Tour de Lab September 1st

State will likely fund Flanders Crossing of 405, spurring thousands of bike trips in NW

Posted by on June 15th, 2016 at 5:28 pm

The long-proposed span would connect downtown Portland and the Pearl District with the Northwest District.
(Photos: M. Andersen/BikePortland)

A new biking-walking bridge across Interstate 405 at Northwest Flanders has probably made the cut for funding, a state official said Wednesday.

The approximately 250-foot-long, 24-foot-wide bridge would become by far the most comfortable crossing of Interstate 405, an alternative to the existing crossings at Everett, Glisan and Couch. Paired with a proposed neighborhood greenway on Flanders from the Steel Bridge west to 24th Avenue, the span is expected to carry 9,100 trips per day.

That figure, which includes both biking and walking trips, is higher than the summertime bike counts across the Hawthorne Bridge and about five times the daily bike ridership so far on Tilikum Crossing.

A possible cross-section for the 24-foot-wide bridge.
(Image: Portland Bureau of Transportation)

We wrote yesterday that the bridge would be an important connection for Biketown riders in part of the city that is about to become one of North America’s best-served neighborhoods for public bike sharing.

Barring unforseen events, construction of the new bridge could begin in April 2018 and finish by May 2019.

Final statewide committee scored bridge highly

The bridge would require new crossings of NW 16th and 15th avenues.

The Portland Bureau of Transportation has pledged $3 million of its revenue from development fees for the crossing. It’s been looking to the state’s lottery-funded Connect Oregon program for the remaining $2.9 million.

In March, a committee of biking-walking experts from around the state ranked Flanders Crossing third of 22 such projects statewide. But in May, a Portland-area committee scored it more poorly, leaving its fate largely up to Connect Oregon’s final review committee, which met Tuesday to create a scoring of its own.

Oregon Department of Transportation staffer Scott Turnoy, the staffer managing Connect Oregon, said Wednesday that the final review committee had scored Flanders “in the top half” of projects and that it would likely make the cut for state funding.

Advertisement

“I was a bit surprised and very happy,” said Aaron Deas, a lobbyist for TriMet who represented transit interests on the final review committee, in a text message Wednesday. “What was surprising about the Flanders bridge was that there were no questions, even with the big price tag. But it did rank highly.”

The Oregon Transportation Commission must still make the final funding decision at its July 21 meeting. But barring an unexpected turn of events, that board is likely to defer to the Connect Oregon committee’s list.

Turnoy said he couldn’t release the final review committee’s full ranking yet and wouldn’t know until tomorrow when it’ll be made public. Also competing for funds are a fix for the Naito Gap in inner northwest Portland and trail segments in southwest Portland, Wilsonville, Milwaukie, Gresham and Tigard.

If it’s funded as expected by the Oregon Transportation Commission, Flanders Crossing will be Portland’s biggest payoff yet from a state law, unexpectedly won by the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in 2013, that made biking and walking projects eligible for the Connect Oregon program.

Project drew endorsements from many nearby employers

A nearby billboard for a new real estate development.

City transportation spokesman Dylan Rivera called the apparent success of the bridge a “game-changing boost” for biking in northwest Portland, which has been rapidly adding both jobs and homes.

“Every week we read another report of a tech company moving to the downtown area saying bike lanes, food carts and public transit service are a key reason they can attract talented people.”
— Dylan Rivera, Portland Bureau of Transportation

“Every week we read another report of a tech company moving to the downtown area saying bike lanes, food carts and public transit service are a key reason they can attract talented people,” Rivera said. “We think that’s a testament to the investment Portland has made over the decades to bike access.”

To support its application to Connect Oregon, which has a mandate to invest in non-automotive projects that grow the state’s economy, the city transportation bureau gathered letters of support from nearby employers like Vestas, Gerding Edlen and Airbnb.

The city also had to overcome comments from state staffers, who observed that the city has a backlog of transportation projects funded by the state and Metro but not yet on the ground. Those comments prompted a response letter from Portland Transportation Director Leah Treat, who said the city would be able to start work promptly on Flanders Crossing.

“We’d like to thank the statewide bike-ped committee for their deep understanding of the importance of key active transportation investments in Portland that can benefit the entire state,” Rivera said Wednesday. “This is a testament to the strong business support for bicycling in Portland and the importance of bike access to grow our economy in the coming decades.”

— Michael Andersen, (503) 333-7824 – michael@bikeportland.org

Our work is supported by subscribers. Please become one today.

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

135 Comments
  • Avatar
    maccoinnich June 15, 2016 at 5:34 pm

    I’m equally surprised and delighted.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      maccoinnich June 15, 2016 at 5:36 pm

      Also: the Pearl District Neighborhood Association deserves a lot of credit for fighting really hard for this. Most of the letters of support from area businesses were solicited by them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Social Engineer June 15, 2016 at 5:45 pm

    The potential for this bridge to serve as an emergency lifeline route to Good Sam hospital in the event of a major quake cannot be overstated enough. This project deserves to get built on that merit alone.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      lop June 15, 2016 at 7:11 pm

      Will the elevated part of 405 collapse during a west hills or cascadia quake? Or could an ambulance just take Lovejoy or Marshall to get to the hospital?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Frank Selker June 16, 2016 at 9:49 am

      Cheaper to reinforce an existing bridge that’s right there anyway?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 11:04 am

        If you want to tilt at that windmill with ODOT, please go right ahead. They are responsible for the existing overpass structures. This is a City of Portland project.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jeff June 16, 2016 at 12:56 pm

      The problem is we don’t build ANY bridges here to be functional after a major quake. Not even the newest ones. True, they might not fall down and kill anyone but they will likely NOT be passable or usable.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        J_R June 16, 2016 at 2:04 pm

        ODOT and WSDOT tried to build one – the Columbia River Crossing – to replace the structurally-deficient, functionally obsolete I-5 Interstate Bridges. But, of course, that was an evil project opposed by at least 90 percent of the commenters on BikePortland.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    EmilyG June 15, 2016 at 5:46 pm

    This is great news! Fingers crossed that the bridge makes the final list.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu
    John Liu June 15, 2016 at 5:48 pm

    Will the bridge be rated for vehicles?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rick June 15, 2016 at 5:57 pm

      Small yellow fire engines?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Social Engineer June 15, 2016 at 5:59 pm

      Emergency vehicles only.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    gretchin June 15, 2016 at 5:49 pm

    fingers crossed!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam H.
    Adam H. June 15, 2016 at 5:53 pm

    Great news!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick June 15, 2016 at 5:56 pm

    The first pedestrian / bike bridge over highway or busy Blvd in NW Portland? Put a cap on the 405 !

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      ethan June 16, 2016 at 8:23 am

      Cap 405 and tear down I-5. That would add billions of dollars worth of real estate to the inner city. It would have the added benefit of looking nicer, as well.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Middle of the Road Guy June 16, 2016 at 9:06 am

        You live in a bubble.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          ethan June 16, 2016 at 10:36 am

          Which bubble is that?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            jeff June 16, 2016 at 1:29 pm

            your own imagination. I-5 isn’t going anywhere.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              ethan June 16, 2016 at 1:57 pm

              I wasn’t aware that you had a crystal ball.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Adam June 16, 2016 at 2:31 pm

          No bubble – many cities I’ve visited in Europe cap their freeways as they pass through the downtown areas. There is even one called Hatfield that built an entire shopping mall OVER the freeway.

          When land is precious, it makes sense. It also eliminates the need for crossings which shoehorn types of traffic that really don’t mix well onto one road full of freeway ramps (bikes, peds, cars, buses etc).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 9:06 am

        Riverfront property that fronts to a walking and cycling path would be a massive asset for our city. Far more so than an elevated highway to carry freeloaders out of our city.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala June 16, 2016 at 9:19 am

          Name calling. classy.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            ethan June 16, 2016 at 9:50 am

            Better than ODOT calling everyone who isn’t in a car a “problem child” or PBOT’s insistence that people who ride bikes are using “alternative” transportation.

            At least “freeloaders” is an accurate title. Well, actually, I would say “people who take advantage of heavy subsidies,” but freeloaders rolls off the tongue easier.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 9:56 am

            People who drive on a highway not only are not paying any direct user fees to use them, they are also not paying full cost of the maintenance and construction of the highway via gas tax; instead offloading this cost onto society. And this is not even including the impacts that the highway imposes on people who live/work/travel nearby whom are not in a car.

            I am not meaning to individually demonize anyone who is taking advantage of this subsidy, but to call them “freeloading” is absolutely accurate.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Middle of the Road guy June 16, 2016 at 1:47 pm

              Because they provide a societal value and are considered a public good.
              You can use them if you want but you choose not to.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Alex Reedin June 16, 2016 at 4:41 pm

                That’s exactly what’s at issue. Many people no longer think that the government using public land and public dollars on roads and freeways built to speed motor vehicle travel with little heed for anything else does not provide nearly as much societal value as using the same resources in a different way would.

                To use an analogy – the federal government used to give away 50% of the land anywhere near a new railroad to companies building new railroads. This was thought to be a public good and provide societal value. If the federal government were still doing the same thing, do you think some people would be calling the railroad companies freeloaders? You can bet your life they (we!) would.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Bankerman June 18, 2016 at 8:19 am

              I would venture to guess that the “society” that pays the cost of public highways consist primarily of individuals who drive cars. Thus your “freeloaders” actually do pay – just in a different manner than fuel taxes.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          jeff June 16, 2016 at 1:30 pm

          “our” city? dude, you moved here 2 years ago.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam H.
            Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 1:58 pm

            How long must one live in Portland to be able to claim partial ownership of it? 5 years? 10 years? Have to be born here? Must have ancestors that came here on the Oregon Trail? Why do I not get to call Portland my own, just because I’ve only been here two years?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              jeff June 16, 2016 at 4:14 pm

              you have contributed very little to this city, and then turn around and call others “freeloaders”? You know little to nothing of this place and its history, but speak as if some expert on almost every topic here.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 4:34 pm

                You mean the history of being unwelcoming to outsiders? Trust me, I am well aware of it.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Eric Leifsdad June 20, 2016 at 10:27 pm

                What’s more unwelcoming to outsiders than closing freeways? I’d say you’ve got the hang of it.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I June 16, 2016 at 9:53 am

        I’ve thought about this one a lot, and I think there would be a way to make it nearly revenue-neutral. The property that I-5 occupies on the east bank of the river is worth billions. Use some of it for a thin waterfront park, and sell the rest, which would fund the cost of removal, and the cost of adding one lane to I-405 (mostly ramp reconfigurations, there is sufficient ROW already for 4-through lanes), and capping most of it. The caps would be cheapest if they were used as open park space, but they could also potentially be sold for development.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          ethan June 16, 2016 at 9:56 am

          Retail on Morrison and Yamhill would be preferable IMO instead of a park in that area. It would connect the retail to the sports.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 10:04 am

          Instead of widening I-405 through the heart of the city centre, why not just re-sign I-205 as I-5 and force people traveling through Portland to drive around the inner city?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Ted Buehler June 16, 2016 at 10:21 am

            ODOT used to have I-205 signed as the recommended route north from Wilsonville to Seattle. Until 2011.

            see 2007 https://goo.gl/maps/QY3jcQ3H4Co
            & 2010 https://goo.gl/maps/ug6dz4hnQvJ2

            but no longer recommended in 2011 or later… https://goo.gl/maps/jEd9T4P6bDJ2

            Ted Buehler

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Chris I June 16, 2016 at 10:24 am

            I meant to say 3-through lanes. Right now, I-405 drops to 2 lanes in each direction in a few spots. The traffic impacts would be minimized by using the existing width and adding a 3rd through lane (we would be removing 2 through lanes by taking out I-5). Of course, signs would need to be changed to encourage the usage of I-205 for through traffic, and a 3rd lane would need to be added to I-205 on the extreme north and south ends.

            Remember, big projects like this require buy-in from many parties. I can’t imagine ODOT (or most taxpayers for that matter) agreeing to tear out I-5 without some capacity expansion elsewhere.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Adam H.
              Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 10:44 am

              Having to shift capacity around only concedes to persistent motor traffic. Why not instead reduce capacity to discourage driving? We shouldn’t have to justify projects with the premise that they won’t affect driving. We should want to affect driving: reduce traffic volumes by reducing the space to fit all the cars. And yes, I fully expect ODOT to dismiss this idea as “radicalism” but IMO it’s what we need. We don’t want to invite more driving into the city centre – instead utilize that effort to improve cycling and public transport.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Wells June 16, 2016 at 11:25 am

              The main disincentive for removing I-5 is to maintain access to I-84.
              The tunnel idea is simply a non-starter. Not gonna happen. The Marquam will most likely be replaced with a single-deck span of 4 lanes in each direction. The I-5 ramp closest to the Willamette at the Hawthorne Bridge is removed and the other less imposing ramps there remain. Similarly, at the floating walkway, the closest ramp is removed and the main I-5 span remains; the pillar that butts into the esplanade (at head height) is relocated about 30′ east. The flyover ramp for traffic leaving downtown on the Morrison is removed and replaced with a 2-stoplight interchange on the viaducts. The I-5/Hwy 84 entrance from there becomes accessible from downtown and the eastside which currently can only access I-5. This reduces traffic on Grand north of Morrison. The viaducts add sidewalks/bikeway on their left sides. From Grand this bike route is directed onto 2-way Morrison. My rendering is accurately detailed, but needs a professional assessment.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam H.
                Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 11:49 am

                Tear down I-5 from the I-405 split to I-84 (including the Marquam Bridge) and route northbound motor traffic over I-405, over the Fremont bridge, then south on I-5 to get to I-84.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                bradwagon June 16, 2016 at 4:14 pm

                I think a more realistic (at least 1st step) would be to route all traffic going over the Marquam onto 84 East and have all northbound through traffic use 405. Likewise I5 south would route directly onto 84 West with through traffic using 405 instead. 84 Westbound could still head North and South once to “I5”.

                This section of now only 84 traffic between Marqaum and 84 could be reduced down to a surface street with lighted intersections at say, yamhill, stark and burnside (essentially an Eastside Naito). Removing the now unused sections of I5 would allow for an expanded Eastside Waterfront Park between this roadway and the current Esplanade. This area would be roughly 100ft wide (current westside waterfront is 175ft according to google map measurement).

                -Slower Driving
                -Easier Ped Access to East Waterfront from Inner Eastside
                -Quicker access to / from Freeways for drivers in Inner Eastside
                -Expanded Eastside waterfront Space
                -Get rid of at least some of the ugly highways towering over the east waterfront (a new, smaller marquam would be nice)

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Wells June 17, 2016 at 11:01 am

                The Marquam is slated for replacement in 40 years or so. Local media has promoted a tunnel which should not be considered possible or even desirable. Proposed high rise towers (in the OHSU overflow parking lot) would obstruct the option for a single-deck bridge which ODOT must study as an alternative.

                Anyway, my design renderings show how the eastbank esplanade can be improved and the Morrison Bridge bikeway extend on the viaducts east to Grand. There are many simpler bikeway corridors in Portland to create and upgrade. This corridor is more complicated and won’t be improved without major realignment of eastbank I-5. My earlier draft is on record at Metro. I’ll submit the new improved draft soon.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Chris I June 16, 2016 at 11:51 am

                If I-405 is expanded by one lane, why can’t traffic use that I-405 -> Fremont -> I-84? Any through traffic from the south of the city should be using I-205 anyway.

                A local bridge to replace the Marquam would make sense, though. 4-lanes with bike and pedestrian access would be sufficient, connecting at Moody/River on the west side, and Water just north of OMSI on the east side.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Middle of the Road guy June 16, 2016 at 1:48 pm

            For the same reason we don’t route all of the bike lanes to a single one through the city.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Liu
          John Liu June 17, 2016 at 7:51 am

          I like it.

          Capping I405 could pay for itself if some of the cap were leased for development, with the remainder public space.

          Need to keep some way to connect to I84. Probably I5 from Steel Bridge to I84 has to stay.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          lop June 18, 2016 at 3:53 pm

          >The property that I-5 occupies on the east bank of the river is worth billions.

          http://i.imgur.com/KLoMq5H.jpg

          This is a rather generous estimate of the land occupied by I5. 600k square meters is ~150 acres. When I look at recent land sales in and around downtown and scale up to 150 acres I get a rough estimate of 0.5-1.5 billion. Portland isn’t a big enough city to accommodate that much development in a short time period, and creating new neighborhoods like this is a risky investment. Flooding the market with so much buildable land will drive down prices. I doubt the economics are as favorable as you make them out to be. Especially if you cut the land in half to leave the section of 5 north of 84 in place.

          Still a lot of parking lots to build over and old low rise buildings to redevelop before getting rid of I5 might start to make sense. Maybe in a couple decades.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Champs June 15, 2016 at 6:18 pm

    If they called it a “slam dunk” I’d watch out.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick June 15, 2016 at 6:25 pm

    SW Park Way ends is a dead-end overpass and a quiet bike route.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    andrew June 15, 2016 at 6:40 pm

    Hopefully signals at 16th and 14th will be part of the project.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Social Engineer June 15, 2016 at 6:47 pm

      Those are fundamental project components. I’m hopeful for some treatments at 15th too.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tom Hardy June 15, 2016 at 6:46 pm

    14th, 16th, 18th, and 19th a must. Otherwise Flanders is a dead end at 18th. Even then it is a dead end at 19th.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala June 16, 2016 at 9:23 am

      how is it a dead end?
      https://goo.gl/maps/AT5M27SGWSv

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A June 16, 2016 at 9:41 am

      I cross 18th & 19th on Johnson all the time, and it’s not bad at all. Is it worse crossing 4 blocks away at Flanders? I’d rather stop at a stop sign there than try to trigger a traffic light.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Beeblebrox June 16, 2016 at 10:07 am

      18th and 19th do not need signals. An improved crossing with signage and marked crosswalks should be sufficient.

      14th and 16th will definitely need some kind of signalization, as will Broadway.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Tom Hardy June 15, 2016 at 6:48 pm

    I am sticking to Glisen and Johnson anyway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    yashardonnay June 15, 2016 at 9:13 pm

    Let’s get “GO BY BIKE” sign on this bridge for those folks stuck in congestion 🙂

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mikier June 16, 2016 at 1:42 am

    Timing is everything. When the new Sauvie Island bridge was built, the old center span was offered for this project.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Adam June 16, 2016 at 3:11 am

    Yes!!!

    We live in the Pearl, but run many errands west of I-205 by bike – pet store, Fred Meyer, Dollar Tree etc, as well as needing to cross it to get to many of our recreation options – gym, Washington Park, Forest Park etc.

    Glisan and Everett still make me nervous as an experienced cyclist. Flanders by foot or bike bridge would be phenomenal.

    A diverter would definitely be needed to tame cut-through traffic that currently uses Flanders to get to downtown Pdx from the West Hills, Uptown Shopping Precinct, Trader Joe’s parking lot etc.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    peejay June 16, 2016 at 7:15 am

    Fabulous! Just great. It’s fitting that this is getting built after the first attempt was perhaps the very first “bikelash” victim, something that then mayor-elect Sam Adams chose to drop like a hot potato after meeting minor resistance at City Council.

    A minor note, PBOT would be well served by updating their architectural rendering of a person on a bike. Either that, or they’re signaling that PDX will be hosting a major bike race after the bridge is completed!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Matt June 16, 2016 at 8:51 am

      I’m more worried about the guy on the left side of the bridge about to cross the middle of the bridge to talk to the woman on the right, without checking for bike traffic to his right.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Gary B June 16, 2016 at 9:09 am

        How do you know their intent? Did you ask them? Do you know if they checked to their right before that picture was drawn?
        /s

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A June 16, 2016 at 9:42 am

        You should always assume that people will step in front of you without looking. Otherwise you’re doing it wrong.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 9:50 am

          Yep. Ride slowly and carefully.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    RF June 16, 2016 at 8:08 am

    It’s a solution to a problem that should never of been allowed to happen. 405 should of been a tunnel. Now they’ll spend 3 million for a bridge?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala June 16, 2016 at 9:25 am

      hindsight is 20/20.
      what mistakes are you making now? can you even tell?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A June 16, 2016 at 9:45 am

        “never have been…should have been”. Can’t go back and change it now.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A June 16, 2016 at 9:45 am

          Just like I can’t fix the placement of my tags :/

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    ethan June 16, 2016 at 8:20 am

    Can we get a buy-one-get-one-free bridge deal and get a NE 7th Ave bridge too?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rick June 16, 2016 at 8:29 am

      and a I-5 bridge for SW 53rd Ave?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        ethan June 16, 2016 at 9:08 am

        I don’t know that area very well, but I just looked it up. That seems like a great project though! I wonder if it will be built as part of the SW MAX line (assuming the suburban voters don’t kill the whole project).

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          lop June 16, 2016 at 11:57 am

          It depends, if there’s a station around there it would be more likely than if there’s not. If people tell metro they care about it that would help ensure it gets considered at least.

          http://www.oregonmetro.gov/public-projects/southwest-corridor-plan/comment-map/public-comment-map-6215

          Welcome to the Southwest Corridor Plan information map

          Project staff is currently identifying high priority walking, biking and driving improvements in the Southwest Corridor. These projects will help connect the region to a new high capacity transit line in addition to improving walking, biking and driving conditions all over the Southwest Portland and Washington County area.

          A public comment period between August and September 2016 will focus on compiling a complete set of walking, biking and driving improvements to be studied in the environmental review phase of the project (2017).

          Yellow pins on the map represent just a few of the many improvement projects that are part of the Southwest Corridor. All points, lines, and areas on the map are available for comment. This online comment map is just one way we collect public input to share with decision makers.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Beeblebrox June 16, 2016 at 10:10 am

      PBOT has system development charge funds for most of the cost of the 7th Ave bridge…but still need about $2 million.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Peejay June 16, 2016 at 12:54 pm

        It’s a shame, because ALL of the money spent on reconnecting the street grid over and around freeways should come directly out of the highway fund, since these bridges are only needed because there’s a freeway there. Sufficient crossings weren’t built when 405 and 84 were put in because they wanted to save money, and they didn’t care.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 1:41 pm

          To be fair, Sullivan’s Gulch has always been a natural barrier on the eastside. It’s not like they dug a trench out of the existing urban fabric (although it was widened when the Banfield was built in the 50s).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala June 16, 2016 at 4:30 pm

          Timing is everything. When I-90 was being completed and connected to I-5 in Seattle, the path over Mercer Island had some lids and extra wide over crossings, with landscaping and trails, installed in order to get built.
          https://goo.gl/maps/PvWc9PSdr2D2

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Eric June 16, 2016 at 9:17 am

    The stats in this article are misleading. There’s no reason to compare estimated biking + walking counts on the proposed bridge with biking counts on other bridges, as the comparison isn’t meaningful. (sentence in reference: That figure, which includes both biking and walking trips, is higher than the summertime bike counts across the Hawthorne Bridge and about five times the daily bike ridership so far on Tilikum Crossing)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) June 16, 2016 at 10:05 am

      Yes, they’re not apples to apples. But they’re all we’ve got by way of comparison, which is why I used them while noting that they’re not apples to apples.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    TJ June 16, 2016 at 9:20 am

    I have lived and still work blocks from the crossing. I won’t say this isn’t great. But there is so much opportunity for close-in infrastructure that has long been ignored.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 9:39 am

      We’ve been waiting a while. It has been 44 years since Flanders first appeared in Portland’s original Downtown Plan.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        TJ June 16, 2016 at 10:17 am

        And the neighborhood is still very walkable and bikeable compared to other very close-in streets in Portland. Like I said, it is not a terrible project, but is partly a vanity project to make our “downtown” more attractive. Meanwhile many commuters are dealing with crap like Greeley or general recreation woes along 30 and the STJ Bridge. Let’s not forget deeper NE and SE either.

        We have several river path greenways sitting out there, that in my opinion would be game changers.

        In short: Flander’s crossing and other Pearl improvements, yes. But it is not all about the money… it is also about where the city (and state) government is advocating and where it is ignoring.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 10:19 am

          PBOT should not be funding recreation routes. Let’s use some of Parks’ surplus for that.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            TJ June 16, 2016 at 10:48 am

            These are not purely recreation routes.

            The bottom-line: (an example) We need a North Portland Greenway and/or improved bike access on 30 for both commuting and recreation.

            On this logic, PBOT and ODOT should always ask for non transit funding to improve roads that would also be used by weekenders in cars and working loggers during the week.

            Again, I take issue with the spokesperson’s logic on why Flanders is so important.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Adam June 16, 2016 at 2:36 pm

          This is a PBOT project.

          Highway 30, and the St Johns Bridge, both of which you mention, are ODOT-owned facilities. ODOT voted against bike lanes on SJB a number of years ago now. I remember it caused a large brew-ha-ha.

          PBOT cannot change anything on an ODOT facility.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Frank Selker June 16, 2016 at 9:47 am

    Maybe just me, but existing bridges seem fine and better aligned with direct routes (Everett and Glisan) without adding jogs that will have risks.
    I’d rather see money spent on shoulders where lots of pedestrians and cyclists are too close to traffic, like Fairmount or Skyline.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I June 16, 2016 at 9:59 am

      Adding shoulders to Fairmont and Skyline isn’t even in the same realm, budget-wise. You would be talking hundreds of millions of dollars, given the extreme topography of the land around those roads. Do people actually commute on Fairmont? I thought it was a giant Fred-track?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Michael Andersen (News Editor)
      Michael Andersen (News Editor) June 16, 2016 at 10:07 am

      A good neighborhood greenway on Flanders would let it become the main route, so no jogs required. Is there some reason other than the current bridges that people would be more likely to ride Everett or Glisan once the various Flanders crossings are improved?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam H.
        Adam H. June 16, 2016 at 10:15 am

        The crossing at Everett is terrible, with the on ramp crossing it and the fact that it just ends with no warning at 15th. Flanders would be a much better crossing, but some sort of protected cycleway should be built through the Pearl. The area is too dense for just sharrows and a few diverters.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        TJ June 16, 2016 at 2:54 pm

        Don’t you have to jog to get on Flanders from either the water front or many businesses NW? If heading toward the hills, the street level routes make the most sense. (During Broadway construction, I often rode Steel Bridge upper deck right on to Glisan).

        Correct if I am wrong, but most of the new density is going in closer to Johnson, Lovejoy, etc.

        I am just not sure where 9,100 trips a day will come from. Doesn’t this rival the individual river crossings?

        All for the improved safety and peace away from Glisan and Everett. I won’t deny that.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          lop June 16, 2016 at 6:22 pm

          >I am just not sure where 9,100 trips a day will come from

          I believe the projection is ~3k bike+walk trips when the bridge is completed, 9k at some future date after further improvements to Flanders from 24th to Naito.

          As a sanity check on the 3k projection…

          Portland collects some short bike and pedestrian counts. Take the combined most recent PM bike counts for Kearney, Johnson, Lovejoy, Marshall, 4-6pm, and apply a factor to get an all day number. Why combined counts? Couch is getting improvements, Everett and Glisan will remain uncomfortable crossings, Davis, Hoyt and Irving don’t go through, Flanders will draw from a decently wide area as the only comfortable crossing between Couch and Johnson. Either use the 24-hour ‘every bike counts’ project or Metro’s collection on the Hawthorne bridge relative (5-7pm, so compare the 5-6 for each) to the 24 hour numbers from the same day to extrapolate from 2 hour counts to all day. Add in seasonal factors put together using Hawthorne bridge or similar, and I’d estimate there’s in the neighborhood of 1000 bikes a day average on those streets. More in the summer, less in the winter. Much less than the 3k number. Apply similar factors (I’d guess less seasonal variation) to the pedestrian counts and I get about 1.5-2k.

          The nearest 12 hour pedestrian count is 10th and Burnside from Clean and Safe, ~13k in June 2015. If a nice crossing makes 405 less of a wall+together with upward pressure on central city growth you can imagine the brewery blocks district bleeding over 405 around Flanders if the city permits the development. Further bike improvements on and off Flanders and growth from the low levels of baseline cycling in inner NW could conceivably get the combined count well over 9k.

          All these numbers are pretty rough, it would be nice if Portland would be more open about their travel demand model and was better at collecting and publishing non automotive counts.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            J_R June 16, 2016 at 9:38 pm

            Agreed. The predictions of future use appear wildly optimistic. The counter on the Hawthorne Bridge has proven that the sampling techniques used for most locations throughout Portland overestimate actual use.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Beeblebrox June 16, 2016 at 10:11 am

      Totally infeasible, given environmental constraints. Also, Everett and Glisan will never be comfortable walking and biking routes as long as they have freeway ramps.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Michelle Poyourow June 16, 2016 at 10:11 am

    Wow, this is such great news!

    A lot of people have been working hard, for years, to conceive of and advocate for this bridge. Congratulations, and thank you, to them!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted Buehler June 16, 2016 at 10:21 am

    Congrats to all who worked hard to make this happen.

    Including those who worked on the Sauvie => Flanders plan in 2008 or so…

    Ted Buehler

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Andy K June 16, 2016 at 10:45 am

    Yes its a safety upgrade and an expansion of our current bike/ped network, but the “placemaking” potential for this project is off the charts.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 12:00 pm

      Imagine closing Flanders to all cars in front of 10 Barrel and Rogue and making it an extended bike/ped plaza. Businesses in the area have offered their support to such a vision.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Gary B June 16, 2016 at 1:41 pm

        “Imagine closing Flanders to all cars.”

        FTFY.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 1:44 pm

          Well besides all the private garages and driveways that exit out onto Flanders, sure.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            ethan June 16, 2016 at 3:39 pm

            I’m sure the drivers could just park somewhere else and then walk, right? Isn’t that what some commissioner said about people biking into downtown? Or was it that people biking should hop on a bus to get downtown?

            Whatever it was that they said, it was more asinine than suggesting that people park 1 block away from their destination.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Social Engineer June 16, 2016 at 3:57 pm

              Park where? Short-term visitors have a choice of where they can park (either on-street or off-street), but residents cannot freeload on public right-of-way in the Pearl. They cannot freeload on public right-of-way in Old Town. Most of Northwest is permitted or metered. This is why most new construction has at least some off-street parking. You just cannot permanently block resident garage parking entrances.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala June 17, 2016 at 8:36 am

                I see one driveway east of 2nd,
                two east of 5th,
                one east of 6th,
                one east of 7th,
                3 east of 8th,
                one east of 9th,
                etc.

                The solution might be to close some blocks, like 8th to Park, and make others one way with contra-flow bike lanes, as has already been done in the Peal District:
                https://goo.gl/maps/u9WwRZJZ6Vm
                Multiple blocks, alternating back and forth (Utrech design), could accomplish diversion and provide access.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    oliver June 16, 2016 at 1:06 pm

    If only we had an old bridge lying around somewhere we could use for this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Joe's Antique Bridges June 16, 2016 at 1:21 pm

      Yo ODOT – I got some bridges for sale cheap. Antiques, if you know what I mean.

      (I think I might have bought them from you – now its time to flip’em.)

      Local delivery would be extra.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Adam June 16, 2016 at 2:32 pm

      Whatever happened to that bridge anyway? So sad how that didn’t pan out. It still pains me to this day!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        oliver June 17, 2016 at 10:25 am

        I read that it was sold for scrap/recycling.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I June 16, 2016 at 3:26 pm

      I’d rather have them use a bridge that will survive an earthquake.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Todd Boulanger June 16, 2016 at 1:18 pm

    And ODoT project designers…please consider adding a belvedere to the bridge (assist with ADA pens need for a resting place – who knows what 405 will look like in 2066?) and also consider adding space on the two ends for social space such as a food cart/ Breakfast on the Bridges and a repair stand…all these amenities may help with security in the off hours (CPTED: “eyes on the street”)…and add some public space back into this section of Slab Town-NW/ Pearl that would help mitigate for areas lost when 405 was built.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    GlowBoy June 16, 2016 at 3:13 pm

    This is going to be awesome. For several years I commuted daily across 405 on Everett, and had numerous conflicts with turning vehicles, not to mention a less-than-ideal trip down Everett through the Pearl. Sorry we couldn’t repurpose the old Sauvie bridge to do it, but glad this looks likely to happen.

    And the depiction at the top of the thread looks like a covered bridge. How romantic! Better make sure to include some bumpouts in the middle so lovers can stop and kiss. 😉

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    jeff June 16, 2016 at 4:15 pm

    how dare anyone be asked to travel 2 blocks out of their way to NW Glisan, right?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A June 16, 2016 at 5:16 pm

      Why do have a crossing at Glisan anyway? Drivers can just go to Johnson.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala June 17, 2016 at 8:37 am

        Send people driving to a neighborhood greenway?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Dan A June 17, 2016 at 3:00 pm

          Right, it’s ridiculous.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan A June 17, 2016 at 3:01 pm

            Cyclists are used to having to make detours. Why give them a straight path?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike D in the house June 16, 2016 at 4:44 pm

    Great news — and a great victory for pedestrians and Oregon Walks.

    A safe, direct connection between Flanders and the Waterfront/Steel Br across Naito is the other critical piece to this that folks are working hard to make happen, including PNCA, Old Town/Chinatown, and many many others.

    BTW would love to see frmr Portlander Matt Groening’s Ned Flanders a part of greenway concept and design.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Bike Guy June 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm

    Burnside. Couch. Everett. Glisan. These are just some of the streets that come to mind that have bridges crossing 405. Perhaps it takes a little ingenuity to cross them on a bike or on foot, but I’ve been doing it for the last five years without major issues. I’m sure blowing a wad of cash on a bridge is just what we need.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam H.
      Adam H. June 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm

      I’ve been doing it for the last five years without major issues

      Then this bridge clearly is not meant for you, but for the people who find it uncomfortable and scary to ride over any of the other bridges.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Bike Guy June 17, 2016 at 3:54 pm

    Or go under at Johnson.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mike Sanders June 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm

    And this crossing could open the door for ped / bike connections to the west, NW, and SW. An alternate way to get to the zoo and Washington Park, connections to Beaverton, Banks, and the coast, and points south could be possible if the Flanders Bridge gets built. Let’s do this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      lop June 17, 2016 at 5:17 pm

      If someone would bike to the coast with the Flanders bridge in place is the less than half mile round trip detour to Johnson for a comfortable crossing of 405 really going to kill the trip? The bridge’s value is much greater for local trips than longer distance trips to Beaverton too.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A June 17, 2016 at 6:58 pm

        I’m riding Beaverton to Lloyd, and it will make a difference for me.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          TJ June 20, 2016 at 8:44 am

          A difference worth $6 million? While numerous other areas of the city suffer?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Dan A June 20, 2016 at 9:44 am

            Of course not. But are there groups of employers in other specific areas of the city banging the drum for more walking/biking infrastructure? It sounds to me like the businesses made this happen more than anything else.

            Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. This is just another domino.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar