View Single Post
  #17  
Old 09-26-2011, 05:46 PM
wsbob's Avatar
wsbob wsbob is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,755
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by q`Tzal View Post
The obstructed visibility is a big issue as are the designed safety hazards (light pole foundations).
One of the phantom hazards of this path is the visibility of the path itself behind the noise wall. It is simply "out of sight and out of mind". Because of that the issues that occur on the other side of that wall are easier to ignore.
The number of people that pass this section on the Hwy 26 side probably dwarfs the people that use the MUP or reside adjacent to it by a factor of over 100.
Snidely, and without factual basis, I'd be willing to bet that the primary concern of official maintainers of this path is ensuring that excessive light does not spill over on to the residences. Look at K'Tesh's night pictures of this area in post #316 on this thread: directly under a light pole and there still is insufficient light to keep this from being dangerous.

I was serious about attempting to install some MUTCD compliant safety measures. The more I read of the code the more I can precisely work out what would be within requirements and not break the law. Other than that pesky bit about not being an authorized installer.

If I can work out precise transportation compliant engineering drawings I believe it is possible:
  • have an officailly approved plan
  • collect funding by donation
  • and get it installed
  • either by authorized contractors
  • or by concerned citizens in an approval process that resembles local code approval of house plans and multi stage inspections.

That much planning I think should go to another forum thread.
That much planning I think might be applicable to many other areas.

Seems you've got a good sense of the specs involved in getting an infrastructure problem like this one, legitimately met. Impression I get, is that you're going to take these visual aids you've put together, and send them to whatever jurisdictional authority you've found has responsibility for this section of the trail.

Your visual aids might somewhat help speed up the process of making these improvements, though, no doubt, the public works crew of whoever/whatever would be responsible for doing the work, already has their schedule blocked out for quite some time into the future.

Jumping the hurdles necessary to get the work on a little project like this one, done by concerned citizens, supervised by trained officials, sounds like it would be a major challenge. It's an idea worth thinking about though.
Having greater awareness and support for improvements to the trail on the part of residents living near the trail and hopefully using it, might help. Beaverton's 'Central Beaverton' and 'West Slope' neighborhoods appear, according to Beaverton's map indicating neighborhood association boundaries, to encompass the portion of the path located south of Hwy 26. Link to the map: Beaverton Neighborhood Associations map

Re; getting the work done either by a bureau or dept of transportation, authorized contractor or private citizens: I realize though the following example I'm citing has only a marginal relevance to the Sunset MUP light pole issue, it's worth checking out nonetheless, for the pause for thought it has to offer. From the 9/26 Steve Duin/Oregonian column: Portland, the city that spares no expense/Duin, The Oregonian

"...The new alleys, Aebi said, would be concrete, not asphalt. They "would be built with a proper subgrade ... and stormwater drainage would be improved." The bureau would contribute $77,000 to cover overhead costs, Aebi added, but each of the 21 properties abutting the south alley would be assessed $24,991.

Total cost? $525,000."We all tried to keep a straight face," Greening said.

Why? Because a private contractor, Hal's Construction in Oregon City, bid $54,600 for the job. ..."

Last edited by wsbob; 09-27-2011 at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote