Open house will feature ODOT plans for notorious section of Powell Blvd

Protest on SE Powell-9.jpg

A protestor at the May 11th rally held at SE Powell and 26th.
(Photo © J. Maus/BikePortland)

The Oregon Department of Transportation is ready to share their plans for making SE Powell Blvd safer. Their “Powell Boulevard Safety Project” will spend $3.8 million on the segment of the roadway between 20th and 34th.

The project includes the intersection of SE 26th where Alistair Corkett was involved in a collision back in May that resulted in his leg being torn off. Then a few weeks later another man was seriously injured from a collision in the same intersection.

While their Powell project isn’t slated for construction until 2017, ODOT fast-tracked a left-turn signal at Powell and 26th immediately following those two collisions.

According to ODOT, this stretch of Powell, “has a history of problems, including a high rate of rear-end and turning crashes involving bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians.” As contributing factors for these crashes, ODOT lists, “poor visibility, limited sight distances, frequent left turns and side streets too close to one another for optimal safety.”

Advertisement

ODOT doesn’t list high speeds as one of the problems.

While safety activists and local residents dream of a kinder and gentler Powell, it’s important to note that it’s a state highway (26) and it carries a very high volume of motor vehicles. ODOT considers it to be, “the main road between Portland and Bend.”

That being said, here’s what ODOT will do with the $3.8 million:

  • New left turn signals at Southeast 21st, 26th (already installed) and 33rd
  • Three new rapid flash beacons and pedestrian median safety islands at Southeast 24th, 31st and 34th
  • Improved signs and lighting and new high visibility striping.
  • Improved sidewalks and ramps, including a wider sidewalk at the southeast corner of Southeast Powell and 26th Avenue, across the street from Cleveland High School.
  • Improved sight lines through the corridor to make sure bicyclists, motorists and pedestrians can see each other better.
  • This section of the highway is part of U.S. 26, the main road between Portland and Bend, and is heavily used by commuters, bicyclists, pedestrians, mass transit and heavy trucks. Average daily traffic in the corridor ranges from 34,600 to 38,500.

Without speed on ODOT’s radar, we worry that “improving sight lines through the corridor” will encourage people driving on SE Powell to go even faster.

If you have thoughts to share with ODOT about this project, consider showing up to the open house Thursday night (7/30) from 5:00 to 7:00 pm at First Floor Cafe at Catholic Charities (2740 SE Powell Blvd). You can also send questions and feedback to ODOT Community Affairs Coordinator Dee Hidalgo via email at Dee.Hidalgo@odot.state.or.us.

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

50 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan Kessler
Alan Kessler
8 years ago

PBOT needs to take over Powell.

ODOT views Powell as a high-capacity throughway that is, unfortunately, being interfered with by the pesky neighborhoods it bisects. They’re willing to do anything they can to improve safety, just so long as it doesn’t inconvenience drivers.

This entire thing needs to be re-framed. Powell runs through a dense (and getting denser) urban environment. It is unsustainable to have motorists travelling at 35-45 mph given these conditions. All the tree trimming in the world won’t help motorists see vulnerable road users at high speed. It will, however give a false sense of security and increase speed. We need to stop subsidizing suburban real estate at the cost of our neighborhoods, safety, and comfort.

The correct solution is to slow down motor vehicle traffic and allow reasonable traffic-light cycles that don’t make 3rd-class citizens out of anyone trying to move perpendicular to Powell.

The easiest case for this is the Cleveland High School area. ODOT admits that students cross Powell there often enough to necessitate “more space for students waiting to cross…” (one of its design goals in a flyer they mailed to nearby residents). The only reason that this is not a reduced-speed School Zone is that ODOT values throughput above all else, even the safety of students.

Nick Falbo
Nick Falbo
8 years ago
Reply to  Alan Kessler

Not to say that a jurisdictional transfer wont help, but it only takes one look at Cesar Chavez Boulevard and East 122nd Ave to realize that PBOT ownership is no panacea. Those streets are really not that different than Powell.

Hello, Kitty
Chris
8 years ago

Maybe 26th & Powell needs a “pedestrian scramble” phase that would stop all traffic while pedestrians cross, and would permit diagonal crossing (maybe only activated when a pedestrian pushes the button). I get really nervous with all those kids in very close proximity to such a dangerous street.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago

I can’t wait to learn about all the ways they will not affect drivers.

SilkySlim
SilkySlim
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam H.

I don’t understand what you are saying at all. But it seems like your style to put down absolutely everything, so there is that….

Seems like a pretty reasonable set of changes to me. Those rapid flash beacons work well on out on Foster for example, and the turn lane at 26th has already reduce some tensions.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  SilkySlim

ODOT is implementing the design of least resistance. They refuse to let any “safety” project affect people driving in any way. The proper solution here is to tame the people driving too fast and not paying attention, as that what is causing people to get hurt and killed. Instead we get more signs and lights for drivers to ignore and nothing that will actually solve the problem of speeding.

ODOT will come up with a solution that will on the surface seems like safety but in reality won’t actually address the root cause. Powell needs a complete rebuild to put people first and not prioritizing moving cars as fast as possible.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  SilkySlim

For example, not once are protected bike lanes and protected intersections mentioned, as that would require taking space away from cars. Notice how every solution ODOT proposes doesn’t take any space away from cars (save for maybe a few hundred feet of sidewalk), nor slows them down at all?

davemess
davemess
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam H.

Are you wanting those facilities ON Powell? Because ODOT doesn’t really have jurisdiction over the side streets where I think you want those facilities.

Adam Herstein
Adam Herstein
8 years ago
Reply to  davemess

Some protected intersections on Powell and side streets with bike lanes would be a vast improvement. Add concrete islands and separate phases for people riding bikes to cross Powell safely. A long-term solution should be reduced auto capacity and protected bike lanes on Powell.

WD
WD
8 years ago
Reply to  davemess

I want physically protected bicycle lanes ON Powell, yes. Right now it’s 100% legal to ride your bike ON Powell, and many homes and businesses are ON Powell, but the traffic is so insane (NO SCHOOL ZONE?!?! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!) that no one dares ride ON Powell. So, if ODOT was really building the street to safely let people travel legally, they’d build protected bicycle lanes ON Powell.

I think ODOT even has some sort of fancy graph/gradient/chart/internet-thing that shows where & when to build better bicycle facilities (maybe it’s someone other than ODOT – I can’t remember) and I bet it shows Powell (at it’s size, speed, and traffic volume) squarely in the zone where protected bikeways are called for.

And doesn’t Oregon have some sort of law requiring bicycle facilities? And didn’t we used to have some organization who’d hold government accountable, and sue when that law was violated?

My memory is fuzzy…

Stephanie B
Stephanie B
8 years ago

Does “improving sight lines” mean cutting down trees?

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  Stephanie B

Yep.

From the project website:

Some tree removal and trimming to increase visibility

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam H.

And one has to wonder: If the speeds were 25 mph instead of 35-45 mph, would it be necessary to cut down trees to see pedestrians far enough in advance? (And of course, will removing trees induce even higher speeds?)

Eric Leifsdad
Eric Leifsdad
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug Klotz

Yep. More open space must be crossed faster. They might get it somewhat under control when they put a stop light on every block and time them to the desired speed. This gives us somewhere to mount the devices needed for a congestion charge, red light cameras, and speed cameras? But raising the gas tax enough to pay for all of that would discourage driving enough that we wouldn’t need it?

jeff
jeff
8 years ago
Reply to  Stephanie B

I live along the corridor and the biggest sight issue I have while driving are the 3-4 weeds that grow along Powell in some locations. DOT cuts them maybe twice a year. the rest of the spring/summer you have to pull out into Powell to visualize oncoming traffic in some areas. trees are not the problem. the businesses/properties along Powell are not doing their part to clear the parking strips (as city ordinance would indicate they should).

rick
rick
8 years ago
Reply to  Stephanie B

which leads to higher speeds. A good tree canopy encourages drivers to slow down.

Dorian
Dorian
8 years ago

Any chance a rapid flash beacon will be installed at 36th and Powell by the Starbucks? A lot more pedestrians and bicyclists use it than the 34th crossing.

Tom Hardy
Tom Hardy
8 years ago

I think the title “State highway 26” says it all. Since ODOT has deemed it to be a major motorized transit corridor for the “State” then they need to make it a very limited access thoroughfare. Namely bury it between SE 17th and the Orient highway. Whether this means putting it in a tunnel or digging a ditch like HWY 84. City money should not be paying for it. That way ODOT can do what they wish and the Neighborhoods can make the streets safe. ODOT may be subscribing to Vision Zero but that is as far as they seem to want to go.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  Tom Hardy

We already have a few highways cutting through Portland. We don’t need another one. People going to Bend can take I-5 or I-84 to get out of the city.

davemess
davemess
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam H.

And for the other quarter of the city that doesn’t live next to this highways?

Adam Herstein
Adam Herstein
8 years ago
Reply to  davemess

Deal with being stuck in traffic or driving slowly for a bit?

shirtsoff
shirtsoff
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam Herstein

I’m out towards 52nd & Holgate and let me tell you, driving a bit slowly to I-5, I-84, or I-205 doesn’t inconvenience this member of “the other quarter of the city.” Powell as a high speed, car-only artery is not what this city needs (it backs up way too often from rail trains too often to even pretend that it is “efficient”) nor what surrounding neighborhoods should put up with.

shirtsoff
shirtsoff
8 years ago
Reply to  shirtsoff

To be explicitly clear in regards to my message, tame Powell and make those neighborhoods next to it more safe and desirable to live in, travel through, and stop in at.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  shirtsoff

Agreed. I’m at 52nd, a few blocks north of Powell and hate crossing it. Even at a light, it’s dangerous (plus the beg buttons are about to fall off). PBOT built the 50’s bikeway right down the street I live on and it crosses Powell, but in the intersection, people are left without any cycling facilities at all.

davemess
davemess
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam H.

There are bike lanes on 52nd. The bike lanes between Powell and Foster were recently painted green (and there has never been parking in that section anyway). The lights are timed where it is almost impossible to make both lights on 52nd.
I know you’re new to the area, but a year ago, there was none of this.
I ride this route every day, and there has been a very large increase in bikes at those intersections since the lanes were introduced.
I’m sorry you don’t find it safe, but a lot of people currently find it safe enough to use it.

Let’s not let perfect (and it’s quite debatable how “perfect” many separated facilities are) get in the way of good.

paikiala
paikiala
8 years ago
Reply to  Tom Hardy

It’s unlikely PBOT would treat the street any differently.

Per the City of Portland, Powell Blvd is a Major City Traffic street, the third highest classification, after Regional Trafficways (freeways), and RTMCT (expressways like McLoughlin).

Major City Traffic Streets:
Major City Traffic Streets are intended to serve as the principal routes for traffic that has at least one trip end within a transportation district.

• Land Use/Development. Major City Traffic Streets should provide motor vehicle connections among the Central City, regional centers, town centers, industrial areas, and intermodal facilities. Auto-oriented development should locate adjacent to Major City Traffic Streets, but should orient to pedestrians along streets also classified as Transit Streets or within Pedestrian Districts.
• Connections. Major City Traffic Streets should serve as primary connections to Regional Trafficways and serve major activity centers in each district. Traffic with no trip ends within a transportation district should be discouraged from using Major City Traffic Streets.
• On-Street Parking. On-street parking may be removed and additional right of way purchased to provide adequate traffic access when consistent with the street design designation of the street. Evaluate the need for on-street parking to serve adjacent land uses and improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists when making changes to the roadway

Nick Falbo
Nick Falbo
8 years ago
Reply to  paikiala

And what about the future designation of Powell as a Civic Corridor, which is supposed to be an “enjoyable place to live, work and gather; serve as safe mobility corridors for all types of transportation and pedestrians.”

I imagine those TSP definitions will have to change dramatically (especially the land use one) if the Civic Corridor classification is going to be taken seriously.

Hello, Kitty
Chris
8 years ago
Reply to  paikiala

That sounds a bit different to me… according to what you wrote, the city would discourage traffic traveling from, say, Beaverton to Mt. Hood from using Powell, whereas ODOT would not.

I don’t know if that would result in any difference in practice, but it is a big difference in principle.

Adam Herstein
Adam Herstein
8 years ago
Reply to  paikiala

That kind of attitude will ensure our streets stay dangerous. We need to take steps to reduce reliance on private automobiles instead of just throwing up our hands and saying “well, it’s just a busy street, nothing we can do here”.

Spiffy
Spiffy
8 years ago
Reply to  Tom Hardy

“they need to make it a very limited access thoroughfare.”

that’s what they did that got us into this mess… they tore it out to make room for a freeway, they activism killed the freeway and left us with a road that was too wide for a city…

Tom Hardy
Tom Hardy
8 years ago

While ODOT is at it! They can make Powell a toll road. That will pay for it but all heavy traffic will have to be banned from surrounding streets.

rick
rick
8 years ago

How about separated multi-use paths? Outer Powell is also in greater need of an overhaul.

Adam Herstein
Adam Herstein
8 years ago
Reply to  rick

Outer Powell is potentially getting protected bike lanes, per an earlier BikePortland article.

ethan
ethan
8 years ago
Reply to  Adam Herstein

Here’s a matrix to know of when reading about bike projects:

When someone says “x will happen,” a few years down the road it means “x would have happened but there was not ‘political support'”

Similarly, “x might happen” means that “x is very, very, very unlikely”

peter haas
peter haas
8 years ago

I’d add removing all Highway 26 signs from Powell to the ODOT list. I think those signs send the wrong message.

rick
rick
8 years ago
Reply to  peter haas

and the billboard advertisements

Bald One
Bald One
8 years ago

Wow, I’m curious to know what happened to PBOT’s petition to ODOT to put in a traffic signal and ped crossing over Powell on 28th. This was highly promoted during PBOT’s “20’s Bikeway” project as the solution for cyclists trying to get N-S across Powell. PBOT said repeatedly they were in process of getting approval from ODOT for a signal at 28th for kids to get to school and others to use as part of the N-S couplet for cycling in the 20’s. Totally missing, here. So, my kids will still have to ride the 3′ bike lanes on 26th N-S trying to squeeze into the lane next to Tri-Met Bus and 80,000 lb trucks on SE 26th. The crossing of Powell at 26th is improved, but the rest of 26th remains a very poor cycle facility.

If these agencies could possibly work together to put into place the greater plan for the area, it would be nice to see. Now we will have to hear for the next 10 years PBOT say they can’t improve SE 26th Ave for N-S travel since they are still waiting for a traffic light to be approved by ODOT on SE Powell as part of the master plan. Rinse and repeat.

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago
Reply to  Bald One

Yes, it’s been approved. We heard at the meeting last night 7/30, that ODOT chief Traffic Engineer Bob Pape approved the 28th Ave. crossing, on the condition that the bike lanes and bike boxes at 26th be removed, as well as the marked crosswalk with island at 28th Place. PBOT told Pape that 90% of the bike traffic that now uses 26th would switch to 28th Ave. So on that basis, ODOT approved the 28th Ave. crossing, which would not allow car movements across Powell, nor left turns any direction at that intersection.

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago

I haven’t heard whether or not this project precludes the 28th Ave crossing improvements, doesn’t preclude them, or includes them. A good question!

J_R
J_R
8 years ago

I’m tired of the ODOT explanation that US 26 is the primary route from Portland to Bend. On an average day I’ll bet that lots more pedestrians cross Powell Boulevard within the city limits of Portland than travel from Portland to Bend.

Going a long distance is not an indication of the importance of a person or the importance of a trip.

Adam H.
Adam H.
8 years ago
Reply to  J_R

Right, and people driving out of the city should not take priority over people who actually live near the road and have to cross it every day.

Evan Manvel
Evan Manvel
8 years ago
Reply to  J_R

Yup. And if you’re driving to Bend (2 1/2 to 3 hours), spending an extra couple minutes to be safe driving through Portland’s neighborhoods is negligible.

Chris I
Chris I
8 years ago
Reply to  J_R

I grew up just west of the Ross Island Bridge. Our family visited Bend every year, and not once did we take Powell to get there.

You would have to be well east of I-205 to see Powell is an optimal route to HWY 26 and Bend.

davemess
davemess
8 years ago
Reply to  J_R

I have never heard this explanation? Can you give some citations?
I think if anything they view it as a route from Portland to Gresham (or maybe Mt. Hood, remember it was originally supposed to be the Mt. Hood Freeway?).

jeffrey
jeffrey
8 years ago

Ask ODOT what happened to the Powell Blvd. Cycle Track they were supposed to install back in 2012. This is the one to take the 80s Bikeway safely across Powell and is detailed here:

http://bikeportland.org/2011/06/15/city-to-break-ground-on-80s-bike-boulevard-project-next-month-54846

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago

Nate Scott of ODOT kindly typed up a list for me of all the intersections where they’re considering tree removal. It turns out that trees on at least one corner are being considered for removal at every single intersection.

I just got back from borrowing a car and driving up and down Powell in this stretch. I looked to see if the tree trunks blocked views of pedestrians. In most cases, the nearest tree is 50-75 feet from the intersection. The trunks of the trees are not that much bigger than the street light poles. No, the tree trunks do not block a view of pedestrians trying to cross, unless pedestrians deliberately hide behind the tree.

What does hide pedestrians, at 21st westbound, for instance, is: a bus shelter, a giant concrete trash container, and a newspaper box. If it were just the tree trunk, it’d be relatively easy to see pedestrians. In several other locations, it’s either plants growing in the planting strip (there are some roses cultivated at 22nd), or plentiful “sucker” growth springing from the trunk of the tree. These do block the view, and should be trimmed back/down.

I tried driving out a driveway, another concern ODOT has. You’d have to position your car very carefully to make a certain tree trunk block your view. If you stop before entering the road, you can easily see cars coming.

There are maybe three locations, where marked crosswalks have been installed away from an intersection, where they end up very near a tree. 34th Ave. is an example. While moving the crosswalk further away from the tree is possible, in some cases, removing the tree and replanting on the “downstream” side of the curb ramp is advisable. This was done at the new sidewalk on the McDonalds at about 28th Place.

Mostly, though, the trees aren’t the impediment for most drivers. I expect they serve as an excuse for careless drivers, though: “He was hiding behind the tree.”

9watts
9watts
8 years ago
Reply to  Doug Klotz

Three cheers for the tree sleuth!
Thanks for doing that reconnaissance, Doug.

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago
Reply to  9watts

I didn’t realize till I got to the meeting, though, that it’s 26 trees they’re planning to remove, out of the 100 on that stretch. Most removals are to benefit drivers pulling out of side streets to turn right, or LEFT onto Powell, and drivers pulling out of driveways to turn right or left onto Powell. This is why trees on the SE corner of an intersection would be removed. So drivers can look right before they pull across three lanes to turn left onto Powell.

Doug Klotz
Doug Klotz
8 years ago
Reply to  9watts

Apparently prohibiting left turns out of side streets is something ODOT would like to do, but defers to Portland about that, because of the diversion effect that might have. So, talking to PBOT would be helpful. At the very least, left turns out onto Powell should be prohibited at the locations where the marked crossings are (and RRFBs are to be installed), which are 24th, 31st and 34th. It seems that Dan Leyden is working with ODOT on this, so might be the person to call.

Mike Sanders
Mike Sanders
8 years ago

Powell isn’t just a state highway, folks. It’s US National Hwy. 26. In other words, ODOT argues that Powell is part of “the main highway between Portland & Bend.” Therefore, auto traffic must take precedence on Powell over ped / bike traffic. So how do people cross Powell? Ped / bike bridges or tunnels over or under Powell at regular intervals. Where do you put them? What ODOT wants us to do is to think of the Springwater Trail as the main ped / bike route between Portland, Gresham, Boring, and presumably onward from there to Bend and points east. Therefore, finding finding to build an extension of the SWT eastward should be the next step. Try to run that past the R’s in Congress right now.