home

City Council unanimously supports major re-design, bike lanes on Foster Road

Posted by on June 17th, 2014 at 11:18 am

SE Foster Road-1
The “Foster freeway” will look a lot different once this $5.25 million plan is implemented.
(Photo J. Maus/BikePortland)

“We want people to slow down, get out of their car, and notice this is a great neighborhood… You don’t have to speed off to some distant chain store.”
— Charlie Hales, Portland Mayor

By 2016 SE Foster Road will be transformed from the auto-centric thoroughfare it is today to a more humane street where people feel welcome, regardless of how they get around. At least that’s the idea outlined in the Foster Streetscape Plan (PDF), a $5.25 million project that unanimously passed city council last week.

In his remarks of support at the end of a nearly two-hour public hearing at City Hall on Wednesday, Portland Mayor Charlie Hales went so far as to quote famed urban planning philosopher Lewis Mumford. Hales leaned on Mumford’s ideas that American cities were being sacrificed for speed and being trampled by the march of the motorized vehicle. “We want people to slow down,” Hales said, “Get out of their car, and notice this is a great neighborhood… You don’t have to speed off to some distant chain store.”

Headline in The Oregonian last week.

Today, Foster is an urban freeway where people drive dangerously fast. In the last 10 years, there have been over 100 crashes a year and eight people have died while using the road. This plan is the result of community members getting together 18 months ago and saying, “Enough is enough.”

The main talking point of the plan is a redesign of the current cross-section. Even though local media outlets like The Oregonian tried to frame it as a “loss” of lanes in order to promote clicks and critics, the new cross-section actually adds a lane. The plan is to re-design the four lanes that exist today and turn it into five lanes: two standard lanes, one center turn lane, and two bike lanes.

Here’s a before and after rendering taken from the plan:



In addition to an updated cross-section, the plan will add: six rapid flash beacons and crossing treatments, a new signal and redesign at 72nd, five curb extensions, street trees, new and improved street lighting, and more.

Transportation Commissioner Steve Novick said the plan will, “Transform Foster from a high-speed, auto-oriented corridor into a pedestrian-oriented place accessible by all transportation modes.”

To make these changes, Novick and PBOT are well aware that they face critics who prefer the status quo and who are afraid of how the lane re-configuration will impact the driving environment. According to their own analysis, PBOT says the changes will lead to an average increase of about two minutes per trip (during peak times) for car drivers.

“Taking away driving lanes will affect too many drivers… trying to make up for lost time causes traffic violations and hazards.”
— Citizen testifying at City Council hearing

One citizen who came to City Hall to oppose the plan, said Foster is a “transportation artery that gives needed automobile access to the city center and the interstate.” The woman also said that using SE Powell as a substitute isn’t an option “because cars are already backed up there as it is.” Then, referencing a quote by Rex Burkholder in a recent story in the Portland Mercury where he said major commercial arterials need to have better bicycle access to make his trips to the pub and work faster, the woman said, “Don’t we [people who use cars] share that goal of getting to our destinations as efficiently as possible?””Taking away driving lanes,” she said, “will affect too many drivers.” In fact she added, somewhat ominously, that the time increases would lead to drivers getting frustrated and that, “trying to make up for lost time causes traffic violations and hazards.”

Prior to his yes vote, Commissioner Dan Saltzman picked up on that thread. “I do have some worries in going from four lanes to two lanes and fostering erratic behavior by drivers.” Saltzman expressed particular concern for impatient road users who will swerve into adjacent lanes to avoid stopped TriMet buses. “We need bus turnouts, or we’ll encourage bad behavior.”

Another man who spoke in opposition said the new cross-section will “paralyze Foster completely” and that collisions between road users are inevitable regardless of speeds and volumes. “You can’t get away from the accidents” he warned.

But council members weren’t swayed by these concerns. Novick asked people to make the judgment that safety should take priority over speed and convenience and council heard dozens of supportive comments at the hearing and were presented with PBOT information that showed 80% support for the plan from a community-wide survey.

With such broad community support, Hales felt emboldened to illustrate his support by reciting one of Mumford’s more provocative quotes: “We should forget the damned motorcar and build the city for lovers and friends.” But Hales, perhaps not wanting to appear too biased in the “modal wars” PBOT is trying to avoid these days, was quick to follow the Mumford quote with, “Now, we’re not going to forget the motorcar, we’re going to balance its mobility with the ability to walk hand-in-hand down a sidewalk wide enough to do that, to bike safely, and to send our children to school on foot and not fear that trip.

“I think he [Mumford] would have approved.”

While Hales is obviously proud of this plan and the local media see this as a big win for bikes, PBOT definitely didn’t “forget the damned motorcar.”

One of the stated goals of the project was to, “Create a safe corridor for motor vehicle travel with smooth, consistent traffic movement. Provide adequate on-street parking, access opportunities, and encourage the shared use of off-street parking.” In order to maintain those auto “access opportunities” PBOT maintained 94% of on-street auto parking and, as we reported back in March, they opted not to connect the bike lanes all the way to the intersection with the upcoming greenway on SE 52th, despite a majority of people saying they preferred that option.

Construction of this plan is slated for construction and completion in 2016.

Learn more:
- Foster Streetscape Plan official project page.
- Our report on the new bike lanes.
- My thoughts about Foster Road after riding on it in January 2013.
- All our past coverage of this plan.


Email This Post Email This Post


Gravatars make better comments... Get yours here.
Please notify the publisher about offensive comments.
Comments
  • spare_wheel June 17, 2014 at 12:13 pm

    “Then, referencing a quote by Rex Burkholder in a recent story in the Portland Mercury where he said major commercial arterials need to have better bicycle access to make his trips to the pub and work faster…”

    I looked for this quote in the Mercury piece but could not find it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • davemess June 17, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Overall great news!

    “Don’t we [people who use cars] share that goal of getting to our destinations as efficiently as possible?””Taking away driving lanes,” she said, “will affect too many drivers.”

    I wold answer yes, and you’ve had it your way on Foster for well over 50 years. And now the street is very dangerous and businesses and local neighbors are struggling. It’s time to try something different!

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • Spiffy June 17, 2014 at 1:50 pm

      I would answer yes, and counter with “Don’t we share the goal of getting to our destinations as safely as possible?”… because we can’t do that right now with cars being the most dominant and dangerous thing on the street… they still will be after the change, but it should be better… and we can always take away more motor vehicle lanes later if they don’t start behaving…

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Chris I June 17, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    WILL LOSE LANE FOR BIKES

    Great headline, Oregonian.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Spiffy June 17, 2014 at 1:47 pm

      WILL LOSE LANE FOR BIKES

      I want to stand at the freeway exit ramp at Foster/205 holding a cardboard sign with this on it…

      Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Todd Hudson June 17, 2014 at 3:40 pm

      Joseph Rose is required to have a quota of incendiary content in order to generate angry commentary from his readers. I believe it’s in his contract with the Oregonian!

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • Joseph Rose June 17, 2014 at 4:23 pm

        Why is this the first that I’m hearing about this “quota of incendiary content in order to generate angry commentary from his readers”? To be clear, it’s a bad headline — and I didn’t write it. I would hope that you would actually read the content and if you’re going to judge, judge me on that. Thanks. For what it’s worth, Jonathan has never called me to discuss how I approach writing about the complicated transportation issues in this city. So, I understand how you might feel that way when you read that my prime objective is to promote “clicks and critics.” I’m not sure what that even means. Be safe. Be well.
        JR

        Recommended Thumb up 6

        • John Liu June 18, 2014 at 8:40 am

          Most readers do not disassociate the body of an article from the headline.

          Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Middle of the Road guy June 18, 2014 at 11:20 am

            And some people are looking to be aggrieved over any perceived slight. bikeportland readers are exemplary at it.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • OnTheRoad June 18, 2014 at 7:20 pm

          Don’t you get some sort of bonus for page views. Or is it a quota that you have to generate so many clicks to retain your position?

          They’re not having you generate web stories and monitor comments for free are they?

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • 9watts June 18, 2014 at 8:10 pm

          “Why is this the first that I’m hearing about this ‘quota of incendiary content in order to generate angry commentary from his readers’?”

          I can’t explain that.

          But this part from your article struck me as odd (for a city ostensibly committed to Vision Zero):
          “In the past decade, the 40-block stretch of Foster, which is a major commuting connector between Interstate 205 and downtown Portland, has seen more than 1,200 crashes and eight fatalities in the past decade.

          PBOT expects a 20 percent reduction in all crashes after the project is completed.”

          I like the Foster Road Diet as far as it goes, but this sounds like Vision-Screw-The-Remaining-80% to me.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hart Noecker June 17, 2014 at 4:38 pm

        Oh, the quiet, undeniable irony…

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Andrew Seger June 17, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Overall great news, although it’s a shame the only mention of transit is Dan Saltzman’s about getting buses out of the way. The 14 deserves to have its own lanes on Hawthorne and Foster someday.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • Hart Noecker June 17, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    Community-driven development is a very positive thing. It’s a shame the rest of the city isn’t being developed with this model.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala June 18, 2014 at 8:28 am

      Land use and public rights of way have different legal requirements. Any examples to critique?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu June 17, 2014 at 1:04 pm

    I may have missed that headline, as I used today’s Oregonian to wrap fish.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • Concordia Cyclcist June 17, 2014 at 6:30 pm

      Sadly, they don’t have a Tuesday paper any more, so that thing is probably from Sunday.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I June 17, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      That poor fish…

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Terry D June 17, 2014 at 1:19 pm

    This is a good example of a multiple neighborhood driven effort. We can replicate it on East Burnside, North Lombard and in other places city wide if we push.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • encephalopath June 17, 2014 at 3:13 pm

      You’ll have to go up against ODOT for N Lombard because it’s state highway 30.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Joe Adamski June 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm

        FWIW, ODOT is proactively redesigning pedestrian access along Lombard between Mohawk and Burr after the SJ Neighborhood Assoc notified them of design concerns following the development of several businesses in the corridor. Actual construction to start this summer.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Todd Hudson June 17, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      Keep up the good work on Burnside, Terry!

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Chris I June 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm

      And NE Halsey between 47th and 102nd.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • jonno June 17, 2014 at 4:05 pm

        hear hear!

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Adron @ Transit Sleuth June 17, 2014 at 1:58 pm

    LOVE that this is happening. Was discussing much as I rode with a couple hundred other cyclists down Foster at midnight recently… how nice it’ll be when the absurdity of 4 lanes of roadway are put in check and equity is provided.

    However a few nitpicks with other nitpickers… of course, this is likely singing to the choir here.

    “Don’t we [people who use cars] share that goal of getting to our destinations as efficiently as possible? Taking away driving lanes, will affect too many drivers.”

    She’s wrong, horribly so, and obviously hasn’t been paying attention or is just completely out of touch. Using a car is NOT the most efficient way to get around in an urban environment, which Portland aims to be. As for taking away driving lanes, we all know that this does not particularly equate to increased travel times. Considering how much down time Foster has, this shouldn’t cause much issue, and hopefully will divert unnecessary traffic.

    Then she added, somewhat ominously, that the time increases would lead to drivers getting frustrated and that, “trying to make up for lost time causes traffic violations and hazards.” as the article has written above.

    This isn’t violations and hazards, she’s threatening other road users. I know I’m no passive aggressive type, but I HATE the thoughts this gives me. Because it paints another soul who’s so impatient with their inefficient auto-dependent life that they’ll endanger others on or around the road (or in houses or whatever else motorists manage to run into, on a seemingly regular basis).

    Anyway, I digress, it drives me nuts some of the dumb nonsense people let flow out of their mouths. I’m looking forward to the changes and WILL BE VISITING Foster a LOT MORE in the coming months. There are friends, establishments and other things that I am aiming to make a habit of frequenting. I hope my money is good there as the rest of the city. Needless to mention, I’ll be on bike. ;)

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • Cora Potter June 17, 2014 at 2:10 pm

      Perhaps if you pay more attention to what they mean – rather than how they’re saying it that helps?

      What I see/hear from this woman’s comments is the frustrations of someone who already has to bear the brunt of a lot of the burdens that have moved east as prosperity has moved into the inner city. When I hear these sorts of comments my reaction is not to take them as a threat or file them away as “dumb nonsense”, but to empathize and to try to look for solutions that reduce the burden shift rather than exacerbate it.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • Alex Reed June 17, 2014 at 9:27 pm

        Cora, I like your story better than Transit Sleuth’s. But Craig Beebe, below, recalls that the woman was from Creston-Kenilworth, which is more a newly prosperous inner neighborhood than an eastern one that has borne the brunt of the changes. Not every story fits into our narratives of privilege and deprivation. Maybe this woman hasn’t really been hurt or helped much by the changes in Portland in the past decade but just prefers getting around by car and is worried that it’ll become less convenient.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Cora Potter June 18, 2014 at 12:26 pm

          It might just be that she’s being negatively effected by more and more traffic from East Portland being shifted to Powell – which would mean she is bearing some of the brunt of the divestment and disparate approaches to development in areas inside 82nd vs. outside 82nd.

          It really is an issue of total system function and we need to stop looking at these corridors as segments, and start looking at all the inter-dependencies, for the benefit of everyone.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Alex Reed June 18, 2014 at 4:36 pm

            Given that traffic volumes at 45th & Powell have pretty steadily declined from 45,400 ADT in 2001 to 35,300 in 2012 (most recent data), I don’t think that “increased” traffic on Powell in the Creston-Kenilworth resident’s neighborhood is causing her complaint. Data here:
            http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/td/tdata/Pages/tsm/tvt.aspx

            I’m not saying there hasn’t been a significant shift in population and poverty to East Portland. Just saying that there are other things going on in Portland. Not every objection to the Foster Road plan is from an underprivileged person living east of 82nd Avenue who needs to drive, and not every objection stems from the shift of poverty and people to East Portland. Some of it is about some middle- and upper-middle-class people who drive frequently liking things the way they are now and not wanting them to change. And that’s one of the things we should listen to (if not the most important one).

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Cora Potter June 18, 2014 at 5:00 pm

              I agree we should be listening – but we should also avoid assuming that “liking to drive” is the reason why people drive. Privileged or not, I try to assume that folks make the choice to drive first and foremost because their needs make driving necessary. And, people of means may be time impoverished, although they’re statistically much less likely to be time poor than people living with less access to resources.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • 9watts June 18, 2014 at 5:48 pm

                “I try to assume that folks make the choice to drive first and foremost because their needs make driving necessary.”

                A thoughtful approach to take. But I’d venture that this is one of the chief problems, the thing we need to undo, not some law of nature that we must accommodate until hell freezes over, or, more immediately, the sea levels rise. Objecting to something that specifically and directly offers alternatives to this dreadful car thing we’ve got going because it (might) impinge on the auto-bound is like crowing that coal miners might not get to maintain their way of life if we were to phase out coal fired power plants. Some circumstances we simply can’t allow any more. And while we must take note of the potential or definite losers, and do our best to ease their transitions (from driving cars everywhere or mining coal to something less damaging) we can’t afford to freeze everything in amber because of this group, stuck as they are in a way of life, a transportation habit, that is dangerous to all life, is obsolete.

                Recommended Thumb up 7

    • was carless June 18, 2014 at 11:58 am

      Wired had a recent article regarding induced traffic. Was a good read:
      http://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-traffic-induced-demand/

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Todd Boulanger June 17, 2014 at 2:16 pm

    This is a great step towards improved safety and more rational street operations (vs. the outdated 4 lane layout that promotes aggressive driving and lane changing) on one of Portland’s important east-west arterials. Foster, like Hawthorne is an arterial that current poorly serves all road users…one that I do not like biking along nor driving / parking.

    The successful implementation of this project will be considered a “medium hanging fruit”…very important for reaching Portland’s 2030 modal goal of 25% bike commute traffic and also spread traffic safety and access benefits out to the often forgotten eastside.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Chris I June 17, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    I think the person cherry-picked Burkholder’s quote about getting to work faster, because it fits the narrative of speed over safety. Frankly, Burkholder should not have said that. We don’t want improvements like the one we are getting on Foster to make our commutes faster, we want them to make our commutes safer. America has prioritized speed over safety for the past century, and look where we are: over 30,000 citizens dead every year. The new Foster will be measurably safer for all users, and the data will prove it in the coming years.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • spare_wheel June 17, 2014 at 4:19 pm

      If we want to make cycling to be competitive with the subsidized convenience of motoring, speed and efficiency should be essential components of our infrastructure planning.

      They don’t build green wave cycle tracks and buffered bike lanes on neighborhood streets in copenhagen and berlin — they build them on arterials.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Chris I June 17, 2014 at 9:07 pm

        If we use speed as a performance measure, bikes are going to lose 99% of the time. I do think that we need quick routes, but we can’t lobby for road diets if the main goal is to improve cyclist’s commute times.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Middle of the Road guy June 18, 2014 at 11:22 am

        cycling infrastructure is dependent upon the car.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 9watts June 18, 2014 at 3:52 pm

          “cycling infrastructure is dependent upon the car.”

          I assume you mean that without the overwhelming presence of the car we wouldn’t need cycling infrastructure? I agree with that, but it wasn’t entirely clear from your phrasing.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris Anderson June 18, 2014 at 9:36 am

      Since we are nitpicking today, I’ll remind everyone that what we are looking for is more than safety, it is comfort.

      There are plenty of places biking is more comfortable than driving in Portland, but these do not include many of our arterials. I’m excited to see what happens on Williams, I think it may have a chance. I predict a business boom along the left side of the street.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • encephalopath June 17, 2014 at 3:20 pm

    “trying to make up for lost time causes traffic violations and hazards.”

    Trying to make up for lost time is the perpetual mindset of people in cars. It doesn’t matter what how fast they are going, what the conditions are, or what the speed limit is. They are always looking for some angle to work or some corner to cut to go faster.

    The 4 lanes, no median configuration combined with that mindset is a danger for everyone.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • SteveG June 17, 2014 at 3:31 pm

    When money fled to the ‘burbs, many urban streets were re-engineered to minimize commute times, and highways blasted into town, and buildings were razed and replaced with parking lots and parking structures.

    Now, at last, with more monied interests moving back into town, suburban commuters’ priorities will take a back seat to the interests of urban residents.

    Yes, this will lengthen commutes for suburban residents. Maybe/hopefully it’ll also result in more suburban support for improved public transportation.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Jimmy June 17, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    This is still a fairly low income area. I don’t see the viability of a bunch of locally owned shops along this stretch of road when a large proportion of people in the neighborhood still shop and Wal-Mart and eat at McDonalds.

    Reworking the road is going to make things safer for bikes but it isn’t going to fundamentally change things. I’d much rather see this time and effort spent on SW Barbur.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • davemess June 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm

      I think WAS low income, is what you were looking for (yes it’s still below average for Portland). Over 2/3rds of this project is in FoPo and Mt Scott/Arleta. These two neighborhoods are quickly gentrifying and real estate is shooting up. Lents won’t likely be that far behind.

      This area is not what it was even 10 years ago.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • davemess June 18, 2014 at 8:48 am

      Jimmy, should also note that a lot of this (looking for funding, designing, etc) was driven by the local neighborhoods and some tireless work over the course of the last decade. This wasn’t just some whim that the city decided to throw to outer SE Portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Craig Beebe June 17, 2014 at 4:15 pm

    Great project with great potential for the future of this growing and revitalizing part of town. (I live a little south in Woodstock but also lived right off Foster on 56th for a few months a few years ago.)

    I attended and testified at the Council hearing last week and despite the tone of the story was actually struck by how little opposition was raised. Of several dozen people testifying, I think I heard only two (the woman quoted above and her husband, who both live in Creston-Kenilworth) that were opposed.

    Instead, there was overwhelming support expressed for this project’s potential to make Foster more like a Main Street than a state highway–which will mean more business development, safer crossings for people on foot and turns for people driving, and yes, safer and more direct bicycling connections. Business owners, neighborhood association leaders, families, older folks, etc. etc.–all speaking in favor.

    This has been in the works and in the plans for over ten years. It’s about time to move forward on Foster.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • don arambula June 17, 2014 at 5:06 pm

    Having implemented road diets in other cities, I know for a fact that in most instances that the proposed two travel lane + a dedicated left turn lane cross-section is both safer and less congested than the existing four travel lane cross section. This may seem counter-intuitive, but keep in mind where left turns are permitted on a four lane arterial, cars turning left present a hazard (rear-end collisions) and create delay (cars maneuvering around turning vehicles). A dedicated left turn lane removes this obstruction.

    Also, we have done this before in Portland. The Interstate MAX project not only removed one lane but two! Car mobility advocates foresaw an motor-vehicle apocalypse. Ten years later, the sky has not fallen.

    Thank you Charlie Hales and the Council for making the right decision.

    As far as the final design goes… we can do better. No protected bike lanes is not acceptable solution.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • kiel johnson June 17, 2014 at 6:03 pm

    that is it, i’m running against saltzman!

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Hart Noecker June 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm

      Need a campaign manager? I’ve got experience.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Middle of the Road guy June 18, 2014 at 11:23 am

        From where? Lansing?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SandyBlvdRider June 18, 2014 at 10:49 am

    Great! Do the same for the other “diagonals”….Sandy Blvd is screaming for this too!!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Adam H. June 18, 2014 at 6:23 pm

    Of course the drawings show the only part without car parking.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • davemess June 19, 2014 at 7:26 am

      That’s a good point. The only lane diets we’ve seen in Portland (correct me if I’m wrong) have been on streets that had no parking to begin with (Division) or maintained that parking afterwards (Holgate, and most of Foster after this proposal is implemented). We saw with 28th that parking may now be more important that car travel (let alone bikes or peds)(and certainly in the central area).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GlowBoy June 26, 2014 at 8:00 pm

    Portland Tribune published a lengthy opinion piece on this today:
    http://portlandtribune.com/pt/10-opinion/225354-87538-our-opinion-road-diet-shouldnt-starve-neighborhoods

    “Slower traffic might be desirable in some of these neighborhoods, but as each of these diets is implemented, they serve to choke off outer East Portland residents from downtown Portland. … Neighborhood enhancement is a worthy outcome, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of what streets were originally intended to do: provide an efficient means for people to drive [sic] from one place to another. Such road diets also shouldn’t be allowed to further disenfranchise the people who live east of Interstate 205. They still need basic safety improvements — such as sidewalks — and they are the ones who will suffer longer commutes.”

    Ignoring the Trib’s glaring misconception of “what streets were originally intended to do,” basically they are saying we shouldn’t undertake projects to make neighborhoods safer, more livable and more walkable if it comes at the expense of slightly longer commute times for people driving through those neighborhoods.

    While they do make some good points, such as the need for bus turnouts in the Foster design, and the desperate need for more investment (including basics like sidewalks) further east, they seem to have forgotten the lessons of the Mt. Hood Freeway: NO neighborhood should have to sacrifice its safety and livability so people in cars can obliviously blast through it unimpeded on the way to somewhere else. But those sacrifices were forced on neighborhoods for more than half a century, and we’re still living (or, in too many instances, dying) with the bad infrastructure created by that mindset. Those of us in the city (and, frankly, that includes East Portland) already have deal with too many people driving too fast through our neighborhoods and treating our streets like highways. If undoing the wrongs of the past increases driving times a bit, too bad.

    “Outer East Portland residents who are starving for transportation investments can only dream of the day when they’ll need to consider a diet.”

    Gee, I guess the Trib’s editorial staff doesn’t follow BikePortland! Road diets are definitely being “considered” in East Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • 9watts June 26, 2014 at 9:04 pm

      Interesting piece. Thanks for linking to it and for your critique.

      “these road diets come with a significant trade-off: They further reduce the ways people in East Portland can travel downtown or farther west. ”

      That I thought funny.
      The proposed changes unequivocally *increase* ‘the ways people in East Portland can travel downtown.’ I didn’t think that was in question.

      “The road diets are supposed to encourage use of public transportation or bicycling, but those modes of transportation aren’t an option for everyone.”

      That is such a tired saw. I’d venture that between the bus and bikes we’ve got a larger share of the population covered (they said ‘an option’) than with a car. Anyone got a statistic?

      “As east-west thoroughfares are constricted, the daily commute becomes increasingly difficult for East Portland’s growing population.”

      Speculative sour grapes. Is this what happened on Division after the road diet between 60th and 77th? I don’t think so.

      The most annoying if also predictable flaw with this editorial is that they fail to account for the dynamics of this sort of change. Mode shares are not static. Stabs at leveling the field a bit on Foster *have to* shift some of the folks from cars or staying at home to biking and walking. What part of that is not to be embraced? Even by the Tribune’s own weird, outdated everyone who matters is trying to get through Foster to downtown logic, getting folks out of cars is a win for everyone, even the still car-bound.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • davemess June 27, 2014 at 1:14 pm

      Uh, Holgate is in East Portland. And shockingly has led to a safer road.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

- Daily bike news since 2005 -
BikePortland.org is a production of
PedalTown Media Inc.
321 SW 4th Ave, Ste. 401
Portland, OR 97204

Powered by WordPress. Theme by Clemens Orth.
Subscribe to RSS feed


Original images and content owned by Pedaltown Media, Inc. - Not to be used without permission.