ARTICLE FROM THE BOOK:
Cyclists & Cycling Around the World – Creating Liveable
andBikeable
CitiesCyclists& Cycling
Aroundthe World
Edited by Juan Carlos Dextre, Mike Hughes & Lotte Bech
Published by Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, 2013
ISBN: 978-612-4146-55-8

Bicycle Strategy - The Portland experience
By Roger Geller, Bicycle Coordinator Portland, Oregon, USAB

y 2003, bicycle use in Portland was climbing and had been for years—ever since
the early 1990s when the city began to track the number of bicycle trips in ourcentral city (See Appendix). Despite this positive trend I was anxious about thefuture. I knew that bicycle use would not continue to grow unabated unless we began
to make the types of improvements that matched our ambitions, grand as they were,of achieving the levels of bicycle use I had seen in Amsterdam in the late 1990s. I began
to wonder who was currently riding and why. I needed to know what we should do to
attract ever more people to bicycle transportation.
Looking out of my figurative window I began to imagine who were the different types ofpeople riding bicycles—and perhaps more importantly—the types of people who werenot riding. I knew there were the stereotypical messenger-types—the road warriors: clad inblack leather, adorned with piercings and coloured wherever hair grew. I knew that they—
like I once did—self-identified as “Cyclists” and that they would ride under any conditions,regardless of our modest efforts. I also knew there were very few of them in Portland—orin any city. Growth would not come from that sector. So, who was riding? Who were thepeople that were being enticed to try bicycling and then stick with it over time?
Thus began the musings that resulted in a typology of Portland’s citizens based on theirwillingness to use a bicycle as “part of their daily life”, as our city policy called for. Thistypology, which we call the “Four Types of Transportation Cyclists,” now influences ourconsiderations about how to advance our goals and also informs our analysis of wherewe’ve found success in advancing bicycle use from 1.1% of commute trips in 1990 to 6.4%
20 years later. Recent research, conducted by Jennifer Dill at Portland State University,

213

Figure 1. Four types oftransportation cyclists

confirms this typology and advances the question about who rides and why (SeeAppendix). These “Four Types” as I formulated them are now widely accepted throughout
North America and perhaps in Australia and New Zealand, too (See Appendix). Figure
1 displays the types proportionate to their estimated number in the overall adult
population. The “strong and the fearless,” stereotyped above as “messenger-types,” arejust people who will ride under what most would consider the worst of conditions: busystreets with many fast cars and no bicycle facilities. There are not many of them, butthey’re in every city where there are bicycles. The “enthused and confident” group was,in 2003, the principal answer to the question “who’s riding?” Though this group will not
ride in the absence of a bicycle facility, provide them with a conventional bicycle lane
on a collector street and they will ride. There are still not many of them, but there arequite a few more than the “strong and fearless.” Together, these two groups constituteperhaps up to 15% of the adult population.
Clearly, these two types did not and would not account for the overwhelming
ubiquitousness of people bicycling in a city like Amsterdam. Just as clearly, bicycling in theworld’s best cycling cities transcend “bicyclists” and is common among average people—
the people I call the “interested but concerned.” What are they interested in? Bicycling.
About what are they concerned? Interactions with automobiles. This group makes up thebulk of the population, perhaps 50-60%. With the right inducements and conditions theywould ride; but a standard 5-foot (1.5-meter) bicycle lane on a busy street is not enoughfor them. Finally, the fourth type of “cyclist” isn’t a cyclist at all. This group—the “no way,214

Cyclists & Cycling Around the World

Figure 2. Portland Bicycle Boulevard(photo: greg Raisman/flickr)

no how”—is either not interested in using or is unable to use a bicycle for transportation.
We estimate that they are perhaps as much as one-third of the adult population.
How then can this analysis inform a strategy to increase bicycle use? In retrospect,
Portland gained recognition as the most bicycle-friendly North American city largely
through our success in building a bikeway system that appealed to the “enthused andconfident” cyclists. Though a relative small minority of the population, they are numerous
enough that if you build a well-connected network of bicycle lanes it is possible for acity to capture a relatively high percentage of this group. Better yet, because bicycle
lanes tend to be on the collector streets that are used for much of a city’s transportation
behaviour, bicycling became a visible transportation activity. This visibility of bicycling
served Portland well and contributes to the further improvements we continue to be able
to make to our bikeway network.
In our current thinking about bicycling, we consider the “interested but concerned” to be
our design vehicle. This is consistent with the idea of creating “8-80 cities,” cities that canbe comfortably and safely navigated by those who are potentially the most vulnerable
in traffic: the very young and the very old. This is influencing our policies, our bikeway
designs and our strategies about what types of facilities to prioritise as well as ourencouragement and education efforts.

Build to your strengths
Though we didn’t consider it at the time, or in these terms, Portland was building to ourstrengths in developing a bikeway network.
Much of Portland’s inner city (within 4 miles [6.5 km] of our downtown) was built along
a tight grid pattern. Our roadways, even those designed to carry high volumes of traffic,

215

Figure 3. Portland’s bikeway
network 2009

tend to be relatively narrow. An 80-foot (24 m) right-of-way is the exception in this part oftown. More typical are 60- or 70-foot (18- or 21-meter) rights of way with roadway widthsof 36-44 feet (11-13 m). While this can produce challenges in finding width for bicycle
facilities, it also means that the traffic conditions are typified by relatively low volumesof cars traveling at relatively slow speeds. Inner Portland is not a city of 5-lane arterials
with speed limits of 45 mph (72 kph). Rather, we have two-lane roadways with posted
speeds generally no greater than 30 or 35 mph (48 or 56 kph.) This is complemented
by our downtown, which follows this tight grid and uses signals on almost every
block (approximately every 260 feet [80 m]) to progress traffic at speeds ranging fromapproximately 12-16 mph (19-26 kph). In this regard, Portland’s downtown may beunique among large North American cities.
Our initial strategy to encourage more bicycling was to stripe bicycle lanes on mainstreets and principal arterials. In the early- and mid-1990s, bicycle lanes were the best216

Cyclists & Cycling Around the World

tool we had and they aligned with our philosophy to make Portland’s main streets workfor people on bicycles. Though of understandably limited appeal, these simple bicycle
lanes perhaps attracted a larger proportion of Portland’s population than they would
have had they been developed in other locales simply because the nature of our collector
roadways is less intimidating than are collector roadways in other cities. As a result, we
attracted a fair number of the “enthused and confident” type and our cycling numbers
grew. We didn’t know this was a strength for our city, though in retrospect it seems tobe. Figure 3 shows Portland’s bikeway network as it existed in 2009 with its emphasis onbicycle lanes.
In 2007, we began to turn our focus ever more to the “interested but concerned.”
Recognizing the importance of the Dutch bikeway design principles, where “comfort”
is as important as “safety”, and “directness” to destinations and “cohesion” in the network
were equally important, we understood that cycle tracks on main streets were the gold
standard of bikeway facilities. They provided direct access to major destinations while
creating supreme comfort through separation from motor vehicles. Unfortunately, thesefacilities also came with a high degree of difficulty both in terms of dollars and politics (thenecessary removal of travel lanes is always difficult on Portland’s narrow roadways and in
North America’s auto-oriented transportation systems and culture). Thus, we refocusedon a facility type that was well-loved if relatively little used in Portland at the time: thebicycle boulevard. Though a shared roadway facility, bicycle boulevards are designed tokeep both traffic volumes and speeds low. Because of that we felt they would appeal tomore of the interested but concerned than would bicycle lanes. Because Portland hassuch a tight grid network we could develop these boulevards proximate to principal
commercial streets and at least get people close to common destinations.
Portland’s focus on bicycle boulevards has been well-received by both the public andpoliticians. It also reflects our building to an inherent strength of our closely-spaced street
grid. In much of Portland, we have long corridors of these low-volume residential streetsthat can carry people long distances under conditions where we bring speeds down to20 mph (32 kph) and traffic volumes to fewer than 1,500 cars per day—typically manycars fewer. Not many cities have such extensive opportunities to develop boulevards as
does Portland and, as shown in Figure 4, we are actively exploiting that opportunity.
The idea of building to ones strengths takes different forms in different cities. New York
City’s street network on Manhattan is characterised by wide, broad avenues that include
multiple wide travel lanes. There, the city has been able to remove the occasional travel
lane without undue adverse effect on the movement of automobiles and create widecycle tracks or buffered bicycle lanes. On other roadways they have been able to narrowexisting multiple travel lanes enough that they can maintain the same number of lanes
and still provide a wide buffered or protected bicycle lane. That is their strength.

217

Figure 4. Portland’s
bikeway network 2012

Boulder, Colorado has many streams with wide areas adjacent to them for flood control.
They have capitalised on this strength and used these areas to build a network of urban
trails in parts of their town.
Table 1 shows the relative strengths of various facility types in terms of providing mainstreet access and creating comfortable riding conditions. The “difficulty” in the final
column reflects both financial and political difficulty. This chart is representative ofconditions in Portland, Oregon. The difficulties for other locales will vary based on theparticular characteristics of the local roadway and levels of political support for bicycletransportation.

218

Cyclists & Cycling Around the World

Table 1. Interplay between comfort,
access and difficulty of implementation

Make bicycling visible
Bicycle transportation is aided both operationally (“safety in numbers”) and politicallyfrom increased visibility of people bicycling. Portland benefitted from our initial strategy
of developing bicycle lanes on collector streets because of the visibility it created. Overtime, critics of Portland’s efforts to encourage bicycle transportation could no longer
state the often-heard canard, “Why are you wasting money on bicycling? Nobody everrides.” The undeniably growing presence of people bicycling provided supportive talking
points for politicians, journalists and advocates interested in advancing bicycling. I’m
not sure that we would have progressed as quickly as we did in the political realm had
our initial network development focused on bicycle boulevards. Though having more
universal appeal than bicycle lanes, boulevards also tend to be on less-traveled streets
where people bicycling in any numbers are not as likely to be seen by the general public.

219

Making bicycling visible is also a function of encouraging bicycling and reporting on
bicycle use. Portland’s successful encouragement programs accomplish two principal
goals: 1) they highlight the benefits of using the city’s bikeway system as a means oftransportation and 2) they capture the public’s imagination about the joy of bicycling.
Portland also provides extensive annual reports about our ever-growing bicycle use
and complements those with less frequent reports and analyses about the benefits
that accrue to Portland as a result of bicycling. Because decisions about investments inbicycle transportation are ultimately political, these efforts that highlight both bicycle
use, success and benefits have as important a role to play in advancing bicycling as do
advanced design elements like cycle tracks, bike boxes and dedicated bicycle signals.

Conclusion
The principal strategies that have contributed to Portland’s success in bicycletransportation are:- Build an appealing network- Identify your target audience and understand their needs- Build to your strengths, and- Make bicycling visible.
Portland’s lesson is to build the most complete and highest quality system possible atany particular moment in time and then continue to improve it as conditions allow.
Essential to our ability to consider and implement these strategies has been a solid
foundation of policies that support bicycling, politicians that made key funding, planningand design decisions to advance bicycling, a strong advocacy for bicycling and a talented
bureaucracy that was given the tools and support to succeed. The periods when Portland
has advanced the most has been when bicycle transportation enjoyed the strong supportof local politicians. Some of the key elements in our strategy have been and remain:
Be opportunistic and go after the low-hanging fruit
Our initial focus on bikeway projects that were the least controversial was the way to
get our foot in the door. We have always striven to achieve the best we can at the time,
recognizing that we will not always build the best and highest design in the face ofcompeting demands for limited space and funding and political realities.
Innovate and do not ask “what is allowed,” but rather “what is best?”
Portland has successfully introduced and/or popularized many bikeway designs in North
America. We have often used design elements that were not formally allowed by standard
traffic engineering guidelines.

220

Cyclists & Cycling Around the World

Design for the hordes
Portland is now suffering from our own success. Much of what we’ve built in the past
20 years is now too small or otherwise deficient for the people currently bicycling andfor those we’re working to attract to bicycling. We are actively retrofitting bicycle lanes
built long ago: widening them, eliminating any gaps and improving their operation atintersections.
The world has changed much since Portland began earnestly building a bicycletransportation system 20 years ago. Today, there exists a growing recognition thatbicycling can be the “silver bullet” that addresses many of the urban and global ills thatchallenge us. Increased bicycle transportation has a positive effect on public health,climate change, air quality and other environmental concerns. Bicycle transportation
provides affordable mobility in cities in a manner that enhances both the quality ofurban life and economic activity. Twenty years ago few countries appreciated thesebenefits. Today these changing conditions and growing appreciation of bicycling allow
planners, advocates and politicians to adopt strategies that promise rapid advances inimplementing bicycle systems that reflect international best practices. For these reasons
it behooves today’s planners to pursue a strategy that promotes policies and designs
that are as bold as they can be. This is why Portland’s proposed bicycle transportation
policy—adopted in the city’s 2010 update of its bicycle plan—calls for the city to “createconditions that make bicycling more attractive than driving for trips of three miles (5km) or less (See Appendix). ” That is our goal for advancing bicycling and reflects a key
element of our strategy to make Portland one of the world’s better and most livable cities.
Roger Gellerroger.geller@gmail.com or roger.geller@portlandoregon.gov

221