family friendly bike corridor.
(Photo © J. Maus)
The long-awaited 50s Bikeway Project — which will use $1.5 million in federal funds to build a low-stress bicycling environment along a 4.3 mile corridor from SE Woodstock to NE Thompson (near Sandy) along 53rd and 52nd Avenues — is entering its final phases of public outreach.
At a meeting of the Portland Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) last night, PBOT project manager Rich Newlands asked for the committee’s endorsement of the project (which they gave unanimously). Newlands said PBOT has already won support from seven of eight neighborhood associations the project runs through. The only remaining neighborhood left to vote on the project (Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association) is set to vote on it tonight.
The project itself splits nicely into two distinct sections separated by SE Division Street. To the north, traffic is relatively calm; but to the south, traffic volume is high and so are motor vehicle speeds. Because of that (and because installing a bike lane would require removal of on-street parking) Newlands said the project’s Citizen’s Advisory Committee spent a lot of time discussion alternatives to 52nd.
–PDF–
In the end PBOT decided to put forward two routes in the southern section of project: a direct route on SE 52nd and an alternate route that weaves through smaller streets (SE 57th, 58th, 56th and 54th) to the east.
In the direct route portion, new, six-foot bike lanes will be installed between Woodstock and Division (a buffered bike lane was preferred by the CAC, but PBOT staff said the idea of removing both sides of parking to get the space required made them “nervous” so they compromised for the bike lanes, getting the extra space by reducing lanes from 12 to 10 feet). The alternate route in the southern section and the northern section will look and feel like one of PBOT’s neighborhood greenways with sharrow pavement markings, speed bumps, and so on.
Since the project launched over a year ago, its price tag has grown too. With too much to fund with the $1.5 million, Newlands announced last night that the “alternate route” portion in the southern section will not be funded immediately and will be a “phase two” to be built later (also in a second phase would be installation of bike boxes and bike traffic crosswalks, both of which are still experimental and cannot be funded with federal money).
At the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting last night, BAC member Ian Stude praised the project, but said he hopes the City keeps their word on funding the “Phase 2” portion: “It will be on us [the BAC] to hold PBOT’s feet to the fire to make sure second phase is implemented.”
The “hot topic” (in Newlands’ words) of the project thus far has been PBOT’s plans for motor vehicle traffic diversion. PBOT wants fewer cars on 52nd and 53rd and plans to limit turning movements off of Burnside and Division. Some residents that live on adjacent streets have rallied against the idea, fearing more cars would use their streets instead.
PBOT says 52nd near Division gets almost 3,000 cars per day now and they’d like to get that number closer to 1,000.
After a meeting with PBOT about the diversion plans back in May, “a wave of opposition” to the idea spread among residents in the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association. Newlands said neighbors circulated a petition and rallied opposition to the idea. After another heated meeting a few weeks ago, Newlands said he expects a “big showdown” at tonight’s MTNA meeting where the project will get an up or down vote.
“Given the way they’ve been able to mobilize folks in opposition, I’m not necessarily anticipating we will get their endorsement,” said Newlands.
Another facet of the project getting a lot of attention is how to cross SE Powell (a major arterial) at 54th. Currently there’s just a median island and PBOT says they want a new signal. However, Powell is controlled by ODOT and they’ve told PBOT a new signal isn’t warranted. Despite several discussions to “plead our case,” Newlands says ODOT will only agree to a rapid flash beacon. “Even as a fall back,” Newlands says, “that would still be a significant enhancement.”
The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association votes on the project tonight. Newlands says he’d like to go to City Council with a perfect slate of endorsements. What if the MTNA votes no on the project? “I wish we’d have the full package of endorsements, but it’s not critical.”
Learn more about the project here.
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’ve attended one of the meetings about 52nd and Division last week, and let me tell you, it was pretty disappointing. I live in Mt. Tabor and fully support the bikeway, but many (most?) of my neighbors don’t seem to. It’s comforting to know full support isn’t critical, because it seems unlikely to happen given what I’ve seen so far.
I live in Mt Tabor, on 52nd near Hawthorne, and I’m really pulling for the 50’s Bikeway.
There’s always going to be concern about spillover when a neighboring street gets a traffic calming treatment, but in this case I don’t think it’s warranted.
I drive 50th down in that direction about as often as I drive 52nd (to go to the post office on Foster or my favorite computer shop on Powell). If I was to be driving back home north on 52nd, and was to encounter the proposed diverter here on Division:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/5837504701_eaf6e6387c_b.jpg
I’m very sure I wouldn’t detour around it via either 51st or 53rd because those are narrow, bumpy streets:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2670/5838055432_230f261d57_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2563/5838057168_163ba6cf86_b.jpg
Instead, I’d just go down to 50th, which is smooth, signalized and is wide enough for two cars to pass going opposite directions:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3417/5838054692_ac1095d0ca_b.jpg
And that’s where the rest of the diverted traffic is likely to go.
And THAT might help shave down the spike in traffic volume we see on Lincoln between 50th and 60th:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3347558745_6cb65a9b2e_z.jpg?zz=1
Which would be great if we hope to encourage people to bike around there.
Spencer, the 51st residents (between Division and Lincoln) probably have the most legit concern given 51st is much wider than 53rd and 54th and it’s between 50th and 52nd (both high traffic streets). That said, assuming PBOT went ahead and added a right turn lane to 50th @ Division (westbound) I think most drivers would avoid 51st in the AM.
The rest of the folks are, IMHO, just NIMBYs, since the diversion would be the best at reducing traffic in the neighborhood overall.
I attended the meeting in April for the discussion on traffic diversion between Burnside and Glisan. Nearly everyone at our meeting was very supportive of the traffic diversion.
The Mt. Tabor residents in opposition from 51st and 53rd Aves are just a bunch of NIMFYs (nothing in my front yard). The proposed diversion would significantly reduce cut-through traffic throughout the neighborhood. They are completely over-reacting. A couple crazy “status quo” neighbors go down their streets, give a biased interpretation of what’s happening, and ask for a signature on a petition. It’s a whole lot easier to say “sure” and sign it in order to keep good relations with your neighbors than say no, and wait to hear the true/full story. I hope the City goes forward with the diversion plan as I strongly believe it will be a benefit to everyone, including the ridiculous NIMFYs.
Just back from the MtTabor NA meeting…
I agree with you, but the people from 51st opposed an alternate proposal that would have added a second diverter at 51st. In other words, they wouldn’t even accept a plan that eliminated all northbound traffic on 51st. They started grumbling about the inconvenience of having to enter their street from the other end, and it became clear that they would only accept total victory.
I’m a relative newcomer to the Mt. Tabor neighborhood, but the neighbors from 51st and 53rd reminded me of the old political quip by Lyndon Johnson:“Anyone who won’t accept half a loaf has never been hungry.”
I was there as well, and left after the second vote. I’m not saying there concern is rational (I tend to agree with JR), I said their concern was the MOST legitimate of the ones I heard, many of which were unfounded and over the top. The meeting last week at Cafe au Play was even worse in that regard.
Was there a vote on the project as a whole? Shame that the recommended solution got shot down (55 to 56, ugh) since that’s the one that, by far, makes the most sense for everyone.
Here’s the voting as I wrote it down. I’ve left out the 3 or 4 absentions on each vote.
The vote on the project as proposed, with a test of a diverter at 52nd, and a rt. turn lane on Div. at 50th, was voted down 55 yes to 56 no.
The next vote was on a proposal by Mike Shaver, MTNA Transportation committee chair, but speaking on his own. Mike’s proposal is: Do the 52nd Diverter, plus a diverter at 51st, and stop signs on 53rd and 54th and Sherman, and perhaps speed bumps on those streets.
This proposal garnered 68 yes votes, and 39 no votes.
After this, some folks left. The third vote was on a proposal by John Laursen, to do a test of minimal measures, basically the turn lane at 50th, and a couple of “pinch points” on 52nd between Division and Lincoln. This proposal got 51 yes to 43 no votes.
A vote on a motion to not vote on the entire bikeway plan, seeing as how the neighborhood was so divided, was overwhelmingly voted down in a voice vote.
The final vote, at about 9:50 PM, was to send a letter to the city, supporting the 50s Bikeway Project, but noting that the neighhborhood was divided regarding the diverter, and listing the results of the first 3 votes in the letter.
I think that summary is exactly right. Thanks Doug.
The weird part was that the John Laursen motion was explicitly an anti-diverter motion, so when it passed it meant that the group had supported two different contradictory things.
My take on it was that the significant vote was #2, the lopsided one in favor of Mike Shaver’s plan. That was the only vote that got a significant majority in favor. By the third vote, people were leaving and I’m certain that there was confusion about what exactly was being voted on.
So in a certain sense the anti-diverter folks outmaneuvered the larger pro-diverter group, because they initially lost, but now they can claim a divided group and an ambiguous result. Including the caveat language to the Council essentially ignores the convincing 68-39 vote.
Thanks Doug for the full report. I guess I should have waiting another 5 minutes for the final vote, but at 9:45 it seemed like it might go on for quite a while still.
I was also there.
The project as a whole was overwhelmingly supported (only 2 no votes), with a statement that there was disagreement about the appropriate solution for 52nd and Division. The statement included the vote totals for the 3 proposals discussed. In those earlier votes, the city proposal failed by one vote as Dolan indicates. An alternative proposal that included the diverter on 52nd, an additional diverter on 51st and Division, and speed humps and stop signs to calm traffic on 53rd and 54th passed with a strong majority (something like 68 to 36). A third proposal for a low cost option (this 3rd vote was least clear to me) failed by a relatively narrow margin.
So in the end, there was a show of support for the project, some suggestion that PBOT should pursue the diverter at Division and 52nd along with additional traffic reduction and calming on affected sidestreets, and acknowledgement that there was not consensus.
I live on 54th north of Division, and was really surprised to see my neighbors vote against the traffic calming option, which I think will actually reduce cut through traffic on our street, even with the diverter on 52nd. (We already have cut through that has nothing to do with this diverter). I’m sure we’ll have some discussions about this over the next few weeks.
How did I not realize we were neighbors?
This sounds similar to the conversation that happened at the traffic calming meeting the 50s Bikeway staff held last week. There, too, the ideas of diverting at 51st and adding in a bunch of stop signs on Sherman were brought up, and it seemed to split the NIMBYs. Some said they’d be happy to test that and others made it clear that they’re not willing to consider any changes at all.
Good ol’ Mt. Taborites. Are these the same fine folks who fought so hard to keep the reservoirs uncovered, you know, so drunks can urinate in our drinking water? A visionary bunch, to say the least.
And just fought to ban bikes from the Mt. Tabor trails!
not 100% accurate, but point taken.
You can drain a reservoir for $35K (a tentative figure reported yesterday) lots and lots o’ times before you approach the many millions of $$$ that capping will cost.
Another though: If you actually catch said drunk (which they did in this case), test the drunk’s urine to see if there’s anything especially dangerous which requires actually draining the reservoir — instead of merely putting on a show because people think the idea is inherently icky.
Disclosure: I don’t live in Mt. Tabor and I don’t routinely consume drunk urine, and never while bicycling.
I live on the section of 53rd in question and brought up the idea of stop signs at Sherman earlier this month. The city proposal had only wishful thinking about traffic calming on the streets paralleling 52nd, so I was glad to see Michael Shaver make a formal proposal regarding additional calming measures.
I’d be willing to wager that 53rd would see very little additional traffic if the diverter is put in place, but stop signs at Sherman on both 51st and 53rd would do a lot to tame any potential cut through, and be a pretty cheap deterrent.
I take 52nd all the way from Milwaukie, up to the Hawthorne area where is starts zigging through 53rd, all the way to my house near Belmont…
it’s a great route with bike lanes on a lot of 52nd to Woodstock and not a lot of traffic past there…
they could EASILY put the bikeway on 52all the way through since the area they’re bypassing with that maze through 57th/58th/56th hardly has any cars parked along it…
the city is not winning anybody over by caving to the demands of a vocal minority to the decrement of the greater good…
so basically, they’re going to do all this work and I’m not going to use it…
52nd doesn’t go through Glencoe Elementary, plus you need to eventually shift over to 53rd to get across the Banfield. So your choices are 47th (very narrow, very busy with auto traffic), 53rd (where you’re eventually going anyway further North), or something further to the East, where the grades are only suitable for Alberto Contador.
I meant 49th, not 57th.
I meant 49th, not 47th. Dur.
Well, here I go again:
Did anybody say anything about the Bikeway between on 53rd between Belmont and Stark, aka the Glencoe drop-off loop?
Because that is going to be FUN: one-lane street with a hill with cars going both directions, parents looking for parking spots and kids walking to school and people using it a speedy short cut…
But I guess a few more cars on 53rd and 51st between Lincoln and Hawthorne are more important…
(Sorry for snarkiness and yes, I will attend the next open house to bring this point up again!)
I assume that this is the same John Laursen from the HBBA who opposed all on-street bike infrastructure on Hawthorne in the Hawthorne Blvd. Trans. Plan CAC?
He basically bullied the chair into taking the multiple contradictory votes, claiming anything else amounted to steamrolling the neighbors on 51st and 53rd.
When she caved to his demand it became clear that (1) the “process” would result in taking a position that’s an incomprehensible mess, and (2) the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association has its head up its ass.
Same old, same old NIMBYism. People oppose bikeways until they’re built. Then they’ll fight tooth and nail to keep them.
(As for the reservoir, what a waste of money to drain it. The guy’s urine would have been diluted 100,000,000:1, multiple orders of magnitude greater than necessary to make it safe to drink. I’m certain there’s more than 1 part per 100 million of animal urine in Bull Run water already).
I’m fine with the rapid-flash crossing on Powell, as long as that island is wide enough to protect Extra-cycles, Bakfiets, trailers, and Trail-a-bikes (you know, for those of us with families). Personally, I already bike the bikeway, giving me a place to ride while letting traffic past will only speed up the car commute for others…
i didn’t see this mentioned but there is another open house at the “our lady of sorrows parish” off woodstock. it’s on june 29th from 1700 to 2000.
The end result of the voting at the MTNA meeting was to show city counsel how close the vote was and not just an up or down vote. I actually consider the very close vote a victory for the pro-diverter crowd. The 51st/53rd folks also get a victory because the crowd overwhelmingly supported the diverter on 51st and stop signs on the other two streets which they weren’t going to get in the original proposal.
John Laursen’s a good and honorable guy who has done much in this city to support citizen’s against suit types, see i.e., Warner Pacific’s attempt to purchase part of Mt. Tabor park a few years ago which John fought with another group of Mt. Tabor and South Tabor people and got both WPC and the City to back off.
I don’t happen to agree with his stance on the diverter but he’s a good guy. Plus he co-wrote probably the coolest pictoral book on the Gorge.
John may indeed be a good guy, but he is just about as far from pro-cycling as they come in this town.
I’m glad the neighborhood supported the project, in general. Seems like it was the best outcome for a highly polarized group of neighbors. I think the closeness of the vote is enough for the City to go forward with the diverter as planned. The City has always had money in the budget reserved for additional traffic calming measures on the parallel 51st and 53rd Avenues, if an increase in traffic volumes warranted it.
Some people will say “no” to just about everything – I have them in my neighborhood and have seen them come out on every proposal to do anything good. Then there are others with legitimate concerns who just don’t understand – at least they can be reasoned with.
It was quite a scene at that meeting.
Interesting that the few “no to everything” folks JR mentions were so convinced they’d get overflow traffic on their side streets – 51st, 53rd and 54th – when these are not appealing streets to drive on. I know this first hand because I live just north of there, and 50th and 52nd are my preferred routes when I have to drive that way. I wouldn’t consider using those other streets as shortcuts when driving, because they’re ‘courtesy queuing’ streets: two cars can’t pass without one pulling over. That’s part of why they’re such extremely quiet streets.
You can see it in the numbers: the city considers a street to be quiet if it gets 1000 cars a day or less, and those three side streets get around 200-300 cars a day each. (51st is great to bike on because it’s so quiet, if a little on the bumpy side.)
By comparison, nearby streets like SE Lincoln and 52nd get around 3000 a day. And 52nd south of Division gets over 6000 a day.
This traffic should be sticking to the more commercial streets of 50th and Division, and not cutting through neighborhood streets like 52nd and Lincoln (which is already a designated bike boulevard).
The fact that the people with the traffic counts in the low hundreds seemed hell-bent on keeping their neighbors with traffic counts in the thousands from getting effective traffic calming was kind of discouraging to me as a resident of this neighborhood.
In the end I was glad to see Michael Shaver’s plan – what I think could be described as a “diverter-plus” plan – emerge as the strong favorite.
You can read about Michael’s earlier efforts at traffic-calming that neighborhood here: http://bikeportland.org/2009/03/11/citizen-advocate-works-to-improve-calm-on-lincoln-bike-boulevard-15409
My personal favorite comment at the meeting was the woman complaining about bike lane spending instead of fixing the “jacked up streets”. I guess she’s not aware that the rough pavement is one major reason keeping from people from driving faster and more frequently down these streets in the first place.
This was my experience of the meeting:
The diverters being proposed are sign-based (ala SE Clinton and Cesar Chavez) rather than physical (ala Ankeny and SE 20th Ave) because 52nd is a bus route. You can see a graphic of what they’ll look like here:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53345&a=349091
I found it interesting that the option that garnered the most support called for an *extra* diverter. Time and again I’ve been told that public opposition to diverters is insurmountable, and that’s why they’re so rarely even placed on the table as an option for bike infrastructure projects. I don’t recall anyone at the meeting expressing that having the diverters would be a hassle. It seemed that those on 52nd were welcoming them because it would mean that instead of the 2800 cars/day that they’re currently seeing, traffic might be reduced to under 1000 cars/day.
People at the meeting were passionate! And pretty well entrenched. Most of the opposition seemed to come from people who lived on the streets directly adjacent to 52nd Ave at Division. Well, them and those folks who just think bikers should just up and deal with the traffic as it is. I think the common thread to the opposition’s position was distrust. Here were some of the concerns I heard:
-> They didn’t believe the PBOT was accurately predicting the amount of overspill traffic (max of an addition 150 cars/day on top of the existing 200 cars/day) that would result from diverting traffic down Division to SE 50th Ave.
-> They didn’t believe that the city would pull the diverter option if it didn’t pass the PBOT’s tests. Rich Newlands spoke directly to this point when it was raised.
-> They didn’t believe the PBOT’s traffic numbers; that somehow the measurements were done improperly or in bad faith.
-> They didn’t believe the city had the funds to complete the job.
I’m not quite sure where all this distrust comes from. And I’m also not sure how much these reasons were given as cover to defend the position that they just don’t want any more dang traffic on their street. Which I totally get, actually. But it seems to me that if we want to build out the Bike Master Plan this is a nut we have to crack. It seemed like more than once I heard people ask for assurances from PBOT in writing. I wonder if the meeting might have gone better if Rich had gone in with a printout with whatever concrete promises PBOT could make.
Finally, I just want to say, if you haven’t been to a neighborhood meeting, you really should. It was inspiring to see civics happening at the grassroots level. Plus, watching the intersection of parliamentary procedures and interpersonal dynamics is a real hoot. Bing Wong, the neighborhood association treasurer was shockingly adept at Roberts Rules of Order. How he managed to keep up with what amended motion was being discussed — people were making motions like they were going out of style! — was beyond me.