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
  #21  
Old 09-27-2011, 12:16 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
Exclamation Responsible Agency? Confirmed ODOT.

Dear Mr.

The Highway 26 path is managed and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The good folks in "Region 1" are the local contacts. Details can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/contact_us.shtml

Sincerely,

Bruce Barbarasch
Superintendent of Natural Resources and Trails Management
Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District
5500 SW Arctic Drive, Suite 2, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-629-6305
E-Mail: ############@thprd.org
Web: www.thprd.org/nature/home.cfm
Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalresources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question / Comment from patron:
Question Type: Trails

Message:
What agency is responsible for the Sunset Hwy Multi-Use Trail, otherwise known as SW Park Way?
Its location is from approx 45.505676, -122.75445 (SW Pointer Rd near SW 75th Ave) to 45.506878, -122.774494 which was the east terminus of
SW Park Ave for automotive traffic before it was absorbed in to a highway interchange. I have concerns I'd like to address to the proper authorities but no one seems to have jurisdiction.
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-27-2011, 12:22 PM
lynnef's Avatar
lynnef lynnef is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 611
Default

Blind entrances - pedestrians can get onto the path by West Sylvan Middle School (I have seen toddlers zip right out!) and by the church further west.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-27-2011, 01:32 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
Dear Mr.

The Highway 26 path is managed and maintained by the Oregon Department of Transportation. The good folks in "Region 1" are the local contacts. Details can be found at: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/REGION1/contact_us.shtml

Sincerely,

Bruce Barbarasch
Superintendent of Natural Resources and Trails Management
Tualatin Hills Park & Recreation District
5500 SW Arctic Drive, Suite 2, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-629-6305
E-Mail: ############@thprd.org
Web: www.thprd.org/nature/home.cfm
Facebook: www.facebook.com/naturalresources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question / Comment from patron:
Question Type: Trails

Message:
What agency is responsible for the Sunset Hwy Multi-Use Trail, otherwise known as SW Park Way?
Its location is from approx 45.505676, -122.75445 (SW Pointer Rd near SW 75th Ave) to 45.506878, -122.774494 which was the east terminus of
SW Park Ave for automotive traffic before it was absorbed in to a highway interchange. I have concerns I'd like to address to the proper authorities but no one seems to have jurisdiction.

ODOT's baby. No specific person's name/contact info, just ODOT's general 'contact us' page. I'm thinking though, that if you convey word of the situation to them, your CGI illustrations, and the link to the discussion thread, you might get a fairly prompt response.

Some of you reading may remember the discussion we had a year ago, about motor vehicle traffic backed up onto Hwy 30 from the approach to the St Johns Bridge. A commenter going by 'Slow and Easy', raised the issue. I contacted ODOT, and the agency got back to me within 4-5 business days, I seem to recall. Think the way it works, is they take some of the inquiries from the public, and assign them to be answered by various personnel. The guy answering the Hwy 30 questions was very good. Still got his name, if needed, but may be best to go through the standard procedure to start.
A point to remember, is that people not registered with bikeportland/forums, will not be able to see pics posted to this site. Guy I was discussing the Hwy 30 issue was uncertain whether the agency would allow him to register as an employee, so I just sent him image files directly to his email address. That did the trick. Once he saw the pics, he knew exactly what we were talking about.

Last edited by wsbob; 09-27-2011 at 04:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-27-2011, 09:13 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
Lightbulb And the results are in...

Quote:
Originally Posted by K'Tesh View Post
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.
I rode past the lamp posts tonight on the way home from school... My work was not undone.





I did notice a graffiti tag on the handrail just uphill from here had been rubbed off though (not my doing).
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike

Last edited by K'Tesh; 09-27-2011 at 09:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-27-2011, 11:46 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 Precise Detail

Before I feel comfortable submitting anything I'd like to actually lay out the whole path on a plot with accurate distance measurements. I'd like to eliminate any barrier to rejection and this will start primarily on a foundation of accuracy.

I've gone through various aerial and satellite photo sites and I'm drawing blanks on decent photos. Counter-intuitively I saw better photos in the historical imagery in Google Earth back from 2005 when this MUP was opened; the tree growth on one side and tall noise wall on the other make convenient photography useless on this path.

What I've also noticed is the overgrowth on private lots. Obviously it is serving as a personal privacy screen for property owners that don't want to see riffraff. It is obvious though that these areas need to be trimmed down now and trimmed back annually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I need now is accurate measurements of where things are now for the entire path.
Unless I can find what I need online I'm planning to just go and photograph the path at something like Google Street view intervals during daylight. I think I have a 100' tape measure which should do well for referencing precise locations for suggested improvements.

I am also going to go back and check on visibility traps after full darkness. Maybe my smartphone is smart enough to be used as a lux meter for measuring insufficient illumination on the path.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Intertwine "2011 Trail Use Snapshot" that JM posted on the front page shows that the "Sunset Highway Path" has the highest overall bicycle traffic amount and has the highest weekday bicycle mode share percentage (77%!). What this amounts to to me is not that bicycles should rule the path but that safety engineering needs to take in to account the need to reconcile the differing travel profiles of the simultaneous users.
Cyclists will travel fast. Pedestrians will obliviate their situational awareness in a false sense of security.

Cyclists need to be explicitly shown where hazards are, which areas speed is more dangerous than others and that pedestrians have the right of way.
Pedestrians need to be explicitly reminded that this is a major thoroughfare for cyclists and as such people can't just drunk walk their way on to this path without expecting some conflict.
Especially behind the noise wall this path seems safer than it really is. I'm waiting fearfully for the "bear snack" (4th panel) user to discover this "secret" path that "only they know about".
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-28-2011, 01:01 PM
Alan Alan is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 507
Default .02

q'Tzal asked about general comments, so here goes...

I like the striped reflective surface applied to the concrete plinth, and I'd like it on the vertical sides of the steel base of the lamp pole, too. I'd like the lamp poles to be fully reflecterized and caution-striped from the bottom up to about four feet, about the bottom of the "pass with care" sign.

I don't like the upright reflectors above the plinth. They are a hazard in their own right.

I'm not sure about all the signage. It gets cluttered and close to the visual overload level. Maybe just "Congested Area" "Next N Yards" on both approaches (not sure what MUTCD says). The fog lines do a good job of indicating path egress where they turn out at the "T" intersections. I'm sceptical of the center line, too, so maybe just fog lines on both sides in the congested area.

With the lamp pole plinths directly in the travel lane, those fog lines seem absolutely essential. Also, the existing concrete path could (should?) be raised to the level of the plinth itself, doing away with it as a hazard. Even then, the proximity of the lamp pole should still be called out with reflective stripes and a fog line. Alternately or additionally, the trail should be widened a couple feet on the side away from the lamp pole, for maybe 20 feet on each side of the poles. The trail would be better wider than narrower when passing by those hazards.

Last edited by Alan; 09-28-2011 at 01:05 PM. Reason: s/Miles/Yards
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-28-2011, 04:53 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

Raising the concrete ... so simple, so elegant, so minimal in its negative side effects.
There would still be a need to mark out an angled fog line fore the pole itself but paving over the light pole foundation gives you extra width with no legal rangling.

I suspect that there is no more easement for a wider path. It is difficult to tell in portlandmaps.com because it does not seem to acknowledge the existance of the MUP.

The Sunset MUP is 8' wide; current standards are 12' - 10' as a minimum(MUTCD). I can't say with certainty but middle of the path lane striping may not be viable due to the designated lanes being of a substandard width. Might be something a silly as the act of designation a lane requires that it be X width setting in to motion a whole set of legal requiremnts. Besides, we can't see lane striping working on the Hawthorne, why would it be diffferent here?
__________________
Knowledge is NOT a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-03-2011, 06:09 PM
wsbob's Avatar
wsbob wsbob is offline
Senior Member
Site Admin
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,755
Default Offical reflective diversion lines installed around Sunset MUP lamp poles?

Rode up the Sunset MUP today. Since I last rode the path a week ago, I do believe white reflective lines alerting path users to, and diverting them around the light poles, have been installed on the pavement, essentially in the manner q`Tzal visualized in his digital mockup. To q`Tzal, K'tesh, the people at the DOT and everyone else that contributed to getting this improvement made... THANK YOU !

I rode the path both east and west directions. It seems to be quite an improvement, though I didn't have my headlight to see how the reflective lines pick up that type light source. Came home about 5:30 pm...saw two or three other people on the path, one with one of the really bright headlights. The difference in marking is likely to be very noticeable to them with their lights.

During the ride east...about 4pm, daylight level was still fairly high given this dark, Oregon overcast day, so while the pavement lines could be seen quite well, the poles themselves continue to not be very visible. They sort of blend in against the background created by the gray concrete sound wall.

This makes me wonder if the pole signs q`Tzal picked out of the MUTCD might still be a good idea to make the poles more visible. Maybe not the full size versions, considering that they might stick out too much, and become hazards themselves, as Alan mentioned. Two-thirds or half size signs though, might work out, if the DOT is allowed to make that kind of departure from the MUTCD specs.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-03-2011, 07:57 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
Wink But, do you have photos?

Thank you wsbob for the news. Thanks to all who helped get this done. Q'tzal, I'm sure that your images and research was an important factor on this one. Thanks!

Enjoy the photos



Took them tonight at 7pm(ish). I've also sent a "Thank You" message to the people I emailed about this.

See Something? DO SOMETHING!!!
K'Tesh
__________________
Riding my bike is MY pursuit of Happiness!!!
beam.to/UFOBike

Last edited by K'Tesh; 10-03-2011 at 10:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-28-2011, 08:43 AM
Jonathan Maus's Avatar
Jonathan Maus Jonathan Maus is offline
The Management
Site Admin
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North Portland
Posts: 189
Default just now reading this thread

hey folks,

Just finished reading this thread after seeing it linked from the recent story about ODOT and I-5 bridge markings.

Did anyone ever confirm that the long reflective stripe was installed by ODOT? I assume it was. K'Tesh?
__________________
Jonathan Maus
BikePortland.org
News tips and feedback line - (503) 706-8804
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 09:18 AM.




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