View Full Version : More about proposed Bike Lanes on Lombard

03-20-2010, 11:39 PM
for June 28th update on Lombard bike lane proposal............go to post #9

First of all: A notice that the next meeting of the Central Beaverton Advisory Committee is Monday, April the 5th, ( that's the day after Easter), 7pm, in the small building directly south from the Library across 5th St. :

Meeting Schedule: Monthly—1st Monday of the month
Upcoming Meeting Dates: Apr 05, May 03, Jun 07
Time: 7:00 PM
Location: Beaverton Community Center, Community Room, 12350 SW 5th St., Ste. 100

Central Beaverton, is the name of the large neighborhood north of the Vose neighborhood. Lombard St runs through both neighborhoods. From the standpoint of their safety, and ease of use of the street with bikes, Central Beaverton neighborhood residents may have an interest in the possibility of bike lanes being striped the entire length of Lombard. How important are striped bike lanes on this street? Is there another way that improved usability and safety of the street can be achieved without reducing Vose-Lombard St residents and guest's freedom to park on the street at will? Go to the Central Beaverton Advisory Committee meeting and ask first hand, people that show up.

Now, important details about a point of discussion related to the proposed Lombard St bike lane in Beaverton, . :)

An argument that's been raised against the proposal to stripe bike lanes on this street, is that there exist older single family homes with single car driveways, whose value will be adversely affected by the loss of on-street parking to handle the second and sometimes third car that some families today have.

To get some idea of how valid this concern might be, I walked up the street and carefully noted what accommodation single family residences had for parked cars on each home lot. The section I checked was from about 3rd, running to Allen. I'd guess that in this section of Lombard, single family dwellings make up about 60 percent of all dwellings, the rest being multi-family dwellings.

Here's what I found at about 12 noon on a bright, sunny Saturday:

A total of 41 single family dwellings, 18 on the west side of the street, 23 on the east. 30 of those dwellings had either double, triple,horseshoe, or driveways entering the property from side streets the property adjoined. 11 of the dwellings had the standard single car driveway, though a number of them had two or more cars parked on those driveways, one behind the other, though the street parking was available, it being almost completely empty of parked cars. The balance of the 11 homes with single car drives may have had a car parked on Lombard, but if so, it wasn't immediately apparent to me; for example, no cars parked right out on the street in front of the house.

:cool: By chance while pausing with my bike and looking around, a person across the street noticed me, motioned for my attention and called out asking if I needed any help I zipped across the street, told them what I was doing. Friendly person...we talked for awhile. Gave me good info. Offered the thought that residents cars aren't seen on the street during the day and on Saturday, because the owners are off to work or doing chores.

This person was receptive to striped bike lanes, but very strongly feeling that parking should be retained on one side of the street. Worried about security for guests cars parked on side streets in the evening hours. Mentioned it was a disadvantage for people having garage sales not to be able to have interested people stop at the curb(this ain't a wealthy neighborhood folks....that income means more to them than it does to some others.)

* I'm not sure I'll get to it, but even I do, if someone that rides Lombard after say, 6-8pm were able to count the number of cars parked on the street as they rode by, that could help to figure out what the strength of the need for on-street parking on Lombard is.

Anyone with more interest in the progress of where the proposal for Bike Lanes on Lombard stands should go to the earlier thread about them here in the forums:

Bike lanes on Lombard related (http://bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3457&page=3)

03-23-2010, 11:14 PM
For however long it lasts, just moving this up to the top for a little more visibility.

03-24-2010, 07:45 AM
For however long it lasts, just moving this up to the top for a little more visibility.

Thanks wsbob...

I'm kinda out of the loop on the meetings, so this helps me a lot! Problem is knowing what kind of family activities I've got going that night.

04-01-2010, 11:06 PM
http://bikeportland.org/forum/images/icons/icon5.gif Question: if asked 'How many car owners might be using street parking on Lombard on an average workday evening? ...what might the answer be?

Striped bike lanes on this street that could end the ability to park on Lombard is one of the concerns that has led some people not to favor them. In post #1 of this thread, I walked the street on a sunny Saturday to get a sense of how many people park their cars on this street. Conclusion: very few do.

But that was a Saturday when working people might be off driving on excursions, buying groceries, and whatnot. .....http://vcca.org/forum/images/graemlins/default/auto.gif ....How about...on a weeknight, when at least some workers...dayshift or graveyard shift...might need or choose to park their cars on the street?

Tonight, 10pm, Thursday, April 1st (no April fools !), I decided to take a walk up the street to count cars parked on Lombard. I should first explain that signs on poles from Farmington to 7th Ave prohibit on-street parking. That leaves only 8 more blocks to Allen Ave, where people could park their cars on the street if they chose to. At 10pm on this Thursday night, how many cars were parked on Lombard between 7th and Allen Ave? One car.

With that kind of number, I wasn't really enthusiastic to walk the rest of Lombard to Denney to see how many cars were parked on that section of the street. Because of the lay of the land around here, fortunately for me...it's possible to stand on the street at 12th, look down the entire 15 blocks to Denney, and count them. How many cars? Pretty certain there were four, but maybe just three. One object in the distance was dark. Might have been my mind tricking me. I'll say 'four' though.

So..... 'Five Cars' is the grand total of cars parked on 30 blocks of Lombard St on a Thursday night.

I still feel Vose neighborhood Lombard St residents concern for the ability to park on Lombard is an important consideration. Doesn't seem like that should necessarily rule out striped bike lanes there though. Most important time for bike lanes to be free and open would be business commute and business hours. Kind of early for the 'go to work' drivers', but signs for on street parking could be posted for say 8pm to 6:30am.

People wishing to use the striped bike lane for garage sales could get a 1-3 day permit from the city, for a 5 car length section of street. Or something like that.

Really though, when I've walked Lombard, there seems to be plenty of side street parking available, and though traffic on Lombard is brisk, the neighborhood to either side of the street is very, very quiet. http://vcca.org/forum/images/icons/default/sleep.gif

04-02-2010, 10:43 AM
As I saw someone else mention earlier, what about the possibility of striping a lane from Farmington to 5th? If parking is prohibited already from Farmington to 7th, this should be an easy sell. Striping a lane down to 5th would at least get more timid cyclists from the BTC to a major E-W bike route, from which they could take any other "more friendly" route to continue S. Of course, any cyclist has a full right to continue south on Lombard as-is in as much of the lane as they deem safe.

04-02-2010, 04:21 PM
As I saw someone else mention earlier, what about the possibility of striping a lane from Farmington to 5th? If parking is prohibited already from Farmington to 7th, this should be an easy sell. Striping a lane down to 5th would at least get more timid cyclists from the BTC to a major E-W bike route, from which they could take any other "more friendly" route to continue S. Of course, any cyclist has a full right to continue south on Lombard as-is in as much of the lane as they deem safe.

Hey biciclero... ! "... what about the possibility of striping a lane from Farmington to 5th? ...". Well a least that. From both a north and south bound trip planning standpoint, this seems to make good sense. The Library and its park, (home of the Beaverton Saturday Farmer's Market, a major city destination), and marvelous play fountain, is just 4-5 blocks west of Lombard. Also, as a southbound route, Lombard involves a gentler uphill grade than Watson (Watson is the southbound leg of the Hall-Watson couplet, the city's primary N-S route).

Looking at the map, besides Lombard, I can't really say about another straight through route between Farmington and Denney, because they aren't routes I've much ridden. Looking at the 'Bike There' map...to the east, Alder? To the west, Main? Both appear to cut through neighborhoods. For occasional traffic, that can be okay, but a lot of this kind of traffic can be a negative for neighborhoods.

Could be that Lombard between 7th and Allen (about 8 blocks), is where most of the resistance to striped bike lanes has arisen. It's in this section that the neighbor I talked with lives. Again, from that person, what I gathered, is that though there may not be a lot of need on the part of neighbors for parking on the street, they do not want to entirely lose the right to be able to park there.

This section of Lombard seems narrow compared to other sections of the street. The sunny Saturday when I was on the street talking to a neighbor, we watched as two or three recreational cyclists(decent road or touring bikes and gear) were riding southbound at about 10th (slight uphill grade.). They were holding a line fairly close to the right side of the street at, at least 10mph, but never the less, a driver behind them trailing a couple cars, was hesitant to pass, even though there was probably opportunity.

I would say these cyclists were experienced and confident. Less assertive, casual type riders might not be so willing to put up with the stress of a string of cars on their tail. Bike lanes have some disadvantages, one of which is that the crappy thermoplastic lines degrade and have to be restored. In this instance though, an advantage might be that the bike lane would clearly say to all road users that bike use there is supported and...encouraged, less assertive riders to break out the bike.

Personally, from a motor vehicle use standpoint, I'd like to see the street quiet down a bit. Motor vehicle traffic there isn't fierce and ferocious, but cars do tend to travel a little fast, creating a lot of noise, which degrades neighborhood livability. Bikes are much, much quieter http://www.bikeportland.org/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif .

04-05-2010, 09:43 PM
Central Beaverton Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting report for Monday 4/5/10

Fact is, I've never gone to meetings...never gone to my own neighborhood meeting until the 'Lombard Bike Lane Proposal' caught my interest. A couple weeks ago, I went to the Vose NAC, because Lombard runs through both that neighborhood and my own...Central Beaverton...to the north of it. As an introduction to neighborhood meeting attendance, Vose was kind of a surprise, because very, very few people attended.

And yet, perhaps largely because of active resistance to the bike lane proposal originating from Lombard St residents in Vose, addressed to the Beaverton Traffic Commission...the proposal failed.

I went to my NAC meeting tonight, thinking I might get from people present, what Central Beaverton's position on the 'Lombard Bike Lane Proposal' was. The first surprise was that the turnout was huge compared to the turnout for Vose NAC. Could a been 30 residents in addition to board members compared to three at Vose: 10:1 ratio.

Of course, Central Beaverton's meeting tonight had the mayor giving a rundown on his earlier presented (at the library) 'State of the City' address. Maybe that accounted for the bigger turnout? Asked a couple people about that after the meeting. Answer; not necessarily. Central Beaverton's got things going on, one said. And it does actually.

Asked...I think it was the chairman of the meeting...what discussion the committee might have had about the 'Lombard Bike Lane Proposal'. The answer was the second surprise: He basically said to me that he wasn't absolutely sure, but didn't think it had been discussed (long meeting...talking to me as he was helping to get tables and chairs stored away).

This might help to offer some explanation as to how potentially significant improvements to non-motor vehicle dependent road infrastructure is sometimes so easily thrown by the wayside. Whether it gets striped for bike lanes or enhanced for bike use in some other way without using stripes, here we have a major through-town route very well suited for bike use, whose function and gradual development for that use is not adequately being watched by one of the key neighborhoods it passes through.

What happens to the 'Lombard Bike Lane Proposal' next? Beats me. Maybe someone has, but I kind of get the impression that nobody has really studied the idea of this street as a significant bike transportation corridor and the considerations that might or should go along with it. The procedure to re-stripe streets for bike lanes is in some long term city plan, so it's done rather reflexively without a lot of thought to related implications and consequences associated with a bike lane's presence there.

As a result, maybe the level of active support for the proposal is not as strong as it might otherwise be. And by the power of a couple dozen letter writers that decide they don't want to lose their on street guest and garage sale parking...all thought about making the street better for supporting increased use of bikes for transportation on it just goes bye-bye. ;)

Everybody...by the way...to give hard working, hard pedaling K'tesh just a little more assistance here...I'll just leave a last day reminder that tomorrow night, Tuesday 6:30, at City Hall, is the Beaverton Bike Advisory Committee Meeting. It doesn't have the wickedly delicious dessert snacks that tonight's NAC had, but oh well....you're probably trying to drop a few calories anyway...right ...;) !

04-07-2010, 01:07 AM
At the Beaverton Bike Advisory Committee Meeting tonight:

Jay Graves and I believe...Susan Peithman, BTA's statewide advocacy director gave presentations tonight...Graves...lots about Portland's bike plan with the general suggestion that we out in the burbs might...hm-m-m...follow by example and get hip with some of that really cool Euro bike infrastructure out here in the burbs...traffic calming, storm water draining bike lane eco berms. You know...more places for weeds to grow while at the same time, introducing pinch points at certain street intersections (I'm just joking ...!...). That was just one bit of lots of info offered about how the frequency of bikes for transportation use in Portland has expanded in recent years, and all the benefits associated with it.

Peithman talked about her role in the BTA's effort to keep better track of and help with bike supportive infrastructure around the state. For example, looking at helping to connect bike lanes in the county areas between adjoining small cities such as Tualitan and Wilsonville. I'm admitting that I'm very weak on the details here. She said BTA's soliciting suggestions for project ideas to consider taking on. Also, that the Beav's meeting could be one of her regular visitin' places....if'n your lookin' for an easy way to get some face time with her.

After the presentation, when regular meeting business resumed, one of the items the board members got around to somewhat indirectly, was the Lombard Bike Lanes Proposal. I think I'm remembering correctly that it came up because of discussion during the presentation about bike boulevards

Immediately, some board members pondered the idea of bike boulevard's as a way to avoid the expense of putting bike lanes on thoroughfares, even streets such as Lombard...termed, I believe...a 'feeder' street. I think of it as a 'secondary' street relative to a higher motor vehicle traffic volume street such as Hall Blvd.

What seemed to be happening here, was certain people thinking of the type of rider they are, and saying out loud to those in attendance...more or less: 'I wouldn't want to ride on Lombard' ... 'Should we be spending a lot of money to encourage people to ride on busy streets, when there's quiet neighborhood streets just a couple blocks away?'. It seemed to be as if they were thinking...'If I wouldn't want to do the kind of riding I do, on that street, certainly no one else would want to ride on that street either.' Again, these aren't quotes, and you aren't reading them in exactly the context that the ideas were presented. How much reflection was there on the fact that a significant range of speeds and needs amongst riders exists? Didn't seem like much.

Hearing those remarks, I had the uneasy feeling that amongst some board members, an accurate sense of the response necessary to adequately support transportation cycling is lacking.

I got the sense that some members were keenly interested in whether bike boulevards...not everyone thoroughly understands what they are....could supplant bike lanes on thoroughfares.

That would seem to be a 'one size fits all' treatment. But I have to acknowledge that I'm not familiar with bike boulevards and what their capabilities are. Here's a question:

What kind of bike counts could these quiet neighborhood bike boulevard designated routes reach without adversely affecting neighborhood livability? I mean really...assuming these are streets that are currently very lightly traveled, which they are. Would neighbors welcome a major increase in traffic, even though it would be bike rather than motor vehicle traffic, when the secondary thoroughfare over just a couple blocks could be just fine for bike traffic?

06-28-2010, 10:39 PM
June 28th report on Beaverton City Council Public Hearing regarding the proposal for striped bike lanes on Lombard St.

This was a public hearing; no decisions on the proposal were made by the council tonight. I believe Mayor Doyle said that something might happen later in July. The opportunity for public testimony on the proposal is still open, meaning those of you reading that would like to send a letter with your thoughts on the issue, off to the city, still may do that. By any means...please do so!

First of all, regarding the question of 'Where our tax dollars are going': On one wall of the chamber hall was mounted an exhibit...an amazing (to me) planning diagram of the entire length of Lombard indicating many bits of important information related to the plan; where bike lanes would be located, where parking would continue to exist along with installation of bike lanes, results from a survey the Beaverton Traffic Department conducted to estimate parking demand on the street. This exhibit was about 2' wide and....perhaps 25' long. Very helpful document that must have been quite a achievement to produce.

There also was an excellent handout consisting of earlier information made available about the plan, and also, letters from the public both in support and in opposition to the plan.

Beaverton's traffic engineer was there again to introduce the plan to those in attendance. Once again for those of you reading that may be just catching on to this proposal, studies he's conducted of the street seem to definitely support the idea that, all things considered, striped bike lanes on the street and the conditions required to support them, make for a viable proposal.

As to public testimony presented, both in opposition and in favor:

I have little idea of how the order of testimony was determined; Seemed more or less random to me.

Didn't make an exact count...so I'll guess around 30 people testifying...20 opposed, 10 in support.

Of those in opposition, some testifying had testified at the earlier public hearing, and their letters were in fact in the handout document. For residents on Lombard offering testimony, loss of the freedom to park on the street for events such as holidays, dinners, or even short mid-day stops at home, continues to be very objectionable to them. During earlier transformation/improvements to the street going back years, some Lombard residents were imposed upon, which for them, makes this proposal just one more straw on the camel's back.

Not related to the parking loss complaint, but one of the residents in opposition whose complaint registered with me was the person who lives near Lombard and Allen where the bus stop/shelter was put in some years back. Bus stops sometimes become messy places, as this resident claims this one chronically is. This resident contacts the city and trimet repeatedly, and gets no one to redress his concerns; as a result, this resident feels no compunction to concede to the city's request for a change to the street the resident feels will only make the street less habitable than it currently is. (Lesson: when a citizen has a legitimate complaint that something 'stinks'...fix it if it's hoped they'll be willing to side with you on important future improvements to city infrastructure.)

Of those in favor, a bunch of really fine people showed up to speak in favor of bike lanes on Lombard (I won't list them by name, partly because I don't know most of their names). I believe points in favor were strongly made; that the calmer, slower speed lower motor vehicle capacity Lombard is far superior to Hall Blvd (with it's already existing bike lanes) as a connection route for transportational and recreational cycling; that bike lanes would go some distance to offering milder mannered people that ride bikes a comparative refuge to what exists for them on the street in its current configuration without striped bike lanes; that the presence of striped bike lanes would more clearly than present...convey to motor vehicle drivers that Lombard is a street where the presence of milder mannered people that ride bikes...are definitely supported in the great city of Beaverton.

One person gave moving testimony, explaining that they were an experienced cyclist, but not the quick, agile and aggressive type that could compete with motor vehicle traffic for the right to share the main traffic lanes, in so doing, emphasizing that for them striped bike lanes on Lombard and elsewhere in the city, could mean the difference between being able to continue to ride or not. A city council member specifically encouraged this person to compose and send to them, any further thoughts on the subject that this person had.

I showed up, gave what I thought likely came off as a jittery, scattered series of reflections on the issue. To address residents loss of the freedom to park on the street, something I introduced, was for council to possibly consider posting the street with signs allowing parking on the bike lane during hours other than the am/pm commute and in between. At present, motor vehicle traffic after about 6pm or 7pm and until 7am or 8am dramatically drops off, possibly making such an idea entirely viable.

Finally, a bit of my own speculation that I'll tread very gingerly upon in making about the people testifying in opposition to striped bike lanes on Lombard: Could be entirely wrong, but if I had to guess, just based on their comments and my visual impression of their appearance, I would speculate that not a single one of them rides a bike with any regularity. One, maybe two people might have made a remark to the effect that they in fact did ride bikes...but I can't remember for sure. Not that this necessarily makes any difference to the decision of whether striped bike lanes should be installed on the street. If my speculation is on the mark though, that none of those people actively ride, it does perhaps help to explain the lack of support from them for striped bike lanes on the street. And if true, that fact might be subject for a separate commentary on the subject of the state of our community's non-motor vehicle travel functionality.

I'm sure I've missed some important details from the meeting, for which I apologize. I welcome anyone reading to follow up what I've written and fill in the gaps.

07-01-2010, 07:36 AM
Been tied up lately, but still fighting the fight. Monday, I testified at a public hearing about eliminating some on-street parking and adding bike lanes to a local connector street here in Beaverton. I was the last person to get to add my voice to the record, which is fine, as each of the people who argued against adding them gave me fodder for explaining why it was important to go ahead and add them.

Portions of SW Lombard (between SW Farmington Rd, and SW Denny) are only wide enough for 11 foot auto lanes, and 5 foot bike lanes, and parking is already prohibited. Others are wide enough for parking on one side of the street as well as the 11ft and 5ft lanes. It is one of the few N/S connectors in Beaverton, near the Downtown core of the city.

The arguments against the lanes:

Poor cyclists behavior
Cyclists would impede emergency vehicles (as if parked cars would get out of the way)
Bikes would slow down traffic (at the same time they were griping about high speed traffic)
Poor visibility of cyclists
Difficulty backing up out of driveways with cyclists getting hit. (WHAT?!)
Level of use. i.e "I never see any cyclists use the road"
How another nearby ARTERIAL road (SW Hall) already has bike lanes.
Cost of installing (estimated $50,000.00 for 1 mile of paint).
Difficulty for bikes/buses interactions.
Why not build a MUP paralleling the Railroad/WES line and SW Lombard.
Bikes don't pay taxes/aren't licensed/educated.
Holiday/Party guests would be put at risk having to cross the street.
"My property value will drop"

My points:

Much of the area already has no parking, why not paint the lines?
Poor behavior is universal (cars just hurt/kill more people).
Cyclists can see and hear. So, they can get out/off of the road when emergency vehicles are approaching (parked cars can't).
Bike lanes prevent cyclists being forced into the lane to go around parked cars.
Parked cars can hide cyclists (and other oncoming traffic) when you're backing up.
The homeowners often don't see cyclists, because bikes are quiet, and don't call attention to themselves.
The total number of parked cars is typically less than 12 regardless of time of day (one was abandoned and later towed).
Bike lanes give motorists the expectation of bicycles.
Bike lanes encourage less experienced cyclists to go further, or stay off the sidewalk (which IS legal here )
Bike use increases parking options elsewhere.
SW Hall's major problem spot will cost a minimum of $14,000,000.00 to fix for bikes (for just ONE intersection) according to one City Employee. (that's 280X the cost of a $50,000.00 bike lane)
SW Hall is a hillier option, and not everybody wants to arrive sweaty.
SW Hall doesn't make the connections to trails, neighborhood streets, and the transit center like Lombard does.
Traffic on SW Hall is intimidating/discouraging for newer riders.
Bikes and buses can co-exist, both are moving vehicles, parked cars don't yield the lane.
The road is a public right of way, not a public right of parking.
Many cyclists have cars (and thus licenses) and most are educated.
Roads are not paid for by gas taxes. Cars are subsidized by taxes everybody pays.
Bike lanes are used year round, and the parking problems are mostly limited to the holidays.
Holiday traffic is typically easy to manage (less people driving), so families crossing the street shouldn't have a problem.
Railways have laws, and other restrictions preventing easements, and are notoriously uncooperative with trails on "their" land.
If the parking in front of someones house is so tied into the house's value... Add it to the assessment.

07-01-2010, 07:44 AM
If Beaverton's plan for the bike lane doesn't pass I think sharrows would be a reasonable alternative. All a bike lane would do is establish a legal right of way for a bicycle. Like a bike lane sharrows would establish awareness for those who are riding but not take away any parking that seems to be the biggest problem for those opposed. Plus it would seem to be a little more cost effective for the city. If safety is an issue a cycle track or similar separate facility would be the answer. A bike lane creates a false sense of safety and would be about the same as having sharrows.

07-01-2010, 11:26 AM
Yosh ...looks like you might be a relatively new forum member...Welcome, and thanks for taking the time out to think about the Lombard bike lane proposal!

If you don't live in Beaverton or nearby, think about taking a little trip out there, possibly to check out Lombard firsthand. Easy to get there on light rail from either east or west. Lombard runs on the western boundary of the Beaveton Transit Center, though the section of Lombard that 's the subject of the discussion is actually south across Beaverton's two...actually almost three, leviathan thoroughfares .

Re; your suggestion about sharrows on Lombard...they'd probably be o.k., but this street doesn't really need them. It's just a two lane, both direction street. Traffic is fairly mellow on it actually. A lot of the bike and car traffic gets along just fine together.

Northbound, it's slightly downhill: no problem for someone in good shape to travel on a bike 15-20-25 mph, managing well enough with motor vehicle traffic. Southbound, it's a little slower going for same type of cyclist: 15-20. Not many parked cars on the street, but the ones there oblige a 'pull out/pull in' maneuver for bikes traveling the street, which is tough on all road users. Particularly, cars rate of speed has to slow down to allow for them to pass the parked cars. So in a very definite sense, the bike lanes in that they allow for unimpeded motor vehicle flow, are for motor vehicle traffic as much as they are for bike traffic.

The real gain to be had from the bike lane on this street, is in its potential to bring greater numbers of slower traveling riders...7-15 mph... to riding rather than driving. Think of all the people you know that are averse to riding on anything other than a separated bike path, or that ride the sidewalk so as to not be exposed to swiftly moving cars directly on their flank. A bike lane, or wide road shoulder can provide safe traveling distance between motor vehicle and bike traffic.

Stronger riders are likely to be leaving the bike lane to pass these people by taking the main lane. When I'm traveling 15-25 mph on the bike, I like to stay well away from the curb, riding the actual line of the bike lane, or just inside it if one exists.

Instead of actual striped bike lanes, the city could just put up more signs prohibiting parking(holidays and after/before business hours excepted). That would probably be the most economical thing to do (K'Tesh...noticed your earlier post....good points! Among them, that paint for the bike lanes would cost 50 grand. If it was viable, a savings of 50 grand by just putting up 20 more signs would be great.

07-01-2010, 02:47 PM
Among them, that paint for the bike lanes would cost 50 grand. If it was viable, a savings of 50 grand by just putting up 20 more signs would be great.

The problem with signs is that according to multiple sources in the City's Public Works/Engineering Departments, they get tuned out. People just don't see them after a while, and they clutter up the field of view.

Yosh (Welcome to the forums)

I'd be all for sharrows in the area between SW Denny and Why Worry/Ironhorse, as this area would be a practical use of them.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4410937902_9bee6dfc2f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/sets/72157623439386149/)
Abandoned (now towed) car on SW Lombard, South of SW Allen

However, North of that area, the road is just too narrow. Parked cars on the street absolutely tie up traffic, even without having a bike on the road.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4059/4410899240_735f4ba0ee.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ufobike/sets/72157623439386149/)
One of the VERY few vehicles that park on SW Lombard (SB, just north of SW Allen)

Rubberside Down!

07-01-2010, 03:56 PM
Not many parked cars on the street, but the ones there oblige a 'pull out/pull in' maneuver for bikes traveling the street, which is tough on all road users.

Nothing "obliges" this dangerous riding practice. Sparsely parked cars may invite novices to do the dodge-'n'-weave, but it is not a requirement of any law. If anything, parked cars oblige cyclists to travel in a straight line farther to the left. If drivers "stuck" behind cyclists here want to get all huffy (heh, maybe they should get ON a Huffy...), have them blame the impediment on the cars that aren't moving.

There are two ways of looking at the situation. I saw a comment on a blog article a while back where the commenter was lamenting, "so, let's see, a bike needs three feet from parked cars, plus two feet for the bike, plus three more feet for safe passing...that's a total of 8 feet for a bike just to go down the road?!" The implication being that this was just way too much space to devote to moving a bike down the road. I replied to this comment by noting that, "let's see, a parked car needs 1 foot allowed distance from the curb, plus 6 feet for the width of the car, plus 3 more feet for safe door opening...that's a total of 10 feet for a parked car to just sit there doing nothing."

The question that has to be answered is "What is the priority usage of a street?" Is it storage of cars, or movement of traffic? Your answer pretty much depends on whether you have a car you want to store.

I have a hard time understanding why residential streets (which Lombard might be considered, although it is sort of a main thoroughfare), if they were intended for residents to use for parking, are so narrow. On my street, if there are cars parked on both sides, two cars traveling in opposite directions have a difficult time passing each other. What kind of design decision was this? Was it intended to be a traffic calming measure? If traffic calming was the goal, why is it done on streets with speed limits greater than 20mph?

07-01-2010, 05:10 PM
biciclero...My use of the word 'oblige' might be unintentionally misleading..wasn't using it in a legal sense. I don't mean to disagree with you, but for clarification, I do want to explain that despite their objection to losing the freedom to park on Lombard, the tendency for residents to park on the street is very limited; very few cars get parked on the street, and the city has study results to back that up. I did my own personal survey that backs this up too.

What a person riding a bike on Lombard will typically find, is long stretches of the street...I'll guess 400-500, feet with no cars parked at the curb. It's correct that a person riding a bike isn't obliged to ride in the parking area, but at least my experience is that with parked cars far and few between, the natural thing to do is to pull in there if faster motor vehicle traffic, (example; 2-3 cars) is behind, allowing it to pass. Sometimes it works, but sometimes the timing is awkward and dangerous.

Mostly as you described it, Lombard is a residential street that leans towards becoming a busy thoroughfare during commute hours. As population increases, the street will be under pressure to move more people. Logically, a greater percentage of those people being moved by bike rather than personal car makes sense from a number of perspectives. Just getting rid of those few parked cars would make conditions far better for all road users.

I'm no authority on the subject, but suspect there's a number of reasons streets are inadequately equipped to provide clearance for safe parking. A lot of them were plotted long ago, and have been gradually widened over time as has Lombard. Arrangements have to be made with adjoining property owners for the needed space, which costs money.

"...The problem with signs is that according to multiple sources in the City's Public Works/Engineering Departments, they get tuned out. People just don't see them after a while, and they clutter up the field of view. ..." K'Tesh

I ran the idea of more 'parking restricted/parking allowed' signs past someone the other day. They also were dubious about the signs being acknowledged and complied with. Their thought seemed reasonable, but lower Lombard form Farmington up to 6th or 7th already has parking restriction signs; aren't people acknowledging and complying with them? I guess I'd like to hear further explanation from the City's Public Works/Engineering Departments as to why they feel additional signs would be treated different than the already existing ones.

07-01-2010, 06:18 PM
but lower Lombard form Farmington up to 6th or 7th already has parking restriction signs; aren't people acknowledging and complying with them? I guess I'd like to hear further explanation from the City's Public Works/Engineering Departments as to why they feel additional signs would be treated different than the already existing ones.

Because the current signs on Lombard come with the wonderful promise of parking tickets and towing. Having 20 "Bikes on Road" or "Share the Road" signs don't have the same kind of motivation. The real problem is enforcement. How can we expect that someone who parks their car at 6pm will have it out of the way by 6am. The locals would end up leaving the car out too late, then it's a problem for cyclists again, until the cars get moved/removed. ;)

07-01-2010, 10:03 PM
Because the current signs on Lombard come with the wonderful promise of parking tickets and towing. Having 20 "Bikes on Road" or "Share the Road" signs don't have the same kind of motivation. The real problem is enforcement. How can we expect that someone who parks their car at 6pm will have it out of the way by 6am. The locals would end up leaving the car out too late, then it's a problem for cyclists again, until the cars get moved/removed. ;)

Additional signs could either prohibit parking entirely, or allow for it during certain designated hours of the day or year. I've mentioned the idea in earlier comments. Whether or not people parking during limited allowed hours would be responsible enough to have their cars moved by the time restricted hours arrived, is a good question. It should work; parking tickets are expensive. City of Portland seems happy to take people's money for parking violations. I don't have any particular reason to believe the City of Beaverton would be any less happy to do so.

I kind of think they would though, partly because there are very few people actually using the street for parking. People encountering cars parked in the bike lane would file a report, and the message would get around. Still, I'm kind of resigned to the likelihood that there will either be striped bike lanes or none at all, and that the traffic division and Beaverton City Council wouldn't just go for clearing the street of parking by the use of signs. We'll have to wait and see what the members decide to do.

One problem I see with the absence of striped bike lanes to indicate to them that bike use is prioritized for the right 5' of the street, is that motor vehicle drivers might assume they were just driving on a really wide lane, and be inclined to drive further to the right than would be in the best interest of bike traffic. Striped bike lanes, or at least those little squares of white material often seen used on other areas of a road way to indicate divisions of roadways, would more clearly inform road users what the 5' shoulder was there for.

I feel bad for neighbors that are faced with this change, even though not all of their concerns are likely valid. In my walk around, I think the lady with the long, thick grey black hair was the neighbor that took time out to talk with me about her perspective on installation of the bike lanes. She's game for loss of parking on one, but not both sides of the street, to allow for a bike lane.

She's a nice gal, and a long time resident. I got a kick out of how she introduced to the council, what she had to say that night; Something on the order of: 'thought this was all settled....heard it wasn't, so I had to take time off work to come here tonight...so you guys wouldn't go and decide to do something behind my back...'.

Whether it's striped lines, little squares, or signs, the city needs to do something to further establish this street as one that's emphasizing an increase in non-motor vehicle traffic rather than vice versa. It might have to get creative in order to accomplish this without undue inconvenience to the neighbors.

07-02-2010, 12:15 PM
The video of 6/28's meeting (http://beaverton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=656) is up.

I'm the very last person speaking during the Public Hearing. The Hearing began at the 2nd half of the City Council Meeting.

Rubberside Down!

07-03-2010, 10:25 PM
No comment...just ran across this holiday animated smiley that was kinda cute, celebrating the national holiday:


Watch your fingers with them fireworks!

By the way....if I got this right...for all you bike advocacy troopers, the next meeting of the Beaverton Bike Advisory Board is this Tuesday the 6th, 6:30pm.

07-04-2010, 08:50 PM
I have a hard time understanding why residential streets (which Lombard might be considered, although it is sort of a main thoroughfare), if they were intended for residents to use for parking, are so narrow. On my street, if there are cars parked on both sides, two cars traveling in opposite directions have a difficult time passing each other. What kind of design decision was this? Was it intended to be a traffic calming measure? If traffic calming was the goal, why is it done on streets with speed limits greater than 20mph?

Maybe there is a different way to go at this.

We want a safe and calm route for north/south travel.
The residents want to keep their on street parking.
It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine the residents on Lombard would like "their road" to be a low traffic road like it used to be. More residential and less thoroughfare-y.

Is there a way to discourage through traffic without making the road impassible to residents? If the automotive traffic was reduced to the actual neighborhood residents driving in and out it would probably be about as calm as a MUP.

What sort of road treatments would do this?
I can only think of draconian things like red-light cameras at every light and maybe unmanned photo radar speed cameras setup every few blocks; as reprehensible as all those camera things might be it would definitely discourage people who are trying to beat traffic on Hall.

07-05-2010, 12:24 PM
Q`ztal ...nobody answered yet, so I'll write away some more ...

probably wouldn't work to directly discourage motor vehicle traffic from using Lombard as a route for through travel. It's too important as a connector street. Increasingly so after the improvements made to the sections of Lombard between Canyon and Farmington in conjumction with the WES diesel train installation.

The feeling I have, is that people living on Lombard don't have any thoughts that their street has a chance of going back to being a narrower road less traveled by motor vehicles than it is today. More likely is just the opposite.

Still, they don't want to lose their freedom to park on the street. They consider biking on the street to be too dangerous, but somewhat contradictorily to me....not too dangerous to park on the street and have to carefully wait for a break in traffic to open the drivers side door exposed to passing traffic, and exit the car.

Interesting thing to me, listening to some of the people speaking in opposition to bike lane installation on Lombard, is that at least a couple of these people prefaced some of their remarks by saying "I don't have anything against the cyclists ...". That and noting these peoples general appearance, and that that they made no mention of personally being someone that rides a bike...at all...led me to wonder what kind of idea some of them had about who the people riding bikes up and down Lombard were, and what the reason for their choice in using a bike was.

Lombard is a very important connector street for Beaverton, that's probably only going to get more important as time proceeds. Study a map or come out here and ride it yourself to see, if you aren't already familiar with it.

Removing those parked cars serving as obstacles to continuous free flow of bike traffic to the right side of the street, could make the street a particularly good connector route for increases in non-motor vehicle traffic, through, and between important points within Beaverton. More bike pedestrian traffic present on the street would enhance and sustain the streets' functionality and livability, and help to naturally discourage increases in motor vehicle use of the street.

The street could benefit from a top speed of 20mph. That would quiet the sound of passing motor vehicles, which has a significant, adverse effect on the streets' livability.

07-11-2010, 10:38 PM
I went to the City of Beaverton's City Council feedback page, at http://www.beavertonoregon.gov/council/members/comments.aspx
before the June 28th meeting. FYI, here's the comments I submitted, slightly edited:

In regards to TC666, the proposed Lombard bicycle lane, which the Council is scheduled to consider as Agenda Bill 10141 at the 6/28/2010 council meeting:

I am in favor but with modifications (see below.) I will probably not be able to attend tomorrow's meeting, so I am submitting my comments through your web form. Thank you for making this available.

I would propose a compromise: stripe bike lanes on Lombard north of 5th, only. There is already no parking there.

Any surface street is already a bicycle route. As a bicyclist, I am not restricted to just riding streets which have bike lanes. So, I am entitled to ride up and down Lombard as it is currently configured. And I have ridden Lombard, but not recently. As I recall, it's worse than some streets I've ridden. It's better than others, such as east-bound Beaverton-Hillsdale between Scholls and Laurelwood; or the Beaverton-Hillsdale/Oleson/Scholls intersection, traveling from BH to Scholls, westbound.

When I travel by bicycle in the Hall/Lombard/Denney area, I either go on Hall, even with its disappearing bike lanes at Allen. Or I take the King-Lee-11th-Alger-5th-Lombard connection.

Having said that, it's more comfortable for the typical bicyclist to have a bike lane. And, for some bicyclists, even a bike lane on a street with lots of cars is too scary a prospect. For those less confident bicyclists, municipalities have provided off-street facilities such as the Fanno Creek trail. However, that trail terminates at Denney near 217. One purpose of this proposed Lombard bike lane is to provide connectivity between the end of that trail and the Beaverton Transit Center. For this group of less confident bicyclists, there is not an off-street trail option.

However, it seems to me, directing the less confident "I want to ride on a trail when at all possible" bicycle traffic onto the the King-Lee-11th-Alger-5th-Lombard connection is an alternative to Lombard. It's a more complicated route than simply going down Denney and making a right at Lombard. But, I think that with adequate signage, it's do-able. It also has the advantage of not getting the City involved in a court case with the neighborhood because it requires no loss of parking.

The disadvantage of this is that it does not create an alternative to the missing link in the bicycle lane on Hall at Allen.

As Mr. Khasho explained at the hearing on March 4, the reason for the gap is that removing the gas station at Hall and Allen drove up the price beyond the available funds because there was a need for environmental remediation. Furthermore, if I recall Mr. Khasho's comments, instead of just installing bike lanes, the project's scope expanded to include extra turn lanes on Hall.

I don't understand why a bicycle lane project requires extra motor vehicle turn lanes.

Also, I don't understand why the city is on the hook for fixing contamination caused by the current or former gas stations on the corners of Hall and Allen. Why are not the current property owners responsible for that remediation? They are responsible for the problem. They should be the ones to pay for fixing it.

Finally, Traffic Commissioner Reynolds needs to be asked to step down from the Traffic Commission. His asking questions of the audience and introducing new information for the panel to consider, after the close of the hearing, was in my opinion, improper. Chairman Knees should have stopped that, immediately, or re-opened the public hearing so that those of us who were attending could respond to Commissioner Reynolds' newly introduced testimony. When I was a Planning Commissioner for the City of Beaverton, we did not run hearings like that.

Another reason to ask Commissioner Reynolds to step down was that the evidence he introduced was incorrect. (see the bottom of page 18 or top of page 19 of the meeting minutes, which is pages 41 and 42 of your agenda item.) Bicyclists do pay for roads, through our property taxes and income taxes. And even if we did not, the roads are part of the commons which anyone can use. The League of American Bicyclists argues this point better than I can; see http://www.bikeleague.org/action/trashtalk/payyourway.php




07-11-2010, 10:49 PM
See this link (http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=127800540484149600) for the Valley Times coverage of this issue.

The Beaverton City Council is supposed to consider this issue again on July 19, which is about a week from now.

07-14-2010, 10:28 PM
re; setha's post, 'What I wrote to City Council re Lombard bike lanes':

I won't copy and paste it here (kind of similar in content to what I've previously written on this topic on threads here in the forum ...more concise though.), but I put something together on the bike lanes (in support of) on Lombard proposal to send to city hall.

It was setha's mention that got me focused on putting it together. So thanks!

I may make it over to the next City Council public hearing on the issue. Are we sure it's happening July 19. Always a disappointment to get over there and discover I've got the wrong day. I can look it up, but if anyone already knows for sure, might as well say.

Really don't like inconveniencing the neighbors by having them lose their street parking. It's unfortunate though, that the bike is still so commonly thought of as something people with serious business to take care of, would not seriously consider using as their transportation to do that business. I'm really curious to see whether, and to what degree bike lanes on this street may encourage more people to consider the bike for a trip to Beav Town Sq Fred's, Beav transit center, Cedar Hills Crossing, and so on.

07-15-2010, 12:02 AM
Forwarded message from a member of the BBAC

FYI - TC 666 Lombard bike lanes has been taken off the 7/19 Council meeting agenda. They are looking as an August date right now. I’ll let you know if I find out anything.
Also, I am out of the office all next week and back in 7/19. If you have any Bike Beaverton issues, I can address them when I return.
Margaret Middleton, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Beaverton Engineering / PO Box 4755 Beaverton / OR 97076-4755

07-18-2010, 07:11 AM
Spotted a segment on Fox 12 today talking about the bike lanes on Lombard. Didn't seem to have any real bias. Wish I would have known they were out there, I'd love to give them a sound bite or two.

07-18-2010, 10:38 AM
I believe Fox 12's studio is in Beaverton, so it may be more convenient for their crew to do this story than it is some others. Here's hoping they keep up with the story as further developments take place. Might take doing this for a wider sector of Beaverton's public to become more aware of what's going on with efforts to improve this street's use by vehicles other than motor vehicles.

Just in the mail yesterday from the City of Beaverton Dept of Public Works (I'm retyping here, select info from the page I received):

Courtesy Notice of


Action Item

On Monday, August 16, 2010, Beaverton City Council will discuss Agenda Bill No. 10141: Traffic Commission Issue TC 666 "Striping of Bike Lanes and Parking Revisions on SW Lombard Avenue between 1st Street and Denney Road." .....

Goes on to say....meetings begin at 6:30pm at Forest Soth Chamber, etc. etc. No further oral testimony. More info, cal City Transportation Engineer Jabra Khasho..503 526 2221

So I hope many people hear of this project and carefully consider the issues involved, because they're serious matters. They concern how the public's tax money is spent and to what extent this project is a prudent expenditure. The project is a further example of how the public's capital can be applied to offer some relief to city residents generally dependent on motor vehicles to take care of so many routine chores on their list in the course of a day, week, month or year.

Change can be a hassle, but sometimes it turns out to be worth it for everyone involved.

Here's a not specifically related side note that occurred to me as I was typing this post up: I may try to get myself off the Engineering Dept's physical mailing list, if it has a reliable email notification procedure my email address can be added to.

Postmark on the envelope the courtesy notice came it says it cost .36 to send out. My math ability has never been strong, but .36 seems to work out to $36.00 to send this notice out to one hundred people...$360.00 for 1000 people. That gets to be a lot of money, not to mention time and labor to maintain the machines that print the paper and stuff the envelopes. Not everyone has a computer or access to one pick up email notifications, but for those that do, opting for email over physical mail could be a way to help taxpayers save some dough.

07-20-2010, 03:28 PM
I've made it a priority to ride Lombard lately to make my presence known and I have noticed more bike traffic on it while doing so. Maybe others have the same idea in mind. Usually I see 0-2 people (around 7am) but I've seen 4-6 from 5th to Denney. Does anyone else have problems triggering the signal at the intersection of Lombard and Allen heading South? I can't get it to work even with a steel bike.

07-22-2010, 11:51 AM
I've made it a priority to ride Lombard lately to make my presence known and I have noticed more bike traffic on it while doing so. Maybe others have the same idea in mind. Usually I see 0-2 people (around 7am) but I've seen 4-6 from 5th to Denney. Does anyone else have problems triggering the signal at the intersection of Lombard and Allen heading South? I can't get it to work even with a steel bike.

yosh...saw your comment a couple days ago, but didn't respond, thinking that others might. More people offering their thoughts...here and elsewhere...about use of Lombard with bikes would probably be a big help towards installation of the bike lanes there.

I've got a good feeling that people riding bikes use the street more on the weekends. As a way of introducing the street's viability for daily bike travel, Beaverton could perhaps consider bike route tours using Lombard from neighborhoods around Denny and Allen over to the Library. This would be one key destination, but for points further north also, Lombard is an attractive choice...for some people, it's likely to be ever more so with bike lanes.

Couldn't say about the signal sensor. If I use the street, it's usually later in the day when plenty of cars are present to trip the signal. I've noted people saying that once over where a sensor is likely to be, lay the bike over as much as you can without actually dismounting, as a means of providing more metal surface for the sensor to detect. With some signal duration times as long as they are, it can at times be hard to tell if this makes any difference. Worth keeping in mind and trying though.

07-29-2010, 04:26 AM
Henry Kane wrote in to the July 22 Valley Times to oppose the Lombard bike lanes. Henry Kane, for those who don't know of him, is a frequent critic of Beaverton city government, and has run unsuccessfully for city council at least once. Here's a partial quote:

Council should nix Lombard bike lane

On Monday, Aug. 16, the Beaverton City Council may decide whether to protect or injure Lombard Avenue homeowners and livability of their well-maintained middle and upper middle class neighborhood, including the multi-acre Biggi estate on Lombard. The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m.

At issue is whether to forbid homeowners and guests parking in front of homes for the benefit of a handful of special-interest bikers....

Click here (http://www.beavertonvalleytimes.com/opinion/story.php?story_id=127976312044738800) for the complete letter.

07-29-2010, 09:15 AM
Kane's correct on some of the points he raises in the letter, but unfortunately distorts others with hyperbole, rhetoric and perhaps plain old incorrect assumptions.

"...well-maintained middle and upper middle class neighborhood, including the multi-acre Biggi estate on Lombard. ..." Kane

True, Vose residences and properties are well maintained, but modestly so. Ain't got no fancy pants landscaping on Lombard. Even the Biggi Estate (that would likely be south of Allen...didn't know who's it was, but it's the single largest private lot on Lombard), has down to earth wooded grounds, no big fancy lawn.

Except for the Biggi's, I'd probably not agree that the neighborhood's adjoining Lombard, or the residents, are upper middle class, except of course, for the Biggi's. The neighborhoods are middle and lower middle class neighborhoods; no big fancy houses, no luxury cars out front...quite a number of rental residences on Lombard housing people of all colors. I'll check again though, next time I'm riding through. Maybe there are more upper middle class people residing here than I'd noticed in past.

Henry's statement: "... At issue is whether to forbid homeowners and guests parking in front of homes for the benefit of a handful of special-interest bikers ..."

Bike lanes on Lombard would not particularly be for the benefit of special interest bikers, such as it might be argued that off-road bikers are, or athletic racer inclined road bike riders are. The idea behind bike lanes on Lombard has in mind the needs and interests of the general public, consistent with the kind of general purpose bike riding the general public is most inclined to take part in where there's places provided to do it.

Henry's statement: "... If the council votes for the scheme, scores of Lombard homeowners will lose substantial resale value. Homeowners may not be able to find buyers for their homes. ..."

I'd like to see him prove that scores of homeowners will lose value. Having walked the street myself, it's not at all clear to me that the ability to park on the street is critical to the value of properties there. I do get the feeling that the presence of bike lanes on the street would, in the minds of certain kinds of future buyers, enhance the value of property they would be looking to buy.

Kane's a lawyer...I can't wait to watch him attempt to prove that homeowners with property adjoining Lombard will lose resale on their homes or not be able to find buyers because of not being able to park on the street out front of their house.

Henry's statement: "...I walk regularly on Lombard and Farmington Road. Often I step aside for sidewalk-riding bikers on those two streets and on Hall Boulevard at Denney. ..."

I'd say Henry's right on with that statement. Lot's of people do seem to ride on the sidewalk, which might be alright, if they all rode sl-o-o-o-l-y, which they don't, and if they exercised due consideration for people on foot, which they also don't do. Henry's an older guy too...slower and more fragile than younger folk. Imaging the impression people riding irresponsibly on sidewalks are making on the demographic he represents...from a politicians perspective: the constituency he represents.

Henry's statement: "... Mayor Doyle should require speakers to say whether they are Beaverton residents. Non-resident testimony should be disregarded. ..."

I didn't notice speakers weren't announcing their residency. Most seemed to at the last city council public hearing I went to. I know I clearly said I was a Central Beaverton resident. As to the question of whether non-resident testimony on the issue of bike lanes on Lombard should be disregarded, I'd say it shouldn't. At least some non-residents are likely using Lombard for travel purposes. If they're currently driving on this street, and might feel encouraged to use a bike instead if bike lanes were there, this could be beneficial to an even wider segment of Beaverton's population than the immediate residents of Lombard. We should all want to know these speakers view on the subject.

There's nothing inherently wrong in being a critic. Critics can be important and constructive in bringing about positive change. Having lived in Beaverton awhile, I know a bit about Kane. He's long been a figure in Beaverton politics. Don't know whether he's held office, but he's articulate and smart. Being a lawyer, he knows the law. His interpretation of the law may sometimes be at odds with that of other people's, but that's the way it is with people and the law.

I don't recall specifics about Kane's position on the issues, over the years. I suppose he's indisputably conservative. On some issues where it seemed people were searching for clarification, it seems like he came out in favor of justice though. His comments get published regularly in the papers. So, like it or not, he's more of a voice of the public than a lot of us may ever hope to be. Add to that, he's up there in years. I'll count myself lucky if I do half as well when I'm as old as he is.

08-12-2010, 08:40 PM
Just a reminder again, that this coming Monday, which will be August 16th...Beaverton City Council will reportedly be discussing the plan to stripe Lombard Avenue for bike lanes (can't remember for sure, but think it's 6:30pm).

Not being particularly familiar with how local governments deal with things, I'm also not sure what will be happening with this issue that night. Opportunity for public testimony may be closed for this particular evening (it was an option on earlier City Council meetings). Will this be the evening the council votes 'yay or nay?' on the plan? I don't know. Hopefully, the council will show that it's tried to make at least some offers to neighbors uncomfortable with the plan, that would ease possible difficulties associated with adjusting to a change on their street.

What I personally do hope, is that by some means or another, parking is prohibited from the street, at least during key commute hours. That alone would enhance the streets usability for a greater range of transportation type cyclists, than the streets current parking provision allows. Striped bike lanes might be further valuable towards accomplishing this, but not applying them to the street could save money.

08-14-2010, 04:09 AM
The Beaverton City Council agenda for 8/16 (http://beaverton.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=87) includes TC666, the Lombard bicycle lane, under Action Items.

From the agenda bill: (http://beaverton.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=87&meta_id=32988) 06/28/10: Public hearing was held. Hearing was closed but record was left open to submit written correspondence. Issue continued to meeting of August 16. 2010.

The agenda bill also has the staff report, diagrams, but does not include the earlier correspondence on the issue. The agenda bill does include a letter dated 8/12 from Bjoern Brunner Beaverton Bicycle Advisory Committee Chair, urging that the council support bike lanes on Lombard. Mr. Brunner's letter also includes some interesting history of a similar conflict about bike lanes on 5th.

I do not know if "issue continued" means another public hearing or the council will just vote on the matter. If you really care about this issue, just showing up to witness the vote may help sway a council member who has not made up their mind, particularly if you are dressed like a bicyclist.

I'm not sure if I'm going. I've got another government meeting on Wednesday that I want to go to (see my next post.)

Also on the council agenda: second reading of the chickens in the backyards ordinance.

08-16-2010, 10:35 AM
Meeting is tonight!

If you're following Jonathan's Tweet, you can link back to the discussion here (http://www.bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3500).

Here's the Agenda (http://beaverton.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=87).


AUGUST 16, 2010
6:30 PM




Preparedness Month: September 2010

Proclamation Preparedness Month


10164 Overview of the Washington County Cooperative Library Services Levy of November 2, 2010, Ballot Measure No. 34-180

Agenda Bill 10164
10165 Presentation on the Washington County Public Safety Local Option Levy

Agenda Bill 10165
10166 Metro Urban Growth Boundary Update (Community Development Director Don Mazziotti)

Agenda Bill 10166



Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 19, 2010

Draft Minutes for 071910
10167 Authorize the Mayor to Sign an Amendment to the Intergovernmental Agreement with Washington County, Oregon, to Continue to Participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Awarded to the City of Portland (Emergency Operations Manager Mike Mumaw) (Resolution No. 4035)

Agenda Bill 10167
10168 Approve Application for ODOT Transportation Enhancements Program (Economic and Capital Development Director Gary Brentano) (Resolution No. 4036)

Agenda Bill 10168
Contract Review Board:

10169 A Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Lease with Housing Independence, Inc., for the Property Located at 6160 SW Main Avenue, Beaverton (Asst. City Attorney Bill Kirby/Property Manager Patricia Van Osdel) (Resolution No. 4037)

Agenda Bill 10169

10141 Traffic Commission Issue No.: TC 666 - Striping of Bike Lanes and Parking Revisions on SW Lombard Avenue, Between First Street and Denney Road (Carried over from the Council meeting of June 28, 2010) (Economic and Capital Development Director Gary Brentano)

Agenda Bill 10141

Second Reading:

10161 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance 4521, the Beaverton Municipal Code, to Allow Residents to Keep a Limited Number of Chickens in Their Back Yards, Subject to Certain Restrictions (Principal Planner Steve Sparks/Associate Planner Ken Rencher) (Ordinance No. 4549)

Agenda Bill 10161
10162 An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2050, the Zoning Map, ZMA 2010-0009, Legislative Zoning Map Amendment to Property Zoned R-3.5 in the North Part of the City (Principal Planner Steve Sparks) (Ordinance No. 4550)

Agenda Bill 10162


This information is available in large print or audio tape upon request. In addition, assistive listening devices, sign language interpreters, or qualified bilingual interpreters will be made available at any public meeting or program with 72 hours advance notice. To request these services, please call 503-526-2222/voice TDD.

If you're following Jonathan's Tweet, you can link back to the discussion here (http://www.bikeportland.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3500).

08-16-2010, 07:41 PM
In a unanimous decision the Beaverton City Council decided that they will remove some on street parking and paint bike lanes on SW Lombard!

08-18-2010, 07:42 PM
Was interviewed by KOIN 6 tonight while I was riding on SW Lombard. Details @ 11.