Fact: Hundreds of people bike up that street everyday.
Fact: It is incredibly dangerous along that commercial stretch because of the parking situation. I bike up it 5 days a week rain or shine and have witnessed dozens of accidents. Not just from "doorings" but from motorists stepping into the bike lane or suddenly swerving into the bike lane to grab a spot. I know several people who have had serious injuries along that stretch.

This is what is happening and if anything it is going to get worse. The city needs to face reality and not stick their head in the sand because some people fear change. Change happens whether you like it or not.

The more the city delays the more likely a fatality happens along that stretch.

This city nor the cycling community actually cares about their safety. If they did, helmets would be required by law and cops would be pulling over and giving citations to every cyclist they see run a stop sign or red light. I have seen cops just drive on by and ignore that. They also need to start requiring bikes to be registered and insured. They cyclist must have to take a course and obtain a license to ride on the street.

Until this happens, I as a driver will not watch out for cyclist out of any concern for their safety. I will watch for them ONLY to protect myself and damage to my car.

Neither his city, nor automobile drivers, car about the people's safety. I have seen people in cars double park, not fully stop at stop sign or when turning on red, people talking on cell phones while driving, and generally disobeying the rules of the road. I know it is a small minority, but drivers should police themselves if police don't do it. Until EVERYONE obeys the rules of the road, we shouldn't build ANYTHING more, like roads, highways, and parking lots, as this only encourages the bad behavior of these scofflaws.

Until this happens, I am not going anywhere near these dangerous places people call roads, and if I do, I will only do so with a fully-armored tank-type vehicle with no windows because windows are dangerous. If I accidently crush an innocent pedestrian, tough. It is their fault for choosing to live in a world where people have such disregard for their own safety.

meanwhile, as the number of cyclists using this route continues to increase, the current underdesigned cycling facility will continue to be a safety hazard for cyclists. Thanks, PBOT!

"This city nor the cycling community actually cares about their safety. If they did, helmets would be required by law and cops would be pulling over and giving citations to every cyclist they see run a stop sign or red light. I have seen cops just drive on by and ignore that. They also need to start requiring bikes to be registered and insured. They cyclist must have to take a course and obtain a license to ride on the street.

Until this happens, I as a driver will not watch out for cyclist out of any concern for their safety. I will watch for them ONLY to protect myself and damage to my car."


What are you, the bike-nazi? You seem to be so obsessed with helmets 'n all. So were they.

Increased biking infrastructure and gentrification go hand in hand. Studies have shown that African Americans bike far, far less than their caucasian counterparts, so it makes perfect sense that leaders in the Black community would be against this. You could make a strong argument that the city's bike plan is an unintentionally racist.

I think it's extremely important to point out a few aspects that are clearly missing from this conversation.

1. The N Williams project is intended to adjust the street to meet its CURRENT usage needs. Not its projected needs, nor its imagined needs. The reality is that there are more people walking and biking along this street than it can currently accommodate in a safe and orderly fashion.
2. Any adjustment to the street will make it safer for everyone to use--those driving, walking and biking, regardless of ethnicity and income level. Currently, the dangers faced to all by the speed and frequency of auto travel on the street--where 30% of drivers go over the speed limit, and cars constantly leapfrog one another--is one of basic safety, not changing demographics.
3. Much of the current congestion on N Williams is from those seeking to bypass traffic on 5-North. If N Williams is changed to better reflect its status as a neighborhood collector (and not an arterial), all the WA-plated traffic backing up on it during rush hour will likely evaporate, and locally-based auto usage will not be impeded.
4. Contrary to popular belief, traveling by bicycle is not the domain of the latte-sipping elite. Statistics have shown that on average nearly 1/3rd of those who bike are in the lowest income quartile, whereas among the top 3 quartiles bike usage is evenly divided. (Hint as to why: what costs more, a car or a bike?)
5. Based on basic principles of urban planning, the placement of major arterials, highways and thoroughfares does more to divide, displace and alienate communities than any improvements in walking/biking infrastructure, which in almost all cases improves the quality of life and basic safety of ALL neighbors. (The historic inner N/NE African-American community in Portland is home to the monstrous 5 freeway, which literally cut the heart of the black community in half when it was situated there, Interstate, the current thoroughfare that is Williams, and the hotbed of speeding that is MLK.)
6. The African-American community is one disproportionately afflicted by diabetes and obesity-related illnesses and health complications. Therefore, they are among those who could benefit most from any improvement to active-transportation infrastructure that encourages further usage of the same. (Maybe this important truth is the key to overcoming the "us vs them" mentality at play on both sides of this issue. Perhaps through bike programs for youth, pastor encouragement of active forms of transportation among their congregation, etc., these two completely complementary camps may bridge their considerable divide.)
7. The process of gentrification currently undergoing in the neighborhood has more to do with past and present practices and policies--official and unofficial-- at City Hall and at the state government level (e.g., discriminatory lending practices, disinvestment, aggressive hospital campus growth--like Legacy Emanuel's and Kaiser's, both in the neighborhood--or the racism being rectified at FHC of Oregon: http://is.gd/xHPnnS ) than it does with small, cost-effective PBOT restructuring of neighborhood streets to, again, accommodate EXISTING usage levels.

"Increased biking infrastructure and gentrification go hand in hand. Studies have shown that African Americans bike far, far less than their caucasian counterparts, so it makes perfect sense that leaders in the Black community would be against this. You could make a strong argument that the city's bike plan is an unintentionally racist."

No, no. I don't buy that. There's nothing to back that up. And plenty of black people bike. More whites bike here, sure. But that MIGHT have something to do with the fact that there's alot more white people in this city. Growing up in GA, i saw alot of black people who rode bikes.

This isn't nearly the race issue some folks are trying to make it out to be.

@Damosa/Chuck..This is not an article about race, its about commuting. Besides only white people know how to ride a bike...AND BITCH ABOUT IT... I am cock sure that if we count every brown/black/yellow/purple bicycle rider in this town, both of them would say NOTHING.. know why? Because they are used to being pushed around and otherwise ignored... The rest of you are staggered by the audacity of 'other people' doing their shit...We dont care if you ride a bike git it? So put on a helmet get on a bus and take notes about how the people on the bus are not clean, talk about stupid shit, too loud. Insure it license it plate it = me giving a shit about what you "think".

Funny, I thought by the title "Gentrification Meets Transportation...." kinda meant it WAS about how race is changing the debate. silly me.
Gotta love it when the demands of the PBA are now being weighed with some degree of guilt.
Funny.

oops...BTA

"No, no. I don't buy that. There's nothing to back that up. And plenty of black people bike."

I'm not arguing that black people don't ride bikes in general, just in a much smaller numbers in Portland, definitely a small enough number that the city shouldn't install bike infrastructure in communities that, by and large, won't use it and rightfully don't want it. The vast majority of those who bike, especially those who commute via bike, is predominantly white:

http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/bi…

I'm sure your familiar with this article, as you commented on it, and denied it's findings then too. In fairness, that article isn't any kind of end all, be all.

If you want to get real anecdotal, check the photo with this story, free and clear of any minorities. 9 Caucasians, 0 racial minorities riding through a neighborhood that is 25 percent black.

@ Everyone who wants to involve race in this: please, please explain how this has anything to do with race. This is just about public safety, and accommodating transportation needs based on existing reality. The racial makeup of the commuters ought to have nothing to do with anything.

@ affected cyclists, I commute this way, and for those of you who tack east at some point north of Fremont, I strongly suggest doing what I do: turn right on Beech, (one block north of Fremont) then use Rodney to work around the stretch from Fremont to Skidmore*. I just take it all the way up to Going, since that's where I turn anyway. Super quiet, wide streets, a billion times safer.

I've said it before, but no part of my commute to or from downtown scares me as much as the stretch from Russell to Skidmore on N Williams. The fact that they keep adding bar after bar doesn't exactly raise my confidence level, either.

* I include the Shaver->Skidmore block because few drivers seem to understand that the bike lane isn't a right turn lane.

"The racial makeup of the commuters ought to have nothing to do with anything."

Tell that to the decreasing number if African Americans in that community. Taking away infrastructure that the black community typically uses (lanes for cars, parking spots) and replacing those with infrastructure that is used predominatley by whites (bike lanes) sure seems like a race issue to me.

It's also a class issue. It doesn't strike me as a coincidence that many of the bike infrastructure projects, the cycletrack in Cully being one that comes to mind, end up in lower income neighborhoods despite those neighborhoods wanting or utilizing that infrastructure.

@jake
And your complete commitment to in no way, shape or form contribute to the conversation constructively nor attempt to help foster better ties between Portlanders of all income levels and ethnicities is also duly noted... sir.

@Chuck
If current project proposals would neither a) take away existing parking spots nor b) reduce the ability for N Williams to accommodate the same amount of auto traffic... where's the argument?

"The city could remove one of those travel lanes or parking lanes to make more room for either a widened bike path or a concrete-separated path called a cycle track."

That sure sounds like there will be fewer parking spots.

"The original preferred option was a classic compromise: Changing a car lane into a widened bike lane, except in the busy commercial stretch between North Cook and North Skidmore."

That sure sounds like the street will accommodate less auto traffic.

@ Chuck, You're being dramatic - restriping a street to reflect changing usage patterns isn't a racial issue, and besides: all Portlanders of any race or class, and from any part of town, have a right to use that street for their transportation needs.

It's certainly a class issue, because that's what gentrification is, a class issue. The market for housing dictates gentrification, and it's just a sad fact that there is a never ending cycle of poorer people priced out of neighborhoods that become fashionable. I don't mean to be callous or unsympathetic, but that's just the way things are in a capitalist economy. No re-striping of a street is going to change that reality for anyone.

Maybe you're right Colin. All I know is that the minority community in that neighborhood DOES consider it a race issue. I'd take their word on it over yours or mine, in that neither of us are minorities and neither of us live in the neighborhood.

@Chuck

Of the options, one that had the most support at a previous SAC was a separated cycletrack. The cycletrack as proposed would involve removing a lane of auto traffic, but NOT the removal of any parking. Moreover, this very article--the one you are commenting on--even says, "There's also—officially—lots of extra parking, with 721 spots along a street [that] has an average daily need of only 287."

So, parking will NOT be affected if a cycletrack is implemented.

Secondly, auto accommodation & travel lanes are not proportionately linear (ie, just because one goes down does not mean the other will). As an engineer from PBOT made clear at the last N Williams SAC, changing the light at Williams/Shaver from fixed to actuated (that is, from timed to triggered) would allow it to accommodate the same number of cars with one fewer lane. It would simply disperse the traffic more evenly in that segment of the street.

So, traffic would NOT be affected if a cycletrack is implemented.

Unlike you and Colin, I actually live in this neighborhood--on Williams itself. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the actual statistics and specifics of the project before perpetuating misinformation and misconceptions of what this project would actually involve. All of this information is readily available online.

"cycletrack" is one dumb idea.

JoeC: That's a whole lot of logical gymnastics to support those claims.

"Average daily needs" when it comes to parking doesn't seem like a fair way to gauge whether this will disproportionately affect the needs of the minority inhabitants of the neighborhood who still use cars as their primary means of transportation. If 500 parking spots are used on Sunday morning for church services, but only 100 spaces are used on Monday morning, the "average daily need" for those two days would be 300 spaces. So you knock it down to 300 spaces, and give a big middle finger to the other 200 people who show up on Sunday trying to go to services? Peak usage, both for bike usage and parking usage, seems like a much better indicator.

And even if it did, removing spots is still removing spots, even if someone at PBOT says those spots aren't needed.

"PBOT made clear at the last N Williams SAC, changing the light at Williams/Shaver from fixed to actuated (that is, from timed to triggered) would allow it to accommodate the same number of cars with one fewer lane."

And another traffic engineer working for a city that doesn't push bike infrastructure as much as Portland would likely come to a different conclusion. I've sat through enough land use planning meetings to know planners and engineers, whether they work for the private or public sector, usually come to the same conclusion their bosses want them to. Check out any New Seasons parking lot in Portland for an example of that.

Look, I commute on Williams by bike three times a week (at least when the weather allows it) and while it would be nice not to worry as much about getting button hooked or doored, I'd rather defer the decision to those whose voices are currently and historically ignored in this city.

@ Chuck: I'm fine with giving the big middle finger to the extra 200 cars: carpool. Park another block or two away. Get the younger families to agree to park further so the older folks can park closer to the church.

Restriping Williams helps out everyone at peak hours all of the work week, while not doing so for the sake of two friggin' hours of church every Sunday inconveniences (and puts in real physical danger) everyone else for 5 times that amount of time.

"while it would be nice not to worry as much about getting button hooked or doored, I'd rather defer the decision to those whose voices are currently and historically ignored in this city. "

This seems like the triumph of feel-goodism over responsible planning and safety. I'm affected by this decision, and I have a right as a citizen to advocate good policy. I feel compelled to shut my mouth and allow a dangerous condition to continue exist merely because black people have gotten a historically beyond-raw deal.

* shouldn't feel compelled *

fuck.

"Park another block or two away. Get the younger families to agree to park further so the older folks can park closer to the church. "

That's the exact mentality that the minorities in this community have every right to be bothered by. Running them out of their community isn't enough. Lets make those in the black community who have the audacity to refuse to be replaced by condo blocks and boutiques change their routines in their neighborhoods so we white folk can ride our bikes in comfort. Accidents will still happen and the bike lobby will still continue to bitch, but hey, at least we'll be able to ride to Vendetta three abreast without having to worry about running into what little diversity is left on Williams.

@Chuck

"JoeC: That's a whole lot of logical gymnastics to support those claims. "

How's this:
1. 30% of drivers currently travel over the speed limit on N Williams (which poses a substantive danger to those walking along, parking on and otherwise using the street).
2. Bicycle traffic currently composes 35% of the traffic on the street, yet is allotted 15% of the street surface.

I walk up and down this street every day, 7 days a week, and can confirm from firsthand experience that the way it is currently structured is not safe for its users. Outside my front window, I see accidents waiting to happen (and at least two have in the last month, just at the closest intersection). Regardless of the fact that auto usage is down and alternative transportation up nationally and locally, a trend that is likely to continue in future, N Williams ought to be safer for all and better reflect its existing usage.

The way i see it, the only way this might possibly be a race issue at all is b/c black people ON AVERAGE tend to be alittle poorer than whites. And a [good] bike tends to be really expensive.

That said, i'm sure that many middle-class blacks/people of color rides bikes about as much as their white counter-parts. Thing is, many poor/working-class folks ride bikes too. It's just that it may tend to be more out of necessity than recreation or bike enthusiam.

My guess, at least.

@DamosA

I don't think economics alone can explain the lack of bike use. The average American works over 12 weeks every year just to pay for their car. A good commuter bike, especially used really isn't expensive and could pay for itself pretty quick.

I think you might find more of a cultural stigma attached to bike use, that it's just not seen as cool.

To help the community economically, more bike use can be a solution not the problem, but it would take leadership and education form the community not knee jerk reaction against change.

Why can't PBOT just send in a platoon of white, middle-aged BTA members to dismiss any neighborhood concerns as either ignorance or anger issues?

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but why in the heck isn't the city creating a SE Clinton'esque bike street a couple of blocks east of N Williams? Move a few stop signs to promote the flow, throw down a few painted bike symbols like on NE Going, and viola! No more congested bike route, no more "doorings", and the motorists get to keep both of their north bound lanes.

Looking forward to the Merc keeping on this story. Changing that traffic light timing seems like a no brainer, like now. Doing a count of Washington plates at rush hour would be a good bikeactivist project in the meantime. Nibbler makes a point (Going is in the other direction) Rodney and Mallory would make excellent bikeways but bicyclists like the flow of through streets.

Replace williams with lake oswego, and the we don't want whitey in our neighborhood with we don't want darkey in our neighborhood and would the city be cowtowing to these loons? I think not. The neighborhood may be changing but trying to stop a certain racial group from moving to a neighborhood by making it more dangerous for them to be there sounds closer to the klan than a friendly neighborhood association.