Why I Support Bike Sharing in Portland


A number of months ago I signed on to a letter in support of using several million dollars from the regional share of Federal flexible transportation dollars to help jump start a bike sharing system in Portland.

And although a number of friends and organizations that I’m normally allied with are questioning that priority, I’m still very much in favor.

It does pain me that the Barbur Streetscape proposal is currently below the cut line for Portland’s submission to this round of funding. I bike on Barbur regularly as part of my bike/transit commute to Wilsonville and am well aware of the deficiencies in the corridor. I’ve volunteered to be the Planning Commission’s point person for the Barbur Concept Plan because I know how important this is. But the sad reality is that there simply aren’t yet enough dollars to support all the good projects we have.

So why bike share? A long list of reasons:

  • In other cities, it has proven transformative. From Paris to London to Washington D.C. adoption is very strong and changes people’s travel patterns.
  • It improves safety – evidence is mounting that riding a bikeshare bike is safer than riding your own bike
  • It’s a balanced funding package. The proposed submission by City Council would include a package of projects in East Portland, safety improvements on Foster Rd. and a freight project in North Portland that fits into an overall transportation plan that makes neighborhood corridors safer. This does NOT overbalance toward the Central City.
  • The Central City needs it – it’s the “hole in the donut” in terms of bike usage. The surrounding neighborhoods have much higher bike mode share than downtown does.
  • It helps the Central City economy and transportation strategy. Over the next twenty years we hope to increase the number of trips in and into the Central City by 50% to maintain its role as the center of our region. That obviously can’t be done in automobiles, they simply wouldn’t fit. Cycling options are much less expensive than transit investments to move us toward this goal.
  • I strongly believe in making transportation options easy to use. My Transit Appliance project is all about making it easier to use transit. Bike sharing makes it easy to ride even if you didn’t bring a bike with you.
  • It leverages private dollars. The $2M requested would be matched by $2M in private funding.
  • It leverages our existing $250M investment in Streetcar (and much more in MAX). Once the Streetcar Loop is completed, we’ll have a carbon-free transit loop around the Central City, intersected on the points of the compass by MAX service. Bike sharing becomes the way to move between the stations on those networks easily in a carbon-free manner. With all those options, there’s very little reason to drive a car in the Central City.

I could go on, and I probably will at City Council tomorrow


34 responses to “Why I Support Bike Sharing in Portland”

  1. So many of the arguments that I’m seeing for Bike Share make arguments that, while true, do not address the concerns specifically related to using the Regional Flexible Funds to fund Bike Sharing.

    “In other cities, it has proven transformative. From Paris to London to Washington D.C. adoption is very strong and changes people’s travel patterns.” This may be true but is not a criteria for the Regional Flexible Funds.

    “It improves safety – evidence is mounting that riding a bikeshare bike is safer than riding your own bike.” This may be true, but the SW Barbur Streetscape project also improves safety in an area where were a pedestrian died less than a year ago. No one is dying because we don’t have bike sharing.

    ‘It’s a balanced funding package. The proposed submission by City Council would include a package of projects in East Portland, safety improvements on Foster Rd. and a freight project in North Portland that fits into an overall transportation plan that makes neighborhood corridors safer. This does NOT overbalance toward the Central City.” Every singe RFF project must address equity – the City doesn’t get to treat the proposal as a package and check that box.

    “The Central City needs it – it’s the “hole in the donut” in terms of bike usage. The surrounding neighborhoods have much higher bike mode share than downtown does.” SW Barbur also needs safety improvements, these needs have been community identified, and the plan has been sitting on the shelf for far too long.

    “It helps the Central City economy and transportation strategy. Over the next twenty years we hope to increase the number of trips in and into the Central City by 50% to maintain its role as the center of our region. That obviously can’t be done in automobiles, they simply wouldn’t fit. Cycling options are much less expensive than transit investments to move us toward this goal.” Increased mode use is one of the RFF criteria, but it is only a medium priority criteria. Serving underserved communities is a top priority, and the Bike Sharing Program has not yet developed an adequate analysis of how the program will promote equity.

    “I strongly believe in making transportation options easy to use. My Transit Appliance project is all about making it easier to use transit. Bike sharing makes it easy to ride even if you didn’t bring a bike with you.” And sidewalks and safety improvements make it easier and safer to walk along SW Barbur.

    “It leverages private dollars. The $2M requested would be matched by $2M in private funding.
    It leverages our existing $250M investment in Streetcar (and much more in MAX).” Leveraging other funds is a low priority for RFF, but this point has been raised again and again. Safety, access, and equity are the top RFF criteria, and SW Barbur does a better job of addressing those criteria than Bike Sharing does currently.

  2. I’m definitely behind this one, for many of the same reasons, primarily the fact that it will be a PPP.

    I rode the free bikes in Copenhagen. You put in a 10 kroner coin when you remove it from the rack, and you get your coin back when you return it. These bikes were okay, they weren’t in perfect working order, and I don’t think it would work here, as they would get abused. The best systems are the ones where you have to be registered, and you are on the hook if the bike is damaged or stolen. This will ensure that the program is not a drain on public funds.

  3. Heidi, I’m in no way disputing the merits or urgency of the Barbur project. I’d like to see it funded.

    But I also think the Bike Share proposal is a very critical project for our City.

  4. Why do bike/ped safety improvements have to come from special limited sources of funds? The reason for the dangers to pedestrians and cyclists on Barbur are not from bikes and pedestrians themselves but from automobiles and trucks. Therefore it is the responsibility of motor vehicle users to pay for safety improvements for innocent cyclists and pedestrians caught in the line of fire of reckless motorists.

    You could make Barbur real safe real fast real cheap by lowering the speed limit. Putting money into bike/ped improvements while keeping Barbur as is for motor vehicles will do little, improvements will be little more than a few HAWK signals at best, a couple more crosswalks, a few refuge islands and more signage. It will never be a walkable or bikeable street because of the very autocentric suburban form of the area which is so widespread in SW Portland.

    I certainly agree that Foster, Powell, Barbur, etc need better bike and ped improvements to get a minimal level of safety but the pedestrian and bike traffic IS downtown and urban parts of Portland. As far as I’m concerned this is the place where it should be focused as its where its used and the area is actually designed for human beings. So yes these outer arterials need improvements, but I disagree with people who think no more transportation money should be spent in the pre-war parts of Portland.

  5. I agree that bike sharing is a great idea. I hope to be able to use it. The part I don’t agree with it is to have the government fund part of it. With record deficits, massive budget cuts looming and the possible start of a another recession, I can’t believe that we are even considering having the government fund any of this. Why can’t we charge enough to cover expenses? I bet most people have the means to pay for this when they rent a bike. There is absolutely no need to subsidize this.

  6. Chris,

    “The Central City needs it – it’s the “hole in the donut” in terms of bike usage. The surrounding neighborhoods have much higher bike mode share than downtown does.”

    Can you show your work on this? Thousands of people cross the main downtown bridges both ways, I believe somewhere between 500-1000 people ride to/from PSU when school’s in session (it may be more, it’s been a while since I’ve seen the numbers), there are bike racks all over downtown and they’re frequently full. As someone who commuted downtown by bike I find it hard to believe that cyclists are under-represented there.

  7. Aside from the “we don’t have the money for this right now,” I can add that we tried this already. The “Yellow Bike Program,” as it was called, failed miserably.

  8. Chris:

    For the “hole in the donut” I would refer you to this chart: http://bikeportland.org/2008/12/09/city-auditors-survey-less-cars-more-bikes-and-safer-streets-11877 which shows lower use in downtown than in the inner neighborhoods of NE and SE.

    1) Below the graph you’ll see that NW is also included in the downtown numbers, you can’t draw any conclusions about downtown based on that study.

    2) It looks to me like it’s only counting where the trip originate. If people are bike commuting to or through downtown (which we know they are), would you still consider that a donut hole? Perhaps they’re not commuting by bike from downtown because they live within walking distance or they can hop on the MAX/Streetcar.

    As I said earlier, from what I’ve seen with my eyes and from bridge crossing data I find it hard to believe that there’s a biking problem downtown.

  9. It does pain me that the Sellwood Bridge was never even submitted to then fall below the cut line for Portland’s submission to any round of funding.

    Instead, these “Environmental Justice” and “Active Transportation” projects get funded.

    And Metro wonders why so few conservatives have any interest in joining their worsening charades.

    There’s never a full presentation of all the various appropriations to show how inappropriate it all is.
    Even in the face of a dire economy and urgent need to prioritize limited resources the reckless abandon advances more than ever.

  10. Steve,

    Many of the Portland area taxpayers, including myself, love to see our tax dollars going into Active Transportation projects. Two of the projects they submitted will improve my commute to work in East Portland. I would much rather see $4 million go into bike boulevards in East Portland than towards the Sellwood. What would that even cover? 2% of the project?

  11. Chris I: You do realize that the Sellwood project is in part an active transportation project, right? The present bridge has an incredibly narrow sidewalk and creates a significant barrier for bike traffic, which is a shame because it would otherwise be a nice loop for recreational riders and also is an important connection to the east side for people in that neck of the woods, and especially for LC students who generally live over in that area. The city and county recognize this fact and that’s why you have the wide sidewalks and bike lane in the current bridge proposal.

  12. I’m aware of that. I used to ride it quite frequently when I lived in John’s Landing and worked out in Clackamas. However, the problems with the Sellwood are more than just the sidewalk. Using active transportation funding on it would be a waste, as the whole thing is going to be rebuilt anyway.

  13. Chris I: I don’t really follow your logic. If the funding gets used to rebuild a more bike and ped friendly bridge, how is that a waste?

  14. All good points Chris..count me in and let’s give Amanda her marching papers.
    Gas tax funds should be used to pay to make roads safe for all users; that’s anything in the ROW. RFF funds are for things the gas tax cannot pay for…transit, trails, bikeshare. PERIOD.

  15. All good points Chris..count me in and let’s give Amanda her marching papers.

    So you don’t appreciate the hundreds of millions she saved on water purification? Do you want to also pay the 80 percent projected increase in water rates much of which will be due to the EPA’s imposition on us?

    Seems like we need watchdog on expenses. She is rather liberal on social policies, though.

  16. Nobody,

    I may be showing my ignorance as to the process here… but I assumed that the city, county, and state will be paying for the Sellwood bridge out of a different funding area. If we were to rebuild a bridge in the city, would they not put sidewalks and bike lanes on unless the City funds it through active transportation grants?

    I don’t know if you’ve seen the plans for the bridge, but they are a bit odd. 6ft bike lanes on the deck and 12ft sidewalks on each side. It almost seems like they want the design to allow another vehicle lane in the future, and push the bikes up onto the sidewalk. If we are building a new bridge, why not do a cycle track?

  17. Chris I:

    The put the six foot bike lanes in because they feel that some bike users will be using the bridge for commuting/transport, the sidewalk will be for recreational users. They’re basically trying to avoid the problem that we have on the Hawthorne Bridge.

    As far as funding pots, you’re probably right. I was responding to this comment: “I would much rather see $4 million go into bike boulevards in East Portland than towards the Sellwood,” which seemed to be disparaging the Sellwood Bridge project for no good reason.

  18. 2 questions: 1) will you have to sign up in advance like zipcar, or can any passerby with a credit card use one? 2) do you have to return it to the same kiosk or can you leave it at your destination if there’s a kiosk there?

  19. The City will now go out with an RFP to find an actual operator for the system, and it will be up to the candidate operators to propose the details of the system.

    But in the most successful systems you can get either annual memberships or shorter duration (e.g., tourist) memberships.

    It’s also pretty universal that you can return the bike at any station in the system. A big part of the labor costs of systems is ‘re-balancing’ moving bikes from popular destinations back out to other station so supply is maintained.

  20. Chris I,

    Obviously, “Many of the Portland area taxpayers
    love to see our tax dollars going into Active Transportation projects”.

    What is that supposed to mean?

    Many times more people in the region would like to see these regional flex funds go to the neglected infrastructute like the Sellwood bridge.

    But there again you miss another point.

    I was hardly adressing the mere $4 million.

    Not on dime of flex funds has been allocated to the Sellwood bridge. It’s been called the highest priority yet get’s no flex fund at all, any year?

    BUT $204 million in flex funds (year of expenditure) has been allocated to Milwaukie Light Rail.
    How does all of the Environmental Justice, Active Transportation and Milwaukie Light Rail beocme a higher priority than the Sellwood bridge?

    The same way the bridge was neglected for decades
    and how many other road and bridge infrastructure needs are now being neglected.

    When ODOT flex funds were recently allocated away from bike facilities and buses and to the Milwaukie Light Rail project it was more misplaced priorities.

    It goes on and on with many examples.
    And it’s getting worse.

    Just because some people like this trend doesn’t make it justified or responsible.

  21. A big part of the labor costs of systems is ‘re-balancing’ moving bikes from popular destinations back out to other station so supply is maintained.

    Maybe we can keep those costs down by freelancing it … “pay” people to ride bikes from station A to station B by offering them a set number of “reward points” for specific trips, that can be used for future use of the bike share or turned into gift cards for various local merchants or restaurants or online retailers. For riders, it’s a way to get a little exercise while earning distinctly sub-minimum wage points toward rewards.

    I imagine the trips would be offered through an iPhone app that is constantly updating to reflect the need to transfer bikes to where they’re expected to be needed.

    (How do you get back afterward? Well, maybe it’s on your way to somewhere else … and a lot of us have bus passes…)

  22. Steve S,

    If so many people in the region would prefer this money go elsewhere, then why don’t they elect leaders that do so? The mayor and the city council were elected through a democratic process. If you and your cohorts don’t like the way we do business in Portland, then make a change in the next election cycle. My bet is that you won’t be very successful. Or do you even live in Portland?

  23. Nice dodge Chris I.

    Was that supposed to be a response to anything?

    As you must know the entrenched establishment backed by multiple government agencies and the press et al, don’t run on their practices. If they did they would lose.

    That’s also why so many efforts are used to avoid public votes. In Lake Oswego, Clackamas County and Clark County etc.

    Many Portland practices devour or dominate the use of regional resources so that “living in Portland” is a juvenile mention on your part.

    And a way for you to avoid all of the substance in these issues.

  24. Nice dodge Chris I.

    Was that supposed to be a response to anything?

    As you must know the entrenched establishment backed by multiple government agencies and the press et al, don’t run on their practices. If they did they would lose.

    That’s also why so many efforts are used to avoid public votes. In Lake Oswego, Clackamas County and Clark County etc.

    Many Portland practices devour or dominate the use of regional resources so that “living in Portland” is a juvenile mention on your part.

    And a way for you to avoid all of the substance in these issues.

  25. Steve,

    Who is your beef with here? You have no place to criticize the decisions of the Portland City council, as you do not vote for them. It sounds like you have an issue with the way regional funds are assigned, and that’s fine. Completely irrelevant in this case, as these are all projects within Portland. Yes, the Sellwood bridge is also in Portland, and clearly, we don’t care about it. Perhaps you and your Clackamas County buddies can pony up the money if it’s such a big issue. We want our share of the regional funding for other things.

  26. Chris, please be careful when you sling around the word “we.” A lot of people in Portland do care about the Sellwood Bridge, including myself, and you do not speak for me.

  27. Sorry. I understand your position. By “we”, I mean the actions of our mayor and city council, who clearly have not made it a priority, considering the current conditions.

  28. I support bike sharing but feel that expanding infrastructure in the outer SE and SW is much more important. This also continues the pattern of disproportionate allocation of city funding for bike infrastructure.

Leave a Reply to nobody Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *