Portland Surges to 7.2 Percent

30 years...we're impressed...I had ten in.....can we see a leg photo ?

Influx.... a disease right ? where are the influxers coming from ....geographically ?

What's the rent down on the rivah ?

would you give us an overview on the female influxers ?

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:14:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
30 years...we're impressed...I had ten in.....can we see a leg photo ?

Influx.... a disease right ? where are the influxers coming from ....geographically ?

What's the rent down on the rivah ?

would you give us an overview on the female influxers ?

Attack of the condo towers. http://portlandrealestateblog.com/wp...1-1023x442.jpg

Every tower is filled with hot women looking for husbands . . . like you (or maybe a friend of yours)!
Look at these people living life to the fullest! http://portlandwaterfront.com/

And if you ARE a woman who likes women, Portland is the NO. 2 lesbian city in the U.S. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/fami...bianCities.htm Say it with me: "we're No. 2, we're No. 2 . . . . "

-- Jay Beattie.

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:38:04 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 3:14:43 PM UTC-7, wrote:
30 years...we're impressed...I had ten in.....can we see a leg photo ?

Influx.... a disease right ? where are the influxers coming from ....geographically ?

What's the rent down on the rivah ?

would you give us an overview on the female influxers ?

Attack of the condo towers. http://portlandrealestateblog.com/wp...1-1023x442.jpg

Every tower is filled with hot women looking for husbands . . . like you (or maybe a friend of yours)!
Look at these people living life to the fullest! http://portlandwaterfront.com/

And if you ARE a woman who likes women, Portland is the NO. 2 lesbian city in the U.S. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/fami...bianCities.htm Say it with me: "we're No. 2, we're No. 2 . . . . "

-- Jay Beattie.

Oh, I forgot to mention that our governor is bisexual. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/orego...ry?id=28953532

I went to law school with Katie, but I don't remember if she had a girlfriend or boyfriend back then. She oscillated and has a husband now.

On 9/19/2015 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 5:58:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/18/2015 5:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 11:21:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:23:14 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
http://bikeportland.org/2015/09/17/p...te-to-7-159171

Ka-cha! Got you Frank. The cycle tracks are bringing them out in droves!

-- Jay Beattie

Well, something's generated a few more droves, perhaps. We'll see in a year
or two whether this is a blip, a trend, or a statistical fluke.

I'll note yet again that the data given applies only to those living within
Portland city limits. Some may imagine that 7.2% of vehicles on-road in
PDX are bikes, but that's far from the case. All those driving in from
suburbs (including Washington State) are not part of the data.

If it is a real increase, what do you think might have caused it? The flat
line for the past five years suggests that it's not the increasing number of
(sometimes weird) facilities. A cause-effect relationship should have
something resembling a dose response, not a flat line followed by a jump.

My guess as to increase: (1) people sick of MV traffic congestion, (2) gentrification of close-in north and northeast neighborhoods, (3) huge new condo development close-in westside waterfront, although that probably means more walkers and street car users, but some may ride, (4) global warming -- no kidding; it rains less than it used to, (5) some of the facilities may draw timid riders, primarily the bike boulevards, but those have been around for years. (6) It's weird and hip to ride a bike.

Which of those are step changes, that would produce a step response?
Again, this jump follows five years of data showing (and people
complaining) that bike use wasn't increasing at all, despite lots of
infrastructure additions.

(1) - (3) are step changes -- particularly all the condo infill in the south waterfront. Traffic has also gotten really bad in the past few years due to the influx of people. Major facilities have not changed, except for the addition of the south waterfront (SW Moody) cycle track. Nothing about my commute has changed in the last 20 years, except the number of cyclists. Oh, I did get some flashing lights going over the bridges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgYXYtzbv0w -- flashing lights at the head of that bridge and another. O.K., I confess, it does make me feel safer, but I've been riding down that road for 30 years without them. I haven't seen a surge in ridership since the lights were installed, and a lot of bicyclists go over the hills in to town. I'm too lazy most mornings. Why do a bunch of climbing to lose 400 feet elevation?

Seems to me that #1 and #2 would not be step changes on a one-year
scale. The waterfront condos would qualify, but they can't account for
the supposed magnitude of the increase.

Although not mentioned, I thought of one infrastructure change that
could cause a sudden increase. If a linear barrier like a freeway or
river existed that prevented a lot of bike commuting across it, and if a
new access point (say, a critical bridge) opened up to bikes, then one
might see a step change, i.e. a sudden spike in biking. The magnitude
of the change would depend on various factors, like the magnitude of
pent-up demand. That would depend on the local culture and the details
of the barrier.

I think the main thing to see about Portland's recent increase is "we'll
see."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Saturday, September 19, 2015 at 7:44:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/19/2015 3:12 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 5:58:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/18/2015 5:06 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, September 18, 2015 at 11:21:51 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 10:23:14 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
http://bikeportland.org/2015/09/17/p...te-to-7-159171

Ka-cha! Got you Frank. The cycle tracks are bringing them out in droves!

-- Jay Beattie

Well, something's generated a few more droves, perhaps. We'll see in a year
or two whether this is a blip, a trend, or a statistical fluke.

I'll note yet again that the data given applies only to those living within
Portland city limits. Some may imagine that 7.2% of vehicles on-road in
PDX are bikes, but that's far from the case. All those driving in from
suburbs (including Washington State) are not part of the data.

If it is a real increase, what do you think might have caused it? The flat
line for the past five years suggests that it's not the increasing number of
(sometimes weird) facilities. A cause-effect relationship should have
something resembling a dose response, not a flat line followed by a jump.

My guess as to increase: (1) people sick of MV traffic congestion, (2) gentrification of close-in north and northeast neighborhoods, (3) huge new condo development close-in westside waterfront, although that probably means more walkers and street car users, but some may ride, (4) global warming -- no kidding; it rains less than it used to, (5) some of the facilities may draw timid riders, primarily the bike boulevards, but those have been around for years. (6) It's weird and hip to ride a bike.

Which of those are step changes, that would produce a step response?
Again, this jump follows five years of data showing (and people
complaining) that bike use wasn't increasing at all, despite lots of
infrastructure additions.

(1) - (3) are step changes -- particularly all the condo infill in the south waterfront. Traffic has also gotten really bad in the past few years due to the influx of people. Major facilities have not changed, except for the addition of the south waterfront (SW Moody) cycle track. Nothing about my commute has changed in the last 20 years, except the number of cyclists. Oh, I did get some flashing lights going over the bridges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgYXYtzbv0w -- flashing lights at the head of that bridge and another. O.K., I confess, it does make me feel safer, but I've been riding down that road for 30 years without them. I haven't seen a surge in ridership since the lights were installed, and a lot of bicyclists go over the hills in to town. I'm too lazy most mornings. Why do a bunch of climbing to lose 400 feet elevation?

Seems to me that #1 and #2 would not be step changes on a one-year
scale. The waterfront condos would qualify, but they can't account for
the supposed magnitude of the increase.

Although not mentioned, I thought of one infrastructure change that
could cause a sudden increase. If a linear barrier like a freeway or
river existed that prevented a lot of bike commuting across it, and if a
new access point (say, a critical bridge) opened up to bikes, then one
might see a step change, i.e. a sudden spike in biking. The magnitude
of the change would depend on various factors, like the magnitude of
pent-up demand. That would depend on the local culture and the details
of the barrier.

I think the main thing to see about Portland's recent increase is "we'll
see."

--
- Frank Krygowski

We got a new bridge for bikes/trains/peds -- but it just opened. https://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

For me, it's the bridge to nowhere -- not that it isn't useful for mass transit and cyclists (no MV traffic allowed) -- but it is located on the river at a place where I never cross. I pass the bridge terminus on the westside on my commute home, but I've never bothered exploring -- maybe later today when I wrap up a ride on the eastside. The facilities off the west side of the bridge are supposed to be bad. http://bikeportland.org/tag/tilikum-crossing

-- Jay Beattie.

On 9/20/2015 8:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:

We got a new bridge for bikes/trains/peds -- but it just opened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

For me, it's the bridge to nowhere -- not that it isn't useful for mass transit and cyclists (no MV traffic allowed) -- but it is located on the river at a place where I never cross. I pass the bridge terminus on the westside on my commute home, but I've never bothered exploring -- maybe later today when I wrap up a ride on the eastside. The facilities off the west side of the bridge are supposed to be bad. http://bikeportland.org/tag/tilikum-crossing

You commies up in Oregon built a bridge for bicycles, pedestrians, and
trains?!

Our $14.8 million dollar bike bridge that crosses I-280 is better!
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/files/images/mary-ave-bridge.jpg

sms writes:

On 9/20/2015 8:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:

We got a new bridge for bikes/trains/peds -- but it just opened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

For me, it's the bridge to nowhere -- not that it isn't useful for
mass transit and cyclists (no MV traffic allowed) -- but it is
located on the river at a place where I never cross. I pass the
bridge terminus on the westside on my commute home, but I've never
bothered exploring -- maybe later today when I wrap up a ride on the
eastside. The facilities off the west side of the bridge are
supposed to be bad. http://bikeportland.org/tag/tilikum-crossing

You commies up in Oregon built a bridge for bicycles, pedestrians, and
trains?!

Our $14.8 million dollar bike bridge that crosses I-280 is better!
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/files/images/mary-ave-bridge.jpg

$15M, they must have seen you coming. Ours is a 990 foot long, stressed
ribbon bridge across Lake Hodges. Cost was $10M. As a bonus the route
includes a dirt path, several blind corners (the path to the bridge goes
udner the existing freeway) and is closed at night. I believe
bicyclists are still allowed to take the freeway bridge across the lake,
which would be considerably faster but isn't pleasant.

--
Joe Riel

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 10:04:04 AM UTC-7, JoeRiel wrote:
sms writes:

On 9/20/2015 8:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:

We got a new bridge for bikes/trains/peds -- but it just opened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

For me, it's the bridge to nowhere -- not that it isn't useful for
mass transit and cyclists (no MV traffic allowed) -- but it is
located on the river at a place where I never cross. I pass the
bridge terminus on the westside on my commute home, but I've never
bothered exploring -- maybe later today when I wrap up a ride on the
eastside. The facilities off the west side of the bridge are
supposed to be bad. http://bikeportland.org/tag/tilikum-crossing

You commies up in Oregon built a bridge for bicycles, pedestrians, and
trains?!

Our $14.8 million dollar bike bridge that crosses I-280 is better!
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/files/images/mary-ave-bridge.jpg

$15M, they must have seen you coming. Ours is a 990 foot long, stressed
ribbon bridge across Lake Hodges. Cost was $10M. As a bonus the route
includes a dirt path, several blind corners (the path to the bridge goes
udner the existing freeway) and is closed at night. I believe
bicyclists are still allowed to take the freeway bridge across the lake,
which would be considerably faster but isn't pleasant.

--
Joe Riel

Here's another laugh for Frank: http://bikeportland.org/2015/08/14/f...et-bike-155284

This cycle track is the most confusing, worst place to ride for a bicycle going over 10mph. It dumps on to a road with parallel street car tracks, and getting around other cyclists means high speed bunny hopping between tracks which run down the middle of the road. The cycle track runs through the new condo area I was mentioning.

It used to be a rutted road with mini-storage through a bad part of town. I miss it.

This is the bridge over the highway to that same area: http://bikeportland.org/tag/gibbs-st...estrian-bridge Stairs and elevators.

Less dramatic than the Tilicum Crossing, but equally useless to me.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 7:23:14 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
http://bikeportland.org/2015/09/17/p...te-to-7-159171

Ka-cha! Got you Frank. The cycle tracks are bringing them out in droves!

-- Jay Beattie

This is impossible in the San Francisco bay area where the distances are too great for bicycle commuting and the companies don't seem to care at all. In many cases they purposely place companies in areas where even the principles find difficulties in commute traffic.

I find this extremely stupid to have 90% of the new companies either in Silicon Valley or San Francisco. The one is 2 hours commute time and the other available either via a very difficult (VERY crowded) rapid transit or living in a city where a two bedroom apartment can run over a million and a half dollars with spit, gum and chewing tobacco all over the sidewalk outside. And no garage. And in some areas $600 parking tickets.

On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 1:04:04 PM UTC-4, JoeRiel wrote:
sms writes:

On 9/20/2015 8:55 AM, jbeattie wrote:

We got a new bridge for bikes/trains/peds -- but it just opened. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilikum_Crossing

For me, it's the bridge to nowhere -- not that it isn't useful for
mass transit and cyclists (no MV traffic allowed) -- but it is
located on the river at a place where I never cross. I pass the
bridge terminus on the westside on my commute home, but I've never
bothered exploring -- maybe later today when I wrap up a ride on the
eastside. The facilities off the west side of the bridge are
supposed to be bad. http://bikeportland.org/tag/tilikum-crossing

You commies up in Oregon built a bridge for bicycles, pedestrians, and
trains?!

Our $14.8 million dollar bike bridge that crosses I-280 is better!
http://bikesiliconvalley.org/files/images/mary-ave-bridge.jpg

$15M, they must have seen you coming. Ours is a 990 foot long, stressed
ribbon bridge across Lake Hodges. Cost was $10M. As a bonus the route
includes a dirt path, several blind corners (the path to the bridge goes
udner the existing freeway) and is closed at night. I believe
bicyclists are still allowed to take the freeway bridge across the lake,
which would be considerably faster but isn't pleasant.

--
Joe Riel

((((((((((((((((((((((


WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE https://goo.gl/PsHC1w