Urban Tribe - Ride with your kids in front.

City says diverters possible on SE Clinton Street this summer

Posted by on July 6th, 2015 at 3:19 pm

clinton traffic

Some relief is coming.
(Photo © M.Andersen/BikePortland)

(Jonathan Maus contributed reporting to this story.)

After more than a year of focused activism that included guerrilla installations, a month-long celebration and numerous rush-hour rides, one of Portland’s highest-traffic neighborhood greenways has been chosen as the site of a traffic calming pilot project.

The announcement is a significant victory for BikeLoudPDX, an upstart group that has focused much of its activism around its perception that Clinton Street has become too thick with fast-moving motor traffic.

In an email to BikePortland last week, city spokesman Dylan Rivera said the city has chosen Clinton Street as the site for a project that “may involve some diverters, speed bumps and signage.”

The announcement comes after an internal city study found that inner Clinton has some of the higher auto traffic volumes and speeds in the neighborhood greenway system. In June, after a series of dramatic bike-related collisions led to an emergency summit with safety groups, a new program to install temporary, experimental diverters was the single most substantive promise announced by Mayor Charlie Hales.

The changes to Clinton would take effect just before the Tilikum Crossing bridge opens on September 12. The new bridge will further boost the importance of inner Clinton as a bike route.

Diverters are already used on many neighborhood greenways to allow foot and bike traffic while blocking car traffic at certain intersections, preventing it from being useful to non-local car traffic.

Some people argue that diverters tend to reduce car speeds as well as traffic volumes, though there’s no established evidence about their effect on speed.

New traffic diverter at Rodney and Ivy-2

This diverter on N Rodney restricts driving but allows bicycling.
(Photo © M.Andersen/BikePortland)

Rivera said in his Thursday email that the city has tasked Rich Newlands to be the Clinton Street project manager, “but the internal project team needs to do more work before we have a proposed design. We intend to involve the public in finalizing the plan before implementing a pilot project on Clinton Street this summer.”

The announcement is a significant victory for BikeLoudPDX, an upstart group that has focused much of its activism around its perception that Clinton Street has become too thick with fast-moving motor traffic in the last few years. Some people say this is preventing the street from serving as the all-ages bikeway it’s supposed to be.

Advertise with BikePortland.

Even before BikeLoudPDX began to focus on the issue, locals starting a monthly social ride that aimed to, “raise awareness that Clinton is a Bike Blvd [sic] and not a cut through for rush hour traffic.”

It’s not yet clear whether the city is considering diverters at more than one intersection.

“Personally I think we need two: I would look at putting a diverter at SE 21st, or possibly 20th, to help protect the inner-most part of Clinton from cut-through traffic from Powell trying to avoid the traffic/train issues closer in,” wrote Christopher Eykamp a board member of the Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood District Association. “A second one should be put at either 26th, or possibly a bit higher up, to make the section from 39th to 26th less attractive for driving.”

The Bicycle Transportation Alliance joined BikeLoud in calling for diverters. So did the adjoining Hosford-Abernethy Neighborhood District Association, specifying that they should be part of an experiment to divert traffic onto Division rather than other neighborhood streets. Last month, Richmond neighborhood residents turned out in unusually high numbers and elected at least two new pro-diverter candidates to their neighborhood assocation, too.

“After the results of the neighborhood greenways report become public in August, that could lead us to look at some other pilot projects involving diverters or other engineering tools.”
— Dylan Rivera, PBOT

Calls like these found receptive ears within city government, prompting Active Transportation Division Manager Margi Bradway to order a major study of the city’s neighborhood greenway system. Hales cited that study in his announcement of the forthcoming diverter program.

So did Rivera, in last week’s email.

“After the results of the neighborhood greenways report become public in August, that could lead us to look at some other pilot projects involving diverters or other engineering tools,” Rivera said.

A year ago, in an interview about the future of neighborhood greenways, PBOT staffer Greg Raisman told us that the city must weigh improvements to Clinton against biking improvements elsewhere in the city, and said that in the absence of political will and widespread consensus over diverters on Clinton, there wasn’t enough money to prioritize improvements there.

Now, thanks in large part to the concerted advocacy efforts, the will — and the money — appears to have been found.

CORRECTION, 3:54pm: The original headline of this story said the City “confirmed” diverters would be coming to Clinton. To be clear, the City said the project “may involve some diverters.” The ultimate outcome is still up in the air pending a planning process. Sorry for any confusion — Jonathan

NOTE: We love your comments and work hard to ensure they are productive, considerate, and welcoming of all perspectives. Disagreements are encouraged, but only if done with tact and respect. If you see a mean or inappropriate comment, please contact us and we'll take a look at it right away. Thank you.

  • rick July 6, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Speed bumps often help dump oil on the ground.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • paikiala July 6, 2015 at 4:24 pm

      Any evidence to back up your opinion?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • rick July 6, 2015 at 4:39 pm

        SW 87th Ave, SW Birchwood Ave, and SW Laurelwood Ave per 2012.
        New Zealand uses chicanes which don’t get oil dumped onto the road like the effect of speed bumps on leaking cars.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 9:29 am


          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • 9watts July 6, 2015 at 5:23 pm

      the oil and other nasties leak out somewhere regardless. Why is this important?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Chris
        Chris July 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm

        Sometimes a good bump will cause things to leak/spill that would otherwise not leak/spill. But it seems in a well-maintained engine this wouldn’t really be a factor.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Spiffy July 6, 2015 at 6:31 pm

        all the oil dumped in one place will degrade the asphalt…

        it will also make it easier to pick up on your bike tires and dirty up your storage space floor…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • 9watts July 7, 2015 at 7:07 am

          OK… Traffic lights have a similar effect. Everyone in a car stops at the white line, and all sorts of gunk drips from their horseless carriages onto the pavement there. Is this a reason not to have traffic lights?

          Recommended Thumb up 9

          • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 9:30 am

            Anyone looked at an aerial photo lately. all traffic lanes have dark middle.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • was carless July 7, 2015 at 10:03 am

            Sure, they are bad for traffic flow. The UK uses roundabouts extensively because they are more efficient and much safer, but are difficult to implement in tight urban spaces.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • davemess July 8, 2015 at 7:09 am

            I know you don’t drive, but Oregonians seem to have a healthy fear of actually stopping at the line. Many tend to stay one (or even 2 or 3) car lengths back from it.
            It’s really kind of odd.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Dwaine Dibbly July 7, 2015 at 4:44 pm

        It puts it all on one spot, instead of spread out over a larger area.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan July 7, 2015 at 7:53 am

      Most parking spots on the side of the road have oil residue on them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Brian Willson July 7, 2015 at 10:55 am

      Eliminate cars altogether on Clinton, to be used only for residents with appropriate window stickers.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

  • tedder July 6, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    great. Give us the cones, we’ll rally the community and it’ll be up by Thursday. 🙂

    I thought the idea was diverters every ~10 blocks, not “one set of diverters”.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

    • paikiala July 6, 2015 at 4:24 pm

      expect diversion in three focused areas, at least.

      Recommended Thumb up 21

      • Rob Chapman July 6, 2015 at 4:31 pm

        That’s good news, thanks for sharing it early paikiala.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • soren July 6, 2015 at 5:45 pm

        fantastic news.

        expect an organized campaign of support after they are installed.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

  • PeeJay July 6, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    I think it’s important that we thank the individuals involved for allowing this to go through. I hope they learn from the experiences with existing diverters and look at the most successful ones before finalizing a design. But PLEASE DONT DRAG THIS OUT!! We need it NOW.

    Recommended Thumb up 27

    • paikiala July 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Bumps are not constructed after early September, but concrete work can happen most of the fall.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Me July 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Big thanks to those individuals and organizations (BikeLoudPDX? Who Else?) to help make this happen.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Gerald Fittipaldi July 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    I remain optimistic that the trial diverters will be successful. However, make no mistake, there will be some opposition. For the interim diverters to become permanent, people from all walks of life will have to come out in force. Locals attending NA meetings and LOUDLY supporting the diverters; Mom’s, seniors, kids, everyone; letters to the mayor, to PBOT, to Commissioners, and all forms of social media uproar demanding a safer and more people friendly Clinton. Not only being demanding, but offering positive words of support and thanks.

    Recommended Thumb up 18

  • Terry D-M July 6, 2015 at 3:47 pm

    Progress is being made….now we must keep it up!

    Recommended Thumb up 10

  • spencer July 6, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    how about today??????

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Tyler July 6, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    It’s frustrating to hear yet more watery language and noncommittal planning like that quoted in the article.
    “may involve some diverters…” and “It’s not yet clear whether the city is considering diverters at more than one intersection.”
    I guess it’s best to just admit, Portland as a city government is fundamentally committed to coming up short.

    Recommended Thumb up 19

    • was carless July 7, 2015 at 10:05 am

      Portland has a structurally weak form of government. There really is no leadership anywhere in this state… except perhaps Phil Knight. 😛

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • David Lewis July 6, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    Diverters are a treatment of the symptom and not the problem. The problem is Division having too many lights with long waits.

    Diverters make navigation difficult and unnecessarily complicate routes. They also funnel traffic onto arterial streets, which then compounds the problem.

    Activist groups are important in our society because the government is so bad at doing the right thing consistently on its own, so I understand why these groups are asking for the diverters, but there are other solutions.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • PeeJay July 6, 2015 at 4:18 pm

      “Too many lights”?
      Which would you remove? You are aware that many people on foot use Division, aren’t you, David?

      The problem is that people in cars are impatient that they have to move safely through a thriving commercial and residential area. The secondary problem is that some people feel that those people in cars need to always be catered to first.

      Recommended Thumb up 28

      • Paul in the 'Couve July 6, 2015 at 4:47 pm

        And that overall the city, and at least a substantial minority if not outright majority of residents, value auto threw put, traffic volume and travel time over safety, livability and alternate modes. Too many drivers feel “oppressed” simply because they have to slow down or be delayed. The root problems can not be mitigated by trying to have it both ways. It is essential that we communicate and educate that the current focus – low travel times for motorists, and high traffic volumes, and eliminating choke points – simply perpetuates the choice to keep driving, to take more trips by car, keeps walking and cycling and transit at a disadvantage and reduces safety for vulnerable road users and is ultimately a self defeating paradigm in that a) the cost to maintain roads spirals up, and the appeal and vitality of neighbourhoods is sapped away.

        Recommended Thumb up 12

      • David Lewis July 12, 2015 at 12:09 pm

        Too many lights with long wait times is what I wrote. Yes, there are too many and the wait times are too long. That’s how traffic piles up and why drivers choose other routes, and I don’t blame them. It starts to get out of hand when they take their frustrations out on Clinton and speed, and I am just as upset when I see it happen as you are, so I understand why folks want diverters; I just don’t concur that they are the answer.

        Personally, I hate arterial roads for that and other reasons. I always ride my motorcycle at or below the speed limit on quieter neighborhood roads because I think arterials are dangerous and full of distracted and ignorant automobile operators. I choose roads like Clinton for the same reasons bicycle riders (like me half the time!) do: I want to live and enjoy the scenery.

        Another solution is to lower speed limits on all city roads to nonlethal speeds and post patrol officers to enforce the law, and give bicycle operators equal access to roads and parking. You know, governing. Maybe that’s too much to ask.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Chris I July 6, 2015 at 4:21 pm

      Oh, like turning Division At back into a dangerous high-speed driving route? What do you propose?

      Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Chris Anderson July 6, 2015 at 4:34 pm

      There is a whole literature on why giving active transportation the direct route, and sending drivers the long way, is an important ingredient to making neighborhoods safe for kids to play in. Maybe start here: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/search/label/directness

      Kudos to everyone working on this! Up here in NE we had a neighborhood meet-up and now I’m writing up something on the Going Greenway to bring to the Concordia Land Use and Livability meeting (on Tues the 21st 7pm the Kennedy School Community Room). We ask for additional diverters, but our focus is on cross-street stop sign enhancements like green-topped stop bars and “cross traffic does not stop” signs, and using alternating stretches of one-way for automobiles to move through-traffic back to Prescott.

      Recommended Thumb up 17

  • Anne Hawley July 6, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    This announcement and the speed camera bill together make Vision Zero start to seem like it’ll have some muscle behind it. I hope the public outreach part won’t end up watering it down. I don’t use Clinton much, but I’d think neighbor residents and businesses would be mostly in favor of traffic calming. Fingers crossed.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Jayson July 6, 2015 at 4:41 pm

    I don’t understand why diverters would be considered an experiment, or even a trial. If cars can’t make through movements, some (perhaps most?) traffic will be diverted to designated through streets, like Division and Powell. This WILL help, not may help.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 9:38 am

      diversion from speed bumps is uncommon. Diverters definitely change auto traffic patterns, but predicting where that traffic goes to is art, not science. Diverters are tested to see how traffic shifts – usually left in place for 3 months before new data is collected. This is the standard model in Portland for diversion. The neighborhood greenway represents a paradigm shift for PBOT – the intentional shifting of auto traffic away from one local service roadway to others, for the benefit of non-auto users on the project street. Also overdue.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Paul Cole July 6, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    “[the] perception that Clinton Street has become too thick with fast-moving motor traffic in the last few years.”

    The use of the word “perception” is interesting. Where’s the data to back this up?

    I worry that “Biking Loud” is resulting in lower-priority projects taking precedence over those that don’t have a loud group championing them.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Eli July 6, 2015 at 6:09 pm

      Feel free to find your own causes to be loud about… or bring them to BikeLoudPDX! They’re always looking for projects to support, as long as someone is willing to be the project’s champion; a large number of members are from inner SE so Clinton was an easy one to focus on. As the group grows, so will the geographic representation and the distribution of issues to champion. Plus, Clinton is a watershed, meant to put a “face” to the lack of support all our greenways currently suffer from. Strengthen Clinton, strengthen the whole network.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Paul Cole July 6, 2015 at 7:32 pm

        My pet project is daily stop sign enforcement/ticketing in Ladd’s Addition until cars and bikes alike stop running them

        I ride through twice a day and it is insane how dangerous it is to follow the law and come to a complete stop (which I do 100% of the time), especially during rush hour.

        When’s the next Bike Loud meeting and how do I get this on the agenda?

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • NC July 7, 2015 at 9:58 am

          Good for you. But there is no need to come to a full stop, I think there should be yield signs at Ladds.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Paul Cole July 7, 2015 at 10:13 am

            Should be but aren’t. They are stop signs.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 1:11 pm

              Yield would be better, but entering traffic needs to be slowed with a physical object to require a right turn to enter, not a sweeping turn. Curb extensions are pricey, but planters might work well.

              Recommended Thumb up 1

              • KYouell July 7, 2015 at 2:29 pm

                Having been passed while stopped at Ladd’s waiting for children who were crossing the street — once a car and once a bike, they passed me on the left because I was stopped for too long, I guess — I support the stop signs. Once people in cars and people on bikes learn that they need to look RIGHT and not only to their left then they could be changed to yield signs.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

        • was carless July 7, 2015 at 10:16 am

          To be fair, proper roundabout design stipulates that stop signs should be totally avoided at entrances to them.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • chris July 7, 2015 at 11:58 am

          While running the stop sign at Ladd’s circle is illegal, it’s kind of dumb that the signs are there to begin with. The purpose of a roundabout is to eliminate the need for stop signs and stop signs. Those stop signs totally defeat the purpose of having a traffic circle to begin with.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Christopher Sanderson July 7, 2015 at 8:35 am

        I am tempted to come to the next meeting on Sunday in Grant Park. I used the SE 41st bike parkway quite a bit, and feel that there could be improvements to the route, especially the crossing at Division, which I feel needs serious attention. I am excited to see how BikeLoudPDX! has fueled change on Clinton, and it seems like there’s some great momentum going for the group.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Bald One July 7, 2015 at 3:52 pm

        SE 21st and Gladstone. This area needs some help and re-design and will start to see more traffic when the new bridge is opened in a few months.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • gutterbunnybikes July 6, 2015 at 6:17 pm

      I pretty much am in agreement here, and I use Clinton often.

      If you use the PDOT data on incidents for 2004-2013 and use the data on average bicycle use (also from PDOT), your chances of being involved in an injury incident on Clinton (12th -52nd) is around 1 in 2,000,000. And that is just injuries, Clinton hasn’t seen (according to the ODOT info) any fatality or serious injury.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • gutterbunnybikes July 6, 2015 at 6:23 pm

        I suspect diverters will actually increase the bicycle injury rate. However they won’t involve cars – it”ll end up being bicycle on bicycle and bicycle vs, curb/pylon or whatever they put in the street to act as a diverter.

        On average 1/3 of overall bicycle injuries (not fatalities which are usually around 90% car involvement) are collisions with objects which aren’t cars.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • jd July 7, 2015 at 7:41 am

        Do you have a link? Do they estimate incidents that go unreported? Of course there are tons of places where I agree that Portland could be safer for cyclists, but given how much bike traffic Clinton gets, I’d love for it to be more like Ankeny, and not so tempting for the Waze app.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 8:53 am

          It’s my own calculation using different PDOT information.

          First I calculated the average ridership of 26th and Clinton from this graph.


          (btw would love to find similar graphs but I haven’t been able to find them)

          Comes to 853573 average bicycle trips on Clinton a year.

          I used that particular intersection because it is the only one that spans 9 years giving me a closer representation to the Vision Zero map PDOT recently open to the public.


          Click on the bicycle tab, and it will give you all the reported car vs. bicycle collisions on Clinton between 2004-2013. If you include 52nd (which isn’t part of the greenway but I did anyway) you have 17 bicycle injuries, 0 serious injuries, and 0 fatalities.

          Comes to an average of (17/9) 1.8 bicycle injuries car collisions on Clinton a year.

          1.8/853573= 2.1 e-6 symplified to 0.000002 or one in 2 million.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • KYouell July 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm

            “all the reported car vs. bicycle collisions on Clinton between 2004-2013”

            Reported by whom to whom? I’ve only heard of PPB reports. Clearly near misses and aggressive driving aren’t included and it skews PBOT’s data. Your math from this point on isn’t reflecting the reality of biking down that street with your kids. It’s a Safe Route to School I’m not the only one thinking that kids biking down the street is a big issue.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 8:01 pm

              I’ve ridden it many times over the last 10 years with my kids and will continue to do so. The first time for either of them was when they were 6 or 7 depending on the kid.

              Though honestly they don’t like the hill climb back home too much (they’ve yet to complain about traffic) so it’s often a hard sell to get them much west of 52nd – it usually involves bribes of ice cream to get them to go, but as they get older that ain’t working either – especially once they figured out DQ doesn’t require the climb.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 8:09 pm

              By the way my daughter and I enjoyed your Longest Route ride, even though she wished that there were a few older kids.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 9:21 am

          For the overall injury aspect, the 1/3 stat is a basic average that the CDC and other government/corperate agencies use and have been using forever. Though how many are kids? or sports riders? or transportation cyclists? who knows that isn’t calculated. However, curbs and potholes are a couple of the big ones that always get mentioned.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 9:37 am

          oh and the 1/3 is just a stat that has been thrown around forever by agencies and companies. Many bicycle related stats are pretty static over the years, cars are in involved in 90% of bicycle fatalities, bicycles are always about 2% of total traffic related deaths, etc etc….

          However whenever this stat is brought up curbs, potholes, and train tracks are almost always mentioned.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 9:42 am

          PBOT does not have a crystal ball, so, no, they do not estimate unreported crashes.
          One thing many people may not get yet is that Vision Zero doesn’t care about minor injury and property damage only crashes. Just the serious injury and fatal ones.
          The project manager can provide collected data maps.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 1:44 pm

            This is true, and with such a focus it’s entirely possible that injuries incidents will increase. I’ve seen it in more than one place (messages here, and on other sites) that people (could be individuals or tranpo folks) that they’re willing to do just that – increase the injury rates to drop the fatalities.

            Hasn’t anyone considered that Vision Zero is public policy that might actually cause greater underfunding of bicycle infrastructure improvements? Vision Zero focuses on fatalities and bicycles are the smallest fatality transportation option? How much money is the city going to give bicycles when cars fatalities average 19 a year, pedestrians average 9.4 a year, and bicycles average 1.8 a year. Vision Zero could easily curtail many of the future projects we’ve been looking forward to.

            Considering that Clinton has never – in it’s thirty year history hosted a single bicycle fatality, this little project has nothing to do with Vision Zero. And I’m little saddened that the city is going to put these diverters here instead of adding a better street crossing or two to any of the 100’s of intersections in this town that need actual improvements that might actually save lives and prevent injuries.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • paikiala July 9, 2015 at 10:20 am

              Name some crossings and ask 823-SAFE for improvements.
              It’s a bleak picture you paint. I think improvements in general can help all modes. Historically, where better facilities are provided for cyclists and pedestrians all crash types have decreased.
              Vision Zero does prioritize fatal and serious injury crashes over minor injury and property damage only crashes. It also focuses on systemic versus systematic solutions.
              An example: signalized intersections without protected left turn phases. There is ample evidence that such a condition has resulted in serious injury and fatal crashes (26th and Powell, Denver and Lombard). The type of crash that has this result can be eliminated with protected left turn phases.
              The natural conclusion is that all intersections that need to be signalized should also have protected left turns, in every case.
              Otherwise the signal should be replaced with another form of intersection traffic control.
              Protected left turns in every case would benefit all users.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 2:11 pm

          and to fix Waze, all you need to do is start a campaign for bicycle users to use the app it while they ride. The algorithms most likely use average travel speed to determine the best routes.

          If everyone riding was using Waze while riding their bicycles, the lower bicycle speeds (particularly uphill segments) would reduce the reported travel time for that particular road.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 9:49 am

        my bad too

        it’s a 0.000002% chance that you’ll be involved in car collision on Clinton.

        or roughly 1 in every 425,000 bicycle trips.

        Got a little ahead of myself… Happends

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • CarsAreFunToo July 7, 2015 at 12:46 pm

          Or to look at it another way: If you commute 5 days a week year round, so two trips per day, 425,000 trips takes a little more than 817 years. So you’ll have, give or take, one non-fatal collision involving a car in more than 800 years. Given that we don’t live like the folks in Genesis, pay attention and you’ll be fine.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Dan July 7, 2015 at 2:59 pm

            On Clinton.

            Does anybody commute entirely on Clinton?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

    • tee July 6, 2015 at 6:20 pm

      If you ride Clinton on the daily (twice/day pretty much 7 days/week) while riding safely and defensively, you would likely not be saying that this is a low priority project. Yes, there are issues in outer East Portland. However, we have some pretty serious safety issues on our in town greenways/bike routes that should be addressed before we expand our network.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Paul Cole July 6, 2015 at 7:33 pm

        East Portland is still Portland.

        Recommended Thumb up 10

    • are July 6, 2015 at 8:57 pm

      some data here
      indicates traffic counts over 3k since at least 2009 and 85th percentile speed in 2014 right at the posted limit

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Terry D-M July 6, 2015 at 10:23 pm

      “I worry that “Biking Loud” is resulting in lower-priority projects taking precedence over those that don’t have a loud group championing them”

      Projects in the “Outer Regions” including East Portland and SW I have requested be placed on this month’s agenda. We tabled at East Portland Sunday Parkways, and I have been very involved in the “forgotten Middle East” of Portland between 60th and I 205. Our group is not even a year old, so of course we are working on projects where the most energy is with the most cyclists. More volunteers from more areas of the city and we will expand.

      What we are talking about on Clinton would cost very little, compared to capital construction that these other projects citywide would cost. There is also of course our direct action “department” which has its own thing.

      As far as Ladd’s circle goes, that needs a remodel. Ticketing bicyclists for not stopping when people are getting killed in other parts of the city is a poor use of resources. It shows that a well off and well organized group of residents can get enforcement in an area that has had no recorded collision deaths…….when people are getting killed in the poorer neighborhoods and on our high crash corridors.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

  • J_R July 6, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    I’m hoping that the diverters and speed bumps “by the end of summer” is a different calendar than the bike share “next year for sure.”

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Steven Cahill July 6, 2015 at 4:54 pm

    If Division is getting full of people then we could trade, closing sections of Division to cars and give cars that section of Clinton. Creating a vibrant walking/biking car free district. With added bonus of enough room for the Salt & Straw line in the resulting pedestrian zone.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Eli July 6, 2015 at 6:11 pm

      I’m sure the neighbors living along Clinton will be all for converting the street into an arterial.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • KYouell July 7, 2015 at 2:36 pm

        If the exchange is that I get to use Division with no cars on it, then hell yes, this resident is for it.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Adam Herstein July 6, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    Great news! Thanks everyone for keeping up the pressure!

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Champs July 6, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    What if “diverters” was a typo all along? It would explain why the city keeps putting up DIVERSIONS…

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Champs July 6, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    My future vote in city elections “may involve some diverters” and let’s hope it stays that trivial. Wouldn’t want anyone’s life to be up in the air like that…

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Peejay July 6, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    I hope the data collection phase puts into proper context complaints from drivers, as the whole idea is to inconvenience them. Driver complaints would point to success of the project, not failure.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Spiffy July 6, 2015 at 6:49 pm

      here’s the proper context: So?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Dorian July 6, 2015 at 6:06 pm

    It seems like Clinton could also use a diverter at 17th. It used to be motorists could go straight across 12th and 11th to get on Powell, but the MAX installation eliminated this cut-through that was the site of a road rager running over two cyclists back in 2007. However, morning traffic at 12th and Clinton has gone back up to pre-MAX levels. Motorists are exiting Powell Blvd. at 17th and then driving down Clinton to go North on 12th. A diverter would encourage them to use Division instead.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm

      Maybe a one block one-way shared lane eastbound 12th to 13th with a westbound contraflow bike lane, then a one block one-way shared lane westbound 13th to 14th with eastbound contraflow bike lane?
      Alternating one-way shared lanes with contraflow bike lanes would maintain good convenience for local residents and through movement for people biking.
      Diversion at 17th has many side street alternatives to track.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • KYouell July 7, 2015 at 2:40 pm

      The light at 17th & Division to let them out of the neighborhood and onto the arterial seems to indicate that drivers are supposed to go this way. I think they should get some more encouragement.

      Make 17th one-way northbound for cars and the southbound lane a two-way bike route so we can still get the kids from Clinton to Abernethy and we’d be set.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 3:57 pm

        I’m not convinced 17th is the problem. Sure it contributes, but it’s a bit circuitous to use 17th/Division to get to 12th instead of using Powell to 12th.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Dorian July 8, 2015 at 3:21 pm

          In the morning traffic on Powell backs up to 20th, which is right where drivers can swing right to get to 17th > Clinton > 12th.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Job F July 6, 2015 at 10:35 pm

    Hopefully they look at where all that diverted traffic will go. It won’t be Divison St. It will another local st. Just ask people who live on Harrison

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala July 7, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      Harrison is a parallel legacy greenway. East of 20th has not had traffic calming yet. It could also use some diverters.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • BikeSlobPDX July 7, 2015 at 4:10 am

    “It shows that a well off and well organized group of residents can get enforcement in an area that has had no recorded collision deaths…”

    Ladd Ave. resident here. I’m not aware of any organization in my neighborhood with the power or interest to invoke stop sign enforcements — can you provide more information?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • soren July 8, 2015 at 11:30 am

      “group of residents” ≠ organization

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • jd July 7, 2015 at 7:21 am

    So great! Riding Clinton with my kids is about to get a little safer. Thank you to everyone who made this happen!

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • TJ July 7, 2015 at 8:58 am

    I agree “our” initiatives are too focused and ultimately only an attempt to mitigate the habits of disrespectful drivers.

    In an effort to change driving culture, we need to pressure for lower enforced speed limits city wide. We need for both city leaders and law enforcement to take a very non-passive stand against what’s become the natural tendency of those behind the wheel — natural in that it almost takes more restraint to drive respectfully.

    The speeding, the red-line acceleration, the cutting-off, the fast corners on our through-arteries is one thing, but through our neighborhoods it’s akin to relieving oneself on every passing house while giving the middle finger.

    Establish the non-advantage of speeding and disrespectful driving with regards to time not save. Establish new disadvantages to speeding and disrespectful driving through constant city-wide enforcement.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Monica-Sophie Steig July 7, 2015 at 11:08 am

    Having been a bicyclist using Clinton for years, I am glad to hear of the improvements. More recently being a scooterist due to longer commutes, I feel it important to echo Job’s comment: when the major arteries start getting closed off to motorist traffic, it feeds into other residential streets. North of Powell, the next major artery is what now, Stark? A trip down Division, Hawthorne and Belmont already has us driving slower than foot traffic to accommodate for all the pedestrians who legally and illegally cross the streets.

    I’m all for bike and pedestrian safety and encouraging non-motorized transportation. That’s great! Just be aware that the more auto traffic is backed up on the major streets, the more we will seek out alternate routes, because no one wants to sit around and wait during rush hour. The quiet street your house is on may start being less quiet.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Bill Walters July 7, 2015 at 12:20 pm

      Um, which major arteries are “getting closed off to motorist traffic?” Because those sound ideal for riding.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • gutterbunnybikes July 7, 2015 at 1:55 pm

        Actually Division, Hawthorne, Belmont in the commercial sections are pretty easy and relaxing riding during rush hour if you take a vehicular approach, when they’re backed up they move at or below bicycle speeds.

        Now where there is less commercial, traffic gets a faster. But it still isn’t that bad – especially if you’re heading west down the hill – where you can still pretty much keep up thanks to gravity.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • SilkySlim July 7, 2015 at 3:50 pm

      I totally get where you are saying. And looking ahead 5-10-15 years, I can see the same thing happening southbound, as Gladstone and Holgate slowly Division-ize themselves with more businesses, denser housing, etc. Going to be interesting to see how it all shakes out. And in the meanwhile – at a minimum – there will be quite a few new tasty restaurants.

      But overall I am pretty darn excited about this Clinton St. improvement. I commute (60% bike, 40% run) on it every single day.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Fred #17 July 7, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    I feel like there’s an elephant it the room here… namely all the people that blow stop signs biking on Clinton… both ways. Anything we can put in the middle of the road to curb this problem as well?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Dan July 8, 2015 at 7:25 am

      In general, we could start by providing cyclists with more direct roads with less stop signs. Can you imagine 205 with a stop sign every block? No, because it was set up as a primary route for cars that is meant to be separated and more efficient for them. How many of those kinds of routes do cyclists have?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • paikiala July 8, 2015 at 9:01 am

        Springwater. I-205 trail. Parts of the Intertwine. 2009 and later neighborhood greenways turned stop signs to favor the greenway except at neighborhood collector and higher streets.

        I also think the analogy is off. Freeways are limited access, both on and off. Freeways destroyed neighborhoods to achieve their goals in metropolitan areas. I don’t think you want to mimic that behavior.

        Expressways might be a better analogy. They do stop for major crossings at regular intervals, similar to how the Springwater and I-205 trails do.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Fred #17 July 8, 2015 at 10:26 am

        well, yeah, that would be dope… not really relevant to the Clinton conversation though.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala July 8, 2015 at 9:04 am

      ‘blow stop signs’ or ‘roll through’?
      Stop signs are an imperfect tool and no traffic control device is perfectly effective. Warnings can be added that the cross traffic does not stop, or to watch for bikes, but it will always be up to the users to behave properly.
      Safe interaction should be the ultimate goal.
      Have you requested enforcement?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Fred #17 July 8, 2015 at 10:32 am

        well, you justify rolling through stop signs, and people who drive justify cutting down clinton.. same/same.

        and I mean blow… like, I stop at Clinton Market and the person behind me either skids to a stop behind me or passes right by… and group mentality sets in where if the first person does it, the people behind them are apt to do the same thing, like they were in a paceline or something… super dangerous to be the middle person in that situation who stops at the sign.

        No, i have not requested enforcement… once they rejiggered the MAX stop at the end, I started going around and under Powell instead. Much more tranquilo that way. no more listening to people huffing and chuffing behind me looking to pass me at Clinton Theater because they are aware that I will probably stop and get in their way… like seriously, people get ANNOYED at you for stopping. I’m done with Clinton.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • paikiala July 9, 2015 at 10:08 am

          Rolling through stop signs is illegal, but not usually unsafe, and this is due to the overuse of the sign and the imperfect use to which it has been usually put. A lot like crossing midblock downtown.

          You said ‘blow the stop sign’ which I interpret to mean not even slowing down, and this behavior is both illegal and unsafe. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

  • soren July 8, 2015 at 11:35 am

    “super dangerous to be the middle person in that situation who stops at the sign”

    “people get ANNOYED at you for stopping. I’m done with Clinton.”

    of late i have been zealously coming to a complete stop at every stop sign and have not had a single negative experience.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Eric Leifsdad August 24, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    Summer’s nearly over… And the citizen-installed diverters were removed in how many hours?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • ethan August 25, 2015 at 11:02 am

      Good point. Still no added diverters on Clinton.

      Recommended Thumb up 0