Results 1 to 65 of 65
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,875

    Why not Kelly Butte? (Portland)

    I also posted this over on the NWTA web site.

    So, why not? Seems like a great starting place to prove ourselves to the city and the naysayers. It's underutilized with easy access to the max line and the I205 bike path. I would imagine there would be very little user conflict and it already has a couple miles of trail.

    Parks info

    Kelly Butte Natural Area

    Kelly Butte Natural Area

    A couple blogs that I found.

    Under the Sky


    Cyclotram
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why not Kelly Butte? (Portland)-kelly-butte-looking-north-east.jpg  

    Why not Kelly Butte? (Portland)-kelly-butte-looking-south-west.jpg  

    Last edited by OldHouseMan; 10-10-2010 at 12:52 PM.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  2. #2
    Phatt Tire Luva'
    Reputation: Qanuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    160
    I don't think I'm wrong in saying this, but maybe.... I do believe however that you are starting to get very close to "gangster-ville". Not to sure that the city would be willing to setup a remote and well covered area for such activities to regularly transpire. Having a few friends that are on patrol in that area - I can tell you they wouldn't be too inclined to patrolling the park. I for one - would not frequent this trail system. As it is - PB is becoming more and more of a shady hang-out for the like.
    Ciao,

    -A-


    “Beer, if drank in moderation, softens the temper, cheers the spirit and promotes health”

  3. #3
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,236
    Quote Originally Posted by Qanuk
    I don't think I'm wrong in saying this, but maybe.... I do believe however that you are starting to get very close to "gangster-ville". Not to sure that the city would be willing to setup a remote and well covered area for such activities to regularly transpire. Having a few friends that are on patrol in that area - I can tell you they wouldn't be too inclined to patrolling the park. I for one - would not frequent this trail system. As it is - PB is becoming more and more of a shady hang-out for the like.
    It has also been shown that increased public use can decrease "shady" use.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  4. #4
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,901

    Don't back down

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    It has also been shown that increased public use can decrease "shady" use.
    Exactly. When the public moves in, the lawbreakers move on.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  5. #5
    Phatt Tire Luva'
    Reputation: Qanuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    public use can decrease "shady" use.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    When the public moves in, the lawbreakers move on.
    My bad - that must be why the Tillamook Forest area has had so many problems lately, and why something as heavily populated as Mt. Tabor has had a huge influx in crime recently.
    Ciao,

    -A-


    “Beer, if drank in moderation, softens the temper, cheers the spirit and promotes health”

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,875
    Quote Originally Posted by Qanuk
    I don't think I'm wrong in saying this, but maybe.... I do believe however that you are starting to get very close to "gangster-ville". Not to sure that the city would be willing to setup a remote and well covered area for such activities to regularly transpire. Having a few friends that are on patrol in that area - I can tell you they wouldn't be too inclined to patrolling the park. I for one - would not frequent this trail system. As it is - PB is becoming more and more of a shady hang-out for the like.
    It's not close, it's dead center and it's another reason it's a perfect place, as Shiggy and Sparticus stated, they'll move on. The Colonnade bike park in Seattle is a perfect example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Qanuk
    My bad - that must be why the Tillamook Forest area has had so many problems lately, and why something as heavily populated as Mt. Tabor has had a huge influx in crime recently.
    This crime is due to people leaving valuables in their vehicles.

    And don't forget to add Forest Park to your list of high crime areas.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  7. #7
    Singletrack Addict
    Reputation: Snake Muesl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,162
    Looks good. Let's do the thing.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    I'd ride there.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,142
    I'm in.Will ride and work on it.
    Master of Laundry...Lord of Cleaning!

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Don't you know an area is magically transformed into pristine wilderness the minute someone wants to roll a bike tire over it?

    I do think the cycling community would support and contribute to building and maintaining trails there.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  11. #11
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Giggity
    Don't you know an area is magically transformed into pristine wilderness the minute someone wants to roll a bike tire over it?

    I do think the cycling community would support and contribute to building and maintaining trails there.
    Yeah, after giving it some thought, I believe you're right.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    630
    Interesting idea. So realistically what would need to happen to allow us to build trails there?

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by genemk
    Interesting idea. So realistically what would need to happen to allow us to build trails there?
    Form a "Friends of Kelly Butte" organization, then you can dictate every last detail of what goes on there.

  14. #14
    Too Much Fun
    Reputation: benja55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    2,266

    Caution;  Merge;  Workers Ahead! Don't say NO so quickly...

    Quote Originally Posted by Qanuk
    I don't think I'm wrong in saying this, but maybe.... I do believe however that you are starting to get very close to "gangster-ville".
    I think this is a *perfect* opportunity to show what the MTB riding community can do. There is a growing number of MTB parks in larger cities that are showing the way. Portland is most definitely behind the ball here. The Colonnade MTB skills park in Seattle is a good example of taking completely dead, sketchy urban space and making something useful and awesome out of it.

    Perhaps an even better example is the Highbridge MTB Park in NYC. That's in an area of NYC that was a total no-mans-land that you couldn't pay me to check out. Now there are kids riding on dirt there that would never have otherwise. Awesome!

    Boulder has the Valmont MTB Park.

    And there are more. This blog post from Scot Nicol (aka Chuck Ibis of Ibis Cycles) has a good roster of parks.

    I think Kelly Butte represents a big opportunity to flip the whole Forest Park debacle on it's head.
    - -benja- -

  15. #15
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,806

    I believe we (NWTA)....

    Quote Originally Posted by genemk
    Interesting idea. So realistically what would need to happen to allow us to build trails there?
    have talked about this area, but I do not remember the details. If you guys want to type something up, and would be willing to champion the effort, I'd be happy to present it to the rest of the Board of Directors. I'll do a little pre-check-in to see what I can find out. Thanks for the fact finding mission OHM.
    Cheers!
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,953
    I would be willing to ride and help build trails there as well

    A good alternative to PB, especially since it doesn't sound like any additional mtb trails are going to built there. I don't know much about KB, other than when I was a kid, we did a field trip there in the early 80's to an "underground" 911 call center, don't know if that is still there or not?

    Hikers have all of FP and Mt. Talbert (SE PDX) for exclusive use. With the horsies and limited bike use on Powell, why not Kelly Butte for designated bike trails?

    I'm in
    Ride On!

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bjsid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60
    i have not been to kelly butte, it looks like it has potential.

    the first thing that seems like a road block would be that it is Kelly Butte "Natural Area" in my experience Natural areas do not allow bikes. Metro has plans for Natural Areas and they do not include bikes.

    http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=26792

    It seems that this is still under PP&R management which would be the people we would need to approach on the subject. at one of the NWTA meetings, PP&R asked about locations such as this that bikes trails could be developed. sounds like some emails to Zari maybe in order.

  18. #18
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    bjsid's right, if fully in effect the Metro "Natural Areas" designation would likely put the kibosh on the whole thing. It would be almost as hard as getting trail access in Forest Park has been.

    But barring that, and assuming we can bend PP&R's ears, I am IN. I've had Kelly Butte in the back of my mind for YEARS as a place where it would be cool to ride if it weren't so sketchy. I'm the parent of a young child and have had limited time to help with trail projects the last few years, but if this goes forward I WILL make some time to help out. It'll be well worth it.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  19. #19
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    OK, just sent the following to PP&R. Please contact PP&R and send your own!
    Quote Originally Posted by Glowboy
    I'm writing to encourage PP&R to try to find and develop opportunities for mountain biking on actual trails. I'm greatly disappointed in the recent decision regarding Forest Park, as only a small amount of new trail (in an already "heavily impacted" area) was proposed, and only a few short sections of existing trail were proposed for trail sharing. Mountain biking is a clean, quiet, environmentally friendly activity; it is my belief that while portrayed by the opposition as environmental issues, recent controversies over expanded bicycle access are in fact merely user conflicts.

    Most metropolitan areas with decent natural values already have opportunities for residents to mountain bike without having to get in a polluting car and drive an hour out of town; Portland is fairly unique in NOT having such areas. This is one of the key reasons Minneapolis (which has 10-12 bike trail systems in its metro) was ranked ahead of Portland this year as "most bicycle-friendly city in America". It is also my understanding that the League of American Bicyclists may revoke Portland's status as a "Platinum" rated bike-friendly city over this issue.

    Given that Forest Park is off the table for several years, in the meantime I would strongly encourage PP&R to look elsewhere. In particular, I would encourage the Bureau to consider Kelly Butte. This park has long been neglected and could use some champions. I know plenty of fellow cyclists who would be thrilled to show up -- in solid numbers -- to help clean up the park, pull invasive weeds and build trails, if given the chance to prove that mountain biking is a responsible, sustainable activity.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,875
    Great letter Glowboy.

    Anybody up for a ride? It's been years since I've been to Kelly Butte.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  21. #21
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,806

    Update

    As you all have already guessed, Kelly Butte is not on the table at this time, as it is designated a natural area by the City, and we have been told that by Parks Planners. This info comes from Tom Archer, NWTA Prez. That being said, go for it with the letter writing and see what happens. And thanks again to all of you for joining in on the advocacy side of things. The more people step up and get involved, the more effective we will be.
    See you all at the rally!
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  22. #22
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    OK, just sent the following to PP&R. Please contact PP&R and send your own!
    Sounds partisan, intellectually lazy and angry.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by free-agent
    As you all have already guessed, Kelly Butte is not on the table at this time, as it is designated a natural area by the City, and we have been told that by Parks Planners. This info comes from Tom Archer, NWTA Prez. That being said, go for it with the letter writing and see what happens. And thanks again to all of you for joining in on the advocacy side of things. The more people step up and get involved, the more effective we will be.
    See you all at the rally!
    An urban wildlife corridor is such a friggin waste. Really, can anyone explain the benefit of that?
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: OldHouseMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,875
    Quote Originally Posted by free-agent
    As you all have already guessed, Kelly Butte is not on the table at this time, as it is designated a natural area by the City, and we have been told that by Parks Planners. This info comes from Tom Archer, NWTA Prez. That being said, go for it with the letter writing and see what happens. And thanks again to all of you for joining in on the advocacy side of things. The more people step up and get involved, the more effective we will be.
    See you all at the rally!
    In the thread I started on the NWTA web site, Jordon mentioned the city putting in a water tank at Kelly Butte. I wonder how this fits in with the Natural Area status.

    Also, why is NWTA willing to fight the battle in Forest Park and not Kelly Butte? Seems like Kelly Butte has less hurdles to overcome.
    I only ride bikes to fill the time when I'm not skiing.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    451

    what about vancouver wa?

    It's really too bad there is no place to build a bike trail network in Portland.

    I have to admit, I have always sort of ignored The Couve. But I wonder if this city would be more receptive to mountain biking and the benefits of becoming known for good trails? Maybe the NW part of the NWTA could extend across the river, it's not just a Portland thing right?

    What if Vancouver WA was known as that cool MTB destination just outside of Portland where people would go to ride, hit the mtb-centric bike shops, in-town skills park and dirt jumps, post ride brew pubs, host the MTB movie premiers, etc, and the fixed gear people could keep Portland! And what if the next bike company that moves to Portland decided they'd actually rather be next to some good trails and sets up shop across the river?

    Is there really a future for dirt cycling in Portland? Let's be realistic about it. The only faint blip on the radar I can think of is Gateway Green, but that is far from a sure thing, and still a LONG ways away, and it's not some primo location anyways. Better than nothing I will admit, but it's definitely the crumbs that fell from the table that the rats didn't want to take.

    If you're considering driving to Kelly Butte from the west side, it's not any closer than Vancouver is, likely takes even take longer to get to east side Portland than the Couve.

    From North Portland (and NW too) I'd much rather jump on I-5 north than out to the felony flats.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    451
    Also think towards the future. Unless existing natural areas and city parks open up to mountain biking, there will never be a place to build bike trails in Portland. All existing space has been claimed. And there is certainly not going to be any new wooded areas in Portland popping up anytime soon.

    As the population grows, and the transportation system grows, Vancouver is going to be less and less distinguishable from any of the other Portland suburbs.

  27. #27
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,806

    Any ideas?

    Good points. I am not familiar at all with Vancouver. Does anyone have any suggestions for places to look at?
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  28. #28
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,806

    A few reasons come to mind

    1. The FP things has been happening for a long time, and we are not willing to give up all of the work that has been put into it.
    2. FP is not a "Natural area," and that *may* make the battle more difficult at Kelly Butte.
    3. FP has much more potential for trails, given the size. And the location is great for all of us, regardless of where we live in the city.

    Please continue to follow through with this. NWTA is willing to support great ideas, but the main players in the organization are stretched pretty thin right now. We need others to step up and take on leadership roles in projects like this. Please let me know if you have any questions. Maybe what we need are more people writing/calling PP and R, asking for more trails in various locations. We all know that we will all support anything we get. The more they have to answer us, and get annoyed by us, the more likely they may be to get off their butts and make it happen.
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  29. #29
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    If we can't make Kelly Butte work, that bodes poorly for the rest of the metro area. The problem is that ALL undeveloped areas acquired for open space anywhere in the Portland area in recent memory seem to be getting acquired by Metro, not local parks bureaus and districts, and from what I've seen Metro is managing all of its purchases as "Natural Areas" rather than as "Parks."

    If agencies like PP&R or the Tualatin Hills Parks & Rec District (THPRD) were funded enough to make their own acquisitions of large undeveloped areas, we might have a better shot at getting trails in one of them. I think they would be more supportive than Metro. But PP&R and THPRD seem more interested in transferring management of large undeveloped parcels to Metro.

    Which leads me to THIS! We have a election for Metro Commissioner coming up on November 2. You want to change how Metro behaves, and encourage them to manage at least some of their areas for recreational values? Here is your chance to make yourself heard. Metro is the most important decision-making body influencing how, and where, Portland grows and how (as a whole) we get around. Metro's core mission is to manage growth and encourage us to drive less. Encouraging recreation without having to leave town to do it certainly falls within that mission -- especially since they own the land that could make it doable. Within the next couple of days I will ask BOTH candidates (Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes) where they stand on this, and report back here. Chances are they haven't thought of it. I definitely have a strong preference in this election so far, but both candidates are decent guys and IMO neither would be a bad commissioner. This is an important enough issue to me that the answers might genuinely affect my vote.
    Last edited by GlowBoy; 10-12-2010 at 01:56 PM.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  30. #30
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    If we can't make Kelly Butte work, that bodes poorly for the rest of the metro area. The problem is that ALL undeveloped areas acquired for open space anywhere in the Portland area in recent memory seem to be getting acquired by Metro, not local parks bureaus and districts, and from what I've seen Metro is managing all of its purchases as "Natural Areas" rather than as "Parks."

    If agencies like PP&R or the Tualatin Hills Parks & Rec District (THPRD) were funded enough to make their own acquisitions of large undeveloped areas, we might have a better shot at getting trails in one of them. I think they would be more supportive than Metro. But PP&R and THPRD seem more interested in transferring management of large undeveloped parcels to Metro.

    Which leads me to THIS! We have a election for Metro Commissioner coming up on November 2. You want to change how Metro behaves, and encourage them to manage at least some of their areas for recreational values? Here is your chance to make yourself heard. Metro is the most important body that making decisions about how, and where, Portland grows and how we get around. Metro's core mission is to manage growth and encourage us to drive less Encouraging recreation without having to leave town to do certainly falls within that mission, especially since they own the land that could make it doable. I'd had my mind all made up in this race, but within the next couple of days I will ask BOTH candidates (Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes) where they stand on this, and report back here. Chances are they haven't thought of it.
    Amazing... sounds non-partisan, intellectually active... but still a little angry.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    If we can't make Kelly Butte work, that bodes poorly for the rest of the metro area. The problem is that ALL undeveloped areas acquired for open space anywhere in the Portland area in recent memory seem to be getting acquired by Metro, not local parks bureaus and districts, and from what I've seen Metro is managing all of its purchases as "Natural Areas" rather than as "Parks."

    If agencies like PP&R or the Tualatin Hills Parks & Rec District (THPRD) were funded enough to make their own acquisitions of large undeveloped areas, we might have a better shot at getting trails in one of them. I think they would be more supportive than Metro. But PP&R and THPRD seem more interested in transferring management of large undeveloped parcels to Metro.

    Which leads me to THIS! We have a election for Metro Commissioner coming up on November 2. You want to change how Metro behaves, and encourage them to manage at least some of their areas for recreational values? Here is your chance to make yourself heard. Metro is the most important body that making decisions about how, and where, Portland grows and how we get around. Metro's core mission is to manage growth and encourage us to drive less Encouraging recreation without having to leave town to do certainly falls within that mission, especially since they own the land that could make it doable. Within the next couple of days I will ask BOTH candidates (Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes) where they stand on this, and report back here. Chances are they haven't thought of it. I definitely have a preference in this election so far, but both candidates are decent guys and IMO neither would be a bad commissioner. This is an important enough issue to me that the answers might genuinely affect my vote.
    Good point oh the Stacey/Hughes race. We can't do anything about Nick Fish for another four years but I would like to know where each of the candidates in this race stand.

    I would be interested in reading the bond measure that was passed that allowed for the purchase of these lands. Something tells me it didn't say they were going to lock it up for fuggin wildlife.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  32. #32
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,806

    Attaboy! And...

    we have been making some good inroads with Metro. I think they will be a far better agency to work with than PP and R. But, lets keep the pressure on PP and R with emails about ideas, places to consider, etc.
    Nice work Glowboy.
    Did you hear that Tim (Old School) is back in town?
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  33. #33
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,473
    Quote Originally Posted by ride_nw
    What if Vancouver WA was known as that cool MTB destination just outside of Portland where people would go to ride, hit the mtb-centric bike shops, in-town skills park and dirt jumps, post ride brew pubs, host the MTB movie premiers, etc, and the fixed gear people could keep Portland! And what if the next bike company that moves to Portland decided they'd actually rather be next to some good trails and sets up shop across the river?

    I
    Good idea... Maybe that'll keep Jaybo from coming over here poaching Wildwood.
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by ride_nw
    And what if the next bike company that moves to Portland decided they'd actually rather be next to some good trails and sets up shop across the river?
    Not terribly relevant to the thread but, Ellsworth bikes are made in Vancouver. Search Vancouver on this page.

    http://www.ellsworthclub.com/main/


    edit: fixed typo

  35. #35
    Out spokin'
    Reputation: Sparticus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Posts
    8,901
    Jaybo... Ellsworth... sorry, Vancouver will never work.

    --sParty
    disciplesofdirt.org

    We don't quit riding because we get old.
    We get old because we quit riding.

  36. #36
    Phatt Tire Luva'
    Reputation: Qanuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    160
    By Chance - would it be possible to give the Metro candidates in this upcoming election a short notice opportunity to speak at one of the NWTA meetings, or even hold a special event meeting for such a cause? This kind of thing really has the potential of swinging the vote one way or the other, if an official was to gain the substantial vote with the the surrounding bike clubs! I'd think, those on the ballot who really wanted to get in there - would see this as an opportunity to garner additional votes. I'd personally prefer holding a special event if possible and invite all/any nominees, as I'll be unable to attend the next NWTA meeting due to a pre-existing family function.
    Ciao,

    -A-


    “Beer, if drank in moderation, softens the temper, cheers the spirit and promotes health”

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    3,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparticus
    Jaybo... Ellsworth... sorry, Vancouver will never work.

    --sParty
    Sounds like Vancouver envy to me!

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Brandon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,163
    He's just bitter, Eugene has even less urban MTB'ing than Portland.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    If we can't make Kelly Butte work, that bodes poorly for the rest of the metro area. The problem is that ALL undeveloped areas acquired for open space anywhere in the Portland area in recent memory seem to be getting acquired by Metro, not local parks bureaus and districts, and from what I've seen Metro is managing all of its purchases as "Natural Areas" rather than as "Parks."

    If agencies like PP&R or the Tualatin Hills Parks & Rec District (THPRD) were funded enough to make their own acquisitions of large undeveloped areas, we might have a better shot at getting trails in one of them. I think they would be more supportive than Metro. But PP&R and THPRD seem more interested in transferring management of large undeveloped parcels to Metro.

    Which leads me to THIS! We have a election for Metro Commissioner coming up on November 2. You want to change how Metro behaves, and encourage them to manage at least some of their areas for recreational values? Here is your chance to make yourself heard. Metro is the most important decision-making body influencing how, and where, Portland grows and how (as a whole) we get around. Metro's core mission is to manage growth and encourage us to drive less. Encouraging recreation without having to leave town to do it certainly falls within that mission -- especially since they own the land that could make it doable. Within the next couple of days I will ask BOTH candidates (Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes) where they stand on this, and report back here. Chances are they haven't thought of it. I definitely have a strong preference in this election so far, but both candidates are decent guys and IMO neither would be a bad commissioner. This is an important enough issue to me that the answers might genuinely affect my vote.

    I did a bit of research this evening. Bob Stacy is endorsed by The Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters and the director of the Forest Park Conservancy. Our opponents have picked their candidate. I guess I'll vote for Hughes.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  40. #40
    I got nothin'
    Reputation: hydrogeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    738

    Utility Easements

    I have been wondering about the legal use of utility easements through FP and other areas around the West Hills. Many of the power line and gas line easements have already cut the trees and vegetation away, why not add a strip or two of single track?
    I ride at ludicrous speed

  41. #41
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    The limited amount of trail mileage that we were requesting was already mostly on land classified as "degraded", and they still managed to stop us by illegitimately playing the wildlife card. No way will we be allowed to build trails on the powerline corridors.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  42. #42
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,473
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrogeek
    I have been wondering about the legal use of utility easements through FP and other areas around the West Hills. Many of the power line and gas line easements have already cut the trees and vegetation away, why not add a strip or two of single track?
    The utilities usually pay a fee for their takes, either a flat rate or installments. In the case of overhead power and buried gas lines they usually have exclusive access rights to the easements. Companies like BPA are usually super protective of their land and roads. They don't usually let anyone in there. PGE and Pacificorp are usually a little more leniant.
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  43. #43
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Within the next couple of days I will ask BOTH candidates (Bob Stacey and Tom Hughes) where they stand on this, and report back here
    Admittedly, I've been lame and haven't gotten around to contacting the candidates until tonight. DJ Giggity may be right about who is aligned with our opponents, but I still wanted to do due diligence. I've finally gotten around to it, and have written the following to both candidates:

    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Dear Mr. [Hughes/Stacey]:

    I am a local voter, genuinely undecided with respect to the current race for the Metro Council Presidency. I need to ask you about an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and upon which Metro could have a tremendous influence.

    As you well know, we are renowned as a bike-friendly community. As a regular bike commuter I am grateful for the fantastic infrastructure that has been built both near my Portland home and where I work in Beaverton, and I am aware that you share my pride in what has been accomplished so far.

    But it is particularly ironic that because I live here, where I can so comfortably and easily reduce my carbon footprint by bicycling to work, I have to get into my polluting automobile and drive for an hour in order to go mountain biking.

    Most metropolitan areas similarly blessed with so much natural bounty have seen fit to develop mountain bike trail systems accessible to local cyclists without leaving town. In fact, the lack of local mountain bike access was cited by Bicycling magazine earlier this year as a primary reason for ranking Minneapolis ahead of Portland as America's most bike-friendly community. The League of American Bicyclists may even consider removing our region's "Platinum" rating next year over the issue.

    Continued national accolades will clearly be contingent on remedying this deficiency. Efforts to date have met with little success. A recent proposal to add a modest amount of new trail, in a part of Forest Park with minimal ecological significance, has met with furious opposition from hiking user groups and has ultimately been stymied. Most other existing areas of publicly owned land are being managed for natural values and not developed for recreation, leaving us with few possibilities there.

    And here is where Metro comes in. Metro is the only local agency acquiring significant areas of land for parks and preservation. No doubt many of the parcels being purchased have sufficient ecological significance to justify limiting recreational access (and I don't just mean by bicyclists). But it would surprise me if at least some of the acquisitions might not be suitable for mixed recreation including off-road bicycling.

    Metro's core mission is to manage our growth and foster the development of a healthy, livable community where we all drive less and pollute less. Mountain biking is clean, quiet, non-polluting and healthy. Encouraging this popular activity to occur locally, rather than outside the growth boundary, is entirely consistent with that mission, and Metro is in a unique position to do something about it.

    As Metro Council President, would you encourage your organization to evaluate the suitability of your lands for mountain biking, and at least consider allowing the development of bike trails on suitable lands? I eagerly await your response prior to election day.
    If YOU would like to contact the candidates and exert your own influence upon them, here are their emails:
    info@VoteTomHughes.com
    Bob@bobstacey.com
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Admittedly, I've been lame and haven't gotten around to contacting the candidates until tonight. DJ Giggity may be right about who is aligned with our opponents, but I still wanted to do due diligence. I've finally gotten around to it, and have written the following to both candidates:



    If YOU would like to contact the candidates and exert your own influence upon them, here are their emails:
    info@VoteTomHughes.com
    Bob@bobstacey.com

    I e-mailed both about a week ago and haven't gotten a reply from either candidate. Your e-mail is much more eloquent than mine so hopefully you will have better luck.

    I don't know about party identification but judging from the endorsement lists it appears our choice is between crunchy and extra crunchy.
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  45. #45
    On wuss patrol
    Reputation: Glide the Clyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrogeek
    I have been wondering about the legal use of utility easements through FP and other areas around the West Hills. Many of the power line and gas line easements have already cut the trees and vegetation away, why not add a strip or two of single track?
    This would seem viable from an "it's already cleared and cut anyway" standpoint, but from what I have seen with utility easements regarding trail building best practices, they are often a straight cut easement with little regard for creating fall line deficiencies and recreational use flow/practicality. This can add to erosion issues and a trail that is not much fun for any user since it may run perpendicular to the topography that it needs to skirt and flow around. There may not be enough room within easements to create the needed switchbacks, drainage design and control, and trail contouring to make a trail that is sustainable and interesting or fun to ride.
    Sometimes, you need to go fast enough that the trail is a blur to find clarity. -- Wild Bill

  46. #46
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179

    Heard back from BOTH candidates!

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Giggity
    I e-mailed both about a week ago and haven't gotten a reply from either candidate. Your e-mail is much more eloquent than mine so hopefully you will have better luck..
    Give yourself some credit! At least you wrote to the candidates. Hardly anyone ever does. One thing I've learned, writing letters to politicians and editors over the years, is that each letter (or message) counts regardless of whether it gets a response (or published) or not. Politicians and newspapers count up the number of letters/messages they get on each side of an issue and use it to gauge the community's sentiment. Every message is a vote!

    In any event, your messages may have primed the pump, because that meant my contact with each of guys was the SECOND TIME in a week they had heard about mountain biking. And (drum roll please) .... it has gotten their attention! I have heard from both candidates.

    I will be meeting with Tom Hughes tomorrow, and will report back on our discussion.

    And don't write off Bob Stacey. He sent me the following reply yesterday:
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Stacey
    Daniel,

    Thanks for asking about recreational cycling access on Metro park lands. I support including mountain bike trails on public lands in the metropolitan area, with careful protection of the land and water, including habitat values. Because I'm a commute cyclist, not a trail rider, I was astounded to hear from you that the nearest place you can ride is an hour's drive away. That's indeed ironic. We shouldn't have to haul a bike by car in order to use the bike!

    There are plenty of potential conflicts between trail users, and between all recreational use and the protection of sensitive habitat and steep slopes. That said, careful planning of our parklands should embrace all responsible nonmotorized uses. I would definitely encourage Metro to evaluate its park lands for their suitability for bike trail development, and support the careful development of such trails in suitable areas.

    Again, thanks for asking.
    Some might read the above as carefull qualified statements, but his acknowledgement of the irony of driving to ride our bikes means Bob might just "get it." I consider this good news.

    Bottom line: I haven't decided how I will vote, and thus haven't returned my ballot yet. Hopefully by tomorrow night I'll be able to make up my mind.
    Last edited by GlowBoy; 10-27-2010 at 08:47 PM.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DJ Giggity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Give yourself some credit! At least you wrote to the candidates. Hardly anyone ever does. One thing I've learned, writing letters to politicians and editors over the years, is that each letter (or message) counts regardless of whether it gets a response (or published) or not. Politicians and newspapers count up the number of letters/messages they get on each side of an issue and use it to gauge the community's sentiment. Every message is a vote!

    In any event, your messages may have primed the pump, because that meant my contact with each of guys was the SECOND TIME in a week they had heard about mountain biking. And (drum roll please) .... it has gotten their attention! I have heard from both candidates.

    I will be meeting with Tom Hughes tomorrow, and will report back on our discussion.

    And don't write off Bob Stacey. He sent me the following reply yesterday:
    Some might read the above as carefull qualified statements, but his acknowledgement of the irony of driving to ride our bikes means Bob might just "get it." I consider this good news.

    Bottom line: I haven't decided how I will vote, and thus haven't returned my ballot yet. Hopefully by tomorrow night I'll be able to make up my mind.
    That is awesome.

    I have to say I am surprised by Bob Stacey's response. Sure there is some hedging but he does seem to get a few of our core points. I will be looking forward to hearing what Tom Hughes has to say.

    Well done!
    Only two infinite things exist: the universe and stupidity. And, I am unsure of the universe
    - Albert Einstein

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: haro: the zero one's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    30
    im down to dig i live two minutes from there
    would anyone like to buy partially plucked chickens?

  49. #49
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    My meeting with Tom Hughes was rescheduled for this morning. We had a great chat about cycling and how mountain biking could fit in with Metro's activities. He made very clear that he recognizes mountain biking as a popular, growing activity with a lot of unmet demand in the area, and would try to work with the community to designate place(s) where we could build trails. I got the strong impression that he already was getting specific ideas of where some of it could be done. He also talked quite a bit about a future role for Metro in getting local lands and parks agencies to work more closely together to meet regional goals; bike trail interconnections (both paved and not) would be an important part of that, as would bike routes leading to parks from the more populated areas.

    He also mentioned that while Metro has a bond measure to buy parkland, it doesn't have that much operating budget to maintain and run them. Same problem PP&R has in Forest Park, though probably to a lesser degree. Given the operating budget concerns, in any future proposals we will do well to emphasize to Metro (regardless of who is elected) that we are willing to do much or most of the the trail development and maintenance, minimizing the public cost. I didn't think to make this point to Tom, but he encouraged me to get in contact with him again if elected, to remind him of our goals and concerns, and in our next contact I will definitely emphasize that we are willing to do the legwork.

    Bottom line: both candidates seemed friendly and responsive to our concerns, and both seem genuinely interested in helping make local mountain biking a reality. I'm particularly impressed with Tom Hughes' talk about getting local agencies and stakeholders to work together, especially in light of widespread public endorsements citing his proven ability to actually accomplish that. Ultimately I don't think a mountain biker would do wrong voting for either candidate - a really amazing choice to have.

    Regardless of whom you vote for, don't forget to vote! Election Day is just 3 days away.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bjsid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60
    well done Glowboy. thanks for the info.

    i really have not done to much research on either of these two candidates but with some of the people/organizations behind Stacey, seems like he sounds good but when push comes to shove he has to many anti bike people in his corner. there is obviously many other points to look at with the two candidates but i could see Stacey's constituents leaning him in the no bikes because they destroy the environment fallacy reasoning.

    just my thoughts.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,953
    FWIW, I ended up voting for T. Hughes due to my apprehension with Stacey's endorsement from the Sierra Club who have $$ as a club and will do just about anything to keep the trails closed to bikes and Stacey looks like a people pleaser who goes along with the masses or who he perceives to have clout (oops, I almost forgot that is the description of most politicians out there).

    Who does NWTA endorse, if any particular person? Be nice if NWTA, like unions have a political agenda to help further the cause of getting more/better access to trails in the area, oops wrong thread.
    Ride On!

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    11
    My understanding is that the NWTA isn't allowed to endorse candidates due to their 501(c)(3) non-profit status.

    But, I voted for Hughes based on Stacey being endorsed by the Sierra Club and the Willamette Week's endorsement of Hughes.

    Here's part of the Willamette Week voter guide about Stacey:

    "Hughes’ opponent is Bob Stacey, the former executive director of 1000 Friends of Oregon. Stacey is quick and smart and as articulate as they come. But he is uncompromising and, worse, has a reputation as a dreadful manager, a rep he got when working at TriMet and as the head of the planning department for Portland and when running 1000 Friends of Oregon. Former subordinates say he is inflexible, delegates poorly and is easily distracted. Such concerns led the AFSCME union that represents Metro workers to overwhelmingly vote to support Hughes, even though Stacey’s land-use positions come straight out of the Metro playbook.

    One more thing: Some have tried to frame this race as a referendum on the Columbia River Crossing. But, in truth, Metro will not decide what, if anything, gets built. "

    The full WW voter guide is HERE

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: bjsid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    60
    getting back to Kelly Butte - got this from the City of Portland Water Bureau a few days ago. in a quick search i did not find anything on their website, this is from an email newsletter.

    -----

    Reservoir construction also coming to Kelly Butte

    In summer 2011, the Portland Water Bureau will replace the existing above-ground, 10-million-gallon (MG) steel water tank on Kelly Butte in southeast Portland with a buried, 25-MG concrete reservoir. The new reservoir will be in the same general location as the existing one, but it will have a larger footprint. The facility also will require additional and upgraded piping. Construction would be complete by 2014.

    To accommodate the underground structure, a large amount of soil will need to be removed from the site and later hauled back in to backfill around the reservoir, making the final elevations different. Many invasive plant species, like Himalayan blackberry, are being removed, and native plant species will be added.

    There will be an obvious increase in traffic caused by construction vehicles entering and leaving the property from SE Powell Boulevard near SE 99th Avenue. Prior to construction, the Water Bureau, the Portland Bureau of Transportation and Oregon Department of Transportation will identify safe transportation routes. These routes will be monitored and evaluated once the work is underway. As with the Water Bureau's Powell Butte Reservoir 2 project, public safety is a top priority.

    The Kelly Butte project is being developed by the City to meet stricter rules set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that require Portland to disconnect its five open reservoirs in Mount Tabor Park and Washington Park by 2015 and 2020, respectively.

    -------

    seems like a couple of trails in the area for bikes would be small beans and not very destructive compared to what they plan on doing.

  54. #54
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    FWIW, if it wasn't obvious from my previous post I'm voting for Hughes for reasons along the lines cited by jgusta and headfirst.

    Bob Stacey may mean well, but the issue is new to him and he may not be fully aware of how obstinate groups like the Sierra Club can be when it comes to biking. I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, Tom Hughes will be less susceptible to cave into pressure from the hiking constituency.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  55. #55
    troubled economist
    Reputation: toowacky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    591
    FYI

    Tom Hughes wants a bike registration fee

    From a Rose City Park Neighborhood Association Q&A:

    I'm like you a little bit though, I think one of the frustrations that a lot of us have about the expansion of the bicycle system in the city of Portland and around the region, is that it appears that the bicycle folks don't contribute. So I would like to see, even if it's just a token registration fee, or some mechanism to go to the bicycle community, and say OK, you need to pay a share of the cost of providing those facilities.
    However, as a METRO candidate, does it matter? Is it even relevant? <shrug>

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jgusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by toowacky
    FYI

    Tom Hughes wants a bike registration fee

    From a Rose City Park Neighborhood Association Q&A:

    However, as a METRO candidate, does it matter? Is it even relevant? <shrug>
    Interesting, that took place in my own neighborhood.

    I'll take the registration fee hit if it gets me more trails in the city. You got to pay for all those "green boxes" and bike lanes somehow.
    Ride On!

  57. #57
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    The idea of bike registration and cutting down on the number of idiot cyclists is appealing, but the problem is that bike registration costs a lot to administer. Studies have shown that they need to be at least $20-30 per year just to break even.

    And ultimately it's based on the misinformed notion that cyclists aren't paying our share. Many folks believe that roads are paid for with gas taxes and bikes are getting a free ride, when in fact most road costs are paid out of general funds (federal, state and local) that cyclists contribute to just like everyone else. Also, fuel taxes only pay for highways, not the surface streets that we mostly ride on.

    It's also based on the misguided notion that we should pay for "our" facilities. This is BS too. Cyclist facilities (bike lanes, etc.) cost VERY little. Per user, it's much cheaper to install bike facilities than car facilities. And every cyclist represents someone who is NOT a car, and is actually reducing road costs. Rather than charging cyclists money, government should be PAYING us.

    I'm pretty disappointed in Hughes for bringing up this old canard. Catering to widespread resentment of bikers might be good politics, but it's bad policy.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  58. #58
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,473
    I'm totally for a fee and a licensing system. There's too many ignorant cyclists out there doing stupid things because they don't know the rules of the road. I cruise all over the city by bike, car, motorbike and more often than not I'll have a close call with a cyclist because they did something dumb, not signaling, left hand turns from the right side, no lights, something that could have been prevented had they read the DMV manual. Take the test online, pay a fee, get your license in the mail... As easy as filing your taxes. It's puts a little bit of accountability back in the cyclists pocket, something which there isn't alot of right now.

    I don't even mind paying an extra dollar for a tire or a helmet or a light or lock if it goes towards a cycling program of some sort.
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  59. #59
    I got nothin'
    Reputation: hydrogeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    738
    The idea that having a registration fee will change the bad behavior of certain cyclists is BS. Does licensing of drivers actually change bad behavior of drivers? Only enforcement, education, and peer pressure will change the bad behavior. The only other change in behavior might result from getting hit by a car.
    I ride at ludicrous speed

  60. #60
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,473
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrogeek
    The idea that having a registration fee will change the bad behavior of certain cyclists is BS. Does licensing of drivers actually change bad behavior of drivers? Only enforcement, education, and peer pressure will change the bad behavior. The only other change in behavior might result from getting hit by a car.
    No, you're right, it won't change bad behavior. Like you say, only some sort of negative reinforcment will change behavior. But like I said, it may give cyclists more accountability for their actions. Having a license suggests that they read the book, know the rules, and if something happens as a result of their actions they can be found at fault or not. As it appears right now, cyclists are highly infallible until they die or are seriously injured.

    I just want to see complete stops, proper turn indication and a safe operating vehicles. No more of this finger out, pointing in a general direction nonsense or passing on the right of a long line of cars and then sneaking in front at the stop light to make a left hand turn but sitting there cause they can't turn and not allowing the traffic to flow kinda crap.

    Like the guy who did the study quoted by bike portland wrote “Every person
    propelling a vehicle by human power or riding a bicycle shall have all the rights and all
    the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle” (ITE, 1992; SWCP, 2004). If a driver of "any other vehicle" is required to be licensed, insured, and pays fees and we all travel the same roads, why not a bike? And if I can really nitpick, he also stated "Prohibiting a particular mode from using public roads can be considered as inequitable as excluding a particular racial or ethnic group from using public parks or public restrooms. Similarly, it is unfair to allow ignore the pedestrian and cyclists’ needs in facility design and management...," So why should cyclists be excluded from the same requirements to operate on that road if not allowing them on it is akin to racism...
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  61. #61
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    Other problem with a registration fee "to help pay for" cyclist facilities is that it isn't enough to pay for the current budget for cycling facilities.

    And the general populace WOULD insist that ALL cycling amenities be paid for by the fee. After all, they believe that gas taxes are paying for "their" roads (even though it's far from true). So we'd see drastic cuts.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

  62. #62
    MattSavage
    Reputation: mattsavage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    2,473
    Quote Originally Posted by GlowBoy
    Other problem with a registration fee "to help pay for" cyclist facilities is that it isn't enough to pay for the current budget for cycling facilities.

    And the general populace WOULD insist that ALL cycling amenities be paid for by the fee. After all, they believe that gas taxes are paying for "their" roads (even though it's far from true). So we'd see drastic cuts.
    I disagree. I don't believe there would be any cuts if a "registration fee" of some sort was enacted. It's already mandated that any existing surface street redevelopment and improvement or completely new road alignment consider non-motorized traffic flow and control. Most project proposals developed like to include bicycle considerations because by including bike facilites the cost of a project can be increased sometimes as much as 15-20%, requiring more money to be budgeted for a project, which invariably comes from Federal grants. Many of our new bike lanes and parking facilities you see around town didn't come directly from road projects, they came from storm water collection projects where road crowns, curb/gutter, and catch basins needed to be redesigned and rehabilitated which is hugely Federally funded.

    I sit in and listen to roadway designers and traffic engineers talk about this stuff all the time. Bikes are big business when it comes to requesting grant money and grants are the only way anything gets done in this city. Well, that and bond measures...

    Personally, I don't care where the money comes from for cycling facilities, I couldn't care less about them. I don't need paint on the ground to tell me where its appropriate or not to ride a bike, commom sense tells you that. I just want cyclists to have a license to ride their bikes on the surface streets and I want the existing laws to be upheld and to start seeing the hammer drop on bad cyclists.

    What's the title of this thread???
    "I wrote a hit play! What have you ever done?!"

    Have Ashtray, Will Travel....

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    11

    Portland HATES mtn bikes

    Portland is all about gays riding bicycles naked in critical mass rides to protest cars.
    None of those losers care about mtn biking.

    I used to ride some jumps by I-205, but that area got trashed by the new max line.
    The only way to get a skills park is to build it clandestine and don't let the mtn bike hating authorities find out.

    I have seen a few homemade bmx spots.
    Those jumps are too close, steep and hardcore for most mtn bikers, but the only way to get a mtn bike park would be to do something like the way the bmxers do it - find a spot and grab a shovel.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by oregon111
    Portland is all about gays riding bicycles
    Not cool. Take that kind of comment to a different website.

  65. #65
    highly visible
    Reputation: GlowBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,179
    Good points, mattsavage. Maybe registration wouldn't reduce funding after all. But it would still reinforce the false sense that each user is paying for "their share" of the roads. That myth (along with the irresponsible cyclists that we're trying to do something about) is one of the main reasons for widespread animosity towards cyclists.

    And charley289 is right on. Oregon111, you had me at "Portland HATES mtn bikes" ... and then you lost me on the next sentence.

    Meanwhile, here's an update on the Metro race: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/i...l_preside.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Oregonian
    Former Hillsboro Mayor Tom Hughes and former 1000 Friends of Oregon Director Bob Stacey are separated by 272 votes out of more than 377,000 cast in Clackamas,
    Multnomah and Washington counties.
    Looks like we may be headed for a recount, along with a careful reinspection of all the damaged and non-machine-readable ballots.
    "People like GloyBoy are deaf. They are partisan, intellectually lazy & usually very angry." -Jaybo

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

mtbr.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.