Portland Bicycle Plan 2010

Posted on February 4, 2010 by Dave Feucht

Portland City Council is voting today on whether or not to approve the Portland Bicycle Plan for 2010. This plan has been getting a lot of media attention in main media outlets for its “extreme” cost. The 20 year plan, which aims to increase ridership in Portland to 25% of all trips by bicycle in the year 2030, has an estimated price tag of around $600 million, for about 600 miles of bicycle boulevards, separated paths, and trails.

Here are a few reasons why I think it is imperative that this plan not only be voted in, but implemented.

We have too many cars already. People are afraid to travel on our roads outside of an automobile, and what this causes is extreme congestion. Particularly on our freeways and main arterial roads, there is just too much traffic for the roads to handle. Commute times increase, and in the case of inclement weather, like we had a few weeks ago, our transportation system comes to a grinding halt, and nobody gets anywhere. People abandon their cars on the roads because they cannot move them. When 80% or so of trips are by single-occupancy cars, we just don’t have the space to accommodate them, not to mention to accommodate the growth we expect in the next 20 years. We cannot afford to destroy our neighborhoods and communities in order to build roads which would accommodate that kind of traffic, it would simply be a disaster for the city.

40% of all trips in America are 2 miles or less. In Portland, that percentage is even higher. Even a person who is not accustomed to exercise can make a 1-2 mile trip by bicycle, even if there are hills involved. People simply do not feel safe doing so on our roads as they are. If we could get those 40% of trips by bicycle, imagine what that would do to the traffic congestion on our roads. The people who actually *need* to drive would be able to do so more conveniently, and those who don’t would save money, time, and stress.

$600 million for 600 miles of bikeways over 20 years is a cheap investment. Our 10 mile MAX (light rail) Green Line just cost around $500 million. A single interchange on the planned Columbia River Crossing freeway bridge was estimated at $1 billion. 1 single mile of urban freeway costs around $40-60 million dollars.

Sustainability – not only do the miles of bikeways cost next to nothing to build, compared with freeways and other road projects, but they will be considerably lower-maintenance. Simple physics – bicycles do exponentially less damage to the road than cars. A system in which trips by foot and by bicycle are evenly balanced with trips by car will save the city huge amounts of money repaving roads all the time, repainting lines, filling pot holes, etc. Our roads (which aren’t in great condition, I have to say) will stay in better condition longer.

We haven’t even gotten to the more aesthetic benefits yet, such as better community, better health, quieter neighborhoods, cleaner air… the list goes on and on. Where Portland has implemented bicycle boulevards so far by implementing traffic calming measures and redirecting traffic to other streets, property values have gone up, more people are seen out in the neighborhood, these areas become destinations, both for travel and leisure, because they are pleasant places to be.

So there is much of why I feel it is not only important, but imperative that Portland build a world-class bicycle network. Because it will better our city, at a very low cost to the city. It will raise people’s actual standard of living (which is how much they enjoy life, not how much money they have), and it will make Portland a destination for people all over the country who want something different than the freeway-centric America we have all come to know and dread. We already have a lot of people here who are experiencing life differently than much of the rest of the country, and a lot more who say they would love to do so if it were safer, objectively and subjectively. Let’s give them that chance.

There is a rally today at 1:30 at City Hall just prior to the city council vote, if anyone is interested in going and showing support for this plan. This could be a major turning point for the city. Here’s hoping!

Update – here is some coverage from BikePortland on the media spin that has been going on with the plan:

http://bikeportland.org/2010/02/03/my-opinion-on-the-oregonians-front-page-bike-plan-article/

http://bikeportland.org/2010/02/04/bike-plan-media-spin-round-up/

In motion
This entry was posted in portland and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Dottie

    "Extreme" cost. Eyeroll. The same way people gawk at how much we spend on a bike while driving a $30,000 SUV.

    Good luck to Portland!

  • PLA Anderson

    Great post! Thanks for the more detailed info and P.O.V.

  • imaginarybicycle

    You wrote: "If we could get those 40% of trips by bicycle, imagine what that would do to the traffic congestion on our roads. The people who actually *need* to drive would be able to do so more conveniently, and those who don't would save money, time, and stress."

    Yes, yes, yes. That's the one point I wish more drivers could see. It's not that cyclists are out to destroy access to the car – it's that the bike just works better in a lot of situations and makes the roads more pleasant for everyone.

    I really hope this goes through.

  • She Rides a Bike

    At least Portland is asking the question! I can't imagine having this question on the ballot in Arizona. Our priorities currently are allowing concealed and carry without a permit! I am so ready to relocate to Portland, where I have never felt more safer and accommodated as a bike commuter.

  • portlandize.com

    @imaginary bicycle: I think sometimes it's a bit misleading to label all of this as a "Bicycle Plan" – as it makes it sound like all the improvements are aimed at our current group of cyclists. In fact, the things built out in the Bicycle Plan will benefit the entire city in numerous ways, even for those who never touch a bicycle. As Mayor Adams said, I don't think we can afford *not* to build this out, because we simply don't have the means to support an increasing number of automobiles on our roads, an increasingly obese and sick population, and an increasingly unfriendly public space. We need this for the health of the city.

    @She Rides A Bike: do you have plans to re-locate to Portland? If you have any questions or need to know where to start looking for a place to live and work, feel free to shoot me an email, I can suggest a few things at least. You definitely won't have to deal with too many people trying to allow concealed weapons by law, either :)

  • miss sarah

    Oh man, this resonates with me big time. In our city (Edmonton, AB) taxpayers (the conservative ones) are freaking out over a $10 bike plan over 10 years. And this is after a $360 million overpass.

    And about the overpass. Citizens were adamant about having it because of safety reasons (um, ever heard of driving carefully?) and now that they see how expensive it is, NOW it's a waste of money. Oh jeez.

    My husband is a city councillor here in Edmonton. It can sometimes be a never ending uphill battle, but he/we figure even if the adults are never going to change the way they think about city building, at least we can work hard and advocate for things that we believe in for the next generation.

    Sounds cheesy, but at least all our kids are going to understand city building isn't just about paving more streets to nowhere and then subsequently living in pot hole purgatory.

  • portlandize.com

    @miss_sarah: There is a similar problem in Portland right now, and that is the Columbia River Crossing bridge, going from Portland, across the Columbia river north to Vancouver, Washington. The current bridge is the path that the Interstate 5 freeway follows, and people complained and complained about how much traffic there was and shipping companies complained and so a project got underway to build a new bridge.

    This was pushed really heavily by the governors of both Oregon and Washington as well as the state departments of transportation, and after a planning process that cost about as much as Portland's entire network of bikeways, what they came up with was a 12 lane bridge with no aesthetic engineering concerns, bike paths underneath the deck, and an estimated cost of $4 billion (which means it would probably cost significantly more). The proposed project would also funnel huge amounts of traffic into North Portland, freeway exits from the bridge would remove things like pharmacies from communities who are reliant upon them, and the whole process was just steamrolled through without independent analysis and against the objections of the local governments (Portland and Vancouver).

    Of course, once people saw both drawings of the proposed bridge and the price tag, they were much less happy about the project, and now we have suburban cities writing letters of objection because they don't want the traffic increase effecting them, and they don't want all the transportation dollars for the region being sucked up in this project.

    Of course, we don't have $4 billion locally to spend on this, so right now it's just kind of in a deadlock stage, and not much of anything is happening. We're hoping that, given the complete lack of consensus locally, the feds won't dish out money for it, and it will force an actually involved process to determine what could be the best option here (such as renovating the existing bridge, and building a small additional bridge strictly for freight traffic).

    It's good to know, in our city and yours, that there are people who view city planning in a holistic and healthy way, and that whether they are successful or not, they may actually cause people to think about whether the way things are done is the right way or not. That can only be a good thing for the future.

    I love that "pot hole purgatory" :) Great image :)