Portland Century - August 18th

On SE Clinton, PBOT finishes permanent diverter and readies new ‘bike-friendly’ speed bumps

Posted by on January 26th, 2017 at 5:50 pm

new permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd-4.jpg

(Photos: J. Maus/BikePortland)

About a year after taking temporary measures, the City of Portland has finished installing a permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd. With the diverter complete, the final piece of the puzzle in reclaiming Clinton as a bike-priority street (a.k.a. neighborhood greenway) will be to install five new speed bumps between SE 17th and 26th.

Here’s a look at the new diverter, followed by some new information about the speed bumps…

BikePortland subscriber Adam Herstein gave us an early look at the new design just before Christmas. Since then PBOT has added several finishing touches including bright yellow paint and more signs. I rolled out yesterday for a closer look.

Compared to what PBOT first installed last year, the new design is a massive improvement. The old design, with its large concrete drums and orange cones, not only looked bad it also didn’t work well. People in cars would routinely drive right through it (into oncoming traffic!) and people would park too close to the gap where bicycle riders were supposed to cut through.

Here are a few more photos:

new permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd-1.jpg

new permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd-3.jpg

new permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd-5.jpg

new permanent traffic diverter on SE Clinton at 32nd-8.jpg

Advertisement

The new design seems to work well (it got a rave review from Mr. Herstein).

According to reports on the Bike Loud PDX email list (that’s the group that has worked tirelessly for over two years to force PBOT to calm and reduce auto traffic on Clinton), the only part of the project that remains are speed bumps.

Detail from the PBOT work order.

PBOT plans to install new speed bumps on Clinton between 17th and 26th sometime this winter. Five of them will be “bike-friendly” or “fire-friendly” bumps that will come with a channel through the middle. The channel will allow both emergency vehicles and bicycle riders to roll over the bumps more easily. Portland city code has prohibited speed bumps on emergency response routes since 1998. PBOT is still experimenting with speed bumps that will effectively slow drivers down while still allowing emergency vehicle access.

PBOT is trying to find a way to slow cars down, and also allow emergency vehicles through.
(Photo by PBOT)

To get an idea of what’s in store for Clinton, you might have seen some of these channelized speed bumps on NW Cornell west of Lovejoy, on SE Crystal Springs near 34th, or at SW 51st between Maplewood and Multnomah. The channels are 12-inches wide and 14-feet long with a six-inch taper up to a curb on each side that’s about four inches high. According to a 2013 report by PBOT, some of the speed bumps on Cornell reduced auto speeds by five miles per hour. However, the City’s analysis showed inconsistent results and noted that, “motorists appear to have learned how to mitigate some of the slowing effect.”

I observed some of this behavior on NW Cornell back in April. This is despite signs that warn against driving on the centerline…

NW Portland Week - Day 5-54.jpg

PBOT says they’ll monitor the new bumps on Clinton closely, with hopes of using them on other residential streets where both a speed reduction and emergency access is desired.

If you have feedback or ideas for PBOT please share your thoughts below. We’ll make sure they see it.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

BikePortland is supported by the community (that means you!). Please become a subscriber or make a donation 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

129 Comments
  • Avatar
    Paula F. January 26, 2017 at 5:55 pm

    Sadly, I suspect drivers will figure out the “drive down the middle” mode to keep their speed up. Even on roads with contiguous, across the street bumps, I see drivers moving to the side to get one wheel to bypass the bump, which smooths out the drive over.

    Hopefully, there will be enough non-motor traffic to discourage the bypass behaviors.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 9:58 am

      The story is incorrect to say the new bumps are ‘fire friendly’. The test bumps will have a channel in the center of each travel lane and none at the centerline. The channel is only to accommodate cyclists, based on feedback from the public outreach events.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick January 26, 2017 at 6:32 pm

    This street needs more street trees and a bridge over I-205.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      anna January 27, 2017 at 11:06 am

      i don’t know what this means but i love it

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Caitlin D January 26, 2017 at 7:51 pm

    I love the diverters (and the one-way treatment with contraflow bike line on SE 34th at Clinton). Thanks, PBOT! I’ll be interested to see if the speed bumps improve things even more. My dream would be getting the number 10 bus (and the large FedEx/UPS/beer delivery trucks) off of that stretch of Clinton, but it’s still a very nice place to ride.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    9watts January 26, 2017 at 7:54 pm

    I’d love to hear a bit about Woodward. The residents there were convinced the sky was going to fall if the diverter went in. From reading here I gather that the number of cars on Woodward did jump a bunch, though not over 1,000/day which was a threshold PBOT identified at the NA meeting about this. I keep asking about this mostly because I’d like to think that the next time BPOT or BikeLoud pursue this somewhere else we won’t have to wave our hands but can point to the magnitude of spillover here as a guidepost for what others might expect who live near a diverter like this.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) January 26, 2017 at 9:59 pm

      from what I know, PBOT is planning a few speed bumps on Woodward to mitigate some of that overflow.

      PBOT is trying to perfect their approach to improving n’hood greenways – especially when it comes to the traffic diversion issue. I think they are using Clinton as a test-case both in terms of public process and infrastructure changes. I suspect they’ll do some internal analyses and come up with best practices.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala January 27, 2017 at 10:02 am

        Volumes on Woodward did exceed 1,000 vpd. Bumps (all but one) have been built. After counts so far show a drop back below 1,000.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      SilkySlim January 27, 2017 at 9:25 am

      Getting a bit away from the topic at hand, but I would definitely confirm the uptick in drivers utilizing nearby residential streets at cut throughs.

      And while the grand total number of cars doing this might not be huge, their impact is. This subset of drivers tends toward the aggressive end of the spectrum, trying to “beat” everybody else on the commute. Heading into town from the east, they tend to take right turns into neighborhoods to get off clogged arterials, and then take the next convenient left, often onto a greenway street, or neighborhood arterial chock full of pedestrians/bikers/kids strolling to school.

      I hit a few spots like this daily, mainly on Gladstone (where frustrated Holgate drivers zig zag up to), and on Clinton (frustrated Powell drivers). It is the most dangerous element in my daily commute, especially when I’m jogging to work, since these cars love to skirt way forward at stop signs to facilitate a speedy merge.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rachel b January 27, 2017 at 12:20 pm

        I see the new traffic on Woodward (from where we live) and daily witness the buffoonery of impatient drivers where it intersects w/ SE 26th. Frequent honking (where there once was none), impatient held-up drivers on SE 26th as other drivers make turns onto Woodward… drivers dangerously darting across SE 26th from one side of Woodward to the other. It used to be a street people just drove past, except for residents. Now we have a fairly busy little intersection here.

        Have seen several fender benders and near accidents. The collective impatience (and increased speed) of drivers in Portland now is a big, very noticeable departure from what it was.

        SE 26th needs HELP. I get so frustrated feeling like we’re the de facto north-south traffic dump for SE, with calming and improvements happening on every surrounding street–all of which just seem to make our traffic worse. The snow was a huge, much-appreciated respite from the increasingly fast, reckless drivers and increasingly huge freight and giant machinery-carting trucks (where the hell are these coming from?) moving through here.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam
          Adam January 27, 2017 at 12:31 pm

          I live on 52nd and it’s the same situation there. We really need to do away with all those local streets that effectively function as collectors.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:39 pm

            How would people get to their homes if you did away with the street?

            BTW, 52nd north of Powell is Local (Bumps?), but 26th north of Powell is a Collector.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Adam
              Adam January 27, 2017 at 1:50 pm

              By “do away” with I did not mean literally remove the street, but to redesign the street so that it no longer functions as a collector. Something more akin to a Dutch woonerf would be preferable. Low volumes and low speeds. Currently, SE 52nd has nearly 6,000 ADT between Division and Powell. That is far too high for a local residential street next to a high school.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                rider January 30, 2017 at 12:12 pm

                Crossing 52nd, even at marked crosswalks, always feels like I’m on a death mission.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              rachel b January 27, 2017 at 2:54 pm

              You always remind me “SE 26th” is a collector, paikiala. What is your point? Am I right, then?–it’s the default Traffic Dump of the SE? And that’s…OK?

              The freight and big truck traffic here has increased a lot in only the past year. UPRR is really crankin’ out the semis. And neighbors are just supposed to roll with that? Because we’re a “collector?”

              PBOT (in obeisance to The Great ODOT) is poised to remove our bike lanes–ostensibly to “protect” us from bike accidents, though, truly, to more easily move freight trucks that don’t actually fit within the lanes of this residential street as they exist–and that’s OK?

              SE 26th is a street that’s completely lined with homes from SE Powell to SE Clinton. Oh, yeah–and a school. Shouldn’t that matter? It also happens to be a biking thoroughfare that was ONCE, very recently, slated to become a green street, with improved bike lanes and traffic calming. What the hell happened to point it in the direction its so disastrously gone now?

              Why do I get the feeling, every time you remind me “it’s a collector,” that you’re my big clue that PBOT has given up on SE 26th and ceded it to the metal monsters (and UPRR–the biggest metal monster of all)?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam
                Adam January 27, 2017 at 3:18 pm

                There’s really no reason for 26th to be a collector north of Powell – it doesn’t really go anywhere past Division. Trucks and through-traffic should be using Chavez half a mile to the east. It’s time for PBOT to put their foot down and implement traffic calming on neighborhood streets like 21st, 26th, 52nd, etc. rather than treating them as car sewers. This is the one thing that East Portland get right – the neighborhood streets can’t be used by drivers as cut-thoughs (although they could use bike/walk only connections).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                rachel b January 27, 2017 at 7:05 pm

                Agreed, Adam. I really think PBOT now sees SE 26th–formerly slated for calming!–as simply the most convenient traffic sewer left, since 11th & 12th are so compromised by rail traffic and 21st has been speedbumped.

                PLUS we get killed by the evening and late night traffic now, too, since the Division Street Disneyfying and traffic calming. Aghhh! It’s really death by a thousand cuts. I feel (in my fantasy) like we (neighbors on SE 26th et al) should be getting a tithe or something from those new businesses up there, their success has meant such a huge, negative impact on quality of life on streets like this one…. I’ll take a tithe from UPRR, too, thanks. Or–at the very least–active support from both UPRR and businesses on SE Division for calming traffic on SE 26th… and resurrecting the Green Street/bike lane improvements!

                And yes–the fact that SE 26th essentially dead ends (as a viable corridor) at Division makes it doubly wrong as a ‘collector’, to my mind.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Adam
                Adam January 28, 2017 at 9:22 am

                I actually really like the businesses on Division, but I always walk or cycle there. I don’t think having local businesses in the area that draw people in and get them to spend money is a bad thing per se. However, what is bad is that most people seem to drive there. Sometimes it seems like half the motor traffic on Clinton Street is people looking for parking, and it’s especially bad on Friday evenings.

                The problem here is threefold: MAX is really too far from the heart of Division to be a viable option, the bus just gets stuck in traffic (the upcoming Division bus enhancements will do nothing to fix this, as the buses will still run in mixed traffic), and most of all: street parking on Division is free! I imagine that Biketown has relieved part of this problem, though I’m curious to see the numbers. I think the solution needs to be first and foremost: add parking meters to Division and make the rest of the neighborhood residential permitted. This is by far the cheapest solution. Ideally there’d be a subway or elevated line along Powell someday.

                As for the neighborhood getting something back from the new development, PBOT really should have used SDC’s to mitigate impacts to neighboring streets. The corner of 26th and Clinton is a neighborhood treasure — there’s no reason it needs to be mostly given over to motor traffic. I’d like to see some sort of car-free plaza implemented there that could also act as diversion for 26th and Clinton.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 28, 2017 at 11:40 am

                I wouldn’t assume that the majority of people driving to Division would be deterred by paid parking — it’s not like the restaurants there are a super bargain.

                But I do see you’ve observed the same thing that I have — making parking on Division more difficult causes people to “circle the block” on Clinton, distracted by looking for a place to park. I want the cars to stay on Division, not be driven onto Clinton and other residential streets seeking out an elusive parking spot.

                Most people aren’t going to take their date to dinner on the bus.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                rachel b January 28, 2017 at 2:03 pm

                Well spake, all.

                “However, what is bad is that most people seem to drive there.”

                …And it is not just weekend nights. We used to get a little breather in traffic in the evenings on SE 26th. Now it’s just an all day into late night thing. And, oh, the late night! The giddy people who drive to Division etc. to eat and drink (and drink) just LOOOOOOVE to haul a** down SE 26th when the bars close. Seriously–it may be good for the businesses, but it’s created a real headache for people who live along this street–the favorite corridor to reach SE Division, I’d wager. Woodward really gets abused by speeding nighttime cut-through traffic.

                Agree w/ HK that most of local tourists going to Division St. are not going to be interested in ever taking the bus. And agree w/ Adam about allowing the Clinton intersection to be what it used to be before SE 26th became the wretched traffic sewer it is now—a kind of town square. You MUST calm SE 26th to achieve this, however. Can’t just focus on Clinton.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                9watts January 27, 2017 at 7:13 pm

                paikiala (formerly paikikala) loves that jargon. It is how he thinks.

                Like you, I’ve noticed a particular flavor of comment here on Bikeportland, the gist being this is how the world works, the people who run things already thought of this, gave it a name, get used to it, and paikiala’s often fall into this category. our friend from Beaverton who has a five-letter handle that I won’t type out lest my comment automatically fall into moderation, who is also fond of this point of view.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                rachel b January 28, 2017 at 2:04 pm

                I appreciate the voices here of folks who work for some of th

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                rachel b January 28, 2017 at 2:05 pm

                Oops….
                …for some of the agencies we frequently talk about–useful knowledge and insights! But yes–it can make you feel a little stamped, tidied away and shut down. The End.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala January 30, 2017 at 12:52 pm

                9,
                If you don’t like the way the rules are written, work to change them. The TSP is currently being updated.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                9watts January 30, 2017 at 1:05 pm

                Yes, thanks. I appreciate the encouragement.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam
    Adam January 26, 2017 at 9:30 pm

    Best part of these diverters? That damn boat is no longer blocking the cycling channel. It’s still there, but is no longer in the way, as the entrance is now further to the left.

    As for the fire-truck-friendly speed bumps: first of all, speed bumps should never be used to mitigate volume. Second, PBOT should be looking into horizintal obstructions, rather than vertical. Neckdowns that narrow the roadway to one car width can slow down motor traffic while still allowing cycling and emergency access.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      shirtsoff January 27, 2017 at 6:53 am

      How is that boat allowed to remain “parked” on the street for so long? Isn’t it against city code to have vehicles parked on the street for more than 24 hours at a given time? I understand that their are many violations across the city of this ordinance but my take from it is that the city has it available as a tool to remove troublesome long-term vehicles. Does the boat not qualify as such?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Liu
        John Liu January 27, 2017 at 7:46 am

        I don’t know about long-term parked boats, trailers, etc.

        However, for cars that are parked long-term on the street, the city is not ticketing or towing them unless the vehicle is obviously inoperable (flat tires, etc) or have expired tags. We’ve had several cars abandoned in my neighborhood. Even though they have been looted, are filling with trash, and repeatedly reported to the city, nothing is done.

        If, however, a tire goes flat on the car, then it becomes inoperable and the city will come out and ticket/tow it.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Justin M January 27, 2017 at 12:22 pm

          Sounds like you’ve figured out a solution.:-)

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rick January 27, 2017 at 8:00 am

        Does the boat have current tags through 2017? Does that trailer have current tags? Boats and trailers without tags can be ticketed in the urban parts of unincorporated Washington county.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam
          Adam January 27, 2017 at 8:51 am

          I’ve called PBOT parking enforcement on that boat multiple times but nothing ever seems to happen.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 11:44 am

            I really don’t understand why so many people are obsessed with that damn boat! Sure, I get that it was encroaching on the bike space, but now that it isn’t, what’s your concern?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Chris I January 27, 2017 at 12:46 pm

              Storing private property in a public space. If you don’t have a place to park A FREAKING BOAT on your own property, why would you buy it in the first place? They are in clear violation of city ordinance, and it’s a total dick move, in general, to store a large trailer on the street.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 12:51 pm

                It’s just interesting that this particular object inspires so much ire in people when it is causing them exactly zero harm. Do you just not like seeing boats when you ride? There are so many great things in this life to be indignant about; you’ve got to pick and choose, and it’s interesting that this issue has attracted so many followers here.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                9watts January 27, 2017 at 12:55 pm

                Hear, hear.

                Folks need to get a grip. We have *actual* problems in 2017; I find it hard to believe that the boat makes the list of the top 100 (1000?).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Sigma January 27, 2017 at 2:05 pm

                “Storing private property in a public space.”

                So you don’t think there should be bike racks on sidewalks or bike corrals on the street?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                BB January 27, 2017 at 3:02 pm

                Do you really not see the difference or are you just being obtuse?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                shirtsoff January 27, 2017 at 7:18 pm

                I don’t know about you, Sigma, but I would NEVER EVER store my bicycle on the sidewalk nor within a corral for over 24 hours. That would be begging for me to not see my private property again.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Adam
              Adam January 27, 2017 at 1:33 pm

              I stopped calling PBOT about the boat after the new diverter went in and the boat was no longer in the way. Now all I do is just appreciate the absurdity of parking a boat on the street.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                shirtsoff January 27, 2017 at 7:21 pm

                Same here. I don’t really care *anymore* but I do ruminate about the virtues (are there any?) to storing private property within the public space without moving it for months on end. If a boat, why not a sofa within the public street during summer months? If it is a matter of wheels, why then there are commercial food prep tables that could reasonably stored on the street for months at a time that wouldn’t hurt anyone.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 7:44 pm

                Why not plant a garden? If you really want to challenge the issue, I can’t think of a better way to make your case. You’ll lose, of course, but maybe you’ll get some lettuce in the process.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Betsy Reese January 27, 2017 at 8:36 am
      • Avatar
        Betsy Reese January 27, 2017 at 8:38 am

        “Is it legal to park large vehicles, such as mobile homes, trailers, or trucks on the street?

        Oversized vehicles of this nature can only be parked for short periods of time on the street, and then only for the specific purpose of loading/unloading. In commercial areas, the time limit is 4 hours from 7 am to 4 pm, and 2 hours from 4 pm to 7 am; in residential areas, the time limit is 8 hours.

        Oversized vehicles of this nature can only be parked for short periods of time on the street, and then only for the specific purpose of loading/unloading. In commercial areas, the time limit is 4 hours from 7 am to 4 pm, and 2 hours from 4 pm to 7 am; in residential areas, the time limit is 8 hours.”

        https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/319887#oversized

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Middle of the Road Guy January 27, 2017 at 9:45 am

        PDX Reporter app.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 10:04 am

      ‘Never’? Those islands cost about twice what a bump does, and their effect is only within about 100 feet of the device.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam
        Adam January 27, 2017 at 10:25 am

        Yes, speed bumps should never be used to mitigate volume. Only speed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 11:42 am

        For decades PBOT has been telling communities that speed bumps do not affect volume. Has this assertion now changed?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:40 pm

          False statement. Affect on volume cannot be predicted as well as effect on speed, but most speed bump projects do reduce volume where a more appropriate through street exists nearby.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 4:20 pm

            I believe that to be true, but it also contradicts what PBOT has been saying for a very long time.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              paikiala January 27, 2017 at 5:30 pm

              Who at PBOT?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 5:43 pm

                Every engineer I have ever talked to. Perhaps the party line changed at some point; it has always seemed obvious to me that decreasing speed and comfort would divert some vehicles. Ask SB if he has ever said anything like that.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala January 30, 2017 at 12:53 pm

                I know SB. SB is a friend of mine. He has not.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 30, 2017 at 1:02 pm

                Well, then we are at an impasse on this issue. I have heard SB utter those words, and I was with others who heard the same. I have also heard him say the contrary, more recently (in the Clinton context), and even then it was couched in the language of “we usually don’t say this” or something to that effect.

                Where we are in full agreement is that, regardless of what PBOT says or has said, we hope it works.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala January 30, 2017 at 4:34 pm

                We must, since you are basically putting words in my mouth 😉 I think you confuse the phrase ‘don’t say’ with ‘can’t predict’. PBOT does not construct bumps to reduce volume, per se, and the effect on volume cannot be predicted, but if there is an alternate path nearby, some traffic will shift.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 30, 2017 at 4:44 pm

                I believe the effect on volume can be predicted (and in the second sentence of your statement you went ahead and predicted it) — it will either remain the same (if there are no alternate routes) or go down (if there are), and is highly unlikely to increase under either scenario.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Adam January 27, 2017 at 12:42 am

    I would hardly call this the “final piece of the puzzle”.

    When measures are taken to prevent the current 50% of vehicles (yes, it really is one out of every two cars) on SE 50th that currently detour onto SE Clinton to avoid the long light at 50th & Division, then it will be a finished puzzle.

    Until then, not even CLOSE. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 10:07 am

      2015 counts on Clinton west of 50th measured under 1,000 vehicles per day, the NG ideal. Are you claiming that has changed?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Laura January 27, 2017 at 7:53 am

    What Adam said. PBOT didn’t learn that you need to protect N’hood G’ways before the new development goes on line. 500 + units and new commercial including Green Zebra, on 50th between Hawthorne and Powell, opening mid 2016- end 2017. With the amount of SDCs the City collects from new development, which is supposed to be used to mitigate the impacts of that development, job #1 should be keeping our existing bike/ped facilities safe, so that maybe those new residents use them, instead of driving on them.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:42 pm

      PBOT doesn’t have that kind of money, particularly with parts of the city having no sidewalk or speed bumps on designated bikeways.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Sigma January 27, 2017 at 2:07 pm

      State law stipulates that SDCs must be spent on system capacity enhancement.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Chris I January 27, 2017 at 8:31 am

    You can already see black marks on the diverter where drivers have clearly driven through the narrow gap. Do you think that Subaru did a u-turn and backed up to park there?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Adam January 27, 2017 at 8:50 am

      They need to install those tire shredder strips that only let you roll over them to exit. Roll over them to enter and bam!!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala January 27, 2017 at 10:08 am

        That is not Vision Zero. Knowing people make mistakes, willfully or not, placing a clear hazard is a step backward. your solution would also prevent emergency access designed into the layout.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Justin M January 27, 2017 at 11:04 am

      Maybe someone didn’t see them when they were covered in snow. That happened to me up in North Portland last week.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I January 27, 2017 at 12:48 pm

        Did we get 8ft of snow? Because I’m not sure how the giant DO NOT ENTER signs were not visible…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Justin M January 27, 2017 at 1:18 pm

          lol. didn’t think of that. I certainly didn’t past any giant signs like that in North Portland.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Lester Burnham January 27, 2017 at 10:15 am

    Whew…I was worried SE Clinton was not going to get more attention.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Justin M January 28, 2017 at 4:32 pm

      rofl

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Paul Cone January 27, 2017 at 10:42 am
    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:43 pm

      Not these ones.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Justin M January 27, 2017 at 11:03 am

    What a great victory for the well-off white people who live in the neighborhood. Would be nice to see the City of Portland show that they care about people east of 82nd. Yes, I know that a lot of people out east commute on this route as well, as I have done in the past, but there’s so many dangerous spots out there, and improving the bike infrastructure by creating greenways or EVEN paving the “roadway not improved” streets would be nice.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      SilkySlim January 27, 2017 at 11:44 am

      C’mon…. This wasn’t quite PBOT bestowing a gift to the well off out of the goodness of their hearts.

      Let’s not forget that this was driven by the strongest citizen involvement (thank you Bike Loud PDX!!) that I’ve seen in probably ten years, going far as building their own darn version of a diverter as a sort of proof-of-concept. And it just so happens to be on one of the highest trafficked streets by pedestrians and cyclists on the entire east side.

      And yes, I do understand that well off people have more disposable income and time to advocate for things.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      soren January 27, 2017 at 2:44 pm

      Hi Justin, I hope you joined BikeLoudPDX for their recent outer east Division action, Division open house, SE 82nd ride and rally, and/or other vigils and actions in east portland.

      https://bikeportland.org/2016/12/11/deadly-division-street-temporarily-tamed-with-hay-bales-and-homemade-signs-197107

      From Day 1, BikeLoudPDX intended the Clinton campaign as a policy test bed for all Neighborhood Greenways. Some of the infrastructure and signage tested on Clinton will likely be installed on the 5 new Greenways being built or expanded in east portland.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Justin M January 27, 2017 at 3:36 pm

        I wish I had the luxury of leisure time to join actions like this. Sadly, I work full time and go to school and cannot afford to take time off or miss classes. I certainly appreciate those people that can afford the luxury of engaging in activism. And I think it is amazing that they are starting to drive out of their own neighborhoods now to fight for safer streets in the outer neighborhoods. I do not disparage their contribution at all. Rather, having lived in the outer SE in the past, I am saying that it seems the city has no interest in spending money out there. There are literally street sections that come up out of nowhere, being unpaved and potholed as the moon. If you have only ever biked in the inner neighborhoods, you would be horrified at the conditions.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          mh January 27, 2017 at 8:58 pm

          “Drive out of their own neighborhoods”?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Justin M January 28, 2017 at 11:09 am

            Sorry, I didn’t mean to say people only drove. That was an oversight on my part. Of course lots of people biked. The point I was trying to make there is that, of course people want their own neighborhoods to be safe. It really is nice that people are starting to work towards improving other neighborhoods now. Certainly people don’t have to do that. It’s not what you might think about because it is further away and you don’t see it. That wasn’t meant to be disparaging in the least.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Terry D-M January 27, 2017 at 11:13 am

    An entry Diveter at 50 th is critical to keep this viable long term. Entry Diverters from collectors to Greenways should be standard practice so we do not have to keep monitoring the Greenway, year after year, as we develop.

    Untill the 10 bus line is removed Clinton will never be “done”…… They fume with emissions and take over the whole street……. Then after the snow melts sand is everywhere between 21 st and 26 th. It is very uncomfortable……A few speed bumps won’t do one bit to fix it….. buses do not, ever, belong on greenways.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam
      Adam January 27, 2017 at 11:29 am

      Clinton Street has been noticeably better since the construction at 50th has blocked off motor traffic from entering the greenway. A permanent diverter should be installed there before construction is complete.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        anna January 27, 2017 at 11:47 am

        excellent point. i did wonder how that ikea rug got in there.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 11:31 am

    Most of the people I’ve talked to (almost all supporters of the diverters) have reported a noticeable increase in traffic on smaller neighborhood streets. This is hardly surprising, but does perhaps show that we need to think about the problem in a more comprehensive manner than we did on Clinton.

    Is there a way to keep vehicles from Powell from cutting through the adjacent neighborhoods? I’m not sure, but I’d sure welcome the conversation.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Adam
      Adam January 27, 2017 at 12:19 pm

      I agree. Traffic calming should be done on a neighborhood-wide basis, not simply for a single corridor.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:49 pm

      PBOT (by that I mean Portland) can’t afford area wide TC. Also, consider that PBOT established that no street adjacent/parallel to a diverted NG can exceed 1,000 vehicles per day after the diversion without some mitigation happening. 1,000 vpd is the ideal NG volume standard. Something PBOT doesn’t seek to achieve on the NG itself.
      “Equity can seem unfair to those that have benefited from past inequity.”
      See Lester B’s comment above for context.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam
        Adam January 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm

        Sure you can. All it takes is some strategically-placed concrete planters or plastic posts.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 4:22 pm

        I might buy your statement about inequality if houses were assigned by lot, not purchased for a huge sum of money for a price that incorporated the benefits, or lack thereof, of living on a street with particular characteristics.

        Traffic diversion creates winners and losers; it does not equalize inequality.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 27, 2017 at 5:29 pm

          inequality and inequity are not the same thing.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 27, 2017 at 5:41 pm

            Yes, true (I misread). In this case, my statement applies to both.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              paikiala January 30, 2017 at 12:56 pm

              streets parallel to Clinton sharing the cut through traffic is more equitable than before the project.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty January 30, 2017 at 1:09 pm

                Why is that? Again, if location of residence was decided randomly, you’d be right; instead people made choices based on the characteristics of the street, and the have paid fair value to facilitate that choice. Changing traffic flows changes the value proposition, but leaves people locked into their earlier valuations. It creates winners and losers in an arbitrary and inequitable manner.

                I am not arguing against the diverters, only the idea that they have somehow increased equity by diverting traffic down other streets.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                paikiala February 1, 2017 at 3:51 pm

                Equity can seem unfair to those who have benefitted from past inequity.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty February 1, 2017 at 6:55 pm

                Sure, I get that; but I don’t think I accept your premise. What was the original inequity that has now been righted?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Maxadders January 27, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    This is a big improvement, but as a daily rider on this greenway out to I-205, we desperately need diverters on Woodward east of there. Cut-through traffic is well aware of how easy it is to get through the neighborhood and I regularly have to deal with aggressive drivers speeding to get to Division or Powell via 62nd, 67th, 71st or 79th. There are also at least three schools and a major city park in the vicinity!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Ted Buehler January 27, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      Maxadders —

      Can you come to the BikeLoudPDX meeting on Sunday? Or, email us at bikeloudpdx@gmail.com and check in to work on Clinton next steps.

      Same with all the rest of the posters with ideas for next steps, too.

      Ted Buehler
      CoChair, BikeLoud

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Ted Buehler January 27, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      BikeLoud Sunday meeting info
      https://www.facebook.com/events/248894122215940/

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      fact check January 30, 2017 at 1:04 pm

      Hey Maxadders, We discussed your comment at the BikeLoudPDX general meeting and I believe there was strong support for the idea of focusing on connectivity to east Portland. I should note that this is a huge problem for almost all of PDX’s W-E Greenways including Gladstone-Center, Harrison-Mill, Ankeny-Davis, Tillamook-Hancock, Siskiyou-Klickitat, Going-Alberta.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Buzz January 27, 2017 at 12:21 pm

    All this means is that more motorists will take SE 26th to the next bike boulevard to the north – SE Lincoln-Harrison. There’s already been an uptick in motorists using this route.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      9watts January 27, 2017 at 12:53 pm

      “All this means”

      Hardly.
      If we know anything, we know that this kind of intervention is not a zero sum thing. The total number of drivers who used to take Clinton and now no longer do is not shoved onto Woodward or Lincoln. Same with a road diet. This is nonlinear. There are more winners than losers.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Buzz January 29, 2017 at 11:42 am

        Open your eyes, it happens all the time when these types of changes are instituted.

        Just ’cause you’re unwilling to believe it doesn’t mean it ain’t so.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      26th – Harrison -30th, Division to Hawthorne, is the Neighborhood Collector street.
      Participate in the process this summer to upgrade Ladd/Harrison/Lincoln.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rachel b January 28, 2017 at 12:13 am

        No upgrade for SE 26th proposed?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Buzz January 31, 2017 at 10:36 am

          They are moving the bike route from 26th to 28/29th; IMO 28th/29th has more hills and a lot worse pavement than 26th, but I guess that wasn’t part of the decision-making process.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            rachel b January 31, 2017 at 8:04 pm

            So I’ve heard. Again–I feel this plan is less to serve cyclists and more to serve UPRR and freight movement and widen lanes for cars/trucks/semis on SE 26th. Blegghhh.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Buzz January 29, 2017 at 11:44 am

        F that, participating in any PBOT ‘process’ is an exercise in futility, in the end PBOT just ends up doing what they wanted to do all along, and all you’ve done is waste your time ‘participating’.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    m January 27, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    Whack-a-mole!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 27, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      Evidence?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jerry January 27, 2017 at 11:53 pm

    The diverters at 32nd and Clinton have made that intersection LESS safe for cyclists – NOT safer. Why? Three reasons.

    (1) Around 1000 cars a day make left turns from Clinton onto 32nd. Left turns mean turns into oncoming bike traffic. Visibility is often reduced because of rain or darkness. A fair number of cyclist don’t bother with front lights or front lights that can be seen. Prediction: Some cyclist is going to be hit by a left turning car. {Clinton and 17th is safer for cyclists because NO left-hand turns are possible.}

    (2) Cars still weave around the barriers into oncoming bike traffic just like they did with the concrete “barrels”. I’ve seen it. Cars still turn illegally off 32nd onto Clinton into oncoming traffic.

    (3) I live on Woodward and see plenty of bike traffic. The barriers have pushed many more cars onto Woodward. The barriers have just displaced the problem.

    When that first cyclist gets hit I’m going to track down the lawyer representing her or her estate and point them to Rich Newlands, the bureaucrat at PBOT who designed this intersection.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 30, 2017 at 1:00 pm

      Alternative facts much?
      The total daily wrong way driving during the test was about 150 cars.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      mark smith January 30, 2017 at 1:44 pm

      You do that. Please report back your success.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mossby Pomegranate January 29, 2017 at 8:53 am

    LOL…meanwhile the Halsey sidewalk at I-205 remains covered with a nice thick coating of gravel.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      mark smith January 30, 2017 at 9:20 am

      Call Leah Treate’s office directly.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    mark smith January 30, 2017 at 9:20 am

    Can we please stop designing our roads to benefit thte .0001 users (fire trucks)? It’s an emotional response to design roads so that 30,000lb vehicles can speed down roads. The last think anyone wants if for a fire truck to be speeding down a side street-ever. Yet, somehow the fire marshal gets a say over road design.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 30, 2017 at 1:39 pm

      The weight is not relevant. The size and shape is what determines design at 32nd and Clinton. All turns here would be low speed anyway, in the 5-10 mph range, but the fire truck has to be able to get to any address for emergency responders to do their job.
      Clinton is not intended or expected to be the path emergency responders use, and is not designated as a major response route, but that does not change the access requirements.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Mark smith January 31, 2017 at 7:39 am

        Weight is completely relevant when the fire truck runs down a small child.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 31, 2017 at 3:55 pm

          Don’t like the answer, change the subject (was diverter design).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala January 31, 2017 at 3:56 pm

          BTW, bikes are the 6%-12% user, are you suggesting needs of minorities don’t matter.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Liu
      John Liu January 31, 2017 at 1:42 am

      Seems like if your house was burning or your family member having a cardiac arrest, you’d like emergency vehicles to get there quickly, even if you live on Clinton.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        9watts January 31, 2017 at 7:12 am

        Oh, please!

        All manner of foolish nonsense can be justified with such glib hypotheticals. If we were really serious about this sort of hypothetical scenario building, we could start talking about earthquakes, and we’d quickly discover that we should abandon reliance on fossil fuels right quick and figure out ways to organize medical transport with other means altogether.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          rachel b January 31, 2017 at 8:05 pm

          Hot air balloon.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            rachel b January 31, 2017 at 8:06 pm

            I meant for transport! I support your comment, 9watts. 🙂

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • John Liu
          John Liu January 31, 2017 at 10:46 pm

          “PF&R has a response time goal of 5:20 (5 minutes and 20 seconds) at the 90th percentile, meaning they strive for 90% of all responses to be at or below 5:20. The current response time at the 90th percentile is 7:12, a difference of 1 minute and 52 seconds from the goal. Depending on materials and furnishings, fires can double in size every minute, with flashover potentially occurring within two to four minutes. Furthermore, fire incidents could involve more complex and massive dangers such as explosions, oil trains, and other hazardous materials. In medical emergencies, brain death due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen) begins occurring within seven minutes. The ability to resuscitate a person from cardiac arrest decreases 10% with every minute advance life support measures are delayed. For anyone experiencing an emergency, the time it takes for PF&R to arrive is critical, and can ultimately affect the outcome for people needing emergency response services.”
          From https://www.portlandoregon.gov/cbo/article/561723?

          PFR has been missing its response time target for years and by larger amounts. Closing stations and traffic congestion doesn’t help. This shouldn’t stop us from having diverters and speed jumps/bumps, buy some consideration for emergency response time is reasonable.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty January 31, 2017 at 11:16 pm

            Response times are absolutely critical. The obvious answer is to unclose some of their stations, so that equipment is predeployed closer to where it is needed. As you noted, traffic calming is not what’s slowing response times.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              mh February 1, 2017 at 10:34 am

              The other option would be to not have the fire department be our medical emergency responders. Most of their calls are medical, but the explanation I’ve heard about why they take the huge trucks is so they can respond immediately and properly equipped to a genuine fire call. I imagine they do emergency medical because they have to be trained anyway – to handle fire casualties – and we’d otherwise be paying them to mostly sit around. Figure out an answer taxpayers will support.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            9watts February 1, 2017 at 6:51 am

            There’s a lot of ways we could tackle this, Mr. Liu. I’d start with not smoking in bed and quitting the junk food. Much cheaper and potentially more effective since there are no societal side effects as there are with the speeding up traffic ideas you’ve suggested.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            Mark smith February 1, 2017 at 8:32 am

            Use smaller vehicles? More fire departments? Use motorcycles to get to medical emergencies? There are lots of options. Looks at what European cities do?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Adam
            Adam February 1, 2017 at 10:25 am

            Smaller vehicles. I’d imagine that a large fire truck is already pretty unwieldy to drive through urban streets, diverters or not. As far as medical emergencies, ambulances aren’t even that big to begin with, so I don’t imagine they have nearly as much trouble maneuvering.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Adam
        Adam January 31, 2017 at 7:18 am

        What 9watts said. Creating a situation that exists 100% of the time (a wider street) for an event that occurs very rarely is not good logic. That would be akin to cycling with a welding kit on the off chance that your frame breaks. The space and weight it takes up could be better used by something you need more often.

        That, and old European cities seem to get on just fine without access to large emergency vehicles. The key is smaller trucks. The fire department should be adapting to their built environment rather than dictating how the built environment should be.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Mark smith January 31, 2017 at 7:43 am

        This…This is why we get too wide of roads are speed humps with lines cut through them. First off, it’s incredibly wasteful that a fire truck rolls to most every call. Civilized cities with smaller roads have adapted and moved to smaller trucks. It’s time Portland does the same and move away from rolling a semi truck to every call and requiring road changes for them

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    mark smith January 30, 2017 at 9:21 am

    Also, anyone want to speculate how that Subaru in that picture got that parking spot?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala January 30, 2017 at 1:40 pm

      3-point turn and backing in.
      (you said speculate – that doesn’t mean worst case).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    shirtsoff January 30, 2017 at 9:51 am

    Hello, Kitty
    Why not plant a garden? If you really want to challenge the issue, I can’t think of a better way to make your case. You’ll lose, of course, but maybe you’ll get some lettuce in the process.
    Recommended 0

    Ha. I like that. Gardens Not Boats (On Wheels)

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar