Unintended Side Effects

Casual fall cycling

As most people know, Portland has focused its efforts for accommodating bicycles on what we are now calling ‘neighborhood greenways’ – that is, neighborhood streets, through residential areas, which have lower automobile traffic.

This is in contrast to providing bicycle facilities on main commercial streets, and on thoroughfares that cut across neighborhoods or whole areas of the city, which the city has almost completely avoided, with a few painted-bike-lane exceptions on short stretches of a few streets (which then leave you hanging by disappearing suddenly).

a few bikes

In some ways, focusing on neighborhood streets works really well, as it has a fairly high benefit in terms of encouraging ridership for low cost (in many cases, almost nothing is done besides signage and maybe a few speed bumps or an occasional diverter to prevent auto traffic from turning onto a street at a particular intersection).

However, recently I’ve been thinking about some potential unintended side effects of essentially trying to funnel all bicycle traffic into residential areas.

First is that you’re diverting thousands of people away from commercial areas, where they would otherwise be riding right past rows of shops, bars, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. These people are moving relatively slowly, at a pace where they could see a shop or restaurant and spontaneously stop and go in. Instead, they have to know the place exists already, because they’re being routed around behind it to travel through the area, so unless they know it’s there already, they’ll never see it. Also, because there are no bicycle facilities on those main streets, people get annoyed if you decide to ride on them with a lot of traffic, because you ‘hold up’ forward progress. It’s not that you are forbidden from riding on these streets, but it can be extremely uncomfortable, and likelihood of harassment is exponentially higher than on other streets.

Second is that you’re funneling a lot of traffic into areas that people would like to be quiet and calm. Granted, bicycles make less of a safety and a livability impact than automobiles would, but still, having 5,000 bicycles per day going down the street in front of your house/apartment certainly changes the way the street operates, as opposed to having very little traffic at all. It’s occurred to me that this may really not be all that welcome in some places, and doing this might increase the likelihood of tensions between neighborhood residents trying to walk around their neighborhood or use the streets expecting them to be mostly empty (because most of the traffic is on the ‘main’ street a few blocks over), and people on bicycles trying to make their way through the neighborhood on their way to somewhere else.

Anyway, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to provide good bicycle routes through neighborhoods, but I think we really need to start providing better (or any) accommodations for bicycles on main streets as well, as by not doing so, I feel like we’re exacerbating a number of tensions between citizens using the roads for different purposes.

What do you all think about this? Do you see these dynamics playing out as you move around the city?

This entry was posted in portland and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/rabbitsblinkity Brian

    Really interesting post! I’ve definitely noticed this. It seems like the bicycle infrastructure is being designed with the assumption that only a few people will ever really use it. But what happens when the number of bicycles increases past a certain point? Just for example: I used to ride down east Everett almost every afternoon, and I swear I’d interrupt kids playing basketball on the street every single time. Eventually they gave it up; I guess the stream of bicycles finally got to them…

    Come to think of it, the multi-use paths (I’m looking at you,
    springwater!) are even worse – they’re sometimes promoted as a really good way to
    traverse certain parts of the city by bike, but so many people are using them
    now it just turns into a huge (and dangerous) snarl of pedestrians and bicycles and baby
    strollers.

    In my ideal cycling world, all major streets would have at least one bike lane, with multiple bike lanes on high-use roads. Neighborhood streets would be unmarked and available for quiet, slow rides (and children and people on skateboards or roller skates), not promoted as routes for bicycle commuters. But maybe that’s just me.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yeah, main streets like Division, Hawthorne, Belmont, Broadway, and preferably many of the East/West streets downtown would have at least parking-buffered lanes with no parking at intersections (to increase visibility), and at best would have real separated cycle paths. That also goes for cross-town routes like Sandy, Foster, 20th, SW->NE Broadway, etc. People should be welcome to ride through neighborhoods, but I’m not sure it’s the best idea to promote them as the main thoroughfare for people on bicycles.

    • crankypants

      It’s not good to discourage kids from playing in the street.

  • Kathy Downing

    I read this post and the comments with great interest because our city (of Syracuse, NY) person in charge of transportation including all things bicycle recently visited Portland and came back all excited about “neighborhood greenways.” I’ve always looked for my own “neighborhood greenways” when the main streets that I would prefer to ride on present untenable safety issues (most of them here). And, as a result, I know I sometimes bypass businesses that I would otherwise patronize. While we don’t generally (as in ever) have a lot of bicyclists streaming through neighborhood streets, I agree with the policy of providing bicycle infrastructure on major streets instead of encouraging bicycle commuters to use neighborhood greenways, at least when the numbers reach the point of being disruptive to the neighborhood. Because maybe someday we will number our bicycle commuters in the thousands.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      I think there’s a big draw to city planners, because, as I said, they don’t actually have to do much in order to plan out the ‘Neighborhood Greenways,’ and they can implement them without really stepping on anyone’s toes. However, there is only so much you can really do with them, and I think they make a better talking point than a complete bicycle transportation system.

  • Peter

    I don’t think these neighborhood greenways are the best solution for shopping for the reasons you said. But they’re great as a commuter route to work or school. Assuming they are done right. Do these routes have lights where they cross major streets?

    Are they really getting 5,000 bikes a day on a griven neighborhood greenway? That’s pretty amazing.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      They work for through routes up to a point. Part of the problem is just what you said – they often do not have lights at major crossings, and they also often make you weave back and forth, because the direct routes are taken up with fast-moving auto traffic and no bike facilities, so the ‘Neigborhood Greenway’ routes often involve many more turns than it would take on a direct route. BikePortland did a study on a route from the Cully Neighborhood (in NE Portland) to downtown, and following designated ‘bike routes,’ you would make over 100 turns. In a car, you could basically take NE Sandy (a busy 4-lane road with no bike facilities and 30-35mph speed limit) to Couch to Burnside and be in downtown. Another reason why I think there really need to be bicycle facilities on those main through streets.

      I’m pretty sure some parts of the Neighborhood Greenway routes do get close to 5,000 bicycles per day. For sure in the multiple thousands, based on past counts.

  • Dan V

    I stay off the Greenways for the most part for the reasons listed. They hop back and forth too much, they have stop signs every two blocks, and they are impossible to use if you have to cross a major artery street. I would love to have separated infrastructure on the major arteries, but it will take time to re-engineer the city, so until then we’ll just have to take the lane in large numbers for safety. AND, I completely agree with the point on not seeing all the cool shops if you are not on the “main drag”. I see so many great places when I’m riding along Killingsworth or Alberta in the wee hours.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yup, hopefully we’ll get there eventually, I think we really need to. Here’s hoping!

  • Windy

    Agreed that it needlessly diverts potential shoppers away from businesses. Another side effect (which you actually *did* briefly mention) is that when bicyclists DO try to ride on a non-bicycle street, they can get harassed by drivers. I’ve had MORE than one driver yell at me (as I *had* to leave a bike route to reach a desired destination), “Get of the road, use a bike street). Mostly irritating because I am a very contentious rider and always try to stay as far right as I am safely able in order to let cars pass (if I can). Sorry Mr./Ms. irritable driver, but not everywhere I need to go on bike is serviced by a bike designated street! Grrrrr.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yup, because of all the media attention around our “world-class bike network” I feel like people who are already inclined to not be happy about bicycles on the roads get even worse, expecting us to completely stay out of their way, because we have all this fantastic infrastructure provided for us. The truth is, there is hardly any, and most of it is incomplete, inconsistent, and not all that helpful. The other truth is, we’ve hardly spent any money on it, either. Well. One day.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=13302839 Malex Reed

    I agree about the unintended side effects and limitations of neighborhood greenways that everyone has noted. However, I think that they have been a very effective tool for getting the mode share/acceptance of cycling in Portland up to the point that it is now. Now those of us who bike and those who don’t bike much but accept cycling as a good thing for Portland need to stand up and demand real separated infrastructure on major streets. I don’t think that would have been successful when only 2% of Portlanders biked regularly. I hope it can be successful now/soon!

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      I hope that’s the case, and I hope we see much more motivation in the future to actually create GOOD bicycle facilities, not just something to shut people up. We shall see :)

  • decora

    i think you should have an elevated skyway that is only for bicycles, drops down every mile to street level. btw. your helmet article is one of the most arrogant, ignorant things i have ever read – do you have any idea how many kids are going to read that and ‘prove’ to themselves they dont need one either?

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Actually, that sounds pretty inconvenient. I’d far prefer bicycle accommodations on the ground. As for helmets, I’m for a thinking population free to choose a helmet if they wish, rather than a herd of sheep following orders. If you feel that strongly that YOU need a helmet, maybe you should be doing something to change that instead of yelling at me on my blog.

      • decora

        your article doesn’t properly cite the studies you are quoting, it ignores the advice of medical professionals, and it purports to be based on reason and rationality when reason and rationality traditionally involve exploring all sides of an issue and presenting opposing viewpoints with fairness and even handedness. lastly the things we write do have consequences and like i said, kids are going to read that and say ‘yeah i dont need a helmet, i dont care what the doctors say, or my parents say, this guy reasoned it out himself’.

        • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

          If you don’t care to go look at the information at the links I’ve provided in the article, I somehow doubt you’re going to go find a study and read it if I provide a footnote telling which study it was from. Either way, you shouldn’t believe me just because I put a footnote next to something, you should go look it up yourself – a point which I also made in the article.

          As I also said repeatedly in the article, I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, but simply presenting my own rationale for not wearing a helmet, as a point of reference when I get asked why.

          This post has nothing to do with helmets, and I’m not going to continue this comment thread here. You can write me if you really feel the need to chastise me further, but I make no guarantees whether I’ll answer or not.

  • Brandon

    This post really got me to thinking, and I’ve been tossing it around in my mind for some days…mostly while biking!

    I’m writing from Salem, so I “don’t have a dog in this fight,” in one sense…but we have some greenway equivalents in town here that do pose this same problem. My experience here is that the greenway concept has a particular value for cycling in a quiet, peaceful way. It may be an indirect route, but it has a tremendous advantage for those of us who greatly prefer quiet and peace in our biking. I like to see well-planned bike lanes on major streets, too, but the greenway/bike boulevard is my preferred option most of the time, simply because I detest loud and stressful traffic.

    Reading your post and the subsequent comments (except the helmet comment, which seemed rather peevish), I can see the problems with making greenways the primary option. They seem, though, to be a necessary step and stage, as well as an approach that will bring new cyclists into the mix. But, I’m not the primary shopper in my house, so it was a new and interesting point to consider.

    As always, thanks for the excellence of your writing, insights, and humane approach to the issues.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Brandon, thanks for the compliments, and I’m glad you enjoy the blog!

      This idea applies to every city and town, even if I’m specifically writing about Portland. Every place has the need to make people who choose to ride bicycles safe on their roads, and allow them access to the places they need to go.

      I agree that greenways or ‘bike boulevards’ are an important piece of a transportation system, but I feel like up to this point, Portland has invested essentially all their time, money, and reputation in them, and has deliberately avoided providing direct routes on through streets and access on commercial streets, and the very small bits they have done, as in the above example, often create a *worse* situation than if they had done nothing, because it sets up dangerous expectations as to how people will/should behave on the road.

      I think what really needs to happen on those direct cut-through streets and main commercial streets is well-designed separated infrastructure, so that it’s actually *comfortable* for people on bicycles to use those streets. In addition, this would buffer the sidewalks from fast-moving auto traffic, and would also create more spontaneous customers for businesses, as people riding bikes along are much more likely to notice something interesting and stop than someone driving 30mph (or faster) down the street.

      Then, when one wants to get off the direct route or commercial street, there is a network of calm neighborhood streets to ride along, where separated infrastructure is not necessarily needed.

      But it has to be clear and consistent. Currently, we’re woefully lacking in that regard.

  • KYouell

    Thanks to @Lizbon for tweeting this, I’d missed it. On the SE Sunday Parkways this year The Finchs and the Youells rode together. We decided to not go up Mt. Tabor and go get bubble tea instead. How did I know this place (Fat Straw) existed? Because Emily Finch *does* take the lane on Hawthorne and told me about it. I have the exact problem you talked about where places that I would frequent are invisible to me as I cruise down the Greenway that’s 1 block over. Granted that was Sunday Parkways and Hawthorne Street Fair day, but she’s on that huge rig with a huge boom box and we got nothing but hoots & hollers of encouragement.

    I think she may be our answer.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Well, certainly people do take the lane on some of the main streets and ride on them anyway, but I still don’t think the majority are going to without some changes. Let’s just say Emily is a special case in certain ways :)

      Still, the more people that ride on them, the better in some ways.

      Though I really think all the hype about our mostly non-existent infrastructure does make it harder in some ways, because people who don’t ride at all get the idea that A) we’re spending tons of money on bike infrastructure and B) it’s really high quality – so when they see us in front of them not using it, it makes it that much easier to get angry about it.

      In any case, it’s another of those tensions (like the one between people building apartments with no car parking, and a culture that assumes everyone *must* own a car) that the city isn’t doing a lot to address, I don’t think.

  • eriksandblom

    Good points. it applies to rails-to-trails too. The only advantage is the lack of car traffic. The disadvantage is that there are seldom any points of interest on the way, people want to use it for walking and street hockey, and it can be deserted at times which can scare off potential users.

    • http://pin-hole.tumblr.com Dave

      Yeah, the rails-to-trails paths make for good recreation or sometimes through-ways to cut across large areas, but they don’t really work for local transportation very well.