Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

After a delay, 50s Bikeway will roll out by summer

Posted by on January 23rd, 2014 at 9:53 am

A Sunday ride-9

Better rides are ahead for Portland’s low 50s.
(Photo by J. Maus/BikePortland)

After sitting on ice for a year while the city waited out high construction costs, Portland’s north-south 50s Bikeway is alive and moving forward.

The 4.3-mile, $1.5 million route down Portland’s middle east side, which was delayed last August, is likely to start construction in late March and wrap up by late July, the project manager said Wednesday.

When finished, it’ll stretch from the Alameda Ridge south to Woodstock Street along 53rd and 52nd avenues (PDF), connecting the Rose City Park, North Tabor, Mt. Tabor, South Tabor, Richmond, Creston-Kenilworth and Woodstock neighborhoods, which include 20,000 residents and 12 schools. North of Division, it’ll be a neighborhood greenway marked with sharrows and directional signs; south of Division, a pair of 6-foot painted bike lanes on either side of the street.

Diverters will block northbound and southbound auto traffic onto 53rd at Burnside. Further south at 52nd and Division, signs will forbid northbound auto traffic, but because TriMet’s #71 bus needs to continue northward there, there won’t be a physical obstacle to block cars.

South of Division, one auto parking lane will be removed from the east side of 52nd to make room for the painted bike lanes. On the west side of 52nd, the bike lane will run alongside parked cars.

A planned neighborhood greenway that weaves an alternative route into the neighborhoods east of Southeast 52nd hasn’t yet been funded and won’t be built this year.

Much of the project’s cost will go to improve crossings of major streets, including a new HAWK beacon at Burnside and 53rd, a median element at Stark, curb extensions at Belmont and Lincoln and a rapid-flash beacon (PDF) at Woodward.

The city’s transportation bureau had sidelined the federally funded project after the first round of construction bids came in more than 20 percent higher than expected. As we shared back in August, city workers estimated that this was because “the construction market has recently reached saturation” for the year. In an interview Wednesday, Project Manager Rich Newlands said the second round of bidding seemed to have confirmed the city’s hunch: this time two of the eight bids, he said, had come in below the original projection.

Some people who live near the project have expressed concern about auto traffic diverting onto nearby streets such as Southeast 51st, 53rd and 54th. As a condition of approval for the project, the city council ordered a 12-month test of where and how much traffic was diverting from Southeast 52nd.

Though these improvements aren’t perfect, they’re good news for neighborhoods that are becoming major destinations in their own right, with no frequent north-south public transit but more and more need for north-south travel. It’ll be nice to see this route interact with the nearby bike lanes on Southeast Division and the ones planned for Southeast Foster, sending relatively comfortable bike connections through the southern side of Portland’s all-important east-side street grid.

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

  • sean January 23, 2014 at 10:10 am

    Fantastic news. Why no bike lanes across I-84?

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • paikikala January 23, 2014 at 11:43 am

      PBOT doesn’t like to mix bike lanes with shared lanes. While cyclist will usually move right at the wider overpasses, requiring them to do so for so short a distance, doesn’t make sense.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D January 23, 2014 at 1:34 pm

      Currently the only improvements slated for the traffic light at Glisan are a bike box and sharrows. We want more diversion southbound but PBOT has told us that they do not want two diverters that close together. As transportation chair for North Tabor I have been working on several project around the area and believe a southbound diverter is needed south of the medical center.

      That traffic light at Glisan handles over 5000 vehicles a day, over 2000 of them just from the hospital parking structure alone. At peak commute time that is 6 per minute. I do not see this stretch qualifying for the 20 MPH under current engineering and will be a point on congestion the day it is built. The overpass north should be striped with “advisory bike lanes” at least. It is a nice route, but not during commute time and I do think this plan will change any traffic patterns around the hospital.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Adam January 23, 2014 at 4:02 pm

        Agreed. I bike daily on 53rd between Halsey and Burnside, and it is a farce for bicyclists. All they had to do was move the diverter one block north of 53rd, which would have still allowed traffic leaving the hospital to access Glisan.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Chris I January 24, 2014 at 9:08 am

          What about all of the people that live in the neighborhood north of I-84 adjacent to 53rd? If this were parallel street I would be all for diverters. If you had one in place just north of the overpass, anyone living in that neighborhood would have to drive all the way to 47th or 60th to get over I-84.

          Honestly, if I could make one improvement in this particular area, it would be to add a signal at 52nd and Glisan and force everyone leaving the hospital to access Glisan at that point. I have observed several near-misses at 53rd and Hoyt due to the queue of cars waiting to turn on Glisan and poor sight lines. This change would allow PBOT to reduce the number of lanes at 53rd and Glisan (eliminate the southbound turn lane), allowing space for bike lanes.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:38 am

            It is good to note that north and south of the border we are thinking alike. Always a good sign.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • paikikala January 24, 2014 at 10:15 am

            Is PBOT planning on reconstructing speed bumps north of Glisan to a closer spacing? The greenway retrofits do this.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Terry D January 25, 2014 at 9:28 am

              No, the 95% engineering plans indicate no improvements other than sharrows and bike boxes from Halsey south to Glisan.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:11 am

          Long term with redevelopment Providence wants to expand. When it does, a traffic light at 52nd will have to be built. Then, the 2000+ vehicles a day will take 52nd instead and 53rd will actually become a real bikeway. Until that day comes, we will just have to have a major point of congestion. Since there are not any other crossings of the Gulch between 53rd and 60th I can not see how a diverter north of Hoyt would work. Advisory bike lanes and traffic calming yes, but we will still be at 1500 a day at least going over the bridge.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kevin January 23, 2014 at 10:31 am

    This is great news. It will make riding with my daughter to Glencoe Elementary much safer.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Terry D January 23, 2014 at 1:59 pm

      Yes, but until we fix Burnside there is no good way to get to Mount Tabor Middle School or Mount Tabor park without taking 60th which has way to many vehicles and terrible sidewalks. We need a crossing at 57th for the school and 62nd for the Park.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Jessica Roberts January 23, 2014 at 10:52 am

    If you care, the HAWK Beacon is now officially called a pedestrian hybrid beacon. Only slightly less jargon-y, but at least it’s not trying to be a cutesy bird name.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Peejay January 23, 2014 at 11:18 am

      HAWK signals still require “beg” buttons to activate. Thus, they bake into the system the inferior status of cycling in the transportation network. When do we ask drivers to stop and push a button to activate a signal?

      Recommended Thumb up 13

      • Jeff January 23, 2014 at 12:22 pm

        I, for one, welcome with open arms a “demand” button that allows me to efficiently share common infrastructure. I refuse to let myself be called inferior.

        Recommended Thumb up 11

        • spare_wheel January 23, 2014 at 12:57 pm

          “share common infrastructure”

          i’m really glad to hear that motorists will also get to use these efficient “demand” buttons. i’ve always felt guilty that they were left out. 🙁

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Jeff January 23, 2014 at 1:38 pm

            Reread my comment. We’re already all sharing the common infrastructure (i.e. roads, signals, etc.) on some level. The “demand” button gives me a way to use that more efficiently, in the same way signal loops in the road do so for motorists and sometimes bikes. Slow down, re-read.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • spare_wheel January 23, 2014 at 1:47 pm

              “We’re already all sharing the common infrastructure on some level”


              “The “demand” button gives me a way to use that more efficiently”

              awesome for you!!! so when do motorists get to use these efficient buttons?

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Jeff January 23, 2014 at 5:35 pm

                Whenever they want.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • spare_wheel January 25, 2014 at 4:28 pm

                please let me know when you actually see a motorist get out of their car and press a beg button. also please let me know what is equitable about motorists and pedestrians having thousands of dedicated signals while cyclists have only a handful. cycling mode share is about the same as walking but cyclists have profoundly unequal access to signalled intersections. just because this second class infrastructure works for you does not mean there is equity.

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:14 am

                In this case, we do NOT want motorists to use 53rd and that light. 55th has a full traffic light already next to QFC. 53rd is for bikes and pedestrians so we do NOT want to encourage more autos. 55th has a “B” rating anyway as a traffic light, so there is no need for another one so close together for autos.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Todd Hudson January 23, 2014 at 1:25 pm

        Clearly this isn’t up to Copenhagen standards, so we should totally refuse that they even consider building this!

        Recommended Thumb up 8

      • Mindful Cyclist January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm

        Complain all you want. I live on Burnside and am going to be happy that a) this will make crossing the street easier a lot easier and b) there will be something else that will force the drivers that think since 84 is bumper to bumper, using Burnside as a freeway is just fine.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:18 am

          I have been meaning to knock on your door. I have lots of data on Burnside to share with you and things are moving. Our stakeholders committee for giving Burnside a “safety modernization” has been approved by the North Tabor NA, I am speaking at Mount Tabor NA next month and Montavilla went well last week.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

      • dwainedibbly January 23, 2014 at 5:24 pm

        Every intersection that has sensors in the roadway to make the traffic lights change is, in effect, exactly that.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:21 am

          Not HAWK’s for cars. These specifically do NOT have auto censors as we do not want to encourage cars to use these streets. They are for locals and bikes/peds. Cars in this case should use 55th instead. They are parallel. This intersection should look like the crossing of Clinton and Caesar Chavez when done with a traffic light like the one at 41st and East Burnside.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Todd Hudson January 23, 2014 at 10:56 am

    This is great! On 52nd somewhere near Woodstock, there’s a bike lane that starts and mysteriously ends after 100 feet.

    I hope that it’s eventually extended to the Springwater Trail. Also, start planning the 70s bikeway.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Anthony January 23, 2014 at 11:26 am

      Hey Todd we are in luck. There already is a bike lane on 52nd south of Woodstock. 52nd T’s into Harney which also has a bike lane that will take you to the Springwater trail, meeting up at Johson Creek blvd.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Todd Hudson January 23, 2014 at 12:03 pm

        I’m glad to hear I was wrong – that’s awesome that this will connect to the Springwater. I’m thinking of 72nd, which is big and wide, but has no bike lanes or signs whatsoever.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Spiffy January 23, 2014 at 11:44 am

      I hope that it’s eventually extended to the Springwater Trail.

      there’s already a bike lane south of Woodstock that connects to the Springwater and beyond (all the way to downtown Sellwood)…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy January 23, 2014 at 11:36 am

    On 52nd somewhere near Woodstock, there’s a bike lane that starts and mysteriously ends after 100 feet.

    that would be the Center to Gladstone connecting bike lane just south of Foster before Holgate… I live a few blocks away and that thing drives me crazy… southbound drivers are always driving in it to avoid having to swerve left and then right within a half-block distance… I’m always worried because the law forces me to ride in it but that means I’m effectively swerving in front of the vehicles after passing the Dougy Center and then swerving out of the way of traffic after Gladstone when the bike lane ends…

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • davemess January 23, 2014 at 12:01 pm

      i agree, it drives me nuts too. But that is what the length of 52nd will look like come this spring!
      I’m still trying to figure out why the city thinks it’s a good idea to have bikes turn left towards Foster here instead of the turn lane at Foster and 52nd.

      There is a similar “disappearing bike lane” on 47th between Burnside and Glisan. They’re very weird infrastructure for greenway continuity, but I guess that’s what we have for having an incomplete, kind-of grid system.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:30 am

        That little one on 47th was installed back in 2004 or so. I was on the Providence Good Neighbor Agreement committee at the time and suggested it since that off-set intersection was such a pain to navigate (I wanted to extend the 47th bike lanes to Stark, but that required parking removal and there is not enough ROW curb to curb). Since then urban design guidelines have changed. It is on my Long term agenda to hopefully work with the city to upgrade that off-set greenway intersection when we get money to modernize our older greenways. Personally, I think that it should be washed out and replaced with sharrows and green crosswalk striping like they are doing at the new light rail construction in SW. Green striping at the south and north ends with a middle crosswalk striping at the ADA compliant curb cut outs. The bike lanes end at Glisan coming from the north anyway, so connecting these up with Sharrows makes sense. This is an emergency response route, so speed bumps are out.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Spiffy January 23, 2014 at 11:39 am

    I’m super excited to get a bike lane all the way up 52nd… I ride it frequently and it’s a narrow street with underutilized parking… bike lanes will make it so I feel comfortable going on it with my kid… no more zig-zagging through the neighborhood just to feel safer…

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Art Fuldodger January 23, 2014 at 11:51 am

    Fabulous news, really been looking forward to it. Michael, you say toward the end that “some people who live near the project are concerned about diversion…” – I think this concern is just near Division, where thee will be a northbound auto (not bus) diverter. You might want to clarify this.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • davemess January 23, 2014 at 1:09 pm

      Yes, I was going to comment on this. For much of the route 52nd is either an arterial (South of Division) or a quieter neighborhood street, which I can’t imagine needing diversion. have to imagine that most people will just “divert” down to 50th at Division (which is kind of where they are supposed to be going anyway). I take this route every day, and there are a lot of cars that continue straight on 52nd until they hit Lincoln and then head left to 50th.

      So what diversion are we talking about?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Alex Reed January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    Woohoo! Great news!

    Too bad that a quarter of the route is door-zone bike lane. I probably will never ride southbound on 52nd south of Division again after the door-zone bike lanes are put in.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • davemess January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm

      Do you ride it now?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alex Reed January 23, 2014 at 4:44 pm

        I do actually! When I’m on my faster-type bike it feels like a good option to ride it sometimes – generally lower-traffic type times. I realize that I am atypical and a door-zone bike lane will almost certainly get more bike use than that side of the road gets now.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • davemess January 23, 2014 at 10:27 pm

          Well essentially you already are riding in a door zone now, so I don’t really think the lanes will be any worse (other than one entire side will have NO door zone). Maybe there will be a few more parked cars on the West side though. 6 foot lanes will give a decent buffer though, with probably two feet to stay outside of the door zone.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Chris I January 24, 2014 at 9:14 am

          You don’t have to ride in the door zone. Just hug the white line.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • annefi January 23, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    The SE 19th Avenue bikeway is also showing signs of life. 20 mph signs with flags have recently been installed along several blocks in Westmoreland. Does that mean the city will soon be turning the north/south stop signs and installing diverters at relevant intersections?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikikala January 24, 2014 at 10:26 am

      Not until the traffic calming is funded.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bjorn January 23, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    Is a hawk signal significantly more expensive than the rapid flash beacon? The rapid flash beacons seem really inferior to the hawk signal IMHO.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Nick Falbo January 23, 2014 at 3:42 pm

      HAWK (aka Hybrid Beacons) are much more expensive, basically the same cost as a full traffic signal.

      Rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) work really well considering they’re just little flashing lights. The installation on Woodward will be one of the first RRFB installations intentionally designed for bicyclists to use – we’ll see how it goes.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikikala January 24, 2014 at 10:28 am

      Hybrid Beacons run about $150-$200k. RRFB cost $12k per pole, with 2 minimum on a 2-lane street, or 3 minimum on a 5 lane street. Full signals run about $250k.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Adam January 23, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    What a wasted opportunity of a project. Without diversion a Halsey or Glisan, this project is worthless.

    I emailed the project manager last year asking why diverters weren’t being installed at those locations , and the response I got was “We can’t, they would impede car traffic”. UMMMM… Isn’t that the entire point of a bike boulevard?

    And don’t even get me started on the fact one if the diverters is nothing more than a fricking SIGN. Wow. Because motorists totally obey signs!

    I see now why Portland is falling and falling in the bike league tables. With mediocrity like this, it explains everything.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • davemess January 23, 2014 at 4:28 pm

      I wouldn’t say worthless. What about the other 70% of the project? Some of us are quite excited for it.

      I think there are issues with what exactly this project is to be (and the terminology). As it appears it is neighborhood greenway, bike way, and maybe “bike boulevard” depending on where you are. But again these are very different segments of road, spanning arterial all the way to quiet neighborhood.

      How do you propose to get buses onto 52nd around Division? Or would you just like the bus line rerouted?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • gutterbunnybikes January 23, 2014 at 5:34 pm

        Why do buses need to go down 52nd in the first place? 50th would be just as good (lots of us on the East side live more than two blocks away from a bus stop). So yeah, why not re route the buses.

        Over all I’m glad the project is on track, I was affraid that it’d end up forever on the plannning table.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikikala January 24, 2014 at 10:30 am

          The bus travels east/west on Lincoln to access 60th. The intersection at Division/60th has geometric issues that prevent the southbound right turn.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Stevie January 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm

            Interesting about 60th and Division. As part of the project they’re cutting back the SE corner of 52nd and Division, but I guess that’s just to allow cars to zoom around the corner from NB 52nd to EB Division. (plans for that intersection: http://s11.postimg.org/4ohdzlrib/52and_Div.png)

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
              Michael Andersen (News Editor) January 24, 2014 at 4:52 pm

              Good catch, Stevie. That’s weird. I guess you’re right about the reason but I’m not sure.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Rich Newlands January 24, 2014 at 5:46 pm

                The reason we are cutting back the corner is so that shcool buses (one just up the street on Division) can make the turn on to Division with the new lane configuration that pushes the travel lane closer to the curb

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Stevie January 24, 2014 at 9:44 pm

                Okay, that makes since. I hadn’t realized how the new configuration restricts turning movement.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Michael Miller January 28, 2014 at 5:36 pm

                Stevie, thanks for noticing this. This change to the southeast corner of 52nd and Division is doing exactly the opposite of what we should be trying to do with livable streets projects: we are increasing the corner turn radius (which increases the speed of turning cars and trucks) while at the same time increasing the pedestrian-crossing distance. This increases the risk of (higher-speed) right hooks and increases the risk to pedestrians.

                What is the cost for this one corner of this one intersection? I haven’t seen any other engineering drawings for the project, but it seems plausible that this is the single most expensive piece of the project: The curb line is being relocated, which requires new roadway, a relocated stormwater inlet and new storm piping, a new traffic signal pole and arm, and a rebuilt sidewalk.

                All this expense — and increased hazard for cyclists and pedestrians — because “the new lane configuration […] pushes the travel lane closer to the curb.” Couldn’t we come up with a *much* preferable solution if parking were simply eliminated on *both* sides of 52nd for the first 100 feet (or whatever) south of Division? And free up a couple hundred thousand dollars to use elsewhere in the project for something that increases safety for bikes and peds, instead of making it worse?

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Stevie January 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm

                Well it looks as though the parking removal is already planned for both sides there. http://s23.postimg.org/jpj63qx1n/52div.png
                Perhaps there could have been other alternatives though. I’m sure the cost is significant, but the project also includes a pedestrian hybrid signal, a rapid flash beacon, and other median islands and curb extensions/cuts that make it relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Plans here: ftp://ftp02.portlandoregon.gov/PBOT/CDS/T00121%20-%20NE-SE%2050s%20Bikeway/Utility%20Notice%203_PLANS–Bid-Documents–10-30-13/
                The compromised pedestrian safety that seems to be planned for this intersection is worrying, but I don’t really know the different options.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:49 am

        The Mount Tabor NA wants the bus re-routed to Division and give up on Lincoln northbound. Tri-Met has said no.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D January 24, 2014 at 9:47 am

      North Tabor will be fighting for a diverter just south of the medical center/Glisan WHEN traffic volumes come in over the amount. The project manager told us no last year as they do not want to “Place two diverters that close together as it will impede auto traffic.”

      Well, as a neighborhood we have constant problems with Hospital traffic parking in the neighborhood and cut-throughs coming from the north. We want the diverter….and will keep pushing. I will point this out again when our NA is briefed on this project (probably not until a bid is approved).

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • paikikala January 24, 2014 at 10:31 am

        Sounds like a good place for a parking permit program.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Terry D January 25, 2014 at 9:40 am

          This is being looked into as we speak. I suspect though, that my neighbors will say “It is not yet time, we would prefer physical diversion.” In our long term comprehensive plan letter to the city, we are calling for significant density north of Glisan. Once this comes, there will have to be permit parking…the question is whether this time has come. I think so, but I suspect my neighbors will say no and prefer physical diversion.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Stevie January 23, 2014 at 9:24 pm

      nevermind… found the final plans. no physical diverter.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam H. January 23, 2014 at 9:22 pm

    No protected bike lanes?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Terry D January 25, 2014 at 9:43 am

      Since this is funded with federal money the plans were approved years ago and before th SW Multnomah “Experiment.” I suspect, that if it was being designed now, 52nd would have one row of parking to be used as the buffer, but the jury is still out as to whether more cyclists prefer the curb-tight bike lane with a row of cars as a buffer or this standard six foot lane in the door zone.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu
    John Liu January 23, 2014 at 10:08 pm

    I don’t get the view that a door zone bike lane is worse than no bike lane at all. If you ride on or near the white line, it is almost impossible to get doored. If you also stay alert to the parked cars you are approaching, you will usually see heads in the ones that pose a dooring threat. Heads = watch out.

    50 y/o, been riding in cities all my life, and have never been doored. Just two close calls.

    If we insist on separated cyclepaths or nothing, in many locations we’ll get . . . nothing. That is the reality of limited budgets and competing interests. Maybe in 10 years it will be different. I’d like to get more people on bikes this decade.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Alex Reed January 24, 2014 at 9:53 am

      I’ve tried doing that and have found that many drivers do not understand why I am not “in the bike lane.” A good number pass me quite close and a few yell at me. Rather than worrying about some aggressive driver misjudging his/her buzz of me and causing an accident, I just take other streets.

      Whether a door-zone bike lane is “worse than nothing” at a societal level I don’t know. But I know that, on some streets, when door-zone bike lanes start, I divert to other streets.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • davemess January 24, 2014 at 10:17 am

        6 feet is going to be pretty wide (wider than most bike lanes we have in Portland), so that will give bikes a little more space. I was riding home on Woodstock last night, and while the bike lanes there are technically in the door zone, the whole section is wide enough that I never am worried about a door. Granted Woodstock is a little abnormal because it is a pretty wide cross section and the parking lane (and bike lanes) are nice and wide. It’s definitely not as narrow as the bike/parking lanes on Duke. I am envisioning that 52nd will be a mix between the two.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex Reed January 24, 2014 at 4:18 pm

          Personally, 6-foot door-zone bike lanes aren’t wide enough to make me feel comfortable. I’ve tried them (on SE Hawthorne between Grand and 12th) and I prefer using side streets.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Mindful Cyclist January 25, 2014 at 11:03 am

        While you are riding, watch for cars pulling into a spot.

        Look for someone getting into a car.

        As you are riding, look at the side mirrors of the cars to see someone is in the car.

        As previously stated, hug the outside of the bike lane. I don’t even hug often, but just ride further to the left.

        Also, know the street/area you are traversing. If there are a lot of businesses that lend to a lot of come and go traffic like a grocery store or library, be a little more careful. For instance, when I lived in the Hollywood area, I would often avoid the streets with bike lanes or either just ride outside of them (they are really not needed there, but that is another issue) because there was so much in and out traffic and it made for a car door swinging open that much more likely. Now, compare that to E Burnside from 72nd to 82nd which is a neighborhood and cars on the streets are going to tend to sit idle for much longer. Less of a chance to get doored.

        Also, educate your non bike riding friends and coworkers. I often get asked “why do you cyclists think you need to ride so far to the left of a bike lane?” And, I respond with “because people do not look before they open doors into a bike lane.” They respond “Oh, I guess that makes sense then–I never thought of it that way.”

        While this is not fool proof, these things have allowed me to ride a 2-3k miles a year without a single dooring incident.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Alex Reed January 26, 2014 at 8:05 pm

          Good ideas and thank you for the advice. Personally, I prefer to not deal with the cognitive burden of looking into each car for heads. I’d rather just ride on streets where I’m not directed to ride in the door zone. I’m glad door-zone riding works well enough for you though!

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jeff January 24, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Todd Hudson
    This is great! On 52nd somewhere near Woodstock, there’s a bike lane that starts and mysteriously ends after 100 feet.
    I hope that it’s eventually extended to the Springwater Trail. Also, start planning the 70s bikeway.
    Recommended 6

    That little stub of bike lane is to connect Gladstone to Center. It’s actually kind of handy for West to East travel.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Jonathan Gordon January 27, 2014 at 12:19 pm

    It’s been almost 20 years! This project was first proposed in the 1996 Bicycle Master Plan. It was listed as a Priority 2 project, meaning those projects that would be completed in 5-10 years. So it was supposed to be complete by 2006. Though it was projected to only cost $130K, it was supposed to make it as far south as Harney Dr, spitting distance to the Springwater Corridor.

    I’d love to understand what it is about Portland that it takes two decades to implement a simple transportation solution that’s both relatively cheap and widely embraced.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Nick Falbo January 29, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Even earlier than that, the 1973 bike plan envisioned a cycle track on 52nd. I’m not kidding!

      Recommended Thumb up 1