Bike Lanes Are White Lanes!’: the Social Implications of Urban Active Transportation Planning in the Built Environment of Portland, OR

‘Bike Lanes are White Lanes!’: The Social Implications of Urban Active Transportation Planning in the Built Environment of Portland, OR

Lucy E. Roberts Lewis & Clark College Portland, Oregon In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Environmental Studies Program Concentration: Maps as Instruments of Power May 2014 2

Abstract

This paper serves as an interrogation into how decisions regarding equity and opportunity are made and whom the built environment is intended to serve. I situate my argument around the bicycle, in an attempt to complicate the discussion of bicycles as a democratic and equalizing tool of transportation. In the bike-friendly context of Portland, OR, a closer look is taken to examine who is a part of the conversation regarding bicycle safety, infrastructural development, and transit justice. What patterns do those in power exhibit when they make a decision that will impact the community? Through a mixed-methodology approach, I evaluate effects of gentrification on communities that have seen improved bicycle infrastructure from 1990-2010. The results find that bicycle infrastructure tends to follow recently gentrified areas, due to elitist bicycle culture, and the way in which infrastructure is designed, implemented and utilized. Furthermore, affected communities will continue to be unhappy and left with feelings of exclusivity, and planners will continue to be unaware of cultural differences and consequences of bicycle infrastructure until these many differences are addressed during the planning process.

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: HISTORIC ALBINA NEIGHBORHOOD IN OREGON, 1993 7

FIGURE 2: POPULATION PEOPLE OF COLOR, 2010 12

FIGURE 3: AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION, 2010 12

FIGURE 4: TRANSIT ACCESS BY NEIGHBORHOOD, 2010 12

FIGURE 5: PORTLAND, OREGON BICYCLE COMMUTE MODE, 2006-2010 13

FIGURE 6: BICYCLE COMMUTE MODE FOR PORTLAND, OREGON, 2000 14

FIGURE 7: DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE FROM 2000-2010 15

FIGURE 8: PORTLAND BICYCLE COUNT DATA, 2012 18

FIGURE 9: TRANSPORTATION PRIORITIES, 2014 19

FIGURE 10: NORTH WILLIAMS AVENUE IN HISTORIC ALBINA NEIGHBORHOOD, 2014 20

FIGURE 11: DEMOGRAPHICS OF BICYCLISTS NATION WIDE, 2001-2009 21

FIGURE 12: HISTORIC AFRICAN AMERICAN SPACE ON N WILLIAMS AVENUE, 2012 23

FIGURE 13: N WILLIAMS AVE, DESIGN PLAN, 2014 26

Introduction Transportation enables access to all things in the built environment. The ease with which the typical American is able to get to work, school, church, the grocery store and areas of recreation is unique to the First-World, opportune-rich experience. Cities and states rely on securing funding for roads to provide reliable, safe, and efficient routes that get people where they need to go, each and every day. Transportation serves as an absolutely necessary means to an end; thus affecting equity, opportunity and many vital aspects of our daily lives (Giuliano and Hanson 2004). Transportation infrastructure should be accessible and equitable to all people regardless of geography, class, ethnicity, gender, or ability (Litman 2002, Bullard and Johnson 1997). This is the premise of transportation justice. The built environment of a city is planned and constructed in order to meet the needs of its citizens. It is throughout the city planning and outreach processes that inequality and discrimination can become institutionalized. Similarly, the construction and implementation of infrastructure allows geographical injustices to become physically manifested. In transportation infrastructure planning, the alleged notion is to push a city in the progressive direction of inclusivity and accessibility, but poor planning and exclusivity throughout the process can result in unintended social consequences (Arnold 2011, Lubitow and Miller 2013). This paper is situated at the intersection of urban planning and social justice. This paper serves as an interrogation into how decisions regarding equity and opportunity are made and whom the built environment is intended to serve. I situate my argument around the bicycle, in an attempt to complicate the discussion of bicycles as a democratic and equalizing tool of transportation. In the bike-friendly context of Portland, OR, a closer look is taken to examine who is a part of the conversation regarding bicycle safety, infrastructural development, and transit justice. What patterns do those in power exhibit when they make a decision that will impact the community? I am detangling what the promotion of bicycle safety communicates to marginalized communities of the city. There is power and privilege in being able to choose to ride and having the option of identifying as a “cyclist.” Is the city of Portland promoting cycling infrastructure that benefits those who are already privileged riders or is cycling truly an egalitarian form of transportation, open and accessible to all? Improving bike infrastructure seems to be an equitable vision for the future. In this paper, however, I argue the way in which this infrastructure is designed, implemented and utilized, 5 along with Portland’s current bicycle culture has resulted in bicycle lanes communicating gentrification and exclusivity to historically underserved Portlanders. Affected communities will continue to be unhappy and left with feelings of exclusivity, and planners will continue to be unaware of cultural differences and consequences of bicycle infrastructure until these many differences are addressed before, during and after the planning process. I use a mixed- methodology approach consisting of mapping to show geographic distribution of bike lanes; a case study of north Williams Avenue in Portland to understand community reactions to city imposed bike lane improvements; informational interviews with a variety of professionals involved in active transportation; and analysis of surveys conducted by the city of Portland. This essay begins with a broad discussion of transportation decisions nation wide, and then zooms in on Portland, OR and situates the discussion around the bicycle and social implications of bicycle infrastructure. Exclusion in “Environmentalism” This paper offers a critical stance on environmental initiatives that attempt to speak for people and promote solutions that claim to create a more just, sustainable world. Building off arguments from environmental justice, geographic justice, and transportation justice (Arnold 2011, Bullard et al. 2004), this paper contributes to the discussion of what is at stake in urban planning and policy concerning sustainable futures. The important question to ask over and over again is, a sustainable future for whom (Harvey 2009)? I focus specifically on bicycle infrastructure that is proposed and implemented by outsiders (such as city of Portland employees or cyclists that are not from the area) in the community of Northeast Portland. I am situating this research in Portland because the city has been renowned for sustainable initiatives and is known as America’s bike capital, but social disparities remain a big issue (Lubitow and Miller 2013). Lubitow and Miller argue that urban sustainability policy strongly favors green infrastructural developments, and other high-visibility projects, marginalizing notions of inclusion, equity, and justice in the process (2013). An Overview of Transportation Discrepancies and Politics Nation Wide “Who gets what, when, where, why and how much is not rocket science but political science.”1 Transport: “to carry, convey or remove from one place or person to another; to convey across” (OED Online)2. Dissected down to its etymology, transportation serves as a way to get

1 Bullard p. 5, 2004 6 people where they need to go. Whatever the destination- work, school, the grocery store, or a place of recreation- transportation is one of the most important facets of social living in any setting. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, Americans now spend more than 100 hours per year commuting to the workplace (2005). Within the transportation sector, citizens, city planners and governments are faced with a number of problems to overcome. Transportation and mobility have political, gendered, racial and classist aspects (Agyeman 2012, Furness 2010, Hoffman 2013). This section serves to review transportation discrepancies in American cities in order to provide an appropriate context to understand what is currently going on in Portland, OR. Zach Furness, in One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility situates the reader within the political, cultural and socioeconomic discussion of mobility and the transportation sector in the United States. By doing so, his book illustrates “why technology is never neutral, space is never empty and mobility is never disconnected from power” (Furness 2010 p. 11). Transportation systems are not organic systems that just appear when needed. City, state and federal officials plan transit routes, and intentionally or not, these transportation planners often favor certain types of travelers (i.e. automobile drivers), leading to a systematic exclusion of other types of travelers (i.e. bus riders and cyclists). There are also race and class dimensions to transportation decisions. In the book, Highway Robbery, Bullard et al. (2004) elaborate on the detrimental effects poor transportation decisions made by those in power can have on communities of color and low-income areas. The decisions to build interstates through areas with high density of communities of color led to displacement and traumatic interactions with city planners. These decisions and policies “have also aided, and in some cases subsidized, racial, economic, and environmental inequities as evidenced by the segregated housing and spatial layout of our central cities and suburbs” (Bullard, Johnson, Torres 2004 p.3). Transportation equity works to ensure minority and low income populations are not disproportionately affected by consequences, intended or not, of transit planning processes. Infrastructure communicates power and symbolizes government

2 "transport, v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/205017 (accessed February 18, 2014).

7 intervention, since transportation infrastructure is funded and carried out by those in power. It is in this way that infrastructure decisions are inherently political (Schmitt 2011). Scars on the Ground: The Interstate Era and Destruction of Communities of Color During the same time frame in which the Montgomery Bus Boycott and civil rights activists were working to change the future of transportation segregation (King 1958), federal funds were filtered into the creation of the interstate highway system that would systematically destroy neighborhoods of color and low-income, furthering segregation in cities in the United States and paving the way for injustices in the built environment for years to come (Vale and Vale 1983). The national interstate highway system, a 42,500-mile network, was created and promoted during the Interstate Era of America (1956-1991). The goal of the project was to provide access from the suburbs to the central business districts in a systematic and efficient fashion, and this had the consequence of changing the physical and racial landscape of cities (Mohl 2002). The patterns that exist for the placement of each interstate tell an unsettling story of the destruction of vibrant minority and low-income communities, further decreasing the investment and access to resources these areas received. Specifically, cities such as St. Paul, MN; Detroit, MI; Nashville, TN; Atlanta, GA and Portland, OR suffered as a result of the passing of the Federal Highway Act in 1956. The WNYC and Transportation Nation podcast Back of the Bus tells the story of what Black communities endured from the destruction of the Interstate Era. In the podcast, Director of the Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity at the University of Minnesota Law School Myron Orfield says, “The highway building would often plunge through the poor black neighborhoods of cities because they were the path of least resistance” (2013, 11:17). Urban planners were securing the needs of middle class people with more political power than the Black community (Bernstein et al. 2013). Interstate Era policies were created under the belief that freeway development would help people navigate the cities faster and more efficiently. This provided a “one size fits all” solution to a problem that does not fall into such categories. This blanket approach of solving a transportation problem had many severe unintended consequences on the 30% of Americans that did not use cars to get around (Jakowitsch and Ernst 2004). The construction of these roadways physically constructed a barrier to mobility for populations living in proximity to the freeways 8 and those who travel by other means (public transit or pedestrian). The freeways constructed in these cities created a geographic disparity, displacing the communities that once resided in the areas of construction. Construction destroyed certain neighborhoods and isolated others, creating physical ghettos (Kuntsler 1993). The construction of the freeway changed the way American society views and values the landscape (Vale and Vale 1983). The freeway system supports a separation of distance from the workplace and home. Psychologically, the freeway development made traveling long distances more accessible, and the commuting lifestyle followed and was encouraged by this (Kauffman 2004). The high speeds at which drivers were travelling also resulted in less attention paid to the surrounding geography and, arguably, a loss of land ethic. Much of the freeway development was federally funded and implemented. Areas of low- income and minority make up were deemed “blighted” and chosen for placement of interstate development (Mohl 2002). The citing of interstates through marginalized communities is exactly what environmental justice aims to fight. Environmental justice focuses on disparities such as this one in the built environment, and when applied in this paper, supports the argument that low income and minority communities disproportionately live in areas with lower rates of safe, accessible and affordable transportation options. The correlation between freeway construction during the Interstate Era and destruction of low income and communities of color was no coincidence. The development of the freeway system was created, funded, and supported by companies and people in positions of power on the federal level with clear economic motivations and known benefits from the project, while many people harmed by the destruction of their communities were excluded from the conversation. This example of exclusion in the planning process serves to surface fundamental questions and issues that arise on the larger scale of the built urban environment. The following section will lay out planning disparities in the history of Portland, Oregon. History of Portland and Urban Renewal Portland, Oregon is the third most populous city in the Pacific Northwest, with a current population of 583,776, according to 2010 census data. The census reported the city as 76.1% White, 7.1% Asian, 6.3% Black or African American, and 1% Native American. Portland has hilly terrain in certain areas, specifically southwest and northwest Portland. The city was 9 originally developed around the logging industry, hence the colloquial reference to Portland as “stumptown.” Agriculture and timber production were protected from city sprawl by the creation of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in 1979.3 The UGB has been central to promoting density and efficiency of the city center. Portland has a brilliant history of urban planning; however, a different history lives below the surface and plays a large role in the segregation of the city. The racial history of Oregon is one of segregation and exclusivity. When Oregon was developing into statehood, race played a central role in the debate. In November 1857, the Oregon Territory voted in favor of a new constitution that eventually made its way to the U.S. Congress. In this new constitution, one clause excluded free Blacks from living in the state in a series of exclusion laws. The exclusion laws remained in the Oregon Constitution until 1926, setting the scene for the racial battles the state has been furiously engaged in since conception4. The history of the state strongly impacted the segregation of the city of Portland. Contemporary Portland has a Black population of 6.3%, according to the 2010 census, and is called the whitest city in America. The overwhelming white majority and racial history is being explored in the upcoming documentary, Whitelandia (Smith 2014). When African-Americans began settling in Portland in the 1940s, these communities came to work in the construction and railroad sector. Black Portlanders have historically been geographically segregated from the white community, with Black communities becoming established in north and northeast Portland. The Black workers generally settled in the cities of Vanport and Albina- two cities that no longer exist in present day Portland. The flood of 1948 wiped out Vanport; the disappearance of the city of Albina involved more complex processes. Figure 1 shows where the Albina boundaries used to be.

3 http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/goals.aspx 4 http://www.ohs.org/education/history-minutes-oregons-exclusion-laws.cfm 10

Figure 1 Map of historic Albina neighborhood in Oregon Urban Renewal, famously deemed “negro removal” in the 1960s by James Baldwin (Orlando and Noland Walker 2004), was initiated by the federal government, and began reclaiming space and reinvesting in areas the city deemed as “blighted.” Malicious actions from city planners destroyed and segregated the Black and low-income community in Portland. It was the coupling of Urban Renewal and highway development that led to the displacement of hundreds of residents in the historically black and low income Albina neighborhood. In 1956, 476 homes were destroyed in order to make room for the construction of the Memorial Coliseum. Freeway construction demolished an additional several hundred housing units, forcing residents to relocate. This resulted in further geographic disparities, as the Black community of Albina moved to the northeastern fringe area of Portland, where property values were affordable. (Gibson 2007). Redlining practices also denied or charged more for housing, banking, and insurance based on racial discrimination (Sagawa 2000), and this prevented much of the Black 11 population from living in Albina. The construction of new buildings such as the Memorial Coliseum, Legacy Emanuel Medical Center and Interstate 5 (Gibson 2007) literally tore through a community that had vibrant culture, leaving no more than a scar on the ground over what used to be. The lack of inclusion of Albina residents in the construction process highlights the race and income disparities in urban planning that have shaped transportation decisions throughout the decades, and haunts present day planning discussions (Hoffman 2013). The construction of the highway was focused on serving a certain demographic- suburbanites who drive cars- but the location in which the construction took place most certainly did not consist of the demographic it was intended to serve. This placed the true cost of highway construction such as pollution, noise, environmental degradation and dangerous speeding cars in an area of little political power, low income, and high percentage (75-80%) of black residents (Gibson 2007). Portland, OR has an extreme history of city-instigated discrimination, evidenced by archival documents from the Portland Development Commission, as cited in Gibson’s Bleeding Albina (2007). Portland’s application for federal Urban Renewal funds argues that Portland’s site of “urban blight” is in the Albina area. The application cited reasons for freeway construction in this location because the area “contains the highest concentration of low-income families and experiences the highest rate of crime in the City of Portland…The area contains a high percentage of substandard housing and a high rate of unemployment” (Portland Development Commission 1966:17). The history of Albina highlights detrimental consequences of poor and malicious planning practices from the city. Disparities of the built environment do not exist solely because of federally funded developments; even in the small city of Portland, lack of inclusion in the planning conversation clearly has consequences. The destruction of the predominantly Black Albina neighborhood provides an explanation as to why the community of northeast Portland may see infrastructure as more than physical changes in an area; infrastructure and spatial changes to the area now have historically rooted symbolic meanings and struggles over governance and political power. The Role of the Bicycle in Portland, OR 12

In 2012, Portland was declared America’s Number One Bicycling City (Donahue 2012). The bicycle is more than a children’s toy in Portland; here, the bicycle is a “tool.”5 People identify as cyclists, and riding a bike means a lot more than using a two-wheeled machine to get around. Certain bicycles can serve as a status symbol; other bicycles serve as vehicles for families that are car-free; for some people in Portland, the bicycle industry is how they make a living. Reasons for riding are many (Wray 2008, Geller 2013) and Portlanders that are loud and proud of their cycling reputation won’t hold back when asked why they ride (Griffin-Valade 2013). Bicycling as a form of transportation reduces reliance on fossil fuels, creates safer and healthier communities, slows traffic, and empowers individuals to be their own transportation. Portland boasts a cycling narrative of empowerment, inclusivity and community. This paper will now challenge mainstream views of the bicycle and examine which communities are left behind or systematically ignored in cycling infrastructure policy and the conversations regarding a push for a bike friendly city. While bicycles can serve as tools of empowerment, and the history of biking supports this claim6, there is a severe divide in the Portland community between who is served by bike infrastructure and who remains underserved. Lack of bicycle infrastructure is a huge reason people do not bike (Dill 2003, Letherby and Reynolds 2009, Rodrigues 2014). Other common barriers to cycling include weather, terrain or topography, required dress for work or school, safety and security (Steinbach et al. 2011). The barriers to cycling vary depending on gender, race, ethnicity, age, and location, and each community has different barriers they come across (Understanding Barriers to Bicycling 2012). This multiplicity of barriers to bicycling in Portland requires a various range of planning efforts and tactics.

Methods and Results The nature of this topic is highly interdisciplinary. Therefore, in order to collect adequate and appropriate data I used 4 methods; 1) I analyzed maps to understand the changes Portland has seen in the past 2 decades, and I performed a geographic analysis to investigate if there is a correlation between citing of bicycle lanes and demographics, income, or political power.

5 The phrase, “the bicycle is a tool” was something I commonly heard in the interviews I conducted. 6 Susan B. Anthony, famous women’s suffragist, was quoted in 1896 as saying "I think [the bicycle] has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world." 13

2) I conducted a series of 8 semi-formal, hour-long informational interviews with professionals in the active transportation sector. The goals of the interviews were to gain insight into initiatives of Portland’s transportation and bicycle networks, and uncover where the gaps lie (see Appendix A for full list of interviewees). The interviews were classified by type; biking and equity, bicycle advocacy, and bicycle planning and community engagement. The demographic range of professionals I conducted interviews with was fairly diverse; with one quarter of the people I interviewed identifying with an ethnicity other than white, almost half identifying as female, and ages ranging from late twenties to early fifties. 3) I analyzed the phone transportation priorities survey conducted by the city of Portland Bureau of Transportation in 2014, and the City of Portland Bike Count Data for 2012, in order to gather information regarding residents’ priorities and patterns of cycling. 4) I analyzed the case study of the North Williams Traffic Operations Stakeholder Advisory Committee to follow how the city of Portland changed the design of the bike infrastructure after receiving input from the community during the planning process. I sorted through meeting notes and reports documenting the progress of the N Williams Avenue bicycle infrastructure improvements. My data collection for this paper is directed at answering the following research questions:

 Where is bike infrastructure currently being installed? Who is and who is not being served? How has this developed over time?

 What are the motivations behind the city of Portland and urban planners in terms of bicycle infrastructure? Who are the loudest voices in policy decisions regarding bike lanes and boulevards? Who is being excluded from the conversation?

 What are the effects of gentrification in these communities? What shifts have communities seen from the improved bikeways? Portland in the Present: An Analysis of Transportation Practices Today Portland’s Black community has seen many changes since Urban Renewal in the 1950’s, but has generally remained in the north and northeastern area of Portland, as shown in Figures 2- 4. Additionally, other minority communities reside on the margins of the UGB in Portland. Unfortunately, the geographic segregation of minority communities has resulted in spatial transportation disparities. These disparities may be a result of unintended consequences of urban 14 transportation infrastructure planning. Planning that focuses on connecting people to the downtown business center may inadvertently not devote enough resources to fringe areas of the city, due to perceived lack of demand. Geographic inequity analysis addresses distribution of transportation services, examining if one area is better served than another. Additionally, it questions if outcomes- such as investments, infrastructure, and access to employment centers- that favor one area over another are addressed in the planning process (Bullard 2004). Figures 2 and 3 below show locations of populations of color and African American population, respectively by percent of total population. In Figure 2, the darker areas demonstrate a higher percentage of people of color. These darker areas are in East, North and Northeast Portland. The city center is fairly light; denoting the population of color is 5%-15%. Figure 3 shows a similar pattern; with darker areas demonstrating a higher percentage of the African American population. The darkest areas are North and Northeast Portland, and the city center shows a population of .2%-3%. Figure 4 shows transit access by neighborhood, and the legend highlights darker shaded areas having proximity of under ½ miles to transit. The darkest shaded areas are within and around Portland’s city center. This demonstrates centralization of transit access. Figures 2 and 3 show locations of populations of color and African American populations within the city of Portland, and when compared to Figure 4; it seems that transit access is highest in the city center and lowest in East and North Portland. In other words, Figure 4 shows populations of color and African American populations having lower access to transit in their neighborhoods because they are not located in proximity to the city center. East Portland has suffered from severe cuts in bus service, as has North Portland (Rose 2012). The demographics of these areas are different than inner Southeast and the city center. Inner southeast boasts fantastic public transit and prominent bicycle infrastructure, while poor and unreliable bus service in East Portland is well hidden from the dominant Portland narrative. 15

Figure 2 Population People of Color 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future

Figure 3 African American Population in 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future

Figure 4 Transit Access by Neighborhood 2010; Coalition for a Livable Future; Legend shows darker areas in proximity in miles to transit access

Figure 5 below shows Portland’s bicycle commute mode, meaning number of bicycle trips taken to and from work, split by census tract from 2006-2010. The maps show high density of bicycle trips to and from work in downtown and inner Southeast Portland. The thick black lines on the map denote existing bikeways, showing adequate bikeways surrounding downtown and inner Southeast Portland; and inadequate bikeways out in East Portland. Bicycling patterns appear to follow bikeway infrastructure. Figure 5 highlights a gap in bicycle infrastructure in East Portland and North Portland, relative to Southeast Portland. Figures 2 and 3 show that East Portland is a location with high percentage of populations of color, and North Portland is a location with high percentage of African Americans.

Figure 5 From Portland Bicycle Count Report 2012; Darker shading denotes more bicycle commuters

Figure 6 below shows what bicycle infrastructure looked like in 2000, and the subsequent bicycling patterns. Figure 6 compared with Figure 5 shows that within one decade; bikeway infrastructure boomed and the percentage of people bicycling to work followed this boom. 17

Figure 6 Bicycle Commute Mode for Portland, OR in 2000, and Existing Bikeways. Source: PBOT/ Bike Portland.org Figure 7 below shows neighborhoods that have seen a “demographic change” between 2000-2010. A demographic change is demarcated by the following: “tract experienced greater increase than Portland as a whole for at least 3 of 4 factors: % white, % population 25+ with bachelor’s degree, % homeowners, median household income OR Tract experienced greater increase than Portland as a whole for both % white and % with bachelor’s degree.” Figure 7 shows demographic change in North, Northeast (previously Albina), Southwest, and areas of Northwest Portland. Figure 7, compared with Figures 5 and 6, shows a correlation between the increase of bicycle infrastructure and related increase in commute mode from 2000-20010, and demographic change from 2000-2010. It is unclear whether the bikeway infrastructure followed the demographic change, or if the demographic change followed the bikeway infrastructure. Either 18 way; bicycle infrastructure seems to have played a large role in the changes Northeast and North Portland experienced between 2000-2010.

Figure 7 Demographic Changes from 2000-2010. From City of Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability Gentrification and Displacement Study Maps

Interview Data Reactions to N Williams Ave. Planning Controversy “If the city learned anything it is that they need to be aware of the impact of the historically racist decisions the city has made regarding placement of transportation facilities,” Kransky told me. He hopes the city will execute the planning process correctly from the start next time; meaning embracing and understanding how transportation decisions can have unintended consequences, and honest community engagement and legitimate community decision making power must be held. The final outcome of the N Williams planning committee, which is discussed later in this paper, did incorporate community engagement and a community-based planning method. Tetteh believes the city made the best decision for all stakeholders involved and the outcome of the project was something completely different from the original plan. Bringing Equity to the Bicycle Scene I had many conversations about race and biking. Williams came to Portland in January 2014 from Long Beach, CA. She was well aware that she would join the very small sector of the 19 bicycle community members that identify as Black, but she also was aware of Portland’s reputation as the “best bike city.” She came here to become a bicycle advocate, and to bring equity to the discussion. She reflected that, yes, Portland is the whitest city in America, but people of color still live here- and they have fallen through the cracks. Reasons for this include inaccessible outreach because meetings are held in the middle of the day, lack of childcare provision, and lack of transportation to and from community meetings. Williams believes that community engagement is the key to involving areas that have been marginalized from the bicycle infrastructure planning discussion. She does not believe bikes are only for white people (herself being a Black woman that rides is proof), however, bicycle infrastructure is strongest in white, affluent communities, so naturally bike lanes in these areas are inhabited by a majority of white people. Hoffman resonated a similar sentiment that bicycles tend to cater to a certain demographic. She argues that there are lots of people from diverse backgrounds who bike- they just bike in different ways than the dominating classes have been trained to see. In a sense, women, children, immigrants and other marginalized communities may bike on side streets out of safety and comfort concerns, meaning they are not utilizing the city supported bike lanes that flow next to heavy traffic. Tetteh similarly reflected on disparities between race and bicycling. He articulated the goal of the Community Cycling Center, a bike shop located in Northeast Portland, as being to help overcome barriers that prevent people from being able to choose to ride. The difference between transit dependent communities and self-declared “car-free” communities is choice. The choice to ride a bicycle to work revolves around one’s distance to work, hours of work, and inherently one’s class and status in society. Tetteh also brought attention to how the bicycle can symbolize different things to different communities. In some countries, the bicycle symbolizes poverty; in others, the bicycle signifies childhood. However, in Portland it often signifies privilege of opportunity- opportunity to live in close proximity to work and have adequate attire to bike in all types of Portland weather. The Built Environment and Transportation Forsberg discussed the city’s initiatives of “encouragement” programs, directed towards people who do not consider bicycling as a form of transportation. He defined encouragement for 20 people who are motivated and supportive of walking and biking, but do not yet participate in active transportation because there is a barrier preventing them. The Portland Bureau of Transportation is well aware of infrastructural disparities, and has future plans for extensive biking infrastructure improvements. Kransky discussed how funding presents a barrier for the city to extend the bicycle infrastructure to every area. Funding is key to what gets support, and gaining state or federal funding is challenging, and often comes with very specific regulations. He is a strong advocate of neighborhood greenways because they do not cost as much and they are easily accessible for neighborhoods, resulting in more attention and visibility brought to cycling. Kransky said cycle tracks- bike lanes that are physically separated from moving traffic by parked cars- are harder to sell politically because they tend to cater to a certain demographic; that is, people with a more advanced riding style and regular riders. Data Analysis from City of Portland Transportation Priorities Survey and Annual Bike Count City of Portland Bike Counts 2012 Bike counts conducted annually by the city of Portland are done at 7-9am and 4-6 pm, between the months of June, July, August and September. Volunteers manually collect the data, and information collected includes the gender of the cyclist and helmet use. This data is collected during the rush “peak period”, but the 2012 Portland Bicycle Count Report does not explain why these are the only hours under which the counting occurs. Some bridges and busy streets include 24-hour automated counts in order for the city to understand the ebb and flow of bicycle traffic throughout the day. These automatic counters, however, do not collect information about gender or helmet use. This data collection scheme prioritizes bicyclists that commute to work and work traditional hours. Working on a 9-5 schedule has certain connotations as to the demographics of cyclists that will be included on the count. For example, women who bike to the grocery store, or with their children to school may not been counted during these counting hours. Additionally, day laborers that start work at 5 am will be excluded from the counts. The city of Portland uses the bike count data to quantify if bicycle usage is increasing throughout the years. With limited time and resources, the City of Portland has to be efficient as to how they count bikers, but the choices they are making do systematically exclude some cyclists, as mentioned above. Nonetheless, the 2012 Portland Bicycle Count shows how 21 significantly bike traffic has increased in North Portland. Figure 8 below shows how immensely bicycle traffic has increased along the intersection of N Williams & Russell. There are now almost 4,000 daily bicycle trips past this intersection.

Figure 8 Portland Bicycle Count 2012 Data for North Portland City of Portland Transportation Phone Survey Data 2014 From January 16-21, 2014 DHM Research conducted a telephone survey to registered voters in Portland to collect information for Portland Bureau of Transportation regarding the voters’ perceptions of the city’s transportation needs. This was conducted in order to help PBOT “prioritize future transportation-related projects” (Portland Transportation Priorities- Survey Report p.1 2014). This survey reached 800 respondents, and quotas were set by the city regarding age, gender, political affiliation, and area of the city in order to gather a representative sample. The report summarizes the different transportation priorities identified by the respondents, noting that priorities did not vary widely amongst different ethnicities; except in 22 terms of desire for frequent bus service and MAX rail. The survey found that “non-whites turned in higher percentages favoring immediate investment in frequent bus service, MAX light rail service, and separated bus lanes” (p.11). This falls in line with the theoretical research provided on the subject of public transportation. The figure below is taken from page 8 of the report, and illustrates how low bike routes fall in terms of transportation priorities of the survey respondents. The priorities, as ranked by the respondents on a scale of 1-7, provide insight as to what all citizens of Portland feel need greater investment and improvement. The top priority is safe pedestrian street crossings, while safer bike routes is number 10 out of 17.

Figure 9 Transportation Priorities, as provided by DHM Report

Demographic Changes in Northeast Portland and Transportation Amenities

Figure 10 Map of North Williams Avenue in Historic Albina Neighborhood The displacement and disinvestment of the northeast Portland community has most certainly left a mark in the memories and lifestyles of long time residents, forcing many of the previous tenants of homes to move away and into new communities- often on the margins of the city limits. The removal of hundreds of African-American and low-income households has not been the end of the power struggle between northeast Portland community members and the city of Portland urban planners. Contemporary disparities are also hotly contested. When the neighborhood surrounding N Williams Avenue saw an influx of white, middle to upper class residents belonging to the “artsy” sector of Portland in the late 1990’s, this area started getting more attention from the city in terms of pedestrian and bicycle safety and infrastructure development. In this section, I will lay out the fundamental shifts this area has gone through in years since Urban Renewal, describing key reactions from long time residents as 24 a way of understanding the current relationship between this community and city of Portland planners. In 1990, the residents surrounding N Williams avenue were approximately 20% white, while in 2010 the proportion jumped to over 50%, due to gentrification of the area (Hannah- Jones 2011). In 1999, the white stripes of bike lanes were painted onto N Williams avenue (Portland Bureau of Transportation 2012). Many of the Black-owned businesses that historically were a part of the N. Williams and Albina landscape are now gone, and white-owned bars and bike shops take their place. The conflict between new white residents and long time Black residents is at the forefront of this discussion. Who was the bike lane intended to serve? What do bike lanes signify to Black residents of the area? Bicycle infrastructure has been shown to increase property values and recruit new residents who value such things to an area (Brown 2010). While the city of Portland may not have intended to push out the long time Black residents with the improvement of bicycle infrastructure, among other transportation services and amenities, property values in this area have been steadily rising, and the area has gone through a rapid process of gentrification (Sullivan and Shaw 2011). The increase in amenities seems to have followed the influx of white residents to the neighborhood, and the dominant proportion of white bikers left another poor interaction with city-initiated infrastructure in this community, resonating sentiments similar to that of Urban Renewal. Infrastructure is politically charged, and bicycle infrastructure may now signify gentrification to communities of color due to the dominant presence of white bikers. Figure 11 below shows how white people are over represented in the US in the cycling sector. 25

Figure 11 From Sightline Daily; Graph shows demographics of bicyclists nation wide North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project: Case Study The detrimental story of the previous Albina area surrounding N Williams Ave. has not been forgotten. Many of the new, white residents moving into the community are naively unaware of the history of the area. In the summer of 2010, the history behind this northeast community came to be a point of contention and eventually came to the attention of city planners when the Portland Bureau of Transportation developed the N. Williams Ave Traffic Operations Safety project. Figure 12, created by Dirk Kinsey for the city of Portland’s North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Stakeholder Advisory Committee and its Honoring Histories Subcommittee, maps the historically Black-owned spaces along N Williams, from 1920-2010. Kinsey articulates that the goal of this map is to bring attention to the history behind N Williams Avenue. In the place of many businesses that used to stand; bike shops, bars and coffee shops reside. Only 22 of the 49 spaces on the map were still standing in 2010 (Kinsey 2012). 26

Figure 12 Map of historic African American spaces on N Williams Avenue, Dirk Kinsey, 2012

Along with the rapidly changing demographics of the neighborhood, bicycle traffic increased drastically, and in 2007 bicycle traffic increased 138% in that year alone (North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Final Report 2012). Now, Williams sees upwards of 4,000 trips daily. The project was first proposed to improve bicycling and walking conditions on Williams avenue, since the bicycle traffic was increasing so rapidly. This proposal, however, was not well received by the surrounding African American community. The historical context of the neighborhood was seemingly ignored and this upset many people who had endured rapid changes of the area. A halt was placed on the project proposal, and more time was created for outreach and stakeholder hearing committees. Many members of the community who felt they were not previously included in discussions of what the city planned to do to their neighborhood spoke out and attended the community input meetings. Neighborhood residents were frustrated with the project because the motivation for the city to improve the safety of the area arose once the area saw an influx of white people. One longtime resident of the area, Donna Maxey, voiced her sentiments at a North Williams Traffic Safety Operations Project meeting in July 2011, saying "What is causing the anger and resentment is that it's only an issue of safety now that whites are the ones who are riding bicycles and walking on the streets. Because we have been in this community for years and it has not been an issue and now it's an issue” (Davis para. 2 2011). Sharon Maxwell-Hendricks expressed a similar notion at the same planning meeting, “You say you want it ‘safe’ for everybody, how come it wasn’t safe 10 years ago? That’s part of the whole racism thing … we wanted safe streets back then; but now that the bicyclists want to have safe streets then it’s all about the bicyclists getting safe streets” (Schmitt para. 7 2011). This brings up serious political implications and highlights the issue of whose voice the city is listening to. From the perspective of city planner, the changes to Williams avenue are an issue of demand. The bike lane on Williams Ave. is frequented by thousands of riders, so naturally safety issues arise and the powerful advocacy of Portland’ bike community pushed the city to respond to this area. Longtime residents of the area, however, have complicated and historically rooted relationships with city imposed infrastructural changes; and reflect a sentiment that bike lanes are being improved for the safety and security of white people. The Outcome of North Williams Avenue Traffic Safety Operations Project 28

After weeks of community stakeholder meetings and reevaluating the proposal, on December 6, 2011 the committee voted to include a seventh point under the Purpose and Objectives section of the project that states one of the project goals “To honor the history of North Williams Avenue through elements of the transportation project” (North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project Final Report p. 1 2012). This means a public installation that details the history of Albina is going to be displayed. The level of public involvement in this project was very high, and certainly aided in the success of the project. The objectives of the project expanded from improving bicycle safety to creating and conducting an open and inclusive planning process that allowed for all concerned voices to be heard by the city. Not only were stakeholders’ voices heard, but also specific actions were taken in order to ensure the execution of their demands; including recognition of the past and inclusion in the planning process. This project expanded into a conversation about race, social justice, and honoring history. The discussions held in northeast Portland provided valuable insight into the deep-rooted resentments towards the city, the shifting demographics of the neighborhood, and the lack of inclusion in city planning processes. The North Williams Stakeholder Advisory Committee worked together to compile 13 final recommendations for the Portland Bureau of Transportation to consider when redesigning the plan. These 13 recommendations include: 1) Left-hand buffered bike lane 2) Share left-turn lane/ bikeway 3) Create a design that makes a safe and comfortable transition from the buffered bike lane to the shared-left turn lane/ bikeway from N Fargo to N Fremont 4) Reduce traffic speed 5) Improve pedestrian visibility at crosswalks 6) Install traffic signals at designated areas 7) Relocate bus stops to avoid congestion 8) Honor the history of Williams avenue by implementing a public art display that features oral history, photographs of significant places and people, walking tours and a web presence 9) Implement a safety campaign 10) Utilize side streets to create alternative bikeways to N Williams 29

11) Use what was learned from the North Williams Avenue Traffic Operations Safety Project in future outreach and actions 12) Develop an affordable housing strategy for North Williams Avenue, using “a community- based committee” (North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project Report 2012 p. 72) 13) Seek funding to follow through on all recommended elements of the project. PBOT has made public the plan for construction, to begin in July 2014. Most of N Williams avenue will look like the design in Figure 13 below- a buffered bike lane and one lane for motorized traffic. In some spots, however, the buffered bike lane becomes simply a second lane for cars and bikes, with “sharrows-” the bicycle with arrows painted on roads- designating for cars and bikes to share the road (Maus 2014). Conclusion

Do bike lanes promote gentrification? Throughout this paper, a narrative has been told. It has taken many different forms via maps, quotations from community meetings, bike lane infrastructure blueprints and historical contextualization. This narrative has many different faces and names, and is a result of backlash from living in high-density urban environments. Gentrification is generally Figure 13 N Williams Ave. Design Plan shows one buffered bike lane and one lane for motorized traffic. From associated with increasing property values, BikePortland.org involuntary displacement and demographic change (Boyle 2009). Gentrification changes the racial and physical landscape of a neighborhood. Once property values rise, renters may no longer be able to afford to live in their home and involuntary displacement occurs. Affluent, typically white, well-educated young people move in and the area starts to cater to a different demographic. Gentrification poses a real threat, and for this reason infrastructural changes and 30

other investments in the area of Northeast Portland are resisted by longtime residents due to anxieties of losing control of their community. Infrastructural improvements to public space are, by virtue of being public, supposed to be accessible to the entire community. However, some public interests are voiced louder than others, and are seemingly responded to with more attention from the city. Low income areas and neighborhoods of color, due to historical practices of discrimination and racism from city planners, have been led to hold some concern over spatial changes in a public area; including bike lanes, pedestrian crosswalk improvements, new zoning codes and better park amenities. Public improvements such as these may foster gentrification in the area, resulting in a further diminishing of political power and mobility for low income and residents of color (Agyeman 2012). Improved transportation services may be a form of gentrification (Hoffman 2013). The inherent privilege of being able to choose to ride a bicycle, along with the ability to live in a bicycle friendly, or “livable7” neighborhood is common amongst white, middle-class Portlanders. This privilege has yet to be explicitly addressed in Portland planning practices. Furness argues that, “any action involving bikes as transportation almost inherently involves addressing class issues, since transportation is harder to achieve if you are not of a more financially stable class” (2010 p. 175). This is important for city planners to acknowledge, and when class and race issues go unaddressed, residents of an area may feel left out of the discussion or ignored from the scope of city planners. While the negative symbolic meanings behind bicycle infrastructure and transportation development may be unintentional on behalf of the city, the consequences are real and therefore must be addressed accordingly. The young, white, well-educated demographic (a.k.a. “creative class”8) that is flooding Portland (Renn 2009) has a lifestyle that includes cycling. The reputation of Portland as a bike- friendly city has recruited people from all over the country. In the North Williams Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting notes from December 6, 2011, a woman named Jazzmin

7 For further reading on this topic, see Vuchic, V. (1999). Transportation for Livable Cities. Rutgers Center for Urban Policy Research.

8 For further information on creative class, see Florida, R. (2011, July 13). The Geography of How We Get to Work. The Atlantic.

31 commented on meeting two new members of the community, referred to as “transplants.” The notes state that, “the two transplants recently came from bigger cities in part because they liked the bike infrastructure” (North Williams SAC Meeting Notes p. 3 2011). It is important to assess whom the bike lanes are serving. Perhaps bicycling is not a priority for Portland’s Black community, and they have a stronger need for other city services. If this is the case, the city must work to address the needs presented by this community in order to build an environment that is safe and accessible for all. This paper has shown how bike lanes and related infrastructure have tendencies of following high property values, affluent neighborhoods, high political power, and elitist bicycle culture. Even though the city of Portland as a whole ranks safer bike routes as priority 10 out of 17, improving bicycle infrastructure was pushed rather rapidly by the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) onto N Williams avenue. This resulted in contention from longtime residents who have a complex, historically rooted background with city-imposed improvements. The goal of the North Williams Avenue Traffic Operations Safety Project originally seemed to serve the white, elite 4,000 cyclists that frequented the road- seemingly ignoring, yet again, the needs of the Black residents. PBOT, however, quickly changed the design process after receiving backlash from community members that were originally excluded from the discussion. The outcome of the new community-based planning method, the North Williams Avenue Stakeholder Advisory Committee, changed the priorities involved in improving N Williams avenue. The project outcome included a design that was inclusive of pedestrian, bicycle, bus, and car safety. Additionally, history and social inequities were addressed in the planning process. The story behind N Williams avenue is an important one to tell, because the history of transportation infrastructure nation wide has excluded communities of little political power, low income, and minority status. These communities will continue to be unhappy and left with feelings of exclusivity and resentment, and planners will continue to be unaware of cultural differences and consequences of bicycle infrastructure until these many differences are addressed before, during and after the planning process. As the racial and physical landscape of cities change, urban planning processes must change as well. The outreach methods must be tailored to the specific community, Portland, like any other urban environment, contains a great diversity of cultures and identities, and these must 32 be addressed in order to have an equitable and sustainable future and planning process. "Sending out a bunch of paper isn't necessarily going to do it, public meetings don't always do it," says Wolfersperger, who found that Spanish-language radio ads were a much more effective method of publicizing events and services (Mirk 2009 para. 10). “One of the big things we learned in this process is that the outreach process that works well for some people doesn’t work for others,” says Dan Anderson, interim communications director for the Portland mayor’s office. “It’s been very educational. Outreach needs to be tailored to the community. We need to slow things down and get more people around the table” (Goodyear 2011 para. 10). City streets present a visible, public space that could be morphed into standing for cultural inclusion, political equity, honoring history, and safety and security for all types of mobile citizens. Good planning can pave the way to a safer, more equitable, and opportunity filled future for all, regardless of where in the city one is located or how one chooses to get around. Planning for geographic justice must first consist of an inclusive planning process that is open and available to all stakeholders, and decisions made regarding the future of a community must incorporate a discussion about the threat of gentrification and increasing property values; as changes in infrastructure, specifically bike lanes, do present this threat. This paper has highlighted effective ways of restructuring the planning process to be more inclusive, and lead to, hopefully, an outcome that is equitable and sustainable for the city as a whole. 33

Appendix A I discussed the issues of bicycles, urban planning, citizen participation, and equity with the following: 1) Visiting Professor at Gustavus Adolphus Melody Hoffman 2) Program Manager at Alta Planning and Design, Jessica Roberts 3) City of Portland’s Bureau of Transportation Active Transportation SmartTrips Director Timo Forsberg 4) Advocacy Director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Gerik Kransky 5) Author of Pedaling Revolution, Jeff Mapes 6) CEO of the Community Cycling Center, Mychal Tetteh 7) Anonymous intern at Microcosm publishing 8) Board Member of the Equity Advisory Council for the League of American Cyclists, and Active Transportation Planner for Coalition for a Livable Future, Elizabeth Williams. 34

Works Cited Agyeman, J. (2012, May 11). Incomplete Streets? Just Sustainabilities: Re imagining equality, living

within limits. Retrieved from http://julianagyeman.com/2012/05/incomplete-streets/

Agyeman, J. Spatial justice on Södra Vägen | Just Sustainabilities. Retrieved from

http://julianagyeman.com/2010/09/first-post/

Americans Now Spend Over 100 Hours a Year Commuting. About.com US Government Info.

Retrieved May 7, 2014, from

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/commutetimes.htm

Applebaum, M., Camp, A., Clarke, C., Delia, J., Hams-Hernandez, J., Park, S., … Hoon Yoo, S.

(2008). Beyond the Backlash: Equity and Participation in Bicycle Planning.

Arnold, T. (2011). Planning for Environmental Justice. Planning & Environmental Law: Issues and

Decisions That Impact the Built and Natural Environments.

Bagwell, O., & Walker Noland, W. (2004). Citizen King. PBS. Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mlk/filmmore/index.html

Bernstein, R, Solomon, N., Yuen, with L., & Miner, C. Transportation Nation | Back of the Bus:

Race, Mass Transit and Inequality. Retrieved from http://project.wnyc.org/backofthebus/

Boyle, I. Measuring Gentrification in the Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Area.

Brown, A., M. (2010). A Greenway Runs Through it: The Midtown Greenway and the Social

Landscape of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Honors Project). Macalester. Retrieved from

http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/geography_honors/21/?utm_source=digitalcommons.maca

lester.edu%2Fgeography_honors%2F21&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Bullard, R. D., & Johnson, G. S. (1997). Just transportation: dismantling race and class barriers to

mobility. Gabriola Island, BC; Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers. 35

Bullard, R. D., Johnson, G. S., & Torres, A. O. (2004). Highway robbery: transportation racism &

new routes to equity. Cambridge, Mass.: South End Press.

City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. (2013). Portland Bicycle Count 2012.

Community Cycling Center. (2012). Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Project.

Davis, P. Are Bike Lanes Expressways to Gentrification? Shareable. Retrieved January 31, 2014,

from http://www.shareable.net/blog/are-bike-lanes-expressways-to-gentrification

DHM Research. (2014). Portland Transportation Priorities- Survey Report.

Dove, R. (2000). On the bus with Rosa Parks: poems. New York: Norton.

Furness, Z. (2010). One Less Car: Bicycling and the Politics of Automobility. Temple University

Press.

Geller, R. (2012). Four Types of Cyclists. Portland Bureau of Transportation.

Gibson, K. (2007). Bleeding Albina: A History of Community Disinvestment, 1940-2000.

Transforming Anthropology, 15(1), 3–35.

Goodyear, S. (2011, September 20). Bike Lane Backlash, Even in Portland. The Atlantic Cities.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2011/09/portland-bike-lanes-

open-racial-wounds/138/

Griffin-Valade, L., Kahn, D., Scott, J., & MacKay, B. (2013). City of Portland 23rd Annual

Community Survey Results (No. 450).

Hannah-Jones, N. In Portland’s heart, 2010 Census shows diversity dwindling. The Oregonian.

Hanson, S., & Giuliano, G. (Eds.). (2004). The geography of urban transportation (3rd ed.). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city (Rev. ed.). Athens: University of Georgia Press. 36

History Minutes: Oregon’s Exclusion Laws. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from

http://www.ohs.org/education/history-minutes-oregons-exclusion-laws.cfm

Hoffman, M. (2013). Our Bikes in the Middle of the Street: Community-building, Racism and

Gentrification in Urban Bicycle Advocacy. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Jakowitsch, N., & Ernst, M. (2004). Just Transportation in the 21st Century. In Highway Robbery:

Transportation Racism and New Routes to Equity. South End Press.

Kauffman, B. (2004). Democracy in Vermont, small is beautiful in the Green Mountain state. The

American Conservative.

Kinsey, D. (2012). Honoring Histories: African American Spaces Along North Williams Avenue

1920-2010.

Kunstler, J. H. (1994). The geography of nowhere: the rise and decline of America’s man-made

landscape. New York; London: Simon & Schuster.

League of American Bicyclists. (2012). The New Majority: Pedaling Towards Equity.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford, OX, UK; Cambridge, Mass., USA: Blackwell.

Letherby, G., & Reynolds, G. (Eds.). (2009). Gendered journeys, mobile emotions. Farnham,

England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Litman, T. (2002). Evaluating Transportation Equity Todd Litman. Editorial Board, 8(2), 50–65.

Lubitow and Miller, A. and T. (2013). Contesting Sustainability: Bikes, Race, and Politics in

Portlandia. Envrionmental Justice, 6(4).

Mapes, J. (2009). Pedaling revolution: how cyclists are changing American cities. Corvallis, OR:

Oregon State University Press.

McKittrick, K. (2006). Demonic grounds: Black women and the cartographies of struggle.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 37

Mirk, S. (2009, November 19). Bicycle Race: Nonprofit Investigates the Portland Bike Scene’s Racial

Gap. Portland Mercury. Retrieved from http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/bicycle-

race/Content?oid=1854486

Mohl, R. (2002). The Interstates and the Cities: Highways, Housing and the Freeway Revolt

(Research Report). University of Alamaba at Birmingham.

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development Goals. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/goals.aspx

PBOT. (2012). North Williams Traffic Operations Safety Project.

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2008). Making Cycling Irresistible: Lessons from The Netherlands,

Denmark and Germany. Transport Reviews, 28(4), 495–528. doi:10.1080/01441640701806612

Renn, A. (2009, October 18). The White City. New Geography. Retrieved from

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city

Rodrigues, T. (2014, May). Understanding Bicycle Communities. Lewis & Clark College, Portland,

OR.

Rose, J. (2012, June 13). TriMet board kills Portland’s Free Rail Zone, raises fares, cuts bus service

over protesters’ shouts, jeers. The Oregonian- Oregonlive.com. Retrieved from

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/06/trimet_board_kills_portlands_f.html

Sagawa, S. (2000). Common interest, common good: creating value through business and social

sector partnerships. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

Schmitt, A. (2011). On Gentrification and Cycling | Streetsblog.net. Retrieved from

http://streetsblog.net/2011/07/22/on-gentrification-and-cycling/ 38

Smith, D. (2014). Oregon as “Whitelandia.” The Portland Observer. Retrieved from

http://portlandobserver.com/news/2014/feb/12/oregon-whitelandia/

Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking Spatial Justice. U of Minnesota Press.

Steinbach, R., Green, J., Datta, J., & Edwards, P. (2011). Cycling and the city: a case study of how

gendered, ethnic and class identities can shape healthy transport choices. Social Science &

Medicine (1982), 72(7), 1123–1130. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.01.033

Sullivan and Shaw, D. and S. (2011). Retail Gentrification and Race: The Case of Alberta Street in

Portland, Oregon. Urban Affairs Review, 47(413), 415–432.

The Tragedy of Urban Renewal: The destruction and survival of a New York City neighborhood.

(2011). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWGwsA1V2r4&feature=youtube_gdata_player

"transport, v.". OED Online. December 2013. Oxford University Press.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/205017 (accessed February 18, 2014).

Vale, T. R. (1983). U.S. 40 today: thirty years of landscape change in America. Madison: University

of Wisconsin Press.

Wray, J. H. (2008). Pedal power: the quiet rise of the bicycle in American public life. Boulder, Colo:

Paradigm Publishers.

Zavestoski, S., & Agyeman, J. (Eds.). (2015). Incomplete streets: processes, practices and

possibilities. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge.