is no designated bikway.
(Photo: Jim Parsons/BikePortland)
Bikes advocates in Beaverton were shocked when a meeting of that city’s Transportation Commission on Thursday night ended in a 5-1 vote against putting bike lanes on SW Lombard Avenue.
On the agenda was a proposal to stripe bike lanes on a one-mile stretch of SW Lombard Ave between 1st Street and Denney Road. The Commission was also set to hear a related proposal to remove motor vehicle parking on SW Lombard between 7th St. and Allen Blvd.
The bike lanes were supported by the Beaverton Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and the Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation District (THPRD). After the meeting last week, Barbara Chapnick, a member of the Beaverton BAC fired off an email to Mayor Denny Doyle and members of the Commission saying she had “some bewilderment and puzzlement” about their vote. She wondered, “Are we all on the same page in this community as to a Transportation Plan and a Community Vision?”
“I was very surprised [at the vote] and I was surprised that the Commission seems to think they don’t have any rules to follow.”
— Wendy Kroger, Trails Advisory Committee Chair, Tualatin Hills Park and Recreation Department
BikePortland West Side correspondent Jim Parsons was also at the meeting. His feelings echoed those of Ms. Chapnick. In a report he posted on the Portland Bike Forums, Parsons said, “Tonight was a real disappointment for me and other safety minded cyclists.”
According to Parsons (I don’t have official transcripts but they are recorded on cassette tape only and have not been transcribed yet), Traffic Commission Vice Chair Patrick Reynolds voiced some strong opinions about bicycling to go along with his no vote. “He went on that too tired rant about how bikes should be licensed and registered, and that too many cyclists are scofflaws.” Another attendee, Chair of THPRD’s Trails Advisory Committee Wendy Kroger, likened Reynolds’ comments to “a mean spirited lecture on bicycles and bicyclists.”
Other objections to the project brought up by the Commission were a lack of evidence that there is demand for bicycling on Lombard and that the property value of homeowners on the street would be lowered if their “rights to parking” were taken away.
Transportation System Plan showing
Lombard as a “designated bikeway.”
Advocates feel the vote against the bikeway is not in line with Beaverton’s Transportation System Plan (a point made by Commission member Steve Harris, the only person to vote “yes” on the project). That plan labels Lombard as a “designated bikeway,” and it states Beaverton must accomodate for, “Connectivity for alternative means of transportation from city to city on safe routes by means of bike ways, bike paths and bike lanes.”
Kroger testified in support of the project because it’s an important connection between the Beaver Creek and Fanno Creek trails. After the meeting, she told me, “I was very surprised [at the vote] and I was surprised that the Commission seems to think they don’t have any rules to follow.”
BAC Chair Chapnick and a group of project supporters will testify at tonight’s Beaverton City Council meeting. Chapnick says she’ll present more data about traffic patterns on Lombard and she’ll request that Council delay any decisions about this project until more information is collected.
City of Beaverton spokesperson Amy Miner says there are two options to get this project back on track. The Traffic Commission’s decision can be appealed (there’s a $250 fee and it must be filed by 3/15), or the CIty Council could decide to hold a public hearing on the issue.
Beaverton city council: reinforcing the stereotypes, one vote at a time.
Seriously, so backwards and car-centric.
Sorry, that should have been “Traffic Commission” – not city council. Which, come to think of it, makes it even worse.
In places where development discourages car use and promotes greater transit, bicycling, and walking, it’s easier to get facilities improvements like bike lanes and pedestrian-only zones approved.
Overtly car-friendly development (higher speed zones, fewer sidewalks, greater distances from home to school and work) can be blamed only partly on geography and topography. The rest is, IMHO, based on social, economic and political realities that are a significant part of the history of development of much of Washington County into the modern suburban landscape that exists there today.
In places where development has historically encouraged car use and discouraged use of other modes of transportation — through planning, home prices, and other demographic factors — such an outcome is not as surprising, and I would guess it’s part of why so many transportational cyclists choose to live on Portland’s east side.
While this is a disappointing outcome, it’s not an entirely surprsing one. I hope that clearer heads will prevail and a longer look will be taken at this situation before it’s simply dismissed out of hand.
I wasn’t able to make the meeting last week, but I’ll try and go to the City Council meeting tonight.
What a sad statement this makes.
Ah, Beaverton what a wonderful place. I grew up there and I’m so happy I don’t live there anymore.
Just remember- every time you blow through a stop sign or run a red light you give people like Patrick Reynolds ammunition. Think it doesn’t matter? Ask cyclists in Beaverton.
What in the hell is “rights to parking?”
I hadn’t realized that automobile use was a “right”, ever.
How bass-akwards can BeaverTron get?
I felt that much of what was being said by the members who voted No was that SW Hall should be enough, and that we should spend our time and resources on fixing SW Hall.
It was clear that none of them ride bikes on SW Hall, cause all the money in the world won’t fix all the issues on that street.
There’s more discussion about this in bikeportland forums. In response to what beth h notes about development favoring transit and others designed favoring car use, some simple characteristics of Lombard should be mentioned.
Until it reaches 1st Avenue Lombard traveling north is a simple 2 lane/2 way street through an older, modest neighborhood. Bike travel on this street is already quite favorable to bike traffic…for the experienced, confident rider.
With removal of parking on Lombard, and installation of bike lanes, the street could become quite favorable to many people that are the type of rider that is less experienced and less confident. This is the type of rider about which it’s frequently expressed, possibly represents the greatest potential increase in bike use for transportation.
My thought as to the single biggest reason this vote did not come out favoring installation of bike lanes on Lombard? People from the neighborhood Lombard travels through did not show up to support bike lanes there. Why didn’t they? Don’t they ride, or consider easy use of a bike for transportation to be an important asset to their neighborhood?
Link to the forums discussion about this subject:
Bike and Parking Restrictions Hearing/proposal for bike lanes on Lombard St in Beaverton
Seth A has a very good account and some thoughts about what transpired during the traffic commission hearing.
This is unfortunate for Vose Elementary. Vose is located near the south end of Lombard. I was told that Vose is the poorest school in the Beaverton School District, with more than 80% of the kids on the National School Lunch Program.
My statistic above was intended to show how poor they are. Not how hungry they are. Seems like the poorer neighborhoods are the least progressive.
If you go to the nicer neighborhoods in Beaverton, you will find nice walkways and bikeways.
Beaverton’s bike advocates need to get better at getting the word out.
I didn’t hear about the hearing on this until a couple days before it. Of course, there have been signs along Lombard announcing it for some time, but I bet a lot more property owners than cyclists saw that (I avoid that stretch of Lombard due to lack of lanes).
What to do now? I can’t make it tonight but I’ll start by emailing:
citymail@ci.beaverton.or.us
more contacts here: http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/contact_us.aspx
Why Rant Here? Send constructive feedback to the powers that be to have Beaverton City Council hold a public hearing on the matter.
Transportation Commission Contact:
Jabra Khasho, Public Works
jkhasho@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton Mayor:
Denny Doyle
mayormail@ci.beaverton.or.us
Beaverton City Council Online Feedback:
http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/members/comments.aspx
Beaverton City Council Phone Numbers /voice mail
Catherine Arnold
(503) 526–2508 (Voice Mail)
Betty Bode
(503) 526–2347 (Voice Mail)
Bruce S. Dalrymple
(503) 526–2345 (Voice Mail)
Marc San Soucie
(503) 526–2370 (Voice Mail)
Cathy Stanton
(503) 526–2343 (Voice Mail)
how wide is the travel lane? posted 30? what is the problem?
I took a lot of photos out there on Friday, here’s a link to the photoset
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/sets/72157623439386149/
Peter W-
Wouldn’t that also be a function of the BTA?
Here’s what I sent in via email:
~~~~~~
I ride my bike through downtown Beaverton quite often and I am very disappointed to hear that the Traffic Commission voted against adding bike lanes to Lombard.
I feel that the City’s outreach about the Traffic Commission meeting was ineffective and there needs to be a public hearing to reconsider the matter. The reason I say the outreach was ineffective is that I ride down 5th almost daily and I never saw signs with notice of the meeting, even though I go past Lombard on 5th. I believe the only signs about the Traffic Commission meeting were placed *on Lombard itself*, but I believe I am one of many people who bike that avoid Lombard because it has no bike lanes. How effective is it to put signs advertising a meeting about bike lanes on a street that people avoid because it has no bike lanes currently?
Currently to get to the Beaverton Transit Center on bike, I ride East on 5th, then North on Hall, then I ride through the mud since there is no pavement connecting Beaverdam Rd with Lombard Ave. I would love to be able to ride in bike lanes on Lombard rather than riding in the mud.
Thank you.
ekim, #17:
Yeah the only notice I got was from the BTA, but we need more than that.
Perhaps the BTA could help (or maybe they already are) with organizing members in each city/area to help them be more effective.
Looks like Beaverton needs a shot of Critical Mass!
Just another reminder… Beaverton City Council Meeting tonight at 6:30pm at the Beaverton City Hall.
Sounds like it’s time for a super-legal ride in Beaverton.
a hundred or more riders, with signs on their backs which say “if there were bike lanes on Lombard, I’d be out of your way right now” with the phone number of the city commissioner oughta do it. Ride single-file, obey all laws to the very letter, plus some. (including a full foot-down stop and all hand signals)
Should take care of “no demand” and “riding legal” in one fell swoop.
Matt, I’m with you! If you help organize, I will, too.
1. There was a signboard with printed notices for the 3/4/10 meeting posted btw sidewalk and curb on each side of Lombard btw 5th and 2nd. I go by there daily on my bike and finally had to stop, pull my bike onto the sidewalk, and stand over the sign to read the small print. Pedestrians on the sidewalk may have seen and read them; no one traveling on Lombard, by car or bike, would have been able to.
Don’t know where else signs were posted, if at all.
2. wsbob describes that stretch of Lombard pretty well. It’s okay for confident riders, less so for the less confident [when I first started riding again, 7 years ago, I spent most of my time getting chased to the curb along there]: The intersection at 5th is tricky coming from the north. The curved tracks at Bvtn-Hllsdale are nasty and most drivers don’t always anticipate what riders will tend to do to stay safe. The distance between the lights at 5th and Bvtn-Hllsdale is just long enough that it tempts many drivers to try powering past a bike before they get to the next light–not always realizing how many side streets and driveways turn into Lombard in that stretch. South of 5th, all the way to Denny, it’s pretty forgiving. [And Lombard from Bvrtn-Hllsdale north is hairy, mainly because of WES, but that’s another story.]
3. KruckyBoy is right: If you routinely give drivers a legitimate excuse for thinking cyclists are scofflaw idiots, you can’t act offended when they do so.
I hope there’s a way to get this case re-opened somehow.
bn
Did the WashCo BTC (http://washcobtc.org) participate in the Transportation Commission meeting?
If enough people bring the matter to the Council’s attention, a pubic hearing on the matter could happen.
–start letter–
Mayor Doyle:
I disappointed in the recent Transportation Commission’s vote against installing marked bike lanes on SW Lombard Avenue. Not installing bike lanes on SW Lombard Ave is inconsistent with the City’s mission and the Transportation department self-image. I request bike lane matter be heard before the City Council and for the Council to vote on the matter after due consideration to public testimony.
The Beaverton’s City Mission is “Preserve and enhance Beaverton as a responsive, dynamic, attractive and safe community”. Creating bike lanes on SW Lombard is a necessary step for the City to: 1) respond to the rapidly increasing use of alternative transportation options, to include bicycles; 2) enhance Beaverton as city with diverse and dynamic transportation options; 3) enhance the safety
According to the Transportation website, “Beaverton..offers a top notch transportation system to residents and visitors alike. No matter what your mode of transportation, the City of Beaverton has it all.” Installing the bike lane on SW Lombard Avenue is necessary for Beaverton to maintain industry standards for transportation networks as well as to ensure Beaverton meets the that transportation needs of all road users, including bicycles.
A well developed bike lane system is essential for maintaining and increasing Beaverton’s livability. As such, bike lanes on SW Lombard Avenue are vital to the city. The full City Council should hear the bike lane matter and allow public comment before making a final decision.
-Marcus Griffith
—-end—
John Beaston wrote:
Did the WashCo BTC (http://washcobtc.org) participate in the Transportation Commission meeting?
I invited Hal, but did not attend.
anonymous #20
That’s the way to win them over, create more conflict between users and city planners with a critical mass ride.
CM participants do not realize how much harm they do to their cause with these events. Oh well, I guess it is more important to “feel good” than to actually “do good”. Good luck with that!
I have a friend who has been hit twice by cars on Lombard in Beaverton, which seems like ample evidence that a bike lane is needed. Personally I’ve ridden it once and decided it’s too risky.
are #15…don’t know exactly what Lombard’s travel lane widths are, or exactly what the speed limit is. Wish I had an engineering map. Lacking that, I’ve already somewhat stated it, but here’s more on my bike user impression of the street:
For a conditioned rider traveling northbound (slightly downhill), it’s not too tough to keep pace with motor vehicle traffic, certainly from Allen, but also, from Denney further south.
Southbound (uphill slightly), conditioned riders have to strain to keep pace with the speed that cars want to travel. Because generally, not..very..many cars park on Lombard, briefly dodging into long stretches of empty parking area to allow cars to pass by is doable.
For people needing to ride their bike using less exertion to keep pace with or veer in and out of empty parking area along the street, Lombard’s not so good. Bike lanes along Lombard would be progress in terms of making the street realistically usable by this type of rider.
There’s something a bit ironic about the claim that loss of parking to bike lanes on Lombard would detrimentally affect adjoining property values. A few years into the future, if the need for motor vehicle carrying capacity in Beaverton continues to increase (this seems likely),I can imagine Lombard’s on-street parking going the way of the do-do bird, but this time instead of bike lanes, it’ll be replaced by a third main travel lane that fast motor vehicles will dominate as they do over on Hall Blvd.
Not everyone may agree with me on the following, but in winding this comment up, I want to voice the opinion that Lombard is a much, much nicer street than is Hall, even without bike lanes; nicer to walk next to, to bike on.
It must be nicer to live next to than Hall is, just because it’s quieter with only two lanes of motor vehicle traffic cruising by. By insisting that bike lanes be on Lombard, Beaverton residents can help insure that this street retains this high measure of livability.
Due to time constraints, I can’t make it to the Beaverton council meeting tonight, but it looks like Beaverton City Council may opt to have a public hearing on the matter.
I forwarded the response I received from the Beaverton Mayor to Johnathan.
Can anyone make the meeting at 6:30 tonight?
i have been living in the vose the past 3 years and brought my bike commuting with me when i got here. i’ve had plenty of rides up and down the stretch of lombard that was the subject of this meeting. i didn’t see the signs in detail until walking my newborn around. so i can see how anybody on bike or in a car would miss it. when i passed in either mode i thought some roadwork was coming up.
but anyway to the point of getting around the vose on bike. i see good number of cyclists (of various sorts) using lombard to get around. i guess i am experienced and confident since the auto flow never really bothered me. i did find it strange that most drivers would make quite an effort to allow me and others plenty of room, even if it meant drifting into the other lane a bit. personally i found that strange and unsafe when the room i had at the side of the road was enough. there are not many parked cars on the road. so that navigation issue was a rare one.
but like a lot of other riders (of various sorts) i found taking ALGER a much better alternative to lombard south of 5th and north of allen. not a long stretch, but for the distance this meeting addressed, it makes up the meat of it. for those headed south on lombard, a left on 5th then a right on alger takes you down to allen. want to cross allen? best bet is to take alger south and turn left on any street between 11th and 14th and you will be funneled onto LEE. that crosses over allen (and LEE becomes KING) and you have a nice yourself a nice peaceful route to denney where you can head west to the fanno creek trail, or east in the direction of HALL.
many cylclist do use this alger alternative.
some cyclists (myself included when i tire of routine) also use the shopping center between canyon and beaverton-hillsdale hwy (you know the one….freddy’s, trader joes, pho van) should they need to get to points further north. a lot of the time that means beaverton transit center.
just some thoughts.
and no i didn’t go the meeting. i would have liked to, but with a newborn i have lost all track of time as well as the ability to get out of the house by an appointed time
Marcus,
I’m going to be there, but late, so I don’t know if I’ll be able to say anything or not.
are (#15): “how wide is the travel lane? posted 30? what is the problem?”
Would that it were that simple. I’ve tried it before and will echo Peter Buck’s sentiments (#29), and I’m no timid or slow rider. There are simply too many blind driveways and hills to obscure appropriate visibility for the speed.
My good friend is a project engineer for Beaverton and testified to extent at the hearing. He was so upset he drove his car to work the next day! I’ve been working to get him to come back to his senses…
I would say that I’m glad I don’t live there anymore, but I really enjoyed the time I spent there. I’d rally to arms if I was nearby, and I would add that I don’t think a CM ride is the right way to go about it. There are better ways to communicate the message to the people who would take action to convince their leadership to make the right funding decisions for a better future. Most residents won’t even know there was a hearing on this.
mtmann (#1 & 2): sadly, that’s about what my friend said after the meeting (though not as eloquently and with colorful adjectives).
Good Luck!!
I used to live on 13th St. half a block east of Lombard. The big problem is getting between the neighborhood south of the freight train line, and the transit center. I tried to come up with a recommended route between the two last year sometime, but every route I tried sucked. Lombard would be the easiest place to put it as every other street besides the one trough the park is busier. Taking the route through the park also means braving the Fred Meyer parking lot witch is probably much more dangerous than Lombard as it is now.
I went to the City Council meeting this evening, and Council President San Soucie started off the meeting, not with taking visitor comments as usual, but called for a motion to have a public hearing on the issue. The motion was passed 3-0, so there will be a public hearing in the near future.
The Council asked that anyone who would like to give testimony at the hearing should send in their statement a few days beforehand. They want to be able to read through all comments so that when you give your testimony, they will know your position and can prepare questions. I think that’s a fair policy and look forward to the public hearing.
I’d like to see a requirement that all members of the traffic commission have experience using a bicycle for transportation. It would be absurd to have people on the traffic commission who had never driven a car, and I think it’s just as absurd to have people making these decision who don’t know what it’s like to navigate traffic on a bike. I’m guessing at least five of the current members don’t.
rubber vose #32…I’ve ridden Alger, but infrequently. My recollection of it isn’t clear. Alger sounds to be worth taking a look. The route you describe involves a lot of turns though, to accomplish the straight shot trip Lombard allows.
Daniel (teknotus) Johnson #35 in his comment refers to “…the park…”. That of course, is Griffith Park. City Hall is on the little loop around the park. Very nice, easy, safe ride, but through-travel beyond it north does involve crossing through the Fred’s/Beaverton Town Sq. parking lot. Not exactly advisable as a serious, official commute route if we’re talking about considerable numbers of bikes.
Neil, thanks for the brief City Council meeting report. Glad to hear Council’s willingness to have a public hearing on the issue.
The Beaverton City Council didn’t waste time taking the matter head on. Thats a major improvement for a few years ago. Glad to see there didn’t need to be a massive protest to get the ball rolling.
Glad we’re getting a public hearing on this.
Next 2 steps:
1. get bike lanes on Lombard via public hearing meeting.
2. get some more sensible people on the Traffic Commission.
Thanks for the notice Neil et al. Here is their online calendar: http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/meetings/calendar.aspx
and contacts: http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/contact.aspx
Wish I was still close enough to attend – good luck folks!
I didn’t get to the meeting until 7pm(ish), when I got there, I met Mary O’Donnell, and Wendy Kroger at the door, and was told that the issue was being put to a hearing, and no public comment was being taken at this time.
Went to the meeting anyway, and heard some really nice things about plans on redeveloping Beaverton in the future. Of course there wasn’t enough focus on bikes IMHO, but it was pretty cool to hear about how they wanted to change things from the car-centric way they are to “Ped-dustrial” (Much like San Antonio’s River District).
Looking forward to going to the Hearings. Hope to see a lot of you there.
I went to the Beaverton CC meeting last night, testifying in the “visitors’ comment” time. I had gone to make two requests: one, a public hearing in front of the CC (which I thanked them for already doing at the beginning of the meeting); and two, CC-directed joint work sessions between Beaverton’s Traffic Commission and Beaverton’s Bicycle Advisory Committee so no member of the Traffic Comm. can say to a member of the BAC (as I heard last Thursday night), “Who are you, again? I never heard of you.”
To answer the question about the width of Lombard: north of Allen it’s 34′ which gives a 12′ car lane in each direction, and a 5′ bike lane in each direction. South of Allen, Lombard widens to 40′ which gives room for parking on one side and bike lanes on both. It’s a collector street which is supposed to move traffic (including bikes) not park cars.
“…South of Allen, Lombard widens to 40′ which gives room for parking on one side and bike lanes on both. …” Wendy Kroger #43
Wendy, thanks for those details on the city council meeting and for clarifying that room on part of Lombard exists to allow continued on-street parking even with the addition of bike lanes. I’d heard a reference to this, but wasn’t sure.
Since I don’t live on Lombard or know anyone that does, it’s hard for me to get a sense of whether reduction of or loss of parking entirely on Lombard would be a hardship for property owners and residents, and if so, how much of one. It would be good, for those of use that didn’t or couldn’t get to the meetings, to be able to hear some of the people so affected, if they are, explain their situation.
I’ve used the street quite a lot…for driving, biking, and skating, and never see many cars parked on Lombard. That I can remember, parking along the street has never been even as much as half occupied. If the demand for parking there is that or less, maybe those people can be helped in some small way to deal with issues loss of on street parking might present them.
Personally, I’d rather see the car parking eliminated from Lombard. The extra 6′ divided between main travel and bike lanes on the street between Allen south to Denney would significantly upgrade the safety margin for all road users.
I drove along Lombard from Farmington to Allen three times this weekend. I saw at least one bike every time. Once I saw no parked cars. Once I saw a small pick-up parked with two wheels up on the curb. Once I saw the above pick-up and one legally parked car.
wsbob…alger is residential street with no division into lanes. true it is not a straight shot down to denney, but hey curves are nice.
i too have never really seen many cars parked on the stretch of lombard we are all discussing. as a matter of fact, when i first started riding on it i thought there must have been no street parking allowed. that’s how little it is used by cars for parking.
and there is something that might be a safety issue with using lombard (totally my opinion). when going south and reaching denney, you must either turn left or right. there is no stop sign for traffic on denney. so as you wait on lombard you see two things. the eastbound flow you can easily see as it is lower (slightly) than you at the intersection, and likewise they can see you. as for the oncoming westbound traffic, its slightly hidden since it is coming “uphill” then reaches the peak of that “hill” not too far from the lombard/denney intersection. so for myself, i have always avoided that intersection when on bike and even when in a car. king/denney has a light (a 3way intersection like lombard/denney), and king, though not a straight shot like lombard is a less car driven residential road. Vose elementary is also at the king/denney intersection.
though this may not be a pretty idea…what about extending the fanno creek path north of denney using land between the railroad tracks and 217? it could link the current trail at fanno creek with the lane that starts at beaverton hillsdale and lombard. i have not the slightest clue about the cost or planning or right of way. those tracks are bound to be crossed at some point for a lot of riders. yeah it may mean having to slow down and check for cross traffic at 5th, but we all like living and avoiding collisions don’t we?
Andy#45…thanks for reporting what you observed.
rubber vose #46 …clearly, you’re more familiar with this area than I am. Generally, I’d say ‘different road users, different needs’. The roundabout way you describe sounds great for people that can get to where they’re going in a more leisurely manner.
Nice to know about such routes too, in the event the collector streets are backed up, though…at least in the case of motor vehicles, this can lead to cut-throughs, which is another problem. Not such a big issue with bikes though, except when people decide blowing the stop signs is an alright thing to do.
The straight shot seems to me to be very important though. Takes you right to the transit center. From the transit center, it’s quite an easy jaunt to Cedar Hills Crossing(huge shopping, dining, entertainment complex). At least in terms of bike transportation, this makes Lombard quite an advance towards connectivity between the separated parts of Beaverton’s ‘downtown’.
“…as for the oncoming westbound traffic, its slightly hidden …”
That intersection as you describe it, is a problem, but mostly for south bound Lombard road users I think. My recollection from riding Denney eastbound, turning north on Lombard, is that visibility east for oncoming cars is fair.
“…what about extending the fanno creek path north of denney…”
I’d be very surprised if this isn’t something Tualitan Hills Parks and Rec is studying.
I don’t ride Lombard much, except to get to the Library from the NE. I turn off on 2nd street. The really scary part is southbound between Farmington and 1st. First one must cross Farmington, and coming from the MUP (bikes are directed off the road because of the WES tracks), interaction with right turning cars is interesting. Then the road is Really Narrow until 1st street. Really Narrow.
Beaverton’s city council needs to move back to California where they came from and let some locals get a piece of the action.
Hmph, typical Beaverton. That part of the commute from the Beaverton TC to SW 5th was always a bit tense. Moved to Oregon 2 years ago, wound up in Beaverton for about 2 years, just moved away from Beaverton…never going back.