TIGER project comes with Portland’s first two-way cycle track

good: bicycles get a cycle track,

bad: streetcar gets put back on the street (currently this section of rail is off of the street and therefore the only part of the line that moves at a decent pace)

Hopefully this will include traffic signals for bicycles as well, that prevent motorized interference at intersections.

Too bad the City is still $40m short. Nothing beats rebuilding a project that was just built, oh, about 5 years ago.

It’s important to note that the Esplanade is a MUP, or Multi Use Path so it’s wise to expect random walkers, jogger, roller bladers, kids, photo taking tourists, etc. While gosh it’d be rad if everyone was respectful and aware, it’s impossible to achieve. I actually think it’s a *good* thing that there’s a place where the rules are less rigid, even if it slows one mode down a bit.

I do share the frustration of scrubbing off nearly all of the cargo bike’s precious momentum because other users are not paying attention. But I accept it because it’s a MUP and it beats the surface streets. If I need to rally and it’s a nice day, I avoid the Esplanade and take to the streets. I like rain.

Meanwhile, on a dedicated cycletrack there is intentional separation of modes. I don’t expect enforcement so I hope that the design is such that it will be clear where each user belongs AND each user actually goes there. I suspect it’ll run quite smoothly most of the time with the occasional random lost citizen wandering where they shouldn’t.

It’ll be a cool experiment. Boulder, Colorado has an amazing network of routes that I’d love to see copied here where applicable. Many of the intersections are grade separated so cyclists can roll across town without stopping. Imagine blazing across Sandy or 99/MLK without stopping because you’re rolling through a tunnel or bridge. The Boulder system is a MUP but it’s very cyclist dominant so it feels like a cycletrack.

“It’ll be fun dodging joggers, dogs on leashes, etc”

What ever happened to “share the road”?

As previously mentioned, I think the solution to “dodging joggers, dogs on leashes, etc.” on the cycle track would be to make it poignant where the cycle lane is and where the pedestrian lane is, just like on the Hawthorne Bridge.

I walk across the Hawthorne quite often (a lot of the times with my dogs…on leashes!) and always keep to the right as the signage denotes. Rarely do I ever see any pedestrians breaking this “rule”, but I could be in the exception.

Jackattak, I don’t think “poignant” is the word you’re looking for, but I do agree with your sentiment. (Although, looking it up on dictionary.com, you may mean it the sense of definition #1D or 1E….) 🙂

If it’s made very clear where each type of “getting around” is supposed to do their thing, this could work really quite well.

And yeah: They’re RUNNERS, not JOGGERS. My bro gives me crap about that all the time. But then again, he’s a runner. 🙂

@ Kt # 14 –

Yep, “apparent” or “obvious” would’ve been much better choices.

I’ve been working on my book a lot lately and I tripped over my own feet in my desire to use better vocab.

🙂

Northwest Girl #13
So runners go in the street and joggers stay on the sidewalk? Is it ok if runners use the cycletrack? Going the wrong way obviously and they would have right of way so all bikes do yeild to them?

Sorry sorry, “runners”! 🙂

I don’t do either so the words are interchangeable to me, but I’ve had an Ironman friend correct me before as well when I’ve said jogging, ha. I should know better.

Michael M. #21:

I agree that cyclists need to learn how to operate their vehicles properly when mixing with foot traffic… you can’t zoom at 20 MPH through waterfront park. Waterfront park is a particularly bad place to ride through during the day anyways, and walking your bike for that 1 mile segment won’t kill you.

However, on long MPU paths such as the Springwater corridor, I think people using those paths need to be aware that there are other types of traffic (such as bikes), and modify their behavior appropriately as well. Walking three-abreast across the path is not a friendly behavior for a MPU, for example.

Cyclists are certainly a problem, but not the only one.

“unless you’re prepared to operate at pedestrian speeds whenever and wherever appropriate”
top pedestrian speeds are 14-18 mph. thats a bit fast for a busy mup, imo.

“We need to ban bikes from places like the Willamette Greenway and Waterfront Park”
if pedestrian safety was your primary concern you would be talking about children not cyclists.

#13: How much do you have to fail at basic motor skills to negotiate a not-level sidewalk? I’ll call ’em runners around the time they can actually do so on a surface that doesn’t require a surface pristine enough to run a skateboard down.

The problem with the blanket “MUP” concept is that it doesn’t distinguish between paths that are more appropriate as transit corridors (Springwater, Marine Dr., I-205 path, etc.) and those that aren’t (Waterfront Park, Willamette Greenway, Esplanade, for example). To A.K.’s (#22) point that everyone (riders and walkers) needs to adapt their behavior to what is appropriate for the environment, I think creating clear distinctions in users’ minds between these different paths that we now call “MUPs” will help a great deal in accomplishing this. There’s a material difference in the experiences of walking or cycling along Springwater vs. the Greenway that the term “MUP” obfuscates. Unfortunately, the Bike Master Plan does nothing to help. It notes the rise in risk of more bike/ped conflicts that result from crowding users travelling at such disparate speeds into the same space, it calls for separation of biking and walking facilities wherever possible, but it doesn’t say much about what to do when this isn’t possible. It also reflects the same bias that Paul (#27) has that all current MUPs are primarily transit-oriented corridors, which is something cycling advocates have been pushing for years. The original goal of the Willamette Greenway, according to the OHP, was “establishing parks and open spaces along the river.” The same article notes, “In 1975, the state department of Land Conservation and Development included the Willamette River Greenway as one of nineteen standards for state-wide planning. That meant open space, public access, native vegetation, and scenic views had to be considered when planning new developments.” Nada about transportation, motorized or nonmotorized. But this kind of revisionist history is taken as a given in the Bike Master Plan, because it suits the efforts of cycling advocates to insert bikes everywhere they possibly can.

Contrary to spare_wheel’s (#24) characterization, I’m not primarily concerned with pedestrian safety (though, of course, that’s important). I’m primarily concerned with livability. I’m concerned that there are relatively few places in Portland to enjoy long walks free of interference from vehicular travel — parts of Washington Park, parts of Forest Park, Smith & Bybee Lakes, nothing in the Central City, where the majority of people live or work. It has long been a cornerstone of good urban design and planning that people need open space. In the age of the automobile, that has meant (among other things) areas free of cars. Now that we are finally getting serious about the viability of nonmotorized transit, we need to recognize that we still need some areas free of bikes as well.