Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

First look: Going Street bike boulevard gets two-way cycle track at 33rd

Posted by on October 9th, 2010 at 10:21 pm

Riding north on Going Street on the new two-way cycle track.
– Video and slideshow below-
(Photos © J. Maus)

PBOT has installed a key piece of their marquee bike boulevard on N. Going Street. There’s now a two-way cycle track on NE 33rd Avenue where it crosses Going. This is an “off-set” intersection (Going doesn’t go straight through) and the cycle track is PBOT’s solution to make the crossing safer for bike traffic.

Two-way cycle track on Going at 33rd-80

A sharrow marking directs you
onto the cycle track from Going.

The new crossing consists of two, six-foot wide bike lanes on the west side of 33rd. The lanes are separate from the sidewalk and are on a separate grade from the standard vehicle lanes. Bike traffic headed east on Going is directed to the left (north), up onto the cycle track via a sharrow marking, just before 33rd. (Motor vehicle traffic is not an issue here because there is no entry allowed from 33rd onto Going). There is a curb ramp that drops bike traffic back onto the roadway to continue east on Going.

I shot a short video to give you a bikes-eye view of how it works (sorry for the raindrops on the lens!):

When I first saw the plans for this, I was a bit skeptical on how it would work out; but after riding it I found it to be pretty intuitive. It feels a bit strange to ride north on the left side of the street with cars coming at you on your right, but it never felt dangerous. It’s also worth noting that this intersection is a good example of how “green street” treatments can integrate with bike boulevards. There are two bioswales included in the design.

Back in August, PBOT bike coordinator Roger Geller called Going the “best bike boulevard in the city.” In addition to this crossing treatment, PBOT has also flipped 19 stop signs and added 30 speed bumps to Going in an effort to make it a family friendly bikeway.

This is the first two-way cycle track PBOT has installed. They have plans to do a similar treatment on the N Concord bike boulevard where Concord crosses Lombard.

For a closer look at the Going St. bike boulevard project, see PBOT’s project page or read our in-depth report from last year. See more photos in the slideshow below:

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you.

  • Zaphod October 9, 2010 at 10:28 pm

    I’ve recently integrated sections of Going into my route and *really* like it. The 33rd connection looks like a thought out and ideal solution. We need more of these.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 9, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    It looks like you rode that at a pretty low traffic time, and in the eastbound direction you crossed or hugged the centerline the whole time; I think it will have a much different feel during higher traffic volume periods with oncoming bike traffic on your left and oncoming car traffic on your right, plus it doesn’t look like it’s that easy to check northbound traffic on 33rd when you are crossing 33rd headed east.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 9, 2010 at 10:37 pm


    You’re right. It will be a much different experience with higher bike traffic volumes. You’re also right about checking northbound auto traffic. You have to really check over your right shoulder… but there is room on the curb ramp to position yourself and point a bit east, which makes it easier.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Rip Tatermen October 9, 2010 at 11:11 pm

    I used this a few days ago; it took a long time to get an opening in both directions at once, although I don’t think all the paint was down yet, so maybe that helps. I was hoping for an island in the middle, something like Going & MLK or 33rd and Bryce, so that you only need an opening in one direction at a time.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn October 9, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Perhaps a good spot for a hawk signal. I’d like to see a similar treatment at skidmore as well. The city picked going, but the connections are bad further out on going and I like many people continue to use skidmore. The crossing at 33rd is the only bad connection between 82nd and Vancouver Williams. Well 15th isn’t fantastic, but really that is the one that is sketchy.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dan October 10, 2010 at 12:30 am

    Glad to hear that they’re putting the same thing in where Concord crosses Lombard! Something like that really is a necessity at such offset crossings of busy arterials.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Red Five October 10, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Still no explanation why the 205 bike path at Division is one of the most dangerous crossing anywhere? Crossing a four lane road with no stoplight? Oh that’s right, it’s east Portland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle October 10, 2010 at 8:37 am

    Speaking of crossing 33rd in busy traffic, the yellow sign that faces 33rd traffic at the painted crosswalk shows a picture of a pedestrian as well as a bicycle. Does that mean traffic is required to stop and yield to bicyclists waiting to cross 33rd as they are required to do for pedestrians?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 10, 2010 at 9:04 am

    So how is this any different than just using 33rd for that one block? Either way, you still have to cross both lanes of 33rd.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 10, 2010 at 10:09 am

    my first impression is that it looks too much like a sidewalk and may discourage motorists from yielding to cyclists. are they planning a yield to bikes sign?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 10, 2010 at 10:09 am

    my first impression is that it looks too much like a sidewalk and may discourage motorists from yielding to cyclists. are they planning a yield to bikes sign?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Borgbike October 10, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Regarding the Ped Xing at 33rd and Going, my best guess is that 33rd will, at the very least, get striped here as a cross walk. I don’t think the city is done yet. Also I hope there is some repaving done on the section of Going just east of 33rd. The asphalt there is a mess.

    My family used this for the first time last week during the National Bike/Walk to School day. I agree with Jonathan. I was a little worried about the execution of this when I saw it on paper. It looked like a mess. However confronted with this new feature, we figured it out instantaneously and we had no problem getting across the street at 8 am.

    I worry for the political flack from the homeowners in front of 33rd who have lost a number of on-street parking spaces. This improvement is definitely a greater good but certain people might be pretty miffed. Is there a loss of property value here? Maybe not if the bike boulevard becomes successful. Maybe the calmed traffic and easy access to this amazing transport artery will be a selling point? I guess this’ll depend on the eye of the beholder.

    If you consider that this improvement helps connect Going up into the 70s with the Vancouver/Williams couplet, it is a significant boulevard indeed. I hope it plays out well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lisa G. October 10, 2010 at 10:38 am

    I’m looking forward to checking this out. Since I don’t currently use that route during rush hour, however, it may be easier to get with the flow on 33rd for one block the way I usually do. My mirror is on the left side of my helmet, not the right.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Borgbike October 10, 2010 at 10:44 am

    I just watched Jonathan’s video. There are ped stripes already installed at the crossing. I think the stripes and the signage will be sufficient to get cars to stop for bikes. I’ve had no problem getting across MLK with the same sort of signage. Even in busy traffic, drivers tend to stop for bikes.

    I like how car traffic is now restricted from turning on to Going from 33rd now. This is the case in both directions now!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are October 10, 2010 at 10:45 am

    i see that southbound motor traffic on 33rd is forbidden to turn right onto westbound going, but apparently northbound traffic can turn left. this is not the way the plan was presented.

    it would also be interesting to see how the visibility from the box is when there are cars parked just north of the intersection on the west edge of the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 10, 2010 at 10:48 am

    While I may question the facility itself, I have no sympathy for people who ‘lose’ parking spaces in front of their homes to street improvements.

    Those parking spaces don’t belong to the homeowners, they are part of the public right of way. Just about every home in Portland has a driveway or other off-street parking available.

    If anything, the city needs to be more aggressive about parking removal, both in residential and commercial areas, if the space is needed for other purposes that have a greater public benefit than simply providing a parking space for the adjacent property.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 10, 2010 at 11:14 am

    @ are #14, I couldn’t see the signs on westbound Going in Jonathan’s video, but eastbound Going is posted do not enter (except for bicycles), and there is only a bike lane -not a full lane – on Going in the westbound direction at the intersection, so I’m guessing that northbound traffic on 33rd is also prevented from making a left onto westbound Going.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla October 10, 2010 at 1:05 pm

    Why would cars need to yield to bikes at the road crossing? Its not a crosswalk and if bikes want cars to yield, they should get in the crosswalk, dismount, and become pedestrians, who cars do have to yield to.

    That said, its an improvement for east – west bike traffic, but has no benefit for eastbound traffic wanting to go north on 33rd (to get to New Seasons, etc.) and it removed a bus stop to boot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • 9watts October 10, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    “Just about every home in Portland has a driveway or other off-street parking available.”

    While I agree with your sentiment about the public nature of the streets vis-a-vis car parking, the above statement is not even close to true. For starters, 33′ wide lots aren’t usually going to accommodate both a house and a driveway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Michweek October 10, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    Maybe it’s just the low traffic time, but I don’t see what was so un-safe about just merging with traffic for that half a block. I usually prefer to be in the lane, be seen and predictable instead of being separated from traffic and dart in and out of lanes or dart across roads surprising the motorist who thought I had my own special place to ride.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are October 10, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    re burr 17, what jonathan’s video did show (or maybe it was one of the slides) was a car turning left from northbound 33rd onto westbound going. early this afternoon i went over and scoped this out. there were no cars parked on the west side of 33rd just north of this device, but there was also no posting forbidding it, and the curb extension is shallow enough that when cars are parked there it will be difficult to see southbound traffic. the turnout or copenhagen box or whatever you want to call it was also rather shallow, so although you would want to stop there to check the cross traffic, you would have some difficulty orienting yourself perpendicular to the street. finally, though i imagine they will get to it, the transition from the track to the street at the south end of this device is very rough.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 10, 2010 at 5:33 pm


    “they should get in the crosswalk, dismount, and become pedestrians”

    riding in pedestrian facilities is legal as long as its done at pedestrian speeds.

    “Why would cars need to yield to bikes at the road crossing?”

    bikes previously had right of way when turning right onto going. the current treatment now requires cyclists to dart across a gap in traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Gregg Woodlawn October 11, 2010 at 7:38 am

    I love this new crossing.
    There is a similar crossing being planned right now to help cross MLK at the developing Holman Street Greenway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle October 11, 2010 at 7:38 am


    “they should get in the crosswalk, dismount, and become pedestrians”

    I guess my confusion comes from the road sign adjacent to the bikeway and crosswalk with a picture of a bicyclist and a pedestrian. If different treatment is implied (yield to peds but not bikes) maybe bike picture should be left off sign or have a separate sign. So I guess the sign means look out for bikes and peds at crossing but you are only required to yield to peds.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve October 11, 2010 at 8:03 am

    +1 Red Five @7.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • wally October 11, 2010 at 8:24 am

    seems like when you are heading eastbound on Going, and you get on the cycle track to head north on 33rd, you will be blinded by the headlights of oncoming traffic. headlights are aimed slightly to the right to avoid blinding oncoming traffic on the road, which is on the left side. This is one of the problems caused by cars from England driving on continental Europe–the headlights are aimed the wrong way. This seems like it will be especially dangerous during the rainy season.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mark C October 11, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I agree with BURR (#16) 100 percent. Most of the residential streets in my area are so choked with parked cars they’re essentially one-way streets. Think of how much nice the streets would be for both bikes and cars without all of the parked vehicles mucking things up. Bottom line: if you can’t park all of your cars on your property, then you have too many!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal October 11, 2010 at 9:23 am

    All the parked cars reduce visibility for vulnerable road users. Very bad for safety.
    The narrowing of the lane that occurs because of this slows traffic somewhat causing a parking clogged residential lane become vaguely woonerf like.
    I believe 100% if BURR’s opinion on street parking: the private property owner does not own the road and while I have some vestiges of sympathy for property owners I don’t believe any of them has the right to park in the street no matter what.

    All that being said, if you remove all the on street parking on a residential road like this it will quickly turn in to an express highway. Removing on street parking would need to be coupled with some intensive traffic calming measures.
    For at least the conscientious drivers the narrowness of a narrow parking clogged residential street coupled with the terror of some unseen person jumping out from behind a parked car calms traffic speeds.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are October 11, 2010 at 9:25 am

    re comment 24, the yellow diamond does not indicate “yield,” it is a warning that pedestrians or cyclists may be crossing here. the striped crosswalk separately indicates a place where motorists (or cyclists) are to yield to pedestrians actually crossing.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Babygorilla October 11, 2010 at 9:48 am

    Are #29. Yup. That sign means nothing as a traffic control device.

    As for bikes at this particular pedestrian crossing (at the crosswalk, not the road), the infrastructure makes it very difficult to position a bike in the crosswalk (there’s not much of a sidewalk on Going east of 33rd and the road surface is horrid making it difficult to transition from road to sidewalk) so the only reason a bike should be in the crosswalk is if the rider dismounts and is actually walking, not riding.

    For bikes at the road crossing (in the traffic lane east of 33rd or at the new cycletrack-ish thing, cars are not required to and actually should not yield (even if riding at a walking pace, the crosswalk rule wouldn’t apply because the road lane is not a crosswalk). It creates an unsafe situation when cars selectively yield right of way when not required (and this frustrates me on bike and in car) and try to wave someone through.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GLV October 11, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I believe 100% if BURR’s opinion on street parking: the private property owner does not own the road and while I have some vestiges of sympathy for property owners I don’t believe any of them has the right to park in the street no matter what.

    Actually, you are both wrong. In most residential areas in PDX, the property line extends to the center of the street, and there is an easement allowing public access (street and sidewalk). If the city were to ever vacate a street (a specific legal process), the adjacent property owners would regain control of the land on which the street once stood.

    I am speculating here, but there may very well be situations in which the use of the street for parking is specified in the easement agreement, and hence would be considered a right.

    Bottom line: if you can’t park all of your cars on your property, then you have too many!

    I own a house on a 33′ x 100′ lot with no driveway. I also own one car, that I park on the street. Is that too many cars? Are you saying that only people with driveways should be permitted to own cars? You should run for office on that platform.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Manji312 October 11, 2010 at 10:53 am

    I cross Going at 33rd on a daily basis. For me this new crossing setup doesn’t really improve things for me. I can definitely see where it might encourage those who are a little more concerned about safely crossing 33rd. I personally have a few complaints about the setup. At the point of crossing the turn is so tight that you essentially have to look backwards to see the north bound traffic. I deal with this by sitting in the oncoming lane, but that may not be possible as usage increases. The transition from the street to the cycletrack is a bit rough and at an angle that could lead to someone on a bike falling. Hopefully the city plans on smoothing this out. I was really hopeful when they started work on this, but as it stands right now, I’m a bit disappointed. The whole things seems over designed. I also agree with others, the east side of Going seriously needs repaving. The road is more like the surface of the moon and in winter with more rains, lots of debris, gravel, etc. gets all over the road making it even more of a hazard for someone riding that section.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy October 11, 2010 at 10:58 am

    looks like it puts bikes in a bad spot that nobody expects…

    I’m also wary of the oncoming headlights on the wrong side (right) of the path…

    and the curb ramp looks like a harsh bump… the whole thing makes the motor lanes look very appealing…

    I’m not sure if motor vehicles are required to stop for bikes in the crosswalk or not, but a lot of people do, and it doesn’t annoy me like it does when people stop for bikes that are in the street making a turn like any other vehicle… but the mix of everything here just doesn’t look very good…

    and yes the I-205 path at Division sucks, but this isn’t that conversation…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Whyat October 11, 2010 at 11:00 am

    @Mark C- so families with with one car and no drive way have too many cars? Did you even think about it before you typed that? Not trying to be negative- just wondering how you could type such an erroneous statement…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal October 11, 2010 at 11:22 am

    GLV #31
    the property line extends to the center of the street, and there is an easement allowing public access (street and sidewalk).
    Please show a Oregon government or Oregon legal site where you get this information.
    Portland Maps (http://www.portlandmaps.com/) seems to show what common sense would suggest: that property lines end at the edge of the property. See http://goo.gl/JmAt .
    Following the “view in Google Earth” link for some properties in just the one block area surrounding this cycle track shows some of the plot lines ending in the sidewalk. Please back up your supposition with verifiable fact.
    If I’m wrong, I’m wrong; I’d like to see where though. Not someone ranting as incoherently as me.

    I own a house on a 33′ x 100′ lot with no driveway. I also own one car, that I park on the street.

    Is the segment of pavement adjacent your lot reserved for you alone? Anyone can park there. If someone is having a party and invites 100 of their friends, who all of course show up in SOV’s, do you have the right to have these cars towed? Odds are not because you don’t have any rights over the road even if some ancient deeding artifact shows that yours and everyone else’s lot lines extend to the center of every road.
    It’s that lack of power over the road that I’m speaking about and sort of resembles the argument that some are having about the Fanno Creek Trail extension (http://goo.gl/JErA) where it isn’t occurring on their property but they take objection to someone else doing something they don’t like where they have no say. The road is a public space for travel for all. It may occasionally be other things: a playground, a football field, a party spot. In the end the rights of the people to safely travel all public roads must take precidence over all other uses.

    Anything else is just a convenience.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • cyclist October 11, 2010 at 11:26 am

    Mark C #27: When a residential street is “choked with parked cars” it helps to naturally slow down traffic speeds on the street. I happen to live on one of these fairly narrow streets, and I can tell you that the parked cars do a much better job of traffic calming than speed bumps do. Getting rid of parked cars on the street would have some really nasty unintended consequences.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jolspoke October 11, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I love this new crossing and I find it quite useful. I haven’t ridden it at night yet, so I’ll be curious to see if the headlights from oncoming traffic do create an issue.
    One of the successes of this project is that I feel it make me more visible at this intersection. Drivers are now looking for peds/cyclists at this intersections.
    One big failure I’ve found is the placement of the No Right Turn sign for cars southbound on 33rd. I’ve already seen two cars making the now illegal right turn. The sign is placed on the sidewalk side of the cyclepath instead of on the curb closest to the street. Maybe locals will get used to the new traffic pattern, but non-regular users aren’t likely to the sign. In any case, when you are heading west on going and making the left onto the cyclepath, don’t assume there won’t be a car making a right turn into your path.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam October 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    I’m so happy motor traffic won’t be allowed through here.

    Although I already saw three cars today disobey the semi-diverter and turn right onto the bike boulevard from 33rd anyway 🙁

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • GLV October 11, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Please show a Oregon government or Oregon legal site where you get this information.

    I don’t have time to dig up the citation. Portlandmaps shows the easement line, not what some legally-enforceable, “ancient deeding artifact” might say. Like I said, it’s not the case everywhere, but in residential areas, depending on how the original subdivision was completed, it is common.

    As for the rest of your comment, yes those people have the right to park there, and no I don’t have the right to get them towed. Not sure how you inferred otherwise from what I actually said. I was responding to your suggestion that on street parking be made illegal for everybody.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle October 11, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    @ babygorilla Are #29. Yup. That sign means nothing as a traffic control device
    OK thanks for clearing that up. But still, if sign means nothing why put it up? If it’s to point out that cyclists may be crossing here maybe they should put one up at every intersection in Portland. I’ve often thought they should put up signs at each road that crosses the boundary into Portland. Something like, “Entering Portland expect many bicyclists on road!” Anyway, I really like the way Going is now and use it often. Turning and adding new STOP signs works great! As far as 33rd crossing, seems like a pretty expensive solution with limited results. Eliminating Parking along with painted bike lanes along 33rd (both directions/sides) for the short distance between the East and West Going’s would have been cheaper and probably accomplished the same thing. But its nice to see experiments like this. I am sure that all the alternatives were discussed prior to implementing this and this solution while not perfect does offer some added safety while on that short stretch of 33rd.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • q`Tzal October 11, 2010 at 1:32 pm

    Deed/plot lines are far too often very difficult to find out accurately without hiring a gubment surveying team to come out and physically lay lines on the dirt. I’d love to think that PortlandMaps.com is 100% accurate but I think we all know better. Its just the best information I know of that is free.

    Let me revise by opinion on on street parking pursuant to my last sentence of #35 “Anything else is just a convenience”.
    On street parking will likely be found to precede any significant traffic, traffic speeds or traffic noise as most areas with on street parking will have been rural in character within the last 2 generations.

    What this means to me is that while there is has been a reasonable past expectation that on street parking can be accommodated with minimal impact to anyone, as density increases to sub-urban and urban living densities the impact on all users increases until the street becomes an auto lined canyon of parked vehicles obscuring visibility which leads directly to safety issues. Added to this that as increased density translates to increased demand we have a road with more travel demand shrinking due to more parking demand.

    At some point we have to decide, as a society, if a road is for travel or parking 1st. If we are to travel on these roads then the on street parking will eventually have to be eliminated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • BURR October 11, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    I’m pretty sure property lines end at either the curb or the sidewalk.

    If you look at the Multnomah County tax lot map in GIS, right of way is separate, and tax lot lines don’t extend to the center of the street.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Steve B October 11, 2010 at 2:12 pm

    It’s so beautiful.. I just want it to keep uh, GOING!

    Imagine riding something like this on Broadway?

    This project shows the innovative leadership within PBOT, I hope we can find the political will to support our innovators and build more world-class infrastructure like this!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • gene b October 11, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    I find this design appalling and manifestly unsafe. It is a setup for a bicycle to motor vehicle head on when the bike surprises a vehicle on 33rd by pulling wide onto the cycle track on the vehicles right side.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jeff, the first October 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    i live near going and use it a lot, especially since they installed the humps and turned the stop signs. as a longtime cyclist, i never had a problem crossing 33rd, but i know quite a few less experienced cyclists that love the new crossing and feel a lot safer – no need to merge onto 33rd, to worry about cars turning into their lane (other than the illegal turns, i’ve seen one too), and the increased visibility that the infrastructure brings. great use of resources here and for the going/mlk crossing imo.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • dan October 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    That design does not win me over at first glance (looks scary, in fact), but I’ll wait and see how it goes when I actually need to ride over there. What’s the rationale for not using bumps / rumble strip or similar to clearly demarcate the bike lane from the car lane?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • shirtsoff October 11, 2010 at 7:43 pm

    NE 33rd Ave has a crossing sign for cycles. It looks like a pedestrian sign. Does that mean vehicles on 33rd Ave *must* yield if they’re able to when a cycle or pedestrian is present on the sides of the crossing?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • shirtsoff October 11, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    Oh.. If #29 is correct then it is only the marked crossing that requires vehicles to yield. Interesting addition to this observation is that cyclists can operate as a pedestrian legally (e.g. ride on the sidewalk, ride in crosswalks) if they operate no faster than a pedestrian, yield the right of way to pedestrians, and observe other rules applicable to pedestrians (e.g. only stepping into a crosswalk if the cars have sufficient stopping distance).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Greg October 11, 2010 at 9:04 pm

    #31 GLV
    ” In most residential areas in PDX, the property line extends to the center of the street, and there is an easement allowing public access (street and sidewalk).”

    I’d love to see evidence of that. All of the land surveys done in Multnomah County are available here (sadly IE only) – http://gis.co.multnomah.or.us/sail/

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Machu Picchu October 11, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    “means nothing as a traffic control device” is not the right way to say it. This is not a regulatory sign, it’s a warning sign. While one is not legally required to do or avoid doing anything because of it, it could still mean plenty, in that the city has installed it so road users will be more aware of potential hazards (in this case, vulnerable road users who may or may not have the right-of-way.)

    Not all signs are about giving people tickets. A lot of them are just trying to give people good info to use when making choices. This one says, “Hey! There’s pedestrians and bikes crossing this road up here, so open yer eyeballs!”

    Bobcycle: I love the city limit sign idea. Much better than the “every intersection in Portland” idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JJ October 11, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    I dont understand the design choice at all. Why couldnt there be bike paths on each side of the road, going the right way? One crossing at one intersection, the other direction crosses at the other one

    Also, why not paint the crosswalk all the way to where the bikes cross? Drivers wont be expecting a bike crossing there.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mindful Cyclist October 12, 2010 at 12:08 am

    Have to agree with cyclist (#36) on this one regarding parked cars. I live near an intersection with very narrow streets. One block further to the South only allows parking on one side of the street while my block allows it on both sides. Cars routinely break the basic speed rule and zip through that stretch going North. When they cross into my block, the cars have to slow down because there is a lot less room due to the parked cars.

    Certainly parked cars can limit visibility and I have long stated that any car should not be allowed to park within at the very least 15′ from the start of the crosswalk. However, the notion that everyone has a garage/driveway to park a car is not true at all in inner East Portland. And, chances are if you see a lot of cars at one house, it is probably a case of several people sharing a house as roommates.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy October 12, 2010 at 7:35 am

    a lot of people are giving Mark C a hard time for his comment on keeping your property (cars) contained on your property (driveway)… I have to agree with him… maybe it’s because for the last several years I have been able to keep all my vehicles on my property even living in Portland and with up to four vehicles…

    I’ve got two vehicles right now but I want to get rid of one and move closer in where my chances of finding on-street parking are lesser and I’ll want to make sure I have a driveway or at least a narrow 10’x5′ strip of yard to park in… because I don’t want to clutter the road with my property if I don’t have to…

    I’ve never heard of parking on the road as a right… I come from an area where you can’t park on the road during winter because of the snow plows… people find places to put their cars on their own property if they have to… they’re just more willing to do it for mother nature than for something that’s more controllable…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bobcycle October 12, 2010 at 8:08 am

    Already discussed. See 8, 18, 22, 24, 29, 30, & 40

    @50 Also, why not paint the crosswalk all the way to where the bikes cross? Drivers wont be expecting a bike crossing there.

    Others have pointed out that they feel Crosswalks are for Peds not bikes. Although according to some, bikes operating at PED speeds should be yielded to. Pretty confusing. If I am stopped on my bike and waiting to cross in a crosswalk I have to cross at Ped speed (unless I’m Mark Cavendish). Also, Crosswalk placement is on the “outside” of bike crossing meaning that autos stopped to yield to Peds at crossing will be blocking the bike crossing. Many here seem to feel that at the crossing bikes are to be treated as any other vehicle waiting to cross(no need to yield to) but if we are just like any other vehicle then why build a special pathway going against traffic? Does the phrase “neither fish nor fowl” fit here?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 12, 2010 at 8:33 am

    i rode it yesterday and like others found the orientation as it crosses 33rd to be awkward. i saw several commuters skip the facility.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Elliot October 12, 2010 at 9:49 am

    Regarding the discussion about taking away on-street parking, #53 and others:

    I used to live in inner SE, where the on-street parking was so thick that if you got home after 8 pm, you might have to park (gasp!) up to two blocks away from home. Very few homes in the neighborhood had off-street parking (thanks to the neighborhood being built before cars caught on), and there were a lot of apartments and duplexes. Some streets were 22 feet wide, and with fully used on-street parking on a street that narrow, you can’t go faster than about 15 mph without clipping a mirror.

    Now, I live a part of Foster-Powell where there is an overabundance of on-street parking, and virtually every home has a driveway. Yet many people will park on their front lawn before they park on the street. And some people pull halfway onto the parking strip to park, even on streets 32′ wide.

    The social psychology of on-street parking is apparently very complicated.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • bikieboy October 12, 2010 at 9:51 am

    from the video it looks like the curb edge could use some type of marking to provide definition — a stripe, reflectors, or ? — as in rain / low light /night it could be hard to see.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bob October 12, 2010 at 11:36 am

    The Going bike greenway is awesome. Block after block of riding with no stop signs. Brilliant! Perfect? nope. Way better than before? yup!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel October 12, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    “Block after block of riding with no stop signs.”

    We are discussing the mini-cycle track not the greenway as a whole. (I’m a huge fan of traffic calming and sign turning.)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • David Watson October 16, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    I just rode down Going today and used the cycle track. I have to say that things have improved tremendously on Going. The only problem heading eastbound is that the entry to the cycle track is not completely smooth and there was heavy traffic on 33rd. Its hard to look over your right shoulder to see it, so i recommend stopping and checking.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • are October 16, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    i would recommend that too, but would note that the box is too shallow to allow more than one cyclist at a time to make that movement.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lady Fuschia October 21, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    I rode this for the first time today and saw that there is now a sign on west-bound Going forbidding entry except for bikes. The curb cut heading north does not extend far enough; at the spot where I found it necessary to get on (after checking for car traffic trying to enter Going west-bound) I was riding over a couple inches of curb.

    Also saw a bike rack at the corner of westbound Going and 33rd that has two anti-human symbol signs bolted on to it, meaning either that people should not walk on the cycle-track or should not play or climb on the bike rack. My problem with this is that the signs have made one end of this bike rack unusable. When I park at a staple that already has a bike locked to it, I have to lock on the opposite end. So these signs have taken away a bike parking spot.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Dabby October 22, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    We rode by this on the way to polo the other night, and I have one main comment to say about it.


    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Johnson November 25, 2010 at 11:20 am

    This design needs to just die already. Very rarely are signs duplicated for the cycletrack, and it’s just plain stupid to have one lane going between two oncoming lanes. Try riding Farmington between Beaverton High School and Murray Boulevard sometime going westbound. Need to make a right turn? Congratulations, you get to merge across two oncoming lanes of traffic and two lanes going the same way as you.

    Stupid ideas like this make me wonder why drug and alcohol abuse screening isn’t mandatory at PBOT.

    Recommended Thumb up 0