SE Clinton used to be one of Portland’s marquee streets for bicycling. As one of the original “bike boulevards” it has long been a popular bicycling route that connects inner southeast neighborhoods with downtown and points beyond.
Unfortunately, Clinton has recently become a bikeway in name only. For the last year or so, as development on nearby Division Street has led to increased auto congestion, a steady stream of drivers have begun using Clinton as a cut-through. All these extra drivers have had a very negative impact on cycling conditions.
That reality, combined with efforts from grassroots activism group Bike Loud PDX, has led top brass from the City’s Bureau of Transportation to take notice. On Thursday, a group of concerned citizens will meet with PBOT staff in the Portland Building to talk about existing conditions and how to improve them.
“We want to start a discussion and get a deeper understanding about people’s concerns.”
— Diane Dulken, City of Portland
Since August, Clinton has been the focus of grassroots protests and activism. About one month ago, Portland resident Joe Rowe emailed PBOT Director Leah Treat and asked for a meeting. “We feel there will soon be a death or injury do to the lack of action on the part of the city and PBOT,” wrote Rowe in his email.
Treat responded quickly. Eight days later, the new Active Transportation Division Manager, Margi Bradway, was looped in and a meeting was planned.
Rowe and others who are active with Bike Loud PDX are asking for two main things: traffic diverters to keep people from driving on Clinton and to slow down speeds; and a shorter timeline for making the investment.
PBOT has acknowledged that traffic diverters are one possible solution for Clinton. The City has also told us it is likely to cost between $20,000 and $100,000 to install diverters but their hands are tied because there is no room in the budget to make the investment. They won’t use money allocated for the existing Neighborhood Greenways program because Clinton is technically still just a “bike boulevard” since it was designed before the Neighborhood Greenway program started. Think of it as an old operating system that’s no longer supported*. (Please see correction below).
The new Portland Street Fund plan up for a vote by City Council on December 17th includes $825,000 to “upgrade and enhance” streets like Clinton; but not until years 4-6. Bike Loud PDX wants that moved up to years 1-3.
Reached today for comment about the meeting, PBOT Spokeswoman Diane Dulken confirmed that Bradway would be in attendance. She’ll be joined by PBOT Transportation Policy, Planning and Projects Group Manager Art Pearce, Traffic Safety Specialist (and the agency’s foremost bike boulevard expert) Greg Raisman, and City Bike Coordinator Roger Geller.
Dulken said PBOT agreed to the meeting in order to, “Get a deeper understanding about people’s concerns.”
Bike Loud PDX Founder Alex Reed says the meeting will be primarily about SE Clinton, but the broader issue of deteriorating and dangerous conditions on these older bike boulevards (like Ankeny, Lincoln, and so on) will also be discussed.
— Learn more in our SE Clinton Street story archives.
*CORRECTION: I was wrong in my understanding of PBOT’s budget as it relates to neighborhood greenways. According to Bradway, all spending for non-capital projects like this are in the same funding bucket. That bucket, which is a paltry $1 million per year, is under her discretion and not tied to any specific program. I regret my error.
If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, feel free to contact me at @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email at firstname.lastname@example.org, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a supporter.
they’re the same thing, right?
“He says they will make “neighborhood greenways” the public name for the projects but that bicycle boulevard will remain the technical term because that’s how they’re referenced nationally and in the 2030 Bike Plan.”
so they should be able to use the “Neighborhood Greenway” money on a “Bicycle Boulevard” since they’re the same thing but just have different names in certain projects…
the photo in that story is even captioned “Riders on the Clinton St.
Don’t let the wording confuse you. Bottom line is that Clinton is not currently on the list of streets on PBOT’s Neighborhood Greenway project list… therefore they’re looking for a new/different funding source to put toward making improvements on it.* (Please see correction below)
It’s also important to know that internally, PBOT does not consider Clinton a “neighborhood greenway” (even though I might have mislabeled it as such here on the blog in the past). That’s notable because n’hood greenway would mean a street that comes with: speed bumps, 20 mph speed limit, sharrows, wayfinding signage, and so on.
*CORRECTION: I was wrong in my understanding of PBOT’s budget as it relates to n’hood greenways. According to Bradway, all spending for non-capital projects like this are in the same funding bucket. That bucket, which is a paltry $1 Million per year, is under her discretion and not tied to any specific program. I regret my error.
I HATE driving through Division now, but I won’t cut through on Clinton. Instead, I drive a maximum 15 mph on Division. It should be sharrowed. How the bus gets through I don’t know. Anyway, thanks Joe Rowe and Ms Treat for responding to the need for a fix on Clinton.
What would have to happen to get it designated a Greenway? Would there need to be design changes? Would money be able to come out of the Greenway budget to make this happen, or is this some sort of Catch 22 where it can’t get money because it’s not a Greenway, and it can’t become a Greenway because it can’t get the money?
It’s on a list for retrofit, similar to Ladd/Lincoln/Harrison, or Ankeny, or Tillamook. Even the greenways have identified gaps.
Others concerned about Clinton in particular or the bike boulevards in general are encouraged to attend the meeting. I’m sorry to say that likely not everyone will get a chance to speak their mind completely – a goal I have is to hold the meeting to an hour or less in order to keep activism approachable for busy folks (and honor the time and lives outside of work of PBOT staff). But a show of numbers of concerned citizens will say a lot.
The meeting is at 5:30 at the Broadway Room (9th floor) of the Portland Building downtown, on this Thursday, Dec. 11th.
Saying that “likely” not everyone will get to speak their minds completely was being “Portland nice.” It’s a certainty that not everyone will get to speak their minds completely. In all honesty, it would probably be better if some people keep quiet, just so that we present a reasonably unified message. You should attend if you support the following (more or less):
Move fixing of legacy greenways from years 4-6 of street fee funding plan to years 1-3 (Funding to displace maintenance funding or other private-motor-vehicle-focused funding, not other bike/walk/transit projects)
Lowered thresholds for traffic counts (so PBOT can take action before road feels really intolerable like Clinton does now)
Three diverters added to Clinton between SE 12th and Chavez.
1-3 years is still too long to wait. This needs to happen in 6-12 months. I don’t understand why the city can’t install temporary curb-style diverters in the interim like they did years ago at Ankeny and 20th. They are occasionally circumvented by scofflaws (just yesterday I was nearly hit by a woman while she illegally drove around the diverter to turn left onto 20th) but I think they would mostly do the trick until a more permanent solution can be installed.
And while we’re on the subject, we need the same thing for SE Ankeny as well. The cut-through traffic has become awful in recent months (though not as bad as Clinton yet).
BikeLoudPDX has been engaged on Ankeny too. The deteriorating situation on Ankeny and the need for diversion was discussed at the Sept Buckman Community Association (BCA) meeting. In response to this, Roger Geller presented historical traffic count data during the Oct. BCA meeting. This data showed a large increase in peak motorvehicle traffic on lower Ankeny following the build out of the Burnside couplet. As I recall, peak “cut-through” traffic on Ankeny approached 3K — above both national and Portland standards for bike boulevards/greenways.
I think there is both interest and money available for a diverter on Ankeny. There are plans for a community meeting to assess local resident support. Advocating for diverters at BCA meetings would be helpful as would working with BikeLoudPDX to build support in the neighborhood.
Awesome. Will bikeloud post stuff on twitter about the meeting when it is announced?
Check your facts. The highest auto count on lower Ankeny is about 1700 cars a day in 2013. Bike counts in the same area are about 2,000 per day
As I stated, I was going from hazy memory so I stand corrected.
The lane re-striping on Burnside has really increased cut through traffic on Ankeny in the mornings. It was already bad, but now it is terrible. There’ll be cars backed up 4 or 5 deep on Ankeny waiting to turn right on to 20th.
4 or 5 deep? Unthinkable!!!!!!!!!
ive never seen 4-5 deep in my life on ankeny. could you please site a time of the morning maybe. i guess if it was 4-5 deep it would not be a problem since we are on bikes and go around stopped traffic. … hmm
The group’s priorities are well-intentioned. But perhaps offering up their own temporary, crowd-sourced diverters might actually get the job done. 3rd avenue will not, would not happen without Better Block PDX. Let’s get a proposal written, get a funding source, and have a pilot diverter project happen this spring. Otherwise, it’s just happytalk.
Sure, that might be the quickest solution for Clinton in this stretch, which has lots of energy and, honestly, money. Depending on the outcome of the meeting on Thursday, we might go that way. But this stretch of Clinton is just the canary in the coal mine for more or less all the stretches of all the legacy greenways, which deserve a solution too.
Absolutely. I hesitate to mention how terrible N. Michigan is during traffic times. Greenways w/o diverters are just roads with extraneous paint. The design itself is flawed.
If the money is there on Clinton, and we have volunteers to get it done, let’s at least make one of these streets better.
Comparing a road that parallels a major freeway to one that parallels a surface collector road seems a bit of a stretch. BTW, the worst count on N Michigan is about 930 cars a day (two directions), while on Ankeny it has been over 1000 in just the westbound direction near 15th. Up to half the plates during rush hour on Michigan north of Kworth are WA plates.
Certainly Michigan has fewer cars and is less a priority than Clinton and Ankeny. I think that count was done in 2011. Michigan from Skidmore to Alberta has a fair flow of cars during rush hours. The 1000 car threshold may have been reached. If we are to call Michigan a greenway, it needs diversion near Alberta.
2012 counts on Michigan, Skidmore to Alberta top out around 550 autos per day.
What destinations might be drawing motorists to Michigan south of Alberta? Congestion on Mississippi? South of Skidmore it’s more of a circulation issue and the popularity of Mississippi.
Agreed. The city is dealing with limited $’s and the question is whether to divert money to Clinton that has been already allocated elsewhere. I for one am still waiting for the 50th Street bikeway and Sacramento Greenway to be completed in NE Portland, a project that was put on hold due to limited $’s. I would vote against diverting money from my neighborhood project to Clinton (even though I ride on Clinton occasionally). Furthermore, what about the acute needs for biking infrastructure in east side neighborhoods? #Balance #Equity
We are proposing diverting dollars from maintenance or other motor-vehicle-centric spending to this effort. Certainly, I would not want to see a n’hood greenway in East Portland be delayed in order to accomplish this. I don’t see it as a zero-sum game within bike infrastructure though. Non-motor-vehicle infrastructure has gotten peanuts for decades and it is time for a decade or two of concentrating more money on the other modes in order to to redress the balance.
If an arterial prioritized for driving had table-sized potholes in it, would the choices for fixing it be crowd-sourced funding or a 7-year wait? I think table-sized potholes on arterials are an appropriate comparison to the level of discomfort that people driving aggressively on Clinton cause for biking- and Clinton is an arterial for biking.
I would support a crowd-funded temporary diverter in a HEARTBEAT.
I am passionately in love with the idea of using a bicycle as a primary means of transportation, which Portlanders generally don’t do except in very small numbers.
I think it’s time to start making bicycle access and safety a political issue, and if people don’t vote with their pedals than this isn’t really a bicycling city. I don’t actually think it is, to be honest, and I would guess that cycling activists are afraid to face this fact.
I also ride a motorcycle, and I find it excruciating to navigate Portland streets, because of all the traffic diversions that in years past were each small victories activists won and forgot about. The idea isn’t to discourage automobile use but to encourage other forms. I have lived around the world, and I have never seen a roundabout with stop signs except for Portland. Dumb.
“The idea isn’t to discourage automobile use but to encourage other forms.”
Actually we are supposed to do both. Roger Geller admits* that they haven’t really gotten to the first half of that sentence yet. Both are vitally important and tomorrow is almost not soon enough.
We’ll see about whether people are willing to vote with their pedals. I have big plans in my head for get-out-the-vote by bike and canvassing by bike for favored candidates (or against non-favored candidates). Other ideas for ways of amplifying cyclists’ political power are welcomed. We don’t have that much money, many of us don’t have that much time (during business hours), but I think we have a ton of passion and excitement.
Many people confuse other and older styles of circular intersections with modern roundabouts. East coast US rotaries, large multi-lane traffic circles (Arc D’Triomphe, Dupont Circle), and small neighborhood traffic circles are not modern roundabouts. If you want to see the difference between a traffic circle, a rotary (UK roundabout) and a modern roundabout (UK continental roundabout), go to http://tinyurl.com/kstate-RAB to see pictures. And here’s another site that shows the difference between an older rotary and a modern roundabout: http://tinyurl.com/bzf7qmg
Portland only has two and a half roundabouts.
I admit that I am an East Coast native, and I grew up calling them traffic circles. Our local one was quite large and required changing lanes mid-circle. I knew what I was doing but so many folks DID NOT, despite being licensed as an automobile operator. I still don’t understand that dichotomy.
Then, I joined the Army and lived in Germany for several years. Folks there went through quite an ordeal to qualify as an automobile operator and would know what to do, no matter what kind of intersection presented itself. I get the idea that’s not the case today, even in Portland, and is why people routinely die under the wheels of automobiles regularly, even here.
And so I understand the passions of cyclists to separate themselves from automobile traffic, but segregating automobile traffic from bicycle traffic, by using different streets, is the wrong answer. Ask the descendants of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. what he thought about segregation!
Equal, and assertive, is the answer. Only laws can force this. Only politicians can write laws. PBOT cannot write their own laws.
Are you seriously claiming that protected bike lanes are analogous to racial segregation?
I am saying shit or get off the pot.
Traffic diverters are not the answer, even when it’s inconvenient for a few activists on their bicycle trip to work. Those same diverters are a pain in the ass for people that go to work some other way.
Diverters are about comfort, not convenience. Streets like Clinton are supposed to be how kids bike to school (and not on the sidewalk) so until someone can come up with a better way to make Clinton kid-friendly…
So, you advocate for 8-12 year olds ‘taking the lane’?
That’s how my 4 year old gets down Going St and she’s not the only one.
Any evidence of increased traffic, or just anecdotal? Daily increase, or peak hours?
I’ve been riding it twice a day for about 5 years…haven’t really noticed much of a difference anecdotally. Getting tired of the closed road on 34th..
A few months ago I took this video http://vimeo.com/106111442
How is that different from rush hour a year ago, or two years? Traffic diverting off of Division at major intersections has been an issue for years. It’s why the diverters and circles were installed in the early 90’s.
It’s MASSIVELY different. I have been riding Clinton for years and I’ve never seen anything approaching that level of back-up. That was 20 cars. Up unitl then, I don’t think I’d ever even seen a 10 car back-up. Granted this was during the Division work and it’s calmed down considerably since then. But it was frustrating to see this level of car cut-through and hear the city reps dismiss our concerns by asserting that we wouldn’t notice any increase.
I think that the Clinton construction work has actually helped negate some of the increase we saw during/after the Division work. But the reduction has only happened east of 26th. West of 26th is still worse than it use to be.
For anyone at PBOT to say no diversion would happen, or that it would not be noticable was wrong (source?). On the other side, the grid is considered one of the benefits of inner portland. It permits alternative routes when the preferred mainlines have issues – and they always will. Consider the city that has cul-de-sac neigbhorhoods and car rivers everyone is channelled onto. When the river gets blocked those drivers have no place to go. It’s a balancing act, and I think Portland does a pretty good job compared to an Irvine or Atlanta.
going to play a little devils advocate here, but have you ever tried to cross ankeny or clinton and had the bikes not stop for you????
Paikala to stick to your original comment traffic has increased in portland over the last 1-2 years. as someone who bikes consistently the same streets for ten years as part of their work at the same exact times i have noted an increase. traffic on clinton is very very different since 1995, and absolutely different even in the last two years. not that its a problem or worry for me now. i think we can look at how the city population is growing as a factor? guessing. traffic in general in portland is increasing.
Agreed about Portland growing. In the late 90’s, after the first traffic calming on the ‘Division Corridor’ auto traffic on clinton was in the 2300-2700 cars per day range and speeds were 21-27 mph. Before the traffic circles Clinton had speeds regularly in the 30’s and another 600-700 cars per day. These days, the auto traffic hovers around 2300 cars per day, but there are localized areas that peak around 3200 near the busiest commercial nodes.
The trick is to manage traffic to bring down the overall average, and speeds, without degrading the commercial use to the point services are lost.
I really hope Ankeny is also talked about. It has gotten so much worse lately.
See comment on Ankeny above.
Agreed. Ever since the Burnside Couch couplet went in, drivers tear down the Ankeny “bike boulevard” (ha, what a joke) to reach the Burnside Bridge, rather than the road they are supposed to be on, namely Couch Street.
The couplet starts around 14th, but the traffic is diverting before arriving there? Evidence?
Yes. They head westbound on E Burnside, and peel off Burnside by making a left hand turn onto Ankeny. This happens mostly at 16th. But many drivers take Ankeny all the way up to 20th. Some take it to 28th by driving over the diverter.
ADT from PDX maps over a number of days in 2011 (SE Clinton @ SE 25th): 1935. ADT on 3/31/2014: 3028
That’s about 3/4 the volume of SE Stark.
SE Stark is not a local service street.
From 4/2/08 the count was 1414 EB + 1821 WB or 3200 vpd same spot. Traffic counts are snapshots of one day, or at best an average over two or three. Comparing one day to another is weaker than looking at trends.
Some much news today, so little time to comment. PBOT has money already appropriated for next year, federal funds, to place a diverter on Clinton IF they prioritize it.
The 20’s bikeway slides from 28th to 28th place ON Clinton. Integrate a diagonal diverter from the NW corner to the SE corner. …or some other diversion technique at this block. If PBOT says they do not have money, it is because this BIKEWAY has spent too much money on prioritizing …needed…..pedestrian improvements. See you Thursday.
Awesome! Great work!
Can they use SDC money to fund diverters, on the basis that it increases capacity for bikes? The current transportation SDC is $2024 a unit of multifamily housing. If diverters cost $100,000, then as few as 50 new apartment units would fund that. I think it’s safe to say more than 50 apartments have been built in the Division/Clinton corridor in recent years, and more than that are in the permitting pipeline.
I want to bring attention to a correction I just made to both a comment of mine above and to the original story:
I was wrong in my understanding of PBOT’s budget as it relates to neighborhood greenways. According to Bradway, all spending for non-capital projects like this are in the same funding bucket (versus being split among various programs like Safe Routes to School, High Crash Corridors, Neighborhood Greenways, and so on). That is a new thing as of about two years ago. That bucket, which is a paltry $1 million per year, is under Bradway’s purview and not tied to any specific program. I regret my error.
PBOT needs a much bigger slush fund so that we don’t need years of discussion and funding processes for a fix costing less than $100,000. Kudos to the folks who are (still) working on this.
Agreed. the quick and dirty greenway program was pretty turn-key, had two or three open houses one year and implemented in 3-12 months, before the money dried up.
Is there a way we can help for those who cannot attend on Thursday? 1-3 years should be more like 1 to 3 months. I live off Clinton and it’s a disaster.
Yes! Send a letter to Bikeloudpdx@gmail.com . You can write it “Dear Mr. Novick” as that is who will likely ultimately decide on this.
They have much cheaper and flexible diversion options already in their quiver, and they can be temporary or permanent.
A great example on North Central-
How much was this?
$2500 with free containers. Such planters start out at around $500 each, so ten would add another $5k, but there are lower cost, less dependable, versions out there.
This sort of thing has to be significantly cheaper than adding a new MAX line (not to mention that there are no daily operating costs), or completely redesigning a main street to put in a Dutch-style separated bike path. We could make the city twice as bike friendly over night by installing these every five blocks on all designated greenways and bike boulevards (while creating three new north-south running greenways, namely downtown, 9th Ave and somewhere in the 20s).
I hope diverters get installed, and really fricking soon.
I remember seeing Roger Geller (Portland’s bike coordinator) a few years ago getting asked by an audience member when he was on a forum panel, why bike blvds don’t have diverters. His response was something along the lines of, “Oh, well, we tried that back in the 70s, and the neighbors didn’t like it at all, so we stopped”.
I think now is the time to start again. That argument doesn’t wash any longer.
Why can’t Clinton get a temporary diverter whacked in place next week- like the temporary one installed on NE Rodney?
The new NG policy will broach the topic.
Can you share more about the new NG policy? Is there a discussion I can be involved in?
I almost replied upthread that I don’t think auto-counts / average speed are a good way to decide if a Neighborhood Greenway is comfortable and inviting to riders age 8 to 80. Something more fine-grained, like “average number of car interactions per bike trip” would correlate much better with subjective comfort.
not until spring
I think rerouting Trimet’s perplexing Line 10 off Clinton for, what, the six blocks it travels up it would be all that would be needed to qualify Clinton to be designated.
Why the hell does the Line 10 go up Clinton anyway? What’s wrong with it taking SE Division to 28th? Never understood that.
It’s not like Trimet routes their Line 77 down Tillamook for seven blocks, then detours back onto Broadway. It’s madness.
A: That’s the route the streetcar took. The streetcar is why there’s such a wide corner in front of the Clinton St. Theater.
B: Supposedly the bus can make the 20th/Division corner eastbound, but can’t make the 26th/Clinton corner eastbound. But I think this was disproved when there was construction work and the #4 bus was indeed routed to head east on Division and turn south at 26th to use Clinton.
Doug, do you have a picture of a bus successfully negotiating that corner, otherwise I just can’t believe it. Math doesn’t lie.
Sorry. Those diversions happened at like 10 AM to 4 PM. I was at work the whole time. Apparently others saw them. I would bet, though, that a bus could make that turn, with a few modifications to the street striping. You’d probably remove parking on the east side of 26th for 100 feet, and either put in an advanced stop bar or move the centerline to the east to assist in the turn. I believe parking is already removed on the north side of Division there. So a bus heading east could swing wide (over the centerline), and then come into 26th wide as well, in order to make that turn. Such modifications could be made permanent.
Good point. There is very little purpose for having the 10 run on Clinton. Keep in mind businesses need delivery van access on 21st and 26th, but buses would actually run faster on Division (and people on bikes would be a lot safer).
Please attend the meeting. Coming or not please Send Alex ( malexreed at gmail ) any questions so he can combine them. Talking time is strategic. Or call me (414) 465-8805 Joe
Many quick and ugly fixes (Temporary Diverters) can increase safety. Put them in a photo gallery as the poster children of why we need a street fee. A picture is worth a thousand words, and I’d pay a few bucks a month if there was photo proof that PBOT was able to install low cost fixes and not stonewall safety because it has to be done full price.
We are going to ask PBOT and everyone to detail their concerns in writing. Why they might be against diverters matching the recent Rodney St diverters. RAND and RND (neighborhood associations have been invited )
Once those concern details are clear, they can be fixed.
PBOT was paraphrased in the press: The lightweight design of (Rodney St) diverter might have something to do with the fact that PBOT says it was installed only as an experiment and that it can be removed if the traffic data and/or public feedback warrants it.
PBOT is doing a horrible job of selling the safety of the street fee because I don’t feel PBOT is concerned with safety as much as passing the fee. Installing quick safety fixes all over Portland would do a whole lot more than 10 PBOT staff working overtime on Spin.
Signed, Joe Rowe
talk about spin, wtf would a street fee do to stop people driving down SE Clinton? why do you think people in cars shouldn’t be allowed access? you’re blending so many issues, I don’t know where to begin.
Q: “What would a street fee do to stop people driving down SE Clinton?”
A: The City has also told us it is likely to cost between $20,000 and $100,000 to install diverters but their hands are tied because there is no room in the budget to make the investment. Street Fee = Budget for safety improvements.
Q: “why do you think people in cars shouldn’t be allowed access?”
A: Reducing auto cut-through using speed bumps and diverters to keep cars trying to avoid main streets from cutting through on neighborhood streets.
is one of the primary goals outlined by PBOT vis a vis neighborhood greenways. To “Provide safer bicycling and pedestrian connection” and “Reduce auto speeds”
Different roads/paths serve differnt populations. Why are there no bikes on freeways? Why do you think everyone should be able to use local streets to go anywhere?
Jeff, no one is saying drivers shouldn’t be allowed access on SE Clinton, at least if they’re going in or out of the neighborhood. Talk about strawmen.
But the traffic counts are becoming dangerous for cyclists and need to be reduced. A lot of the cars are through traffic that really shouldn’t be driving down a quiet residential street that we’re trying to keep safe for cycling.
If you work towards keeping cars off clinton wouldn’t those drivers divert to lincoln which also parallels division? It is also used heavily by cyclists.
Please remember that there are issues on Clinton in the 39th to 50th stretch as well. Maybe not as many as the west segment, but more drivers are using it to bypass Division. Also, more drivers are using 41st and 43rd as a way to get to Powell and bypass 39th. Since 41/43 (betw. Division and Powell) is a bike route, it might also be a good diverter location.
I agree, I ride that segment too. Especially bad in AM rush hr I think.
Chavez to 50th has the highest measured speeds.
Basically, since all our bike boulevards:
– run one block parallel to a major arterial
– have no stop signs
– have very little traffic calming elements
– have no diverters
then I think what you are trying to say is, they are choked full of traffic trying to bypass intersections on said arterials.
Short-cutting congested signals happens all over Portland. It was a problem on Cook/Ivy before the buffered land, and happens south of Glisan when the westbound crossing 82nd clogs at night. Many of the older boulevards do have some diversion. Ankeny has a weak one at 20th, but a strong one at 32nd. Tillamook need help, as does Ladd/Harrison/Lincoln.
Instructions for installation of a diverter: 1) get some jersey barriers 2) use a truck to take them to the site(s) 3) place in position with a forklift or backhoe 4) put some reflectors and signs on the barriers 5) repeat as needed in other locations.
See, it wasn’t that hard or expensive.
When money becomes available, install extended curbs, planters, or other beautification devices and remove the jersey barriers.
The installation of concrete barriers on a narrow residential street would be so butt ugly that it hurts my brain. Sure Clinton and other neighborhoods need work, but putting in the most expedient and cheap solutions conceivable would be contrary to the neighborhood enhancement that residents of the neighborhood would like to see. A solution for freeways is not the best solution for neighborhoods.
They aren’t any uglier than the street asphalt upon which they’d rest. I mean, who cares?
The people who live there might care. I’m not saying that the street doesn’t need calming, but introducing big ugly structures into the fabric of the neighborhood to facilitate pass through commuters (on bikes) is not well serving the neighborhood. Sure you can say they are temporary but considering how long it is taking to get diverters, one could easily picture temporary concrete structures to be there for years.
Sorry, but you guys are living on a major bike thoroughfare. Your aesthetic sensibilities should not be considered the priority here. There’s more at stake than a couple people grumbling over the ugliness of a couple of concrete planters in the middle of the street.
Easy to say when it isn’t your home’s value that is affected
I mean, you’re free to care more about aesthetics than me getting run over by some sociopath in an SUV racing rat running through a side street at 40 mph and smearing my brains all over the pavement, but my priorities are reversed.
I must have missed the news report of someone having their skull crushed on Clinton. In the event that this response is hyperbole, exaggerated to make a point, I think a counter-point might be that pass through cyclists who tell neighborhoods that their priorities are unimportant are displaying the self important elitism that fuels the passions of bike haters throughout the country. Perhaps your SUV driving maniac used to tolerate cyclists until he was told by one to sit down and be quiet.
Dang, no down vote….
I believe some paint and a few neighbors might make them prettier. Good community building exercise, too.
I have been seriously considering this on Clinton. That, or buying an old banger of a car, and just parking it across the street and deflating the tires! I feel like it will take something of that embarrassing magnitude for PBOT to give a ****.
We should have diverters every five blocks on greenways/bike boulevards. Seems like the appropriate frequency.
It’s amazing the level of annoyance a driver puts up with to avoid some other annoyance.
…unless the annoyance is someone on a bike. Then it’s instantly intolerable.
Who has a truck? http://portland.craigslist.org/clc/grd/4797784804.html
Also, any specific intersection requests? I mean the government is the people right?
How about 28th? Would that be good? The east side of the intersection? A bunch of Volkswagen sized boulders? ….Anybody?
Name and address please, so when someone runs into illegally installed diverters they know who to sue.
Check your facts. The highest auto count on lower Ankeny is about 1700 cars a day in 2013. Bike counts in the same area are about 2,000 per day.
I qualified my statement, paikiala. But I recall a figure that combined daily counts in both directions and was surprised to see that the number was higher than the statistics reported on portlandmaps.
Great work on this. I hope some specific concerns about SE 26th Ave near Clinton are also addressed in this discussion ( the case if the disappearing bike lanes… and school routes for kids using bikes at Cleveland and Hosford schools). Also the right hook problem the city has engineered at SE 12th on Clinton – this needs fixed ASAP.
Hmm. So high-density development has led to adverse impacts on safe cycling and non-auto roadway users? Interesting.
Makes me wonder if a good chunk of the transportation-related Systems Development Charges from new development should be earmarked for preserving/improving active transportation infrastructure nearby….