Hazardous Obstacles on the Sunset MUP

[K'Tesh]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

While researching for those images I noticed that I had not read through the entire bicycle section, only pieces.
I am doing so and noticed the equation as well. You failed to take in to account one thing about my draft images: your photos have no scale.
I could not reasonably have made anything other than an approximation.

I was tempted to take my 100' tape measure out to get a propper engineering plot until I remembered that PortlandMaps.org will most likely have all the details plotted out in their maps database.

Also: with all this traffic sign wonkery shouldn't we relocate this line of conversation to an "All about West side" thread?

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.

I wasn't trying to put down your images. They are really quite good for the little info you had to go with, and give us all something to think about.

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.

[wsbob]

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.

[q`Tzal]

Originally Posted by wsbob

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?

Originally Posted by wsbob

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.

Originally Posted by wsbob

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.

Originally Posted by K'Tesh

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!

Originally Posted by K'Tesh

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.

Originally Posted by K'Tesh

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.

[wsbob]

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.

[lynnef]

Q'ztal - NICE WORK!

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

[q`Tzal]

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.

[wsbob]

Originally Posted by q`Tzal

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. ..."

[Psyfalcon]

Part of the reason TO go that fast is that it is so well blocked off from the highway, and the neighborhood. It doesn't equal the sketchyness of the Waterfront path, but I don't want to be going slow, or to have a flat on it. I don't think I've ever gone over 30 there, but I do try and stay well over 20.

I do disagree with the post about it having a lot of blind entrances. I can only count three entrances, besides where it intersects major roads, one where it is on the north side of the highway, and this one at 79th, and another down by SW Catherine, where it is much flatter.

At the very least, I'm in favor of the right side white line, reflectors or a hazard sign, and trimming that bush back.

[q`Tzal]

I don't like the blind corner in the initial pics that I modded (I thought it was @ 78th but background seem to indicate it is 79th) but the most dangerous one seems to me to at 78th.

I say this because it is so easy to come off of SW Pointer Rd with far too much speed. It really wouldn't hurt to have a "Bikes Yield to Peds" sign at every entrance.

Trimming back enough brush growth would be nice but PortlandMaps.org indicates that each of these blind corner spots is a currently occupied Single Family Residence meaning that the land owner is responsible. At the very least the W2-2 sign (Left Side T-Intersection warning sign)

could be placed in advance to tip off the inevitable speed racer that they are on the highway to the danger zone.

Section 9B.16 Intersection Warning Signs (W2 Series)
Option:
01 Intersection Warning (W2-1 through W2-5) signs (see Figure 9B-3) may be used on a roadway, street, or shared-use path in advance of an intersection to indicate the presence of an intersection and the possibility of turning or entering traffic.
Guidance:
02 When engineering judgment determines that the visibility of the intersection is limited on the shared-use path approach, Intersection Warning signs should be used.

[K'Tesh]

As I was biking to school this morning, I went past the area, and encountered an ODOT truck. I asked the guy if he was going to do anything about the unsafe conditions, and he told me that he was responding to a graffitti complaint at the location.

He admired my bike, and said he was going to look things over. I don't know if he's going to remove the yellow paint, or not. However, he said he rides bikes too, so there's hope.