This article was written by Susan Rosenthal. It has been guest-edited by Adrienne So.

Given policy discussed last month at Portland City Council that could ban right turn on red for drivers at another 200 intersections, it behooves bicycle riders to know more about this traffic policy.

Right Turn on Red Laws (RTOR) allow motorists to make right turns on red lights after coming to a full stop. The motorist is required to yield to pedestrians and cyclists who are in the right of way. In 1947, California was the first state to allow RTOR. Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona followed suit in the 1950s, with other states gradually adopting the practice through the 1970s.

RTOR laws were adopted throughout the country after the US Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act in 1975, in response to the US energy crisis. The law, which is still in place, required that every state allow right RTOR or lose their federal transportation funding. It was designed to save energy by reducing the amount of time drivers spent idling at stoplights. 

As a result, RTOR is permitted at almost every intersection in the country. Municipalities can ban them at intersections that have significant pedestrian traffic, or under other special circumstances. For example, RTOR is banned in most of New York City. They are also prohibited on SW 6^th Avenue and SW Broadway in Portland, where these roads cross the MAX tracks at Pioneer Square. (I learned about the ban at Pioneer Square when I turned right on red on my bicycle in the late 1990s and got an expensive ticket.) 

At every intersection that bans right turns, municipalities must post signs or traffic lights stating that such turns are prohibited. The US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, China and a few other countries allow RTOR with few restrictions. RTOR turns are prohibited or restricted in most other countries. 

Fuel Savings and Safety Issues

The impact of RTOR has been hotly debated. The practice may reduce travel time for drivers and reduce congestion at intersections. It is difficult to determine whether RTOR laws have reduced fuel consumption. To perform a legal RTOR, a driver must come to a complete stop, then accelerate again. In many cases, drivers are stopping and starting multiple times, which lowers the fuel savings that can be achieved. 

The economic theory known as Joven’s Paradox also plays a role. Economist William Joven noticed that changes that increased the efficient use of coal led to an increase in coal consumption. Reducing the usage cost incentivizes people to use more of the resource, and consumption increases. RTOR red laws make driving easier and faster, which may contribute to our auto-dominant culture. 

The automobile landscape has changed greatly since RTOR laws were enacted.  Automatic transmissions have replaced manual transmissions in the United States The adoption of hybrid and electric vehicles means that some cars produce no emissions. The car market and our roads are dominated by SUVs and light trucks. It is likely that these changes have affected the fuel savings achieved by RTOR laws.

In recent years, there has been much debate about safety issues raised by RTOR. The risk of RTOR comes from the fact that drivers look to their left for oncoming traffic before making a right turn. They may not see pedestrians who are in front of them or positioned on the right side of the intersection. This can be a particular problem for drivers of SUVs and light trucks, because their large size and high clearance make it difficult to see vulnerable road users. These crashes represent a small percentage of total vehicle crashes, but RTOR does increase risks for pedestrians and cyclists. 

In 2024, the Mineta Transportation Institute published a study that determined that right-turn collisions were responsible for 39,000 crashes and 217 fatalities in California between 2011 and 2022. Over half of the crashes involved pedestrians and cyclists. Race played a role in pedestrian collisions, with Black pedestrians at higher risk than White pedestrians.  Black cyclists were not at higher risks for collisions than White cyclists. Neighborhood socioeconomic status also impacted the rate of collisions, with lower income neighborhoods showing higher collision rates than higher income areas. There were also higher collision rates at intersections that were close to public transit.

The Future of RTOR

Some municipalities have banned or restricted RTOR in recent years. In 2024, Cambridge, Massachusetts banned the practice for drivers and cyclists at all city-managed intersections. Washington, DC banned RTOR in a process that was completed in 2025. The process took several years and began with 100 intersections. Studies showed that collisions were reduced by 92 percent, so the practice was expanded to all city-managed intersections. 

Seattle has banned RTOR on many downtown intersections for years, but has recently extended the ban to all new traffic lights and intersections. San Francisco started a pilot project which banned RTOR at 50 intersections. The project was extremely successful at reducing collisions and has been expanded to 200 intersections. The city council is now debating a proposal to ban RTOR at all intersections. 

Traffic engineering problems often have multiple causes, and this is the case with RTOR safety. Engineering standards, like those outlined in Beaverton’s engineering design manual, often require a minimum of a 25-foot turning radius when a local street intersects with an arterial or connector street. On the other hand, the National Association of City Traffic Officials (NACTO) recommends a maximum 15-foot turning radius, with a preferred turning radius of 5 feet for collectors and arterials. A smaller turn radius forces drivers to slow down and to look to their left when turning. In recent years, many transportation activists have worked with transportation officials to adopt NACTO standards.

PBOT has recently developed standards for regulating RTOR at intersections that previously allowed the practice. These restrictions are concentrated in dense or dangerous zones, such as the Northwest pedestrian district, West Burnside Street, and near school grounds.  In 2024, Wendy Cawley, the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s Chief Engineer, spelled out top priorities for regulation in an executive memo:  

1. When there are exclusive pedestrian or bicycle phases at intersections. In other words, if there is a signal phase in which bicyclists or pedestrians are allowed to move, but cars must remain stopped
2. Where bike boxes are present, at Neighborhood Greenways, and where turns cross separated paths.
3. High conflict intersections where there have been more than 3 RTOR collisions reported in a 12 month period for a particular approach of an intersection. If two or more of these crashes are bicycle or pedestrian crashes in a five-year period, then that intersection should also be considered for No Turn on Red (NTOR) signage. 
4. Geometric or operational characteristics of an intersection that might result in unexpected conflicts, such as inadequate sight distance to vehicles approaching from the left or the right, skewed angle intersections, or intersections where U turns are allowed

The executive memo contained a chart which identified intersections that met these standards.  The intersection of NW Couch St and 11^th Ave was chosen because it had an exclusive pedestrian phase and a pedestrian head start. Additional factors included the fact that the intersection is close to schools and a pedestrian district. RTOR has been banned at this intersection. 

The intersection of NW Front and 9^th Ave is also on the list. This intersection has a rail crossing, so the right turns conflict with a unique signal phase, as well as with the infrastructure for the rail crossing. NTOR has not been implemented at this intersection. RTOR laws were implemented in response to the crisis created by the oil embargos of the 1970s. The vast changes that have occurred in the automobile industry since that era, as well as the threat that right turns pose for pedestrians, mean that many people are re-evaluating the value of this practice, particularly in urban settings like Portland.

The article below was written by BikeLoud PDX Vice-chair Kiel Johnson and was first published in that organization’s newsletter.

On July 9th, 36 year old Louisa Gag (above) was struck and killed by a truck driver. She was riding in a painted bike lane on a street in Boston that the city had long identified as dangerous. There was a funded plan to dramatically improve this street, which the mayor’s administration had halted and then defunded after backlash from businesses and community groups. Gag worked for the advocacy group LivableStreets and was a transportation planner for the city. She spent her career trying to prevent tragedies like the one that claimed her life. 

In 2021, the mayor of Boston was elected on a platform to improve street safety, but paused and backed away from making improvements after community and business complaints about loss of parking and car lanes. For people in Portland, this story is very familiar. 

We mourn the loss of Louisa Gag and stand in solidarity with Boston’s transportation advocates. Her death is a heartbreaking reminder that our decisions about street design have real human consequences. We have solutions to prevent tragedies like this one. In Boston they had the plan and even the money. What they lacked was the political will. 

Transportation safety is either a priority or it isn’t. Growing the number of people who bike is either a goal or it isn’t. When elected leaders pledge to build safer streets but retreat when car-centric opposition arises, those commitments become little more than words. Little by little, this erodes our faith in leadership. Every delayed project and every watered-down design leaves dangerous conditions in place. In Portland, the list of missed opportunities continues to grow. 

After Louisa’s death, Boston’s transportation advocates wrote a powerful letter calling on their city to match its values with its actions. We couldn’t help but think it could have been written about Portland and we wanted to share it with you.

Dear Mayor Wu,

Enough is enough.

We are parents, families, and neighbors from across Boston. Many of us have met you — at safety walks, at community meetings, on Hyde Park Avenue and on corridors like it across the city. For years, we have told you, in public and to your face, that continued delay on street safety would cost lives.

Last week it cost the life of Louisa Gag — a transportation planner in your own administration, a person who devoted her career to making our streets safe. Louisa was killed on her bicycle blocks from an intersection your administration has studied and stalled. She was not the first. We have been losing neighbors to these streets for years, and we have been warning you, specifically and repeatedly, that more deaths were coming.

You know as well as anyone how beloved Louisa was. She began her career in public service on your own staff, when you were a city councilor, and she spent it working tirelessly for the residents of Boston — beside the advocates she organized, her colleagues in City Hall, and neighbors across this city whose streets are safer because of her. She was killed on the streets she spent her career trying to fix. Years ago, one of her professional responsibilities was keeping the list of people killed by cars in Boston. Now her name has been added to it.

For at least eighteen months, your administration has stalled and re-studied safety projects that were designed and funded. You have told us these projects need more process, more consensus, more perfection. But consensus never arrives for the dead, and a study protects no one.

Budgets are moral documents. The budget you put forward placed safety projects on hold and cut transportation funding at the very moment the city needed the opposite.

We are not asking for better messaging or communication strategies. We are asking you to act:

1. Unpause every stalled street-safety project within 30 days, with a published, dated construction schedule for each.
2. Restore the street-safety and transportation funding cut in your budget.
3. Build fast and fix later. End the practice of holding projects hostage to perfect designs and unanimous approval. Use quick-build materials now; refine as you go.
4. Appoint a permanent, qualified Chief of Streets with a broad public mandate to eliminate traffic deaths.
5. Be accountable. Publish a public timeline for every high-crash corridor — including Tremont Street and Hyde Park Avenue — with a named official responsible for each.

None of us is willing to raise our families in a city whose leadership will not answer for preventable deaths on its own streets. We are asking you to do what is right. And if you cannot or will not, you will have forfeited the trust a mayor needs to govern — and no study or prolonged consensus project will win it back.

Signed,

The people of Boston who walk, bike, and cross your streets — and who are done waiting.

This guest article was written by Keith Daellenbach and edited by Adrienne So.

On April 6, the City of Portland announced an innovative $20 million electric bike rebate program for qualified residents. Stated goals include reducing carbon emissions, lowering economic barriers for low- and moderate-income citizens, and making Portland more resilient to climate change.  

All of these are admirable, and as a citizen who regularly bikes 17 miles one-way across town to work in Beaverton and over 3,000 commuting miles annually, I am a fan of getting as many people as possible on bicycles and out of cars.  

But there’s no way to avoid it. E-bikes consume electricity, which is generated from sources like natural gas, coal, wind, and solar panels. E-bikes have an operational carbon footprint and corresponding environmental impact. Conventional, human-powered bicycles consume no electricity and generate zero carbon emissions. And even more salient, an entry- or mid-level bike costs roughly a third the price of a comparable e-bike and offers lower maintenance costs.  All stated program goals are satisfactorily met with conventional bicycles, yet they are given short shrift. 

This is a program blind spot. I published a letter to the editor in The Oregonian on this matter on April 12, 2026.

Why is the city intentionally and unnecessarily restricting rebates to e-bikes? Does the city think low- and moderate-income citizens are unable to ride conventional bicycles? Why miss expanding the quantity of bicycles by casting the net wider to include cost-effective conventional bikes? With the program’s three-year time horizon, it should be updated now to include bicycles without motors. 

I emailed my letter to the editor to Mayor Keith Wilson, all 12 city councilors, the Portland Clean Energy Fund (PCEF), and the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS), which operates the rebate program. I quickly heard positive feedback from the offices of Mayor Wilson, Councilor Steve Novick, Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane, and Councilor Candace Avalos, all indicating that my advocacy would receive further review.

On Tuesday 14 April, I attended the Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee’s (BAC) April 2026 meeting.  During the public comment period, I again advocated for an expansion of the PCEF bicycle rebate program to include conventional bicycles and again got what I would consider to be a general positive response. 

If you are interested in also advocating for an expansion of the rebate program to include conventional bicycles, please consider sharing your input directly with Mayor Wilson, all nine city councilors, PCEF, and BPS leadership. Let’s make even more progress towards achieving the lofty goals of the rebate program by expanding it to include conventional bicycles and apply the $20 million rebate money as efficiently as possible over the next three years.

This guest article was written by Matt Zajack, who we previously profiled for his work on a traffic counting device. This story was edited by Adrienne So.

The River View Cemetery (RVC) route is a high-traffic, though fragile, de facto public connector that happens to run through private property. For decades, Portlanders on bikes have relied on the goodwill of cemetery officials to provide a critical transportation link between Sellwood and SW Terwilliger Blvd (the alternatives are much too busy, or else closed to cycling).

Last year’s closures underscored the urgency to find a safe, public, all-weather alternative, but supporting data has been hard to come by. Portland’s Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has been asked to deploy traffic counters, but has been unable to do so. We also suspected that a few hours of counting would not be able to capture the necessary data to show who is using the RVC and when. My company, Green Dormer Solutions, partnered with Lewis & Clark College to provide a pro bono, data-driven analysis of the route’s usage with the Traffic Monitor device to provide both cyclists and city planners with evidence to justify the creation of a safe, public route.

Please Don’t Speed

We collected data over a 36-day period, split between summer (August 15-28, 2025) and autumn (September 19-October 10, 2025), at the Macadam entrance gate. Bicyclists accounted for the largest volume of users, with no meaningful statistical difference between weekdays and weekends—the RVC is used for both commuting and recreation. 

Significantly, the data showed that significantly more bicycles were recorded entering (uphill) the cemetery than exiting (201 vs. 103). This strong directional trend suggests the cemetery route is a preferred, safer path for the challenging climb to the Southwest Portland neighborhoods, as alternatives like Taylor’s Ferry Road are perceived as dangerous. 79 percent of group rides (clusters of at least 5 bicycles) also travel uphill, which solidifies the need for a safe alternative to the SW Portland climb.

Other key findings included: 

• RVC is a cut-through route for commuters. While bicycle volume was evenly distributed after 8 am, with a slight bump from 4-6 pm on weekdays, motorized vehicle volume was concentrated during the evening commute. This indicates that car drivers are using RVC as a cut-through route. 
• Speed makes the RVC a high-risk environment. The speed limit in RVC is 15 mph, but 66 percent of autos and 15 percent of bicycles were captured moving over this limit. The speeding auto cut-through traffic creates a high-risk environment on private roads that were never designed for this volume and speed.
• The alternative is worse. The primary public alternative, Taylor’s Ferry Road, has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of over 5,560 westbound autos with an 85th percentile speed of 49 mph (posted 35 mph limit). The data confirms the high volume of bicycle traffic relies on RVC precisely due to the unsafe nature of alternatives.

Avoiding the Uphills

The RVC serves a critical function, primarily because the public alternative is a challenging and dangerous route. S Taylors Ferry Rd, is an uphill/eastbound slog, with an 85th percentile speed of 44 mph (in a 35 mph zone) and high Average Daily Traffic (ADT) counts of over 6,000. Overall, there were significantly more bicycles entering the cemetery (going uphill) versus exiting (going downhill) at a ratio of 201 to 103 bicycles ADT.

The opposite trend was observed for cars and pedestrians, with more exiting (downhill) than entering, indicating that drivers see the cemetery as a viable link for downhill travel as high-speed cut-through to avoid potential congestion on Taylor’s Ferry or Macadam. This also creates more potential conflict, as daily pedestrian count is slightly higher than cars, at 90 vs 88 ADT. All user activity increases during the evening commute time.

The most alarming discovery relates to speed. The speed limit within River View Cemetery is 15 mph. The data shows that cars are routinely exceeding this limit. 66% of automobiles were captured moving over 15 mph (the speed limit), compared to just 15% of bicycles, and this speed differential is magnified when traveling downhill: 74% of cars vs. 39% of bicycles were over 15 mph.

This confirms that the cemetery’s roads are being treated as a high-speed, non-residential street by most drivers, directly contrasting with the intended quiet nature of a cemetery and the safety needs of active transportation users. The risks are compounded by the presence of vulnerable road users and the narrow, winding nature of the roads.

Furthermore, our seasonal and time-of-day analysis showed that autos were significantly faster in autumn than in summer, with more cars driving 20-30 mph. This increase in speed is a dangerous trend that increases risk for all users as the days get shorter and weather worsens.

Shedding Light on Group Rides

We also looked at group cycling, which has been a point of contention for cemetery users. Group rides were defined as at least five bicycles clustered within 10 seconds and had no way of differentiating recreational or commuter rides.

While group rides might be controversial, they make up 8 percent of total daily bicycle volume. Weekday morning commuter group rides are largely uphill and are likely the result of a “platoon effect”, caused by the traffic light at Macadam. 

A Note on Scalable Traffic Monitoring

City agencies often face capacity constraints. Traffic counters take time and money and would not be able to showcase the rich data captured here. The TrafficMonitor.ai device highlights how communities and advocates can gather the robust data they need to spur action.

The Alternative Route Crisis

The precarious nature of the cemetery access was recently thrust into the spotlight with temporary closures due to construction, prompting a familiar outcry from the community. But RVC is the only safe option. The data provided by the analysis confirms that the alternatives are significantly longer, steeper grades, and often unsafe.

The most direct alternative, S Taylors Ferry Rd, is not a designated bicycle route. It is a high-speed, high-traffic environment where the only way to feel safe descending is to take the lane at a speed nearing traffic. The fact that the 85th percentile speed on Taylors Ferry is 49 mph westbound and 44 mph eastbound—far exceeding the 35 mph posted limit—makes it a dangerous prospect for most cyclists.

The predicament presented by the roadway data—high-speed motor vehicles, peak commuter traffic, and the ever-present threat of closure—deserves immediate and concrete action. While the discussion is often complicated by debates over private property, tax exemption, and the sanctity of cemeteries, the core issue remains: There is no safe, public, guaranteed, and direct connection for active transit and non-vehicular users between the Sellwood Bridge area and SW Portland.

The comprehensive traffic and speed data, focused on holistic roadway data— not just car-centric numbers, and collected over a six-week period— is crucial for informing stakeholders, which includes Lewis & Clark College, River View Cemetery, and Portland City Council District 4 representatives. For more information, the full case study is on Matt Zajack’s website. He also does pro bono work; you can sign up using this form.

Methodology 

The data was collected at the cemetery entrance gate near the Sellwood Bridge, using a trafficmonitor.ai device—an open-source smart city traffic monitoring solution utilizing edge machine learning object detection and Doppler radar. This data collection study was estimated at less than $1,000 to implement. Comparable private counting and speed analysis on a multi-modal route often costs upwards of $29,000.

The trafficmonitor.ai system prioritizes privacy. The device uses local object detection inferencing and Doppler radar, not capturing or storing identifying visuals (no images, license plates, or faces). It only records the object class (bicycle, automobiles, pedestrian), times, speed, and direction for fully local data de-identification. This ensures ethical, granular, and holistic data collection on traffic patterns for urban planning, without compromising user identity or personal information.

Data Definitions

Object detection labels and classification:  

AI Transparency disclosure: This analysis utilized the public domain Coral SSDLite MobileDet based on the public domain COCO dataset with the following labels:

• Bicycle: combined ebikes, bikes
• Vehicle: combined cars, trucks, motorcycles
• Pedestrian: person (minus) bicycle (may include scooters and non-bicycle micro-mobility)

Hi! I’ve missed you! I am grateful for your support and hope you’re enjoying Bike Summer — or just summer even if it doesn’t include as much “bike” as you’d like. It’s been a minute since my last check-in and it’s time to share an update on what I’ve been doing and thinking since I announced a hiatus from BikePortland.

But first… thanks for coming to the 20th anniversary party! It was a night I’ll never forget and I truly appreciate each and every person who was there. Nice things were said, hugs were given, food was eaten, and we sold 10 cases and two kegs of (very delicious) Bike Happy Pale Ale! Migration hit it out of the park with that beer and I highly recommend trying it before it’s gone (4-packs still available at their various locations).

In some respects, that big party felt like closure. It tied a bow on 20-plus years of hard work and a part of me felt like, “OK, that was great. I did something special. Now I can move on.” And in some ways, this hiatus is a trial run of what it would feel like if I did move on.

It’s the first time in over two decades I’ve completely turned off BikePortland. And oh, what a feeling! Yes, I’ve been on a few vacations where I didn’t actively post or create content, but the work remained in the back of my mind: Not turned off, just turned to a lower volume. This time has felt very different. And it has felt good. It has given me the space to breathe, to let other things into my life, and to get a more objective read on my relationship to BikePortland and the community.

I’ve also listened to and read a lot of feedback from you. I’ve heard loud and clear that the platform, leadership, and information provided by BikePortland remains vital and necessary. In recent weeks I’ve also met with a bunch of people. They’ve been sounding boards and advice-givers. They’ve helped open some doors and close others.

Those meetings, along with having time to think, has helped me discover that being “the BikePortland guy” was amazing and wonderful in many ways; but it has also extracted a lot out of me and it’s no longer my preferred state of being. I want to be more than BikePortland, but my previous relationship with it didn’t leave room for that. Going forward, I want to find someone else to take the reins — or at least share them with me. I want BikePortland to relaunch; but with me playing a different role. Whether I become BikePortland’s publisher (sort of like CEO), editor in chief (final decision maker in charge of editorial direction), just a contributor, or something else, remains to be seen. It all depends on what grows from the seeds I’ve already planted, and what might yet still bloom in the near future.

On that note, you should know that I’m exploring other opportunities. I’ve loved building BikePortland; now I want to build something else. Whether it’s on my own or (preferably!) with a team of other passionate people doing cool things. I’ve already started building a place for myself in the local basketball world, and that’s an area I plan to continue pursuing. And while I take a shot at basketball, look for help with a BikePortland relaunch, I’m also open to something different. On that note, I might have an exciting opportunity in the local media. If that opportunity materializes, and if I choose to take it, it would solidify my path considerably.

As to all the questions about Bike Happy Hour: That weekly gathering continues (and makes its first reappearance at Gorges Beer Co. on Southeast Ankeny Rainbow Road today from 4:00 to 7:00 pm!), but with a new host at the helm. I’m stepping back and letting the folks from BikeLoud PDX take over as organizers.

To recap: A BikePortland relaunch, a second career as a basketball coach, a new job unrelated to BikePortland — if my path still seems unclear, that’s because it is! And that’s O.K. Having options is the point. And taking time to consider them is the right move for me.

So like I mentioned above, if you want to be a part of BikePortland’s next chapter, please contact me! And if you or your business/organization is doing something cool and could use someone with my unique set of skills and experiences, let’s talk. The best way to reach me is via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com.

I appreciate your ongoing support.

Stay tuned, and I’ll see you in the streets.

— This guest article comes from Lois Leveen — an author, activist, bicyclist, and ukulele player in Portland.

If you are one of the many bicyclists who enjoys pedaling through River View Cemetery for your commute or your recreational rides, you may already have seen the signs notifying cyclists that the Cemetery will be closed to bicyclists from Saturday 5/23 through Monday 5/25. This annual observance of Memorial Day weekend maximizes access for those mourning and remembering loved ones. 

It is also a good reminder that River View Cemetery is a private entity that kindly allows bicyclists and pedestrians to pass through their property. For those of you who make this ride regularly, you know it is a beautiful route, and the only safe way to get to/from/through much of Southwest Portland. Please comply fully with this closure, and always be respectful whenever passing through River View Cemetery during the rest of the year.

Although many of us treat Memorial Day as we do other holidays and long weekends, and particularly as a kickoff to summer fun, it’s worth pausing for some Memorial Day-specific reflection. So as you read this and as you bike and walk your way around this coming weekend, it’s a good opportunity to remember the many Portlanders, Oregonians, and United Statesians we lose to vehicular violence each year (as well as the countless others whose lives are shortened/worsened by pollution, the climate crisis, and other aspects of unfettered car culture). May their memories be an inspiration as we work to make the places we live and ride safer for all our community members.

Last week, PBOT announced their intention to abandon a decade-long plan to install a two-way protected bike lane on SW Alder between 14th and 15th after hearing pushback from neighbors about the loss of car parking. 

This design was part of the City Council-approved Central City in Motion plan. The two-way bike lane was the missing link to the network, connecting the rest of NW Portland to the Max, Providence Park, and Lincoln High School. But as BikePortland shared earlier this year, tenants at an adjacent residential building expressed concern over a loss of auto parking. That pushback led to a meeting between the tenants and PBOT to discuss alternative designs.

Under the current plan proposed by PBOT, people riding bikes will have to ride two extra blocks to get to these destinations. Instead of riding on a protected two-way bike lane up to SW 17th, you will have to drop down to 15th and then go back up on an unprotected bike lane. Only 42% of people feel safe on the new design, while 93% feel safe on the old one. 

On January 22 2026, Mayor Keith Wilson said, “We are and have to be the biggest bike mode city in the nation. Our multimodal focus has got to be at the center of every decision we make.” This is an opportunity for our mayor to show Portland that his words have meaning and for the City Council to demand accountability for the plans that they have passed. 

We need you to write to our city council and mayor and ask for an immediate pause on this major route change. Large changes, like this, that impact the usability and route of our bike network should be presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee before being decided on. Use the blue banner to send an email to the Mayor, D4 City Councilors, PBOT Director, and City Manager.

— Click here to view and send a sample email to city leadership.

This guest article is from Jessica Fletcher, the organizer and leader of the James John Elementary School Bike Bus. Jessica just returned from a trip to Davis, California where she became a League Certified Cycling Instructor. She wrote this in Davis while waiting for her train back to Portland.

I attended BikePortland’s 20th anniversary party recently and bought a $20 hat. Simple enough purchase. But every time I wear it, I suddenly feel like I’m on duty, like I’m representing something bigger than myself.

And lately, maybe that matters.

With Jonathan Maus in transition at BikePortland, there’s a feeling that a beat in Portland journalism may need to evolve. Not disappear, just look different.

The bike beat.

Because maybe the bike beat was never only one person covering meetings, infrastructure fights, ribbon cuttings, crashes, and community victories. Maybe it has always also belonged to the people riding the lanes, teaching safe cycling, organizing rides, advocating for better streets, and simply showing up.

I’m writing this from Davis, California, after returning from a ride from Woodland where I earned my League Cycling Instructor certification through League of American Bicyclists. I’m waiting for the train home, wearing that Bike Portland hat, feeling strangely accountable to an idea.

Not Portland-the-place, exactly.

But Portland-the-practice.

The belief that cities can be shaped around people instead of just cars. That transportation can build community. That local stories about bike lanes and crossings and near-misses matter because human beings move through them every day.

Maybe the future of Bike Portland, and local bike advocacy generally, is more distributed. More participatory. Less about one newsroom voice and more about a network of people paying attention where they are.

A teacher in East Portland.
A commuter in Beaverton.
A parent biking with kids in Lents.
Someone waiting for a train in Davis, California after a long ride.

The beat continues because we continue.

And maybe wearing the hat means accepting a little responsibility for that.

The new Bike Happy Pale Ale is being canned as I type this and last minute preparations are underway for the BikePortland 20th Anniversary Party this Wednesday from 4-7:00 pm (or so) at Migration Brewing on North Williams Avenue.

I hope you can join us for a night of friends, food, drinks, memories, and conversations that will help write the next chapter of this bike blog/transportation news operation. In addition to hanging out with a lot of really great folks to toast two decades of independent community journalism, here’s what’s in store at the party:

• Grab a free raffle ticket for a chance to win a Primos Dame bicycle. To receive a ticket, you must volunteer, be a member of, or have spent time getting to know the wonderful folks from the following nonprofit orgs who will be at the event: Bike Farm, The Street Trust, NW Trail Alliance, Families for Safe Streets PDX, Bike Loud PDX, Cycle Oregon, Oregon Trails Coalition, or Strong Towns. Must be present to win. Exchanges for size and color allowed.
• Get the very first taste of the new Bike Happy Pale Ale, a beer brewed just for us that pays homage to Bike Happy Hour and our wonderful community. How long has it been since Portland had a bike beer? The master brewers at Migration have put together a very special blend of ingredients and it’ll be super fresh as it’s being put into cans today and tomorrow.
• Food from Five Star (the folks who cook for Migration). Come around 5:00 or so for the free catered food. Quantities are limited because I don’t know how many folks are showing up and I couldn’t afford to feed everyone! But this is a lot more than our typical “free fries at 4:00” we do each week at Bike Happy Hour.
• Hear from guest speakers and step up to the open mic to share your thoughts (keep it short!!). If you’d like to speak and want a time slot, please contact me.
• Cake from Helen Bernhard’s and cupcakes from Likely Ivy for desert.
• I’m bringing a big ol’ box of Portland bike stickers to swap if you’re into that. Bring some of your own to share!
• View some bike photos and other Portland bike culture memorabilia.
• Sign the 20 Years of BikePortland guest book and share something you love/hate/appreciate about BikePortland.

I can’t wait to see everyone and I hope you can make it!

BikePortland 20th Anniversary and Beer Collab Release Party
3-7:00 pm on Wednesday, May 13th
Migration Brewing on N Williams Avenue (between N Failing and Shaver, bikes enter from the back alley!)

Note: I am still on hiatus. Part of what I’m doing is seeking advice and feedback on how to build back better. This post is part of that process.

When I started documenting Portland’s bike scene in April 2005, my main goal was to provide a window into an amazing community. I was new to town and was deeply inspired and excited by what I saw on the streets — and I figured other people would be too. I wanted everyone on the Internet to get a taste for the creative and vibrant culture around bicycles that was being created in this city and a daily blog just happened to be a great tool for the job. As the site grew and my role changed, there was always one question I would ask myself when I needed editorial guidance:

What does our city need most from BikePortland?

Was there a new bike-related business that needed help getting off the ground? Do a profile. Was a nonprofit looking to gain traction? Highlight their work and events. Was a good policy or program under threat? Draw attention to the issue. Was a politician being bad? Expose them. Was a piece of infrastructure dangerous to cyclists? Explain why and help push for changes.

Today, as I’ve stepped away from the daily grind of BikePortland, that question seems relevant once again. I want to strip BikePortland down to the studs and rebuild it, while adding back only what’s needed most. And I would love your feedback as I go through this exercise.

So again, I ask: What does our city need most from BikePortland?

At its core, BikePortland is a trusted, multi-channel platform with an audience from all walks of the cycling life. So what should we do with that? What type of information does Portland need from a bicycling and transportation site? Where should I focus my energy in the future? And how could readers like you take on a larger role?

Below are some types of content BikePortland has created in the past. Which of these are most important? Least important?:

• Breaking news
• Policy deep dives/explainers
• Personality profiles
• Event coverage and ride recaps
• Product reviews
• Infrastructure project previews, breakdowns, and reviews
• Event promotion
• Sharing relevant links (Monday Roundup) and examples from other cities
• Interviews with interesting people
• Guest articles
• Guest opinions
• Editorials by me

I can’t do it all anymore — nor do I want to! — so what pieces should I pick back up? And which pieces should I look for others to do?

Beyond the various types of stories and content you’ve seen on BikePortland, there’s also the question of framing and intent. As in, does a story push specific advocacy buttons? Or is it more for general interest or fun? (For example, Streetsblog is 100% focused on advocacy and pushing a specific agenda.)

If you wanted to build an influential and widely-read, cycling-focused outlet, where would you focus your energy?

When I started BikePortland, cycling in our city was on an upward trajectory and my work added fuel to a fire that was already burning. Today, we’re coming out of a bicycling decline/plateau and a socio-political milieu where bicycling doesn’t have the potency it once did. Even with me in a reduced role, I believe BikePortland can play a big part in whatever comes next.

I’ll be asking this question at Bike Happy Hour tomorrow (Weds, 4/29 from 3-6 pm at Migration Brewing on N Williams Ave) and wherever else I bump into you. Thanks for your feedback and patience as I go through these thought experiments.