PDA

View Full Version : Bike and Parking Restrictions Hearing 3/4/10


K'Tesh
02-16-2010, 08:27 AM
Beaverton's Traffic Commission is having a hearing on bike lanes and parking restrictions on Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 7pm.

Hearing starts at 7pm at the Beaverton City Hall building.

More Info is available on the city's website.

lynnef
02-17-2010, 02:05 PM
link to relevant part of city's website?

K'Tesh
02-17-2010, 02:41 PM
I should have said that more information SHOULD have been made available at the city's website.

K'Tesh
02-21-2010, 05:26 PM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4372148713_aa35a21162_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/4372148713/)

K'Tesh
02-25-2010, 07:44 PM
Received this email from a member of the Beaverton Bike Advisory Committee. Apparently, there's several homeowners that are planning to attend, and complain about the idea of eliminating onstreet parking on SW Lombard. We need support from cyclists there.

There is a very important issue that will be presented this next Thurs night, March 4th at the Traffic Commission meeting at City Hall. As a bicyclist living on the west side, I am encouraging you to come and participate! The Beaverton Bicycle Advisory Committee is supporting this striping!

Date: Thurs, March 4th

Time: 7:00pm

Place: City Hall, Main Room

Issue No. TC 666

Striping of Bike Lanes and Parking Revisions on SW Lombard Avenue between 1st Street and Denney Road



The Traffic Commission will consider striping bike lanes on Lombard Avenue. The Commission will also consider restricting parking on both sides of Lombard between 7th Street and Allen Boulevard, and on the east side of Lombard between Iron Horse Lane and Denney Road.




There have been considerable studies to show what very few residences use the parking on Lombard where the stripping will take place. Thus there should be little impact on the parking for residences however they are complaining any ways! I suppose they donít like the fact that the CITY is taking away some of their spaces (in spite of the fact they donít use the streets).

We would like you to join the Beaverton Bicycle Advisory Committee at this meeting in support of having a bike lane put in on Lombard.

Can you be there?



Thanks,

Barbara Chapnick, Beaverton Bicycle Advisory Committee

wsbob
02-25-2010, 11:27 PM
I haven't skated for awhile, but Lombard north from Allen is part of my route when I do. My mind is foggy on it...seems as though there's a striped bike lane there already, though I remember cars parking there as well; not that many cars, but some. They're hella annoying for skaters.

On the east side of the street where I'd inline skate, there are regularly spaced grates close to the curb, so I'd mostly not skate there anyway except to let cars pass. Point is, I'm also generally hesitant to ride over grates ( the one on Hall northbound beyond Millikan just past the creek bridge is terrible..set deep into the asphalt...hit it and it could really send you and your bike for a nasty Ka-Chunk!!.) Some of the grates on Lombard might be o.k. with my road tires, but they were rather alarming with the skates.

I wouldn't want car owners or property owners to suffer a hardship by not being able to park on Lombard. Unless they can make a strong case for preserving parking on the street because of such a reason, I'd say, 'definitely yes' for bike travel lanes on the street over area assigned to parked cars.

K'Tesh
02-28-2010, 09:29 PM
<snip> My mind is foggy on it...seems as though there's a striped bike lane there already...

I wouldn't want car owners or property owners to suffer a hardship by not being able to park on Lombard. Unless they can make a strong case for preserving parking on the street because of such a reason, I'd say, 'definitely yes' for bike travel lanes on the street over area assigned to parked cars.

There are no bike lanes on Lombard south of SW Farmington Rd.

As for your 'yes' vote... Please come out and attend the meeting (and/or the BAC meeting Tuesday).

Rubberside Down!
K'Tesh

setha
03-04-2010, 03:42 PM
The Beaverton Traffic Commission's web page is http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/publicworks/transportation/trafficcomm.aspx

But, I don't see a pdf with the plans.

--Seth

K'Tesh
03-04-2010, 10:12 PM
Tonight the Beaverton Transportation Commission voted 5 to 1 against supporting one of the principles of the city's TSP.

I'm having a hard time coming up with words that can convey my disgust of one of the members, and my dissapointment for the other 4 who voted against upholding the TSP.

I'm pissed, and I'm sorry to say I live in Beaverton tonight.
K'Tesh

wsbob
03-04-2010, 10:35 PM
Tonight the Beaverton Transportation Commission voted 5 to 1 against supporting one of the principles of the city's TSP.

I'm having a hard time coming up with words that can convey my disgust of one of the members, and my dissapointment for the other 4 who voted against upholding the TSP.

I'm pissed, and I'm sorry to say I live in Beaverton tonight.
K'Tesh

Perhaps a little clarification is in order. Some of us reading here may not be able to correctly deduce what 'TSP' is, or the gist of what "...against supporting one of the principles of the city's TSP. ..." means other than, 'There isnt going to be any bike lanes on Lombard if putting them in requires that parking has to go away to make room for them' .

I'm also wondering if this is one of those deals where we have to wait a month before being able to read the minutes of the meeting.

If approval for the bike lanes on Lombard didn't succed, I have some ideas why it wouldn't have, and how the city's procedural means of implementing these type of developments may have to do with that.

K'Tesh
03-05-2010, 12:00 AM
Perhaps a little clarification is in order. Some of us reading here may not be able to correctly deduce what 'TSP' is, or the gist of what "...against supporting one of the principles of the city's TSP. ..." means other than, 'There isnt going to be any bike lanes on Lombard if putting them in requires that parking has to go away to make room for them' .

I'm also wondering if this is one of those deals where we have to wait a month before being able to read the minutes of the meeting.

If approval for the bike lanes on Lombard didn't succed, I have some ideas why it wouldn't have, and how the city's procedural means of implementing these type of developments may have to do with that.

Tonight was a real dissapointment for me and other safety minded cyclists. I have to admit, I felt that we were screwed when I saw the hearing number TC666.

At issue was the elimination of part, or all, parking on SW Lombard in Beaverton for sections between SW 7th and Denny Rd. I knew from conversations with members of the BAC, that there was a lot of people who were upset that bikes would be taking away from them, by the elimination of parking. City Engineering studies, done at various times of day showed that the number of cars parking on the affected areas was hovering around 12-19, and they were the same cars parked at the same spots day in and day out.

The trails advisory committee sent a representative, and was very much in favor of the bike lanes. Several members of the BAC were there and voiced their support for the bike lanes. Several cyclists, or more often called "bikers", came and voiced their support. And of course several people from the neighborhood, and nearby neighborhoods came out and voiced how the bike lanes would get cyclists hurt, cause all kinds of problems.

After the public input, and a short break I found myself immediatly at odds with the short sighted vision of Patrick Reynolds, the vice chair of the commission. He went on that too tired rant about how bikes should be licenced and registered, and that too many cyclists are scofflaws. I especially felt insulted by his dismissing of the route because it's flatter than other options, thus not as physically challenging, thus more healthy than SW Hall blvd. Other commissioners didn't see the need for improvements to SW Lombard as we have SW Hall, and other routes.


The only member to vote for bike lanes was Steve Harris. He rightly stated that this improvement would be in line with Beaverton's TSP (Transportation Systems Plan). Lauren Holmes was not in attendance.

I've asked Barbara Chapnick to write up something, and I'll post it.

Jonathan Maus
03-05-2010, 12:01 PM
thanks for being there Jim. I am working on a story about this. it will publish on monday.. i'd like to speak with some of the commission members to get some background on their vote.

if anyone else was there or has something to add, feel free to chime in on this board or email me directly jonathan@bikeportland.org thanks.

wsbob
03-05-2010, 02:52 PM
"...The trails advisory committee sent a representative, and was very much in favor of the bike lanes. Several members of the BAC were there and voiced their support for the bike lanes. Several cyclists, or more often called "bikers", came and voiced their support. And of course several people from the neighborhood, and nearby neighborhoods came out and voiced how the bike lanes would get cyclists hurt, cause all kinds of problems. ..." K'Tesh

The reason this didn't pass is in the numbers above. Count those in favor: trails advisory (1), BAC (3), several cyclists (3) = 7 total. Compare that to the status quo favoring parking on Lombard: several, (how many exactly?) plus 4 commission members apparently favoring parking over bike lanes.

With approval of bike lanes on Lombard, residents of neighborhoods adjacent to this street would literally have by bike, a practical, straight route to the Beaverton Transit Center, and just a bit further....to Cedar Hills Crossing, the 'everything you can think of' shopping complex.

Residents of these neighborhoods did not show up in significant numbers to champion these bike lanes? Why not? Don't they ride bicycles for transportation?

setha
03-06-2010, 09:35 AM
Disclaimers: I'm not a lawyer. I also live about 3 blocks outside the City of Beaverton. I didn't take notes at the hearing, so what appears below is merely my recollections, which of course may be wrong.

For those of you who weren't there, neighbors objected to losing "their" parking on "their" street, where they had parked years, and in some cases, for decades. Mr. Khasho, the City of Beaverton staff person who presented the proposal, noted that Lombard is a designated as collector street by the city. But, he noted, Lombard was developed many years ago, prior to today's standards for collector streets. For example, houses' driveways access Lombard.

Other neighbors were concerned that bicycles riding around buses and garbage trucks on Lombard would be a hazard to oncoming traffic.

Several people who testified, both pro and anti, noted available alternative bicycle routes such as Hall, Main Street/Church of the Nazarene's parking lot, Alger and King. The problem with the disappearing bike lanes on Hall near Allen was discussed. The expense of adding those bike lanes includes not just potentially buying out the businesses on the 4 corners of that intersection, but mitigating environmental problems from fuel which leaked out from the gas stations on at least two of those corners. Mr. Khasho said that at one time they had a $7 million grant which would not cover that cost, so the City ended up returning the grant money to the federal government. I also heard $14 million quoted as the cost to fix that intersection. In his testimony, K'Tesh noted that striping Lombard was a much cheaper alternative than fixing Allen and Hall.

After the testimony portion of the hearing closed, the commissioners deliberated (more on this, below.) As noted in a previous post, the vote was 5-1 against. Commissioners voting against the proposal mentioned not wanting to inconvenience the people parking their cars, safety concerns, and the availability of alternatives persuaded them, mostly, to vote against TC666.

I don't like how Commissioner Reynolds' asked questions of the audience after the Chairman closed the public hearing. I don't like how he went on a rant about how bicycles don't pay their way, need to be taxed, etc., after the hearing was closed and after proponents of TC666 had a chance to respond to that issue. I believe that the paying-your-way issue went into part of Mr. Reynolds' decision making process.

I was a Planning Commissioner for the City of Beaverton in 1988 and 1989. Planning Commission usually met as a quasi-judicial body. That meant that we had specific requirements for when and to whom we could ask questions during a hearing, and what evidence we could consider when rendering a decision. Once a quasi-judicial hearing was closed and the commissioners started deliberating, we were not supposed to ask questions of staff, of the audience, or bring up information which was not discussed during the hearing. (It sometimes happened anyway, but we weren't supposed to do that.)

I don't know if Traffic Commission falls under similar rules. And even if it does, I don't know if those rules applied in this case. Was this hearing was considered quasi-judicial, or legislative, or something else? Legislative hearings had different rules. So I don't know if Mr. Reynolds asking audience questions after the hearing was closed, and bringing up issues not presented during the hearing, was merely unfair, or was a more substantive procedural violation.

For those of you who were there, I was in the one in the front row who interrupted Mr. Reynolds after the close of the hearing, during his questioning of the audience. I asked the Chairman if the Chairman was re-opening the public hearing.

I didn't testify during the hearing because I'm not sure that I really need bike lanes on Lombard, or more annoyed drivers who can't park in front of their house on Lombard, or more annoyed drivers who park in front of their house on Lombard anyway, in violation of the bike lane. I ride on Hall, northbound, maybe two or three times a month. It's unpleasant where the bike lanes get dropped near Allen. But I ride it anyway. As Barbara Chapnick, the LCI instructor also at the hearing, said, it's possible for an experienced rider assert themselves in traffic. If I could not testify 100% in favor of the proposal, I thought it best that I keep quiet. Nonetheless I did show up and sat with the pro group.

The lessons I learned from watching this hearing include, in no particular order:

1. An anonymous phone call and suggestions from city staff started the planning effort for Lombard bicycle lanes. That's why Mr. Khasho made the presentation for the project. That was a mistake. There should have been someone from the bicycle community to make that presentation. There was a place on the agenda for that presentation. That presentation _may_ not have been subject to the 5 minute time limit imposed on other people testifying. A sponsor might have been able to offer a compromise. Or, at least I could have asked the sponsor, "is it OK if I testify and offer a compromise?"

2. Hubert Humphrey said that if you can't get a full loaf of bread, you take half a loaf. Had I testified, the compromise I would have offered is to to limit bike lanes to Lombard between Farmington and 5th, where there parking is already prohibited. That way there would be bike lane connectivity between the Beaverton Transit Center and the rest of the bicycle lane network to the south, and no neighbors to complain about lost parking spaces. Next time, the pro side needs to decide whether to offer a compromise, and if so, what that compromise should be.

3. The trails advocate argued that Lombard bicycle lanes offered connectivity from the north end of the Fanno Creek Trail at Denney near 217 to the Beaverton Transit Center. I didn't find that argument overly persuasive. Why? I was thinking of an alternative route, starting from the end of the trail: west on Denney to King, north on King, cross King at Allen with the traffic light, left on Lee, Lee turns into 11th, right on Alger, left on 5th, right on Lombard. This route was mentioned during the hearing. For the less assertive rider who prefers the Fanno Creek Trail, this seemed like a better route than Denney to Lombard. I didn't hear a convincing argument as to why bike lanes on Lombard all the way to Denney was the better option.

4. The BTA has a press release from May, 2009, opposing bicycle registration fees, at http://www.bta4bikes.org/docs/PressRelease090310BicycleRegistrationFee.pdf. It doesn't have a lot of facts and figures, but at least it's
short. The LAB also has canned responses to the "you are not paying your way" meme. See http://www.bikeleague.org/action/trashtalk/payyourway.php . Next hearing, we need to bring printouts of these along, and be sure to present them. If the Chairman at a hearing shuts down the presentation of this issue as irrelevant to the discussion, then the discussion is also irrelevant after the hearing is closed. At Thursday night's hearing, the point should also have been made that some of the millions the city will have to spend to widen Hall at Allen is just one more example of the community subsidizing motor vehicles. How? The gas stations caused an environmental problem there. The gas stations sold fuel to motor vehicles. Mitigating that problem therefore belongs to the owners of the gas stations, or the oil companies that sold them the gas, or the motorists who bought the gas. Since it is the community as a whole that has to now pay for mitigation, it's a subsidy.

5. Bring a laptop, netbook, or a cell phone with wireless capability so that if something comes up during the hearing, someone can look up a counter-argument on the web, sign up to testify, and get the counter-argument on the record.

6. Since the Traffic Commission turned down bike lanes on Lombard, then it's one more argument to use to actually spend the money and widen Hall.

7. The pro side needed more bicyclists to present in favor. An idea would have been to stand on Hall and Denney, or Hall and 5th, or at the BTC and ask for signatures from bicyclists on a petition to get a Lombard bike lane. Or, hand out postcards with a place for people to sign their names in favor of the Lombard bicycle lane, and maybe add a personal note.

8. The world is run by people who show up for meetings. If we want to get more favorable treatment from the Beaverton Traffic Commission, then more bicyclists have to volunteer to be on the Beaverton Traffic Commission. Don't look at me. I'm not eligible. I haven't been a Beaverton resident for over a decade.

--Seth

wsbob
03-06-2010, 08:26 PM
setha...thanks for providing a detailed summary of how the hearing proceeded, and of some of the thoughts and ideas exchanged.


It seems to me that neighborhood involvement in the decision to install bike lanes on Lombard is of critical importance. Citizen/resident awareness of the benefit bike lanes could offer to their neighborhood is very important. NAC's (neighborhood association committes) may have been notified in advance...if not, they should have been... and actively encouraged to think this issue through).


Engaging citizen awareness and understanding through the use of petitions and postcards, which you mention in point #7 of your comment are tried and true tools. Another idea that occurs to me would be to get residents from adjacent neighborhoods on a series of rides up and down the section of Lombard where the bike lanes would be installed. Let them see first hand what bike lanes could do to make Lombard a viable route by bike across a major part of Beaverton for members of their family



"... As Barbara Chapnick, the LCI instructor also at the hearing, said, it's possible for an experienced rider assert themselves in traffic. ...". I hope she followed up and said something on the order of: "On Lombard however, we have an opportunity, with the installation of bike lanes, to open the door of transportation biking to people lacking the experience, confidence, or resolve to ride on sub-standard bike infrastructure.


I don't want to be too harsh on Beaverton's planning in regards to bike infrastructure, because the city has accomplished a lot to help bikes in this city become a viable form of serious, practical transportation.

At the same time, I get the sense that the city may be relying too much upon what the 'experienced rider' can contend with as a rationale for not making a stronger case for bike lane improvements that would allow Jane and Joe Beaverton to get to the mall, the library, or the transit center without having to fire up the F100.

Pete
03-08-2010, 05:58 PM
1. An anonymous phone call and suggestions from city staff started the planning effort for Lombard bicycle lanes. That's why Mr. Khasho made the presentation for the project. That was a mistake. There should have been someone from the bicycle community to make that presentation. There was a place on the agenda for that presentation. That presentation _may_ not have been subject to the 5 minute time limit imposed on other people testifying. A sponsor might have been able to offer a compromise. Or, at least I could have asked the sponsor, "is it OK if I testify and offer a compromise?"
Interesting point. I heard about this from my friend Mark, a city engineer and resident who put together an extensive presentation (he sent me a copy as part of his rant about the disappointing outcome). I would have been there in support had I not moved to California to get a job.

Thanks for your detailed report Seth!

Pete
03-09-2010, 07:41 AM
UPDATE: my buddy was at the city council meeting last night and said they passed a motion for a public hearing at council. Watch for the April meeting and rally people to attend!

K'Tesh
03-09-2010, 08:50 AM
UPDATE: my buddy was at the city council meeting last night and said they passed a motion for a public hearing at council. Watch for the April meeting and rally people to attend!

Hope to see lots of you folks there!

Want something? SAY SOMETHING!!!
K'Tesh

wsbob
03-09-2010, 11:04 AM
From the more recent of two bikeportland main page threads about the proposed Beaverton Lombard St bike lanes:

Beaverton Traffic Commission votes against bike lanes on Lombard/maus/bikeportland (http://bikeportland.org/2010/03/08/beaverton-traffic-commission-votes-against-bike-lanes-on-lombard/#more-30363)

is the following link, posted by Pete, to Beaverton City Council's meeting calender:

City Beaverton Council Meeting Calendar (http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/meetings/calendar.aspx) (It would be helpful to have specific details about when the public hearing to city council on this issue is going to take place.)

Commenting on the same main page thread, a person by the name of Neil (Neil, comment #36 (http://bikeportland.org/2010/03/08/beaverton-traffic-commission-votes-against-bike-lanes-on-lombard/#comment-1513580)), offered the following advice for people that want to offer testimony regarding the bike lanes on Lombard:

"... The Council asked that anyone who would like to give testimony at the hearing should send in their statement a few days beforehand. They want to be able to read through all comments so that when you give your testimony, they will know your position and can prepare questions. I think that's a fair policy and look forward to the public hearing." Neil, comment #36

If this happens to be the only way comments are allowed to be presented at the meeting, (I don't know for certain about that) it seems very important that people know this.

wsbob
03-09-2010, 09:53 PM
In comment #48 to the same main page thread mentioned above, Lynn (lynnrides (lynnrides.blogspot.com)) made the following worthwhile note reminding everyone about deficiencies in the amount of space on Lombard allotted to bike travel between Farmington southbound to 1st:

"I don't ride Lombard much, except to get to the Library from the NE. I turn off on 2nd street. The really scary part is southbound between Farmington and 1st. First one must cross Farmington, and coming from the MUP (bikes are directed off the road because of the WES tracks), interaction with right turning cars is interesting. Then the road is Really Narrow until 1st street. Really Narrow."

So just how narrow is "...narrow..."? I walked over there to see, on this miserable wannabe winter night. My 10.5 size feet don't fit toe to heel between curb and the the white line marking what I suppose is supposed to be the outer edge of the 'bike lane'.

I hope the street there really is as wide as Wendy Kroger says here (34') Beaverton Traffic Commission votes against bike lanes on Lombard/Wendy Kroger comment #43 (http://bikeportland.org/2010/03/08/beaverton-traffic-commission-votes-against-bike-lanes-on-lombard/#comments), so that bike traffic could get what seems to be a very much needed 4' wide lane there.

lynnef
03-11-2010, 04:27 PM
wsbob - there's a bike lane there? Northbound maybe, but not southbound!

I usually get picked by a car as it doesn't want me to merge into the lane. Which, given half a chance, I would take.

wsbob
03-11-2010, 08:32 PM
lynnef...sorry if I didn't pay close enough attention when I was walking around looking at the intersection. Could be the dinky winky bike lane I mentioned was adjoining the b-i-i-i-g pedestrian island (does it really have to be quite so big?) that splits Farmington eastbound and Farmington right turn onto Lombard. Bike lane might actually disappear between Farmington and 1st. At any rate, I tend to think it would be nice to have one there.

Farmington's not exactly a real fun street to travel on...for anyone, I don't think. Kind of has the unfortunate effect of giving people the 'go-go-go!...a-r-r-rgh!...I can't go!....Oh!...now I can!!' antsyiness. I have no difficulty imagining that some motor vehicle operators, turning as you describe, might be inclined to give the smaller vehicles short shrift in that situation.

wsbob
03-12-2010, 09:54 PM
I don't know that people favoring bike lanes on Lombard necessarily need to do the mass t-shirt wearing thing to get the point across, but browsing over at bikeforums, this photo made me think of the bike lane on Lombard issue:

http://fortworthology.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Bike-Friendly-Fort-Worth-Ride-to-City-Hall-2-9-2010-44.jpg

"Apparently Fort Worth is more bike friendly than the LAB likes to admit. Whenever there is a public hearing on transportation or cycling, there are always dozens of cyclists in attendance, many of whom rode to the meeting. Here's a scene from last month's city council meeting where they approved the bike plan for the next 25 years. All the yellow and orange shirted folks are cyclists" bikeforums member Doohickie, comment #16 bikeforums thread 'Cycling advocates on bicycles are absurd? ' (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?628028-Cycling-advocates-on-bicycles-are-absurd)

Presence can make quite an impression. ( I would just as soon the picture was about half this size...sorry if it seems overly imposing.)

lynnef
03-13-2010, 04:09 PM
so, if I was going to show up, which organization that I am a member of should I represent? (choices - Portland Velo, Oregon Randonneurs) Or should I just wear a generic cycling outfit of some sort?

setha
03-13-2010, 06:57 PM
setha...thanks for providing a detailed summary of how the hearing proceeded, and of some of the thoughts and ideas exchanged.


It seems to me that neighborhood involvement in the decision to install bike lanes on Lombard is of critical importance. Citizen/resident awareness of the benefit bike lanes could offer to their neighborhood is very important. NAC's (neighborhood action committes) may have been notified in advance...if not, they should have been... and actively encouraged to think this issue through).

.....

Agreed, and it was not done in this case. And it's Neighborhood Association Committee. I was chair of the Greenway NAC 20+ years ago.

There was also a stack of copies of letters received by the traffic commission at the hearing, on the table at the back of the meeting. In that packet was a letter from Penny Douglas, Vose NAC Chairman. Ms Douglas said the NAC considered the issue at their 2/18/2010 meeting. They voted unanimously to oppose TC666.

The Beaverton web site at
http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/neighborhoods/NAC/calendar.aspx
says that the next Vose NAC meeting is 7PM 3/18/2010, Beaverton Community Center, Community Room, 12350 SW 5th Street, Suite 100. The Vose NAC web site has an agenda for the 3/18 meeting. It says that they are going to consider TC666 under old business. See
http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/neighborhoods/NAC/Vose/Information2010/vose031810agenda.pdf
Penny Douglas's contact information is there. I suggest that someone who strongly supports this project call Ms. Douglas ask POLITELY to be included in the discussion. Ask if you can make the case in favor. And if you are allowed to present the case in favor, again, BE POLITE. Don't expect to change anyone's mind and don't expect a warm reception. But BE POLITE anyway.

--Seth

wsbob
03-14-2010, 01:36 AM
Seth, thanks for the head's up on the next Vose Neighborhood Association Committee meeting (I went back to post #15 and made the name correction).

The meeting location:

Beaverton Community Center, Community Room, 12350 SW 5th Street, Suite 100.

...is I believe, the small building just south of the library.

I wish some explanation of the reasons Vose NAC members voted against bike lanes on Lombard was available to read on the association's webpage; there doesn't seem to be any. Doesn't seem to be any meeting minutes either.

There's no good reason for people not to be 'polite' in discussing advantages and disadvantages of bike lane striping for Lombard. I would have thought..it being their neighborhood...Vose would have been for them. It's very important to know why the members didn't feel they could vote for this.

The association's next meeting...3/18...that's this coming Thursday.

lynnef, for the full city council hearing on the issue, I bet everyone will get the picture if you show up wearing some bits of cycling gear...a jersey, carrying your helmet and so forth. Clean, moderate styled. Nothing pushy. Though, if I had one of those Columbia High Road jerseys, being's it represents a local biz putting money into the local economy... . :) I would imagine the presence of High Vis gear would make a good impression too.

wsbob
03-18-2010, 10:24 PM
Tonight...went to the Vose Neighborhood Association Committee meeting that Setha referred to a couple comments back. Let me see if I can provide a simple summary of the meeting in general and discussion that occurred related to the proposal for striped bike lanes on Lombard that would involve removal of at least some on-street parking.


7 board members present, 3 members from the community, 2 of which were from the neighborhood, and the final member in attendance was from out of the neighborhood.



The board members respectfully answered questions I had regarding how it was that the board voted unanimously to oppose the proposal that went on to be presented to the Traffic commission, where it was again voted against. They listened to me offer a number of reasons why I thought bike lanes could be quite a benefit to individuals, to the neighborhood, and the city in general.


Amongst the board (I'm a little confused...I thought it was 'committee', but at least two referred to themselves as board members rather than committee members) members present tonight, there was both staunch opposition, but also, those that were favorable to having bike lanes on Lombard.


I felt that reasons board/committee members had for voting against the proposal were important considerations, but in reality, not of the degree of seriousness some seemed to be under the impression they were. Possible congestion safety was a primary concern; people backing cars out from residential driveways across the bike lanes. Also, having bike lanes through the Farmington-1st Ave mess, and north bound bike traffic making left turns through it. This area, I agreed, does has problems, but said also that it's a brief section in the overall route, and is something many people that ride bikes can deal with.

(hey!...o.k, long post...I know...tea and cookies time! ;)..then come back please!)

No comeback from me on that one at the time, but sitting here now, I'm thinking...'Is that really a serious issue?' I'm don't really see it is. Cars backing out under the present street configuration already have to look out for approaching cars, possibly over the roof of the occasional parked car on the street. Would seeing approaching bikes in what is now the street parking area really be much more, or even as difficult?


We talked some about advantages Lombard as a bike lane equipped street has over the Hall/Watson couplet with its bike lanes. I sensed that some board member could see the reason in this.


I think there definitely is some sense among certain members that bike lanes are not a result of broad based public appeals for them, but instead, are being installed as a result of 'strong arm' efforts of some kind. Which raises the always important question: 'Does the general public really want this type of infrastructure for their city?'. Always important to have people representing the vast diversity of the public thinking about and working to answer that type of question.


Some board members amongst those present tonight, mentioned that at the traffic commission hearing, people that spoke in favor of the bike lanes on Lombard did not successfully make their case. As far as they were concerned, this is an open and shut situation. They did not seem to be aware, until I brought it up, that it has been reported that Beaverton City Council will sometime soon, hear this issue in their chambers.

That's about it as near as I can remember. Got any questons? Let me know. wsbob

By the way...Lynnef...did you check out the teensy-weensy bike lane I mentioned was located on the south bound Farmington/Lombard traffic island? It's there...saw it tonight when I walked over to the neighborhood meeting. It's kind of cute if you don't actually try ride in it...sort of a bikini bike lane. Perhaps in honor of the hard working dancers at nearby Stars Cabaret (maybe some of them ride bikes)? Certainly right though about there being no bikelanes at 1st and Lombard.

Back to the bike lanes on Lombard proposal... . Here's a link to a map showing the boundaries of Beaverton neighborhoods, including Vose, where installation of bike lanes has been proposed.

Beaverton neighborhoods (http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/gis/maps/current_nac_8x11.pdf)

Lombard St isn't marked on this map, but it's fairly easy to determine by looking for the longest North-South running street located in about the center of the Vose neighborhood.


Here's something to help everyone understand that Beaverton does seem to recognize bicycle use, and infrastructure that supports it, as a worthwhile means of of enabling people to get around town:

'Improve Mobility' from the 'Five Community Goals', Beaverton Community Vision (http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/visioning/docs/mobility_board.pdf)

Below, is simply the page from where the above 'Mobility' statement PDF was posted.

Beaverton Community Vision:
Project Information (http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/departments/visioning/projectinfo.aspx)