OREGON’S MOST INFLUENTIAL bicycle advocacy group has quit a
committee overseeing the design of a bike and pedestrian path for the
new $4.2 billion Columbia River Crossing (CRC) I-5 bridge, after an
intense meeting last week.
The Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) worked with the bridge’s
Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee for three years and voiced
fears last March that the planned under-bridge bike path will resemble
a “dank, dark cave” without major investment in security and
maintenance. BTA Advocate Manager Michelle Poyourow explains that her
group is frustrated that CRC staff has still not made a firm commitment
to maintenance and security standards for the bike path. The other 10
committee members voted in favor of the current path design last week,
without a strong security and maintenance contract attached.
“The BTA was explicitly clear six months ago, three months ago, one
month ago that we would not recommend anything without a firm
commitment to maintenance and security,” says Poyourow, who adds that
it was galling to have the CRC staff schedule only 15 minutes for
discussion on a topic her group views as a top priority. “What we
really need are results and what we’re getting is a deaf ear.”
Poyourow wants the CRC to remove the name of the BTA from its
website and list of partner agencies. The walk-off signals a serious
change for the BTA, which took some heat from members for the
perception that it had a wishy-washy stance on the project which they
expect to increase car traffic.
CRC staffer Peter Ovington says the process is going well and chalks
up much of Poyourow’s disappointment with the design to
miscommunication. “The majority of the group is comfortable with where
the project is going,” Ovington says.
Other participants on the committee seem to agree that BTA was
within its right to quit the group, but say that the public process on
the bridge has been productive.
“I’ve always felt like it’s a sincere development process,” says
Seanette Corkill, a Bike Gallery employee who also sits on the
committee and says the BTA will leave a void. “Their contribution has
always been tremendous. From an urban planning design standpoint, from
a policy standpoint, their contributions will be missed.”
“The BTA’s been burned before, so I’m glad they’re taking a hard
line,” says Walter Valenta, a committee member and North Portland
developer. “It was a very good and also intense meeting. The bridge has
got to have 20 more of these, we’ve got to get down to the brass
tacks.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t some of the funds going to this project coming from automobile registration fees and none coming from bicycle registration fees? Why should they pay attention to an organization who’s members aren’t directly funding this project and are interested in making this project even more expensive?
As a side note, and not specifically germane to this issue, I witnessed a bicyclist run a red light last week. And while this behavior certainly isn’t uncommon in Portland, the bicyclist in question ran the light while riding no-hands on a bike that had the little wagon attachment which was carrying a child (I verified this when I caught up to him and asked what the hell he was thinking and was promptly advised to go fuck myself). Granted, this was an isolated occurrence (I hope), but after witnessing this, I am further motivated to ignore the mutterings of a minority group (bicyclists) that has that guy as one of its members.
Feel free to attack me now….
On the flip side: what about the bag-o-douche in the SUV that honked his horn at me for legally riding my bicycle in the street?! Where do I go when the marked bike lane magically disappears for five blocks? Bicyclists are not a minority group — they’re just folks getting around without the use of a motor vehicle. Are pedestrians also a minority group?
This “registration fee” argument is getting old. Truth: the majority of cyclists here or anywhere in the US own a car and do pay registration fees. Also: we want to ENCOURAGE and even INCENTIVIZE people to read bikes because it reduces pollution, congestion, and wear/tear on our roads. In other words, even if you drive a car all the time, you should want to have tax dollars go to bike lanes and paths in order to have more people bike and less people drive.