning it into a bike thoroughfare was to provide a safe alternative to the two parallel auto thoroughfares on Holgate and Powell.

If you have been driving down Gladstone to get to work, you must not be familiar with Google Maps. Or common sense.

JC, your strawman falls flat.

It's not insulting to people with disabilities to offer transportation options to commuters.

In fact, bikes reduce congestion. Can we all just agree on that? Because it's a fact.

So all the auto drivers getting huffy about bike lanes and cyclists want the 7% of vehicle trips made back in the car? Be careful what you wish for.

7%? ha! do you really think for every 100 cars on every single street and freeway in the entire city that there are 7 bicycles out there? For Holgate alone with 16k cars going through there would have to be 1120 bikes a day. katu counted 8. that is 500th of one percent. remember that for the claim to be made that 7% city wide commuted are bikes this has to average out to 7% bikes on all streets. the math is just not there

Bronch, if we remove whole traffic lanes to accommodate bikes, then they clearly don't relieve congestion.

Use your own judgment and question the assumptions of the planning cabal. Their assumptions are usually just assertions based on no real data. They rely on people like you to unthinkingly drink whatever kool-aid they're handing out.

“So all the auto drivers getting huffy about bike lanes and cyclists want the 7% of vehicle trips made back in the car? Be careful what you wish for.”

First of all 7% is a big lie. It is more like .05% of all vehicle trips in the metro area, not just the close in streets. Second, half of the hipster bicyclists’ don’t own cars anyway so they probably would have to take the bus.

It's quite a sight seeing a rain drenched bicyclist with a poorly covered bag of groceries attempting to negotiate traffic during evening rush. I am one who believes in mass transit, rapid transit at that, but this town hasn't a clue how to really plan it. So they piecemeal it together then try to sell it to the public.

The whole "impacts on business" stuff is getting old.

Sure, business owners will complain about almost any change. Business likes stability.

On the other hand, people like Joey sound like the BlueOregon/Oregon Business squad: "We have to look at your books, then we will decide that you are a buffoon and a bad business person."

Did anyone notice that at least one of the few bicyclists had a bag full of cans they gleaned from recycling bins?

Imagine this story of a video showing a sidewalk with curbcuts for wheelchairs, and no one ever coming in a wheelchair. Does that mean we shouldn't build curb cuts for wheelchairs?

150,000 Portlanders cannot drive. They - and we all - deserve options. Whether this particular bit of paint - requested by the neighborhood association - is a waste or not is not reliant on whether it's completely populated by people on bicycles.

People deserve options. Once we actually have a complete, connected network of facilities I'm happy to hear judgments. That one small piece is underused - when getting to and from that piece is dangerous and inconvenient - is not evidence. It's trying to create conflict between us when we bike or drive.

I volunteer at loaves and fishes at 104th and holgate and I've been saying since last year about how few people are seen riding bikes on holgate. The point above about the sidewalks(or lack there of)is spot on for SE Portland and especially around this area. The bike lane ia major joke to people in this are, except its not funny. Last, in this area their is a large population of elderely people who need sidewalks much, much more than bike lanes. But of course that requires common sense planning from city hall. Last again, Joey should go talk to the businesses in the area to get a REAL opinion on the bike lanes.....

Having just gotten one of these notices for a bike street like Gladstone - I did call and found out that Transportation was sending out something like 1,600 mailers to folks on the street and in the area. So - they definitely give it a shot.

That said, I completely agree that the neighborhood meetings are a stacked deck - neighborhood association or otherwise.

It's always confused me about Portland the "process" town. I think all "process" does is put on a stage show where the outcome can be preordained. I can think of a few times where "process" surprised me - but not many.

The only way to change the outcome is through elections. And if you want a more open government, it's election day by the way, folks need to vote for someone else for Commissioners or Mayors or Metro Council Presidents or Multnomah County Commissioners.

Jack's been good about looking critically at people in government. Portlanders haven't done too well trying to change the game. Because it's totally a game.

Think of the PPB's budget. If Sam could find money to save the horse patrol and all the cops after he fired Rosie - why couldn't he find it before. And by having to find the money - isn't he validating what Chief Sizer was saying?

Some simple math - if you reduce the car lanes from 2 to one in each direction, than there should be a corresponding reduction in cars on the road, and increase in bikes. If there were 16-17 K cars per period during which the count occured, shouldn't we expect either 8 K bikes, or even 16 thousand bikes if we cut the car trips in half. But, looks like the fraction of a percent as reported above. If the number of cars on the road are about the same, only now in just one lane, I would expect the congestion to be significantly worse.

So, where are those thousand of bicycles coming from? Probably from the same place as the million people moving to the PDX metro area.

The old adage "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." comes to mind. He is the Bicycle Coordinator. His job depends on creating more and more lanes whether anyone uses them or not. He could not care less about number of riders.

Great - One day we'll be as smart as Mr Geller and pretty soon everyone will use these lanes. Too bad we're all too stupid to see his genius.

This guy is like your typical CoP customer service person, so I think they put something in their water down there.

I spent a year attending my neighborhood association's meetings. I will attest that they are generally extremely poorly attended and that the people who do attend have some pet projects in mind. And many are also easily swayed by whatever b.s. the bureaucrats are dishing. And the local neighborhood cop who was sometimes at the meetings was more red necked that a lot of rural cops I have known.

Bronch, your claim "In fact, bikes reduce congestion"..."That's a fact" is totally erroneous. There isn't one traffic study developed here in Portland that supports this. Sam and his bicycle lobbyist are good at proclaiming these kinds of edicts, like "bike ridership is..." without any viable data.

Concerning congestion, any common sense person and actual driver, like I am of the downtown area, would refute your edict by citing the "bike only lanes" on SW Salmon which reduced the vehicle lane to one. I frequent this street often and especially for two to four hours a day in rush hours times, the one lane with double parking, vendor delivery, much increased traffic, limited right or left handed turns because of the bike lane, generates congestion caused by the bike lane.

I use to be able to get around the blocks near Jakes, Pittock Block, etc. in much less time than now. Sometimes two to three light sequences are required to make a turn or even to go straight.

I also travel SW Broadway from downtown south past PSU. The reduction of three lanes and two lanes of parking each side to two lanes, one parking, and one bike route has totally caused congestion. When a car parallel parks there's hold up in the blockrd lane because the remaining lane many times is inundated with the 21,000 trips on Broadway. If a car double parks to let out a student or deliver some goods the congestion also multiplies.

It is really simple traffic planning knowledge as lanes are reduced capacity is reduced in many circumstances during a 24 hr. cycle.

Look it up. PDOT knows it but they keep preaching that bikes reduce congestion without any Portland studies. As the O likes to write, you're "mostly false".

Um, Lee, you mean SW Stark and SW Oak - not Salmon.

In the words of Kevin Costner in the Classic Baseball film "Field of Dreams". " Build it and they will come ! " This quote can be applied to the bike lane fiasco currently in our midst. Leave it to Mayor McCreepy to drive out LOCAL SMALL BUSINESSES IN FAVOR OF UNUSED BIKE PATHS. When will the ELECTORATE IN PORTLAND wake up and see how MUCH DAMAGE THE MAYOR IS DOING TO OUR LOCAL ECONOMIC WELL BEING BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !! LET EVERYONE BE FOREWARNED !! 10 years from now I will tell everyone I told you so !!

The city actually needs more bike lanes. The way the job market is in Portland no one will be able to afford a car. Success!

Try bringing home those groceries on a bike in the rain.

BTW how much money does the BTA get from the government, local or otherwise?

M.W.; former member of a neighbor association which was a waste of time

Boats, thanks for the correction, I was typing fast.

Garage Wine,

Yeah, I noticed the homeless man with the baby rider converted into a can carrier.

Maybe the City of Portland should at least make the weak argument,"bicycle lanes going into East County accommodate eastward homeless migration, which allows public safety to focus on keeping you and your family safe while enjoying beautiful downtown Portland. Go by streetcar, but don't let your child sit next to the passed out homeless addict who has been on the streetcar pro bono for three hours!"

That would be a refreshing start apart from all this high minded, cars are the devil killing mother earth type vibes and arguments I hear from bicyclists.

"MachineShedFred

No one commutes on Gladstone now! The point of turning it into a bike thoroughfare was to provide a safe alternative to the two parallel auto thoroughfares on Holgate and Powell.

If you have been driving down Gladstone to get to work, you must not be familiar with Google Maps. Or common sense."

All the cars I see going by my house every weekday during rush hour, bypassing the gridlock on Powell, disagree with you.

I *live* on SE Gladstone. Don't tell me what I see with my own eyes doesn't exist. You can follow cars all the way up Gladstone from 26th to 52nd, that then turn on 52nd to go to Holgate or Foster. Every. Damn. Day.

This traffic doesn't exist on the weekends. There's a reason the bumps were installed, and it wasn't because the City had money flying out of all their proverbial orifices.

Evan Manvel,

So according none of the partiulars like cost and use matter.

All one need do to defend the ridiculouos cost and lack of use is say it provides options.

Translation:
Radicals simply don't care what it costs or does.

More at any and all costs.

Multnomah County is also trying to get into the act. I recently attended a neighborhood informational meeting for a proposed multi-million-dollar project that would build bike lanes on upper Scholls Ferry Road from Hamilton St. to Sylvan – a section of road with such a steep grade that only the hardest of hard-core rider would attempt it. What a wasteful joke.

The only cyclists I saw in the TV video were hauling the cans they collect to redeem them for $$. No helmets, no lycra, no creative class, just good old fashioned outer SE poverty etc..

I am SO tired of the taliban bikers!
SW Broadway is a mess now too.
Some of us are too old an infirm to EVER ride a bike again.
I suppose the taliban bikers will just burn us at the stake of various intersections for not riding a bike. We are old and useless anyway.

Posted by MachineShedFred | May 19, 2010 7:56 AM

Um, so you're glad they're making you go out of the way to get to your house but disrupting the traffic that is driving by your house to get to Holgate or Powell? But you sound mad.

Granted doing all this for bikes is a bit nutty but if it moves the traffic off your street - why care?

I do wonder, though, big picture if we're closing off streets here and there - what the impact will be eventually. It's kind of like the "pinch the parking" strategy downtown that hasn't resulted in a vast increase of transit use or alternative transportation - just ended up lining Goodman's pockets - oh and doesn't the City own some garages....

Evan Manvel (former leader ofthe Bicycle Transportation Alliance) writes:

Imagine this story of a video showing a sidewalk with curbcuts for wheelchairs, and no one ever coming in a wheelchair. Does that mean we shouldn't build curb cuts for wheelchairs?

Wheelchairs aren't a form of voluntary transportation, and bicycle lanes are not for the disabled.

150,000 Portlanders cannot drive.

Nice try. Including children, the elderly and the disabled in that figure, are we? And how many of those 150,000 actually *could* drive if they chose?

They - and we all - deserve options.

We don't "deserve" anything. And it's a specious argument to say that bike lanes *must* exist for some vague notion of "transportation mode equity". It's a made up notion. If it made sense, then motorcyclists "deserve" a lane of their own, motorized wheelchairs "deserve" a lane of their own, electric scooters "deserve" a lane of their own, semi trucks "deserve" a lane of their own, skateboards and push scooters deserve a lane of their own...and so on.

You see, this abstract notion of "modes of transportation", when carried further, makes bicycle advocates uncomfortable. *They* want to defne what "modes" mean, and they want it to mean "cars" and "bicycles". Period. All things with motors over there, all things without here. When you try and talk of what additonal modes of transport might "deserve", they sputter.

People deserve options. Once we actually have a complete, connected network of facilities I'm happy to hear judgments.

And once you explain why (with a reason other than the vaugue "we deserve options!") bicycles deserve a special place in the hierarchy of road transport, I'll be happy to hear *your* judgment of what's right and wrong, and who deserves what.

That one small piece is underused - when getting to and from that piece is dangerous and inconvenient - is not evidence. It's trying to create conflict between us when we bike or drive.

Wrong. In fact, the story pointed out additional bike lanes that have been in place for several years--and are still rarely used. What's your judgment of those?

I'm so tired of hearing the myopic vision of bicycle advocates like Manvel being spouted as if God somehow approved and adopted the "Plan". Bicycles are *just a way to get around*--one amongst many. Bicycles have environmental impact from their manufacture and use, just like any other machine. Bicycles depend on those same roads, and paving, and infrastructure maintanence that cars do. In other words, bicycles rely on auto infrastructure.