The Worst Day of the Year Ride is February 11th

Metro traffic engineer says ODOT memo overstated effects of restriping Barbur

Posted by on September 12th, 2013 at 1:36 pm

Riding Portland's urban highways-40

(Photos © J. Maus/BikePortland)

A state memo that dismissed a set of bike safety improvements on Southwest Barbur Boulevard was “wrong” in its use of traffic data, a traffic engineer who helped prepare the data said Wednesday.

Barbur, the only flat and direct route connecting much of Southwest Portland and the rest of the city, currently forces cars and bicycles to merge into the same 45 mph lane in order to cross two narrow bridges. The Oregon Department of Transportation has been under pressure from some nearby residents to explain its unwillingness to restripe the road after a planned repaving job.

As part of its case against replacing one of two northbound auto lanes with two dedicated bike lanes across the bridges, ODOT had cited a report finding that the change might increase travel times somewhere between 10 and 65 percent on the corridor by 2035. (It comes to something like 84 seconds to 9 minutes of additional auto travel time over the course of the 4.9 miles south of the proposed changes.) Among other things, the models assume that no one will ever change their schedule or mode of travel to avoid that congestion.

But Anthony Buczek, a traffic engineer for regional agency Metro who’s participated in months of negotiations over ways to change the road, said in an interview that those numbers were not the best available and said the two agencies had previously agreed not to release them without agreeing on how to correct their inaccuracies.

“ODOT has done road diets elsewhere in the state. For whatever reason, ODOT Region 1 isn’t on board.”
— Anthony Buczek, Metro travel engineer

“There’s just not enough detail in the model to assess accurately the travel times or the amount of diversion,” said Buczek. “We thought we had communicated that pretty clearly to ODOT, so I think we were a little surprised to see the data released as it was.”

Buczek said the “correct” numbers, if any, came from a subsequent study by Metro and the City of Portland, using Synchro SimTraffic software, that found additional auto travel delays of about 10 percent by 2035, mostly because a restriping would force all northbound cars to drive only as fast as the slowest car.

Afternoon rush-hour travel, meanwhile, might actually be accelerated by dedicated bike lanes, because they would prevent southbound cars from having to share a lane with bikes. No studies have yet looked into southbound traffic impacts.

Meanwhile, as some readers noted in the comments below our story last week, actual auto traffic on Barbur in the relevant area peaked in 2003:

Source: ODOT. Data gathered by Evan Siroky.

This was around the same time that total auto miles traveled in Oregon began falling statewide, and five years before the latest recession.

Even the most dramatic assessments of adding solid bike lanes predict that in the short term, restriping Barbur would increase northbound auto travel time during the morning rush hour by 15 percent, or about 40 additional seconds on the 1.8 miles between Terwilliger Boulevard and Hamilton Street.

Riding Portland's urban highways-30

An organized bicycle ride on Barbur in June.

In Wednesday’s interview, Buczek said ODOT’s memo by active transportation liaison Jessica Horning implied a false equivalence between the two studies by saying that the long-term results of restriping Barbur “would likely fall somewhere in between” the two estimates of additional auto delay in 2035, 10 percent and 65 percent.

“That’s wrong,” Buczek said. “We think the numbers coming out of SimTraffic are the accurate ones.”

Buczek added that replacing a northbound auto lane with one bike lane in each direction wouldn’t reduce the number of cars that can fit on the roadway during rush hour, it’d just slightly reduce the speed at which many of them do so.

“The capacity constraint remains at the signal at Terwilliger at the south end,” Buczek said. “It does slow things down, because the slowest car’s going to dictate the flow of traffic when you only have one lane. But it doesn’t really reduce the capacity, or at least not very much. And that’s why the impacts are at least minor to modedrate, I would say.”

ODOT spokesman Don Hamilton responded Thursday to Buczek’s criticisms by saying that both projections predict auto delays.

“Both the DTA and Synchro models showed similar results, that the road diet proposal would mean delays and diversion.”
— Don Hamilton, ODOT spokesman

“Both the DTA and Synchro models showed similar results, that the road diet proposal would mean delays and diversion along the Southwest Barbur Boulevard corridor,” Hamilton said. “They differed in their projections as to the extent of the delays but these are just models and not expected to produce precise results.”

Buczek, who specializes in assessing the effects of removing auto travel lanes, said he sees an institutional resistance to reducing selected auto speeds not in the entire ODOT institution but specifically in ODOT’s Region 1, which includes the Portland metro area.

“ODOT Region 1 is generally not supportive of road diet projects. I can’t think of one that they’ve done in the region,” Buczek said. “Which is unfortunate, because we know from national studies and the Federal Highway Administration that road diet projects do improve safety where they’re done thoughtfully. But there’s just a resistence from ODOT Region 1. And I think this is an ODOT Region 1 issue rather than an ODOT issue … I believe ODOT has done road diets elsewhere in the state. … For whatever reason, ODOT Region 1 isn’t on board.”

Horning, the ODOT active transportation specialist, disputed that characterization.

“I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to say that Region 1 isn’t supportive of road diets just because Region 3 has done one, but we haven’t done one yet,” she said Wednesday. “If we didn’t believe that road diets can be a useful tool, we wouldn’t have agreed to analyze it as an option.”

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 — Jonathan

  • BURR September 12, 2013 at 1:42 pm


    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Craig Harlow September 12, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Hello Mr. Garrett, please comment…

    Maus: At what point will ODOT make sure that the transportation conversation includes bicycle access on highway projects simply as a way of doing business? Is that type of shift a part of this evolution?

    Garrett:Yes it is… That is exactly another transition that is taking place.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

  • 9watts September 12, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    Excellent work, Bikeportland!

    “he sees an institutional resistance to reducing selected auto speeds not in the entire ODOT institution but specifically in ODOT’s Region 1”

    Institutional resistance is a polite way of saying this!

    Recommended Thumb up 22

  • Kristen September 12, 2013 at 1:53 pm

    The article does not identify Buczek very well; I don’t see mention of his first name, only his last name. Please fix. Unless he only has one name.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) September 12, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      Thanks, Kristen – fixed. (It’s Anthony.) There were a *lot* of edits to this draft over the last two days…

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Kristen September 13, 2013 at 10:03 am

        I imagine there were a lot of edits! This is an evolving issue; thanks for reporting on it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Alexis September 12, 2013 at 2:02 pm

    All cars only going as fast as the slowest car sounds good to me. Slower speeds, greater safety. Win, win. The only loser is the crazy driver, and why should they win this?

    Recommended Thumb up 39

    • El Biciclero September 12, 2013 at 2:47 pm

      Yeah, this is interesting. Does the research suggest that some drivers are going to drive 10% slower than the speed limit, making all drivers suffer, or that many drivers now like to drive an average of 11.1% faster than the current limit, so a 10% slowdown would force them to go the speed limit?

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Joseph E September 12, 2013 at 5:02 pm

        I would guess that 85% speeds are close to 55 mph, while the speed limit is 45 mph in this section (already much higher than on most of Barbur). Unfortunately, the city doesn’t have any traffic or speed date for Barbur in this section, perhaps because it is under ODOT jurisdiction.

        But consider that the average speed on Barbur in 2002 was 42 mph (See:, despite most of the road being signed at 35 mph, and consider that the Barbur Blvd High Crash Corridor safety plan recommended reducing the speed limit to 35 mph along the whole length of Barbur:

        Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Todd Boulanger September 12, 2013 at 6:16 pm

      Dan Burden calls this treatment: “the rolling or moving speed bump”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kiel Johnson
    Kiel Johnson September 12, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    thanks for this reporting michael, it is rare to see a government agency so neglectful. In her letter Jessica lamented that “While some have framed the removal of a motor vehicle lane on the bridges as a quick and easy, “noimpact” solution, there are impacts that need to be considered.” What ODOT doesn’t seem capable of considering are the impacts of the status quo and how to weigh the impacts of an unsafe street or a reality of fewer cars on the road.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • RJ September 12, 2013 at 2:38 pm

      I don’t even think ODOT R1 is necessarily anti-bike — I just think they are very risk-averse. They don’t like making changes and then getting killed in the court of public opinion. That’s how people lose jobs.

      Imagine if this segment of Barbur was already the way it should be: one lane northbound with decent bike facilities, handling about the same amount of vehicle traffic as it does now (at slightly slower speeds), with a lot more people riding bikes there than do today. Imagine that’s what’s on the ground right now. I don’t believe R1 would EVER propose removing the bike facilities and adding a second northbound lane. They would get way too much heat for it. They are much more comfortable leaving things the way they are. And it just so happens that the way things are (at least in terms of ODOT facilities) was designed and constructed in a time when it seemed as if VMT/capita was going to keep going up forever.

      The move to right-size Barbur needs good, persuasive arguments to push R1 off the status quo. I think that’s even a big reason why they hired Jessica, who, by the way, does in fact care immensely about active transportation. It’s not just that Jason and Rian need to be convinced (I actually suspect they buy in somewhat already) — they also need persuasive arguments they can take to state legislators, economic development folks, freight folks, etc. Somehow we need to help make these arguments better. (Unfortunately, they’re already citing the lack of bike crashes on this segment, so that makes it hard to play the always-effective “How many more children have to DIE?!?!?!” card.)

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Todd Boulanger September 12, 2013 at 6:24 pm

        Is R1 throwing Jessica under the bike tire and shutting the garage door behind her? (R1 pleads with her to go talk to those crazy bike people.)

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Spiffy September 12, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      the impacts that they need to consider are the ones caused by motor-vehicles impacting bicycles…

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • PNP September 12, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    What I don’t understand is their refusal to do something now in light of something that might happen twenty years from now. Do they really think that a few seconds delay in twenty years is worth the lives lost in the meantime? This is yet another reason why I hate politics.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Paul Souders September 12, 2013 at 2:33 pm

      The fact that they had to project out *22 years* to get an impact reveals the mindset. ODOT used science fiction to justify the status quo. “Well we can’t remove a lane because when we fight The War Against the Machines we’ll need that highway for our hovertanks.” Hey, it could happen!

      Recommended Thumb up 29

      • dan September 12, 2013 at 3:20 pm

        LOL. Seriously, if you think this through, you’ll realize we can’t use the hovertanks in the coming War Against the Machines because, well, they’re machines. We’ll have to pull the drive cores on the hovertanks first thing, and give all our troops bicycles. So, just another argument in favor of restriping ; )

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • gutterbunnybikes September 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm

          Making me reconsider purchasing an e-bike in the future….Knees don’t go out me please….

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Psyfalcon September 12, 2013 at 5:56 pm

          A bike is technically a machine too. And levers, and ramps. We really need to be careful which machines we anger.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Oliver September 16, 2013 at 8:53 am

            Sorry, I just don’t buy the Sierra Club argument. 😉

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Peter W September 12, 2013 at 2:17 pm

    The ODOT Region 1 manager is Jason Tell.

    Some of his remarks on ODOT’s Region 1 website (

    > ODOT Region 1 is not just about highways and bridges. It is about people. … our mission is to provide a safe, efficient transportation system … We value accountability and innovative problem solving. … We support a balanced multi-modal transportation system—highways, transit, rail and bicycle and pedestrian facilities all have a role in keeping people and goods moving.

    > We provide information so Oregonians can make informed transportation choices.

    > We partner with other government agencies, stakeholder groups and neighborhood associations to provide collaborative solutions to transportation challenges.

    > Many Oregonians volunteer their time and energy to participate in the public processes that help plan and develop current and future transportation choices. We are grateful for the involvement and encourage more people to become involved in our efforts.

    Jason Tell can be reached at

    Recommended Thumb up 19

  • Leon September 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    As a fairly frequent driver of Barbur who has only ridden it a couple times due to reasonable fear of “sharing” the road with people driving highway speeds, I welcome the slowest car effect since the slowest car is usually the one doing the speed limit. I would like to feel comfortable riding on Barbur, but don’t. There are lots of places in southwest that are inhospitable to cyclists (Capitol highway between multnomah village and PCC, for instance), but Barbur is the biggest no-brainier when it comes to having an easy-ish and necessary fix. I know the odot’s claim that they want to keep it open and fast in case of emergency, and I’m sure they could come up with a reasonable plan to open it up efficiently should the need arise. Of course, it’d be nice to have a good way for cyclists to travel in those same emergencies.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • Rob September 12, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    Kiel Johnson
    it is rare to see a government agency so neglectful.

    unless that government agency is ODOT.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Opus the Poet September 12, 2013 at 6:44 pm

      Actually you could use just about any state DOT for anything from benign neglect to outright anti-bicycle hostility.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Dave O'Dell September 12, 2013 at 2:43 pm

    Are there any estimates of how many lives will be saved by 2035 if this change is made? Whatever the number is lives saved would increase as traffic speed decreases. Maybe traffic delays are not such a bad thing.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • steph routh September 12, 2013 at 2:54 pm

    Anthony Buczek is a thoughtful, smart, gracious person. Whenever I have disagreed with Anthony, I came to understand through further inquiry that I was incorrect. This region is lucky to have him.

    Recommended Thumb up 22

  • Chris I September 12, 2013 at 2:59 pm

    Removing one northbound lane just north of SW Brier Pl all the way to Hamilton (widening back to 3 lanes just before the Hamilton signal) will not reduce capacity at all. It will reduce excessive speeding in the northbound direction and greatly improve safety for everyone. If ODOT cannot see this, they are either being intentionally disingenuous, or they suck at their jobs (traffic engineering). I’m not sure which is worse.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

    • Todd Boulanger September 12, 2013 at 6:20 pm

      Perhaps we should just just step back and reframe this road diet request as being needed for driver safety since the constrained roadway entry points are already functioning as a “ramp meter”.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Joseph E September 12, 2013 at 3:15 pm

    Myth: Busted!

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • GlowBoy September 12, 2013 at 3:22 pm

    Awesome, awesome work, BikePortland, for continuing to shine sunlight (as always, the best disinfectant) on ODOT’s stance regarding Barbur. I think everyone can live with an average 40 second delay … 20 years from now. Especially given the potential casualties saved, and improved quality of life for SW residents (and through-commuters) by implementing a road diet. We all know the higher delay estimates pegged the BS meter. There is just nowhere near anything resembling a real capacity constraint (for cars) on this section of road.

    And speaking of 20 years from now, looking out to 2035 never made sense anyway. There’s no reason to look beyond 2025 or so, when the whole thing is going to be comprehensively redesigned as part of the SW Corridor project.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • paikikala September 12, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    a version of Hanlon’s (?) Razor
    Never presume a conspiracy where laziness or incompetence will suffice.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • roger September 12, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    It is time for a thorough and open public forum on this concept, with all “stakeholders” in the same room, willing to listen to each other and seek understanding, if not agreement.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • BPJ September 12, 2013 at 4:55 pm

    Maybe it’s time to actually try and increase the time it takes to travel by car in order to decrease the amount of time it takes for other modes. Some people are just stuck in the 1950s.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

  • dwainedibbly September 12, 2013 at 5:40 pm

    Why are the state legislators not asking ODOT for some explanations, or pressuring them to make these changes for the sake of safety?

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • 9watts September 12, 2013 at 5:52 pm

      Good question. Leave it to Bikeportland to get to the bottom of this. I am so disappointed in ODOT. I appreciate RJ’s conciliatory stance above, and realize these are just people at ODOT R1, but the smoke and mirrors, the funny math, the contorted explanations, all to make the status quo look reasonable is just galling.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • q`Tzal September 12, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    Anthony Buczek, Metro travel engineer
    “ODOT has done road diets elsewhere in the state. For whatever reason, ODOT Region 1 isn’t on board.”

    The Spice must flow!
    cough cough… I mean Nothing Must Impede the Flow of Automobiles!

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Jay September 12, 2013 at 6:38 pm

    I happen to know many of the “players” at region 1. They are old school traffic engineers (one in particular actually isn’t old, he just thinks like the others) that believe they serve the people by serving the auto movement – “the silent majority” if you will. They are stuck in a time capsule. They have no ability to see beyond the numbers and really don’t know what the hell they are doing.

    The high-profile managers and directors give plenty of lip service to the rest of the region, but they typically defer to their technical people – the traffic engineers, who rarely say anything other than “no”.

    ODOT should be divested of all surface streets in the Portland metro area as they can’t behave themselves in an inclusive fashion or think outside of the interstate. Time for this government agency to downsize. I’m sure they can live easier and faster in Texas or the midwest.

    Recommended Thumb up 16

    • Todd Boulanger September 13, 2013 at 11:40 am

      This one of the big differences between OR and WA. WA has devolved more authority to the local government for design and control of aerials away from our DOT. A suggestion for this year’s BTA legislative agenda, perhaps.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Dan B September 12, 2013 at 6:59 pm

    Some “engineer”… Buczek “who specializes in assessing the effects of removing auto travel lanes” should know that syncro models are for making signals work and do not model operations. PS there are no signals on the bridges… His analysis is faulty and he should just admit he doesn’t know how bad it will be, oh wait, he did in the article “it doesn’t really reduce the capacity” or “at least not very much” And that’s why the impacts are minor” or “modedrate.” Sound like he’s pushing his agenda as a person “who specializes in assessing the effects of removing auto travel lanes”

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I September 13, 2013 at 12:26 pm

      Care to explain to us, in detail, how removing a lane north of Brier Place and South of Capital will slow throughput? The signal at Miles is the bottleneck in the northbound direction.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Chris Monsere September 12, 2013 at 8:54 pm

    It is hard to critically evaluate the results and the impacts without knowing where on Barbur the road diet is proposed. If the road diet includes intersections, then the lane removal will have significant effects, especially since the DTA model assumptions state clearly that “signals not re-optimized for Road Diet.” Of course, this would be done if a road diet were implemented so the DTA numbers are worst case, at best. The DTA model also seems like overkill –I don’t think diversion is a significant issue.

    But I am more disappointed in the way the analysis is framed – as it suggests that any vehicle delay, even if only in the peak hours and 20 years in the future, is somehow more relevant than the other issues today. Vehicle speeds are way too high on Barbur, safety is poor, and bicycle / ped accommodation is substandard. Road diets have generally been shown to improve safety for all users. Motor vehicle delay at the peak hour shouldn’t be only decision variable.

    I can’t help but reflect on the assigned reading I give in class from the father of road safety analysis , Ezra Hauer. He wrote “ it better to be dead than stuck in traffic?” I think we know the answer to that question.

    Recommended Thumb up 40

    • RJ September 12, 2013 at 9:36 pm

      I can’t upvote this enough. Thanks, Dr. Monsere.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • GlowBoy September 13, 2013 at 8:04 am

      I believe the previous thread made clear that the road diet is just proposed for the segment from Hamilton to either Brier Pl. or Terwilliger. Other than a couple of extremely minor side streets and the Capitol Hwy interchange (and Brier Pl itself), there are NO intersections along this stretch. The “percentage delay” figures cited by ODOT were also applicable only to that stretch, not to the entire length of Barbur.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • RJ September 13, 2013 at 8:23 am

        But it’s not clear from the ODOT memo that the lane removal was modeled as you describe (Hamilton to either Brier “or” Terwilliger) — you need to be very specific about what you’re modeling, because small things have a big impact on the results. If the lane removal was modeled from Brier to the area of the Capitol Highway merge, then you could pretty much take signalized intersections out of the equation altogether — they aren’t really going to affect opertations. But if you’re going all the way to Terwilliger, then you at least have to address operations at the SW 3rd Ave/Fulton signal, and probably Terwilliger too, depending on what you mean by “to Terwilliger.” Tricky stuff.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • 9watts September 13, 2013 at 8:31 am

          But in the world I’d like to imagine, ODOT would have in its memo clarified all of these options, and said something like:
          …If we go with this version (from milepost X to milepost Y) the deleterious impacts on the autobound will be minimal. But if we add in this signalized intersection our models suggest a disproportionate impact, so we are proposing to leave out this intersection, pending further review and input from stakeholders who we would like to meet face to face in ten days at such and such a venue.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • GlowBoy September 13, 2013 at 1:02 pm

          Agreed RJ, and I don’t think it would be necessary to go all the way to Terwilliger. If we can make the two bridge crossings better-protected and reduce vehicle speeds on the desolate stretch, that will accomplish most of what we’ve set out to do, while still allowing two lanes approaching Terwilliger for queue storage.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Anthony Buczek (Metro) September 13, 2013 at 5:55 pm

          As noted in the follow-up post, the proposed road diet project begins 1/4 mile north of the signal at SW 3rd/Miles/Fulton and ends 1/4 mile prior to the signal at Hamilton. No signals are affected which is why operations are not substantially affected.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • JL September 13, 2013 at 12:24 am

    Seeing as how the slowest car is generally going near the speed limit on that stretch of Barbur Blvd I don’t see what the big deal is….

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • 9watts September 13, 2013 at 12:28 am

      The big deal is that ODOT apparently isn’t keen on giving those who bike a fair shake. But in trying to make that case–shore up autodom one more time–they were caught with their parameters down.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
    Michael Andersen (News Editor) September 13, 2013 at 9:50 am

    GlowBoy, RJ and Chris Monsere, I’ve had a lot of trouble nailing down the dimensions of the road diet myself, and could probably have done a better job of trying to find out. But I am pretty sure that the DTA and SimTraffic analyses used different stretches of road, which I assume is part of the reason they’re expressed in percentage terms in Horning’s memo.

    Horning’s memo refers specifically to the 1.7 miles from Terwilliger and Barbur to Hamilton:,-122.679348&spn=0.031294,0.077162&sll=45.489351,-122.677889&sspn=0.007822,0.01929&geocode=FRvVtQIdXfev-A%3BFdEhtgIdMxGw-A&t=h&gl=us&dirflg=b&mra=dme&mrsp=1&sz=16&lci=bike&z=14

    The DTA data, however, analyze impacts to the 4.9 miles from the southernmost junction with Capitol Highway to SW Sheridan (almost in downtown):,-122.6995383+to:SW+Barbur+Blvd&hl=en&ll=45.479753,-122.716942&spn=0.062588,0.154324&sll=45.47542,-122.714539&sspn=0.062593,0.154324&geocode=FY-RtQIdGG6v-A%3BFSa8tQId7sCv-CmRXwkQEwuVVDHKHstuIhgSVQ%3BFVtZtgIdRgWw-A&t=h&gl=us&dirflg=b&mra=dme&mrsp=0&sz=13&via=1&z=13&lci=bike

    It’s not clear to me whether the road diet assessed by DTA would extend through this whole stretch or some subset of it. The DTA work happened several months ago and I think it was sold to ODOT more as part of the long-term corridor planning effort than as a short-term fix for the bridges. (My details on this are hazy.)

    One of the claims I heard when working on the post above is that the DTA estimate focused on a much longer stretch of Barbur than was needed to fix the bridges. The shortest road diet I’ve heard proposed anywhere is 0.7 miles, from Miles Street to the Capitol Highway overpass.,+Portland,+OR+97219&daddr=SW+Barbur+Blvd&hl=en&sll=45.479648,-122.680206&sspn=0.007824,0.01929&geocode=FXbWtQIdVQiw-Cmbd2D5HAuVVDFm3HHwS_e9lQ%3BFZr5tQIdcAyw-A&t=h&gl=us&dirflg=b&mra=ltm&z=15&lci=bike

    Part of the problem here is that all my questions to ODOT on this issue have taken somewhere between several hours and one day to vet — something that I understand the need for, but which makes it hard to get the back-and-forth required for a moderately educated third party to adequately understand an issue. I say this not to imply that ODOT is deliberately stonewalling (whatever we might think about their candor or framing, Horning’s and Hamilton’s responsiveness has been mostly terrific, I’d say) but to explain one of my challenges in getting this all into the public eye.

    Anther part of the problem here is that BikePortland really isn’t the ideal place to slowly dole out details at this level. 9watts’ ideal world sounds great to me, too. Unfortunately, there’s so much mistrust and/or bad communication among the agencies that the technical hairs are being split here, piece by piece.

    Update 5:15 pm: My current understanding is that both studies looked at diets in the same stretch of road, but assessed the impacts at different scales. You can read more here:

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Alan 1.0 September 13, 2013 at 1:54 pm

      Does the modeling look at changes in bike/ped traffic resulting from lane reconfigurations? So, say the 1.7 mile reconfig was modeled and resulted in considerably higher bike/ped traffic. That would result in more demand for bike/ped facilities at either end of that stretch, and that demand could end up affecting the 4.9 mile segment even though the reconfiguration was shorter.

      Out of the frying pan…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Damian Miller September 13, 2013 at 3:04 pm


      As far as the segments studied, I would hope that both ODOT and Metro used the segments that were put forth for study in the staff-selected “project bundles” that were adopted by the SW Corridor Steering Committee on 2/11/13. As detailed on p.27 of the document linked below, the Metro staff on the SW Corridor Plan proposed two separate segments for study: one from Terwilliger to Capitol Hwy. (project #5006), and another from Capitol Hwy to Hamilton (project #1019).

      That said, as you point out, it is far from clear in the documentation I’ve seen on ODOT’s study what exactly the parameters were.

      As far as the chronology, my understanding is that the adoption of the project bundles in February queued up the Metro study. The first I heard of the ODOT study was at the 4/25/13 ODOT open house on the bridge reconstruction project. When Talia Jacobson started talking about a study being almost complete, I thought she was referring to the Metro study. It was only afterwards that I realized that ODOT was conducting their own analysis. All of which makes me wonder about their motivations. Perhaps the two studies were intentionally set up to examine the problem with different methodologies… Or perhaps ODOT wanted a finding they could control. Hmm.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • KVC September 13, 2013 at 10:20 am

    I have so many questions, many of which have already been stated: What is the assumed vehicle speed that ODOT used in their model? Is it realistic / appropriate to use maximum legal speed during peak times in a model like this? How do they justify assuming absolutely no changes in mode share? Do they do any modeling of safety impacts resulting from proposed changes (for motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians)? This includes expected collision frequency and their resulting delays.

    From what’s been revealed so far it really seems that ODOT was not simply lazy in setting up the parameters of the model; they appear to have intentionally chosen options that would result in the highest projected delays. I wish their model’s results were because of failure to consider all factors since then there would be the potential for objective staff to acknowledge the model’s deficiencies and improve it. However, if the objective was to crank out numbers showing maximum possible impacts as justification for not making any changes, then it’s completely unrealistic to expect them to make any changes.

    I don’t like to drive on Barbur because of unpredictable driver behavior, such as sudden lane changes with no signaling, and average traffic speeds that are clearly unsafe given the road’s character. I’m concerned that improving the quality of the surface is going to increase speeds and actually make it even more unsafe for people.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) September 13, 2013 at 10:33 am

      One thing you say that’s worth clarifying, KVC: the DTA model (the first one, that found the big potential slowdown by 2035 and that is being criticized by Buczek as less than accurate) wasn’t an “ODOT model.” All three agencies cooperated on the inputs to one, though ODOT was adamant that RTA be the model that was used. ODOT pulled out of the collaboration before the Synchro model was completed, for reasons I haven’t heard explained on the record.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • RJ September 13, 2013 at 11:23 am

        My understanding is that the DTA model was built to analyze the effects of different lane configurations on Barbur related to SW Corridor alternatives. A DTA model, properly done, will help you estimate traffic diversion, speeds, routing, etc. to a degree not possible in Synchro/SimTraffic (or other analysis tools). It’s a good tool for looking at alternatives for long segments of Barbur and seeing their effects in 2035, which is when you might see HCT implemented.

        My guess is that ODOT/Metro/PBOT said, hey, we went to all the expense and effort to build this cool DTA model…so why not use it to test the (much more modest) road diet being suggested by Kiel et al? So they made some edits to the model network and re-ran it. Whether the edits reflect reasonable assumptions about how and where the road diet would/should be implemented is anybody’s guess at this point.

        If we don’t care about 2035 (which we shouldn’t, because the whole corridor is going to get upended by HCT construction anyway, just like the PMLR corridor is now), then we just look at the base year model. And if we do that, then Dr. Monsere is right: diversion isn’t going to be an issue, so just run SimTraffic. SimTraffic is not dynamic — it just simulates predetermined volumes of vehicles from intersection to intersection, and doesn’t account for route choice. But since diversion won’t be an issue under existing volumes (with a reasonable road diet design), it’ a perfectly appropriate analysis tool.

        So…SimTraffic says the base year vehicle “delay” due to the road diet is because everybody has to get in line behind a vehicle that’s going the speed limit? Wow.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Todd Boulanger September 13, 2013 at 11:44 am

        …very very interesting…the plot thickens…

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Damian Miller September 13, 2013 at 3:10 pm

        Oh, my!
        Don’t we all want to know what you’ve heard off-the-record!

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • AndyC of Linnton September 13, 2013 at 11:14 am

    Classic. Perhaps Portland’s bold new vision for non-auto travel in 2013 could be by creating an “active transportation” organization as entrenched and bureaucratized as any state DOT. Maybe then these highways will change for the better for all users, but only if the right people are getting paid. Make it like the streetcar project or CRC or something.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • pdxpaul September 13, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    Isn’t all for naught anyway since we’re gonna be destroyed by an earthquake soon?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hillsons September 13, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    You’ve nowhere to hide now Region 1. You’re actually being held accountable for what you say.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Milt September 13, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    So. I can’t tell from the article or comments. Will a road diet on Barbur/Highway 99 result in increased automobile traffic on Terwilliger (traffic diversions) or not? I fear it will because that is what happens now when traffic on Barbur becomes congested. But I would like to hear other opinions.

    Recommended Thumb up 0