Tour de Lab September 1st

A $10,000 solution to dangerous Springwater path intersection

Posted by on January 13th, 2015 at 10:57 am

Design concept for a roundabout on the Springwater Corridor path where it intersects with Oaks Bottom.
(Graphic: paikiala)

Last week we highlighted a known danger spot on the Springwater Corridor path. A “T” intersection with bad sight lines, high speeds, and a history of collisions and near-misses.

The Portland Parks Bureau is aware of the issue and is likely to address it via new signs and markings; but we all know simply adding more paint and signs often has limited impact on behavior. A BikePortland reader has a much more comprehensive solution. Paikiala, a regular commenter who often shares his detailed insights about traffic engineering, thinks the fix should be a small roundabout.

Paikiala says the California city of Davis, arguably the best city for biking in the country, uses roundabouts in situations like these. “Getting everyone approaching the intersection to slow down is the key,” he says, which is why he likes the roundabout idea.

And he estimates it’d cost about $10,000 — just 0.01% of Portland Parks’ annual budget.

Advertisement

Ideally, he’d like to see a 20-foot diameter center island with an eight foot wide path around it and the circle would be offset (west) from the tunnel exit.

Other ideas readers shared included: convex mirrors (which PBOT apparently doesn’t install anymore due to maintenance requirements); an unlocked gate on the Oaks Bottom path that would require riders to dismount; a two-inch deep gravel pit to slow people down; a stop sign; an overpass or bridge; and so on.

Someone even mentioned a Hovenring-style solution, but even I’d have to admit that finding money for that is unlikely.

Speaking of funding, there’s still time to weight in on the Portland Parks Bureau’s 2015-2016 budget. Their online survey asks you to prioritize a list of projects (among them are matching funds for Gateway Green and the Citywide MTB Master Plan) and there is also room for write-in requests. Take the survey ASAP because it closes today (1/13) at 4:00 pm.

Please support BikePortland.

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. Also, if you comment frequently, please consider holding your thoughts so that others can step forward. Thank you — Jonathan

78 Comments
  • Avatar
    soren January 13, 2015 at 11:07 am

    An excellent solution to a recurrent problem in the portland area.

    Also typo: paikiala

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SilkySlim January 13, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Less please! Drop the roundabout, paint the yellow lines, signs to yield only for those coming out from under the trestle.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Adron @ Transit Sleuth January 16, 2015 at 12:48 am

      That doesn’t really fix the collision problem. The roundabout actually does that through deterring the dangerous practice…

      …but then of course, I suppose people do have to understand how to use a roundabout too. However, a roundabout if designed right, people will use it right regardless. A yield sign, still basically the same risks.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eric January 13, 2015 at 11:09 am

    How about putting a yield sign on a $100 post at the edge of the main trail centered on the tunnel exit? Exiting the tunnel, you would stop and pass to the right of the post. This should have the same effect as the roundabout (discouraging fast turns into or out of the tunnel) as long as riders turning left into the tunnel would go around the post.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 13, 2015 at 3:06 pm

      All laws work only when everyone obeys them. If signs worked to control speed, we wouldn’t need so many police or traffic engineers. The premise of the Safe Systems approach to road safety is that road users will always and forever make mistakes. Road design can mitigate for those mistakes and reduce the possibility that the outcomes are fatal or serious injuries.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Gary January 14, 2015 at 12:41 pm

        I think Eric’s point was that by putting the sign in the middle of the path, it is more than just a sign, it’s an obstruction that forces users to reduce speed. That said, the inevitable liability created probably far exceeds the cost of the much more elegant roundabout.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Opus the Poet January 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm

      Since the problem is the poor sight lines exiting the tunnel how will making them worse help? Riders can’t see traffic coming from the left until they are already blocking half the lane, so how will further obstructing vision to the left make things better?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    David January 13, 2015 at 11:10 am

    As much as I am a proponent of better biking experiences and infrastructure I don’t believe this area is a priority. I bike through this intersection twice every day. Yes, it is less than ideal but it’s nothing a stop and look doesn’t fix. I would like to see resources spent elsewhere that have a bigger impact to a wider population.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan January 13, 2015 at 11:17 am

    What about reduced speed limits before the intersection there, like this? http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fakQrzmVqso/UZzhiR-OP_I/AAAAAAAAAcU/Kon-Nz8Bb-0/s1600/IMG_0021.jpg

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Lester Burnham January 13, 2015 at 11:25 am

    $10,000 solution when all people need to do is pay attention and slow down. Seems like that money could be better spent elsewhere.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Adam H. January 13, 2015 at 11:57 am

      The problem is people aren’t paying attention nor slowing down. Good street design forces safe behaviors instead of relying on people to make the correct decisions themselves.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Todd Hudson January 13, 2015 at 11:39 am

    Putting that roundabout on that little sliver of Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge would probably require an environmental impact statement.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    daisy January 13, 2015 at 12:11 pm

    Part of the problem at that intersection is that folks on the Springwater on bikes can have some real momentum because it’s a low spot. Who wants to slow down on a downhill that’s followed immediately by an incline?

    The problem is also that it’s a blind intersection. The roundabout might not slow down north-bound cyclists enough for folks to enter safely from the tunnel.

    Is there a way to widen the path there on the riverside of the trail? Then thru-traffic could go to the outside/riverside of the path, and tunnel traffic (which should yield anyway, right?) would have some space to merge in.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:22 am

      How would you compel through cyclists to move away from the underpass entry?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        J_R January 14, 2015 at 11:09 am

        Move the north-south path toward the river by a distance of 10 or 15 feet. Start the transition 100 feet north of the underpass and 100 feet south of the underpass. Eliminate the existing asphalt pavement of the north-south path in the area where you have shifted the path to the west. Mainline cyclists will stay on the relocated mainline path.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 14, 2015 at 11:36 am

          And the oft-vaunted off-road cyclists?
          10 feet would be two triangles of AC, or one skinny rectangle, 10 x 100, or 1,000 square feet. At about $9/SF that’s $9k. Add to that the removal of the old trail AC. If you don’t remove the old AC, you’re going to need to find a way to keep through cyclists on the desired path. Maybe the old path space could become swales for drainage, but that requires excavation.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            J_R January 14, 2015 at 12:33 pm

            You’re right, it would be fairly expensive, but it would be less expensive than your roundabout. Curbs, as you propose for your roundabout, are really expensive.

            Yes, the existing path would need to be removed. A swale would be a possibility, but I’d opt for prickly bushes and some big rocks. The reason for a gradual transition at least 100 feet from the underpass intersection is to reduce the tendency of the off-road cyclists to follow the straight line trajectory of the current path.

            I certainly agree with you that the current design is problematic and that a geometric solution is probably in order. I simply disagree with the roundabout for several reasons I have enumerated. Not one to simply criticize, I offered up a different, better solution.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    J_R January 13, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    A roundabout at this location seems like a really stupid idea to me.

    I do not believe for a minute that it will actually slow traffic on the Springwater approaches due to the downgrade; it will actually reduce sight distances for the northbound and westbound cyclists; and northbound cyclists will move closer to the wing wall for the underpass and to the central island of the roundabout as they seek to minimize their slowing.

    Since cyclists are rather reluctant to slow down (remember the outrage at the speed strips on Hawthorne Bridge that was discussed on this forum?), the solution is to increase sight distance and give cyclists and pedestrians a bit better chance of seeing one another. This can be accomplished by slightly shifting the entire path to the west, toward the river by ten feet. That looks to be the same distance proposed for the westerly edge of the roundabout.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Gordon January 13, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    First of all, I can’t believe people are complaining that $10K is too expensive. That’s a rounding error. It’s nothing.

    Second of all, while yes, it would seem a stop and a look are all that are required, it appears that’s not working. From the initial article it sounded like the rider who was coming from under the bridge did stop and look but the mere act of edging forward was enough to cause a collision.

    If $10K can be spent to prevent just one more collision over 10 years it will have been well worth it.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      meh January 13, 2015 at 12:33 pm

      Portland has a $1.3B budget, so that $45M for street fees everyone is complaining about is just a rounding error.

      This is the attitude about other peoples money that causes the problems we now have. At the local level it’s only $10K, at the state level it’s only $1M at the federal level it’s only $100M. Everytime I hear “it’s only….” I cringe because we have “it’s onlied” ourselves into deficits and debt.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris Anderson January 13, 2015 at 3:32 pm

        The counter-argument being that local budget fights are penny-wise and pound-foolish. When the smartest folks in the room are saying you can’t get a better return on investment than by building bike infrastructure, it pains me to see budget fights about this at all. If we built every single bike wishlist item we can imagine, it would cost a fraction of the proposed CRC, with a multiple of the benefits. May as well do the hovenring, it pays for itself!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      davemess January 13, 2015 at 12:52 pm

      “Second of all, while yes, it would seem a stop and a look are all that are required, it appears that’s not working.”

      Does it appear that it’s not working? How many serious incidents are actually happening at this location?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Mike January 14, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      Yeah, 10K is too expensive when a cheap stop sign should suffice. I guess there is absolutely no confidence that a cyclist would actually obey a stop sign so go ahead and drop 10K.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    was carless January 13, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Considering that 90% of the bike traffic is NOT turning at this spot (disclaimer: I live off of Oaks Bottom and use this route), then this roundabout will negatively impact quite a few people.

    All you really need are better sight lines. Pushing the underpass path a bit further to the west before it intersects the main trail would give people coming out (which is the real danger) visibility before the actually pull out would solve this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 13, 2015 at 3:11 pm

      Traffic diverters on neighborhood greenways inconvenience a lot of people, also.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Brian January 13, 2015 at 12:45 pm

    If that roundabout will lead me into the trails right there that I will be able to ride legally, I am all in.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    MaxD January 13, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    If people can’t be bothered to slow down an take look at a blind T-intersection, what would compel these same people to go the right way around a roundabout? I see bike short-cutting the little roundabouts in Portland (and in Vancouver BC when I lived there) all the time! If you come through te tunnel and want to go left, I believe a high percentage of people would simply go left (the wrong way) and create a bigger danger.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      bloodcircus77 January 13, 2015 at 6:18 pm

      My thoughts exactly. Even less time to react and less space to take evasive action.

      Also creates a hazard for those traveling in poor visibility, like fog, dusk or similar.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:25 am

        Presuming you don’t slow down, but roundabouts are fairly conspicous objects in the pathway.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Psyfalcon January 15, 2015 at 10:59 am

          Have you ever seen people do that in cars? Plenty of people do on Woodward (near the HS) do. They slow, yes, but then they gun it the wrong way around the mini roundabouts. This isn’t a disaster since everyone can see what is happening.

          Here, you still have downhill traffic, now facing head on bike traffic without improved sightlines.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      gutterbunnybikes January 13, 2015 at 7:21 pm

      And depending on what’s going on to edge/curb the circle, how long till a dirt path is worn right through the middle of it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:25 am

        The middle of roundabouts is raised up and less hospitable to ride over than going around.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          gutterbunnybikes January 15, 2015 at 4:23 pm

          To some that would be a deterrent, others would likely consider it a challenge.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:27 am

      In those instances of neighborhood traffic circles where you observed short-cutting, or should I say, illegal turns, did you observe a crash? If not, why not?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        davemess January 14, 2015 at 10:51 am

        no, lack of traffic (as most of these roundabouts are on lower trafficked streets).

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 14, 2015 at 11:39 am

          I have observed the same. Where’s the harm, if the sight distance is good?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Psyfalcon January 15, 2015 at 11:01 am

            There is still no sight line on the Springwater because of the underpass abutments and the slope.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        MaxD January 14, 2015 at 12:38 pm

        better sight lines, I think. These are mostly small circles in an intersection (EX: NE 7th an Tillamook)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    groovin101 January 13, 2015 at 1:19 pm

    Regarding the survey, if anyone else is scratching their heads about some of the questions (ex: what’s a Loo Licensed Plumber?), this doc might help: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/514783

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted Buehler January 13, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    For the record, Davis only has Bike Roundabouts on
    * flat paths (not on hills with higher speed differentials)
    * intersections with high volumes on multiple legs.

    No Roundabouts as traffic calming devices, or to allow safe entry into the traffic stream from a low-volume leg.

    Also, Davis has occasional problems with experienced riders having wipeouts in the circles. Taking them too fast, or not positioning their bikes correctly in the fairly complex in-around-out movements.

    Not to be a naysayer, just adding data.

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Ted Buehler January 13, 2015 at 1:31 pm

      If you want to learn more about infrastructure in Davis, I did my masters thesis on the topic in 2007, and will be presenting at the PBOT Bicycle Brownbag this Thursday, Jan 15, at noon.

      https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/144945

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Edward January 14, 2015 at 10:23 am

        PBOT has a … Brown bag bike lunch event on a monthly basis?!?

        I’m already trying to envision the nearest safest bike parking to City Hall so I can go, because I’m guessing they’re not going to erect a bike corral out front.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 14, 2015 at 11:40 am

          City Hall has racks on 4th (I think) and definately around the Portland Building just south.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      gutterbunnybikes January 13, 2015 at 7:25 pm

      Can you really call them “experienced riders” if they’re wiping out by riding too fast (or leaning too much) on a paved roundabout?

      Seems to me that wiping in this situation is giving them the experience they lack. It’s not like it’s difficult maneuver.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Ted Buehler January 14, 2015 at 12:33 am

        The two instances I’m aware of were faculty who had been riding on campus for 20+ years.

        One was on one of the 1960s roundabouts, he may have gotten cut off by another bicyclist or otherwise ended up nudging his tire against the yellow buttons that define the center ring, lost balance, and fell hard. Broke his hip, as I recall.

        The other was in a brand new roundabout that had a tight radius, reverse superelevation and possibly some gravel on the roadway. So, bad engineering. But still, the fall tore up the insides of the man’s knee pretty good.

        The roundabouts are are known to confuse new students who are inexperienced bicyclists, since there’s complex merging issues when you have high volumes of high speed and lower speed traffic all moving through there together. But younger folks can usually take a fall without serious injuries, or heal more easily from broken bones.

        Since very few bike-bike crashes are ever reported, it’s reasonable to assume that with two anecdotes with injury crashes by experienced cyclists and a known pattern of crashes with inexperienced cyclists that the bike roundabouts can cause types of crashes that don’t occur at conventional intersections.

        Roundabouts work quite well for moving large volumes of slow speed bicyclists through intersections with 3 or more busy legs.

        In the Springwater case, I suspect safety could be better served with a very well marked “STOP” sign on the T leg, and a “Slow: [T Intersection] sign on the two main legs. And improving visibility by cutting brush, and ideally pushing the whole path system out a few feet from the railroad bridge. This is how they’d do it if it were a T intersection for cars with low volumes on the “T” leg — — install additional hazard warnings on the main route and emphasis on a stop sign (flashing red light, two stop signs, big white stop bar, “caution: cross traffic does not stop” sign, etc).

        But, I like bike roundabouts in many circumstances, and I may well be completely wrong in my opinion as to their applicability here. In any case, kudos to paikiala for introducing them as a novel proposal for discussion.

        Ted Buehler

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          gutterbunnybikes January 15, 2015 at 4:28 pm

          Making excuses for bad driving on a car or bike is just that excuses. “Experts” wouldn’t have fallen in either of those cases, because they would have been aware of the road conditions and presence of other riders and adjusted their behavior to safely navigate the situation.

          Do we all have our moments in lapses of judgment? Sure – we’re all guilty. But we can’t condemn people who drive automobiles poorly, and make silly excuses for our own poor judgements while riding a bike.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted Buehler January 13, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    Here’s some streetview links to Davis’s Roundabouts — they’re in a very different operating environment (flat, well lit, slow speed, good visibility) than this location (dark, poor visibility, higher speed traffic). I think there’s about 18 of them now, with 4 built in the last 10 years.

    1960s era Roundabouts, on former streets, central campus
    Hutchinson and California
    http://goo.gl/maps/nPZSD

    Shields Ave & East Quad
    http://goo.gl/maps/dJhXL

    2000s era roundabouts, on roads designed as multi-use paths
    Bainer Hall 1
    http://goo.gl/maps/72oZT

    Bainer Hall 2
    http://goo.gl/maps/82zBe
    (Mind the Bollards!)

    Arboretum and B (Smallest roundabout)
    http://goo.gl/maps/kXDFQ, ~1990?

    Sprocket Bikeway (Largest roundabout)
    http://goo.gl/maps/IQTE4 ~_1970s?

    FWIW,
    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Spiffy January 13, 2015 at 2:52 pm

    those yellow/black lines need to be curbs or else people will just swing wide to keep their speed up…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 13, 2015 at 3:10 pm

      They are.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        J_R January 13, 2015 at 3:32 pm

        Putting curbs adjacent to the bike path is another disaster waiting to happen. Remember how people complained about the 1/8 inch high speed bumps on the Hawthorne Bridge and what a hazard they were?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:21 am

          Caution in road users cannot be created unless they feel less safe. Sorry, but being safer usually means slowing down, and many people equate slowing down with inconvenience. The cost to impose a speed limit and enforce it adequately enough to achieve similar results is much higher.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Gordon January 13, 2015 at 3:43 pm

    As one of the people responsible for urging change on the Hawthorne Bridge bumps, I am baffled as to how you can compare these two pieces of infrastructure.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Aaron January 13, 2015 at 5:25 pm

    I’m usually one to speak out about over doing it on some of these “bike safety” projects, but this one seems to be a pretty good idea.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    ralph January 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    Didn’t read all comments, so don’t know if this was mentioned. Northbound stilll has potential collision. Consider how cars were redirected on highway 99 and Southend rd between Oregon city and canby. Much cheaper with a few plastic posts and creativity.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    bloodcircus77 January 13, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Maybe PBOT will screw this one up as bad as they did on Williams. Like reverse traffic flow, add some lane changes and stuff… More curbs, bumps, and transitions! More barriers to riding a bike in a straight line! More focus groups! More revisions! More bureaucracy!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    steve January 13, 2015 at 9:07 pm

    Let’s consider equitable resource distribution and fix the blind corner at the 205 trail and Burnside. East side needs some love to. I travel through both intersections with regularity and have far many more close calls at that blind corner on Burnside. Is this a data driven decision?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Adam January 14, 2015 at 11:47 am

      Yes, please. I ring my bell as loud as I can every time at that corner, but still have close calls. Between freeway noise, and the wall blocking sound (as it is designed to) audible warnings are pretty worthless.

      Further south is another problem spot. There is another blind corner, with a left turn as well at the intersection of the Main St Max station pedestrian bridge that crosses the freeway and the 205 path. I’ve witnessed one bad crash and numerous close calls there.

      There are simple fixes here. Remove even just ten feet of the wall, or at least make it only four feet tall. And for the further south blind corner, have the property owner remove or lower the hedges. I believe it is a care facility run by the Oregon Department of Human Services.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Jeff January 16, 2015 at 11:21 am

        Man, I blocked that out. A common commute route of mine was to head south on the trail and take a right over the MAX tracks and into the westbound Burnside bike lanes. From that angle, you can’t see an eastbound Blue Line MAX train until it’s right on top of you.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    greg byshenk January 13, 2015 at 10:14 pm

    I’m not sure it’s the best option, but a bicycle roundabout is an interesting option.

    Here are two that I’m familiar with (in somewhat similar sitauations) from Leiden, NL:

    http://goo.gl/maps/4YK0x
    http://goo.gl/maps/V5gVw

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    greg byshenk January 13, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    Sorry, it looks like that first ‘short url’ didn’t work.

    Try: http://goo.gl/maps/2HFKU

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    doug B January 13, 2015 at 10:28 pm

    I currently ride this route almost everyday and I have to agree with the commenter above, the best solution for this area is to move the path a few feet towards the river(there seems to be room there) and extend the path coming out from under the overpass. This would make the sightlines far better and enable everybody to see eachother and react accordingly.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:29 am

      How would you compel cyclist on the mainline to move over?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        J_R January 14, 2015 at 11:07 am

        Move the north-south path toward the river by a distance of 10 or 15 feet. Start the transition 100 feet north of the underpass and 100 feet south of the underpass. Eliminate the existing asphalt pavement of the north-south path in the area where you have shifted the path to the west. Mainline cyclists will stay on the relocated mainline path.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 14, 2015 at 11:41 am

          It would cost more than $10,000.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    doug B January 13, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    Also, while I like the idea of having round-a-bouts in general, and think people should be more courteous when it gets congested, this does not seem like a great location for one. It is at the bottom of a hill going both directions on the most used route, and it still wouldn’t solve the problem of being able to see other people when they are coming out of the tunnel or them being able to see people heading north. Also, like someone else mentioned- since the tunnel is infrequently used I could see people heading south turning into it to go the wrong way in the round-a-bout instead of looping all the way around.
    I don’t think the main problem is that people are going too fast(although people generally go pretty fast, I think to build momentum to get up the hill), its that you can’t see other users until you or them are right on the trail already.
    Personally, I really don’t mind slowing for other people, especially on the Springwater. But I think it might grate on my nerves after slowing way down coming down one of those hills before making my way up the other side and only seeing someone coming out of the tunnel maybe once every 25 times I pass.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Twistyaction January 14, 2015 at 1:18 am

    I don’t think this should be a higher priority than dealing with illegal camping and chop shops along the Springwater. Make riding on the path at night feel safe first, then worry about optimizing this intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Rita January 14, 2015 at 8:45 am

    I like the roundabout, but agree that it’s a solution for a small number of collisions, and detrimental for most users.

    How about the user community getting a couple half-whiskey-barrel planters (with reflective tape and maybe a solar power flasher for the first winter), and try out a couple configurations?
    1: 3 planters in center making a round about
    2: 2 planters making a choke point on the path-side of the underpass (making a narrower outlet from the T intersection, which will encourage those folks to slow down, and allows them to be visible to straight-travelers before they turn)
    3: Other ideas?
    Put a sign on all three directions with a link to surveymonkey where the trail users can comment.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Harald January 14, 2015 at 9:26 am

    Madison (Wisc.) recently opened a bike roundabout: Gallery. Different situation, there, though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 14, 2015 at 9:51 am

      Intersection planter, maybe, roundabout, no.

      Roundabouts have specific rules and forms. All entering traffic yields to traffic in the circular roadway. All traffic goes around the central island counterclockwise – it’s one way. All entering traffic is deflected to the left of the central island with splitter islands on the approaches. The deflection is key to slowing down the interactions and upping the safety. The fastest path for an automobile roundabout should not exceed 20 mph. For a bike roundabout, it would be more like 5-10 mph.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Edward January 14, 2015 at 10:42 am

    This intersection is always dangerous.

    I’ve had a number of scary near misses here. It’s just a really bad mix of a downhill/uphill blind merge + the occasional guy with dogs staggering out of the woods.

    Widening the path sounds great, but is it feasible? Another section of path collapsed north of this spot (yes, with a much steeper slope and much closer to the water). I also don’t know who owns the land and about rights of way, etc.

    It seems like cheapest fastest solution might be to deploy a couple of big cement planters to create (a) bike diverter(s) — the same way car diverters work to slow cars in city streets could be used to force bikes to slow down to navigate this dangerous intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chandler January 14, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Not to be the downer here but why can’t a wide triangular be as effective? The should be greater sight and less confusion on the “roundabout” as well as those who well go the shortest way possible.

    I view roundabouts as path hazards. One more thing to hit. But then again, I am just a tourist in your town.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    J January 14, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    The roundabout is a bad idea. There are cyclists with no lights riding all the time and you can get a little speed up in that dip. Any obstruction in the path is gonna send people over the bars.

    The real solution is to have the Oaks Bottom connector meet the Springwater north of the dip. Then it would be super visible and the speeds would be better in check. The connector would have to cross the tracks and it’s probably more expensive and planning intensive, but everyone would be served well.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Opus the Poet January 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Ted Buehler
    The two instances I’m aware of were faculty who had been riding on campus for 20+ years.
    One was on one of the 1960s roundabouts, he may have gotten cut off by another bicyclist or otherwise ended up nudging his tire against the yellow buttons that define the center ring, lost balance, and fell hard. Broke his hip, as I recall.
    The other was in a brand new roundabout that had a tight radius, reverse superelevation and possibly some gravel on the roadway. So, bad engineering. But still, the fall tore up the insides of the man’s knee pretty good.
    The roundabouts are are known to confuse new students who are inexperienced bicyclists, since there’s complex merging issues when you have high volumes of high speed and lower speed traffic all moving through there together. But younger folks can usually take a fall without serious injuries, or heal more easily from broken bones.
    Since very few bike-bike crashes are ever reported, it’s reasonable to assume that with two anecdotes with injury crashes by experienced cyclists and a known pattern of crashes with inexperienced cyclists that the bike roundabouts can cause types of crashes that don’t occur at conventional intersections.
    Roundabouts work quite well for moving large volumes of slow speed bicyclists through intersections with 3 or more busy legs.
    In the Springwater case, I suspect safety could be better served with a very well marked “STOP” sign on the T leg, and a “Slow: [T Intersection] sign on the two main legs. And improving visibility by cutting brush, and ideally pushing the whole path system out a few feet from the railroad bridge. This is how they’d do it if it were a T intersection for cars with low volumes on the “T” leg — – install additional hazard warnings on the main route and emphasis on a stop sign (flashing red light, two stop signs, big white stop bar, “caution: cross traffic does not stop” sign, etc).
    But, I like bike roundabouts in many circumstances, and I may well be completely wrong in my opinion as to their applicability here. In any case, kudos to paikiala for introducing them as a novel proposal for discussion.
    Ted Buehler
    Recommended 4

    The few wreck reports I can find are all here in BikePortland (one linked above) and they all are because the sight lines for the traffic entering from the tunnel are so restricted that the rider has to block half a lane on the path before he or she can see oncoming traffic on the path. My back of the envelope/bar napkin analysis is the only thing preventing mass carnage at this intersection is the lack of traffic on all 3 legs of the intersection, but particularly the legs approaching from the left of the tunnel and from the tunnel itself. Stop signs are not going to clear up the sight lines so that entering traffic from the tunnel does not block the path from the left before they can see that traffic. The roundabout does by allowing a gradual merge instead of pulling across the lane.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jr Rider January 16, 2015 at 12:32 am

    I have ridden through this dip twice daily almost every work day for 4 years. Who has brought this forward as dangerous? Why would we spend 10k on unnecessary infrastructure for a non existent issue? They haven’t even fixed the tear in the pavement at the bottom of that dip in the last 4 years. Let’s spend some money on he travesty of the bus and max crossing at the Rose Quarter instead. Or the Ross Island gravel interchange as you leave the path heading to OMSI.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Skid January 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm

    All that is needed is a stop sign and common sense.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Gordon January 17, 2015 at 1:07 pm

      There’s plenty of posts on here explaining why the current Stop sign configuration isn’t cutting it. I totally respect that you may disagree, but it doesn’t add much to the conversation unless you explain yourself beyond “common sense”.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar