ODOT hosts open house for inner Powell Blvd project tonight

Posted by on April 5th, 2017 at 12:19 pm

ODOT’s current plans.

The Oregon Department of Transportation is in the final design phases of a project that aims to make it safer to bike and walk on and across SE Powell Blvd beteeen 20th and 34th Avenue. They’re hosting an open house tonight (4/5) to answer questions, hear feedback, and share more information about the project.

This section of Powell is important for several reasons. The intersection with 26th is where two serious bicycle crashes — and one major protest — happened in 2015. It’s also the location of a very busy crossing due to the presence of Cleveland High School on the northeast corner. ODOT has also come under scrutinty for their decision to force the City of Portland to remove the existing bike lane on 26th as a condition of them adding a new signal and crossing at 28th (which ODOT says is a safer place to cross). Adding to the mix is the news that Target will build a new store at 30th and Powell (in the place of an old bowling alley).

With those and other issues there’s a buzz about tonight’s open house. I got a call today from Cleveland High School parent very concerned that the new Target store will make it less safe for students to walk between the school and its sports fields at SE 31st.

Here are the basics about what ODOT wants to do:

— Three enhanced pedestrian signals (Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, “RRFBs”) will be installed on Powell Blvd. at SE 24th, 31st and 34th to alert drivers of pedestrians crossing.
— Safer crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians will include high visibility striping and center islands.
— A new wider pedestrian waiting area on the southeast corner of 26th Avenue and Powell Boulevard near Cleveland High School to provide more space for students waiting to cross Powell Boulevard.
— A new truck apron on the southeast corner of 26th Avenue and Powell Boulevard to increase safety by allowing large vehicles to turn without entering the pedestrian zone or encroaching on vehicle lanes.
— New signals at intersections (SE 21st, 26th, 33rd) with enhanced safety features, including bigger and more visible signals and poles, as well as countdown and audible countdown pedestrian signals.
— Tree removals and trimming to increase visibility.
— Improved street lighting.
— Enforcement lights for public safety (not photo radar).
— Increased visibility of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists.
— Sidewalk ADA ramp improvements and repair of some sidewalks.
— Improved signage and more visible street names

Advertisement

Powell protest ride-48.jpg

Inner Powell Blvd has been the scene of protests in recent years due to its lack of safety for people not inside cars.>
(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)

This section of Powell is a major highway (US 26) that gets between 34,000 and 38,000 cars and trucks on it every day. ODOT is trying to address neighborhood safety and livability concerns while servicing all those motor vehicle trips.

The City of Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) has no jurisdiction over Powell (yet), but they have a stake in the crossing of 28th because of their 20s Bikeway project. In a bit of a coup, PBOT got ODOT to rebuild the 28th intersection and install a new traffic signal. Signalizing a highway isn’t something ODOT does lightly and it needed approval from the state traffic engineer. ODOT made it happen, but the deal hinged on PBOT agreeing to remove the existing bike lane on 26th. ODOT feels the bike lane on 26th is inherently unsafe and that it just complicates the intersection.

Although PBOT agreed to that deal, the City has yet to remove the bike lane. They still have a year to analyze the traffic and report back to ODOT whether the bike lane should stay or go. Asked last week about the bike lane, an ODOT spokesperson told us, “ODOT’s agreement with the PBOT requires the city to remove the bike lanes by the end of the year unless PBOT can demonstrate that the conditions have changed significantly to merit review of retaking the bike lanes along SE 26th Avenue.” PBOT will likely have to show that people still ride in the 26th Ave. bike lane even with the presence of the new crossing at 28th.

ODOT plans to start construction of this project this winter. Consider attending tonight’s open house to learn more and/or to share your feedback with ODOT staff.

ODOT Powell Blvd Safety Project Open House
5:00 to 7:00 pm, Wednesday, April 5.
Catholic Charities’ Café (2740 S.E. Powell Blvd)

— 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

75 Comments
  • Avatar
    I wear many hats April 5, 2017 at 12:30 pm

    This sites’ been mum on the Off Road Cycling Master Plan meetings. Any reason why? I’ll be sure to comment on Powell Blvd. Its a terrible urban freeway.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    JL April 5, 2017 at 12:33 pm

    How about zero tolerance to help towards vision zero? No more cushion for speeding drivers would be a big start.

    I like what Arizona is trying.
    http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/12/13/why-going-10-over-the-speed-limit-is-now-going-to.html

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      mh April 5, 2017 at 3:28 pm

      I want to hear how the enforcement works. Are speeders ticketed, or do traffic police still not bother? If contested, who will win?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Kyle Banerjee April 5, 2017 at 1:04 pm

    For all the whining I’ve done about prioritizing infrastructure where it’s already fine, this is an area that could use some attention.

    I used to live out here. This area of Powell needs improvements for peds and bikes alike. The suggested changes improve the ped situation.

    Riding on Powell is not for the faint of heart. 26th never bugged me, and I personally think that taking out the bike lane could make it a bit safer. The problem with narrow lanes is that both riders and drivers get the idea that cyclists should be scrunched up at the side of the road which creates less safe visibility/handling/passing, particularly for less confident riders.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rick April 5, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      Less trees is not good.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rachel b April 5, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      UPRR wants SE 26th made wider for less scrunchy freight transport. I believe that’s what’s behind this. As someone who lives on the street, I’m not thrilled. Too many heavy trucks as it is. Plus TriMet (which I’m ok with, but it’s a lot of whole-house-shaking traffic anymore).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Beeblebrox April 6, 2017 at 11:43 am

        Who said anything about widening the intersection? The description only mentions a truck apron, which is actually a way to narrow the effective intersection width while still allowing truck turning movements. If anything, that change will discourage truck traffic since it is more annoying to turn across a truck apron than a normal intersection.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 11:00 am

      I agree that bike lane removal could, ultimately, improve the situation. If we can get PBOT to make it clear that cyclists still belong on the street, and if cyclists take the lane (as will be their only choice), traffic speeds might actually fall.

      I’m trying to make lemonade here!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        soren April 6, 2017 at 11:06 am

        “cyclists take the lane”

        platinum.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rachel b April 6, 2017 at 12:25 pm

        “If” It’s a big gamble. I would want guarantees of traffic calming measures. Crosswalks, narrowing of the lanes by other means… It’s becoming very Wild West-y out there on SE 26th. Have never heard so much honking and screeching brakes as I’ve heard in this past year.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 12:39 pm

          There’s already one new crosswalk, at Franklin, and HAND has requested 2/3 more, one adjacent to each bus stop. I think they would likely support further treatment to the street in the event that bike lanes are removed.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Josh G April 5, 2017 at 1:10 pm

    I’ve seen many ped.s (mostly non-adult) crossing Powell at 28th using the existing island. Now that the island is way beefed up and left off of Powell to 28th is eliminated, it has to be a better situation, but I hope ped.s use signal or go to 26th. I’m not telling anyone what to do, just hoping.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 11:01 am

      I used it last night. It was great! (And it isn’t even finished yet!)

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    J_R April 5, 2017 at 1:21 pm

    Note that ODOT is proposing to REMOVE trees, ostensibly to improve visibility. I questioned that at the previous meeting last year. I still don’t understand how removal of trees improves safety if the pedestrians are crossing at RRFBs and signalized intersections. Removal of trees simply increases the freeway syndrome for speeding motorists. The proposed removal of trees is simply bizarre as it serves no useful function. I suspect it is based on someone remembering a presentation about improving sight lines at some conference.

    I regularly see motorists blow the red light, especially westbound.

    Show up and tell ODOT their “safety” project is deficient. The speed zone should be changed; red light cameras should be installed; the speed zone should be aggressively enforced.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rick April 5, 2017 at 1:24 pm

      Removal of trees gives hotter asphalt, more stormwater runoff, more flooding, people driving cars faster

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 11:03 am

        On the contrary… the reduced tree canopy will soften the asphalt in the summer, making it sticker and actually slowing vehicles.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          rachel b April 6, 2017 at 12:25 pm

          Ugh. 🙁 And, hah. 🙂

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Kyle Banerjee April 5, 2017 at 1:43 pm

      I normally strongly object to removal of trees for many reasons and agree with the concerns people express here.

      However, I am unconvinced that removing them will speed things up as the whole problem is people are already driving fast and making turns when they can’t see.

      Visibility is a big deal and while it’s not bad when there are no leaves, it gets really bad when there are. At the very least, aggressive trimming is necessary. This makes the area a lot less nice, but once you get a certain number of people in an area, this is a bit inevitable.

      To some extent, we must choose our poison. If we keep cars out of neighborhood streets and on arterials, those have to be configured accordingly.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rachel b April 5, 2017 at 2:19 pm

        “…this makes the area a lot less nice, but…”

        🙁 No one asked SE Portland if we wanted UPRR operations shifted from Albina Yards (right next to freeway access) to Brooklyn Yard (right smack in the center of several neighborhoods with horrible freeway access, putting dozens of semis on our small neighborhood streets daily). The uptick in heavy, polluting traffic has been extreme. That’s not serving anyone but UPRR and their bottom line. They doubled their traffic (and their profits) in one year after this move. It has hit this neighborhood hard. I don’t see such things as inevitable, or “progress.” This is a big wrong that should be righted–not exacerbated.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          SilkySlim April 5, 2017 at 2:25 pm

          And you need trees (more specifically their moss) to catch the heavy metal emissions of Bulls Eye!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Kyle Banerjee April 5, 2017 at 2:34 pm

          I don’t know enough have an informed opinion on what kind of traffic should be where. As someone who has lived exclusively on streets where traffic has been intentionally directed (Macadam and MLK are particularly noisy/sucky), I’m sensitive to why people would feel like that — especially since I spent my life in rural areas and small towns before moving to PDX.

          Especially if changes are made to accommodate individual businesses, there is no reason that people should simply accept the change. Just as you can’t do just anything you want on your property — especially things like modify drainage so it impacts others — businesses have an obligation to fit in the environment in which they exist. If they want changes, those need to be negotiated with the expectation that they will be responsible for mitigating and paying for costs incurred by others.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Adam H.
          Adam H. April 5, 2017 at 3:11 pm

          I’m with rachel b on this one. The fact that a massive Class I railroad gets free reign to dump heavy truck traffic onto small neighborhood streets is a huge problem. 55′ trucks have no place on city streets.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            rachel b April 5, 2017 at 3:38 pm

            I hear you, Kyle. And Adam–it was a shady deal. I would give anything for an investigative reporter on that one.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              Chris I April 6, 2017 at 8:24 am

              Couldn’t the city ban trucks on Holgate east of 17th and both 26th and 28th, effectively forcing UPRR to send trucks directly west and south to the highway? This seems like a reasonable solution.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Beeblebrox April 6, 2017 at 11:49 am

                How would trucks access Powell eastbound? Also, how would trucks get to Holgate without using 26th? They have to use Gladstone and 26th to even get to Holgate.

                I understand the neighborhood concerns but there is no easy solution.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                Chris I April 6, 2017 at 3:05 pm

                The container transfer point is located on the SW corner of the yard and has exits on McLoughlin and Holgate. Powell eastbound is easy. Go north on McLoughlin and take the slip ramp. For Westbound Powell, they could take 17th.

                I’m not sure why they are routing so much truck traffic up 26th. It looks like they do have a storage yard for containers at Gladstone and 23rd, but it doesn’t have to be there, if we really want to cut down on the neighborhood impacts.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            mran1984 April 6, 2017 at 1:00 am

            I am with both of you 100%. Thank you Rachel for informing me of the UPRR changes.i will miss that bowling alley.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Beeblebrox April 6, 2017 at 11:45 am

          How do these improvements exacerbate the situation you describe?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rachel b April 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      It’s probably (again) because of complaints from UPRR, and for easier passage of big freight semis. There’s also some heavy equipment rental service that uses SE 26th a lot–GIANT machines on flatbeds.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Bald One April 6, 2017 at 1:33 pm

        I spoke at an open house with PBOT’s Rich Newlands about the issue of all the 53′ semi-trailer trucks moving through this neighborhood in and out of UPRR facilities. I was very displeased with his comments. His first reaction was to say that UPRR is under federal jurisdiction and nothing could be done. This is a typical City response to the “railroad problem”. But, this is very misguided, as PBOT traffic managers fail to understand (or publicly state) that UPRR’s Brooklyn yard is essentially a trucking industry facility – it is destination and origin for all of these 53′ dry-box container trailers moving around inner SE Portland – hauled by old, dirty polluting diesel rigs, occasionally driven by aggressive truck drivers. These trucks move on local city of Portland streets (SE Gladstone, SE 26th, SE Holgate, SE 11th, SE 12th, SE 7th, SE Division, etc). Why should the city accommodate this industry by continuing to support and engineer specifically to the railroad’s trucks on city streets? The city can do something. This Inner Powell plan has a key proposal that makes it easier to drive these trucks through Portland. Why does the city want to make it easier to get these trucks through Portland? The city should make it harder, as they are doing for driving cars. The city should change road restrictions to only allow smaller trucks on these freight route streets – 28′ and smaller; 50,000 GVW and smaller; – this can allow local businesses other than UPRR to get freight access, but not allow the UPRR to drive their giant trucks all over inner SE Portland. The city should tax and force the railroad to purchase city of Portland operation permits to operate their container trailers on our streets. They should force them to buy a pass and a get a sticker to display on every trailer that moves here. These trailers are all registered in Oklahoma, and have out-of-state license plates, but they never leave Portland. Where is our tax revenue from them? What about our fuel tax revenue? Portland needs to enforce safety, registration, manifest documents, driver logs, fuel tax on these trucks which serve the railroad but use local streets. PBOT continues to lay out the red carpet welcome mat for these out of state trucks, trailers, and loads, that pollute, destroy the roads, drive aggressively, cause traffic congestion, deteriorate local quality of life, create unsafe conditions for peds and cyclists, and provide no local economic benefit. Something can be done at the local level, and it’s time to stop the attitude that “nothing can be done since they are part of the railroad.”

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          rachel b April 7, 2017 at 1:09 am

          I can’t applaud you enough, Bald One. Thank you! Please let me know if you want to go beat up someone…er, verbally. I’ll have your back (I’ll be your hype man!).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Doug Klotz April 8, 2017 at 1:06 pm

          One of the ODOT reps at the meeting described how, because Powell has two designations, ODOT is obligated to design for trucks (and maybe trucks of a certain size)

          One is a “freight route” Oregon state designation.

          The other is a Federal NHS (National Highway System) designation of Powell, and I think specifically a “truck route” sub-set of this. The NHS is imposed on us by the Federal Highway Administration. It covers freeways, and some ODOT “highways” like Powell and Lombard, and probably even some Portland streets. It is imposed on us by the Feds, and apparently the Federal administrator for the Oregon roads is a pro-highway guy, so not inclined to listen to Portland’s wants.

          These designations are another thing we should be following up on, and watching to see when they get put in place. Certainly our city and state representatives should be watching out for any changes, or proposing positive changes, in these designations.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rick April 5, 2017 at 1:23 pm

    ODOT plans to remove shrubs and trees, right? Very lame, if so.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    SilkySlim April 5, 2017 at 2:15 pm

    Eleven bullet points, all more expensive and ultimately less effective than lowering the speed limit by 5-10 mph. Well, tree removal might be almost as cheap, but when you consider continued maintenance, probably not.

    Unless “Improved Signage” can be interpreted as speed limit signs with low numbers printed on them, this plan is missing the most obvious – by far, and I was about to say by a mile, but instead I’ll say “by 5-10 miles an hour” – solution.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala April 10, 2017 at 4:32 pm

      SS,
      you have evidence that posting lower speed limits on a 5-lane street section slows down people driving? Do share.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Evan April 5, 2017 at 2:58 pm

    What happened with the sign ODOT’s supposed to take down in this area of Powell? The one where a bill was introduced in Salem for the removal of just that one sign.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      mh April 5, 2017 at 3:32 pm

      I think that one died in committee.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Doug Klotz April 6, 2017 at 10:26 am

      According to Nosse’s office, ODOT met with him and agreed to remove the large signs, and put smaller signs, possibly on smaller poles. Don’t know all the details. Sounds like proposing the bill had the effect of getting them to meet with him.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 11:05 am

        I don’t know why ODOT feels it is so important to direct drivers onto 17th. It doesn’t go anywhere!

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Mike Sanders April 6, 2017 at 2:15 pm

          17th is regarded as the truck route between eastbound Powell/US 26 and southbound McLoughlin/OR 99E and vice versa. That’s why the sign (and the ramps) is there.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 2:31 pm

            The signs in question direct vehicles westbound on Powell to take 17th north past the new diverter on Clinton to Division, where the street ends. That is a local service street, and not a truck (or anything else) route.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Dan A April 5, 2017 at 3:04 pm

    It’s not a serious effort until they institute a school speed zone by Cleveland.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    rachel b April 5, 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Thank you, Jonathan, for reporting on this!

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Kyle Banerjee April 6, 2017 at 5:49 am

      I’m glad for all the reporting.

      What passes for journalism these days too often is just repackaging rubbish and there way too little investigation and analysis. Too bad there are not more sites like this.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Aaron K April 5, 2017 at 5:14 pm

    My son attends Cleveland HS and bikes to school, crossing Powell at 26th. Occasionally I will drive him or bike with. What a nightmare this section of Powell is for walking along, biking down, driving along, or just crossing. Changes need to be made, but I wouldn’t trust ODOT to prioritize livability or safety for students or residents, unless vigorously prodded to do so. The biggest concern I have is oversize freight traffic arriving in the morning at the same time as the students and attempting to make a left onto 26th from westbound Powell right in front of the school. Is this the only way they can enter the rail yard? I see it happen every time I’m there. It’s so impractical and unsafe, it’s almost comical.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Granpa April 6, 2017 at 5:56 am

    The rail yards should be moved to the average between the Canby airport and Canby and the SE property should be redeveloped into a neighborhood. Canby is on the main RR line, it is near the Fwy and with the airport their it is already a transportation hub. That inner SE needs more housing is obvious.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Chris I April 6, 2017 at 8:27 am

      I was just thinking the same thing. I wonder if a land swap could be negotiated, along with an upgrade of the surface roads connecting Canby to I-5 north and south. Intermodal freight is a great thing that gets large trucks off of the highway and reduces overall GhG emissions, but the transfer points need to make sense.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        rachel b April 6, 2017 at 12:39 pm

        UPRR clearly really pushed to make Brooklyn Yard their main baby. From my reading between the lines, it sounds like they wanted to officially change it’s yard designation to get around a technicality in that Eastmoreland lawsuit that had been thwarting them for years in their efforts to develop the Brooklyn Yard further south, abutting Eastmoreland golf course (their tactic worked, by the way).

        They’ve thrown a LOT of money behind the yard and it’s metastasized horribly. Like I alluded to earlier, they’ve expanded their traffic/shipments considerably–doubled, at least. The sheer number of semis running through the Creston-Kenilworth/Hosford Abernethy/Brooklyn neighborhoods is stunning. I rarely come up on that corner of SE 26th and Holgate without having to back up for a huge truck from the Yard to turn. It’s a major livability issue for neighbors. The increase in diesel pollution alone is significant. p.s…trees help with pollution, ODOT.

        The thing that disturbs me the most about that move/yard redesignation is that it all seems to have been done so quietly and under the table. I don’t recall any neighborhood discussion about it at all. Suddenly, PLOP. It was a done deal. And we were all saying “Where did all these trucks come from??? Wha? Huh? What just happened?”

        Brooklyn Yard was an awkward, poorly connected choice for central UPRR operations. But they fought hard (behind closed doors) for it and have invest heavily in it. Hard to imagine they’ll change it now. Though, I wish…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          rachel b April 6, 2017 at 12:40 pm

          Gah! “its,” not “it’s.”

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 12:41 pm

            Pull yourself together, girl!!!

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              rachel b April 7, 2017 at 1:11 am

              Arghh!

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Beeblebrox April 6, 2017 at 1:04 pm

          I’m sorry to break it to you, especially as a fellow tree lover, but they certainly do not help with air pollution. Quite the opposite. When Volatile Organic Compounds released by trees mix with Nitrogen Oxides released by cars, they form Ozone, the main component of smog. The level of the effect depends on the type of tree, but the basic effect is established science. Now, that’s no reason not to plant trees since they have a ton of other benefits, but I hear this myth a lot that they “soak up” pollution, when in fact the combination of cars and trees generally makes air quality worse. My solution would be to have fewer cars rather than fewer trees, but ODOT probably feels differently.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            rachel b April 7, 2017 at 4:01 pm

            But isn’t it true that since VOC emissions are temperature dependent and trees generally lower air temperatures, increased tree cover can lower overall VOC emissions and, thus, ozone levels in urban areas?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          Bald One April 6, 2017 at 1:40 pm

          Not to mention the huge 100′ tall poles of high-powered lighting they have erected all over the yard – now light polluting the whole neighborhood for their use.

          I am also interested to understand the lobby-cash donations to local politicians made from UPRR for this facility expansion. It is now more of a trucking facility than anything else.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            rachel b April 7, 2017 at 1:13 am

            Those lights! They’re awful! And yes–how did they get permission for THAT travesty?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Mike Sanders April 6, 2017 at 2:20 pm

      Not likely. UPRR owns the land and the right of way. They’ve already made an exception for Amtrak trains to pass through the yard. Not likely to see others.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I April 6, 2017 at 3:09 pm

        They don’t own the surface streets. A PBOT ban of large trucks on 26th/28th, and Holgate/Gladstone east of the yard would be legal, and given the negative health/livability impacts to our citizens, quite reasonable. The yard would function just fine by routing trucks west to McLoughlin.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          rachel b April 7, 2017 at 1:15 am

          Agree with Chris I! And I thought large trucks WERE banned on SE 26th and 28th. Just one more thing that disappeared in a quiet puff of smoke because it didn’t suit UPRR.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala April 10, 2017 at 4:35 pm

          Chris,

          Can you provide a legal citation for this opinion?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Granpa April 6, 2017 at 5:57 am

    F’n autocorrect! acreage

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Carrie April 6, 2017 at 7:10 am

    I can’t decide if I should write a blog post about this or post a comment, but I’ll go with comment for now.

    I attended the ODOT open house as well as the PBOT Safe Routes to School/Fixing Our Streets open house for the Cleveland Cluster on Tuesday evening (with my kids). Why? I’ve got kids who attend Sellwood Middle and Cleveland High and ride bikes or bus/walk to get there and I am around Cleveland High/Powell Blvd regularly as part of my commute and as part of school activities.

    The PBOT rep I spoke with on Tuesday was firm (almost militant) in his assertion that they are going to fight ODOT tooth and nail to keep the bike lane on 26th. He was at the ODOT open house to make that position clear as well. PBOT does NOT want that street wider for car traffic and want the bike lane there both for bike traffic that they feel is not going to decrease as well as simply a buffer for the residents and the school. We have a great advocate in this organization and need to support them in any way we can to keep this buffer.

    Personally I think most of what ODOT is proposing is great. Yes I think simply lowering the speed limit should be in the mix and voiced that as my greatest concern. I also think BRT should have a dedicated lane. However I believe the additional infrastructure will inherently slow cars down in this section of town. I was concerned that by upgrading the 21st Ave crossing at Powell they were going to ruin it (this, plus the Lafayette St bridge, is a MAJOR N-S connection for those of us who live West of the railroad tracks). I’m pleased that they are proposing dedicated left turn signals off of Powell as well as having N and S 21st St crossings now take turns. And they’re going to bring the signal timing up to code at that intersection.

    Finally, Target. Whew. On one hand I’d be so happy to have a Target I can easily and quickly ride my bike to. On the other hand there is So Much pedestrian traffic through there from 8am-6pm every weekday and I know most Target customers are not going to arrive by bike or foot. I’m very concerned about conflict and I’m also concerned that both the PBOT and ODOT folks I spoke with last night were not at all up to speed on the details of where the garage entrance is located relative to the track and the foot traffic and the significant, dangerous impacts of this location.

    Side note: I’ve ridden parts of the new 20s bikeway in SE now over the past few days and I do like it. I do NOT like the routing on 28th because of the hill at Powell and the hill at Clinton. But I love the infrastructure. And of course you really notice the new infrastructure once you get south of Gladstone and you’re back to 2′ wide door-zone bike lanes and then the cars driving in the bike lane on 26th/Bybee (as much as all the bike lane protection gets knocked down, it would be awesome to have the south/west bound bike lane near the Eastmoreland golf course be physically protected!).

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 11:09 am

      The garage will almost certainly be located off of 32nd. There is no other logical location. There are a lot of HS students back there walking to the track.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Doug Klotz April 8, 2017 at 1:11 pm

        Yes, the customer garage entrance will be where it is now, on 31st. As well, the parking in front of the building will stay, but be reduced to “single-loaded”, to accommodate a PBOT-required sidewalk widening to 12′ on Powell, plus a strip of BDS-required landscaping buffer. Truck loading for their deliveries will be at a new loading dock on the west end of the building (it’s a grassy area now), and the trucks will enter the front parking lot, and back into a loading dock that’s set back ~40′ from the parking lot.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Beeblebrox April 6, 2017 at 11:57 am

      Come on, there’s no way the bike lanes are 2 feet wide. 5 feet is the minimum allowed width, and this was a federally-funded project so the standards have to be met. They may still feel narrow, but there’s no need to exaggerate.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Carrie April 6, 2017 at 9:04 pm

        The bike lanes on SE 28th south of Gladstone have had zero improvement with the build out of the 20s bikeway. While 2′ is an exaggeration, they are certainly no wider than 4 feet (especially as they are in the parked car door zone, so they actually feel like zero feet, as there is no buffer between myself, an open car door, and vehicle traffic to my left). They do NOT meet the federal standard because they were created before the federal standard went into effect. In addition, the bike lanes along Bybee and SE 26th heading West are also less than the standard 5′ wide.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala April 10, 2017 at 4:37 pm

          You measured them?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      rachel b April 6, 2017 at 12:44 pm

      Thanks, Carrie!

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Doug Klotz April 6, 2017 at 10:29 am

    I talked to a ODOT Roadway Designer at the open house. He was promoting all the tree removal, for sight distance issues. I suggested they lower the speed to less than 35. He said “Why?” I asked if the speed was lower, wouldn’t the required sight distance be less, and not as many trees would have to be taken out? He agreed to that point, but didn’t say they’re considering lower speeds.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Dan A April 6, 2017 at 11:45 am

      If they remove the trees and the sight lines are improved, people will drive faster, the 85th percentile speed will go up, and ODOT can gleefully raise the speed limit.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Mark smith April 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm

    Cities should never have a speed greater than 30.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala April 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm

      within 5 years that may be true in Portland, but never say never.
      It is possible to have a safe 40 or 45 mph roadway. Marine Drive with a median barrier, or Columbia Blvd with a median where the SUP is set back from the curb, are examples of such. Padden Parkway in Vancouver is also a good example.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    eawrist April 6, 2017 at 1:45 pm

    What happened to the crossing and bike infrastructure at 28th?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty April 6, 2017 at 1:58 pm

      Soon, my precious.

      It’s almost done. It needs striping, and is on PBOT’s high-priority list, pending weather.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        paikiala April 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm

        It’s a contract project.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar