Visualizing the Sullivan’s Gulch corridor

The view of the future Sullivan’s Gulch multi-use path looking east from NE Grand Ave. See how it will look once the facility is built in the images below.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)


The City of Portland and a group of volunteer stakeholders are hard at work developing a “concept plan” for the Sullivan’s Gulch corridor project (they call it a “trail” but I prefer to avoid that term unless we’re discussing an off-road trail). While this is just the first step in what is likely to be a long process (unless a very powerful person steps up and makes it happen sooner… anyone?!), for fans of this project (and there are many), it’s exciting to see how things are shaping up (sorry for all the parentheses).

Last night, a planner with PBOT shared an update and the first visualizations of what the final facility might actually look like. Here’s how they envision the segment near the Hollywood Transit Center…

(Renderings by Nick Falbo/Alta Planning + Design)

And here it is from another view…

With the path being close to the busy I-84 freeway, many people have brought up concerns about air quality. When asked about that last night, Smith said they estimate it’ll be similar to the I-205 multi-use path. To get a better read on it, the City is looking for someone to do an air quality analysis.

Unlike the I-205 path, the Sullivan’s Gulch won’t have to cross surface streets. Smith says they’ve been able to route the path under all 19 of the streets it crosses. In a major coup, PBOT has gotten an O.K. from ODOT to route the path under I-205 and connect it directly to the existing I-205 path.

Of course, for the City to pull off this project, they’ll eventually have to acquire right-of-way from the Union Pacific Railroad company. At last night’s meeting, Smith said UPRR owns 64% of the property the path would go through (compared to 26% owned by PBOT). Whether or note UPRR is willing to sell (or give away) that property remains to be seen. The good news is, UPRR and PBOT have already sat down to discuss this project several times.

Are they willing to give up the property? “We haven’t asked,” says Smith, “We’re not at that point in the process yet.”

And for those of you salivating that bike traffic will get its own, I-84-like freeway with this project, stakeholder advisory committee member Heather McCarey shared last night that Sullivan’s Gulch, “Is not intended as a bike freeway… We want this to be for everybody, not just a freeway for cyclists.”

Once completed, the project will connect the Eastbank Esplande to I-205 with a 5.6 mile, 12-15 wide path. For more, browse our past coverage and check out the City’s official project page.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car owner and driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

59 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Greg
Greg
12 years ago

The part I like best is that they converted it from rainy to sunny.

ed
ed
12 years ago
Reply to  Greg

Bikes are magical like that.

jbloe
jbloe
12 years ago
Reply to  ed

They are magical.

nuovorecord
nuovorecord
12 years ago
Reply to  Greg

That was built into the project scope of work.

jbloe
jbloe
12 years ago
Reply to  Greg

That is so we know it is simulated.

Lenny Anderson
Lenny Anderson
12 years ago

I’d like to see the last stretch between NE 12th and the Esplanade on a two-way bikes only Holladay Street with an easy connection to the “soon to be built” 7th Avenue Bridge and to the Esplanade and “soon to be built” north Portland Willamette Greenway Trail at the Rose Quarter.

Andrew N
Andrew N
12 years ago
Reply to  Lenny Anderson

Glad to see I’m not the only one talking up the 7th Ave bridge!

Mindful Cyclist
Mindful Cyclist
12 years ago

I would be happy to step up and be that powerful person. But, alas, I am not powerful.

I still am really looking forward to this getting built, though!

Gabriel Nagmay
12 years ago

Back when I was in high school, I would bike from the NE max station (second picture) to Benson (near first picture). Every once and a while, I would ditch the surface streets and bike the gravel next to the railroad tracks. Not necessarily the safest thing, but it sure did cut down on my commute.

Rol
12 years ago

UPRR wouldn’t have to sell or give away the land necessarily; they could grant an easement.

Adams Carroll (News Intern)
Reply to  Rol

Hey Rol,

That’s not how PBOT planner Paul Smith made it sound last night: From my notes…he said, “For the trail to happen, the city would acquire the outer 25 feet [from the rail line I assume]… That would have to occur for the trail to be built.” sounds like he’s saying the city wouldn’t do it with an easement alone and wants ownership instead.

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago

We need to own the ROW for this path. If UPRR grants an easement, they can take it away if they want to double track the corridor in the future.

Nom de Plume
Nom de Plume
12 years ago
Reply to  Chris I

And therefore, they won’t be giving up the ROW or selling it any time soon.

Gutter Bunny Bikes
8 years ago
Reply to  Rol

The slope isn’t buildable for anything other than something like this, ask and if they answer no just emanate domain it – it is why the government has this power. It’s not like they’re going to miss an unbuildable (or at best an extremely expensive slope to develop) slope. (Though honestly, I still think Sandy is a better solution for this section of town).

Scott
Scott
12 years ago

Sweet! This is going to make it so much easier for all the homless people camping in camouflaged tents on that hill to get home.

captainkarma
captainkarma
12 years ago
Reply to  Scott

We may all be camping soon enough, don’t feel so secure.

Scott
Scott
12 years ago
Reply to  captainkarma

I lived in a tent for the first year I was in Portland. My security is based on experience Cap. What are you working with?

Nom de Plume
Nom de Plume
12 years ago
Reply to  Scott

19 more bridges for vagrant junkies to live/shoot up under.

JNE
JNE
12 years ago

Would hate to give up my commute through neighborhood back streets from Grant Park to Lloyd on my way downtown, but this could be an awesome bike artery for NE.

Regarding noise and pollution, there’s one obvious mitigation tool: trees.

Jim Labbe
Jim Labbe
12 years ago
Reply to  JNE

Yes. Trees can help mitigate the air quality issues in Sullivan Gulch. Much of the Gulch’s south-facing slope is choked with blackberries and presents a great re-vegetation opportunity that can improve esthetics, air quality not to mention water quality and bird habitat.

Joe
Joe
12 years ago

car-r-coffins

mark kenseth
mark kenseth
12 years ago

More parentheses, please! It means there’s a lot going on 🙂

P Finn
P Finn
12 years ago

not a bike freeway-why not? This has got to be the best candidate ever!
“Hey, honey, want to go for a walk down by the freeway?” Not.

John Lascurettes
12 years ago
Reply to  P Finn

Look at it this way then, there won’t be much bike/ped conflict.

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago
Reply to  P Finn

I would walk on this path to get from my house to Hollywood TC faster. I would probably use it for running, as well.

fasterthanme
fasterthanme
12 years ago

Noise Pollution?! you bet your ear drums. Bring plugs or stick to the side streets, nicer and much quieter…though perhaps during the morning crawl it wouldn’t be so bad.

Take a ride to any max stop along the freeway to get a taste. It’s gonna take a lot of years before any tree becomes a useful noise barrier.

John Lascurettes
12 years ago
Reply to  fasterthanme

The occasional freight train will be much louder by proximity than the freeway traffic.

Joseph E
Joseph E
12 years ago

“In a major coup, PBOT has gotten an O.K. from ODOT to route the path under I-205 and connect it directly to the existing I-205 path.”

This is great! Currently, there is no good east-west route for 2.5 miles north of Burnside, until Sandy, and even those busy streets only have bike lanes. Glisan, Halsey and Prescott have narrow sidewalks and no bike lane. There is no bike boulevard alternative.

It will be great to have a traffic-free east-west route between Inner and Outer Northeast. Can we build this connection early?

As part of the project, we also need a connection to outer northeast that is south of 84, from the 205 path. Either there needs to be a new bike/pedestrian bridge from the 205 path over 84, or we need a good bike lane or cycletracks on Halsey over the freeway.

John Lascurettes
12 years ago
Reply to  Joseph E

You’re forgetting NE Knott. I find it a great thoroughfare for my bike commute. Though I used to use Prescott as well (I live just off Prescott) I now use Going if I head that far north before heading East-West. Prescott isn’t comfortably wide enough until east of 42nd Ave.

Joseph E
Joseph E
12 years ago

NE Knott does not cross the 205 freeway, so I didn’t mention it. It doesn’t even go east of Sandy.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  Joseph E

First off, I’m a total fan of the Sullivan Gulch route and hope it gets built ASAP, obstacles not withstanding.

I like Joseph E’s thought of building the cross-I-205 connection first. The ROW is secured and there are no major obstacles beyond cut-and-fill grading and retaining walls. It would provide a much-needed alternative to the Halsey speedway. (Streetviews even shows a bike route salmoning up the sidewalk. Sheesh!) But the connections on both ends are tough. The west end of that segment still leaves bikes in difficult territory. (N on 92nd to Schuyler looks like the least worst option to me?) The east end connects to the I-205 MUP out in the Gateway Green boonies with the nearest street connections about a mile to the north at Maywood, and half-mile to the south at Gateway Transit Center. That’s a big improvement, to be sure, but it’s only part of a bigger bikeway system needed for outer NE.

Schrauf
Schrauf
12 years ago

Air quality is a big issue, but it improves rapidly with distance. Even 50 feet from a six-lane highway is probably better air quality than three feet from stop and go traffic, while riding a bike lane on Williams, for example.

Another plus – the path would be used more in the summer, when the wind is frequently from the north – and most rarely from the south.

Paul Budrow
Paul Budrow
12 years ago

This is really exciting. Can’t wait for an new route (sans stop signs, etc.) to get home! Much rather see energy put into this kind of project then the entitled hullabaloo over a negotiable pole on the Broadway bridge.

Andrew Seger
Andrew Seger
12 years ago
Reply to  Paul Budrow

To be fair we’re talking about a 30k change versus a $30million+ project. Lord knows we haven’t gotten much out of the benighted streetcar. Should have been our 7th street bridge right there.

Hart Noecker
12 years ago

Why wouldn’t Union Pacific want to give it up? They’re doing major ad campaigns right now, and I can guarantee they’d want real life shots of their trains rolling along with bicycle commuters instead of CGI composites of trees lifting cargo onto flatcars. I’d ride the thing every day if for no other reason as to be a visual reminder to ever motorist inching along 84 that there’s a lane moving way faster than they are.

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago
Reply to  Hart Noecker

Liability is a major concern for them. With the current configuration, if a train derails, there will be no innocent bystanders squashed. With a pathway at close proximity, there may be injuries or deaths that the company will be responsible for. They will not give up this space for nothing.

Hart Noecker
12 years ago
Reply to  Chris I

Trains derailing is extremely rare, and the liability is no greater than for any point where tracks cross roads, which is everywhere. This isn’t a situation where U.P. is holding something hostage, we’re talking about a strip of land 15 feet wide that could be repurposed for greater transportation use. That’s something Union Pacific would be wise to be a part of.

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago

I watched the stream of a project done at PSU that measured air quality near freeways and arterials in the area:

http://www.cts.pdx.edu/seminars/

See the stream from February 3rd. The students found a noticeable difference in particulate matter pollution when you locate the MUP on the freeway side of a sound barrier, and on the neighborhood side.

Based on this evidence, the designers should consider integrating a sound barrier on the freeway side of the path.

Unit
Unit
12 years ago
Reply to  Chris I

I’m not sure riding a trail trenched between a stepp slope and a vertical concrete wall is very attractice either however…

Granpa
Granpa
12 years ago

Railroads including UPRR have a long standing reputation of not working with other agencies, municipalities or organizations. Their property makes up much of their wealth and they are not in the business of giving it away. The PR campaigns are directed at stock investors, not the general public and they have not shown interest in being popular with the general public. Don’t plan trips on this route just yet.

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago
Reply to  Granpa

Exhibit A: The California High Speed Rail project has encountered strong opposition from UP for simply wanted to locate their tracks next to the UP right of way.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/10/union-pacific-continues-war-against-high-speed-rail/

jimbobpdx
jimbobpdx
12 years ago
Reply to  Granpa

Roger that! It’s more than reputation. Numerous Portland projects – the Steel Bridge Walkway, WES and Milwaukie Light Rail, and others have taken very substantial budget and/or schedule hits due to RR ROW transactions.

UPRR has no reason whatsoever to budge on this one, despite our hopeful imaginings. They are able to remain pretty much indifferent to any of the kinds of carrot or stick that the Portland region or the State of Oregon can muster. City may throw money, then more money, then a lot more money at UPRR; UPRR may choose to play ball somewhere down the line but it will be at a time and a price of its own choosing.

One would hope that there is something else at work here, that this project will not be a ten year black hole . . .

A.K.
A.K.
12 years ago
Reply to  jimbobpdx

Would a potential point of strength for Portland be the expansion of activities that UPRR wants at the Brooklyn yard?

Give up some land in the corridor to get your expansion in Brooklyn!

Bob_M
Bob_M
12 years ago
Reply to  A.K.

UPRR has the neighbors in both Westmoreland and Eastmoreland as commited adversaries. These upper middle class residential neighborhoods resent the noise. Also, the Portland/Milwaukie light rail runs through that corridor taking up RR space, which UPRR already gave up.

K'Tesh
K'Tesh
12 years ago

Oh, please let this happen!

Peter W
Peter W
12 years ago

> “And for those of you salivating that bike traffic will get its own, I-84-like freeway with this project…”

That is a strange analogy. There is nothing attractive (or worth salivating over for any reason) about I-84.

But good to hear there’s at least some progress happening.

browse
browse
12 years ago

I am so very, very ready for path/trail construction to start!

wsbob
wsbob
12 years ago

Lower picture showing the long view: I’d be looking to site the MUP on the brow of the ravine, putting the MUP farther away from track and freeway, and higher above them. This would get people using this route further away from noise, pollution, and allow them them a better view(sound walls are a mixed blessing.). Being on the same level with adjacent business and workplaces would make it naturally easy to divert off the route to go to those places to work and to buy things.

Of course, that location would probably be on private property, necessitating a more complicated process of arranging agreements with property owners to build it there. Probably more money too.

Might be a good idea to keep the railroads property open for rail expansion.

Alan 1.0
Alan 1.0
12 years ago
Reply to  wsbob

I see the attractions of riding higher up the side of the gulch, and one you didn’t mention is more sunlight. However that would also mean more grade changes as the MUP ducked under all the various streets it crosses, and those hills mean more effort for riders and greater speed differentials, resulting in clumpy traffic flow.

As far as access to adjacent businesses, that will happen at the business’ front door on the street side. Businesses don’t want a security risk of a public back door.

wsbob
wsbob
12 years ago
Reply to  Alan 1.0

“…However that would also mean more grade changes as the MUP ducked under all the various streets it crosses, …” Alan 1.0

That’s true, and building it that way would probably be more difficult, and more expensive. It would require somewhat more exertion to ride, but that might not be a bad thing.

Eastbound, the Sunset MUP involves quite a climb, but I wouldn’t consider it arduous, even for someone that just rides occasionally. The Sunset MUP’s inherent potential for hazard is downhill, which…and I kind of don’t like saying this…for long stretches can, if the person riding chooses…be terrifically fast.

People in the form of opposing direction traffic really have to watch out for each other, which is more difficult than one might think without having ridden this MUP. Most people seem to take it easy on the descent, but occasionally, someone will open it up, similar to people in their cars on the freeway, to see what it’ll do.

I’ll just guess…hope…that grades on the Sullivan’s Gulch MUP for a route that would rise for greater distance and elevation, and fall to go under the overpasses, could be made gradual enough to be enjoyable and safe to ride.

Riding almost directly across from the monotonous, stressful roar of Banfield traffic is not going to be fun times.

Ben Guernsey
Ben Guernsey
12 years ago

I think this trail will be practical, but no terribly fun. If you’ve biked out to beaverton on the trail next to the highway… it works, It’s not pretty. It’s nice to not have to deal with fog lines, traffic and stop signs. But it will have a cost.

GlowBoy
GlowBoy
12 years ago

I was thrilled when they finally built the path next to the Sunset, and I ride it often. No the section outside the freeway wall isn’t quiet and pleasant, but it gets me home FAR faster than any other route except Beaverton-Hillsdale (which is far less safe, and somewhat less pleasant to boot).

wsbob
wsbob
12 years ago
Reply to  GlowBoy

The Sunset MUP isn’t bad. And notice that unlike the Sullivan’s Gulch MUP as planned so far, Sunset MUP is sited up above and away from freeway traffic.

Since I posted the comment yesterday, it did occur to me though, that Sullivan’s Gulch MUP has the challenge of cross streets to deal with. This referred to in the story:

“…Unlike the I-205 path, the Sullivan’s Gulch won’t have to cross surface streets. Smith says they’ve been able to route the path under all 19 of the streets it crosses. …” maus/bikeportland

In his comment from yesterday, Ted Buehler’s also noted and responded to this issue of the MUP’s siting.

I’d still be thinking of siting the MUP as high and far away from the freeway as possible, if it could be done by employing some gently ascending and descending rollers to duck under the cross street overpasses.

Ted Buehler
12 years ago

“Smith says they’ve been able to route the path under all 19 of the streets it crosses.”

Excellent! Grade separation is the key to happy, steady bicycling.

Project looks great! Keep up the good work.

& make that path wider wherever possible…

Ted Buehler

Randy
Randy
12 years ago

Like the 205 bike path, why would one site a bike path adjacent to major point-source air pollution (tailpipes)?

Chris I
Chris I
12 years ago
Reply to  Randy

Because there aren’t hundreds of buildings in the way, and the land is vacant (although owned by the railroad). Where would they build an east/west path in Portland that isn’t near cars?

Jeff Utterback
Jeff Utterback
12 years ago

Every time I visit Portland (I live in Sacramento, Ca but used to live in PDX) I ride NE/SE side of town, and wish there was a good East/west route to bike. This trail would be ideal.
PS, I used to ride my motorcycle next to the RR tracks in the early 70’s, getting on near 28th, (next to the then Hyster lift truck Factory) and ride to the Rocky butte gravel pit and ride all day, next to the since demolished Jail (when 205 was built).
My, how times have changed…..

Michael
Michael
12 years ago

Still trying to figure out why the city likes MUP’s so much. I just hope there’s a ban on organized walks along this thing. I don’t care if it’s next to a freeway, and ”no one wants to walk next to a freeway”, I can’t go by hunches. If anyone here rides the Springwater on weekends in the summertime, they know what i’m talking about..

Grandpa
Grandpa
12 years ago

Michael
I just hope there’s a ban on organized walks along this thing. ….., they know what i’m talking about..
Recommended 0

Walkers! a pox on those pedestrians. Why can’t they stay on sidewalks where they belong? And what is with those ski poles

Don’t get me started on those roller bladers