A 2,200-mile ride to check out Portland’s bike scene
Posted on July 19th, 2009 – 10:34 PMBy Roadguy
Here’s my weekly column from the newspaper:
TAKING MEASURE OF A BIKE JOURNEY
The country’s No. 2 biking city, Minneapolis, probably could learn a thing or two from the No. 1 city, Portland. And what better way to learn than by biking from here to Oregon?
Four Augsburg College students who set out from the Twin Cities on May 21 completed their trip after 32 days and 2,200 miles, but those are only two numbers by which to measure their journey. You could also count flat tires (at least five on one of the bikes), full breakfasts consumed (two per person per day), or ideas for improving biking in the Twin Cities (a lot).
While the Census Bureau deemed Minneapolis the city with the second-highest percentage of bicycle commuters, the Augsburg crew says Minneapolis’ biking culture and facilities are as much as a decade behind Portland’s.
• “Bike boxes,” which are painted near crosswalks and give bikes a high-visibility spot to wait for the light to change. Vehicles are required to stop a bit farther back and aren’t allowed to turn on red.
• Traffic signals that are just for bikes — they halt all other vehicles and allow only bicycles to go.
• Green lights that are timed so bikes can make them.
• Special road signs that tell, in miles and minutes, how far destinations are by bike.
Also, the map of Minneapolis bike lanes and paths is sparse compared to Portland’s, said Nate White, one of the four travelers. “Right away we got a feel of just how much easier it is to get anywhere on a bike,” he said.
He and the three others — Jake Quarstad, Tommy Schlaefer and Michael Wethington — met with congressional aides, design professionals, and city officials and whooped it up at the city’s Pedalpalooza festival. The folks in Portland encouraged the foursome to first get Minnesotans fired up about biking to create demand for things like more lanes, instead of just building bike infrastructure and hoping people use it.
Quarstad said they’re taking the advice to heart and planning a bicycle-themed river cleanup event for sometime in the next few months, and they’re hoping to open a cooperative bike shop in northeast Minneapolis.
ALONG THE WAY
The journey, which was funded by a $12,000 grant from Augsburg’s student government, was an educational experience all its own, especially considering that none of the four had ever biked farther than Duluth.
They camped in tents, had a one-day delay because of a June snowstorm, and zoomed down a mountain range at 40 miles per hour. They were blown away by the kindness of strangers, who gave them encouragement, food and places to stay, and the kindness of an aunt who gave them a lift through the straight-line winds of the Columbia River gorge. They marveled at the amount of roadkill on highway shoulders and were dismayed that the air in Yellowstone National Park tasted like car exhaust.
While they’re not entirely opposed to other forms of transportation — they took Amtrak back from Portland — Schlaefer and White said the trip confirmed their belief that they could get through life without a car. After you’ve biked across the Continental Divide, a hop to St. Paul to run errands is no big deal.
Would they do such a trip again? Absolutely — though Schlaefer said they’d probably go a bit later in the season, when the chance of snow is less.
For more about their trip, visit www.ped4progress.wordpress.com.
31 Responses to "A 2,200-mile ride to check out Portland’s bike scene"
“And what better way to learn than by biking from here to Oregon?”
If they think that the way to compare the differences in two cities is to bike on thousands of miles of rural roads on a camping trip, Augsburg should be embarrassed to be listed as educating them.
Sounds more like they wanted an adventure and found a way to get someone else to pay for it.
“the trip confirmed their belief that they could get through life without a car.”
More bad logic, one adventure proves a lifestyle. Let them move significantly off campus and try biking to school every day (maybe for some remedial logic courses) and add in some errands that non-students have that require carrying more than themselves, books, and laptop.
Much of their suggestion list will cost the vast majority of street users wasted fuel and aggravation in order to make life easier for a few people.
Do they understand why right turns on red are allowed or lights are timed for cars?
Fuhrmann, you’re still thinking with your fossil fuels. The idea is when it’s safer and more convenient to ride bikes (no right on red or lights timed for bikes), more people will take advantage of the opportunity. Classic conservative thinking on your part: “It’s always been done this way, so we can’t change it.” The “tyranny of the majority,” if you will.
I would love to ride my bike more often, but it is a white-knuckle ride of terror to go down University Avenue in the Midway. Maybe when the Central Corridor is completed, they can throw in a couple of bike lanes, too.
fuhrmann says:
“Let them move significantly off campus and try biking to school every day”
Part of deciding to live a “bike more, drive less” life is to choose to live near where you work, go to school, shop etc…. If most of the things you do are in a 10 mile radius, it’s pretty easy to get by on bike.
“Much of their suggestion list will cost the vast majority of street users wasted fuel and aggravation in order to make life easier for a few people.”
If I’m reading the post correctly, these changes have happened in Portland. If it’s working there; why not here? The point is that if biking is made easier, more people will do it. If more people bike, there will be fewer cars on the road, thus helping everyone.
“Much of their suggestion list will cost the vast majority of street users wasted fuel and aggravation in order to make life easier for a few people.”
It is more about safety than convenience. I suppose in some car-user’s minds, their convenience is more important than others’ safety, which is a sad commentary on the “me first” mindset that is so prevalent in our society.
The only thing they learned is bad economics. They spent $12,000 to take 30 days to go visit Portland. You could have bought 4 plane tickets and accomplished the same thing in just a few days for a fraction of that amount. This ended up being a net loss to society.
Then, what they learned would also impose additional costs on society. Lost time (and increased fuel) due to no rights on reds, special signals, and lights that are incorrectly timed for the vast majority of traffic will also impose net costs on society.
As regular readers know, I’m all for mixed uses - from light rail (which, as an aside I used Philly’s SEPTA this past weekend and give it my approval) to increased trails and bike lanes. That said, these must be done in balance with overall efficiency. For example, putting in the Midtown Greenway benefitted everyone (no cost to cars, more efficient for bikers). We should continue these types of projects (particularly with abandoned rail lines).
Implementing all of these changes just to appease a small group is an example of rent seeking at the cost of everyone else.
As an aside, “tyranny of the majority” is not the correct phrase. The phrase attempts to simply change the actual phrase - “tyranny of the minority” - to make it sound like an actual thing, but is simply complaining about majority rule.
“Tyranny of the minority” is when you have a small group who has some sort of veto power (i.e. say you require a 90% vote, but 11% hold out) and use it to prevent what is best for everyone. Having a majority of people disapprove of something because it will ultimately place a burden on them to help a small, but vocal few is hardy “tyranny” and makes a mockery of the true nature of the phrase.
bsimon - we sacrifice all sorts of safety features at the expense of convenience. Doubt me? Then why don’t we wear 5-point safety harnesses in cars like they do in race cars? Because we have sacrificed safety for our own convenience. We make similar decisions all of the time. That is hardly “a sad commentary on the ‘me first’ mindset … in our society.”
Prof S writes
“Then why don’t we wear 5-point safety harnesses in cars like they do in race cars? Because we have sacrificed safety for our own convenience.”
And that is the critical difference: if you sacrifice your own safety in the name of convenience, that is your choice to make. However, for you to sacrifice others’ safety for your convenience is selfish, at the very least. If the behavior amounts to reckless driving, it could rise to the level of criminal negligence. That’s why we have things like traffic controls and speed limits.
bsimon - that may be the case with that example, but there are plenty of other examples. You could limit speed on all roads to 5mph and save all pedestrians, but people are “selfish” and drive 30mph instead. So, by your reasoning, driving 30mph is an example of sacrificing safety for convenience.
You can play this game further and further out. For example, you could have donated the amount of money you spent on your bike to a charity that fights heart disease, walking everywhere instead. Therefore, the fact you have a bike is an exmaple of choosing convenience over others’ safety.
My point is - it’s not about safety at all cost. It’s about the optimal and most efficient amount of safety to buy.
“It’s about the optimal and most efficient amount of safety to buy.”
The idea the Prof is balance. Where I disagree with the Prof is that increasing bike lanes and bike facilities does not waste money on a tiny minority. It only ‘appears’ to be a minority to the average person.
As far as buying plane tickets, that’s a whole new debate–I’ll say that from personal experience, I prefer taking long distance bike trips to going by plane, if I can. I hear all the numbers that air travel is safer than a car or a bike, blah blah, but if I’m on two (or four wheels) the one in control is me–not so when I’m five miles up in a big metal tube that missed a couple safety inspections under budget constraints.
“My point is - it’s not about safety at all cost. It’s about the optimal and most efficient amount of safety to buy.”
I agree with that. The cost of the ‘bike boxes’ is minimal. The cost of ‘no right on red’ is minimal - we already do that at many intersections (perhaps too many; but that is not the discussion at hand). Regarding the timing of lights, I would not endorse it for all lights - but for certain high-bike traffic routes (which I assume would not be high car-traffic routes), what’s the harm?
The student’s goals seem quite ironic to me (except for the free money part of course). You ride across the vast open US to promote that other riders should stay in outlined “bike boxes” and have their own designated lanes, signals and signs. They’ve proven it’s possible to ride across the US without these things, so why does everyone else need them? Oh yeah, they don’t.
There’s a view that all of the special “bike facilities” being promoted are a facade; that the intent is to make the cyclist feel privileged, while at the same time show motorists that cyclists are being controlled by limiting where or when they can ride. So, what actually ends up happening is cyclists become constrained (can’t ride where there is no bike lane), and anti-cycling views reinforced (that cyclist shouldn’t be on MY road). In other words, a cyclist is doing something WRONG if they are not in the area deemed specifically for them.
I do think that it is necessary to provide some facilities for cyclists, even if just to acknowledge that this “culture” exists and does have rights. By far the best example I have seen is “sharrows”. Nice compromise in cost vs benefit, which others above have indicated is a very important factor. Sharrows can be utilized on virtually any road, and truly integrate cycling into the existing system simply by not separating and limiting access to the streets and roads we all have rights to be on.
fuhrmann, “a class in remedial logic”, lol. i agree with fuhrmann and prof on this one, i know many many people who would not bike to work if they could sleep doing it. also, a big difference between here and portland is WEATHER. i cannot get in the habit of something when weather interferes 70% of the time. also, it is not as easy as self-righteously telling people to live closer to work. when you have a partner, chances are that one of you will become employed further away from your shared home. do not waste more money on biking accommodations with our weather, spend the money on *convenient* mass transit.
wiz2jay,
How do bicycle lanes and bike boxes send a message that bikes do not belong on the road? Where do you find bicycle lanes and bike boxes if not in the road?
Bicycle facilities like bike lanes and bike boxes send an explicit message that bicycles do, in fact, belong on the road. There is nothing in MN state law that requires people on bicycles to stay in a designated bike lane.
Bluebird74,
It’s actually much easier to deal with bicycling in below freezing temperatures and snow than it is to deal with temps in the 40s with constant precipitation. Staying dry is the key in the winter and it’s easier to do in Minneapolis than it is in Portland, OR.
The money it takes to invest in striping bicycle lanes and bicycle boxes, for example, is very insignificant when compared to the ROI it gives us by decreasing auto use and maintenance costs for our roads by encouraging more trips to be made by bicycle.
We should be increasing our investment in bicycle facilities because they have been proven to have a very good return on that relatively small investment.
Matty,
It’s not necessarily my view - I’d like to have as many bike lanes as possible - but I think it makes sense.
It’s not that the lanes or boxes don’t belong or shouldn’t be there. It’s the idea that if there’s NOT a box or lane, then the bikes don’t have a right to be there.
A comparison is parkway vs trail. It seems the thing that irks drivers the most about bikes on the parkway is that there is trail right next to it. It’s the attitude that since there is a trail, bikes must be on it.
I understand this is not the law, but not everyone sees it this way.
Side note, but related to the post I guess (except for the getting paid part).
I’ll be starting my own 700 mile tour to Indiana on Aug 2nd. Any suggestions on what type of random data or transportation information I should collect for Roadguy?
The point of bike lanes, trails, bike boxes, etc. is to maximize the road efficiency and safety. I like roads with dedicated bike lanes because (a) that keeps bikes out of the main roadway, and (b) I have a much better sense of where the bike is actually going to go (versus guessing at whether they are going to move to the side or pull into the main part of the road, as I see on West River Road quite often).
But - the converse of that is that I get irked when people don’t use these facilities. It makes them a complete waste. Likewise, I don’t jog on the bike lane (even if it means I have to move around walkers) and will (depending on traffic) avoid rollerblading on them.
Wiz2jay - the thing that irks me is that the biker on the road has decided that I should be the one who is impeded, rather than that s/he being impeded by other bikes on the trail. At the same time, I’ve seen bikers buzz by walkers who are near bike lanes. In fact, I was once walking on a common trail and was nearly clipped by a biker swearing and intentionally coming close to hitting me - even though more than half of the trail was wide open. If a car pulled this with them, they’d be irate (and rightfully so).
IMO - bikers who ride on the street when there is an adjacent dedicated path or nearby parallel dedicated lane just becuase they think they can (although, they impede traffic, which is illegal) are self-centered, self-important jerks. They shouldn’t be surprised when people tell them as much.
“Likewise, I don’t jog on the bike lane (even if it means I have to move around walkers)”
But other people do jog in the bike lanes. That neither makes the walking/jogging path a ‘complete waste’ nor implicates all joggers as insufferable, narcissitic jerks.
Prof S,
So if I have to go from point A to point B, and there is a direct route but it has no bike lane, must I be inconvenienced (aka “impeded”) by having to ride an indirect route that does have a bike lane?
Do I deserve to impede you if it’s really far out of the way for me? How do I determine what is far enough out of my way to ensure I’m justifiably impeding you?
What if I do take the indirect route with the bike lane, but there’s glass in the lane and I have to go around it and you happen to be impeded? Gaah! I’ll just spend all day going nowhere to avoid impeding you on your road! Wouldn’t want to be a self-centered jerk!
This is my original point. By separating cyclists with boxes and lanes, which most agree is a good thing, it also rationalizes the attitude that bikes don’t belong where there are not these facilities.
Nice straw man argument, but that’s clearly not what I said. We’re talking about bike lanes that are within 10 feet of the road (in the case of W. River Road and other parkways) and just one block away (in the case of Washington Avenue and other city streets). So, stay to the actual case, not hypothetical worlds that don’t exist.
As for your example of glass: (1) how often does that really happen? The way you hear bikers talk, you’d think that it rains glass every few days, and (2) do you need to drive in the vehicle lane because there might be glass now and then in the bike lane?
Address the argument at hand: People who ride in the roadway instead of adjacent/parallel bike lanes should move into their dedicated spaces. As of now, you have just invented an argument I have not made (”bikes don’t belong where there are not these facilities.”).
Addressing Prof. S.’s argument at hand, I’ll simply say that I will gladly use an adjacent/parallel bike lane that meets my needs as a cyclist. The W. River Road bike path does not, and it has been mentioned several times in this forum as to why it does not. Unfortunately, he chooses to either not hear it, or remember it.
re: glass. Get on a bike and you’ll see how much glass is out on the roads. In many locations, there’s an amazing amount of glass that doesn’t make it from curbside recycling bins into the truck. Every week, or every other week.
1) In no way did I stray from the argument at hand, all I did was create a scenario in order for you to clarify exactly what is acceptable (to you) in terms of impeding your way.
2) Glass in the bike lane is certainly a common and reasonable hazard to “go around” as I stated, which is covered by state law. I encounter it daily. I believe you may be the “hypothetical” one here assumming that I would “drive in the vehicle lane” (drive?) to avoid glass “now and then,” a practice not covered by state law.
I’m not inventing arguments, my point has been the same all along. In fact, your comments provide a pristine example of what I am talking about.
If there is a bike lane a block away (which apparently is the answer to my question on distance), a cyclist should go out of THEIR way (for no other apparent reason other than to not impede Prof S) because THAT’S WHERE THEY BELONG, IN THE BIKE LANE.
In reality, where cyclists belong is:
1) Where the law allows.
2) Where the cyclist feels comfortable in terms of their ability.
3) The route that best suits the cyclist’s goal for travel. Direct route for quickest trip, scenic route, or yes, even 10 feet from a trail, in the road, pissing Prof S off.
Part of the deal is that motorists forget they have the advantage. Takes a second to wait to pass another slower moving vehicle–bike, another car, etc.
Sometimes I like to drive my car a little under the speed limit. It’s relaxing, and I can enjoy the ride, and if a kid runs into the street, I’m not gonna cream him.
Now, if the Prof S pulls up behind me, am I being a self-centered jerk? Am I impeding him? Should he tell me to take another road? Food for thought.
wiz2jay:
1.) You did stray from the argument at hand by creating a scenario where the path was not virtually identical to the one described.
2.) I walk home from work (through downtown) all the time. I jog along the river several times per week. I roller blade on various trails around the city. You know how much glass I see? Very, very little. I hear this glass B.S. all of the time. Yeah, occassionally there is some, but it is not as common as I hear bikers say. Besides - why is the middle of a lane designed for cars any less likely to have glass than the adjacent bike trail?
Besides, if you just came into the lane to avoid glass and then moved back over, you wouldn’t impede a vehicle and there would be no problem whatsoever.
3.) You perfectly illustrate my point of the hypocrisy. You will not go out of your way, so you make others go out of their way to go around you - then citing the fact that the “law allows” it (which is incorrect, since it impedes traffic).
The “law allows” me to drive 45 in the freeway. Maybe I “feel[] comfortable in terms of [my] ability” at that speed. And maybe that is the best route for me. But driving at 45 down a major interstate is a jerk-move because it slows the freeway down for everyone else, creates a safety hazard for me and others around me, and simply annoys the crap out of people.
There are a lot of things the “law allows,” but that doesn’t make it a courteous, safe, respectful move. The law allowing something is far different than someone belonging somewhere.
“Besides - why is the middle of a lane designed for cars any less likely to have glass than the adjacent bike trail?”
That is a good question, for which there is a good answer. Debris on the roadway tends to get moved to the sides by traffic. When there is gravel or broken glass in the roadway, the act of cars & trucks driving over the debris tends to move it, little by little. The debris that gets moved to another spot in the roadway keeps getting hit until it is moved out of the path of traffic. Therefore debris tends to accumulate next to the traffic lanes; when there’s a bike line that is where debris tends to accumulate.
Like you, I don’t see very much broken glass on the bike and walking paths. But I do see it quite frequently in bike lanes and at the edges of streets.
I don’t know what neighborhood you’re from, Prof S, but if 45 on the freeway or a bike on the parkway is as bad as it gets, you’ve got it easy!
True ‘jerk moves’ that I’ve seen include:
-Texting and reading the Wall St Journal while driving
-Driving way over the .08 limit the wrong way
-Speeding and weaving uncontrollably
-Using the horn to clear the way instead of as safety warning
-Stopping your car in the middle of the street to talk to a friend (or fellow gang member) in another car, and blocking traffic completely.
-Jumping out of your car with a big metal pipe to smack another car that you don’t like.
-Pretending to wait for someone to cross the street and then nailing the gas when they’re in front of you.
So, for me, waiting a second to pass someone is no big deal.
1) Please.
Your description:
“nearby parallel dedicated lane”
My description:
“an indirect route that does have a bike lane”
2) My “glass” comment was implying that you would be driving slightly behind where I was riding, and when I would go around the obviously-hard-to-see-when-you-are-only-focused-on-yourself glass, I would momentarily be impeding** your progress. This assumes you may have let off the accelerator or *gasp* brake to avoid me, which seems reasonable**.
3) You want to mandate where I ride so I do not impede you, where as I am not telling you where or how to do anything.
**I believe your comments are directed at the “shall not impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic.” phrase. See 169.222 Subd. 4 (3) (c):
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169.222
Impeding traffic certainly has some area of interpretation, which I will decline to argue with you about as our interpretations will most likely differ.
“Impeding traffic”
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=169.15
Courtesy seems to be a sticking point for you. You’ll be glad to know that I am courteous when riding and in fact, do everything I can to avoid cars, pedestrians, and any other type of traffic all together.
But I have to ask -
Which is more courteous, you telling me where to ride, or you being a courteous driver? (trick question)
1.) Those are completely different items, which proves my point.
2.) Nobody was arguing about the “glass” scenario. In that case, you’re out of the way. You don’t see me complain about bikes that move into the left turn lane either (which happens all the time near where I live). It makes sense for them to do so. But again, that’s not AT ALL what I was discussing above.
3.) I want to mandate that you follow the law and not impede. If you’ve ever driven down W. River Road, you’d know that bikes impede cars all of the time because they refuse to ride on the trail immediately adjacent to the road.
4.) Your last point again points out the hypocrisy. By riding down places such as W. River Road, the bikers are telling the driver where to go - namely, driver slower, drive in the other lane to get around this person. That often cannot be done quickly or easily, as there are cars coming the other way. In the case of Washington Avenue, you’re “mandating” that cars drive in either of the other lanes.
That’s exactly the point. You’re getting upset because I have the audacity to “mandate” that as a biker you bike in the bike lane, and then put forward an argument that rather than bike in the bike lane, you should bike in the drive lane and me, as a driver in the drive lane, should be mandated to drive in some other driver’s drive lane (when he isn’t using it) because you prefer biking in the drive lane instead of in the bike lane.
I have to ask - which is more courteous - you mandating that I drive out of the lane dedicated for me or me mandating that you bike in the lane dedicated for you.
1-4) Huh? You really don’t get it.
I’m simply saying that when dedicated bike lanes are advocated, it can create an impression that riding somewhere other than these lanes is somehow wrong or discourteous. Which, of course, is not true.
Restricted cab parking/waiting areas exist. Is this is only place a taxi can park?
There’s dedicated bus lanes, so why don’t you mandate that buses only drive in the bus lanes, no where else? You’ve never been impeded by a bus stopping every block and clogging a lane?
Each of these three restricted/dedicated lane examples seems to anger motorists because it provides a privilege to others that they are unable to take full advantage of.
The interesting part is, in the case of the cyclist it becomes twofold because there is still the aspect of an unattainable privilege, but also that the area for the bike lane was somehow confiscated from the motorist. This seems to make it personal, and creates the “you’ve got your special bike lane on another street, so go use it” attitude.
When the taxi example is considered, it essentially becomes a wash because the vehicles are equivalent (car vs car).
For the bus, it’s still frustrating but is just accepted. People realize that they can’t run the bus off the road and they can’t fight Metro Transit all by themselves. It’s much easier to pick on the little guy.
Bottom line, people get angry when they feel something inferior is given precedence. Which is why I’m not upset about a thing. Repose is something a life of cycling and virtue provides.
Wiz - we must be talking over one another. I don’t have any problems with bikes riding on roads when there isn’t a bike lane/trail at that point. A classic example would be areas in, say, South Minneapolis. There aren’t any lanes or trails there so it’s reasonable to expect people to ride on the roads. Same thing with a lot of suburbs or areas around the U of MN campus.
But - that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about when the two options are nearly identical. We’re talking about a lane immediately adjacent to the road or just a block away (that is still a city street). I’m saying that when you are presented with a reasonable option that doesn’t get in the way of others, it’s a pretty self-centered move to ignore that option and cause frustration for everyone else just because you refuse to give in a little.
There’s no reason why cyclists can’t use the bike trail on River Road (or similar parkways) and no reason why they can’t use the dedicated bike lanes on 2nd and 3rd streets (instead of down Washington Avenue, as I often see). Until I hear a compelling reason why those options are no good (other than “I like to go faster” - which is precisely the argument of cars), I’m not going to change my stance.
