The multi-year process to create a new transportation link between Lake Oswego and Portland is nearing an important decision and the BTA warns that the, “opportunity to connect the region for cyclists” might be lost.
Next Monday (7/16), Metro will host a public hearing where the Lake Oswego to Portland Transit and Trails Alternative Analysis Committee (LOPAC) will make a final recommendation to Metro Council as to which of two options (express bus service or streetcar) should move forward into the next phase of study.
Both options are intended to include provisions and funding for a multi-use trail, but Emily Gardner — who sits on LOPAC for the BTA — says that due to cost concerns, some members of LOPAC might shun the trail altogether.
In a post on the BTA blog, Gardner writes:
“members of LOPAC are balking at the price tag for a multi-use trail and considering removal of the trail from the project entirely. If that happens, the opportunity to connect the region for cyclists is lost.
…it is imperative that Metro Councilors hear from cyclists about the importance of this trail…If the Metro Council decision on this corridor fails to include a walking and bicycling trail, we will have squandered the opportunity to build the facility that will best serve the corridor in the upcoming years.”
The public hearing is being held at the Metro Regional Center (600 NE Grand Ave.) on Monday July 16th from 4-6:00pm.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
I\’m worried that the BTAs position is going to be to back whichever proposal will help get the path built. The \”BRT\” option doesn\’t provide exclusive right of way to buses and probably won\’t do much to improve the traffic mess on 43. While the Streetcar option is more costly it\’s got better travel times and is immune to increasing congestion on 43.
I\’ve got no problem with the BTA advocating for the inclusion of the path in either plan, I think that a path from LO to Portland is necessary, but if they end up backing the wrong proposal because it might mean bikes get a piece of the pie it\’ll be a net loss for traffic in the region.
Agreed – though there may be an opportunity for some creative engineering to deal with the tunnel issue and the trail. (See portlandtransport.com for more info.)
High capacity transit in this corridor must trump trails, and Streetcar is hands down the more effective transit solution.
Trails need to be done where and how possible as resources are found. Let\’s not let the tail wag the dog.
Lenny – The trail option is not the tail. In studying this cooridor the question should not be bikes OR rail. Both are necessary to solve the congestion equation. Right now getting from Lake O. to Portland is tough. Bicycling is nearly impossible unless you enjoy a good commute with lots of fast moving cars….
I don\’t want trails to be seen as a bonus option. Let\’s ask for what we need and want before pitting bikes and streetcar against one another.
Linda:
I agree that we shouldn\’t be pitting bikes and streetcar against one another, my complain is that the BTA blog post that this article links to is doing just that. Read the whole blog post, I know he\’s just trying to make the case for the trail, but there are several points where he pits the trail vs streetcar and BRT, and of course we know who the winner is.
This is, IMHO, the hands-down worst corridor for bikes in Portland…especially when you consider that Lake Oswego is 6 short miles from Portland. I hate the thought of a huge amount of transportation money going towards fixing one people-moving problem that doesn\’t result in a facility that is substantially improved for bikes.
Ironically, if this project were to turn into a road project, it\’s likely that the Bicycle Bill would apply and make it impossible to re-do the facility without adding bike facilities. However, the bicycle bill applies only to roadways, so a transit project is not subject to the same requirements.
(Note: not a lawyer, not even play one on TV.)
Hmm, this is an interesting conversation. It might be hard to create bike facilities with with the tunnel. On a side note: A few years ago I heard Metro Counclor Brian Newman pitching the idea of putting a bike/ped pathway across the train trestle that goes from Milwaukie to L.O. Does anyone know about this? Maybe this idea could be thrown into the mix for easier bike access into SE Portland, but it still doesn\’t solve direct access to downtown PDX from L.O.
I live just on the Milwaukie side of that train trestle and would love to see a bike/ped pathway there. Currently I have to bike all the way to Sellwood to cross the river. Anyone interested in making this happen contact me at bicycledave at gmail dt com.
This bridge has saved me several miles and hundreds of feet in elevation on my daily commute, but I haven\’t taken it since I learned about the $6500 fine and year in jail that is unique to railroad trespassing.
Would be great to have a legit crossing here.
Ps. I don\’t recommend taking this bridge as it is now.
I say, where there\’s a will, there\’s a way.
If left to their own devices, engineers *will* produce a solution to this problem that allows bicycles and streetcars to both have their own R.O.W. through the contentious tunnel/rock section that seems to be holding up the entire concept of both modes having through access from downtown Portland to downtown L.N.N. (er, L.B.E.; er, L.O.).
The real sticky wicket seems to be how much such an engineered solution might cost; but until the engineers are allowed to do their thing, this is pure conjecture.
Engineered solutions might include:
* Paved trail with switchbacks that allows bicyclists to rise in elevation to the level of the roadway, pass around the rock and then return via a similar system to the trackway elevation.
* A new tunnel, just for bikes.
*Enlarging the existing tunnel to gain the necessary width to allow for bikes.
*A floating trail, ala the eastbank esplanade, around the rock, with a protective fencing \”hood\” above the trail to deflect rockfall.
* Bike lanes on the highway for a greater distance that allow for gradually-sloping connector ramps between the highway and the railway-grade bike trail.
It would be nice to have a ballpark estimate to pencil in next to each of the above solutions…. since I\’m just not so sure that the whistle-stop trolley stations on each end of the existing tunnel will work for anybody. (Packed trolley, fifteen-minute headways, ten bicyclists wishing to traverse tunnel… right.)
thoughts?
cheers,
~Garlynn