(Photo: J.Maus/BikePortland)
The final plans are coming together for the first on-street bike connection between Portland’s northern and southern borders.
Under the latest plans, the much-discussed commercial section between SE Stark and NE Oregon would get a mini-process of its own this winter and spring; a separated “jughandle” at NE 28th and Buxton would ease left turns out of the commercial area; the corner of NE 26th and Fremont would get intersection markings instead of a physical median; a new signal would change traffic options at SE 30th and Stark; and SE 28th and Powell would be signalized.
In an email to stakeholders Friday afternoon, 20s Bikeway project manager Rich Newlands detailed each of these developments. (Here’s a PDF version of the full plan as of June, for comparison’s sake.)
A ‘breakout’ process for 28th near Burnside
In the commercial heart of the 20s Bikeway, a coalition of business owners and a major landlord successfully opposed the city’s proposal to remove parking from the west side of 28th.
But as a pair of volunteer traffic analysts proposed this spring, another option might be to use unusual street design elements to create a “commercial greenway” and sense of place that could improve the district for biking, walking and shopping alike.
The main challenge is that the street carries 7,000 motor vehicles per day, more than four times the maximum recommended for a residential bike boulevard, including quite a few large trucks.
“I am planning on breaking this piece off and engaging the business community and neighborhood (and anyone one else who is interested) in developing a design in the winter/spring time frame,” Newlands wrote.
Advertisement
A ‘jughandle’ turn at 28th and Buxton
Where the angle of Sandy Boulevard jostles the eastside street grid at 28th and Buxton, there’s a little-used triangular area. The city’s latest plan would rebuild some of it to help southbound bikes complete a left turn across two lanes of traffic in order to reach a new 14-block neighborhood greenway on 30th Avenue. (This greenway stretch was championed by some residents and business owners as an alternative to creating a comfortable bikeway on 28th itself.)
“This allows us to avoid turn conflicts due to the close proximity to vehicle queues at Sandy, and take advantage of the under-utilized space at the 28th/Buxton intersection to better stage the turns and improve the pedestrian connection along the west side,” Newlands wrote Friday.
North of Buxton, here’s the city’s latest design for crossing Sandy and Interstate 84.
Note that it seems to send the bike lane directly along either curb of 28th north of Sandy. That’d be contrary to an earlier city proposal to narrow a sidewalk and create a door-zone bike lane here in order to preserve on-street auto parking next to an unused private parking lot. Newlands, who’s out of town until Thursday, didn’t address this issue in Friday’s email.
A novel intersection design at Fremont
In response to what Newlands described as “a very well attended meeting” at which Fremont Methodist Church and the Alameda Neighborhood Association expressed “strong opposition to the parking removal adjacent to the church,” the city is planning not to build a traffic-calming median that would have eliminated several on-street parking spaces.
Instead, the plan will use green stripes of paint to mark bike crossings and add signs on the center line “which recent studies have shown to improve yielding behavior,” Newlands wrote.
“This seems to be a promising approach for relatively narrow (36 ft) arterial crossings, and is under consideration at other locations such as Alberta and Killingsworth,” Newlands added.
A 2-way buffered bike lane on 30th south of Stark
The major budgetary cost of the 30th Avenue greenway concept is a new traffic signal to be added at Stark. The city’s latest plan would use that new signal to block both northbound and southbound traffic through what is today a somewhat awkwardly offset intersection.
It’d also create a dedicated right-turn lane for southbound cars and a rare two-way buffered bike lane to guide greenway users around the corner to 29th Avenue, which is also due to be converted into a neighborhood greenway.
A new signal and median for 28th and Powell
In what Newlands called “great news,” the Oregon Department of Transportation has “tentatively approved” the city’s proposal to add a traffic signal and median here, helping the new neighborhood greenway on 28th cross the state-owned Powell Boulevard. As with the northern stretch, this segment was designed as a low-stress route that could bypass a commercial district from which the city decided not to remove on-street parking.
A few other items are still in motion, including strong opposition to the bikeway plans from the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association that has yet to be resolved.
On the current timeline, Newlands estimated that the city’s engineering will be complete in May 2015, which would mean construction in fall 2015 or (more likely, given the amount of striping work) spring 2016.
In an email to the Active Right of Way listserv, neighborhood greenway advocate Terry Dublinski-Milton wrote that given that parking removal from commercial areas had been “a nonstarter,” the latest plans for NE 26th and SE 30th seemed OK to him.
“A parallel route is what it has to be for now,” Dublinski-Milton wrote. “[Neighborhood associations] have been asking for a new crossing at 26th and Broadway for years. That is exactly what this ‘Bikeway’ is … a series of needed pedestrian crossings strung together by sharrows. If BIKES were prioritized, then different decisions would have been made.”
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
good lord, could they propose something more confusing?
Give them time…
That was my thought. We need a focused consistently in our infrastructure that people can learn, trust and be confident in. If you can’t figure it out riding through for the first time is is a bit of a failure.
Sheesh. Sharrows, one-way bike lane, crossover to two-way bike lane, turn left to go straight—no, wait—go straight to turn left—I mean, follow the sharrows until they turn into a bike lane, then—Oh, a one-way—wait! It’s a two-way! Am I supposed to turn left here? Can I go straight? What happened to the bike lane? Oh, it’s sharrows now—why is that guy riding against traffic? Oh, he’s not—but why is he over there? Where does that go?
This route would piss me right the hell off, pardon my francais. Why in the Flaming F**k would I not be expected to get on a damn street and stay the hell there? W.T. F.?
The more I see things like this, the more I want to ride really slowly down the middle of every lane I can find. And I hate going slow. I just cannot swallow the expectation that because someone is on a bike, they will accept what amounts to a permanent DETOUR, just because “here, I made you this”. If this route were to be described as one drivers were to take, it would be followed by a construction schedule that listed when the inconvenient and confusing DETOUR route would END.
I will likely never ride here, so what do I know; I’ve just become sick to death of second-class treatment—even really expensive second-class treatment. How far over backwards are we supposed to bend just to avoid what, removing a parking space? Forcing motorists to slow down? Keeping arterial traffic on the arterials and out of neighborhoods? What we have is a frickin’ system where, when cyclists are supposed to detour around construction, there is no signage or instruction and tickets are handed out for riding through construction zones; and then when there is no construction whatsoever, we have a confusing detour route we’re supposed to use every day forever. Who the hell else has to practice going somewhere a few times because the route they are assigned or feel safe on is too damn hard to figure out. I want my routes to be “Hot Cross Buns”, not Rachmaninoff!
It’s a subtle social engineering campaign by PBOT to get bikes to leave NE 28th commercial district. Looks like it’s working.
I feel the same way about the changes around S. Waterfront.
Please explain.
Five+ years ago I had zero stoplights on my commute between Willamette Park and the Hawthorne Bridge. If I follow the new signage I think I have 4 now, including one where I wait through 2 red cycles. Don’t get me started on why I have to cross Moody TWICE. The bike infra is clearly an afterthought — convoluted & fitted in around transit and cars. And unlike on 28th the city had a blank slate to start with — so what they came up with demonstrates how highly bikes rate in the mix.
But don’t the bike routes go directly by most of the commercial entities in the area.
I am not completely blown away by the area’s bike routes either, but I think the old Moody (with no bike lanes) would not have handled today’s bike numbers very well.
5 years ago? selective memories. all of those intersections and lights have been there for at least 8 years and some even longer.
It will only take a few rides to complete figure out the various bike lanes and turns. Most people riding here will be doing so regularly – commuting, shopping, school – and they won’t be confused, after the second or third time.
The two way buffered bike lane is interesting. I’m seeing this more often in designs. I suppose the reason is that if you only need one buffer zone, it can be wider, while if you need two buffers, they have to be narrower.
I’m glad they are finding budget for more traffic signals. Getting across major roads is the hardest thing about riding on 28th.
The commercial stretch from Stark to Glisan has the potential to be a great “shared street”. If successful, it could reshape ideas about what is possible in such tight rights of way. Today, you can ride that whole stretch, taking the lane, at 15 to 20 mph and drivers will patiently – resignedly? – drive slowly behind you without trying dangerous passes or honking. I’d say more than 9 times out of 10, it will be an incident free ride. I do it almost every day. Because it is a narrow and populated road, and fairly congested with turning and parking cars, pedestrians, and bikes, the drivers’ sense of the “natural speed” is a lot closer to bike speeds than on wider roads. By hemming in the roadway even more (bump outs, cobbles, bumps, markings, signage) I think the “natural speed” can be reduced even further.
“It will only take a few rides to complete figure out the various bike lanes and turns.”
You are probably correct, John Liu, but a lot of the comments both here and in other recent discussions drift into another, larger realm: what does this requirement say about our city’s commitment to achieving higher bike mode share? Why are we, who ride bikes treated like this? Why are our tax dollars being spent to tweak our existing infrastructure that for the most part now goes straight, into something specifically for us that jogs all over the place and sprinkles new, unfamiliar treatments along the route?
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t well intentioned folks working on this at PBOT, that they want to do the right thing. But when all is said and done, the complexity of a route like this speaks volumes.
Ideally one entire 8′-10′ wide lane would be devoted to bikes for the entire length of 28th, configured as a two-way cycleway, 4′-5′ per direction. Maybe the cycleway would be curbside, better yet it would run down the center of the street. This requires removing parking from at least one side of the street. Those battles are currently being lost. Remember it, come the next city elections.
Didn’t lose that battle on SE 52nd!
“It will only take a few rides to…figure out the various…lanes and turns.”
Meanwhile, if I want to go north from Crystal Springs in my car, I take a right on Cesar Chavez/39th and have a straight shot. I only have to turn when I get to the cross street my destination lies on. Hey Ma! I figured it out on the first try–ya just go straight!
Since the route goes west on Wasco north of I-84, where would you propose cyclists cross 28th?
The route only goes west on Wasco because that’s where they put the route. I’m not necessarily proposing the bike route move to Cesar Chavez, I’m just comparing the routes auto drivers have available vs. those bicyclists are “supposed” to use. But if I were to ride on Cesar Chavez, I’d love to have the option to turn West anywhere. I don’t ride in this area, but Glisan looks like a great West-turn option from CC/39th. North of 84, wouldn’t it be great to be able to head west on Broadway?
Really, I guess any of these routes are legally available, but when we go out of our way to create fancy routes that cyclists are “supposed” to take, it gives too many people the impression that other routes are now off limits for riding, and that cyclists are generally supposed to skulk around in the margins, scurrying back and forth across streets like squirrels, all to avoid inconveniencing motorists. Inconveniencing bicyclists seems to be a well-accepted practice, ‘cuz safety! Even when we do break down and apply the last resort of removing a lane or a parking space, or installing a diverter (i.e., inconveniencing motorists) it is only undertaken with much hand-wringing and “community input” and study of traffic volumes to make sure that the impact to motorists, while not zero, is at least as small as possible. And the biggest inconvenience for motorists is still waiting for other motorists. If we want to reduce the number of motorists that other motorists have to wait for in traffic jams, we have to make bicycling routes that will attract those that currently drive. Any route that has to be practiced before it can be used effectively—and even then is circuitous rather than direct—is not going to be that attractive to someone who currently just drives wherever they want without a whit of attention to which streets they are “supposed” to drive on or worry about “difficult” intersections or figuring out built-in detours.
John what about cars figuring this out (knowing where to look for cyclists etc.). if they’re not ever riding a bike on it, I’m going to guess few of them would understand what/where the infrastructure is going.
I suppose they will see cyclists riding, turning, waiting, etc and figure it out.
Every time a new bike lane is installed, initially cars drive and park all over it and “we” get upset. NE Multnomah, NW Everett, etc. After a while people figure it out. I think if PBOT were more liberal with the signage and road markings, it might help speed up that learning.
I realize 28th won’t be a perfect bikeway, far from it, but I think it will be a big improvement. Just the additional signalized crossings will make a big diference. And I’m quite hopeful about the potential for the commercial stretch from Stark to Glisan.
What do you think about the situation where most bikes and cars have “figured it out” and are moving around around expecting other road users to behave a certain way- then someone in a car or on a bike uses this for the first time. They are bound to do something unpredictable or not anticipate some crazy thing. IMO, the fact that most daily will figure it out will end up making this proposed design more dangerous
I agree. A rider should be able to come in from out of town and find their way around in a reasonable manner, without having to be a local.
That’s the thing, if many drivers can’t initially figure out a pretty basic bike lane, how are they possibly going to understand the tangled mess presented above?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/A_Short_History_of_Traffic_Engineering.png
Welcome to PDOT.
PDOD – Portland Department Of Driving
I am one hundred percent confused by what’s going on at the bridge going over the Banfield.
No kidding. The bridge already has bike lanes on both sides, no parked cars, no doors to worry about.
Heading northbound, I’m supposed to pull over to the right, stop, then cross two lanes of traffic to access the two-way bike lane just to get across the bridge? Not gonna happen.
If we build this whole thing out, FRAP law needs to go.
Not only FRAP, but the mandatory bike lane use law also needs to go (ORS 814.420).
Sloppy notation on my part, mandatory sidepath law, that’s what I meant.
What is the speed limit for the commercial greenway? Did they consider removing the median striping?
Unfortunately the state only allows for speed limits as low as 20 mph. Any successful implementation of this concept would include a number of elements to take the design speed for cars down to about 10-12mph, which would be a comfortable speed for riders of most ability levels.
The centerline striping is something that we discussed a lot and continue to discuss in talking about the Commercial Greenway concept. On balance, I think it’s better to leave it there to discourage cars passing bikes to whatever extent possible in tandem with other design elements. But there’s an argument to be made for removing it to give it the “feel” of a lower-speed, local street like the city’s done recently on the NE Alberta Greenway up near the 50’s.
20mph limit combined with a “No passing” sign, no center striping, and widely marked, narrow pedestrian crossings, raised above street level and made of a different material such as bricks might give this potential.
There is a lower statutory speed than 20 mph, but the roadway (definition grey area) has to be 18 ft or less (def. of ‘narrow) and in a ‘residential district’ per ORS. That speed is 15 mph. PBOT has posted this in a couple places in the City, but it is rare, for now.
I have a piece of twine exactly 18 ft long that I used to carry with me for the purpose of finding these gems. It turns out there are fewer of them than I’d hoped.
While we are on the subject, what’s with all these Business Districts that have speed limits faster than 20 mph?
The definition of business district has both use and density measures. Once the density drops, the street segment disqualifies. Uniform speed posting along a corridor is preferable to switching back and forth from high to low. Safe speed is a collorary discussion.
As for roadway width, the grey area is the definition of roadway:
801.450 “Roadway.” “Roadway” means the portion of a highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, exclusive of the shoulder. In the event a highway includes two or more separate roadways the term “roadway” shall refer to any such roadway separately, but not to all such roadways collectively. [1983 c.338 §83]
So if you look close, it says ‘for vehicular travel’. Give me an inch and I say that means ‘vehicular storage’ space does not count in ‘roadway’. Parking lanes don’t count as roadway. So most streets in Portland actually have only 20 feet of ‘roadway’ and the skinny streets with parking on one side might be eligible for 15 mph already. Since bicycles are vehicles by law, the advisory bike lane streets don’t qualify. But if we achieved an amendment to 801.450, inserting the word ‘motorized’ between ‘for vehicular’….bike lanes, even buffered bike lanes wouldn’t count either. On those narrow streets in SW, if we just put the edge lines 1 ft closer to the centerline, they would be eligible as well.
Thanks for the details. A quick google suggests the minimum width of a parking lane is 7 feet in Oregon. Is that right? If so I guess I’ll add a couple of 7 ft segments to either end of of my twine and start rolling with it again.
Portland uses an 8-foot standard, but will go to 7.5 as needed.
so sick of strong opposition to losing street parking. just take it away. life will go on.
I think they are afraid to fight the church on this one, because of church.
Seriously, it’s two spots that are used one day a week. Just take them. The church does not own the street, and doesn’t really pay taxes anyway.
So what is up with that bike lane just north of Sandy? On the west side of the street (southbound), they have the dotted, continuation lines reinforcing the boundary between bike zone and auto zone. But on the northbound side there is no continuation of the dividing line. If we have another case go to court of a driver right hooking a rider in that lane, it would only reinforce that one horrible case that already set the precedent and would have inconsistency of application as its evidence.
Fortunately it’s a pretty low-traffic street; there’s no freeway onramp here, for example. But that doesn’t address your question. I don’t know the answer.
As bad as Judge Zusman’s decision was, my understanding is that it sets no precedent; precedent isn’t set until a case goes through appellate court. I agree with your broader point about unusual/undefined/poorly understood traffic markings, and especially the proliferation of them.
This is the case that I’m talking about: http://bikeportland.org/2009/12/18/judge-woman-hit-in-unpainted-bike-lane-is-not-protected-by-law-27332
At least the proposed intersection upgrades at Stark look like include northbound/ westbound Diversion. That is an improvement at least…..and the crosssections from Oregon to Sandy does not have any parking….but that Overpass…oh my.
why is the eastmoreland association against it?
Here’s what Newlands wrote: “The recommended route as it runs through the Eastmoreland neighborhood has provoked significant negative reaction from the Eastmoreland Neighborhood Association on a variety of issues. There have now been several well attended meetings of local residents to discuss these issues. Initially, the focus was on the use of speed bumps on both 32nd Ave and Crystal Springs Blvd, to which PBOT has subsequently agreed to not place speed bumps on 32nd Ave, but maintain them (fire-friendly) in the recommendation for Crystal Springs Blvd because of the high higher volumes and speeds. There has been another meeting this past month in which a contingent of residents on 32nd Ave have requested the route be moved to Reed College Place and/or the overall route alignment decision be delayed until after the Comprehensive Plan Update has been completed. We anticipate some sort of formal response from the neighborhood association in mid October.”
Because their association president is insane.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/06/se_portland_neighbors_drone_sp.html
He is also president of SEUL.
Is that why they don’t show up to land use meetings?
I live near Eastmoreland and am continually amazed at the NIMBY attitude of that neighborhood. They really don’t need a reason — they just don’t want others in their space, even in public spaces like street or Reed College Place park, etc. It’s ridiculous, because if there was ever a better/safer neighborhood for a bikeway, I can’t really think of it.
I too am VERY happy to hear about the lighted intersection at 28th and Powell. It’s harder than it seems like it should be to get from 26th to 28th going South in the evenings, and is the scariest thing for me to think about when my teen gets on her bike home from school.
because they seem to have the “not in my neighborhood” mentality set to constant.
they want better, livable neighborhoods with great wifi, but don’t want any of the infrastructure to be placed in their neighborhood.
Ha, I forgot about the wifi thing. That or maybe they just have a yard sign maker in their neighborhood that is constantly beating outrage drum and reaping the business benefits…..
Because our inalienable right to parking is in the constitution, our actual right to move freely within our nation is ignored.
My eyes glazed over after the third or fourth impossible labyrinth pictured.
This is not platinum level. Barely tin.
I ride this route now at least once daily on my commute. If this is the best PBOT can come up with, please, please just leave it alone, y’all are just gonna screw it up completely with this plan.
I love the diverter on 30th and Stark. I might actually use this.
None of the rest of this design is useful or fits the project goals: safety (e.g. crossings at Broadway and Burnside), ease of use (crossing fast moving traffic near the 28th bridge, going down 29th to Belmont, stopping, crossing fast traffic, and back up the hill), sense of place (gives me the sense I am not welcome), direct…
If the city can’t offer one good bike lane in this area, I prefer the no-build option and perhaps the money can be spent on the north and south sections.
Whew! I was getting nervous there might be a block or two where I couldn’t park my car in the city.
This looks like the kind of thinking and planning that brought us stop signs at roundabouts. Dumb.
Stop signs that cops camp out at and ticket people riding bikes.
Time for some enforcement action.
None of Portland’s 3 roundabouts (really 2.5) intersections have stop signs. Mt Hood at the long term parking/frontage road at the airport, SW Palater at Terwilliger, and the north end of Yacht Harbor (the .5) are the only roundabouts in Portland. Everything else is a traffic circle. Signals and stop signs are both intersection controls, but no one confuses them.
and once again you go back to the inability of our city to keep to any form of consistency with road design.
If knowing the difference between a roundabout and traffic circle is required to navigate this maze of craziness, I don’t think I’ll be the only one riding around in circles with a confused look on my face.
I live nearby this absurdity, and ride it daily as it is now.
I also ride the exact same route on my motorcycle, also daily.
I would rather have half of my teeth pulled than have to remember which bike I’m riding to know all the crazy shit I’m supposed to know to get a dozen blocks down the road. Is this warren necessary?
A route needs to connect someplace to another someplace, and Portland has a lot of cycle routes that are only a block or so long. Who rides their bike only one block?
glad I’m not the only that confuses modes between bicycle and motorcycle… sometimes I forget I have a motor…
In the third illustration I really love the “one-way” arrows pointed on opposing directions on the post with the stop sign and the right turn only sign. What could possibly be confusing about that?
I just noticed that. I can see how it makes a kind of sense, but it looks like something from a Looney Tunes cartoon, possibly featuring Daffy Duck or Wile E. Coyote. Yipe!
one way signs are posted nearside right and farside left. The sign post has to have one for the northbound traffic and one for the southbound. I suspect if they inserted the southbound sign upside down, someone else would complain as well.
can’t believe I’m writing this, but if this is the best PBOT can do, then “nothing” is far better than “something.”
This plan is ridiculous. I’m in the camp of ‘if you’re going to screw it up this badly just leave it alone’. I am not going to be jogging back and forth constantly to go 12 blocks. I’m not going to be crossing traffic to get across the 84, only to then have to re-cross traffic at the other side of the bridge. Do the planners really think these are usable viable ideas? I try not to be a hater, but man, this plan is bad.
Since the route goes west on Wasco north of I-84, where would you propose cyclists cross 28th – to continue on the route?
I have never had a problem taking a simple left turn. I’d MUCH rather do that then deal with that “move to the right, now cross two lanes of traffic” nonsense, especially in the dark winter rain. Terrible. This really has to be one of the worst cycling infrastructure proposals I’ve ever seen.
How about for a 12-year old girl? With 5700 cars per day, 85% going up to 35 mph in a 30 mph zone?
so, you’d rather have that “12 year old person cut back and forth across the road trying to navigate a non-Euclidean bike route?
I would rather a 12 year old did a Copenhagen left than wait in a through travel lane to make a left turn. Pedestrians/Cyclists have 90% risk of fatal if struck at 35 mph. Making a 2-stage left turn for a person who’s peripheral vision development is still a work in progress is a safer system.
That 35 MPH in a high mixing zone is the real problem.
Do you work for the city? PBOT?
Has anyone ever checked the qualifications of Mia’s Mafia for traffic engineering?
Kind of like hearing Obama speak: interminable concatenations of platitudes and non-sequiturs; integrate from beginning to end and the result is zero.
Any commenter on this site could do a better job blindfolded.
I think John Lui is probably right that we’ll all figure it out and get used to it once we’ve done it a couple times.
But even more so I have to agree with the broader issue of how absurd it is that we have to do all these convolutions just to figure out how to get bikes down the street safely without being hit by cars. Seems to me simple solutions tend to be better ones.
This does improve the “History of Traffic Engineering” graphic slightly, but only by connecting some of the disconnected zigzags for bikes.
Another concern I have is that while this will be somewhat counterintuitive to figure out for cyclists, it will be even more opaque to motorists WTF the bikes are up to when (inevitably!) they come into conflict with each other on these facilities. And that contradicts one of the most basic rules of low-conflict cycling: be predictable!
On another note, I am thrilled to hear there will be a light at 28th/Powell now. That is a really, really dangerous spot. High speeds, heavy traffic mostly oblivious to the crosswalks there, and LOTS of pedestrians trying to cross because of the nearby high school, HUB brewery and other businesses coming in.
Or most of us will just avoid using it as it’s designed, and get a bunch of drivers all upset.
It’s bad enough that we have fight so hard for just a small sliver of funding. But then we get things like this, that it appears not many people will even want to use due to complexity. It’s a lose/lose.
i also suspect that it will be a failure as a bike facility but at least there are some improvements for peds.
Green paint and sharrows– a bike lane does not make. Until PDOT can commit to building separated cycle tracks, we will continue to fall behind other bicycle-forward cities.
“New York and Chicago didn’t leapfrog Portland because they have better bike festivals or bike cafes. Civic leaders in those cities have been aggressively installing bike infrastructure in recent years, and the number of people riding, and the experience of riding itself, have both improved alongside them. It’s too simplistic to write off Portland — its bike innovations are myriad and significant — but the city’s relative lack of simple protected bike lanes is getting impossible to ignore.”
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2014/09/30/what-portlands-stagnation-and-montreals-cycle-tracks-can-teach-us-about-real-bike-friendliness/
How about Portland’s lack of rational transportation planners?
New York and Chicago are also how many times larger? Consider the difference in a 1% shift of either of those city’s transportation budget to such a move in Portland. FY 2012 for NYCdot looks like $693M, so a 1% shift would be $6M per year.
It’s not always about the amount of money, but how you wisely spend it. Montreal is closer in size (3.8 million metro) and the ONLY North American city to rank in Copenhagenize’s 2013 list of bicycle-friendly cities. It’s just a matter of priorities.
I recognize that we have limited space, and building real cycling infrastructure means taking a lot of that space away from vehicles and ensuring that there is a great public transit system that people are willing to use. Unfortunately, there remains a lot of opposition to those ideas.
Great article from Montreal linked there. The opening of the story detailed a ride through a construction zone detour that was not confusing or dangerous.
The idea being that a decent and well-signed detour is an indication of what makes a bike-friendly city. By that standard we are definitely not bike-friendly yet.
Here’s a current example right in the core of bike-dense inner SE Portland: on SE 7th where it angles northeast from Stark St towards becoming Sandy Blvd, a short stretch of bike lane is closed for a small construction project. OK fine, sometimes that’s unavoidable, and acceptable as long as it’s mitigated properly with a reasonably short detour, adequately signed.
But all they’ve done here is to post a sign saying “BIKE LANE DETOUR” just before the closure. When I last rode through, there were no signs indicating what the detour is or where bikes should go. With this kind of schlock still going on, we could be poised to drop further yet below #4 when the ranking is done again in 2016.
Isn’t the detour usually to just go out into the lane?
To me the word “DETOUR” in the sign implies that there would be one posted somewhere. Taking the lane isn’t a detour, it’s a lane shift. If that’s what’s expected, the sign should say “BIKE LANE CLOSED” and, at a minimum, some additional confusing signs like “BIKES IN ROADWAY” should be posted. But bike lanes that come and go are still unacceptable, especially on an uphill stretch when many cyclists are going under 10mph, and those carrying loads are going slower still. At least for the I&Cs, we need to always post a detour when a bike facility is disrupted.
In this particular case the detour would be very short, adding less than a block of extra riding, but it still may not be obvious to those who don’t ride there every day. My point is that this is almost ALWAYS what happens in Portland when construction disrupts a bike route. If you closed a road to cars for construction without posting a detour, people would go apeshit. Fail to account for bikes, and nothing happens.
Part of this is I’m still angry over the construction detour that happened for a few weeks this summer on Beaverton-Hillsdale highway near Hillsdale. They closed the bike lane and the sidewalk, simply posted lots of “CLOSED” signs and didn’t bother with a detour. Of course the only possible detours were quite a few blocks out of the way, involving a significant amount of additional (steep!) climbing, but this could all have been avoided by closing one of the two moderately-used general lanes in each direction. If the construction project had taken into account the impact to bicyclists – on the main bike thoroughfare between Portland and Beaverton – things would have gone quite differently.
And that’s the problem. Construction crews here don’t consider the impact to bikes because they’re not required to.. Until that changes, Portland will retain its Aluminum status in my esteem.
Montreal’s cycling mode share in 2001, 2006, and 2011 was ~2%.
it would be easy to slap sharrows on streets both ways… Just let drivers know and deal with it.
Bingo. A few blocks of “slow the heck down” design is all that’s really needed.
This is terrible and insane. The cynic in me almost thinks that PBOT is making this so terrible so it’ll be rejected and they can say, “See, we tried.”
Seriously, we paid money for this?
While I really like the concept for 28th between Glisan and Burnside, I’m a little concerned about the textured pavement. It will force skateboards out into the sharrow. While I know it is technically legal in Portland for skaters to take a lane. My experience tells me that many motorists are not ready for it. Police have also had a track record of being confused on the legality of skateboards in the traffic lane.
Isn’t that route still completely undecided. It was a bit confusing in this article to put the graphic of a very proposed section that is still going to be discussed right next to the other plans that the city appears to be more concrete on.
Cory,
I’d be interested in discussing how we might be able to adapt this design to be more friendly and useful to skateboards. I hadn’t realized that skateboards might default to the textured section (which is there deliberately in part to keep people from riding in the door zone). Get in touch if you want to get a beer and talk!
aThe Commercial Greenway concept seems pretty great. The bizarre mess at the bridge over 84 has got to go- that is too complex for bikes and motorists- yes, regular users might figure it out, but that makes it even more dangerous when someone on a bike or in a car tries it for the first time. Keep it simple, direct and slow.
I wish they would not do parallel planning of parallel greenways. IMO, these are substandard, short stretches with poor connectivity, but since they are being discussed as part of the same project, the project goals get all confused, people who don’t support bike access try to foist all kinds of functions on to these greenways. 30th will be useful for short stretches of neighborhood circulation, but what the City NEEDS is a simple north/south route that is safe for bikes. I believe these are completely separate projects and presenting them together creates confusion and leads to a disastrous outcomes.
I’m excited about the Commercial Greenway too, can’t wait to see it on Alberta, NW 23rd, etc.
It’s a mockup by two private citizens. There are no plans, no money, and no intention to try this design.
oh. that is very disappointing.
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
PBOT, to their credit, has been very open to this idea from the get-go. Not everybody within PBOT, mind you–and we’re working hard to get the skeptics to come around–but the project manager deliberately gave us a platform to present this knowing that the “enhanced shared roadway” concept was undefined and bound to fall flat with all stakeholders. We gave it a name, and it turned out to resonate with both business owners and “the bike community.” No other idea proposed did so, and this is not lost on PBOT.
In the announcement that Michael summarizes in this article, PBOT acknowledged “opportunities for design creativity” here citing our concept. As described in the article, what the section looks like is still to be determined. The (generally positive and mostly constructive) feedback from the BP community has been extremely helpful here, and continues to move the needle regarding how progressive the shared space will be.
So, yeah…”two private citizens” (three, actually), can do a little bit of good it turns out.
“opportunities for design creativity”
“what the section looks like is still to be determined.”
So there there is no PBOT planning, funding, and/or commitment. Am I wrong?
I personally would love to see something like your design built but the proposal of a few private citizens does not absolve PBOT for the backroom stakeholder process that led to a whole lot of *NOTHING* on 28th. As a Buckman resident I feel I was completely excluded from a decision making process that coddled a few private businesses. I am still furious about this. And I personally have not spent a dime at Laurelhurst Theater or Staccato Gelato since they organized an anti-bike lane petition.
PS: The dutch have been building winkelerfen in commercial areas since the 60s.
http://www.trafficlinq.nl/findpictures/data/media/39/w_030103_001.jpg
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=201980
The Commercial Greenway looks promising and the new signals on Stark and especially Powell are welcome news. But otherwise, this does seem to be a mess! The 84 overpass in particular–why would I cross the street headed northbound to use a two-way painted bike lane? Does the bike lane jog left, detouring bikes a few blocks to the west? This design seems to be the terrible product of “consensus” rather than leadership. Sure, everybody has a right to participate in a public process, but the design doesn’t have to reflect everyone’s concerns as if they are all legitimate and equal–Eastmoreland, I’m looking at you here.
The reason for the two-way bike lane across the bridge is that the route then goes west on Wasco and then north on 26th to cross Broadway. The graphic here unfortunately doesn’t show that, so it looks confusing.
I’m confused by the green zebra striping that crosses the intersections at 28th/Hoyt, 26th/Fremont, etc., and I think many motorists will be too. I think in these cases the green zebra stripes are just there to show the path of bikes across the intersection. From what I can figure out, they don’t have a regulatory function – they don’t mean motorists should yield to cyclists at these locations. After all, because cyclists have a stop sign (or a stop line at the end of the jug handle) in these spots. So the use of the same kind of striping used for pedestrian crossings is misleading and will create conflict.
Along these lines, there’s a new instance of combined bike+ped striping (on the redesigned SE 17th Ave, just before Pershing where it has curved southbound from Powell), combined with a HAWK signal, where half of each zebra stripe is green. If I understand the law correctly, cars would have to stop for pedestrians here, but not necessarily for cyclists (at least if they’re above a walking pace). Am I right in my understanding?
They are using green zebra striping on SE 52nd at Division, and there it represents a bike lane crossing a right turn lane where the car is supposed to yield. Again, consistency is key.
At added right turn lanes, cars *are* legally required to yield, and green striping is appropriate. The same applies to bike lanes leading through intersections, like the green extensions at bike boxes.
But these neighborhood greenway crossings, there is no legal requirement to yield, so the scenario is slightly different.
All the more confusing on why they thought that striping would be appropriate here.
Since 99.5% of the bicycles in Portland are being ridden by locals (made-up statistic, but I’ll bet it is close to right), I don’t see why we should be so worried about out of town riders.
Think about your own encounters with unfamiliar bike infrastructure. Your head didn’t explode.
The first time I came across the paired bike left turn pockets on Stark at 41st, I was confused. I’d never seen anything like it before. So what? I figured it out, and drivers don’t run me down when I’m waiting in those painted boxes. They seem to have figured it out too.
I think the users of our roads – riders and drivers – have more intelligence than some are giving them credit for, and I really don’t see a justification for this collective tantrum.
As I see it, the whole problem is that this bikeway will serve current riders alright (though indirectly and annoyingly, as many people have pointed enough) – but is not direct, easy-to-use, or appealing enough to really help Portlanders who don’t currently bike do so. A newbie Portland rider will be in exactly the same position as an out-of-towner upon trying to use this facility – confused, frustrated, and probably lost (and therefore off the facility). That doesn’t help us increase mode share.
John, most of us are “out of town” riders if we get more than 2-3 miles from our homes (or our one dedicated commuting route) in our own city.
And as Alex points out, newer riders who live here are in the same boat as “out of town” riders.
And then look at places like Moody or the Hawthorne bridge, where years later some people (often pedestrians or 4-person bike renters) still haven’t figured out exactly how it’s supposed to work. We just shouldn’t be purposely making things more complicated, and calling it a victory.
I like the jughandle? Seems useful, if you have the space for one.
Jug handles make sense if you’re on a multi-lane, high speed road where a turn lane isn’t an option. In the case of 28th, the car traffic in the southbound lane (the one the cyclist is exiting) is not that fast, so a simple left turn has a lot more flow with a low likelihood of getting rear ended, and one is then only crossing one lane of traffic, not two as proposed.
And why would I want to leave 28th, where I’ll have a light to cross Burnside, just so I can get on 30th where not only will I have to cross Burnside without a light, but I’ll have to do it where 30th jogs, hence increasing my exposure to cross (and west bound downhill!!) traffic? Are they proposing a signal at 30th? I doubt it since it’s only 2 blocks from a signal.
I don’t typically attend these sorts of meetings, but I will for sure show up at this one and call this plan out for the nonsense that it is.
I’m not a second-class citizen. PBOT needs to grow a backbone, put sharrows on 28th, eliminate the center stripe (which studies show cause higher speeds – this area contains a school zone you know) and call it a day, or perhaps grow 2 backbones and get rid of some of the parking.
For what it’s worth, this project will include a HAWK signal at Burnside and 30th.
What Would Utrecht Do?
Bike forth and drive no more!
Sure, but I bet the ones making the decisions are themselves regulars on bikes. And their peers. And their children.
And their parents. Amazing that such similar cultures can have such a sharp exception. But as my Dutch friends tell me, it took time to build out their bike system, too. It didn’t just happen overnight.
If you have ever biked in the Netherlands, you would know that they actually tend to have incredibly complex and windy bike routes, far beyond what is shown here! Part of that is due to the less gridded street network, but part of it is the challenge of getting a safe bike path through a complex tangle of auto traffic, streetcars, pedestrians, and parking. Especially in Amsterdam, the bike routes weave all over the place and you often have to ride very slowly due to all the competing modes. Overall they have chosen safety over directness, and that is what this 20s project is trying to do. There are plenty of reasons to be annoyed at the prospect of such a complex route, but don’t try to claim the Dutch don’t do the same thing!
“There are plenty of reasons to be annoyed at the prospect of such a complex route, but don’t try to claim the Dutch don’t do the same thing!”
An interesting point, Zaphod Beeblebrox. I wonder if, however, the complexity of the Dutch routes you’ve experienced isn’t also coupled with
* a far greater commitment to separation both from motor vehicles but also pedestrians;
* separate signals;
* a consistency of design, signage, treatments;
* a clear stand vis-a-vis onstreet car parking that differs from ours?
I just clicked through to the PDF. I’m concerned/curious about the changes on SE 26th between SE Clinton & Gladstone. At present, the street has bike lanes in both directions, which are admittedly very narrow. As proposed, this street will have a buffered bike lane southbound and only green-backed sharrows northbound. Is this really better than the existing condition?
Hard to say…the current bike lanes there are definitely sub-standard – this will give a nice wide bike lane in one direction; I guess the hope is that northbound traffic coming from south of Powell/Gladstone is likely to be on 28th anyway, so the couplet in this section doesn’t cause much of a detour. Personally I think the value of the improved crossing at Powell/28th is enough of a benefit to the neighborhood that I’m in favor of using 28th as the northbound bike route in order to justify it.
The part of this stretch that irks me is the fact that we are getting a nice wide bike lane on SE 26th…except for the block between Clinton and Taggart. Again, because parking is somehow sacrosanct.
I understand that people feel auto dependent, and along with that, free convenient parking dependent as well.
Well, too bad.
What is the highest and best use of the street right of way? For example, the parking spaces near the church- how many people per week use that space? And they tie it up for how many hours? What does it get them, a saving of 100 steps or something? How does that counterbalance tens or even hundreds per day of vulnerable roadway users transporting themselves down the same street? Is their safety not as important as a small bit of convenience for a very small number of people?
This “I have to drive, and I have to be able to park right there” mentality is petulant and greedy. If even one person is injured or physically threatened by shortchanging a bikeway to maintain a few auto parking spaces it will be a profound moral failure. In the case of the church, you would hope a church would think about things like this.
The church is next to a school, right? Kids will be taking the bikeway to and from school. So I ask again- what is the best use of the public right of way there? Are there no other parking options? Really?
Same goes for all the other places where the helplessly auto dependent just have to have their convenience. Sorry, we have to weigh everything. It is the *public* right of way. Those that are endangered have needs that trump convenience. Just because a bike lane may look empty much of the time doesn’t mean that hundreds of people a day don’t need and use that space. And they need it in order to be safe- from automobiles, no less (!).
If you drive an automobile, you endanger others, it’s that simple. Sure, you don’t want to endanger others, but you do. It’s inherent in the use of an automobile. You need to own that when you get behind the wheel. And you need to own the incredible systems largesse heaped on you for your choice of transportation.
Pedestrian and cycle improvements are both small potatoes and a significant ease to your moral burden. Those helpless feelings you have when you can’t find a car disposal spot right away? Get over it. Now. I’m $%@&^% done with the whining.
If you were to verbally ask the question, “Do you have a right to jeopardize another person’s life for your own convenience?” I’m sure most people would answer “Of course not”, or maybe just “no”, or “I guess not”. So why are people’s actions on roadways not only louder than, but contrary to their words? Because people don’t believe their actions when driving are dangerous. Opening a car door isn’t dangerous. Parking in a bike lane? Not dangerous. Speeding? Doesn’t hurt anybody. Passing a bicyclist too close/too fast? No harm, no foul. Not stopping behind the painted crosswalk line? I’ve never hit anyone. Making a right turn on red-just-turned-green without looking right? Doesn’t endanger anyone.
—Pat Franz
This is one of the best summaries of the responsibility of driving I’ve seen. Even though we wish we weren’t, we are posing a danger to society just by pulling out onto the road in a car. This is the mental connection that driving apologists (and auto companies, BTW) do not want to make. Cars are pitched in advertisements in terms of safety, not danger. There have been some pretty good advancements in auto safety features in recent years, but they are still one of the biggest daily threats to our health and safety most people will ever see. Rather than minimize the threat, we apparently want to take convoluted, complex measures to avoid it.
My suggestion for comment of the week, a preference for positive end-of-week notes notwithstanding.
For any residents of Hosford-Abernethy – the neighborhood association will be discussing a letter of opinion/feedback regarding the draft plan (less the proposed engineering designs mentioned in this article than the overall route/alignment) at the October meeting. Tuesday, October 21, 7:00 pm at St. Philip Neri. If you have opinions, particularly about the section that runs through Hosford-Abernethy (SE Hawthorne to SE Powell), please show up and voice them. We attempt to represent the opinion of our members, but comments on BikePortland don’t count – you’ve got to show up at a meeting or at least contact the board directly.
Patrick Vinograd
Board Secretary, Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood District Association
does the mandatory sidepath law legally require me to use the jug-handle turn lanes because they’re bike lanes?
because I’m not going to use them… I’m going to just merge left into auto traffic as usual so I’m not stuck at a stop sign waiting for 2 lanes of traffic to clear instead of 1…
we should not have to beg to cross the street we’re already traveling on…
I imagine the jug handle is meant as an option for less confident/assertive riders to use during heavier traffic. I don’t see the reason for complaining about an accomodation to the “interested but concerned” riders.
I take Spiffy’s point to be, which of the enumerated exceptions to ORS 814.420 says bikes are allowed out of that sidepath? I think the pragmatic answer is that PPD probably won’t enforce that law in this situation. The legality would be clearer, and riders freer to exercise their judgement in this case, if that law was repealed.
“(b) Preparing to execute a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.”
That should do it, thanks! I’m not sure the framers of the law ever considered a bike lane working quite like this one, but that does seem to cover it.
I’m pretty sure you have the choice of whether to use the jug-handle or make a normal turn. The whole point is to give people a choice! Personally, I think I would turn like normal if there is no oncoming traffic, but I would definitely use the jughandle in heavy traffic, since I don’t want to be blocking everyone behind me while I wait for a gap.
In heavy traffic, you’re going to have to fight cars coming perpendicular to you from two directions. That’s worse.
It’s better to take the lane, signal your left and wait for a break in oncoming traffic. You’re only monitoring one direction of traffic then.
I can think of times when it would be preferable to wait in the jug handle to make the crossing/turn, instead of standing over your bike in the middle of the intersection. Saturday night, drunks behind the wheel, they plow into telephone poles and each other, why not you?
Traffic isn’t exactly heavy at last call. What was being discussed is that it was perceived as “easier” to use the jug handle to cut across heavy traffic. I disagreed.
I’d rather not bike through bar districts at last call hour at all.
“I don’t want to be blocking everyone behind me while I wait for a gap.”
…even though if you were parked in the lane in your car “blocking everyone” while waiting to turn, no one would think twice about it.
Believe me, I’ve had to fight it, but I’m beginning to get over the feeling that as a bicyclist, I MUST stay out of the way at all costs. Drivers want you to think that, lots of “safety” advocates want you to think that, planners of “bike facilities” want you to think that, even some other cyclists want you to think and operate like that. I call BS and say if I need to do it, if I’d do it in my car, I’m doing it. Making a left turn when traffic is heavy is exactly the time you want to minimize the number of lanes you have to wait for and cross. It increases safety and eliminates confusion (see discussion above about green zebra stripes and when they confer right-of-way and when they don’t and how nobody knows the difference unless they wrote the manual).
I’m not worried about getting in the way of cars. I’m more worried about being plowed over from behind when I’m completely vulnerable standing in the middle of the street. Many drivers are not all that attentive.
Well, that goes to the light traffic/heavy traffic conditions. In heavy traffic, you’ve likely had to merge in front of some driver who has then already seen you—and seen you signal a left turn—by the time you come to a stop to wait for a gap oncoming traffic. Then I guess you are at the mercy of the drivers behind to not rear-end that first driver and push him into you. If the street is deserted, a) you likely won’t have to stand in the middle of it for very long, minimizing the chance you get plowed over, or b) that is the time to use the jug handle if you are worried about getting rear-ended.
Also, you may have seen this article or this one about how laws and specifically laws regarding lanes affect bicycle operators. A quote from the second article reads:
—Bob Shanteau, The Marginalization of Bicyclists
Bicyclists do possess a gift we can choose to grant to faster motorists: it is easier to move out of the way due to our narrow profile. The problem is that motorists have come to demand it of us at every instant. The same principle applies when we are expected to move to the sidewalk to push pedestrian crossing signal buttons—just because we can haul our entire vehicle up onto the sidewalk, it has become expected in many circumstances. It has also seemingly become expected that we will swallow and follow any convoluted, inconvenient route laid out for bicyclists’ “safety” because we ourselves have come to fear being “in the way”.