PDA

View Full Version : Assaulted on 99W and SW Hall, Tigard


K'Tesh
02-29-2008, 10:00 PM
A little background is in order here...

Meet Sam... The owner/operator of the Tigard Auto Center at 11900 SW Pacific Hwy Tigard.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2301661816_739a8bd4ef.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2197/2301661816_739a8bd4ef_b.jpg)

Sam's business fronts the very busy SW Pacific Hwy (99W), at the SW Hall intersection, Tigard.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2301662694_754989c150.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3246/2301662694_754989c150_b.jpg)
Looking West down 99W

You may notice that there is no bike lane on 99W, and the shoulder can have debris/gravel. So, I opt to ride up on the sidewalk... Can you see it in the distance? It gets cloaked by asphalt back by Mixer's Bar. And there's a telephone pole in the center of it (makes it a bit narrow). Now imagine that there's a minivan or a pickup parked up against that pole, things get tight on the road side, and a bicyclist/ped could be hard to see by someone turning right into that parking area if they were EB on 99W after dark.

Sam, painted lines on the asphalt, almost up to the curb for his customers to park their cars...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2300867357_7e20884026.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2300867357_7e20884026_b.jpg)
The sidewalk ends at the middle seam in the asphalt (the one the truck isn't parked on)

Now, did you see the stain in the center of that pic? That's where the engine of the car that was parked out there this morning was centered... I didn't think to get a pic until after I had left, so I came back to get a pic or two.

I've been calling the Non-Emergency dispatch number for as long as I've had a cell phone, perhaps longer, complaining about vehicles parked up to the curb, completely blocking the sidewalk. This forces cyclists, joggers, and other vulnerable users out into busy 99W, or to go behind it. That pickup had a camper on it... once I go behind it, I'm hidden from EB traffic on 99W and this could set up a Right Hook. If a iPloder steps or slips off the curb and into 99W what could happen? What if that was a blind person? How do they navigate around those vehicles?

I've tried to get Sam to remove the lines on the sidewalk and set up some kind of fence to prevent the sidewalk from being all or partially blocked. That didn't work... I then started calling Non-Emergency, this has been going on for a long time... Now when I see Sam, I get the two handed single finger salute, and he tells me to Mate with my Mother, and Myself.... (I'm, of course, paraphrasing).

Today, as I said earlier, there was a white car was centered over that stain (remember it?), and I called the cops. I didn't get a pic. I went back and Sam came out of his business (see how far it is in the background?). He threatened me with tresspass. While I was trying to take pics he hit my hand with his clipboard...
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/2301658510_7df72c2029.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2251/2301658510_7df72c2029_b.jpg)
Can you find the clipboard in this photo?

I called the Tigard Police and filed a complaint, I also have complaints about the situation with ODOT, and Tigard Public Works, but I'm getting the run-around and its getting old.

So, I request that if any of you have a problem with Sam's parking situation, perhaps you too could call and add a voice to my complaint.

Thanks for your help...
Be Safe Out There!
K'Tesh

wrinkles
02-29-2008, 10:45 PM
K'tesh, it's a little bit difficult to see exactly what the problem is from the perspective of your photos. However, if you plug 11900 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard OR into Google Maps and look at the down-and-dirty satellite view, it becomes clear that this guy has striped over the pedestrian right-of-way. Perhaps you could submit this image, enhanced by a nice big arrow or something, to the Tigard powers-that-be.

wsbob
02-29-2008, 10:57 PM
Can you be a little more specific in terms of the length of period in days, weeks, months, from the first time you mentioned this problem to the property owner/and or contacted the city about it, to the present?

Also, would you happen to have located the relevant city ordinance that specifies the required public right of way/sidewalk that must be maintained for public access? I'll try and locate it if you haven't.

Answers to those two questions could make a question about the city's responsibility in this situation a little more interesting.

K'Tesh
02-29-2008, 11:25 PM
K'tesh, it's a little bit difficult to see exactly what the problem is from the perspective of your photos. However, if you plug 11900 SW Pacific Hwy, Tigard OR into Google Maps and look at the down-and-dirty satellite view, it becomes clear that this guy has striped over the pedestrian right-of-way. Perhaps you could submit this image, enhanced by a nice big arrow or something, to the Tigard powers-that-be.

I was limited in the number of images that I could have in the original post... Perhaps this one helps... The truck was originally parked three feet forward of where it is currently (I asked the driver to move it a little, and he did :) )

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2300868549_369000e6eb.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2300868549_369000e6eb_b.jpg)
for privacy of the pickup's driver, I blurred the license plate, but I still have the original intact.

Here's a link to the Google Maps for the location (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=11900+SW+Pacific+HWY+Tigard&sll=45.434111,-122.765193&sspn=0.000396,0.000893&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=45.433882,-122.7652&spn=0.000396,0.000893&t=h&z=20&iwloc=addr&cbll=45.433912,-122.765244). I found that the Image is a bit blurry, but the white car in the center of the satellite image is parked on the pedestrian right-of-way, and you can see the faint lines of the painted parking areas (oriented the same as the car). To the right of the car is the dark circle of the telephone pole, and it is where many of Sam's customers choose to park (right up against it). The pale band on the road is the shoulder, only a couple of feet from the front of the car (and you can see it in the photo above, just to the left of the curb). [EDIT: Google Maps Updated their image, and the white car is not in the new image, but as of 5/27/10 you can see how the painted white lines extend nearly to the curb.]

I'm sure I'll get more photos soon, as I've been riding the bus more often this winter (due to the leg).

K'Tesh
03-01-2008, 12:04 AM
Can you be a little more specific in terms of the length of period in days, weeks, months, from the first time you mentioned this problem to the property owner/and or contacted the city about it, to the present?

I've had a cell phone for about a year, so I'd say at least a year of calls to Non-Emergency. I only go past this business when I ride the bus to work, so I don't get to see it every day.

Also, would you happen to have located the relevant city ordinance that specifies the required public right of way/sidewalk that must be maintained for public access? I'll try and locate it if you haven't.

Here's the part in the ORS's that bans parking on sidewalks... finding where one says that businesses must maintain the public ROW has eluded me.

ORS 811.550 Places where stopping, standing and parking prohibited. This section establishes places where stopping, standing and parking a vehicle are prohibited for purposes of the penalties under ORS 811.555. Except as provided under an exemption in ORS 811.560, a person is in violation of ORS 811.555 if a person parks, stops or leaves standing a vehicle in any of the

following places:

(1) Upon a roadway outside a business district or residence district, whether attended or unattended, when it is practicable to stop, park or leave the vehicle standing off the roadway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (1), (7) and (9) are applicable to this subsection.

(2) On a shoulder, whether attended or unattended, unless a clear and unobstructed width of the roadway opposite the standing vehicle is left for the passage of other vehicles and the standing vehicle is visible from a distance of 200 feet in each direction upon the roadway or the person, at least 200 feet in each direction upon the roadway, warns approaching motorists of the standing vehicle by use of flaggers, flags, signs or other signals. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (9) are applicable to this subsection.

(3) On the roadway side of a vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a highway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(4) On a sidewalk. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(5) Within an intersection. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(6) On a crosswalk. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(7) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within 30 feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless a different length is indicated by signs and markings. For purposes of this subsection the safety zone must be an area or space officially set apart within a roadway for the exclusive use of pedestrians and which is protected or is so marked or indicated by adequate signs as to be plainly visible at all times while set apart as a safety zone. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(8 ) Alongside or opposite a street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing or parking would obstruct traffic. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(9) Upon a bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (8 ) are applicable to this subsection.

(10) Within a highway tunnel. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(11) On any railroad or rail fixed guideway system tracks or within seven and one-half feet of the nearest rail at a time when the parking of vehicles would conflict with operations or repair of the tracks. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(12) On a throughway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(13) In the area between roadways of a divided highway, including crossovers. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(14) At any place where traffic control devices prohibit stopping. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(15) In front of a public or private driveway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(16) Within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(17) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(18 ) Within 50 feet upon the approach to an official flashing signal, stop sign, yield sign or traffic control device located at the side of the roadway if the standing or parking of a vehicle will obstruct the view of any traffic control device located at the side of the roadway. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(19) Within 15 feet of the driveway entrance to a fire station and on the side of a street opposite the entrance to a fire station, within 75 feet of the entrance. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(20) At any place where traffic control devices prohibit standing. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (2) and (4) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(21) Within 50 feet of the nearest rail of a railroad or rail fixed guideway system crossing. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (3) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(22) At any place where traffic control devices prohibit parking. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 (3) to (7) are applicable to this subsection.

(23) On a bicycle lane. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 are applicable to this subsection.

(24) On a bicycle path. Exemptions under ORS 811.560 are applicable to this subsection. [1983 c.338 669; 1985 c.21 1; 1985 c.334 1; 1989 c.433 2; 1997 c.249 234; 2001 c.522 9]


If you can find the local city ordinance, I'd appreciate it.

wsbob
03-01-2008, 12:43 AM
Here's are the exceptions, ORS 811.560:

811.560 Exemptions from prohibitions on stopping, standing and parking. This section provides exemptions from ORS 811.550 and 811.555. The following exemptions are applicable as provided under ORS 811.550:

(1) When applicable, this subsection exempts school buses or worker transport buses stopped on a roadway to load or unload workers or children, providing that the flashing school bus safety lights on the bus are operating.

(2) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger.

(3) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles stopped, standing or parked momentarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading property or passengers.

(4) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles owned or operated by the state, a county or city when stopping, standing or parking is necessary to perform maintenance or repair work on the roadway.

(5) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles from the prohibitions and penalties when the driver’s disregard of the prohibitions is necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic.

(6) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles acting in compliance with law or at the direction of a police officer or a traffic control device.

(7) When applicable, this subsection exempts the driver of a vehicle that is disabled in such manner and to such extent that the driver cannot avoid stopping or temporarily leaving the disabled vehicle in a prohibited position.

(8 ) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles owned or operated by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife when stopping, standing or parking is necessary to enable employees to release fish.

(9) When applicable, this subsection exempts vehicles momentarily stopped to allow oncoming traffic to pass before making a right-hand or left-hand turn or momentarily stopped in preparation for or while negotiating an exit from the road. [1983 c.338 670; 1985 c.334 2; 1989 c.433 3]


Re; the R.O.W: In the Tigard Municipal Code, there is a section on 'encroachments'. If an owner's property has a dedicated right of way, this section specifies the terms by which a property owner may encroach with an approved permit, but as I read it, even with a permit, a property owner would still be required to stay 1 foot away from the dedicated sidewalk. It seems as though that section of 99w would definitely have a section of the property dedicated for a sidewalk. I found a zoning map, but that didn't seem to show the ROW. Doesn't really matter. I'm sure this guy is in error. Maybe the city manager needs to hear about the situation.

wrinkles
03-01-2008, 09:35 AM
I was limited in the number of images that I could have in the original post... Perhaps this one helps... )
Umm, no need to convince ME! I was trying to suggest that you prepare your case with two or three telling photos--including the satellite image and one like your latest, but BEFORE the driver moves the vehicle--and submit your complaint in writing and/or email to whoever is charged with enforcing the applicable codes. Phone calls to the nonemergency number are obviously going nowhere. So, rather than escalate the conflict between you and the owner, I would aim up a few levels, in writing, after you figure out whom to direct your complaint to.
If you can post a name and email of the responsible official here, I would be willing to send him/her my two cents worth.
If you have to take it to the Tigard City Council, I'll stand there with you.

wrinkles

K'Tesh
03-01-2008, 05:32 PM
Thanks wrinkles, wsbob! :D

I'll keep everyone posted on my progress. I've called in a new player with ODOT, and a now I have a new angle (thanks to wsbob, and his "encroachment" post). :rolleyes:

wrinkles
03-01-2008, 05:43 PM
I think you're on the right track with ODOT. Since Barbur/Pacific Hwy/99W is a state highway, seems as if ODOT would have jurisdiction over the road and extended rights of way, ie, sidewalks. And, yes, the issue doesn't seem to be 'maintenance' but, rather, incursion or trespass on his part. There's gotta be an applicable ordinance that covers his designating a private parking lot on the public sidewalk.

Cruizer
03-02-2008, 06:09 PM
Seems like all ODOT or whoever has jurisdiction would have to do is paint a white line along the edge of the sidewalk area. Then the charming Sam could paint his parking stripes up to -- and not beyond -- the sidewalk perimeter line. Easy, quick, and cheap. And Sam would have no confusion as to just where his private property ends and the public right-of-way begins.

K'Tesh
03-02-2008, 06:44 PM
Seems like all ODOT or whoever has jurisdiction would have to do is paint a white line along the edge of the sidewalk area. Then the charming Sam could paint his parking stripes up to -- and not beyond -- the sidewalk perimeter line. Easy, quick, and cheap. And Sam would have no confusion as to just where his private property ends and the public right-of-way begins.

You'd think it'd be that easy, but ODOT keeps saying that there is limitations to what they can do, as the sidewalk, which is pedestrian ROW, is on Sam's property, and as such, they claim that they cannot compel him to do anything, so it's then into Tigard's court, which then says that it's ODOT's responsibility...

Also, ODOT (or is it Washington County) has plans for the overdue changes to that intersection, and although they will be probably knocking down 11900 SW Pacific Hwy for it... it's too close to start time to spend time/energy to solve the problem that only one bicyclist (you know, 2nd class citizen) has identified.

I'd love to see them tear down TAC, but until that happens, my solution is this:

1) Require Sam, at his own expense,
a) remove the painted lines on the ROW.
b) erect concrete baracades set at an angle matching his remaining
painted lines set back to prevent vehicles encroching on the ROW.

2) Have Sam appologize to me for all the grief he's given me since this
problem was identified. (Forgiving him will be left to me).

or

Require Sam to pay a parking ticket for every time someone calls in an illegally parked vehicle, retroactive 1.5 years, whether or not a ticket was issued, or a vehicle was observed at time an officer arrived, as long as a license plate was identified. Set up a webcam to record the ROW so offensenses can be identified, fines assesed.

I suspect that it's going to be a Tigard City Council meeting before I get my desired result.

wsbob
03-02-2008, 09:45 PM
In the following picture K'Tesh posted:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2300868549_369000e6eb.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2408/2300868549_369000e6eb_b.jpg)
click on image for larger version

,note the crosswalk in the distance clearly indicated by two wide white lines. Of the two lines, note the distance between the one on the left and the point, some 2-3 feet further to the left where the curb on Sam's property extends.

I'm kind of jumping about here, so I hope you all can follow me:

In the distance, on the property immediately across the street from Sam's property, as seen in the picture, it's just possible to discern a curb on that property that seems to be very closely in line with the right line indicating the crosswalk. You'll note what seems to be a continuous row of cars parked up against this curb, staying clear of what likely would be the public ROW because of this curb.

I wonder if someone with ODOT or Tigard gov can explain why the curb on Sam's property is not in alignment with the left crosswalk line and the curb separating 99W from the property on the other side of the street. That may simply be a property grid idiosyncrasy, but removing the space on Sam's property thus created if the left crosswalk line were extended in the direction of the camera would nicely expand the shoulder area for bikes on 99W.

As for the issue of the sidewalk ROW on Sam's property, the simple thing would seem to be to extend the right line in the crosswalk onto the length of Sam's property. Someone in Tigard City Hall ought to be able to recognize the logic here if it was laid out for them. From a zoning map viewed on Tigard's website, I'm fairly sure Sam's property is in the Tigard Business District. That should give city hall some interest in the issue.

K'Tesh
03-02-2008, 09:48 PM
wsbob,

The cars in the distance that you are talking about are parked at Russ Chevy. They are not parked by customers, they are for sale. Russ is unlikely to try to cut into the ROW as it could lead to accidental damage to their inventory by bikes/peds.

Now, as to that comment about Tigard Business District, that's an angle I haven't thought of.

K'Tesh
03-02-2008, 10:25 PM
I just found
Tigard's Code Enforcement Compliance Inquiry Form (http://www.ci.tigard.or.us/city_hall/departments/cd/current_planning/code_enforcement/code_compliance.asp)

I posted the following:
Tigard Auto Center has lines painted on the Right of Way (sidewalk) that encourages it's customers to block the sidewalk. This is a chronic problem.

The Business is encroaching on the required walkway, and no barriers are in place to prevent this.

Cyclist/Peds/Wheelchairs forced into 99W could be injured or KILLED. Peds forced to go behind parked vehicles may be out of sight of Eastbound traffic, and a Right Hook could result.

However, I didn't have the "chronic problem" comment.

wsbob
03-02-2008, 11:31 PM
I see a catchy headline for the Tigard Times:

Pedestrians Dangerously Led into 99W Traffic as Property Owner Ignores Public Right-of-Way

"In a move that definitely would appear to be against the friendly tone that the city of Tigard works to promote as part of it's business climate, Tigard Auto Center owner Sam (last name) allows his customers cars to be parked where a sidewalk should be provided. Bold, diagonal yellow lines indicate parking spaces where there should be none. Consequently, instead of facing free passage as they make their way across Mr (last name) property alongside Hwy 99W, pedestrians are more likely to encounter the broadside of a car or a truck.

Leaving pedestrians with only the options of passing between parked cars and around them into the activity coming in and out of Tigard Auto Center's garage, or dodging closer to busy rushing traffic on Highway 99W, does not seem to be a very hospitable or safe gesture on Mr (last name) part. Just to the east and accross Hall Blvd from Mr (last name) property, Russ Chevrolet has clearly established the sidewalk Public Right of Way with a curb, behind which that businesses cars are carefully parked. Mr (last name) should be a good businessperson and do accordingly."

fetishridr
03-04-2008, 09:37 AM
i've never met that storeowner

i take the lane. what gives? that section of the road is really wide ( 15-20 foot lanes) and there is plenty of room for a bike and a car in the road. if its gets narrow on the right, i merge with traffic.

can we have our cake and eat it too?

lets not have bicycle advocacy turn into bicycle narcissism.

"SHARE" the road, i havent seen MUP sign right there. i agree about the sucky city planning, but to have a person get so enraged as to wap you with a clipboard is a little over the top. what are you accomplishing? there will be tacks in the road soon just like on the columbia scenic highway.

that said, i'll make a call about the sidewalk.:)

Dillon
03-04-2008, 10:16 AM
I'm with fetish just take the lane. Riding bikes on sidewalks is more dangerous in my opinion. That doesn't even look like a sidewalk to me. Are rodes required to have sidewalks down both sides or just one, or any side?

wsbob
03-04-2008, 11:31 AM
I'm kind of assuming that section of 99W is required to have a sidewalk. Haven't yet located a map that clearly describes whether a sidewalk is required for that property, but a zoning map indicates that this property is within the Tigard Business District. I'm thinking that a more detailed map of the property would show the presence of a sidewalk ROW. Maybe, maybe not, but the chevy place east of Hall has allowed space for a sidewalk. Is that really only so people passing by won't mess with that businesses cars?

I can't help but think that Tigard City Hall or the Tigard Chamber of Commerce (or whatever is comparable that in Tigard), would be concerned about a situation where pedestrians are forced to come dangerously close to fast moving traffic because a property owner refuses to allow sufficient distance between the lane of traffic and the parked cars of his customers for pedestrians to pass by. That's what a sidewalk is for. If the owner doesn't voluntarily allow for a sidewalk, than one must be arranged for.

Sure, bikes can take the lane, so to some extent, this issue is out side of that province, but people with bikes walk too, sometimes for short distances along sidewalks with their bikes. The sidewalk should be there for them as well as pedestrians.

fetishridr
03-04-2008, 06:53 PM
my point was also that that guy was way riled up over k'tesh and his camera. i dont know about you, but usually when someone is so pissed off that they wap me with a clipboard i have usually crossed the line, and deserve the wap. self righteousness only goes so far.
yeah, people walk, but the bike bike hooray! tude burns bridges as often as it does good. now i have to worrry about this guy buzzing me when i commute down there.

we know that k tesh is UBER visible, so riding in traffic shouldnt be a stretch. i guess we can be vehicles and pedestrians all at once, with no responsibility whatsoever. we can just "switch" sides when it suits us.

wasnt everyone riled up at the MUP in beaverton where austin miller died. how that path went from sidewalk to bike lane? i think this whole damn thread, when taken in the context of recent posts on different threads, is hypocritical. one minute sidewalks shouldnt be bike paths, the next minute sidewalks are bikepaths. where is the consistency?

Psyfalcon
03-04-2008, 07:25 PM
In most of Oregon, it is the byclist's legal right to ride on a sidewalk, as long as they signal to pass pedestrains and enter crosswalks at a walking pace. Doing so has it dangers, which are different than riding in the road. Making the danger worse by obstructing sidewalks is just bad practice. It also affects peds and wheelchair users.

I will often use the sidewalk to go down the wrong way for a block or two, rather than crossing a busy street twice.

The key though is the choice between the relative danger of the road and sidewalks. At Farmington and Murry, there is no choice. The MUP puts people on an ill signed sidewalk, and then suddenly ends in a Bus Loading Zone!
Why should a MUP end at a high conflict area without at least signage to the dangers?

K'Tesh
03-04-2008, 09:37 PM
Here are the latest images from the Tigard Auto Center.

Sam, I'm sure, was expecting me. I suspect that he made sure nobody parked on the sidewalk.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2309052175_da9e708d2a.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3138/2309052175_da9e708d2a_b.jpg)
Looking East, this is the squeeze...

Imagine that there is some large vehicle parked up against that telephone pole, you are, as a pedestrian, wheelchair user, or a cyclist forced to choose the sqeeze, the lane of traffic, or to dodge behind the vehicle, thus "trespassing" on Sam's business.

Could you imagine, catching one of the mirrors of that semi in the back of your head? Do you have eyes in the back of yours?


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2199/2309854880_7ac339ae75.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2199/2309854880_7ac339ae75_b.jpg)
Looking West, this is the other side of the squeeze...

Right now, the shoulder of SW Pacific Hwy is fairly clear due to recent street sweeping. Might be fine for some bicyclists to ride in the lane, but what about peds? Wheelchairs? The blind?


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2309051215_c0a5f59316.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2309051215_c0a5f59316_b.jpg)
This is the sidewalk leading up to the area in question...

You can see that despite the change in the paving material, there is a consistant width area leading up to the intersection.

More in Part 2...

K'Tesh
03-04-2008, 09:42 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2309049317_9a792afd60.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3052/2309049317_9a792afd60_b.jpg)
Here is the SW corner of SW Pacific Hwy (on your left, facing East), and SW Hall Blvd (directly ahead, Southbound lanes).

Note the yellow line painted on the sidewalk (which ends at the seam running from the bottom of the image).


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2309852548_66651dd974.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2309852548_66651dd974_b.jpg)
Looking East from the corner of SW Pacific Hwy and SW Hall.

See the top of that power pole? Typically powerlines only run over Public Right of Way.


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2309047149_3d20107f82.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3250/2309047149_3d20107f82_b.jpg)
Say Cheese!

Sam spotted me, I spotted him... I used all fingers when I waived...

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

K'Tesh
03-04-2008, 09:46 PM
In most of Oregon, it is the byclist's legal right to ride on a sidewalk, as long as they signal to pass pedestrains and enter crosswalks at a walking pace. Doing so has it dangers, which are different than riding in the road. Making the danger worse by obstructing sidewalks is just bad practice. It also affects peds and wheelchair users.

I will often use the sidewalk to go down the wrong way for a block or two, rather than crossing a busy street twice.

The key though is the choice between the relative danger of the road and sidewalks. At Farmington and Murry, there is no choice. The MUP puts people on an ill signed sidewalk, and then suddenly ends in a Bus Loading Zone!
Why should a MUP end at a high conflict area without at least signage to the dangers?


My points exactly!

Thanks, folks!
Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

K'Tesh
03-04-2008, 10:47 PM
snip...we know that k tesh is UBER visible, so riding in traffic shouldnt be a stretch. i guess we can be vehicles and pedestrians all at once, with no responsibility whatsoever. we can just "switch" sides when it suits us.

wasnt everyone riled up at the MUP in beaverton where austin miller died. how that path went from sidewalk to bike lane? i think this whole damn thread, when taken in the context of recent posts on different threads, is hypocritical. one minute sidewalks shouldnt be bike paths, the next minute sidewalks are bikepaths. where is the consistency?

I may be UBERVISIBLE, but I am very much the extreme exception to the rule. Cyclists may have lights, bright colored jerseys, etc. Peds often don't, and they are not required to (despite the wisdom of doing so).

As so far as the MUP, the one on SW Murray is offset from the road, allowing a SB driver the opportunity to begin moving before realizing that a ped is alongside, or on the underside. The sidewalk on SW Pacific Hwy, is directly alongside so a ped is not yards away out of sight... However, if that ped is hidden by a vehicle parked on the sidewalk, it gives drivers a reduced opportunity to allow them safe passage.

Basically, the State Law says that you cannot park on a sidewalk, Tigard municipal code requires that a sidewalk have a minimum of 12" of space from an encroachment (according to wsbob's research).

It doesn't matter if you are a cyclist, a ped, wheelchair user, or any other vulnerable road user, the sidewalk is not for parking.

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

wsbob
03-04-2008, 10:52 PM
Fetishridr, regarding your comments in #16 and #19, I'm not faulting you for raising good points about not unduly imposing cyclist issues on property owners, or carelessly or deliberately antagonizing them. No one should do those kinds of things, period. The question that follows, is, did that happen here?

About the issue of the 'wandering sidewalk' (my attempt at a joke) on the Tigard Auto Center's parking lot as it relates to the availability of that sidewalk for dual use as a bike path, I'm not sure that this is the issue.

The issue, is that this property owner has ignored the compelling need to allow access for pedestrians(some of whom may be walking bikes) traversing the border of his property as they make their way alongside busy Highway 99W. Other property owners nearby have allowed for public access. Why not this gentleman?

And where is the leadership of Tigard City Council on this matter? The property seems to be in the Tigard Business District, making it, I would assume, within their jurisdiction to act upon the issue. During the period of a year, why have they not resolved this issue and eliminated a potential danger to pedestrians and and a possible liability suit to either the property owner or the city?

(Also, might there be an outside possibility that the responsibility for the sidewalk lies with the county or state, whichever has responsibility for maintaining Highway 99W?)

As for what K'Tesh may or may not have done to cross the line and unnecessarily incur the wrath of the Sam, TAC owner, that's for K'Tesh or Sam to say, because, I certainly couldn't say for sure.

At any rate Fetishridr, I would imagine you'll be fine riding past this guys place on the sidewalk that's supposed to be there as long as you don't stop and take a bunch of pictures that make him start to think you're going to call him on his...shall i say....oversight?

K'Tesh
03-04-2008, 11:08 PM
Progress!!!

Look... Look... I got this in my email Inbox tonight!

YAY!!!!


Gerald Bartolomucci (from Tigard Police) wrote:

This issue has been brought to our Engineering Department. They will be looking at trying to place some type of physical barrier to prevent this from occurring. I talked with them Friday of last week about this so something should be done shortly.

-----Original Message-----
From: ktesh
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 10:28 PM
To: Gerald Bartolomucci
Subject: Tigard Website Community Service Compliance Inquiry Form
Address of Violation:11900 SW Pacific Hwy

Description of Violation:
Tigard Auto Center has lines painted on the Right of Way (sidewalk) along
99W. This encourages it's customers to block the sidewalk. This is a chronic problem.

The Business is encroaching on the required walkway, and no barriers are in place to prevent this.

Cyclist/Peds/Wheelchairs forced into 99W could be injured or KILLED. Peds forced to go behind vehicles may be out of sight of Eastbound traffic, and a Right Hook could result.

Then today I got:


Vance Walker (Tigard Public Works?) wrote:

Regarding the issue of the auto shop at the corner of Hwy99 and Hall: I spoke with the owner and he has agreed to re-paint the parking stalls in such a manner that there will be 4-5 feet along Hwy99 for ped traffic.

wsbob
03-04-2008, 11:35 PM
Hey! Nice work!

Psyfalcon
03-05-2008, 12:21 AM
Just a little more on antagonizing business owners...

Assuming that Ktesh was on the sidewalk, and that it is indeed a sidewalk, you can sit out there, and legally take all the pictures you want. If its visible from a public space, its usually fair game. (Well, the telephoto pointed at the lady down the street will still get you in trouble).

The fights some photographers have had recently have a lot of parallels with bike riders. You can no longer take pictures of some bridges from a spot arbitrarily chosen to be too close. The general public does not know the laws, so they call the officers who don't know the laws.

At least with the bikes they tell you to stay off the street (or off the sidewalk depending on the town) but if you have a camera they often try to confiscate it.

fetishridr
03-05-2008, 07:08 AM
i question the motive, not the results. i guess i should stop bitching and be glad we have another advocate for non motorized transport in K'tesh. i'll take a look at the intersection this morning on my ride down.
good riding.

wsbob
03-05-2008, 09:07 AM
fetishridr, let us know your thoughts once you've seen the property in question. This wasn't just a case of a cyclist bullying a property owner to have a concession made in the interest of people on bikes. Shouldn't people that ride bikes also look out for the interests of pedestrians? Isn't that what we hope that they would do for people that ride bikes?

And once again, sometimes people with bikes find themselves obliged or wanting to walk their bikes. This is one of the reasons that sidewalks are needed in a town's business district.

K'Tesh
03-05-2008, 09:55 AM
I got into advocacy when I saw a blind friend of mine nearly walk into a tree branch hanging over a bike lane years ago. I found that whatever I could do to make it easier for him to walk around town, also had the fringe benifit of helping me get around town too.

I have eyes, a mouth, hands, a phone, and a computer that work, not everybody else does. I also have legs that work (mostly) ;), and with a bike I can get from point A to B to C faster than a ped, but slow enough that I can find problems, rather than rush by in a car. If everybody out there did something simple, say track down a local government official and bend their ear, could you imagine how much better we could make it out there.

I regret that Sam couldn't realize what I was trying to tell him, and I honestly didn't want to antagonize him, but I felt that something had to be done.

Safe riding!
K'Tesh

K'Tesh
03-12-2008, 07:13 PM
I took this picture today (3/12/8 ) round 12:45pm using my cellphone... I had decided I didn't need to carry my usual camera today... Damn! :mad:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2321/2329545955_f680366d81.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2321/2329545955_60f83e3ae7_o.jpg)
Truck parked on the sidewalk in front of the Tigard Auto Center

As you can see, the front of the truck doesn't leave a whole lot of room. Sam did cover some of the painted lines... a whole whopping 9" of them, leaving several feet of them still on the sidewalk... I sent the following message to Tigard's Public Works, but when I called they said (surprise) it's ODOT's baby, and they cannot do a whole lot to stop Sam from jepordizing the non-motorized public.

Subject: 11900 SW Pacific Hwy, Peds vs Parking concerns.

Mr Walker,

I went by the Tigard Auto Center today. Sam painted a few inches (maybe 18") closest to the curb. It is my understanding that powerlines are run over public right of way. These lines are several feet to the South of the power pole. His newly repainted lines are still North of the telephone pole. What is the width of the right of way? I understand that there is a County project going thru that property and it's in the advanced planning stage. Has the county provided you with their info on current right of way?

My concern is that if someone parks up against that telephone pole (and they do, often), there isn't enough width between the curb and the pole to allow free movement of a disabled person using a wheelchair, unless they go out into traffic, or have to go around the parked car.

I'm worried that someone using the sidewalk, might fall into traffic and be hurt or KILLED. I know that Sam is aware of the sidewalk, and he isn't parking vehicles on it, but his customers don't realize that (as it closely matches the parking area) and do park on the sidewalk.

Paint will not stop someone from parking on the sidewalk, physical barriers would. They could be placed to prevent his customers from parking on the sidewalk (or against the telephone pole), and he won't lose a single parking space.

Thanks for your efforts.


I had only ridden by them once, and didn't have a lot of time to analyze the area prior to sending that email.

Before:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2330072259_ab9a72d67b.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2330072259_ab9a72d67b_b.jpg)

After:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2330056443_90b819b899.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/2330056443_90b819b899_b.jpg)

Remember, the sidewalk extends from the curb, to the first seam in the asphalt (to the right of the telephone pole). Tigard Municipal Code also limits a property owner to encroach no closer than one foot to a sidewalk.

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

wsbob
03-13-2008, 04:27 PM
Call the Mayor. What is Tigard Mayor Craig E. Dirksen's take on a downtown business owner's show of regard for the public? What would Vancouver's Mayor Royce Pollard, the uber-safe must wear a bike helmet whenever on a bike guy, think of this type of property owner threat to the general public?

K'Tesh
07-28-2008, 11:37 PM
For a little while it seemed that Sam got the message, but as you can see, in these two photos, he hasn't, and in fact, he's upping the stakes... :mad:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2698210388_38d611a466.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/sets/72157605634284220)
Taken 7/23/08...

And taken today...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3224/2712410519_781605c46b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/sets/72157605634284220)
Taken 7/28/08... New paint job.

While I was out there the other day I got to talking to him and his lovely wife... their entire conversation was mostly summed up with their tremendous grasp of the English language... "Go F**K YOUSELF, MOTHERF**KER". Witnesses got quite a laugh from it when I explained that they felt that the only place for wheelchairs was out in the highway.

I'd love to find someone with a wheelchair (and a car) and go set up a picture, in fact there's a group on the flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/2309854880/in/set-72157605634284220/) that approached me for something like that. I'd prefer to do it after he closes for the day, but remember... I am not in any way asking someone to go and do anything detrimental to his property. He is being handled by Tigard, and ODOT... They may be slower that I'd like, but it's the only way to get this job done. (Take Only Pictures... Leave Nothing)


I spoke to Tigard's Public works, and was told that he was ordered to erect concrete curb stops off of the right of way, and he's gone and repainted the lines... I snapped this pic and emailed it to Tigard...

Sam is just BEGGING to get himself nailed with a fine... I'm hoping that he gets it too... I hope he gets billed for the time and effort for covering over those markings that the county and other agencies did while they were searching for utilities on/around his property. I'd love to see him get billed from Tigard and ODOT reguarding all the man hours involved in the enforcement of this issue (I'd appreciate some compensation for my time and effort too).

I'll keep you posted.
K'Tesh

Psyfalcon
07-29-2008, 12:05 AM
Nice, repaving the sidewalk so it looks just like his parking lot! It does look like his lines are now a foot back from the telephone pole. While emailing, make sure they point out exactly where the sidewalk is... and that it does not stop at the telephone pole.

Who owns the sidewalk? ODOT? Can they have him arrested for vandalism?

wyeast
07-29-2008, 07:44 AM
My guess is it's same (or similar) to residential, in that the city "owns" the physical space, but the property owner is responsible for upkeep on the pavement itself. Rather, the owner owns it... but the city has jurisdiction over keeping that area clear.

Have we been told the exact width of the public right of way here? I know we can assume from the size of the sidewalks elsewhere, but what is it really?

Then go out and 'vandalize' the sidewalk with some chalk. Draw bodies and write "ouch! don't park on me!"

Ok, so maybe you get in trouble with the city with that.... :D

K'Tesh
07-29-2008, 09:39 AM
Details to be had at the Tigard 5th Tuesday Meeting... Video at 11.

The fool tried to bite me (http://www.bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2184)...

K'Tesh