‘Bike Lanes are White Lanes!’: The Social Implications of Urban Active Transportation Planning in the Built Environment of Portland, OR Lucy E. Roberts Lewis & Clark College Portland, Oregon In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Environmental Studies Program Concentration: Maps as Instruments of Power May 2014
38
Embed
‘Bike Lanes are White Lanes!’: The Social Implications of ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
‘Bike Lanes are White Lanes!’: The Social Implications of Urban Active
Transportation Planning in the Built Environment of Portland, OR
Lucy E. Roberts
Lewis & Clark College
Portland, Oregon
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts
Environmental Studies Program
Concentration: Maps as Instruments of Power
May 2014
2
Abstract
This paper serves as an interrogation into how decisions regarding equity and opportunity
are made and whom the built environment is intended to serve. I situate my argument around the
bicycle, in an attempt to complicate the discussion of bicycles as a democratic and equalizing
tool of transportation. In the bike-friendly context of Portland, OR, a closer look is taken to
examine who is a part of the conversation regarding bicycle safety, infrastructural development,
and transit justice. What patterns do those in power exhibit when they make a decision that will
impact the community? Through a mixed-methodology approach, I evaluate effects of
gentrification on communities that have seen improved bicycle infrastructure from 1990-2010.
The results find that bicycle infrastructure tends to follow recently gentrified areas, due to elitist
bicycle culture, and the way in which infrastructure is designed, implemented and utilized.
Furthermore, affected communities will continue to be unhappy and left with feelings of
exclusivity, and planners will continue to be unaware of cultural differences and consequences of
bicycle infrastructure until these many differences are addressed during the planning process.
3
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: HISTORIC ALBINA NEIGHBORHOOD IN OREGON, 1993 7
FIGURE 6: BICYCLE COMMUTE MODE FOR PORTLAND, OREGON, 2000 14
FIGURE 7: DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE FROM 2000-‐2010 15
FIGURE 8: PORTLAND BICYCLE COUNT DATA, 2012 18
FIGURE 9: TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES, 2014 19
FIGURE 10: NORTH WILLIAMS AVENUE IN HISTORIC ALBINA NEIGHBORHOOD, 2014 20
FIGURE 11: DEMOGRAPHICS OF BICYCLISTS NATION WIDE, 2001-‐2009 21
FIGURE 12: HISTORIC AFRICAN AMERICAN SPACE ON N WILLIAMS AVENUE, 2012 23
FIGURE 13: N WILLIAMS AVE, DESIGN PLAN, 2014 26
4
Introduction Transportation enables access to all things in the built environment. The ease with which
the typical American is able to get to work, school, church, the grocery store and areas of
recreation is unique to the First-World, opportune-rich experience. Cities and states rely on
securing funding for roads to provide reliable, safe, and efficient routes that get people where
they need to go, each and every day. Transportation serves as an absolutely necessary means to
an end; thus affecting equity, opportunity and many vital aspects of our daily lives (Giuliano and
Hanson 2004). Transportation infrastructure should be accessible and equitable to all people
regardless of geography, class, ethnicity, gender, or ability (Litman 2002, Bullard and Johnson
1997). This is the premise of transportation justice.
The built environment of a city is planned and constructed in order to meet the needs of
its citizens. It is throughout the city planning and outreach processes that inequality and
discrimination can become institutionalized. Similarly, the construction and implementation of
infrastructure allows geographical injustices to become physically manifested. In transportation
infrastructure planning, the alleged notion is to push a city in the progressive direction of
inclusivity and accessibility, but poor planning and exclusivity throughout the process can result
in unintended social consequences (Arnold 2011, Lubitow and Miller 2013). This paper is
situated at the intersection of urban planning and social justice.
This paper serves as an interrogation into how decisions regarding equity and opportunity
are made and whom the built environment is intended to serve. I situate my argument around the
bicycle, in an attempt to complicate the discussion of bicycles as a democratic and equalizing
tool of transportation. In the bike-friendly context of Portland, OR, a closer look is taken to
examine who is a part of the conversation regarding bicycle safety, infrastructural development,
and transit justice. What patterns do those in power exhibit when they make a decision that will
impact the community? I am detangling what the promotion of bicycle safety communicates to
marginalized communities of the city. There is power and privilege in being able to choose to
ride and having the option of identifying as a “cyclist.” Is the city of Portland promoting cycling
infrastructure that benefits those who are already privileged riders or is cycling truly an
egalitarian form of transportation, open and accessible to all?
Improving bike infrastructure seems to be an equitable vision for the future. In this paper,
however, I argue the way in which this infrastructure is designed, implemented and utilized,
5
along with Portland’s current bicycle culture has resulted in bicycle lanes communicating
gentrification and exclusivity to historically underserved Portlanders. Affected communities will
continue to be unhappy and left with feelings of exclusivity, and planners will continue to be
unaware of cultural differences and consequences of bicycle infrastructure until these many
differences are addressed before, during and after the planning process. I use a mixed-
methodology approach consisting of mapping to show geographic distribution of bike lanes; a
case study of north Williams Avenue in Portland to understand community reactions to city
imposed bike lane improvements; informational interviews with a variety of professionals
involved in active transportation; and analysis of surveys conducted by the city of Portland. This
essay begins with a broad discussion of transportation decisions nation wide, and then zooms in
on Portland, OR and situates the discussion around the bicycle and social implications of bicycle
infrastructure.
Exclusion in “Environmentalism”
This paper offers a critical stance on environmental initiatives that attempt to speak for
people and promote solutions that claim to create a more just, sustainable world. Building off
arguments from environmental justice, geographic justice, and transportation justice (Arnold
2011, Bullard et al. 2004), this paper contributes to the discussion of what is at stake in urban
planning and policy concerning sustainable futures. The important question to ask over and over
again is, a sustainable future for whom (Harvey 2009)? I focus specifically on bicycle
infrastructure that is proposed and implemented by outsiders (such as city of Portland employees
or cyclists that are not from the area) in the community of Northeast Portland. I am situating this
research in Portland because the city has been renowned for sustainable initiatives and is known
as America’s bike capital, but social disparities remain a big issue (Lubitow and Miller 2013).
Lubitow and Miller argue that urban sustainability policy strongly favors green infrastructural
developments, and other high-visibility projects, marginalizing notions of inclusion, equity, and
justice in the process (2013).
An Overview of Transportation Discrepancies and Politics Nation Wide “Who gets what, when, where, why and how much is not rocket science but political science.”1
Transport: “to carry, convey or remove from one place or person to another; to convey
across” (OED Online)2. Dissected down to its etymology, transportation serves as a way to get 1 Bullard p. 5, 2004
6
people where they need to go. Whatever the destination- work, school, the grocery store, or a
place of recreation- transportation is one of the most important facets of social living in any
setting. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Americans now
spend more than 100 hours per year commuting to the workplace (2005). Within the
transportation sector, citizens, city planners and governments are faced with a number of
problems to overcome. Transportation and mobility have political, gendered, racial and classist
aspects (Agyeman 2012, Furness 2010, Hoffman 2013). This section serves to review
transportation discrepancies in American cities in order to provide an appropriate context to
understand what is currently going on in Portland, OR.
Zach Furness, in One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility situates the
reader within the political, cultural and socioeconomic discussion of mobility and the
transportation sector in the United States. By doing so, his book illustrates “why technology is
never neutral, space is never empty and mobility is never disconnected from power” (Furness
2010 p. 11). Transportation systems are not organic systems that just appear when needed. City,
state and federal officials plan transit routes, and intentionally or not, these transportation
planners often favor certain types of travelers (i.e. automobile drivers), leading to a systematic
exclusion of other types of travelers (i.e. bus riders and cyclists).
There are also race and class dimensions to transportation decisions. In the book,
Highway Robbery, Bullard et al. (2004) elaborate on the detrimental effects poor transportation
decisions made by those in power can have on communities of color and low-income areas. The
decisions to build interstates through areas with high density of communities of color led to
displacement and traumatic interactions with city planners. These decisions and policies “have
also aided, and in some cases subsidized, racial, economic, and environmental inequities as
evidenced by the segregated housing and spatial layout of our central cities and suburbs”
(Bullard, Johnson, Torres 2004 p.3). Transportation equity works to ensure minority and low
income populations are not disproportionately affected by consequences, intended or not, of
transit planning processes. Infrastructure communicates power and symbolizes government
2 "transport, v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/205017 (accessed February 18, 2014).
7
intervention, since transportation infrastructure is funded and carried out by those in power. It is
in this way that infrastructure decisions are inherently political (Schmitt 2011).
Scars on the Ground: The Interstate Era and Destruction of Communities of Color
During the same time frame in which the Montgomery Bus Boycott and civil rights
activists were working to change the future of transportation segregation (King 1958), federal
funds were filtered into the creation of the interstate highway system that would systematically
destroy neighborhoods of color and low-income, furthering segregation in cities in the United
States and paving the way for injustices in the built environment for years to come (Vale and
Vale 1983).
The national interstate highway system, a 42,500-mile network, was created and
promoted during the Interstate Era of America (1956-1991). The goal of the project was to
provide access from the suburbs to the central business districts in a systematic and efficient
fashion, and this had the consequence of changing the physical and racial landscape of cities
(Mohl 2002). The patterns that exist for the placement of each interstate tell an unsettling story
of the destruction of vibrant minority and low-income communities, further decreasing the
investment and access to resources these areas received. Specifically, cities such as St. Paul, MN;
Detroit, MI; Nashville, TN; Atlanta, GA and Portland, OR suffered as a result of the passing of
the Federal Highway Act in 1956.
The WNYC and Transportation Nation podcast Back of the Bus tells the story of what
Black communities endured from the destruction of the Interstate Era. In the podcast, Director of
the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School
Myron Orfield says, “The highway building would often plunge through the poor black
neighborhoods of cities because they were the path of least resistance” (2013, 11:17). Urban
planners were securing the needs of middle class people with more political power than the
Black community (Bernstein et al. 2013).
Interstate Era policies were created under the belief that freeway development would help
people navigate the cities faster and more efficiently. This provided a “one size fits all” solution
to a problem that does not fall into such categories. This blanket approach of solving a
transportation problem had many severe unintended consequences on the 30% of Americans that
did not use cars to get around (Jakowitsch and Ernst 2004). The construction of these roadways
physically constructed a barrier to mobility for populations living in proximity to the freeways
8
and those who travel by other means (public transit or pedestrian). The freeways constructed in
these cities created a geographic disparity, displacing the communities that once resided in the
areas of construction. Construction destroyed certain neighborhoods and isolated others, creating
physical ghettos (Kuntsler 1993).
The construction of the freeway changed the way American society views and values the
landscape (Vale and Vale 1983). The freeway system supports a separation of distance from the
workplace and home. Psychologically, the freeway development made traveling long distances
more accessible, and the commuting lifestyle followed and was encouraged by this (Kauffman
2004). The high speeds at which drivers were travelling also resulted in less attention paid to the
surrounding geography and, arguably, a loss of land ethic.
Much of the freeway development was federally funded and implemented. Areas of low-
income and minority make up were deemed “blighted” and chosen for placement of interstate
development (Mohl 2002). The citing of interstates through marginalized communities is exactly
what environmental justice aims to fight. Environmental justice focuses on disparities such as
this one in the built environment, and when applied in this paper, supports the argument that low
income and minority communities disproportionately live in areas with lower rates of safe,
accessible and affordable transportation options. The correlation between freeway construction
during the Interstate Era and destruction of low income and communities of color was no
coincidence.
The development of the freeway system was created, funded, and supported by
companies and people in positions of power on the federal level with clear economic motivations
and known benefits from the project, while many people harmed by the destruction of their
communities were excluded from the conversation. This example of exclusion in the planning
process serves to surface fundamental questions and issues that arise on the larger scale of the
built urban environment. The following section will lay out planning disparities in the history of
Portland, Oregon.
History of Portland and Urban Renewal Portland, Oregon is the third most populous city in the Pacific Northwest, with a current
population of 583,776, according to 2010 census data. The census reported the city as
76.1% White, 7.1% Asian, 6.3% Black or African American, and 1% Native American. Portland
has hilly terrain in certain areas, specifically southwest and northwest Portland. The city was
9
originally developed around the logging industry, hence the colloquial reference to Portland as
“stumptown.” Agriculture and timber production were protected from city sprawl by the creation
of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1979.3 The UGB has been central to promoting density
and efficiency of the city center. Portland has a brilliant history of urban planning; however, a
different history lives below the surface and plays a large role in the segregation of the city.
The racial history of Oregon is one of segregation and exclusivity. When Oregon was
developing into statehood, race played a central role in the debate. In November 1857, the
Oregon Territory voted in favor of a new constitution that eventually made its way to the U.S.
Congress. In this new constitution, one clause excluded free Blacks from living in the state in a
series of exclusion laws. The exclusion laws remained in the Oregon Constitution until 1926,
setting the scene for the racial battles the state has been furiously engaged in since conception4.
The history of the state strongly impacted the segregation of the city of Portland. Contemporary
Portland has a Black population of 6.3%, according to the 2010 census, and is called the whitest
city in America. The overwhelming white majority and racial history is being explored in the
upcoming documentary, Whitelandia (Smith 2014).
When African-Americans began settling in Portland in the 1940s, these communities
came to work in the construction and railroad sector. Black Portlanders have historically been
geographically segregated from the white community, with Black communities becoming
established in north and northeast Portland. The Black workers generally settled in the cities of
Vanport and Albina- two cities that no longer exist in present day Portland. The flood of 1948
wiped out Vanport; the disappearance of the city of Albina involved more complex processes.
Figure 1 shows where the Albina boundaries used to be.
Figure 1 Map of historic Albina neighborhood in Oregon
Urban Renewal, famously deemed “negro removal” in the 1960s by James Baldwin
(Orlando and Noland Walker 2004), was initiated by the federal government, and began
reclaiming space and reinvesting in areas the city deemed as “blighted.” Malicious actions from
city planners destroyed and segregated the Black and low-income community in Portland. It was
the coupling of Urban Renewal and highway development that led to the displacement of
hundreds of residents in the historically black and low income Albina neighborhood. In 1956,
476 homes were destroyed in order to make room for the construction of the Memorial
Coliseum. Freeway construction demolished an additional several hundred housing units, forcing
residents to relocate. This resulted in further geographic disparities, as the Black community of
Albina moved to the northeastern fringe area of Portland, where property values were affordable.
(Gibson 2007). Redlining practices also denied or charged more for housing, banking, and
insurance based on racial discrimination (Sagawa 2000), and this prevented much of the Black
11
population from living in Albina. The construction of new buildings such as the Memorial
Coliseum, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center and Interstate 5 (Gibson 2007) literally tore through
a community that had vibrant culture, leaving no more than a scar on the ground over what used
to be.
The lack of inclusion of Albina residents in the construction process highlights the race
and income disparities in urban planning that have shaped transportation decisions throughout
the decades, and haunts present day planning discussions (Hoffman 2013). The construction of
the highway was focused on serving a certain demographic- suburbanites who drive cars- but the
location in which the construction took place most certainly did not consist of the demographic it
was intended to serve. This placed the true cost of highway construction such as pollution, noise,
environmental degradation and dangerous speeding cars in an area of little political power, low
income, and high percentage (75-80%) of black residents (Gibson 2007).
Portland, OR has an extreme history of city-instigated discrimination, evidenced by
archival documents from the Portland Development Commission, as cited in Gibson’s Bleeding
Albina (2007). Portland’s application for federal Urban Renewal funds argues that Portland’s site
of “urban blight” is in the Albina area. The application cited reasons for freeway construction in
this location because the area “contains the highest concentration of low-income families and
experiences the highest rate of crime in the City of Portland…The area contains a high
percentage of substandard housing and a high rate of unemployment” (Portland Development
Commission 1966:17).
The history of Albina highlights detrimental consequences of poor and malicious
planning practices from the city. Disparities of the built environment do not exist solely because
of federally funded developments; even in the small city of Portland, lack of inclusion in the
planning conversation clearly has consequences. The destruction of the predominantly Black
Albina neighborhood provides an explanation as to why the community of northeast Portland
may see infrastructure as more than physical changes in an area; infrastructure and spatial
changes to the area now have historically rooted symbolic meanings and struggles over
governance and political power.
The Role of the Bicycle in Portland, OR
12
In 2012, Portland was declared America’s Number One Bicycling City (Donahue 2012).
The bicycle is more than a children’s toy in Portland; here, the bicycle is a “tool.”5 People
identify as cyclists, and riding a bike means a lot more than using a two-wheeled machine to get
around. Certain bicycles can serve as a status symbol; other bicycles serve as vehicles for
families that are car-free; for some people in Portland, the bicycle industry is how they make a
living. Reasons for riding are many (Wray 2008, Geller 2013) and Portlanders that are loud and
proud of their cycling reputation won’t hold back when asked why they ride (Griffin-Valade
2013). Bicycling as a form of transportation reduces reliance on fossil fuels, creates safer and
healthier communities, slows traffic, and empowers individuals to be their own transportation.
Portland boasts a cycling narrative of empowerment, inclusivity and community. This paper will
now challenge mainstream views of the bicycle and examine which communities are left behind
or systematically ignored in cycling infrastructure policy and the conversations regarding a push
for a bike friendly city.
While bicycles can serve as tools of empowerment, and the history of biking supports this
claim6, there is a severe divide in the Portland community between who is served by bike
infrastructure and who remains underserved. Lack of bicycle infrastructure is a huge reason
people do not bike (Dill 2003, Letherby and Reynolds 2009, Rodrigues 2014). Other common
barriers to cycling include weather, terrain or topography, required dress for work or school,
safety and security (Steinbach et al. 2011). The barriers to cycling vary depending on gender,
race, ethnicity, age, and location, and each community has different barriers they come across
(Understanding Barriers to Bicycling 2012). This multiplicity of barriers to bicycling in Portland
requires a various range of planning efforts and tactics.
Methods and Results The nature of this topic is highly interdisciplinary. Therefore, in order to collect adequate
and appropriate data I used 4 methods;
1) I analyzed maps to understand the changes Portland has seen in the past 2 decades, and
I performed a geographic analysis to investigate if there is a correlation between citing of bicycle
lanes and demographics, income, or political power. 5 The phrase, “the bicycle is a tool” was something I commonly heard in the interviews I conducted. 6 Susan B. Anthony, famous women’s suffragist, was quoted in 1896 as saying "I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world."
13
2) I conducted a series of 8 semi-formal, hour-long informational interviews with
professionals in the active transportation sector. The goals of the interviews were to gain insight
into initiatives of Portland’s transportation and bicycle networks, and uncover where the gaps lie
(see Appendix A for full list of interviewees). The interviews were classified by type; biking and
equity, bicycle advocacy, and bicycle planning and community engagement. The demographic
range of professionals I conducted interviews with was fairly diverse; with one quarter of the
people I interviewed identifying with an ethnicity other than white, almost half identifying as
female, and ages ranging from late twenties to early fifties.
3) I analyzed the phone transportation priorities survey conducted by the city of Portland
Bureau of Transportation in 2014, and the City of Portland Bike Count Data for 2012, in order to
gather information regarding residents’ priorities and patterns of cycling.
4) I analyzed the case study of the North Williams Traffic Operations Stakeholder
Advisory Committee to follow how the city of Portland changed the design of the bike
infrastructure after receiving input from the community during the planning process. I sorted
through meeting notes and reports documenting the progress of the N Williams Avenue bicycle
infrastructure improvements.
My data collection for this paper is directed at answering the following research
questions:
Where is bike infrastructure currently being installed? Who is and who is not being served?
How has this developed over time?
What are the motivations behind the city of Portland and urban planners in terms of bicycle
infrastructure? Who are the loudest voices in policy decisions regarding bike lanes and
boulevards? Who is being excluded from the conversation?
What are the effects of gentrification in these communities? What shifts have communities
seen from the improved bikeways?
Portland in the Present: An Analysis of Transportation Practices Today
Portland’s Black community has seen many changes since Urban Renewal in the 1950’s,
but has generally remained in the north and northeastern area of Portland, as shown in Figures 2-
4. Additionally, other minority communities reside on the margins of the UGB in Portland.
Unfortunately, the geographic segregation of minority communities has resulted in spatial
transportation disparities. These disparities may be a result of unintended consequences of urban
14
transportation infrastructure planning. Planning that focuses on connecting people to the
downtown business center may inadvertently not devote enough resources to fringe areas of the
city, due to perceived lack of demand. Geographic inequity analysis addresses distribution of
transportation services, examining if one area is better served than another. Additionally, it
questions if outcomes- such as investments, infrastructure, and access to employment centers-
that favor one area over another are addressed in the planning process (Bullard 2004).
Figures 2 and 3 below show locations of populations of color and African American
population, respectively by percent of total population. In Figure 2, the darker areas demonstrate
a higher percentage of people of color. These darker areas are in East, North and Northeast
Portland. The city center is fairly light; denoting the population of color is 5%-15%. Figure 3
shows a similar pattern; with darker areas demonstrating a higher percentage of the African
American population. The darkest areas are North and Northeast Portland, and the city center
shows a population of .2%-3%. Figure 4 shows transit access by neighborhood, and the legend
highlights darker shaded areas having proximity of under ½ miles to transit. The darkest shaded
areas are within and around Portland’s city center. This demonstrates centralization of transit
access. Figures 2 and 3 show locations of populations of color and African American populations
within the city of Portland, and when compared to Figure 4; it seems that transit access is highest
in the city center and lowest in East and North Portland. In other words, Figure 4 shows
populations of color and African American populations having lower access to transit in their
neighborhoods because they are not located in proximity to the city center.
East Portland has suffered from severe cuts in bus service, as has North Portland (Rose
2012). The demographics of these areas are different than inner Southeast and the city center.
Inner southeast boasts fantastic public transit and prominent bicycle infrastructure, while poor
and unreliable bus service in East Portland is well hidden from the dominant Portland narrative.
15
Figure 3 African American Population in 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future
Figure 4 Transit Access by Neighborhood 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future; Legend shows darker areas in proximity in miles to transit access
Figure 2 Population People of Color 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future
16
Figure 5 below shows Portland’s bicycle commute mode, meaning number of bicycle
trips taken to and from work, split by census tract from 2006-2010. The maps show high density
of bicycle trips to and from work in downtown and inner Southeast Portland. The thick black
lines on the map denote existing bikeways, showing adequate bikeways surrounding downtown
and inner Southeast Portland; and inadequate bikeways out in East Portland. Bicycling patterns
appear to follow bikeway infrastructure. Figure 5 highlights a gap in bicycle infrastructure in
East Portland and North Portland, relative to Southeast Portland. Figures 2 and 3 show that East
Portland is a location with high percentage of populations of color, and North Portland is a
location with high percentage of African Americans.
Figure 5 From Portland Bicycle Count Report 2012; Darker shading denotes more bicycle commuters
Figure 6 below shows what bicycle infrastructure looked like in 2000, and the subsequent
bicycling patterns. Figure 6 compared with Figure 5 shows that within one decade; bikeway
infrastructure boomed and the percentage of people bicycling to work followed this boom.
17
Figure 6 Bicycle Commute Mode for Portland, OR in 2000, and Existing Bikeways. Source: PBOT/ Bike Portland.org
Figure 7 below shows neighborhoods that have seen a “demographic change” between
2000-2010. A demographic change is demarcated by the following: “tract experienced greater
increase than Portland as a whole for at least 3 of 4 factors: % white, % population 25+ with
bachelor’s degree, % homeowners, median household income OR Tract experienced greater
increase than Portland as a whole for both % white and % with bachelor’s degree.” Figure 7
shows demographic change in North, Northeast (previously Albina), Southwest, and areas of
Northwest Portland.
Figure 7, compared with Figures 5 and 6, shows a correlation between the increase of
bicycle infrastructure and related increase in commute mode from 2000-20010, and demographic
change from 2000-2010. It is unclear whether the bikeway infrastructure followed the
demographic change, or if the demographic change followed the bikeway infrastructure. Either
18
way; bicycle infrastructure seems to have played a large role in the changes Northeast and North
Portland experienced between 2000-2010.
Interview Data Reactions to N Williams Ave. Planning Controversy
“If the city learned anything it is that they need to be aware of the impact of the
historically racist decisions the city has made regarding placement of transportation facilities,”
Kransky told me. He hopes the city will execute the planning process correctly from the start
next time; meaning embracing and understanding how transportation decisions can have
unintended consequences, and honest community engagement and legitimate community
decision making power must be held.
The final outcome of the N Williams planning committee, which is discussed later in this
paper, did incorporate community engagement and a community-based planning method. Tetteh
believes the city made the best decision for all stakeholders involved and the outcome of the
project was something completely different from the original plan.
Bringing Equity to the Bicycle Scene
I had many conversations about race and biking. Williams came to Portland in January
2014 from Long Beach, CA. She was well aware that she would join the very small sector of the
Figure 7 Demographic Changes from 2000-2010. From City of Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability Gentrification and Displacement Study Maps
19
bicycle community members that identify as Black, but she also was aware of Portland’s
reputation as the “best bike city.” She came here to become a bicycle advocate, and to bring
equity to the discussion. She reflected that, yes, Portland is the whitest city in America, but
people of color still live here- and they have fallen through the cracks. Reasons for this include
inaccessible outreach because meetings are held in the middle of the day, lack of childcare
provision, and lack of transportation to and from community meetings. Williams believes that
community engagement is the key to involving areas that have been marginalized from the
bicycle infrastructure planning discussion. She does not believe bikes are only for white people
(herself being a Black woman that rides is proof), however, bicycle infrastructure is strongest in
white, affluent communities, so naturally bike lanes in these areas are inhabited by a majority of
white people.
Hoffman resonated a similar sentiment that bicycles tend to cater to a certain
demographic. She argues that there are lots of people from diverse backgrounds who bike- they
just bike in different ways than the dominating classes have been trained to see. In a sense,
women, children, immigrants and other marginalized communities may bike on side streets out
of safety and comfort concerns, meaning they are not utilizing the city supported bike lanes that
flow next to heavy traffic.
Tetteh similarly reflected on disparities between race and bicycling. He articulated the
goal of the Community Cycling Center, a bike shop located in Northeast Portland, as being to
help overcome barriers that prevent people from being able to choose to ride. The difference
between transit dependent communities and self-declared “car-free” communities is choice. The
choice to ride a bicycle to work revolves around one’s distance to work, hours of work, and
inherently one’s class and status in society.
Tetteh also brought attention to how the bicycle can symbolize different things to
different communities. In some countries, the bicycle symbolizes poverty; in others, the bicycle
signifies childhood. However, in Portland it often signifies privilege of opportunity- opportunity
to live in close proximity to work and have adequate attire to bike in all types of Portland
weather.
The Built Environment and Transportation
Forsberg discussed the city’s initiatives of “encouragement” programs, directed towards
people who do not consider bicycling as a form of transportation. He defined encouragement for
20
people who are motivated and supportive of walking and biking, but do not yet participate in
active transportation because there is a barrier preventing them. The Portland Bureau of
Transportation is well aware of infrastructural disparities, and has future plans for extensive
biking infrastructure improvements.
Kransky discussed how funding presents a barrier for the city to extend the bicycle
infrastructure to every area. Funding is key to what gets support, and gaining state or federal
funding is challenging, and often comes with very specific regulations. He is a strong advocate
of neighborhood greenways because they do not cost as much and they are easily accessible for
neighborhoods, resulting in more attention and visibility brought to cycling. Kransky said cycle
tracks- bike lanes that are physically separated from moving traffic by parked cars- are harder to
sell politically because they tend to cater to a certain demographic; that is, people with a more
advanced riding style and regular riders.
Data Analysis from City of Portland Transportation Priorities Survey and Annual Bike
Count
City of Portland Bike Counts 2012 Bike counts conducted annually by the city of Portland are done at 7-9am and 4-6 pm,
between the months of June, July, August and September. Volunteers manually collect the data,
and information collected includes the gender of the cyclist and helmet use. This data is collected
during the rush “peak period”, but the 2012 Portland Bicycle Count Report does not explain why
these are the only hours under which the counting occurs. Some bridges and busy streets include
24-hour automated counts in order for the city to understand the ebb and flow of bicycle traffic
throughout the day. These automatic counters, however, do not collect information about gender
or helmet use. This data collection scheme prioritizes bicyclists that commute to work and work
traditional hours. Working on a 9-5 schedule has certain connotations as to the demographics of
cyclists that will be included on the count. For example, women who bike to the grocery store, or
with their children to school may not been counted during these counting hours. Additionally,
day laborers that start work at 5 am will be excluded from the counts.
The city of Portland uses the bike count data to quantify if bicycle usage is increasing
throughout the years. With limited time and resources, the City of Portland has to be efficient as
to how they count bikers, but the choices they are making do systematically exclude some
cyclists, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, the 2012 Portland Bicycle Count shows how
21
significantly bike traffic has increased in North Portland. Figure 8 below shows how immensely
bicycle traffic has increased along the intersection of N Williams & Russell. There are now
almost 4,000 daily bicycle trips past this intersection.
Figure 8 Portland Bicycle Count 2012 Data for North Portland
City of Portland Transportation Phone Survey Data 2014
From January 16-21, 2014 DHM Research conducted a telephone survey to registered
voters in Portland to collect information for Portland Bureau of Transportation regarding the
voters’ perceptions of the city’s transportation needs. This was conducted in order to help PBOT