Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

Neighborhood group will gather support for Burnside road diet near Mt. Tabor

Posted by on April 2nd, 2014 at 10:07 am

Renderings created with Streetmix by BikePortland (top) and Terry Dublinski (bottom).

A neighborhood transportation activist backed by the North Tabor Neighborhood Association is looking for volunteers to help him research the effects of adding buffered or parking-protected bike lanes on Burnside.

“If it gets high-quality bike lanes, Burnside is the street that has most uptick of single-occupancy [vehicles] moving to bikes.”
— Terry Dublinksi, co-chair of North Tabor Neighborhood Association transportation committee

“Burnside, in the Metro active transportation plan, is the high-end bicycle parkway connector between East Portland and downtown,” Terry Dublinski, co-chair of North Tabor’s transportation committee, said at a meeting Tuesday night. If it gets high-quality bike lanes, Dublinski said, “Burnside is the street that has most uptick of single-occupancy moving to bikes. Glisan has all those onramps, and Stark and Belmont are too steep.”

A recent city lunch-and-learn presentation on those Metro findings inspired Dublinski, who lives on Burnside, to start gathering local support for a general restriping of Burnside that he says would also calm traffic near Mount Tabor Middle School and greatly improve Burnside crossings for people heading to Mount Tabor on bike or foot.

In the short term, he’s already gotten tentative city support for new bike lanes between 71st and 68th avenue. But Dublinski also hopes to make the case for bike lanes west to 48th, replacing “pro-tem” parking lanes that are sometimes used for parking and sometimes for travel. In the long run, he hopes to find a way to reduce traffic at the intersection of 47th and Burnside so the lanes can continue west to 41st.

Dublinski says people rarely use the “pro-tem” auto parking today, in part because speeds on Burnside are so high and off-peak traffic volumes are relatively low.

“Most of the time, all four lanes are open, so people just speed down the mountain,” Dublinski said. He’s already gotten signatures from nine of 10 people on his own Burnside-facing block, saying they’d be willing to forfeit auto parking on Burnside in exchange for safety improvements, and hopes to gather more.

Dublinski also says narrowing the auto travel zone will lower the cost of a controlled crossing at 57th Avenue.

“Without a crossing at 57th, Mount Tabor middle School is currently too dangerous for school children to safely access,” Dublinski writes in a memo describing his proposal. “Mount Tabor Park is a regional asset that should have safe access from every direction.”

The North Tabor Neighborhood Association unanimously endorsed buffered bike lanes on Burnside as part of its response letter to the city’s comprehensive plan.

With their blessing, Dublinski is forming a new working group called CURBS (“Citizens United Rebuilding Burnside Safely”). Its first meeting is Thursday, April 17, 7 p.m. at Laurelhurst Cafe, 47th and Burnside. The first order of business, he says, will probably be to gather hard data on the current demand for auto parking.

“I’m going to ride up and down the street taking parking counts at random times of day — hopefully I can get some volunteers,” Dublinski said. “I’m also slowly going door to door and knocking on each of these doors, trying to get support.”

Here are a few more renderings by Dublinski of possibilities for an East Burnside redesign, prepared using Streetmix.net.

Dublinski knows it’d take money to make these changes. That’s why he wants to gather the supporting data now.

“We’ll have a plan in hand in a few years when they have to grind down Burnside and repave,” Dublinski said. “If they really want to prioritize it, we could get this done in 2016 or 2017.”

To contact Dublinski, write terry.dublinski@gmail.com.

Correction 3:30 pm: A previous version of this post incorrectly summarized the position of the Montavilla Neighborhood Association. That group endorsed the general principles of a North Tabor letter to the city without commenting on its “detailed recommendations” such as buffered bike lanes on Burnside.

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.

  • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Typical – their ability to think about the street as a cohesive corridor ends well west of 82nd.

    At least in this case Burnside already has bike lanes and MAX in East Portland – albeit pretty crappy bike lanes.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 10:46 am

      My Neighborhood, Cora, runs 44th to 68th with Burnside as the southern Border. Have you read Metro’s active transportation plan? If not then here is the link.

      If Metro wants to prioritize improving the lanes east of 71st then that is great and they will have my full support, but right now we are left with four foot sidewalks with a 2 foot planting strip and NO WAY for our school children to get to school safety a block south of Burnside. Mount Tabor park is our closest park and again, there is no safe way to get there.

      I know you understand this concept as you have worked on Foster for a long time….I followed that project from the beginning as you may know.

      I am concerned about my neighborhood’s ability to get south and overall safety in my neck of the woods. Yes improving east Portland’s connection is a great Idea….. I have enough on my plate in my own neighborhood where there is the gap, not to mention the myriad of other issues we have.

      Terry Dublinski
      North Tabor Transportation and Land Use-Co-chair….and prolific commentator on transportation issues here as you may know.

      Recommended Thumb up 16

      • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm

        Terry – I’m listed in the Active Transportation plan as a contributor.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Alex Reed April 2, 2014 at 11:19 am

      Hey Cora, I think you might be jumping the gun on calling foul here – if I’m not mistaken, currently Burnside has bike lanes east of 70th. So, it seems to make sense to begin a bike lane project at 70th and extend west.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 12:06 pm

        The bike lanes on Burnside (as well as the ped crossings) need an overhaul. In fact, I’d say protected bike lanes are warranted east of 205.

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Chris I April 2, 2014 at 12:20 pm

          I’m not sure how you would do that. Burnside east of I-205 is not going to be rebuilt. It would involve pouring new curbs and/or sidewalks, and the money would be better spent fixing the really dangerous zone between 71st and 84th, where the narrow bike lane is always in a door zone. Burnside east of I-205 is a dream in comparison. A divided road where you don’t have to worry about left hooks or doorings. It’s my preferred route through east Portland.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

        • spare_wheel April 2, 2014 at 12:23 pm

          i absolutely agree. the bike lanes are far too narrow for this arterial. the bike lanes could easily be widened or, even better, buffered.

          Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 12:37 pm

          You are correct that Montavilla needs an upgrade (requiring a lane of parking removal), but your intial remark about me not thinking about east Portland was out of line. I have publically commented and supported projects around Portland for years. The goal of this project would not only to make my neighborhood safer for all modes of travel but ALSO give east Portland bike commuters a safe connection to the Couch/Ankeny greenways. How is this not also thinking of east Portland?

          Recommended Thumb up 13

          • Chris I April 2, 2014 at 3:03 pm

            As an east Portland bike commuter (who happens to work in East Portland but live in North Tabor), I agree with you completely. I see dozens of cyclists riding in the other way each morning, and they all have to deal with the Montavilla mess, and then navigate the hedge maze Greenway between 60th and 39th. A direct connection on Burnside and safety improvements through Montavilla would be a huge improvement.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Todd Hudson April 2, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Extend the road diet to 69th. Please! People drive like Evil Knieval on the approach to Gilham, and a lot of people blow that intersection like they’re in an episode of The Dukes Of Hazzard.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 10:49 am

      That is the plan…..the “Low Hanging Fruit” so to speak is 47th east to 71st with those last three blocks (68th-71st) scheduled to be striped this spring or summer I was told.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Todd Hudson April 2, 2014 at 11:03 am

        Bike lanes from 68th to 71st were added just yesterday! They put a sharrow on 68th, guiding bike folks to the Davis/Everette bike boulevard…

        Now if they could just tame the Gilham intersection….

        Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Julie Tonroy April 3, 2014 at 6:37 pm

      Todd, why stop at 69th? It’s just as bad as they fly over the hill at Gilham, and just yesterday, I watched a truck drive largely on top of the bike lane. The other thing that doesn’t help heading East on Burnside is the fire station which maintains an active green light at all times of the day and night at 74th, giving motorists a psychological speeding pass. It would be better if it was a flashing yellow as I’ve seen around other stations to encourage people to slow down, particularly with shallow bike lanes next to speeding traffic going towards 82nd.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • MaxD April 2, 2014 at 10:41 am

    this person is a neighborhood activist working to make changes in his neighborhood! If you live east of 82nd and want improvements, maybe you should be working towards that. I will grant that the City does a pretty poor job of building their bike network and they are notorious for leaving glaring gaps (ie west end of Going, the proposed southern end of Foster, etc).

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm

      I’m a neighborhood activist too. I manage to think about both the upstream and downstream effects of changes I would like to see within the boundaries of my own neighborhood. When I advocate for safety improvements on Foster or Holgate or Powell, I examine the function and needs of the whole street from one end to the other.

      There’s a troubling pattern of “road diet” and other bike and pedestrian improvement plans ending abruptly at 82nd. Division, Glisan, Foster was almost that way had we not pushed, and I’m sure if I dug into the TIP/TSP the list would be longer.

      Part of the pattern has been established because the advocates for projects don’t think holistically. Their concept of Portland ends at 82nd at best. It’s not enough – or equitable – to just think about your own turf. Especially if your turf shows up in the PBJs list of “hot neighborhoods”.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Oliver April 2, 2014 at 12:08 pm

        Is it not true that the residents of Portland east of 82nd are largely against improvements that reduce auto throughput in their neighborhoods? (not to mention the neighborhoods to the west of them)

        Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

          That’s not true and is a distorted and rather elitist interpretation of most folks very nuanced consideration of the benefits and burdens for all road users living in an area that is auto dependent as a result of disinvestment.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 12:42 pm

        I presented at Montavilla first in January and briefed David Hampston from Hazeldale at the Foster open house, and he has been cc’d the entire time . I also have worked with him and Lew on Glisan safety pedestrian issues. How far east did you want me to go, Gresham?

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm

          As Far East as you need to go to equitable address the distribution of benefits and burdens for disadvantaged populations.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 1:04 pm

            My first activist organization was Act-Up around 1990. I understand disadvantaged populations very well….the “disadvantaged population” I was fighting for was fighting for their lives at that time. Many of my fellow activists died.

            One of the goals of this project is to make the 20 more reliable as a frequent bus with safe crossings and upgraded shelters. Burnside is a neighborhood connector, it is not meant as an automobile commuter route from the suburbia, that is what the Banfield is for.

            This is a MULTI-MODAL transportation safety improvement project, not just a bike project. Ask for more information before you make judgements, please.

            Recommended Thumb up 12

        • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 5:42 pm

          It’s David Hampsten from Hazelwood. :/

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • gutterbunny April 2, 2014 at 10:32 pm

            Funny Cora, but I really don’t get you.

            I remember fully well debating the SE Foster Rd. bike lane with you, and you were adamantly against any bike lanes on Foster from east of 82nd through Lents.

            So now you’ve got the nerve to complain that the lanes aren’t extending far enough East on Burnside?

            Geeze, make up your mind.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Cora Potter April 3, 2014 at 7:16 am

              Actually, I was asking for improvements to
              Ellis so that Ellis/Woodstock could serve as more robust bike routes and so we could have 12-14 ft sidewalks (standard) on Foster. Overall this would have been Bette for everyone than what we ended up with which was 9ft sidewalks and narrow bike lanes.

              I don’t care if you get me or not. What I do is look at all the options, alternatives and needs and then propose the best, most equitable solution.

              In this case- no one even bothered to look or identify needs to the east. That sort of approach to projects on corridors that pass through East Portland and any other disinvested, lower income area of the city needs to stop.

              Recommended Thumb up 3

              • Terry D April 3, 2014 at 12:22 pm

                I certainly hope when you are talking about “This project” you are still talking about Foster. If you are talking about Burnside, then maybe you should e-mail me and I can send you my own reasearch.

                No one who knows me has ever acussed me of not thinking of disadvantaged populations. That is what I have spent much of my adult life doing.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

            • spare_wheel April 3, 2014 at 7:58 am

              20s, 50s, foster, bike share, williams, bike bridge, downtown plan, and now burnside.

              i’m proud that i live in a liberal city that cares about social equity and prioritizes improvement of impoverished areas.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Terry D April 3, 2014 at 12:16 pm

                Mt neighborhood is actually more demograghically similiar to Montavilla than anyother neighoring hood. We have three risk factors for gentryfication and displacement, we are more racially diverse and only have a 40% home ownership rate. This was 43% before the resession. In our comprehensive letter to the city, we stressed that any development should include afordible housing to prevent displacement.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Paul Cone April 3, 2014 at 12:19 pm


                Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Nick Falbo April 2, 2014 at 12:52 pm

        The Foster reconfiguration proposals *always* aimed to cross 82nd and connect to the existing bike lanes in Lents Town Center.

        All opposition to the concept came from representatives east of 82nd. If you had to “push” for the Foster road diet to extend across 82nd, it wasn’t against the road diet activists.

        Recommended Thumb up 13

        • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm

          Nick- that’s BS and you know it. The original strategy was to let “future development” pay for all the improvements west of 82nd and to let “those people” (direct quote from Marcel) live with four lanes, non ADA compliant sidewalks and four lanes. The bulk of the committee would have apathetically enjoyed the benefits of having the full 5.25m of available funds spent west of 82nd.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 1:36 pm

            And, you were an exception on the committee, so thank you for your assistance.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Nick Falbo April 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm

              We clearly disagree on the motives of various parties. What you see as apathy, I saw as your neighbors respecting the opinions and interests of Lents representatives to define what they wanted in their own neighborhood.

              If you had to fight for the road diet to extend into Lents, it was not with your neighbors to the west.

              Please don’t take Marcel’s flippant remarks as an indication of the overall committee’s feelings. Despite his overeager willingness to let you keep 4 lanes east of 82nd, he was in no way against a full corridor road diet.

              Recommended Thumb up 8

              • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 3:06 pm

                Which is why addressing east of 82nd didn’t even make it to then agenda until 2/3rds of the way through the process and only then after multiple requests to actually spend some time talking about it by the only 3 people who gave a whit (yourself included).

                I know I’m cynical, but your also being very Pollyanna about your neighbors willingness to even think past the few blocks they benefit from.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 3:09 pm

                Also- Nick C and I were the only ones to point out that the main high crash corridor issues occur East of the freeway. I don’t see MSA or FoPo following suit with a recommendation and advocacy to plan for 96th -138th.

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Nick Falbo April 2, 2014 at 3:31 pm

                Maybe it’s a good thing that my naive optimism and your cynicism balance each other out.

                I agree that it would have been nice if we had approached the corridor holistically from the start. Anyone who steps back to look at the whole stretch of Foster can’t help but notice the disparity between the quality and safety of the two halves.

                Frankly, I think people were a little afraid of engaging Lents. Nick C was fairly hostile to the road-diet concept from day one. Much of the committee didn’t see it as their place to argue with the Chair of the Lents Neighborhood Association about what they’d like to see in the Lents Neighborhood portion.

                Recommended Thumb up 7

              • Cora Potter April 2, 2014 at 3:23 pm

                Also- Marcel wasn’t the one getting hissed at.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • jonno April 2, 2014 at 10:42 am

    How much of this logic could also apply to NE Halsey street from 43rd, well, all the way east? It’s the same street cross-section as Burnside for most of its length and has the same low off-peak demand and high traffic speeds.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 10:55 am

      Metro extensively looked at improvements to Halsey like you are talking about. According to the presenter, it did not result in anywhere near as much uptick in bike commuting as Burnside did. Improvements to Burnside also would be much more cost effective as the gap is only 1.75 miles.

      The highest uptick on the east side would be bike facilities on Sandy (a whole other can of worms), Burnside came in second. In NE, there is a $1.7 million path project floating around somewhere that may have gotten possible funding that would connect the Tillamook Greenway at 92nd and Hancock to the I 205 Multi-use-path. That will be the connection in NE that avoid that nasty overpass to Gateway.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • jonno April 2, 2014 at 11:51 am

        Interesting, I never heard about that Metro study, nor about the Tillamook-to-I205 path project. Maybe that’s part of the Gateway Green project? It would be cool, for sure.

        Anyway, I’m interested in traffic issues and live in the 53rd/Halsey area — Halsey just seems like an outdated streetscape. Mind if I email my info to you in case the project creeps north?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 11:55 am

          Go for it! You know of course about the 50’s bikeway project that will be based on 53rd in your neck of the woods correct? If you live in Rose City Park, then I have some good information for you on what their NA is doing. terry.dublinski@gmail.com

          Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Chris I April 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm

        As someone that lives near that stretch of Halsey, I can say confidently that they should be looking at it as a safety improvement project. They crammed 4 10′ lanes onto Halsey there. The lanes are so narrow that any large vehicles effectively take up two lanes. People stop abruptly to turn left, and there have been crashes. The two lanes just encourage people to exceed the posted 30mph speed limit. This street would be much safer with two 10′ driving lanes, a center turn lane, and an uphill bike lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • MaxD April 2, 2014 at 10:44 am

    Maybe the curb can moved out in a few spots to provide room to plant some trees, that is a pretty ruthless streetscape!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 10:59 am

      It is pretty ruthless, there are several possibilities but moving the curb in is probably off the table as it is also an emergency response route in case of disaster. If we create a center turn lane however, there would be room for a center planting median here and there. A few residents on the west end have expressed interest in a center planting strip with trees to not only create a park like atmosphere, but also to prevent cut-throughs at 45th when the traffic light gets backed up.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 10:47 am

    Michael, I do not know what the vote was at Montavilla, just that they endorsed our comprehensive planning letter to the city. It did pass North Tabor’s Board unanimously though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Cone April 2, 2014 at 10:50 am

    71st-68th bike lanes were striped on Monday.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 11:02 am

      Well, good. I see that something concrete came out of my questioning. Good going PBOT for quick action!

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Todd Hudson April 2, 2014 at 11:21 am

        I was initially confused when I saw the new stripings. “Has that sharrow always been there? I must be getting old….”

        Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jayson April 2, 2014 at 11:18 am

    This is great! I drive, bike, and walk down this stretch of Burnside at least a few times a week – mostly walk really. Other vehicles drive too fast and crossing the street is risky. I always feel like I’m taking my life out of my hands every time I have to cross Burnside and Glisan, which I must for taking the bus.

    The pro-time lanes are a relict of older traffic engineering focus to prioritize car movement and should be re-evaluated throughout the City. They are used 2 hours out of the day and negatively effect the remaining 22 hours of the day with poor road design.

    Kudos to Terry!

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 11:40 am

      The pro-tem parking is a relic, Burnside is the last large stretch of it in SE west of I 205 I believe. I prefer the term “Safety Modernization” over “Road Diet” myself, but hey…..whatever makes people understand the concept is fine with me!

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • lahar April 2, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    I live off of this stretch and ride everyday down Davis, it is a fantastic Greenway (or whatever they are being called) . I can completely appreciate the need to slow down traffic on Burnside as many drivers use the Right lane to speed. But what I don’t get is the need to have a bike lane when 1 block away is a quiet mellow and pleasant bike way. During commute hours I (in my head) chastise bike riders for being on Burnside. My suggestion is to focus on 1) slowing traffic, 2) putting cross walks and a 3) turn lane and let us not waste money since Davis as a greenway already exists.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 1:19 pm

      I have a well thought out three page argument as to why the Burnside project has a better cost to benefit ratio than just improving the Davis-Everett Greenway. I will post it on Northtabor.org soon. But in short, 1) Cost….we could do Burnside properly for $500,000 with upgraded crossings including flashing beacons for Mount Tabor Middle school and park and protected crosswalks along the stretch. If we keep the current configuration, it is $200,000 a crossing for HAWK lights like the one at 41st. 2) The sidewalk is only 4 foot wide. If we narrow Burnside there would be a bike lane buffer from the sidewalk making it much safer and more pleasant. We would have room for improved bus shelters. To get city standard 9 foot sidewalks would cost HUGE amounts of money and would require ROW buy ups from property owners.

      So, to improve the sidewalks on Burnside and add crossings we can either spend $3 million and save the current configuration, or $500,000 and modernize it and drop the crash rate by as much as 50%. Also, studies have shown repeatedly that bike commuters prefer fast, direct routes. The Greenway is meandering and slow. Bikes can easily hit 30 MPH on Burnside westward. If we want to drop the SOV’s in our neighborhood that cause so much degradation of our streets and quality of life, then protected bikelanes on Burnside is the way to go.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • lahar April 2, 2014 at 3:27 pm

        So what will happen to the Greenway? I’d certainly hesitate taking my family down Burnside even with the road diet.
        And thanks for your response. And thank you for all your work with the North Tabor Neighborhood group. It is really appreciated!!!!!! I’m looking forward to when my daughter is older so I can attend the Tuesday general meetings. I’ll do my best to attend the April 17th meeting.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 4:00 pm

          My first goal on Davis would be to get an improvecd crossing at 60th. The entire stretch should be traffic calmed to the 20 MPH standard. It would not change, only get improved over time. Think of what they are doind in North Portland. The Vancouver-Williams couplet would be like Burnside, Davis-Everett like Rodney….we are just doing it in reverse.
          Also, modernizing Burnside would help vitalize that dead zone as a neighborhood commercial corridor over time. Someone from BPS is presenting to NTNA on the 15th about the zoning changes.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Mindful Cyclist April 2, 2014 at 9:53 pm

          I commute nearly daily from 61st and Burnside to a max stop downtown. I can tell you that going down Burnside instead of going to Davis, crossing at 60th, to Everett, and crossing back over to Davis saves me sometimes up to 5 minutes depending on how long I have to wait at 47th and 60th.

          I realize that Burnside even with a road diet and bike lanes may not be a big appeal to the 8 to 80 crowd. There are, however, many skilled cyclists that put on 1000’s of miles a year and want to get places in a timely manner.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • lahar April 3, 2014 at 10:17 am

            Meh, it takes me 20 minutes on the greenway to go downtown from 66th and Davis to my job, 5 days a week. Biking is 15 minutes faster then max or the bus. 10 minutes faster then my car. I do not think the greenway meanders that much, plus I’d always rather be further from the cars then closer to the cars.

            Seems like a lot of money for some “skilled cyclists” to save 5 minutes. I’ll keep an open mind about the project and have it on my calendar.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Jonathan Gordon April 3, 2014 at 11:13 am

              Sometimes I bike from my place (SE 42nd and Belmont) to the pool at Parkrose High School (NE 122nd and Shaver). As far as intra-city trips go, it’s a longish one and I aim to find the quickest route possible. I’ve found the most direct route is to take Burnside to the 205 bike path and then head east on Shaver. If I try and take the Greenway I’m zig-zagging on Davis/Everett, encountering more stop signs and continually on the lookout for people rolling through stop signs who just don’t see bikes, especially early on a Saturday morning.

              Greenways are great for lots of needs but sometimes I just want to get where I’m going fast and I’d love for the city to accommodate my mode of transit when they consider reducing travel times and improving safety.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Terry D April 3, 2014 at 12:55 pm

              Here is a more detailed argument as to why I think the benefits of a Burnside modernization have a better cost to benefit ratio than just Davis-Everett improvements.


              Keep in mind, we would also improve the Number 20 bus as well if this project goes forward. If it was just a simple re-striping project with only the bike lanes/center turn lane like Division it would be within the ability of the High Crash corridor program, and only cost about $100K.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • spare_wheel April 4, 2014 at 11:03 am

              if you are really biking the ~5 miles from 66th and davis to downtown in 20 minutes then you are almost certainly violating the 20 mph speed limit on davis.

              i may be a “skilled cyclist” but at least i make an effort to be considerate to other vulnerable road users.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikikala April 3, 2014 at 12:04 pm

          Nothing bad. PBOT seeks multiple qualities of bikeways for cyclists in the same way there are multiple levels of roads for motorists. Burnside bike lanes and the Everett/Davis Greenway are complimentary pathways, not competing ones.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Chris I April 2, 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Road diets are one of the most effective ways to slow down vehicle speeds. It eliminates the “race” mentality that you get with two lanes in each direction. I think the “Option 1 61st to 68th” configuration shown above is the best solution wherever possible. Vehicle throughput is not compromised. Safety is improved with the addition of bike lanes and turn lanes, and the only thing you lose is a few spots of private property storage in the public right of way.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

    • FetaD April 2, 2014 at 2:02 pm

      “During commute hours I (in my head) chastise bike riders for being on Burnside. My suggestion is to focus on 1) slowing traffic…”

      I’m having a tough time reconciling these two thoughts being held by the same person. So, you’re not chastising bikers for slowing down cars, but because they…don’t prefer Davis?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • lahar April 2, 2014 at 3:20 pm

        During rush hour to me it seems dangerous, I’d rather not slow traffic down by being the slowest thing on a two lane road. The infrastructure for a safer (granted less fast) ride exists one block over.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • FetaD April 2, 2014 at 4:50 pm

          But you want traffic slowed on Burnside AND you’re budget conscious. Seems like you should appreciate any cyclist that bikes on Burnside since they accomplish traffic calming at no cost. I understand that you don’t want to be the one to slow traffic, but I’m at a loss why you’re upset at others accomplishing what you want. Better it be some faceless infrastructural entity? That costs money. We’re back to square one.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • spare_wheel April 3, 2014 at 12:50 pm

          I doubt that your concern about cyclists riding on Burnside has much to do with fear for their safety. I suspect that you are viewing this interaction from the perspective of a motorist who believes that the cyclist is “in their way”.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • spare_wheel April 2, 2014 at 3:12 pm

    “But what I don’t get is the need to have a bike lane when 1 block away is a quiet mellow and pleasant bike way.”

    I find bike boulevards to be inefficient, slow, and somewhat dangerous. (Motorists will often cross/pull out into my right of way because they expect slow speeds.)

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 4:04 pm

      Different routes for different cyclists. I certainly would prefer a speed demon like you to be riding on Burnside than running over grandma going to friedies. 😉

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikikala April 3, 2014 at 12:05 pm

      Also, Everett/Davis has not yet had the full Neighborhood Greenway treatment yet. Maybe the new funding can kickstart the retro-fit.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Carter Kennedy April 2, 2014 at 4:20 pm

    The diagrams show Burnside changing from two-way to one-way between 48th and 58th. Which way will it go, and what street will handle the other direction?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Terry D April 2, 2014 at 4:36 pm

      It is just one lane in each direction, no one ways. The title just flipped the adresses is all.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Joseph E April 2, 2014 at 6:46 pm

    I currently ride Burnside from Main Street in Gresham all the way east to 71st, on my commute home from work. I would love to see this happen, I have never considered taking Burnside the rest of the way with the current configuration, but it would be great to go to the businesses along that street. and it would help for trips to SE.

    I think Burnside is OK in East Portland (east of 205). We could narrow the car lane and widen the bike lane, but anything else would require rebuilding sidewalks and curbs at great expense. A separated cycletrack one each side should definitely be in the plans for the next full rebuild, but it won’t happen soon.

    The big improvement that is needed is in Gresham, where the bike lanes disappear for a couple 1 1/2 miles. I often take the right lane on that stretch when in a hurry, but it isn’t fun. A road diet here would be great.

    In Montavilla (71st to the freeway) the bike lanes are very narrow, though I do appreciate that they exist. I believe parking was removed on one side to make them possible. Parking would have to removed on the other side as well to get wider bike lanes. It should happen, but it is harder politically than a road diet.

    If the neighborhood would support changing those parking spaces into full-size bike lanes, I would be thrilled. What do the Montavilla folks think?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Chris I April 3, 2014 at 8:19 am

      Parking utilization east of 82nd is not very high, although it is very busy just west of 82nd. There is plenty of side street parking, however, so I don’t think it’s an impossible thing to strive for.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • paikikala April 3, 2014 at 12:09 pm

      East of 96th, and where the light rail enters, there is no parking at all, only about 18 ft of space on each side of the tracks for the auto and bike lane. 1 ft is needed from the inside curb for safety, leaving 17 ft, so an 11 foot travel lane and 6 ft bike, or 10 and 7 if you don’t mind truck mirrors on occasion.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Supercourse April 3, 2014 at 9:41 am

    And again, thanks to J. Maus for bringing this to the people.It is a great place to be.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Brian April 3, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    Act locally! As a fellow North Tabor resident, thanks for your volunteer time and energy. Hopefully it will encourage other individuals and neighborhood associations to do the same.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Stevie April 3, 2014 at 6:28 pm

    Thorburn and Gilham should also be considered for a road diet between the Stark/Washington couplet and Burnside. Two lanes in each direction are unnecessary, and induce excessive vehicle speeds. The bike lane on Stark also deserves a better connection to the west.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Julie Tonroy April 3, 2014 at 6:32 pm

    I live on Burnside between 70th and 71st, and I was overjoyed upon arriving home the other day to see the bike lanes striped. I have been bugging PBOT and others about the rate-of-speed issues we’ve been encountering on Burnside, particularly since Glisan was put on a road diet. As a walker, biker, and motorist, I encourage anything to reduce speeds on Burnside and make it safer for all forms of transit. Try walking across Burnside at 7:30am…I dare you. We need to look at thoughtful measures to reduce speeds, keep everyone safe, and promote more walking and biking. Hurray for the striping so far, and please sign me up for any interest groups related to traffic calming on Burnside. As a largely residential street out in the Mt. Tabor region, it seems crazy that it is 35MPH (which is reality means people drive 45MPH). Sign me up!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Paul Turner April 4, 2014 at 11:38 am

    I do the Burnside, Davis, Everett, Couch, Ankeny eastbound from I205 thing most every day but today around 8:00AM I checked out the new bike lanes painted from 71st to 68th (wow, Google already has this new section in their bike path database, how did they do that?) . Once I got to 68th rather than turn off, I just kept going east on Burnside. Apart from the 35 MPH speed limit that is one sweet street to ride. The surface is nice and smooth and with the traffic sort of light, I just took a lane – car traffic just passed me in the open left lane and I didn’t see anyone give me the finger so I guess it was cool. I pulled off at Whole Foods to shop and from there went over to Ankeny to finish up. Not sure I’d do it every day but I now consider it an option as it shaved a good 4-5 minutes off my usual time through that section.

    A bike lane on Burnside from 68th going east would be very nice to have, I’d use it most every day I commute.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Paul Turner April 4, 2014 at 12:00 pm

      What I meant to say in the last line was: A bike lane on Burnside from 68th going WEST would be very nice to have, I’d use it most every day I commute.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • james May 9, 2014 at 12:26 pm

    why do you bike riders want to pick on burnside, its fine the way it is , go screw up one of the hunreds of others roads in portland like you have already

    Recommended Thumb up 0