"Terrible", "horrible", "worst ever", "disaster", "defective" — these are just some of the terms that high-profile media outlets and top-ranking officials have used to describe the House transportation bill (H.R. 7, full text here as PDF). Instead of work to amend and make it less bad, national transportation advocacy groups have launched a coordinated attack to kill the bill.

Transportation for America, the League of American Bicyclists, the Rails to Trails Conservancy, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership, and hundreds of local and regional bike and transit advocacy organizations across the country have launched an attack against the bill, starting today with a national effort to flood Congressional offices with telephone calls voicing outrage.

The cover of the Republican's summary of the bill. Cars backed up on freeways and huge pipes of oil criss-crossing America is their vision for the future. No thanks!

I am usually hesitant to resort to fights when it comes to advocacy — I prefer to frame things in a way where no one feels they can claim victory or defeat. But this time, it seems clear that the Republican party has launched an assault on biking, walking and transit that without an equal response will put America's transportation system at even greater peril than it's already in.

Backers of the bill, which include the Highway Users Alliance and the US Chamber of Commerce, applaud its "back-to-basics approach" and it's "funding priority given to the National Highway/Interstate System."

On the other end of the spectrum, Streetsblog DC published a helpful guide to HR 7 this morning titled, Six Lies the GOP Is Telling About the House Transportation Bill. Read that post, get informed about what's at stake (a lot), and then pick up the phone and call your Congressional representative.

If you live in Portland or Oregon, your rep is likely already fighting HR7, so consider urging a friend in a different to take action.

Word on the street is that Congressman Earl Blumenauer has called an emergency meeting with Portland-area stakeholders to discuss next steps and other efforts to kill HR7. We'll keep you posted.

The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has announced three open houses where you can learn more and offer input on their High Crash Corridor Safety program.

High Crash Corridors are roadways that, according to PBOT, "have exceptional concentrations of crash activity." By identifying these corridors and putting them into a coordinated program, PBOT is able to target limited funding to make them safer. Current roads on the list include Portland's most notorious arterials like SW Barbur, SE 122nd, SE Foster, SE 82nd, SE Powell, Marine Drive, SW Beaverton Hillsdale Hwy, SE Division and others.

We all know these roads kill and seriously injure Portlanders far too often. These open houses give you the chance to do something about them.

Detail from PBOT High Crash Corridor Safety Plan brochure developed for SE Foster Road.
- Download the brochure here (PDF) -

PBOT spokesman Dan Anderson says the open houses, which start next Wednesday, will be a chance for people in the community to ask PBOT staff questions and review specific engineering, enforcement, and education options that the city uses to improve safety. PBOT will bring detailed crash maps to the open houses and attendees are encouraged to write their concerns and feedback on sticky notes for location-specific feedback.

PBOT will use feedback at the events to help shape the implementation strategies they choose for each corridor. By the end of this year, PBOT will develop a "Transportation Safety Report" for each corridor. Below are details on the open houses.

Marine Drive
Wednesday, February 15
6:30 - 8:30 PM, Columbia High School (small gym) (716 N Marine Drive)

SW Beaverton Hillsdale Highway
Wednesday, February 29
6:30 - 8:30 PM, Robert Gray Middle School cafeteria (5505 SW 23rd Ave)

SE Division Street
Wednesday, March 7
6:30 - 8:30 PM, Harrison Park K-8 School cafeteria (2225 SE 87th Ave)

If you live, work or ride near these streets, please consider attending and sharing what your experiences and feedback with PBOT staff.

It's been four years since UK-based cycling apparel company Rapha chose Portland as its North American headquarters. Since then, the company has grown by leaps and bounds, and now they're making an even bigger commitment to Portland.

I recently sat down with Rapha's North American GM Slate Olson to hear about what they've been up to. Short summary: A lot! And it's very exciting for our local bike economy.

The company has recently made several major moves that could lead to a big 2012.

The first was hiring Chris DiStefano from at Chris King Precision Components — where he'd worked for the past six years. Prior to that, DiStefano spent 10 years as PR director for Shimano America. Getting a guy like DiStefano is a huge coup for Rapha. Olson says he'll help them with strategic direction and will help the brand reach an audience of discriminating bike lovers beyond those who read bike magazines.

Chris DiStefano, shown here lobbying
for bikes at the National Bike Summit,
will bring his talents to Rapha.

Having DiStefano on their team, Olson said, will give Rapha a dedicated person to cultivate relationships with major media sources and put together strategic partnerships. Summing up what he feels DiStefano will bring to the company, Olson went to a racing analogy; "We don't want to be chasing breaks all the time, we want to be out there, leading the race."

In another hiring move, Olson says they're going through the final stages of bringing a Rapha employee from London to work at the Portland offices. When they first opened in Portland in 2008, it was just Olson and a few contractors. Now, with this new employee, they'll have six full-time employees based in Portland (and one in New York City).

Olson, a racer himself, has
brought Rapha into
the cyclocross world.

Olson also shared that Rapha has signed a two-year agreement with OIA Global Logistics to handle all North American shipping and distribution (Keen Footwear also uses OIA). Previously, Rapha goods ordered from U.S. customers were shipped from the UK. Having Portland-based shipping will mean better service and less hassle — it also means a larger local footprint for Rapha.

And perhaps their biggest news is that Rapha is moving! By mid-March, they'll be settled into new headquarters in northwest Portland at 19th and Kearney. The space, owned at one time by Paramount Pictures to store film, is not only more than twice the size of their cramped Mississippi Street offices, it also comes with a 35-seat screening room.

Olson says they plan to hold events and screenings, such as live showings of the upcoming spring classics like Paris-Roubaix and the Tour de France this summer. "It allows us to be social again," says Olson.

Rapha has lent their support,
and name, to several local events.

Rapha has found success in part by building its brand through visually stunning short films, a surprisingly successful cyclocross racing team, inspiring and epic 'Continental' rides, and carefully chosen events and product partnerships. Rapha has also ridden a surge of interest in bike apparel — both urban and performance-minded — that goes beyond the neon spandex many Americans associate it with.

While the company has succeeded, the relatively high price of its products and their "Made in China" label has its detractors. Earlier this year, UK-based Rapha staff published an article on their website originally titled Made in China that directly defended the practice. Many U.S. observers were offended by the article, which made it seem as thought U.S. made goods were not on par with what Rapha can make in China.

Olson was happy to talk about this. He said the company simply wants to make, "The best stuff, with the best partners we can find." He also pointed out that in the U.K., where Rapha is based, the aversion many Americans have to Chinese-made goods, doesn't exist. As the uproar around the article spread, Rapha UK apologized and made several edits to the story.

Rapha has had about 80% sales growth each year since it was founded in London in 2004. The Oregonian recently reported their 2010 sales at $11.1 million. Last year sales growth was a bit lower, but still increased to a healthy $20.5 million (globally). According to Olson, the North American market accounts for 35% of Rapha's total global business.

Looking down the road, Olson said they hope to start playing a larger role in bike advocacy through their Rapha Continental project. Since riding beautiful roads is the heart of that campaign, Olson said he envisions a formal program at the company that will dedicate a portion of profits to preserving them. "We're saying, 'Go ride these beautiful roads,' so the least we can do is help make sure they stay that way."

Rapha's success in Portland is just the latest sign that our local bike economy is alive and well.

Last week a reader email spurred me to check up on a project I first wrote about in December 2007.

Reader Kevin B wrote:

"I live in the Kerns neighborhood and my kids go to Buckman Elementary. During our bike/scooter ride each morning to school I see numerous kids/families trying to cross the intersection of E Burnside and 16th. They have to play chicken to get across the road. I am confused as to why there is no pedestrian/cycling light at this intersection similar to what exists further out on E Burnside and 41st. It is listed as a Bike route street on all the cycling maps."

Looking east on Burnside at 16th.

Great question Kevin!

Lo and behold, we highlighted that intersection back in 2007 when the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) partnered with the City of Portland's Safe Routes to Schools program for a grassroots traffic safety action. With hand-written cardboard signs reading, "Students are Crossing," BTA staffer Steph Noll and students stood on the corner urging people in cars to slow down.

In that story, we reported that PBOT had secured funding and was expecting to install a crossing treatment in "1-2 years."

The project never happened, and according to Kevin B, the crossing remains dangerous.

I asked Noll about the intersection. "Crossing treatments are still needed there," she said. Noll's understanding was that the City decided it needrf a new traffic signal, and the $250,000 (estimated cost of a new signal) made the fix a bigger deal than they had originally thought. So, like many unfunded projects, it has been sitting on a list.

Today I learned that PBOT has tentatively allocated a total of $250,000 in their 2012-2013 budget toward bringing their first generation bicycle boulevards up to the current Neighborhood Greenway standard (NE 16th is one of their original bike boulevards). Spokesman Dan Anderson says the Burnside/16th crossing is one of several projects competing for that money. The list of project will be reviewed by the PBOT Bicycle Advisory Committee with a goal of making final decisions by this spring.

For Noll, the lack of funding for Safe Routes to School — both locally and in the national debate around the House transportation bill — is "tragic." Noll points out that as the federal funding pipeline cities like Portland rely on for projects like this is becoming increasingly scarce, "We will all have to hold our leaders accountable to holding safety as the number one priority in making transportation funding decisions."

Sorry Kevin. That's probably not what you were hoping to hear.

UPDATE: In a comment below, a neighborhood resident named Brendon says the Kerns Neighborhood Association will discuss biking and walking issues at their meeting this coming Monday (2/13) at 7:00 pm at the Goodfoot (2845 SE Stark St).

This morning, TriMet unveiled a proposal of service cuts and fare increases they plan to move forward with in order to make up for a $17 million budget shortfall. If you're a fan of transit, and of making our city one that is less reliant on private automobiles, this is not good news.

The changes include a transformation of the existing fare system by; eliminating zones, no longer allowing a round-trip on one ticket, doing away with the 'Free Rail Zone' (formerly known as Fareless Square), reducing MAX train service, and cutting low-volume bus lines.

Local writer, activist, and carfree mom Sarah Gilbert (yes that Sarah Gilbert), summed up how those changes will impact her family in a guest post on the Taking the Lane blog (note that her article was written before the budget proposal was made public; but she says her analysis remains valid):

"The proposed fare policy would force families with young children off the bus entirely. Most would go back to the car for errands and other short trips. The bus aisles will be clear of strollers. But the streets will be clogged with cars."

I can vouch for Gilbert's prediction. Even before these changes, the cost of TriMet fares for my family have led us to use the mini-van over taking the train or bus on more than one occasion. I know other people who tell similar stories. Trip choice is about competition and the cost of a trip plays a big role in people's choices. As fares rise, transit will become an even less competitive option.

Yes, some people will turn to bicycling; but given the lack of connectivity and quality in many of our urban bikeways and the added complication of traveling with small children on family errands, bikes are not as attractive for everyone. The way I see it, this just adds urgency to making our streets safer to bike on for 8-80 year olds (and it creates an even healthier market for cargo bikes!).

That being said, if the fare increases and service reductions make transit less competitive, bicycling becomes an even more appealing option. And historical usage trends show that — despite a huge disparity in investment in the bike network versus the transit network — bike use is trending upward at a faster rate than transit use.

According to the City of Portland's 2011 Community Survey (conducted by the Auditor's Office), 7% of Portlanders bike to work and 12% take transit. In inner northeast Portland, there is actually a greater percentage of bike riders (14) than transit users (13).

While biking might see a blip, since about 65% of Portlanders still drive alone to work and for other trips, it's likely we'll see more cars on the roads.

Another aspect of this issue is the importance of an accessible and affordable transit network as a natural ally of a quality bike network. In cities that work, biking and transit are seamless and they feed off each other. TriMet's MAX cuts to Beaverton specifically will impact the many bike commuters who rely on the train to get them up and over the west hills.

As our friend Andrew Seger says via Twitter, "The max cuts to Beaverton really hurts bike commuters, the west hills are a tall challenge & the bike hooks are full right now."

My hunch is there aren't as many transit advocates/activists in Portland as their are bike advocates/activists. On this issue, I think we should all be singing from the same sheet of music. On that note, there is one local non-profit, OPAL (Facebook), that is doing some great work to speak up for transit access. They had a meeting about it last night and they've got another one planned for tonight...

If you would like to get involved with this issue and help influence TriMet's budget, consider getting involved with OPAL. TriMet is also holding a series of "informal open houses to answer questions and gather input from the public." Details are below:

Saturday, Feb. 11
Beaverton Library Conf. Room
12375 SW 5th St.
1-3 p.m.

Monday, Feb. 13
Multnomah County's East County Health Ctr.
Sharron Kelly A & B
600 NE 8th Street, Gresham
4:30-6:30 p.m.

Wednesday, Feb. 15
Portland Building Room C
1120 SW 5th Ave.
4:30-6:30 p.m.

Thursday, Feb. 16
Clackamas Town Center
Community Room Lower Level
12000 SE 82nd Ave.
4:30-6:30 p.m.

As (I assume) someone who cares about bicycling, what are your thoughts about the TriMet situation? Is this something more bike advocates should get fired up about?

This evening a group of roughly 700 people joined Cycle Oregon staff and volunteers at the Tiger Woods Center on the Nike campus in Beaverton to hear where the two Cycle Oregon rides are headed in 2012.

Everyone was excited to hear this year's routes (for both the weekend and week rides) but the real surprise was an announcement by Cycle Oregon co-founder Jonathan Nicholas about a really big idea the organization has been working on.

Let's start with the routes for the two rides.

The route for the Cycle Oregon
weekend ride.

Each year in July, Cycle Oregon hosts a family-friendly two day ride and this year they're heading to Corvallis.

Riders will set up camp on the Oregon State University campus and enjoy between 11 and 68 miles of riding each day. Options are set up for everyone from families with kids looking for a leisurely afternoon to experienced riders looking for a challenge.

The announcement for the week-long ride started with a promise from co-founder Jonathan Nicholas. He said that this year's ride would be "longer, higher, and harder" than years past.

He wasn't kidding.

The route for the Cycle Oregon
week ride.

The week ride starts in Bly, Oregon (about 45 miles northeast of Klamath Falls) and passes through the towns of Silver Lake, Fort Klamath, Prospect, Ashland, and Klamath Falls.

All seven days of riding add up to nearly 500 miles but you only need to look at the third day of the ride to see what Nicholas was talking about.

On day three riders will travel 88 miles from Prospect to Fort Klamath, between 2500 and 7000 feet above sea level, and around Crater Lake.

Now back to Nicholas' announcement.

The news, which drew as much applause as the route announcements, goes back to the forward-looking sentiment Nicholas shared at Cycle Oregon's volunteer appreciation dinner.

Nicholas started off by asking the audience at the Tiger Woods Center, "If we could imagine 25 years from now, what would the people sitting here...like to look back on and say 'Look at what we did'?"

Cycle Oregon's Directors have been pondering that same question and according to Nicholas they decided they'd like to see a paved, off-highway bicycle route connecting the Willamette Valley to the Oregon Coast.

To further that vision he announced that Cycle Oregon is funding a $100,000 grant to study how a trail like that could be built.

The reality of a paved coastal route is a long way off but Nicholas says Cycle Oregon's organizers have already had discussions with state and local agencies about the idea and there are some seemingly feasible options he's aware of. We'll track this plan as it develops.

Registration (for both of the rides) is now open on the Cycle Oregon website. The weekend ride is limited to 2,000 riders and the week ride is limited to 2,200 riders. Both are expected to sell out quickly.

As the publisher of this site (and president of Pedaltown Media Inc., the company that owns it), everything that is written on these pages — and everyone who writes them — is a reflection on my business, and in some ways, me. Over the past several months it has come to my attention that one of our writers conducted himself in a way that made me and others feel uncomfortable. Specifically, this was a freelance reporter named Marcus Griffith that I had hired to write an in-depth story about the N. Williams Avenue project.

Griffith had written 20 articles for BikePortland going back to June 2010. He was doing a great job building up our Vancouver and Clark County coverage and I was happy to have his help. When he expressed interest in writing about the Williams project, to dig deeper into some of the sensitive issues around it, I felt like he could handle it so I gave him the green light.

With my support, Griffith embarked on the story.

During questioning of a source for the story via email, Griffith treated a member of our community in a way that I do not condone or approve of.

In part due to my gut feeling about that email exchange, I cancelled the assignment and never ran the story.

Since then, additional circumstances have led me to a decision to make a clean break with Griffith. I want to make it clear to everyone that Marcus Griffith is no longer affiliated with BikePortland. (I have reviewed the 20 articles he has written and they all stand on their own, so I have decided to leave them up.)

The trust people have in my decisions and in BikePortland, is extremely important to me. I have spent nearly seven years building this trust and I will do everything I can to maintain it.

I am not allowing comments on this post. You are free to contact me directly if you'd like.

Thank you.

During the monthly stakeholder advisory committee meeting for the North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project today, PBOT announced that it's "unlikely" they would be willing to redesign the street in the section between N Cook and Skidmore (known as Segment 4) into a one-lane configuration for auto traffic.

Segment 4 — which currently has two standard vehicle lanes, one bicycle lane and two auto parking lanes — is the highest traffic section of the project area with between 950 to 1,100 autos and 400 bicycles during peak hours.

PBOT's announcement, made by project manager Ellen Vanderslice, is a shift from their previous position.

Back in May 2011, city traffic engineers concluded that reconfiguring this section of Williams to one lane for auto traffic could be done with no increase in congestion. PBOT also made that determination based on community feedback in favor of making Williams one lane for auto traffic in order to improve bike access. PBOT had hoped that signal timing changes could yield more "green time" on Williams and thus make up for the lane reduction.

A woman on a bike attempts to make a left turn onto Failing from Williams during the evening rush hour.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)

Today, Vanderslice went through a segment by segment tour of the project. On the slide for Segment 4, under the heading of "Constraints," PBOT explained that "auto traffic is high enough that two travel lanes are likely needed during peak hour." In the other four segments, PBOT says a one-lane configuration is still possible.

In addition to auto traffic volumes, auto parking availability is also a major concern for PBOT and some stakeholders. This issue has been exacerbated with several new developments happening on the street (one apartment complex is nearing completion, another is on the way, and New Seasons will be built just to the south).

Addressing the committee today, Vanderslice said, "Early on, we thought signal changes could get us more capacity; but with development occurring it's unlikely we could ever go to one lane in this area."

Committee member Michelle DePass repeatedly brought up parking demand concerns. She said with two new apartment buildings and New Seasons on the horizon, more parking will be needed. "Keep in mind that many of the people moving into these places will probably have cars."

It's important to remember that PBOT initially approached this project with a reluctance to change Williams to one auto lane in Segment 4; but after they heard loud and clear from the public that a wider bikeway and a one auto lane configuration was preferred, they seemed poised to move forward with the one-lane solution. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA) was also ready to launch an advocacy campaign in favor of one lane on Williams.

That was mid-May of last year. Then, less than one month later, the project was put on hold due to concerns by some in the community that not everyone's opinion was being heard.

At the SAC meeting today, Vanderslice didn't completely rule out the possibility of one auto lane. "It doesn't mean we couldn't do one lane," she said, "but it means if you did you'd likely be pushing people to other facilities or they'd be waiting in traffic."

It was my sense from being on the sidelines of the SAC meeting today, that there remains a wide difference of opinion among committee members about this lane issue. It will be interesting to see how this discussion evolves (or if it does at all).

The SAC is still debating various design solutions for the project and their goal is to issue a resolution to City Council by March 6th.

— For more on this project, view our past coverage.

The Oregon Department of Transportation flipped the switch on a new crossing treatment on SW Barbur this morning. The location, south of SW Hamilton Street near Rasmussen Village, is just up the road from where Angela Burke was struck and then killed on December 15th, 2010 by Caleb Pruitt as he sped south on Barbur.

Burke was walking her bike, attempting to cross the street, when she was struck. Pruitt received a 60 month prison sentence in the case.

Google street view of location where beacon has been installed.

The location where the beacon was installed is a particularly high-speed section of Barbur. It has five auto lanes and bike lanes in both directions. A median island and pedestrian warning signs already exist due to a TriMet bus stop nearby (see photo). Activists have been pushing ODOT to install a crossing treatment in this location; but because Barbur is a state highway, ODOT was hesitant to do anything that could potentially impede auto traffic flow and/or cause rear-end collisions.

However, perhaps due in part to the high-profile tragedy, ODOT made it happen.

In a statement yesterday, the agency referred to the installation of the beacon as, "an unusal step." In addition to the flashing beacon, they've also installed additional warning beacons prior to the crossing to "warn drivers to slow down ahead of time so they can stop safely."

The beacon itself is activated via a push button. When the LEDs are flashing, people using the road (in cars or on bikes) are legally obligated to wait until a person has crossed safely before they continue. In their press release, ODOT warns people who will use the beacon to, "always be alert for the driver not paying attention—and not stopping."

Rapid flash beacons are a relatively new tool for traffic engineers. Portland has installed them in several other places, including an intersection on SE Foster that was the site of two fatalities in November 2010.

The beacons cost about $35,000 a piece.

The three leading candidates for Portland mayor took to the stage at Lincoln Hall on the campus of Portland State University last night. Organized by the PSU Planning Club and sponsored by a host of local transportation, land-use, and environmental advocacy groups, well over 400 people attended the event and organizers say they had to turn people away as the auditorium hit capacity.

It was packed.

The candidates — Eileen Brady, Jefferson Smith, and Charlie Hales — all represented themselves well and it's clear that no matter who Portland picks as it's next mayor, active transportation will not be ignored. All of the candidates spoke highly of maintaining and increasing our investments in transit service and making streets safer for walking and biking. That being said, key themes and differences emerged among them.

And, while one of the moderators reminded everyone that, since this is Portland, everyone needs to be "Really, really polite," there was a minor sparring match between Brady and Smith.

The questions ran the gamut of transportation issues; from how to engage under-represented communities, to the 2030 Bike Plan, to the Columbia River Crossing project.

The night's first question asked how the City should engage with low-income communities, people of color, and disabilities to make sure their transportation needs are prioritized. The answers each candidate gave reinforced their profile and set the tone for the rest of the evening.

Charlie Hales

Eileen Brady

Jefferson Smith

Hales' answer drew on his experience as a former Portland City Commissioner in charge of the transportation bureau. He advocated a "sensitive" (modeled after the N. Williams Ave project) and "straightforward" approach that takes citizen input seriously, but that isn't afraid to make a decision. Speaking of his experience taking MAX light rail to the airport, he said they held two meetings and then, "We closed the books and built the thing."

As an east Portland resident, Smith seized the opportunity to address this question and spoke energetically and passionately about the need for "our budgets to be linked to our hearts and values." Smith spoke about building a "broad-based coalition" and he repeated a common mantra in his campaign: "We're all in this together." His answer got a rousing applause from the crowd. Below is a recording of it so you can hear the spirit in his delivery...

Download audio file (jeff_equity.mp3)

Brady's answer to the first question also played to her strengths. The candidate who has been endorsed by the Portland Business Alliance took a question about how to engage under-represented communities and turned it into an opportunity to talk about creating jobs.

"East of 82nd, they want bus service to be able to get to their jobs... We need to create a virtuous cycle of more jobs, which means more revenue for TriMet [because bus service is funded through a payroll tax]."

It's clear that Brady wanted to make jobs and the economy her #1 theme — even at a debate about active transportation. She said she wants to "bust the myth" that, "you can't have a progressive city and a vibrant city at the same time." Her "nightmare," she explained, is that without creating more jobs, "We'll be left with green building with no one inside of them and streetcars without any passengers."

When the debate shifted to new funding strategies to get PBOT out of their budget pinch, Smith and Brady had the most pointed exchange of the evening.

Saying "the gas tax is decreasing," Smith proposed a slew of new revenue including a street maintenance fees (SMFs in wonk terms), a variable parking fee, and congestion pricing. He said the winning idea(s) should be based on our values and done in an equitable way.

Brady started off her answer by saying, "Jefferson, you have to do your homework." Brady contested the assertion that the gas tax was decreasing. "Our gas tax revenues are up year over year," she said. To Brady, the problem at PBOT isn't a lack of revenue, it's that the agency has "over committed to new projects." She'd like to find money by squeezing more efficiencies out of PBOT and consolidating their various planning and policy groups "under single leadership." Brady also advocated for further privatizing of PBOT's Sunday Parkways event*.

(*NOTE: Sunday Parkways is currently 2/3 paid for by private funding. As for the gas tax question, the truth is that the amount of gas tax collected has bumped up because it was raised in 2009 (in HB 2001). However, as a source of funding overall, it is in steep decline and shows no sign of rebounding. Also, it was a drastically lower projection of gas tax revenue by the State of Oregon that put PBOT in a pinch. They had committed to projects based on rosy gas tax revenue projections that — because it is inadequate and not what it used to be — failed to materialize.)

When pressed by a moderator for a specific revenue source, Brady said, "I think there's more dollars there [at PBOT] than you know."

Hales called the gas tax a "dinosaur" in the long run and advocated that we "move to some new system" and advocated a higher gas tax as a regional decision, not just in Portland.

Not surprisingly, all the candidates put a high priority on safety. When a question was asked about walking safety and sidewalk investments, I was surprised to hear both Brady and Smith mention that, due to funding realities, sidewalks won't be built everywhere they're needed. Instead, they both mentioned that in some cases, PBOT could just widen shoulders. Brady called that a "less expensive option," and I heard jeers from several people sitting next to me (including a member of the City's Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

Smith also used the walking safety question to address Brady's "homework" barb. "I appreciate the admonition to do my homework," he countered, and then pointed out that Brady is, "the one person to talk about no new revenue is the one doing the most drum-thumping for the CRC and PSU Sustainability Center projects."

When it comes to how our transportation priorities support our Climate Action Plan, each candidate offered a different idea.

Brady said we should build up our electric vehicle infrastructure, saying, "It will be one of my top priorities."

Hales said the key to stemming climate change is, "EBC," or "Everything But Cars." He spoke of building out our transit system and having frequent bus service "across the entire city." Hales also got in one of his several memorable lines with, "We can't have '20 minute neighborhoods' if we have 50 minute bus service."

Smith used the question to focus on "pedestrians," a voting block he said is "sometimes forgotten because most people don't identify with it so it's much harder to build political power." A lack of good walking access, according to Smith, is "a common denominator in a lot of problems we face." We need to build and plan our city so that, "An 8-year old can walk to school and an 80-year old can walk to the store," he said.

When the controversial CRC freeway expansion project was brought up, each candidate stuck to their positions.

Hales said he senses a "convergence around common sense" taking place with the project, that it "has to be sized to the funds available," and that it "must have light rail to Clark County and first-class bike and pedestrian facilities."

Smith wanted to talk about options to the current design. "What does plan b look like?" he asked. (Smith's answer echoed the thoughts he shared with me in our interview published yesterday.)

Brady said we've come too far in planning the project to give up on it now. She called the $140 million we've already spent an example of "government run amok," and added that, while it'd be "really easy to say, 'let's start over,'" she warned, "It may take us another 10 years to get back to the point we're at right now." After that line, a man in the crowd yelled, "Good!" and several people clapped.

"We should move on this project," said Brady, "I want to push this through and get it done... We have the opportunity. I say, grab it!"

After the main questions, a moderator posed a question from a 5th grader in the audience who wanted to know what the City's role could be in making cycling safer for families and school-aged children. Hales spoke about stepping up enforcement against people riding without lights and helmets, Smith brought up the need to tackle traffic speeds, and Brady said we should have the Safe Routes to Schools program at every school.

After the debate, I asked a few people during the reception what they thought. The reviews of the candidates' performances were mixed.

The post-debate reception.

Metro Council member Rex Burkholder (L) and activist Jim Howell.

BTA staffers Susan Peithman, Gerik Kransky (plaid shirt) and bike industry veteran Chris Distefano.

BTA Director Rob Sadowsky said, "We win with all of them," but he noted a collective "gasp" from the many PBOT employees in the room when Brady brought up finding "efficiencies" in the agency. When I asked a friend who works at PBOT about Brady's comments, he said, "That's already on par with what we're doing." (As per a directive from Director Tom Miller, PBOT is consolidating some of its planning and safety groups.)

David Hampsten, a noted east Portland neighborhood activist said he felt all three candidates were "positive." He really liked Hales' points about increasing community policing (specifically, getting cops out of cars and onto their feet and on bikes), especially around transit stops.

Matt Picio, founder and president of the non-profit Cycle Wild, said the event made him realize he's "absolutely not voting for Eileen Brady." Picio cited her focus on jobs as a revenue generator and her pro-CRC stance.

Brady's CRC stance also resonated with veteran transportation activist Jim Howell (he was around during defeat of the Mt. Hood Freeway). "I'm scared of her and her 'get in and get that project built!' comments."

Overall, I think all three candidates should feel good about their performance.

Hales was clearly the most comfortable with these topics — which isn't surprising given his experience as a streetcar consultant and former City Commissioner. He connected with the audience several times; around his ideas for bold projects like a bikeway to Astoria along the river and his memorable one-liners. While Brady was clearly the furthest from her comfort zone, she held her own and gave voters a lot to think about. Smith had more concrete ideas and passion around his principles than the others; but his delivery and his penchant for cracking jokes sometimes distracted from them.

What did you think? Did this even help you decide who will get your vote? In case you haven't read them yet, don't miss my interviews with Hales and Smith. I hope to sit down with Brady soon.