So bike are taking money away from cars, but if you spin the numbers enough you can make it sound like the exact opposite.

Also, why don't cyclists stop at red lights or stop signs?
Dear Graham,

Maybe you should ask if cars are actually stopping at stop signs or do they roll through them?

What I see all day long on my bike is car drivers rarely ever actually stop at the signs if crossing is clear or then can just gun it. They usually roll through the sign, then go.

Cars are 2000-6000lb gas powered machines while bikes are 30 lb human powered machines. Pedestrians can be see not following traffic laws regularly. Point is there is a big difference between car and a bike. Point is as a car driver you have much more responsibility to follow traffic law and not try to point blame at a few bicyclists.

PS: I love stopping at all the stop signs along my quiet route to work so cars behind me trying to zip through neighborhood streets have to come to a complete stop.

So where is the remaining 20.21% of the GTR budget being spent? Administration, marketing, hookers and blow? The 09-10 GTR budget only has 13.62% of its budget unaccounted for, what gives?

God kills a kitten every time a cyclist's feet touch the pavement.

What is 'Bikeway Network Completion' and how come it only costs $50,000?

seems fishy to me
So over a third of the "bike projects" money is going to a pedestrian bridge???
@brian: Just because you claim that some drivers are scofflaws does not excuse cyclists from being held to the same legal standard as everyone else.

Bikes are receiving 17.42% of the budget, yet only represent 14% of trips (according to the 2010 bicycle count report…). This obviously shows that bikes are getting more money than they should. An extra $542,148 to be exact. I say we cancel the "Terwilliger-PSU Access" and "Cycle Track Development" projects to get the budget allocation more in line with actual usage rates.


You must be new here. Just take anything that Graham or DamosA writes and ignore it. Responding to either of these puds will only result in being called an idiot or a racist, respectively. That's it, welcome to Blogtown!
The funny thing is, I've been riding my bike all over the city for the last 18 years without problem - or need for more monies spent.
To include bike boxes, lanes, or the latest crap on Belmont.
Hey Graham, bikes are getting 17.42% of the DISCRETIONARY budget. There's a whole pile of COMMITTED money (i.e. Federal) money that goes for cars. Cars still get way more. Get a life, bike, whatever will keep you busy and keep you away from making uneducated comments.
Smirk's article offers some substantial clarification to the O's slanted approach. Another article here: offers another couple points for clarification.

Sadly, in the comments for this blog entry, we've reverted to the never-ending car vs. bike scream and slap fight. Kind of like drunken trannies beating at each other with their wigs and purses.

The truth is that we're getting an increase in funding for our GTR and that's good news all around. In addition to that good news, bikes are getting more money than last year. Finally, I think it's fun to see the [B]Oregonian get its balls whacked for so obviously allowing itself to be influenced by its special interests and corporate masters.

The apportioning of more money for bikes and bike projects is consistent with Portland's Green initiatives that were made a commitment several years ago. I'm not a journalist, so I do feel like searching out attribution for this, but the notion's been common knowledge for some time.

Queue Haters response in 3.... 2.... 1....
Get your bike off my lawn!
Dictador Graham? Where is in that budget a parsel of money to fix the environment your shitty cars are fucking up?

Shouldn`t I be saying: Stupid Car drivers, don´t fire up your engines?

Your roads are belong to me. I repeat. Your roads are belong to me.
"In 2009-2010, Portland allocated $58,852 from its General Transportation Revenue (GTR) to bike projects and $4,480,6888 to car projects. "

What is that second number, fourfteen zillion dollars?
MKU - you don't see any pandering to special interests from the Merc?
@MKUP: It's tough to get away from a "cars VS bikes" mentality when the headline is inflammatory and about "bikes VS cars". It's not our fault; obvoiusly we can blame the pedestrians for this.

@Blabby: I'm sure there's some way you can blame the urban planning community this. You just need to try harder.

@Leaky: My car isn't shitty. It's made of baby pandas, unicorn tears and logcabin republicans.

@Paul Cone: Show me the numbers. I backed my claims up with proof, I can only expect the same of you.
There you Graham, pay up your debt to the environment.
Nice work, Mirk. Any transportation mode that has been underfunded for decades would necessary need a huge uptick in spending in the short term just to catch up.

Though, the City's labeling of the Ped Bridge as bike funding was probably just a way to make it look like they're doing more for bikes than they are. Really, it's a motor vehicle project. Without a network of highways slicing up Southwest Portland, nobody would need it.
I wanna run down Leaky in a Prius.
...on Clinton.
@frankieb: The "special interests" you refer to in the case of the Mercury is ordinarily referred to as a "Demographic."

To be clear, I will lay it out for you with a couple definitions:
Noun: A particular sector of a population: e.g. misfits, drunks, geeks, porn enthusiasts and TV fanatics

*spe·cial in·ter·est
Noun: A group of people or an organization seeking or receiving special advantages, typically through political lobbying and media through control of advertising revenue

@Graham: The headline is designed to grab your attention which is typically followed by something called and "article" in which the facts are laid out and reported on.

Going bike vs cars detracts from the basic thrust of the article and comes off as a reason for you to complain about something else.
"Nice work, Mirk. Any transportation mode that has been underfunded for decades would necessary need a huge uptick in spending in the short term just to catch up."

You mean something like, lets say, a 20 million dollar windfall of sewage cash? That kind of uptick?

Seriously though. The article said that 20% less of each transportation dollar will go to roads and ~14% more will go to bikes. That is true. N matter what Amy Ruiz's good friend at the Mercury tells ya. :).

In addition this is another political fumble for Adams when it comes to the biking community. Sure he has raised funding but he has also enraged taxpayers towards biking improvements(which I didn't even think was possible). The next mayoral candidate might well run on a campaign of cutting bike funding drastically and actually win. Long term Adams has hurt the cause of the biking community with his gaffes.
Oh, man! The clouds broke open and the sun is shining brightly in enlightenment upon me.
The question still stands.
Rose seems unable to differentiate between "amount" and "percentage." In rebutting this blog post he acknowledges that the overall funding as increased, then (pointing to a graphic that shows the percentage spent on motor vehicles, bikes and pedestrians) states "the amount of discretionary spending on motor vehicle projects has been slashed, cut, chiseled (whatever you want to call it) by 22 percent."

He just doubled down on that via twitter (!/pdxcommute/status/7…) calling the difference between amount and percentage "spin."
Considering inflations impact on funding of anything, as in schools, etc, isn't it possible to have both an increase in funding and yet essentially slash funding at the same time?
@adlangx - Read the story, discretionary spending is a small part of the overall transportation budget. Your statement that "20% less of each transportation dollar will go to roads" is false, you are not including the bulk of transportation spending.

The majority of people who are enraged by this are most likely the ones who already disliked Adams for one reason or another.
Graham, I didn't think it was necessary to make an explicit link between our urban planning cabal and overspending on bikes. It's kind of just a given.
@blabby: It is a given, but it warms the cockles of my heart to hear you rail against urban planning.
Frankieb, first get the Prius, then we can talk about "Road Games". You and me buddy, you and me.

That´s if I understood you well. If your a hot chick and want to give me Rides, that´s fine with me. On a Prius or on a Trans-Am.
Yeah Graham, you intellectualized that very well...
@adlangx Mirk was simply doing the kind of transparent homework the Oregonian failed to do. Sorry if raw numbers don't fall in line with your world view. Sounds stressful. And enraging Oregonlive's messageboard is not the same thing as "enraging taxpayers." Quite a few taxpayers bike. And since they bike on roads, the statement "20% less of each transportation dollar will go to roads and ~14% more will go to bikes."...doesn't make any sense.
@night moves Adams is touting the greater percentage of discretionary dollars going to bike improvements. That point is not debatable. I am fine with raw numbers. They still say the same thing, just not in summary form. Look, I'm not against some increase in funding for bike improvements. Given the neglect for roads in lower income areas, however, makes me question whether or not that is the best use of our dollars. Improving roads in lower income areas where home prices are falling helps out our most vulnerable home owners. Doing that instead of building a bike track is a better investment.
Too bad the oregonian couldn't be bothered to take 5 minutes to make a decent graph that actually shows where the money is going. Thanks for the data Sarah, I made this with it:

Feel free to repost that image.
What's with the whole strict proportionality argument regarding taxes anyway? That's never been guaranteed for any version of a tax or assessment or user fee or what have you. I may shit a lot less than some people (I suspect this is true) but I pay the same sewer rates. This whole argument rings false. It can be applied to any program our government pays for as well, why concentrate on bikes and bike infrastructure?
More funding for bike projects means more safety and accessibility for those experienced and novice bicycle commuters. I think its great the mayor is spending more money into bicycle project. It is not sustainable to keep funding car oriented projects if the city wants to approach to become more livable and less polluted. Come on people, try riding your bike to work, use the public transportation. I've lost 10lbs last year since I started biking and taking the max to work. Why suffer by driving to work, finding parking, getting stuck in traffic, paying high gas prices and insurance costs. It makes no sense when I can lose weight and read a book everyday with bicycle and the public transit.

BTW, I always stop at a red light and stop sign, even when there is no traffic. I don't trust any steel tank machine that goes over 15mph.

With more funding in bicycle projects, it will definitely convince those skeptics about bicycle safety and accessibility on the road. ahem ahem, my coworkers.
I am really, really confused. How does unpaved roads help people on bikes? Wouldn't they benefit even more than drivers in cars if all of our streets were paved (like most other major US cities?)? Or are we just assuming that people in the neighborhoods where the roads are un-improved don't ride bikes? Seems to me this is more a question of which parts of town this money is being used in. Bikes AND cars benefit from paved roads. I'm tired of the local media trying to make this seem like an us vs. them issue.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.