Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org)

Go Back   Portland Bike Forums (by BikePortland.org) > General Discussion > General Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:28 PM
K'Tesh's Avatar
K'Tesh K'Tesh is offline
Super Moderator
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Subject To Change
Posts: 2,742
Exclamation Hazardous Obstacles on the Sunset MUP

Back in Feb, I was riding on the Hwy 26 MUP between Portland and Beaverton, when I noticed that the Worst Day of the Year Ride's route had been marked along my commute route. However, no effort was made to identify three hazardous street lamp bases that jut into the MUP. It seems that whenever I ride through there, it's inevitable that someone will be walking, or cycling against me, so I need to keep to the right as I'm cruising downhill. It got me thinking...
2000 riders, going past these things 2 or 3 abreast, and we've got an accident waiting to happen.



I brought this to ODOT, but they didn't do anything. I also informed the ride's planners, and they could only temporarily mark the street lamps. Not long afterwards, the markings were taken down, or wore off. So, back in June, I applied some reflective tape to the lampposts, and I tried painting the bases with pavement marking paint (I also superglued some reflectors to it, but they aren't holding up).



The paint faded... (continued in pt 2)
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike

Last edited by K'Tesh; 09-26-2011 at 10:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-22-2011, 01:29 PM
K'Tesh's Avatar
K'Tesh K'Tesh is offline
Super Moderator
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Subject To Change
Posts: 2,742
Question Hazardous Obstacles on the Sunset MUP

Continued from pt 1

The paint faded...



So, I obtained some self-adhesive, foil backed, reflective lane marking tape...



I used up all that I had (only was able to do two of the three, but I got the worst of them).

Let's see how it holds up. My next idea is to use some of the reflective glass microbeads that I have scooped up over the years, mix it with some AB Urethane casting material and pigment, and pour that over the things if ODOT doesn't do something soon.

Can we get a permanent solution to this installed? Perhaps something like this?



It's a 4" wide thermoplastic stripe that warns cyclists of the hazard ahead.

Replies are welcomed.

Thanks

Last edited by K'Tesh; 11-18-2011 at 06:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-22-2011, 10:27 PM
q`Tzal's Avatar
q`Tzal q`Tzal is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwix logic and emotion, reason and insanity.
Posts: 354
Default Q: Back up on the Hwy 26 MUP

Any idea how your fixes are being removed?

Who built this path and who is ultimately responsible for its maintenance?
Is this responsible party different from the party responsible for the obstructing light poles themselves?

I find myself wondering if there isn't some bureaucratic turf battle over what is allowed to be done to fix this.

As a geek I've got a current copy of the MUTCD and have full sized and situationally scaled templates of the mandated signage that would be required by law if these light pole bases protruded in to a "real" road. The fixes I have pondered would be scale and speed appropriate for this MUP environment. There area many useful engineering equations in the MUTCD.

I "found" some unused pieces of Corex on roadsides that I intended to use as the sign board. Signs would be similar to Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions.

I recovered the composite spring loaded spars from some trashed pop-up safety cone "Wet Floor" signs. The idea being that the spring portion would be at the base so when someone came by and hit the sign it would give way.

Looking in the workplace safety catalogs I figured out how to mount the sign bases to concrete such that it would take a hammer and chisel to remove the base. Even tested a way to keep the steel spring flexible but protected from weather and rusting.

I've got this idea about "painting" road markings (per Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions) for the obstructions. In this case "painting" would involve abrading a strip of the concrete where I would embed a thin layer of retro reflective beads in white tinted epoxy. If done right the epoxy and reflective material would be embedded in the surface still being visible but allowing traction: like chewing gum.

All this planning is for naught if someone is removing these things.
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-22-2011, 11:33 PM
K'Tesh's Avatar
K'Tesh K'Tesh is offline
Super Moderator
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Subject To Change
Posts: 2,742
Question Fixes being removed? Or just wearing off?

Quote:
Originally Posted by q`Tzal View Post
Any idea how your fixes are being removed?

Who built this path and who is ultimately responsible for its maintenance?
Is this responsible party different from the party responsible for the obstructing light poles themselves?


All this planning is for naught if someone is removing these things.
I have no idea who is removing the reflectors, however there is a school nearby, and it's possible that some kids may be "liberating" them.

The paint just simply faded. To get the adhesive of the foil lane markings to stick, I decided to scrub the bases with a wire brush. I don't know how effective this will be, as it is a "temporary" lane marking and I'm out of CA glue to try to seal the edges.

ODOT is the party responsible for the construction and maintenance of the MUP, but for some reason, that I can't figure out, they don't see the risk. I doubt that there's a concerted effort to counter my attempts to improve the visibility on their part.

As to the options posed by you, I'm going to have to investigate, as I'm not entirely familiar with some of them.

[EDIT]
Quote:
Originally Posted by q`Tzal View Post
I've got this idea about "painting" road markings (per Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions) for the obstructions. In this case "painting" would involve abrading a strip of the concrete where I would embed a thin layer of retro reflective beads in white tinted epoxy. If done right the epoxy and reflective material would be embedded in the surface still being visible but allowing traction: like chewing gum.
I have some AB Urethane casting material, and retro-reflective beads, but I'm thinking about marking the base itself (in a Hwy Yellow, but I lack the pigments), not the sidewalk leading up to it. Problem is that this stuff is EXPENSIVE... and I've got other plans for it.

I've sent another one of my shotgun emails to several agencies, members of the press, and injury attorneys. I doubt that this can be now be blown off as easily, now that 15 pairs of eyes (not including forum members) are now focused on the issue. [/EDIT]
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike

Last edited by K'Tesh; 09-22-2011 at 11:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-23-2011, 07:12 AM
K'Tesh's Avatar
K'Tesh K'Tesh is offline
Super Moderator
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Subject To Change
Posts: 2,742
Default Ooh, Ahh... The Language of Traffic Engineers...

Thanks for doing your homework q`Tzal!

I'm going to use this in my next email...

Quote:






Section 2C.64 Object Markers for Obstructions Within the Roadway
Standard:
01 Obstructions within the roadway shall be marked with a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker. In addition to markers on the face of the obstruction, warning of approach to the obstruction shall be given by appropriate pavement markings (see Section 3B.10).
Option:
02 To provide additional emphasis, a Type 1 or Type 3 object marker may be installed at or near the approach end of a median island.
03 To provide additional emphasis, large surfaces such as bridge piers may be painted with diagonal stripes, 12 inches or greater in width, similar in design to the Type 3 object marker.
Standard:
04 The alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-L, OM3-R) shall be sloped down at an angle of 45 degrees toward the side on which traffic is to pass the obstruction. If traffic can pass to either side of the obstruction, the alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes (OM3-C) shall form chevrons that point upwards.
Option:
05 Appropriate signs (see Sections 2B.32 and 2C.25) directing traffic to one or both sides of the obstruction may be used instead of the object marker.

Section 2C.65 Object Markers for Obstructions Adjacent to the Roadway
Support:
01 Obstructions not actually within the roadway are sometimes so close to the edge of the road that they need a marker. These include underpass piers, bridge abutments, handrails, ends of traffic barriers, utility poles, and culvert headwalls. In other cases there might not be a physical object involved, but other roadside conditions exist, such as narrow shoulders, drop-offs, gores, small islands, and abrupt changes in the roadway alignment, that might make it undesirable for a road user to leave the roadway, and therefore would create a need for a marker.
Standard:
02 If a Type 2 or Type 3 object marker is used to mark an obstruction adjacent to the roadway, the edge of the object marker that is closest to the road user shall be installed in line with the closest edge of the obstruction.
03 Where Type 3 object markers are applied to the approach ends of guardrail and other roadside appurtances, sheeting without a substrate shall be directly affixed to the approach end of the guardrail in a rectangular shape conforming to the size of the approach end of the guardrail with alternating black and retroreflective yellow stripes sloping downward at a angle of 45 degrees toward the side of the obstruction on which traffic is to pass.
04 Type 1 and Type 4 object markers shall not be used to mark obstructions adjacent to the roadway.
Guidance:
05 Standard warning signs in this Chapter should also be used where applicable.
Quote:
Section 3B.10 Approach Markings for Obstructions
Standard:
01 Pavement markings shall be used to guide traffic away from fixed obstructions within a paved roadway. Approach markings for bridge supports, refuge islands, median islands, toll plaza islands, and raised channelization islands shall consist of a tapered line or lines extending from the center line or the lane line to a point 1 to 2 feet to the right-hand side, or to both sides, of the approach end of the obstruction (see Figure 3B-15).
Figure 3B-15 Examples of Applications of Markings for Obstructions in the Roadway

Support:
02 See Chapter 3E for additional information on approach markings for toll plaza islands.
Guidance:
03 For roadways having a posted or statutory speed limit of 45 mph or greater, the taper length of the tapered line markings should be computed by the formula L = WS. For roadways where the posted or statutory speed limit is less than 45 mph, the formula L = WS2/60 should be used to compute the taper length.
Support:
04 Under both formulas, L equals the taper length in feet, W equals the width of the offset distance in feet, and S equals the 85th-percentile speed or the posted or statutory speed limit, whichever is higher.
Guidance:
05 The minimum taper length should be 100 feet in urban areas and 200 feet in rural areas.
Support:
06 Examples of approach markings for obstructions in the roadway are shown in Figure 3B-15.
Standard:
07 If traffic is required to pass only to the right of the obstruction, the markings shall consist of a two-direction no-passing zone marking at least twice the length of the diagonal portion as determined by the appropriate taper formula (see Drawing A of Figure 3B-15).
Option:
08 If traffic is required to pass only to the right of the obstruction, yellow diagonal crosshatch markings (see Section 3B.24) may be placed in the flush median area between the no-passing zone markings as shown in Drawings A and B of Figure 3B-15. Other markings, such as yellow delineators, yellow channelizing devices, yellow raised pavement markers, and white crosswalk pavement markings, may also be placed in the flush median area.
Standard:
09 If traffic can pass either to the right or left of the obstruction, the markings shall consist of two channelizing lines diverging from the lane line, one to each side of the obstruction. In advance of the point of divergence, a wide solid white line or normal solid double white line shall be extended in place of the broken lane line for a distance equal to the length of the diverging lines (see Drawing C of Figure 3B-15).
Option:
10 If traffic can pass either to the right or left of the obstruction, additional white chevron crosshatch markings (see Section 3B.24) may be placed in the flush median area between the channelizing lines as shown in Drawing C of Figure 3B-15. Other markings, such as white delineators, white channelizing devices, white raised pavement markers, and white crosswalk markings may also be placed in the flush median area.
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-23-2011, 09:09 AM
q`Tzal's Avatar
q`Tzal q`Tzal is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwix logic and emotion, reason and insanity.
Posts: 354
Default

Oh wait a few hours
I'll have some cruddy CGI mockups.
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-25-2011, 11:59 PM
wsbob's Avatar
wsbob wsbob is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,755
Question Hazardous Obstacles on the Sunset MUP

Fellas...nice work on the Sunset MUP obstruction presented by the light pole. I don't ride the path much, but have noticed that pole being kind of scary to approach, even in daytime.

Seems to me Q'tzal's CGI mock-up of the pole with the yellow diagonal 'Path Narrows', 'Pass With Care', and yellow-black stripe lamp pole base markings show up good.


The path edge markings are o.k., but personally, I'm adverse to any more maintenance striping than is necessary. Not saying it might not be necessary here.

I'd say...yes...maybe move these posts to a 'Sunset MUP related' thread in the 'All about the Westside category, or at least post a link there, for people that don't check regularly check the 'What have you done today' thread.

By the way....
"As for the "S" I've been known to approach 40mph on this decent..." K'Tesh
As a note of caution, 40mph seems w-a-a-a-y too fast for safety at any time, under any conditions on this path. 25mph tops seems more like it.

Last edited by K'Tesh; 01-15-2012 at 10:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-26-2011, 10:25 AM
q`Tzal's Avatar
q`Tzal q`Tzal is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Betwix logic and emotion, reason and insanity.
Posts: 354
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
The path edge markings are o.k., but personally, I'm adverse to any more maintenance striping than is necessary.
Yeah some of this is overkill. I was initially using the main automotive section to extrapolate how to do this.
Equations take numbers and the numbers are simply smaller in this case.
The hazard is no less real than it would be if were on a "real" road with "real" road users like cars and trucks.
Back east it is fairly common to drive through small towns that have widened their main drag and find that the lane is narrowed by Historic "X" that CANNOT be moved so I can say my second image is close to how it is handled for automotive situations. Why should we not expect the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
Not saying it might not be necessary here.
I am personally spooked by the path narrowing in the foreground + the blind left side sidewalk entrance + the overall speed potential of heavier riders such as myself coming off of Pointer rd. I haven't seen any conflicts here yet but my sense of paranoia tells me that almost any speed is too much here as peds can suddenly pop on to the MUP from a side street with ZERO visibility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wsbob View Post
I'd say...yes...maybe move these posts to a 'Sunset MUP related' thread in the 'All about the Westside category, or at least post a link there, for people that don't check regularly check the 'What have you done today' thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K'Tesh View Post
As for moving the thread? I think it still applies, as this is according to one of my sources, is still Portland, despite being in Washington County.
I'm all for sharing recent safety improvements but this particular conversation will stray in to dense legalese and engineering interpretations if no one stops me.
Stop me before I geek again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by K'Tesh View Post
Thanks for doing your research, and sharing with us
all... I haven't even begun to read the manual, but I appreciated the info you were able to hook me up with.
Later I'll post some small sections (paragraph at most) and ask for interpretation or opinion on how it affects the goal of affecting improvement here and elsewhere; I'm not so good at legalese.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K'Tesh View Post
I wasn't trying to put down your images. They are really quite good for the little info you had to go with
I'm putting down my images. Did`m with MS Paint cause I've been too busy at home to reinstall photoshop and mocked these up at work. It is a bit of pain trying to extrapolate accurate measurements from a photo without a great deal info on where the camera was.
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-26-2011, 11:06 AM
wsbob's Avatar
wsbob wsbob is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,755
Default

q`Tzal...thanks for the answers back.

Though I haven't ridden the Sunset MUP at night, I recognize the point about lines indicating a narrowing of the path leading up to the pole, being important. I just hope the DOT can be persuaded to officially do something about making this problem point more visible.

As to what jurisdiction the MUP lies within...Washington or Multnomah counties, and how the answer might reflect what bikeportland forums readership the thread would be best presented to; the path runs through both counties...about half and half. The half that's south of Hwy 26...where the pole in question is located, is in Washington County. North of 26 is in Mult. Co.

At any rate, the entire path is effectively on 'The Westside', given that even the north section of the path is on the edge of the western boundary of Multnomah Co. I figure there are people from both counties using the path, that would want to know about its features and improvements to it that are being made.

I'm not sure how I think people may be using the 'What have you done today?' category here in the forums, but one sense I have, is that the category may tend to serve more of an incentive motivator than a information provider. Located in, or linked to in the 'All about the Westside' category might make information about the Sunset MUP more accessible to readers as information.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-26-2011, 11:29 AM
lynnef's Avatar
lynnef lynnef is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 611
Default

Q'ztal - NICE WORK!

I myself would never go 40mph on that path - there's lots of blind entries.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:13 PM.




A production of Pedaltown Media Inc. / BikePortland.org
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.