Support BikePortland

City asks, ‘What do you want to see on N Williams Ave?’

Posted by on November 15th, 2011 at 5:11 pm

How can we make Williams safer and more pleasant to use?
(View looking north on Williams just before N Failing.)
(Photos © J. Maus)


The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has released details on its North Williams Community Forum. The event is part of PBOT’s extended public process for the Williams Ave Traffic Safety Operations Project following concerns raised back in June by some in the community that the city had failed to adequately consider the area’s long history of racial discrimination and impacts of gentrification.

The Community Forum is scheduled for November 28th at Immaculate Heart Church (2926 N. Williams).

Event flyer

The City is billing the event as an open forum where City officials and representatives from various agencies, “will come together to hear your desires for North Williams Avenue and the neighborhoods around it.”

Project advisory committee Chair
Debora Leopold Hutchins will give
a presentation at the event.

Confirmed to speak at the event is Portland Mayor Sam Adams. PBOT Director Tom Miller, Director of the Bureau of Planning & Sustainability Susan Anderson, and Director of the Portland Development Commission Patrick Quinton will be in attendance but are not planning to speak.

In addition to City officials, several community leaders will give presentations:

  • Cathy Galbraith, Architectural Heritage Foundation
  • Gahlena Easterly, Longtime Albina resident and community investigator
  • Debora Leopold Hutchins, Sistas Weekend Cyclers and Advisory Committee Chair
  • Mychal Tetteh, Village Market and Major Taylor Cycling Club
  • Steve Bozzone, Willamette Pedestrian Coalition

This Community Forum comes just a few weeks after the “Race Talks” event at McMenamins Kennedy School. That event (held on November 8th) had an overflow crowd and featured speakers as well as a historical look at the Vancouver/Williams corridor.

At the Race Talks event PBOT project manager Ellen Vanderslice told the crowd that the City must decide what to do on Williams by March of next year or the money allocated for the project might no longer be available.

— For more information on this project, see our past coverage and visit the City’s official project page.

Please support BikePortland.

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. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

67 Comments
  • Avatar
    jim November 15, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I would like to see the bike lane moved over to an adjacent street. Something more family friendly. I would like to see the traffic lanes restored to a decent width so there is enough room for trucks and buses to drive without busting the mirrors off of parked vehicles

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Andrew Seger November 15, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      I’d like to see a full traffic lane removed. Great compromise for everyone: slower taffic speeds yet better lane for people like Jim. Easier to cross the street & provides enough room for a more family friend buffered bike lane. Parking shout cost as well with 100% of the funds diverted back into the areas that have paid on street parking.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        jim November 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm

        There allready is not enough parking on Williams since all the new business’s, and condo’s have moved in. I can’t see where removing parking spaces will make anybody that lives or works there happy.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Andrew Seger November 15, 2011 at 10:59 pm

          Removing a *lane* doesn’t remove any parking. Plus charging for parking starts to add the market back into the parking equation. The money can be used for a variety of neighborhood improvements and encourages people to use parking more efficiently. Or even ride a bike if they really wanted to. I’m also warming up to a left side protected bike lane, but I’m open to other alternatives as well.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            jim November 16, 2011 at 6:47 am

            An extra fee that people would have to pay everyday to be at work is not fair. Alsowhy are you wanting to tax cars to improve bicycle conditions? Wouldn’t it be more fair to have a bicycle registration fee to pay for bicycle improvements?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Paul November 16, 2011 at 9:25 am

            Bicycle registration fees haven’t worked well in any part of the world. You need to look at the bigger transportation picture here, not cars vs. bikes vs. buses. And removing the bike lane is counter intuitive, since the commercial streets are where I tend to want bike access on. Better for business, better for everyone. That street doesn’t warrant 2 lanes anyhow, neither do 85% of Portland streets that are 1-way.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Neighbor Gregg November 16, 2011 at 12:04 pm

            @Jim”An extra fee that people would have to pay everyday to be at work is not fair.”

            Folks that work in a neighborhood that has fees for parking a car can walk, bus, bike to work and not have to pay (Just like anywhere else.)

            People choosing to drive can park on the sidestreet.

            Folks pay to park in commercial districts all over the world (Including all over downtown.) I think that it is not fair that people who don’t own cars have to pitch in to subsidize parking for those who choose to own a car.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            was carless November 17, 2011 at 11:43 am

            “Extra fee” for parking?

            Why not? There are too many people in this world. Stop breeding. You can’t all drive a car in a city – they take up too much damned space.

            Your options for driving/parking with limited space are:

            1) fight over parking spots
            2) pay for the privilege to park
            3) lottery system

            You get to choose 1. There is no “freedom,” and the sooner people come to grips with reality, hopefully the less kicking and screaming we’ll see coming from spoiled Americans.

            Wait, I forgot, Americans often delude themselves by imaging there is a 4th option: hope other people will cycle or take transit so that you can drive and park your car anywhere.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    PDXFixed.com November 15, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    Easier access to HUB Bike Bar. It’s a pain to try and cross from the bike lane over to the left side where HUB is. Maybe they could paint the road green there?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      maxadders November 15, 2011 at 6:53 pm

      You’re allowed to take the lane. If you’re not up to that, there’s always the sidewalk.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      sorebore November 16, 2011 at 4:27 pm

      Just use your mad PDXfixed skills to duck tail a “Suicide Skid” between the Trimet and cars!! come on, you can do it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    John Landolfe November 15, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    Given the scale of the project relative to other transportation projects (exceptionally small), I hope the City will give equal consideration to Williams residents, like myself, who cannot attend multiple events as to those who can be a dedicated presence at these forums. I am becoming, frankly, confused as to which of these events will have greater/lesser impact on the final outcome. My schedule demands prevent me the luxury of continuing this dialog ad infinitum.

    This is one of the oldest issues in public involvement, but it’s worth repeating: workers and students (i.e. commuters; the ones using the lanes most) are simply at a public involvement disadvantage to retirees, homemakers, and business owners who make their own schedules and can consider this a business-related event. Not that the opinions of the latter should be discounted but busy commuters are clearly not on an equal footing politically–otherwise this minor paint job would have a dried a long time ago.

    I’m also sending this comment to the link Jonathan provided above and I highly recommend others directly affected by this project do the same.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Kiel Johnson November 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

      John, I always thought Portland was the place young guys go to retire 🙂

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        John Landolfe November 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm

        Well, the young retirees need to put down the Wii controller and submit their input. I was already a cranky, old man when I got here.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    maxadders November 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    A recessed loading / unloading zone around those trendy shops and restaurants between Beech and Failing. I’m tired of cars stopping in the bike lane to unload passengers. Makes my blood boil! They’re not going to stop frequenting these businesses, so why not give them a safe place to pull over and drop people off?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Hugh Johnson November 15, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    I’m kinda surprised better planning for the lanes wasn’t done long ago. Someone must have realized with all the development and change going on that this was going to be a problem. But it’s probably easier said than done.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    q`Tzal November 15, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    Nice impartial red light cameras on EVERY single traffic light controlled intersection.
    WITH facial recognition.

    Call it a “No ticket test area”.
    No tickets would be issued but a advisory flag would be added to the driver’s record that a police officer would see when pulling a driver over for some issue the officer observes in person.
    While not a conviction in and of itself a cumulative history of computer observed speeding or red light running suggests to the traffic officer that the offender they just pulled over might just not be deserving of a warning; maybe they should get a ticket and a big fine. Police officers are given discretion in ticketing and fining; it would make sense to empower that officer with a reason to let a safe driver off with a warning and ticket a bad driver.

    Facial recognition would help to silence some of the bike haters and red light camera haters in that the recorded offense is assigned to the person recognized rather than the vehicle.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chuck November 16, 2011 at 11:13 am

      Sounds great, as long as the equal number of people on bikes who run red lights, specifically at Killingsworth and Williams, get tagged too.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        q`Tzal November 18, 2011 at 2:50 pm

        That’s the reason for facial recognition.
        Ticket the person not the vehicle.

        It wouldn’t solve all bike vs car enmity but there would at least be fairness in enforcement.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    maxadders November 15, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    How about stop lights at N. Cook and WIlliams? Drivers are constantly gunning it through that intersection, cutting from the I-5 off-ramp over to MLK. The traffic at Cook an Vancouver is even worse! I feel these intersections both provide the biggest safety hassles on the whole stretch.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Sigma November 15, 2011 at 8:00 pm

    The solution should address the real problem, which is capacity during the weekday afternoon rush (6% of the time). I’d like to see no parking on the east side from Fremont to Skidmore from 4-6 on weekdays. Make the parking lane bike and bus only. bike capacity tri

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Sigma November 15, 2011 at 8:02 pm

      …ples, businesses can’t complain (this set up doesn’t seem to be hurting retail on Division) and the cost is minimal. Seems like a fair compromise and a good phase 1/pilot project.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chuck November 16, 2011 at 11:14 am

      This is a fantastic idea, one that would seem to fit the needs of commuters on bikes and the in cars. Make it happen PBOT.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Neighbor Gregg November 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Buffered Bike Lane on the left side, marked crosswalks at all intersections, and one lane for all traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Paul Johnson November 16, 2011 at 9:44 am

      Wait, how does that work? A buffered bike lane and a general access lane would be two lanes of traffic unless you’re living in a world where bicycles are pedestrians…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Neighbor Gregg November 16, 2011 at 12:28 pm

        Paul- correct. Looking from left to right:
        Left side buffered bike lane, then a parking lane, then a general access lane, then a right side parking lane.

        …And I’m living in a world where cyclist can be considered pedestrians outside of downtown when they are moving at walking speed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jim November 15, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    I would like to see a traffic light at the intersection where cars come off of the fremont bridge. There is allways a line of cars there waiting for a small window of opt. to bolt on out onto williams. This is not a safe situation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Joe Rowe November 15, 2011 at 9:23 pm

    7 foot wide dual Buffered Bike lane on the far left side. Reduction of 2 moving car lanes down to one. Right side bus stops at the start of each block would not block moving cars or cars turning right. Reduction of speed from 25mph to 20mph. Stop lights with better timing. All this is a win-win for bikes, bus, cars and parking. Everyone would move in a manner that was more safe and efficient. Most could be done with paint. We don’t need expensive consultants. We do need to build consensus with the African American Community. We would need a bike signal to get bikes from the right side to left side between Broadway and Russel. Vote for me and your wildest dreams will come true! ! !

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      was carless November 17, 2011 at 11:57 am

      How about eliminate bus stops down to 1 every 4-6 blocks. Most Trimet bus stops are way too frequent, and as a result, their buses are almost as slow as SF or NYC. People should be able to walk 2 blocks to catch a bus.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    daisy November 15, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    I live a block and a half from N Williams, and I bike to work, so what I have to say is as a bike commuter and a resident: I’d really like there to be a safer way for kids in my neighborhood to walk and bike to our neighborhood K-8 school, Boise-Eliot. Kids between MLK and Williams are zoned for BE, but to get there, we have to cross Williams and Vancouver. We can walk north to Fremont, but those intersections aren’t very pedestrian friendly. And getting across Williams and Vancouver, and even at the painted crosswalks at Dawson Park, is always tricky–even if the cars stop, the bikes might not, and so on.

    I’ve been disappointed that this review of Williams has taken into consideration the kids who cross Williams and Vancouver twice a day for school.

    Fixing the problem of cars coming off the Fremont Bridge would be a good start.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jim November 16, 2011 at 6:54 am

    The thing that is going to fix the traffic problem on Williams is fixing I-5. Look at how many washington plates there are during the rush. these are cars cutting through the neighborhood to avoid the backup on I-5. Fix the problems there and away goes most of your rushhour traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      A.K. November 16, 2011 at 10:20 am

      How do you fix I-5? There isn’t really much room to expand it, and that would just result in MORE traffic in the long run.

      I propose we do what countries do to each other: limit how many foreign people can apply for jobs and work in a country.

      Lets limit how many people can come from Washington into Oregon for jobs.

      Want to live in Washington, with lower taxes? Good for you! Now get a job there and stop treating my state as a place to spend 9 hours and then leave.

      What, you say there aren’t enough good jobs in Vancouver? Well that’s too bad: petition Olympia to do something about it.

      As far as I know, there are something like 9% of the working population unemployed here – let’s put them back to work, rather than giving the work to people who don’t live here.

      /somewhat serious, somewhat tongue-in-cheek rant over.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Hugh Johnson November 16, 2011 at 6:09 pm

        Those Washington residents do pay Oregon income tax.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      are November 16, 2011 at 10:35 am

      construction of I-5 is one of the things that destroyed this neighborhood in the first place. dumping the spillover from I-5 onto williams is part of the collateral damage. if we are looking for justice here, the least we can do is get the through traffic off williams. i would suggest the immediate path to accomplishing this would be to make it more inconvenient to cut through than it would have been to stay on the highway. fewer access points (get rid of the alberta onramp), only one through lane, and frequent stoplights with curb extensions.

      widening the highway is a losing bet, as demand will rise to meet the supply until the private automobile becomes too expensive for the average household to stomach anymore.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Paul Johnson November 16, 2011 at 4:48 pm

        Putting the OR 99W signs back up on Interstate, Naito and the Steel Bridge would help with this; you pretty much have to work for ODOT or be a cartographer to know that that’s 99W right now.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Neighbor Gregg November 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm

      Let’s get rid of I-5. We should turn it into a really long park filled with playgrounds, multiuse paths, fruit and nut trees, community gardens, playing fields….

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        was carless November 17, 2011 at 12:01 pm

        Like most of the neighborhood, it is likely heavily contaminated with lead from exhaust (from back in the day). So everyone would get lead poisoning and die.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          sorebore November 17, 2011 at 12:41 pm

          Back in the day?? How about NOW! Most folks are either not aware or do not care about Oregon’s turtle like pace to reduce benzine as a gasoline additive. North Portland has one of the highest levels of any populated area in the country.

          Benzene in Oregon

          A recent study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality shows that benzene contributes almost a quarter of the cancer risk in Portland. Air monitoring equipment in Eugene shows that average ambient benzene levels are 10 times the benchmark level believed to spur cancer in humans over a lifetime of exposure, as established by National Air Toxics Assessment. The DEQ estimates that Portland residents may be exposed to as much as forty times over (40X) safety levels of benzene in ambient air.

          this is from the OTA website, one of many sources.
          Enjoy your healthy ride up Williams!!!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    spare_wheel November 16, 2011 at 8:22 am

    buffered bike lane advocates need to stop thinking about themselves and consider the plight of fearful potential cyclists. i just don’t see how we will reach 20% mode share without a cycletrack that swerves around parking and dumps cyclists into pedestrian crosswalks.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Paul Johnson November 16, 2011 at 9:45 am

      They’re called crosswalks for a reason; they’re not crossbikes.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      are November 16, 2011 at 10:36 am

      williams would be for the commuter. the interested but cautious could be given a bike boulevard on rodney.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Frank November 16, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Consideration should be given to increasing to four lanes of car traffic, increasing the speed limit, and removing the traffic lights. We should add an elevated cycle track, kind of like a monorail platform over the street with an on-ramp at the rose quarter, an off-ramp at the bike bar and another on-off ramp at my house. Lets “dialogue” this for at least five years, then scrap the idea and settle for widening the bike lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Oliver November 16, 2011 at 8:42 am

    I’ll second the elimination of parking on the right during the evening commute. I’m surprised that this is not already implemented at more locations since it is already done in some spots in the city.

    I would also be for removal of a traffic lane. Northbound car commuters should be on MLK if they can’t stomach I-5.

    There is also no access to the freeway between Broadway and Rosa Parks, which makes northbound driver’s use of Williams even more egregious, as it ends at Killingsworth, making Michigan a rat-run.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Scott November 16, 2011 at 9:26 am

      You can’t tell cars where to be unless you want drivers to tell you where to be.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        are November 17, 2011 at 12:14 am

        to the contrary. policy and engineering can as a practical matter tell everyone “where to be.” bicyclists and pedestrians are already not permitted on the interstate, and they are not as a practical matter welcome on MLK. why should interstate traffic be accommodated on williams? the street is designated a neighborhood collector, which means that its intended use is for trips that begin or end in the neighborhood. it is not intended to function as an arterial, connecting one interstate ramp to another (or broadway to killingsworth, for that matter). in recent years, the volumes have crept up above the neighborhood collector levels, and speeds as well, making life very difficult for pedestrians. the policy is already there. the engineering has to follow, somehow. the fact that cyclists also use williams as a commuting route is actually secondary to these basic considerations.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Paul Johnson November 17, 2011 at 6:56 am

          Minor nitpick: All roads in Oregon (and most states) are open to all modes unless explicitly posted otherwise. The Minnesota Freeway is closed to nonmotorized traffic, but I5 south of 217 is open to all traffic. 84 is open to all traffic east of 122nd Avenue. 205 is open to all traffic south of OR 43 and north of WA 14. There’s pretty specific criteria that must be met before a route can be closed to nonmotorized traffic, a key one being a safe alternative route (since the wide hard shoulders and lack of parking of a freeway tend to afford a lot more safety to cyclists than a narrow or no bike lane on a surface street with cardoors and intersections).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I November 16, 2011 at 9:57 am

      It would be nice to have parking restrictions between 4 and 6pm, creating a super-wide bus/bike only lane. This would reduce bus/bike conflicts, and allow cyclists to easily pass each other. Busses will also improve their schedule time, as they won’t be getting held up in traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    pdxpaul November 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Two words: tack patrols.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    A.K. November 16, 2011 at 9:21 am

    jim
    An extra fee that people would have to pay everyday to be at work is not fair. Alsowhy are you wanting to tax cars to improve bicycle conditions? Wouldn’t it be more fair to have a bicycle registration fee to pay for bicycle improvements?

    Life isn’t fair now is it? People who don’t drive (I do drive) pay property taxes that go to support vehicle infrastructure they will never personally utilize. Is that fair?

    I don’t have kids in school but pay taxes to support PPS. Is that fair?

    It’s part of being in a collective society, not everything is fair or is a 1:1 benefit ratio for you personally.

    You’re not “taxing cars to improving bicycle conditions”, you’re making drivers pay market rate for something of very high value and limited availability (street parking and two one-way travel lanes) that has been subsidized for them by ALL OF US for a long time.

    If you want free parking, park in the neighborhood and walk a few blocks. If you want parking right IN FRONT, on Williams, expect to pay a few shekels for the privilege.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Scott November 16, 2011 at 9:23 am

    I would like to see the bike lane(s) removed completely, and for bikes and cars to move in traffic together.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Paul Johnson November 16, 2011 at 9:47 am

      That might be a workable option if we could get DMV to do it’s job and decertify aggressive drivers.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Johnson November 16, 2011 at 9:43 am

    jim
    An extra fee that people would have to pay everyday to be at work is not fair. Alsowhy are you wanting to tax cars to improve bicycle conditions? Wouldn’t it be more fair to have a bicycle registration fee to pay for bicycle improvements?
    Recommended 0

    Free parking isn’t free. It’s pretty much assumed that you’re going to pay to put a machine that takes up ~85 square feet of space in a city, be it in a driveway or parking lot you’re paying for as part of your rent or mortgage, or on the street. The public commons isn’t just real estate up for private grabs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Babygorilla November 16, 2011 at 10:02 am

    Dedicated patrol enforcement during the evening rush for a couple of weeks and then more random enforcement a couple of days a week going forward. A stoplight for the kids going to the elementary school in a comment mentioned above. No major capital improvements are necessary if existing laws are enforced.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Lenny Anderson November 16, 2011 at 12:07 pm

    The Interstate Corridor Urban Renewal Citizen Advisory Committee Transportation Subcommittee (whew that’s a mouthful!) originally addressed the safety problem on Williams/Vancouver about five years ago. The issue presented to us was getting across Williams safely, especially for older folks and kids. Speed data showed at that time Williams traffic was significantly over speed limits and faster than Vancouver (one lane). PBOT proposed (and ICURA funded) a series of marked crosswalks with curb extensions, but failed to address excessive speed. These were built, but I’m not sure what has happened to speeds since, but any multi-lane street begs for excessive speed by design.
    Everyone should want a city street to be safe for all users…pedestrians, especially the young and old; bicyclists of all ages; transit riders…who are pedestrians before and after their transit ride; motorists, who if they stop to shop, drink or whatever, become pedestrians; and delivery trucks that sometimes have to park in the street; transit vehciles, etc.
    Motor vehicle speed is the most critical factor in safety for all public right of way users. Speed limits should be reduced to 20 mph, but we all know that doesn’t do much. Design is key to reducing speed.
    The most cost effective design change for Williams Avenue is a reduction of motor vehicle travel lanes from two to one. Speeds are lower on Vancouver and capacity appears to be sufficient. No parking is lost, no access is restricted; motor vehicles are simply moving at a slightly lower speed.
    As is the case today with Vancouver Avenue, a portion of the former motor vehicle lane can be used to provide a wider and safer bike lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chuck November 16, 2011 at 1:45 pm

      Isn’t Vancouver 2 lanes as it runs parallel to Williams? It’s one lane north of Killingsworth, but pretty sure it’s two lanes going south of Killingsworth. That’s the segment of Williams up for debate, no?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Lenny Anderson
    Lenny Anderson November 16, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Most of Vancouver south of Killingsworth to Broadway is one lane; short portions where the street is wider are two lanes, but that is the exception, not the rule.
    Speeds on Vancouver are slower; the bike lane is much wider; bus service (4, 44, 24) seems to operate without problems.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    elliott November 16, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    I would like to see N Williams used as a model and applied to a ton of roads in SW. Capitol Hwy, Barbur Blvd, etc. N Williams is spot on. Safe. Wide. Fast for bike and cars. Riding from my house to Tualatin and back is a long ride and on the way back I look forward to getting back to Williams. Barbur is great 90% of the time but when it gets tough the bike lanes disappear. Most of Capital Hwy doesnt even have a shoulder let alone a bike lane. Mulnomah is good if you’re going that way but bike lanes in a 45 zone are pretty sketchy and people die there. Anyway, Williams is great the way it is.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    anthony sands November 17, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Still trying to figure out why anyone would be against a safer street.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Charley November 19, 2011 at 12:49 am

    What would I like to see? I’d like to see the City implement the well-received safety improvement plan that it had drawn up months ago. It’s too bad that that plan has been derailed, and the City will have to pay to do all of this process over again.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jim November 20, 2011 at 11:37 am

    If it was to be reduced to 1 lane of car traffic, how much safer would it be for children? There will still be lots of cars, trucks, buses, and perhaps still bike accidents because of this. Wouldn’t it be safer for children if this whole bike boulevard were to be moved over 1 or 2 blockes to a quieter street….?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      are November 22, 2011 at 3:12 pm

      the concept here is not a bike boulevard, and the effort is not for children on bikes, but commuters (who for the most part don’t really need anything except a bit more space on the road north of beech to about skidmore). there has been talk of putting in some bike boulevard treatments on rodney, two blocks over, but these are not in the budget for this project.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jered November 22, 2011 at 9:09 am

    I would like to see… I really like Williams right now. It is fast, straight forward, enough know spots of “excitement” to keep me awake and paying attention, rush hour is hectic but auto traffic is usually slow enough to feel pretty safe. I’d love a sign at the PIX crosswalk that says bikes must stop when Peds are in crosswalk… I’d love to see a better way to deal with the Freemont light on Vancouver and the chaos around cars and bikes and the 405 bridge, that spot actually makes me nervous. Maybe bikes get a big headstart at the light?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Marcus Griffith November 26, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Open question:

    Can the public trust SAC Chair Debora Hutchins is representing the interest of the community, and not her other notable affiliations?

    Hutchins is a Trimet employee and has used her Trimet email address to conduct the advisory committee business (on at least one occasion). Can the public trust she is representing the interests of the community and not Trimet’s interest in the area (Trimet operates bus lines on N. Williams)?

    Hutchins is also President of the Oregon and SW Washington Chapter of the Conference Of Minority Transportation Officials (which she lists her Trimet work phone and email as contact info).
    (http://www.comto.org/?page=ChapterPresidents)

    Hutchins was asked to respond via email and stated “My employment and professional affiliations have nothing to do with my personal community service,” but did not explain her use of Trimet resources to conduct SAC business.

    Thoughts/comments/concerns?

    Marcus Griffith
    Marcus.Griffith@gmail.com

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      are November 26, 2011 at 9:27 pm

      is hutchins the only member of the SAC to use an organizational or employer e-mail address in connection with SAC business?

      several people on the committee are their specifically because of their organizational or employer affiliations, and in fact the SAC has struggled with whether a substitute attending in the place of the appointed member should be able to participate in decisionmaking, but discussion centered mostly on the matter of getting such a person up to speed.

      the SAC has adopted a two-thirds majority vote mechanism for approving any final proposals, which tends to minimize the influence of any hidden agenda, and they came this close to adopting a consensus mechanism, which would have negated it altogether.

      not sure where you are going with the question of “trust,” though. ms. hutchins employment is not exactly a secret. and i don’t think anyone at the table who might want to make life harder for bus drivers on williams would somehow be misled by her.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar