Esplanade closure begins February 1st

City launches Lincoln-Harrison neighorhood greenway project

Posted by on October 24th, 2017 at 1:59 pm

Overview of the project.
(Images: PBOT)

After shopping the idea around to neighborhood associations and various advisory committees, the Portland Bureau of Transportation has begun their $170,000 Lincoln-Harrison Neighborhood Greenway project in earnest. They launched the official website for the project last week and have announced two open houses in the coming months.

As we reported back in August, this project will aim to bring Portland’s most popular neighborhood bikeway corridors up to current greenway standards. Between SE Clay and 64th, Lincoln-Harrison has more bicycle traffic than any other neighborhood greenway with 4,230 daily bicycle trips on SE Harrison at Ladd (as of 2013). Unfortunately the same reasons it’s popular with bicycle riders — an oasis from busier streets nearby, proximity to fast-growing residential and commercial corridors, and direct connections to downtown — has made it popular with car drivers.

In order to reduce the speed and number of drivers and return one of its original neighborhood greenways (first designated in the late 1980s) to its former glory, PBOT has a host of major changes in store. The project will add automobile diversion at three new intersections and beef up diversion at an existing one. The goal is to reduce the number of driving trips to 1,500 vehicles per day (or a maximum of 2,000 in limited sections).

Below is a look at updated drawings for diversion at 20th,

Concept for SE 20th.

26th,

Concept for SE 26th and Harrison.

Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.

30th,

and 50th.

Concept for 50th and Lincoln.

Overhead view of 50th and Lincoln.

In addition to diversion, the project will include: 31 new speed bumps, four speed cushions (for emergency vehicle access), improved biking and walking signage, and three updated crossing treatments — including a push-button activated flashing beacon to help bicycle riders cross at SE 60th.

PBOT has launched an online survey and will host two open houses in the coming months:

➤ Wednesday, November 8, 5:00-7:00 pm – St Philip Neri Church, 2408 SE 16th Ave
➤ Tuesday, December 5, 6:00 – 7:30 pm – Atkinson Elementary School, 5800 SE Division St

Construction is set to being Spring-Summer of 2018.

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

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.

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

148 Comments
  • John Liu October 24, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    I’m glad to see this.

    However, I have a broader question. Most if not all of these greenway projects are west of 82nd. Why are we not seeing greenways and other bike infrastructure east of 82nd? Are East Portland residents not asking for such? Is there something about East Portland that makes it a low priority?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • rick October 24, 2017 at 2:13 pm

      113th / 115th Ave needs the greenway with the current paper street trails that exist on it.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:02 pm

        Rick,
        A concept for NE 113th/117th has been created. 108th/106th has also been looked at in a preliminary way.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alex Reedin October 24, 2017 at 2:50 pm

      I think the issue is that these greenway touch-ups are relatively cheap (<<$1M), and so PBOT has made the choice to fund them using City dollars (scarce but fast), whereas crafting a greenway from nothing is more expensive (~$2-3M… not that that's a lot of money in, say, ODOT's budget) and so (ever since Hales took the axe to the greenway budget) PBOT has funded them mostly through federal dollars (less scarce… at least under the Obama admin… but slow). Based on what I've heard, the combination of Hales axeing funded East Portland greenways and the achingly slow pace of federal fund allotment is why the three East Portland greenway projects currently underway are taking so long to come to fruition.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • curly October 24, 2017 at 3:06 pm

        4 Neighborhood Greenways in East Portland. Fully funded, but a mystery as to why the delays in construction.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren October 24, 2017 at 4:29 pm

          4M was slated for funding via the ATF years ago. Sadly, this money was eliminated by Novick and Wheeler so that they could pave and fog seal roads.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • soren October 24, 2017 at 4:32 pm

            Hales…not Wheeler.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • David Hampsten October 24, 2017 at 8:54 pm

            WWPTD? What would PDX Transformation do?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Momo October 24, 2017 at 10:17 pm

            4M has been funded through a federal grant and the Fixing Our Streets gas tax. It will be built within the next few years.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • soren October 25, 2017 at 8:52 am

              It will be built within the next few years.

              how many times have we heard this before?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • soren October 24, 2017 at 4:48 pm

        Also, the ridiculously slow pace of PBOT’s design process causing delays in intergovernmental agreements. For example, the 130s Greenway has been pushed back, yet again, to 2018* even though the Metro RFF was awarded for 2014-2015. Note that this Greenway was listed as “in design” in 2014 here:

        https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/446173

        *do not hold your breath.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • curly October 24, 2017 at 7:18 pm

          Construction of the 130’s Greenway has been pushed to 2019, but that was last spring. Stay alert, could still be moved out again. It’s been ongoing excuses. Very little faith remains in the community that it will ever be built. Problem is, Safe Routes 2 School funding is here, but alas, NO SAFE ROUTES!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • John Liu
        John Liu October 25, 2017 at 9:43 am

        Hey Alex, can you help me understand why a new greenway costs so much more than an existing greenway touch-up?

        Seems cost should depend on number of diverters, beacons, x-walks, markings, signs; not on whether route is currently designated a greenway?

        E,g, this project is three new diverters, improving two crosswalks, adding speed bumps/cushions and beacon buttons. Why does it cost less to do that work on SE Harrison/Lincoln vs on another side street? Is the difference down to PBOT’s outreach/admin costs rather than to direct construction costs?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Alex Reedin October 25, 2017 at 10:09 am

          As I understand it, the main large extra cost for new greenways is expensive crossing treatments – traffic signals and flashing beacons. Lincoln/Harrison already has these at Chavez, 50th, and 60th. Each one of these costs hundreds of thousands of dollars (guess – $500,000 to $1M for a traffic signal, $200,000 for a flashing beacon), and almost every new greenway project requires a number of them, even though the City tries to economize (sometimes too much, IMO) by winding the greenway back and forth to make use of the signals/beacons that already exist.

          Some additional extra costs for new greenways that aren’t as large but add up are sharrows, wayfinding signs, and outreach as you mentioned.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • maxD October 25, 2017 at 12:56 pm

            Alex, I agree that the City tries to economize too much, but that is not the whole story. I had hope Vision Zero would them move forward more confidently with safety improvements, but that is not happening either. PBOT seems extremely reluctant to prioritize the safety of people biking over on-street parking or the convenience of people who who drive. The example that causes me the most grief is the Going Greenway between NE 7th and Interstate. They could have used Skidmore with an existing 4-way stop at 7th, signals at MLK, Williams, Vancouver, a 4-way stop at Mississippi, and signal at Interstate. The current route, along Going (sort of) zigs and zags every couple of blocks, you are your own to cross at 7th, MLK, Williams and Vancouver, and Mississippi. At Michigan and Skidmore, you get put into the bike lanes on Skidmore anyway and use the signal to cross Interstate. They could have extended those bike lanes all the way to 7th (but parking would have been removed) and saved a lot of money by using the existing signal and stop signs. This would be an enormous safety benefit, and it would create a direct connection between the commercial areas on NE Alberta, Williams, Mississippi, and N. Killingsworth.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Alex Reedin October 25, 2017 at 1:09 pm

              Absolutely agreed; there are a number of low-traffic collectors that are just begging for diversion and greenway treatment or parking removal and protected bike lanes (Gladstone between 26th and 43rd, Steele between Chavez and 52nd, and Harold between 52nd and 136th where it exists).

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:05 pm

                Diverting traffic from a Collector (big C) street would be contrary to the TSP.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Alex Reedin October 25, 2017 at 7:12 pm

                I don’t think the TSP has any bus lanes in it either, but plans can always be changed.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 8:58 am

                The TSP describes function, not form. There are Major Transit streets in the TSP.
                The function of Neighborhood Collectors is to provide a connection between Local Service streets and higher classified streets for auto traffic. Diversion at Major City Traffic streets, right in/right out with a median barrier, might be acceptable, but prevention of the movement of auto traffic along a collector within a neighborhood would be contrary to the function of a Neighborhood Collector.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

      This is one of the five projects identified in the Assessment report. A former bike boulevard that has not yet been upgraded to NG standards. New projects east of 82nd fall into a different category.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • curly October 24, 2017 at 4:58 pm

        Not a Bike Blvd. Never has been. It is an old county bikeway that has never been upgraded and traffic counts are too high to be classified as a Neighborhood Greenway. Regardless, if the 4M project were to move forward as a priority project after being funded recently, it would be the best East/West bikeway in East Portland. The other option is Division, a high crash corridor…..We wonder why bicycle counts are down, yet PBOT continues to defer planning and construction of these projects. I’m not against any active transportation project, but the city has to give East Portland just a little love! Remember the Fix Our Streets funding is only temporary and will need East Portland’s support to get it passed yet again. It’s a great program, but so far has been worthless to East Portland residents. We continue to wait.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • David Hampsten October 24, 2017 at 8:59 pm

          I continue to be amazed that East Portland still hasn’t had a rally in which the Director of PBOT is burned in effigy, along with most of the city council. What restraint!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:29 am

          John’s question was about the article topic, Ladd-Harrison-Lincoln.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • GlowBoy October 24, 2017 at 3:59 pm

      That was my first thought too. Full disclosure: I used to live a few steps away from this greenway, and rode it daily.

      While I agree it isn’t quite up to current standards (it hasn’t changed much from when I moved to Portland 20 years ago), could use an update, and is seeing increased cut-through car traffic, there are far more desperate needs for bike infrastructure in parts of town where residents have less money.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • tee October 24, 2017 at 7:33 pm

        I do think this is a worthy project to have on the docket in the near future. This greenway is also highly residential. In my opinion, the traffic counts and speeds on this greenway simply aren’t that safe for bicycle riders, pedestrians, and residents. I want to see better bike access farther out, but frankly a lot of the closer-in routes/greenways are pretty substandard and increasingly so with increased auto traffic.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • shirtsoff October 24, 2017 at 11:25 pm

          One way of looking at these inner eastside greenways is that due to the density of development in the downtown and riverside eastside, more people from all parts of the east including Gresham may use these inner greenways. I agree fully that the southern reaches of Portland along Clackamas and further east into Gresham need better greenways, PBOT historically has justified improvements closer to the core due to the simple fact that more people travel there as a destination than elsewhere. Now with that said, let’s get those East County greenways built and move onward into the future!

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:32 am

            For Ladd-Harrision-Lincoln, as a percent of all traffic, cyclists are about 10% at the east end, where auto traffic is a problem, but about 40% of the traffic at the west end.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Momo October 24, 2017 at 10:20 pm

      PBOT actually has many millions of dollars in federal and local funding for East Portland neighborhood greenways. Expect the 130s greenway in 2018, 110s and 150s in 2019, and the HOP and 4M greenways in 2019 or 2020. There is a ton of stuff in the pipeline for East Portland, but it just hasn’t been constructed yet. They’re more complicated than inner Portland, so they take longer and cost more.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • soren October 28, 2017 at 9:58 am

        first of all, a section of the 100s greenway (described in east portland in motion plans in 2012) was built years ago.
        secondly, pbot has had millions of dollars in federal funding for east portland greenways for years.
        thirdly, funding for e portland greenways was gutted by hales and novick.

        the unnecessary outreach, delays in planning, delays in the bid process, and delays in construction must be acknowledge by pbot as a problem.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Aaron Brown October 25, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      Neighborhood Greenways for Holladay/Oregon/Pacific from Gateway Transit Center to 122nd, from Montavilla to the Springwater Corridor (just west of 82nd Avenue) and around 130th at David Douglas High School are all funded from the 2016 Gas Tax.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • rick October 24, 2017 at 2:12 pm

    The Lincoln greenway needs more street trees. I just strongly believe it plays a critical role.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • X October 25, 2017 at 11:23 am

      Perhaps someone will canvass that neighborhood with some Friends of Trees flyers?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • RMHampel October 24, 2017 at 2:20 pm

    Looks like a good start.
    I’d be concerned, however, were I a resident of nearby E-W streets. The city’s much vaunted traffic calming on SE Clinton has been great for cyclists and not so great for residents of nearby streets like Woodward. There, fast morning traffic has increased as “Wazers” cut through every morning in order to avoid Powell and Division congestion.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • bikeninja October 24, 2017 at 2:52 pm

      Maybe with the epidemic of impatient motorists terrorizing quiet neighborhoods using hand held tech to shave a few minutes off their commute time we should rename our professional basketball team something more appropriate for the 21st century, ” Ladies and Gentlemen give it up for the Wazers.”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:45 pm

      Untrue. The 85th percentile speeds on Woodward since speed bumps were installed is at or below former speeds measured.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • RMHampel October 24, 2017 at 4:00 pm

        But, what about close in Woodward where there are NO speed bumps?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 4:10 pm

          Post project speeds on Woodward, 21-26th were 21-24 mph.
          17th to 26th the speeds are 20-23 mph.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • RMHampel October 24, 2017 at 4:02 pm

        Oh, and trust me, the volume and speed are real on inner Woodward.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Momo October 24, 2017 at 10:23 pm

          Should we trust your anecdotal evidence, or trust the objective data?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Evan Reeves October 24, 2017 at 2:28 pm

    I hope they’re planning on including some pavement markings for the crossing at 20th and Harrison. Many of the cars seem completely unaware that a crossing exists for bicycles in the small median. Some visibility into that crossing for cyclists and pedestrians would be very welcome.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Alan Love October 24, 2017 at 3:42 pm

      Yep, cars on the left generally can see cyclists at the intersection well, but I always assume the driver on the right is going to roll through the stop sign into me as I’m crossing (after making a complete stop). I’ve been yelled at many times by drivers at this intersection to “STOP AT THE STOP SIGN” after they nearly hit me, even though I just came to a full stop as they were rolling up. Drivers seems to be oblivious to the idea that non-motorized traffic might be going through and don’t even bother to look.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:47 pm

      No current gaps in the median at 20th exist exclusively for cyclists – they have to share the pedestrian gaps. The proposal is to add gaps for cyclists. It will remain an all way stop, which is difficult to make much safer.
      Markings are proposed.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Alan Love October 25, 2017 at 9:34 am

        I understand the 4 way stop issue. My hope is that at least there could be some signage, perhaps a short sign on the median, saying “LOOK LEFT”. The gapped median in its current form seems to indicated to drivers that traffic can’t be coming from the left, so looking that way isn’t needed. Out of sight, out of mind.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:07 pm

          That can be done.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Toadslick October 24, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    I’m looking forward to most of these changes! But I’m tired of RRFBs in place of fully signaled crossings. I feel like many drivers have become entirely desensitized to them, and don’t bother stopping or slowing down at all.

    Oh well, at least they’re not crossbikes. ‍♂️

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Toadslick October 24, 2017 at 2:39 pm

      Darnit, unicode. That ♂️was a shrug emoji.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:49 pm

      No beacons are proposed as part of this project. The beacon is already there. Push buttons for cyclists are proposed so they can alert drivers to their desire to cross.
      That is a $20k change.
      A full signal is $300k. Something reserved to cross busier streets.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • doug B October 25, 2017 at 1:01 am

        Like 19th and Bybee?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:41 am

          They’re close, Bybee had 12,000 cars in 2010, while 60th has 10,000 cars per day currently. The crosswalk on 60th crosses a 26-foot wide street, while Bybee is 36 feet wide.
          I don’t know how 19th at Bybee qualified for a signal, or if it even went through the current decision process (NCHRP 562, bike/ped LOS 50-100 crossings).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 1:20 pm

        What about a bike-activated loop? Buttons kind of suck.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:24 pm

          It’s a beacon, not a signal. You have to stop anyway. Loops are better for a green wave.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm

            I guess I just disagree. Buttons force you to the very edge of the roadway, and feel awkward. Loops provide a more graceful interface.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 9:01 am

              A loop in the travel lane would falsely trigger the beacon when a car passed over it.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Eric Leifsdad October 27, 2017 at 7:47 am

              Will there be a tallbike button and recumbent trike button?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • NC October 24, 2017 at 2:56 pm

    The pedestrian light on Ladd and Hawthorn (12th) needs to change. It should only be White Man says Yes when traffic for 12th northbound is flowing. The way it is, white when Hawthorn (East) traffic is flowing is inherently dangerous.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:50 pm

      Hawthorne Ladd or Ladd Division?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • NC October 24, 2017 at 3:51 pm

        Hawthorn Ladd

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Terry D-M October 24, 2017 at 3:15 pm

    We need to add:

    Westbound diversion at 30 th
    Diagonal diversion at 35 th and 43 Rd

    Long term changes required with more funding to fix Ladd, the circle and Lincoln in the 50s.

    It’s a start though…….

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • shirtsoff October 24, 2017 at 3:51 pm

      43rd needs the diversion before someone is killed by a southbound vehicle attempting to blindly cross the intersection there. I personally was almost smeared by a police vehicle there years ago. I’ve also signaled to a school bus to not enter it due to a person approaching downhill via bicycle.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • dan October 25, 2017 at 10:44 am

        Do you mean 42nd? SE 42nd is ridiculously unsafe; I can’t understand why people stop at the stop line, where there is no line of sight east on Lincoln, then dart across the intersection. It seems obvious that you need to creep out until you can see westbound traffic on Lincoln, but many don’t do this.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 3:55 pm

      Harrison west of 30th is a collector, where diversion is not permitted.
      The BAC said Ladd was fine as it is – PBOT suggested diversion except buses.

      While Harrison-Lincoln is greater in length than Clinton, Clinton achieved most of its traffic volume goals only adding two diverters, while Lincoln will add three.

      Traffic volumes east of 50th are a symptom of the problem at 60th and Division. Adjustments there to move transit off Lincoln would permit better traffic management east of 50th.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Terry D-M October 24, 2017 at 4:02 pm

        In the comprehensive plan update this collector designation is proposed for elimination. 30 th south to Division is s more logical collector anyway, though that alternative is not proposed either. Only 20 th between Hawthorne and Division is being added. We need one every half mile.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Terry D-M October 24, 2017 at 4:04 pm

          As far as 60 th traffic is concerned, that is why I have proposed either 62 nd or 58th become a collector at least until Powell. This would not only relieve Division congestion for the transit project, but also allow for more Diversion in the 50s on Lincoln.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Momo October 24, 2017 at 10:28 pm

          Have you actually been on 30th south of Harrison? There are multiple traffic circles and the roadway narrows quite a bit at Division. Division/30th intersection is not designed to accommodate left turns from Division. It just wouldn’t work without spending a lot of money to dramatically transform a quiet local street into a collector.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Terry D-M October 25, 2017 at 10:10 am

            Yes parking would have to be removed as the street is only 26 feet curb to curb, a traffic light as part of the Division HCT project would be needed as well. I never make a suggestion without actually riding the route.

            My primary point is that not placing a collector or main corridor every approximately half mile is just asking for impatient drivers to cut through residential streets not designed for it. Between 20 the and Ceasar Chavez, almost a mile east, there are only three choices that are direct north-south roads 24 th, 30 th and 34 th. 30 th is the only viable option better than the current Collector Greenway Jog from 30 th to 26 th.

            The other choice is to remove parking on Harrison on these four blocks to add protected bike lanes. I’m ok with that as well…..but we need a clear, signed route for cars to get from 30/ Hawthorne to 26/ Division.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:29 pm

              RE: 60th, your solution to reducing cut through traffic in neighborhoods is to give up a local street to auto traffic and make it a collector?
              Seems counter intuitive to the mantra of making it more difficult to drive in Portland.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Terry D-M October 26, 2017 at 9:22 am

                Maybe it is counter intuitive, but it is a question of Organization. the commuters should stay on streets designed for them, instead of creating Neighborhood chaos, but they will only drive so far. We are reaching the limits of what the public will accept for congestion. If we as a city do not do some small scale local street connectivity improvements, the public will rebel out of fear, not just frustration. You have to make local streets safe enough so people are comfortable even getting to the Bikeways. If every street has a chaos of cut through traffic because of a lack of collectors, you can not induce people onto their bikes. When a collector dead ends at a residential Neighborhood, drivers react by finding a way, like running water. If the next arterial is too congested, they turn to local service streets.

                Sometimes to make one route safe enough for all ages, you have to move traffic other places. Contrary to what transportation theorists may think, most of the traffic does not magically disappear.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:45 am

          Proposals do not equal adopted policy.
          Should the traffic classification change, diversion can be revisited, if needed.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 1:22 pm

            What if the speed cushions do not slow vehicles to 20mph? Is PBOT committed to revisiting this section to get speeds down to 20mph?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:30 pm

              Not at this time. The cushions are part of the emergency response classification, not the neighborhood collector status.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 2:34 pm

                Why does PBOT designate greenways as emergency response routes? Surely that’s a problem.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 9:13 am

                Every street in Portland has six transportation mode classifications.
                Bike, pedestrian, auto, freight, transit and emergency.
                Newly proposed in the TSP is an addition for emergency response, called Secondary Emergency Response (SER) streets, between the Major (MER) and Minor classifications. SER streets will provide an alternative to MER when they are blocked.
                As one of the few Neighborhood Collectors in the area, 30th/Harrison/26th is proposed to become a SER. PBOT and PF&R have been negotiating this revision for about 5 years and the connection, with signals at either end, will remain valuable even if the collector designation is removed. SER routes are permitted speed cushions without permission from PF&R. Fire friendly diversion could be implemented if/when the Collector designation is removed.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • soren October 25, 2017 at 8:33 am

        “The BAC said Ladd was fine as it is – PBOT suggested diversion except buses.”

        The BAC is comprised of mostly roadies and enthusiasts. So, of course, they said this.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Terry D-M October 25, 2017 at 9:03 am

          Bicycle Advisory Committee? Doesn’t BikeLouxPdx have a seat on that yet?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • soren October 25, 2017 at 12:03 pm

            nope — only a handful of citizen advocates. however, there are ~10 people who worked for or continue to work for companies that directly profit from local/regional government transportation funding.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Terry D-M October 26, 2017 at 9:25 am

              That needs to be fixed. If they are making decisions like this, then their viability as a group is suspect.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Eric Leifsdad October 27, 2017 at 7:49 am

              Too bad there’s no money in honest work.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • SD October 24, 2017 at 3:22 pm

    Greenways are out of control. I have noticed cut through traffic on weekends when arterials are not congested. It seems like many drivers don’t even know they are on a greenway and are impatient if slowed down by non motorized traffic. Especially when their app told them that they are on the fastest route. That being said the Uber drivers know and don’t care.

    I notice it the most when I am running or biking with my family. Running in my neighborhood is now an act that requires hypervigilence.

    When I am biking by myself on NE greenways, I don’t have as many problems due to traveling a similar speed as cars. Meaning, I wouldn’t notice or think that it is that big of a deal.

    I am concerned that the “green way” plan to reduce bikes on arterials has dropped its goal of 8-80 infrastructure and PBOT is too slow to keep up with the needed changes. All of this was anticipated years ago. The city needs to be way more aggressive, or people need to start blocking streets.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 24, 2017 at 4:00 pm

      Care to be brave enough to name the greenway with cut-through problems, or is it a secret?

      Greenways are not built to reduce bike traffic on arterials. They are secondary paths for concerned users that don’t want to mix with arterial traffic.

      Anticipated? Evidence?
      An ideal goal is not anticipation, and all such goals depend on funding to implement, which naturally flows from the political will to fund such things. So blaming PBOT seems misdirected since PBOT does not elect commissioners.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Terry D-M October 24, 2017 at 4:14 pm

        Drivers are already following the sharrows from Glisan south, and I inevitably see a car turn onto 30 th southbound from Burnside….every time I’m there. That intersection, as I predicted, without entry diversion is a disaster. I take 32 nd instead and will continue to do so, particularly northbound.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • J.E. October 24, 2017 at 4:18 pm

        I can take a stab at this. In Inner SE, streets with motorized cut-through problems regardless of arterial traffic conditions include:

        – SE Ladd (diagonal street “shortcut” through Ladd’s Addition)
        – SE 21st from Division to Clinton (provides access between Division and Powell)
        – SE Lincoln east of 50th (provides access to/up and over Mt Tabor)
        – SE 16th (provides access to I-84)

        Other off-peak traffic problems:
        – SE Ankeny, 20th-28th (motorists looking for on-street parking when visiting Burnside commercial district on weekends and dinner)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • J.E. October 24, 2017 at 6:06 pm

          To expand on SE 16th: my phone’s GPS really REALLY wants me to take SE 16th to access I-84 eastbound when driving. It will tell me to turn onto 16th from Belmont, and will keep doing these crazy reroutes to get me to take 16th at the next possible opportunity, even though SE/NE 12th and Irving will do exactly the same thing, and won’t force me to cross major streets like Burnside without a signal. Even a single diverter between Belmont and Irving would alleviate this problem.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:51 am

          Ladd, and Lincoln east of 50th are part of this project.
          16th was not identified for upgrade, yet, but concepts have already been worked on.
          21st south of Division has transit, but is a known issue.
          SE Ankeny, agreed, it was not funded for the full length. Diversion is pending between 26th and 30th (one way east with westbound contraflow bike).

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:57 am

            My mistake on Ankeny diversion – future concept not funded. The one in planning is on Couch.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Hello, Kitty
            Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 1:24 pm

            Transit is not the problem on SE 21st. You could divert between Clinton and Taggart (for example) to radically cut vehicle flows without impacting bus service.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:32 pm

              Maybe when PBOT does a SE 21st to Gladstone project.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty October 25, 2017 at 2:37 pm

                Would diversion on 21st be something PBOT would actually consider?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 9:15 am

                $64,000 question.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty October 26, 2017 at 9:49 am

                I think a diverter at Tibbetts, or possibly restricting entrance from Powell would be effective. But politically challenging. Or possibly some super aggressive speed bumps.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Eric Leifsdad October 27, 2017 at 7:53 am

              We could also make a bus/bike-only diverter with a sign and enforce it with a camera.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

          • J.E. October 25, 2017 at 11:48 pm

            While Ladd may technically be part of this project, the only thing being currently recommended for the stretch is an improved pedestrian crossing near Clay. Nothing to address motor vehicle volumes on the street.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • soren October 26, 2017 at 8:59 am

              Paikiala stated above that PBOT recommended bus-only diversion at SE Ladd but that the BAC (!) disagreed.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 9:16 am

              As stated, because the BAC didn’t think it was a problem.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • J.E. October 26, 2017 at 2:08 pm

                Is this a manifestation of an anti-Ladd’s Addition vendetta? I can’t believe anyone who’s spent more than 30 seconds at Ladd’s Circle would ever say there aren’t too many cars for a greenway… never mind a triple greenway intersection (Ladd, Harrison, 16th).

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Terry D-M October 27, 2017 at 6:36 am

                Then they obviously do not ride bikes.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • maxD October 24, 2017 at 4:33 pm

        Going has cut-through problems

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:52 am

          Where? Have you requested a new count?
          It is also a project completed before the assessment report that raised the bar and set policy regarding diversion.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

      • SD October 24, 2017 at 5:00 pm

        It is a secret. How did you know?

        But, to prove my bravery, I will say that the worst one that I have the most experience with is NE Klickitat. I thought impatient speeding motorists were mostly during rush hour between 15th and 21st, but now seeing it on the weekends as well, extending past 33rd.

        I wish everyone genuinely considered “arterials” like NE 28th, Fremont, Alberta, Hawthorne, Mississippi as acceptable for bike access like you do.

        I anticipated it. If PBOT didn’t, that is a bummer.

        Sorry it sounded like I was blaming PBOT, as if PBOT is slow by intention or ability. The active transport arm of PBOT is too slow, because the funding and political juice that flow through it are inadequate.

        I may be wrong, but I think that PBOT does a great job, but their hands are tied being an agency with limited agency.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:55 am

          Klickitat, like NE Going is another of the early greenways completed before the assessment report that proposed internal diversion. PBOT got a lot of pushback for diversion at the segment crossing Alameda.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • SD October 25, 2017 at 10:10 am

            Thanks for the background. I hope diversion on this greenway is revisited at some point. The primary problems that I have seen are at 21st and 33rd where drivers don’t want to wait for the light.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:35 pm

              33rd is a rapid flash beacon, not a signal. It is a yellow warning, so drivers are not required to stop.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • SD October 26, 2017 at 8:14 am

                Clarification: Drivers don’t want to wait in line at the red light on 21st or 33rd so they turn onto Klickitat then go to Fremont.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

      • maccoinnich October 24, 2017 at 6:45 pm

        Last time I (tried) cycling on NW 24th it had bumper-to-bumper car traffic from Raleigh to Vaughn. Drivers were clearly using it as alternative to NW 23rd (and why not, when there are no diverters on the entire greenway?)

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:55 am

          NW 24th has not been updated to current greenway standards, though concepts have been drawn up.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • maccoinnich October 25, 2017 at 12:16 pm

            None of the northwest greenways have been updated to current standards, but I’m glad to hear concepts have been drawn up. I hope PBOT will share them with the neighborhood soon (as part of the Northwest In Motion project?).

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:35 pm

              Multiple streets in NW will be part of the NWIM.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • maxD October 24, 2017 at 4:35 pm

    Ankeny between 11th and Grand has major, high speed cut-through problems. Salmon between 11th and 7th has huge lines of cars during the morning commute leading to all kinds of stupid behavior by people driving and biking

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:56 am

      See above. Ankeny upgrades were only partially funded for the segment from 12th to 28th.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • maxD October 25, 2017 at 1:11 pm

        What about Salmon between 11th and 7th? In addition to diversion, Salmon has uncontrolled intersections at 12th, 11th, 7th, Grand, MLK, and Water. At some point, Salmon sort of jogs over to Taylor to get across Grand and MLK, but that is a high volume street and has very sketchy intersection at Water

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:37 pm

          Salmon/Taylor, legacy bike boulevard not yet upgraded to NG standard.
          data collection has occurred or in progress. No timeline for work.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • soren October 28, 2017 at 10:35 am

            when it comes to ped/bike infrastructure i would like to see pbot focus its limited planning and project management energy on east portland for several years.

            however, once pbot has made significant progress there, i too would like to see some traffic calming/diversion on salmon. imo, aggressive peak hour cut through traffic has caused some bike commuters to switch from salmon to taylor or yamhill.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Karl Cash October 24, 2017 at 7:11 pm

    People will always find ways to fight the system. Especially if the system is doing things they the majority clearly isn’t in favor of. When I drive I will continue to use the side streets as long as I possibly can. “Calming” efforts are only going to create more havoc…

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • rick October 24, 2017 at 8:37 pm

      Why not safely drive on the main roads ?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • David Hampsten October 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm

      Speaking of havoc, I have a friend who tests newly repaired Mercedes Benz cars on Lincoln-Harrison, because of the curves and slower car speeds. Now he’ll have to find new routes, alas. Fortunately for him, he’s a regular reader of BP (he bikes to work), and the list above is sure to help him.

      Seriously, your use of side streets actually supports the “system”, as folks are encouraged to use all alternatives. Chances are you are driving at near the posted speed limit, more or less. Traffic models always assume a certain amount of seepage, of users such as yourself using side streets. Overall, most users use the busy streets, fewer on collector streets, etc.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:40 pm

      KC,
      Can you provide a citation for the survey regarding what the majority wants?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Randy October 24, 2017 at 7:26 pm

    Future Planning: What happens lots of bikes are crossing 60th at “rush” hour holding up traffic… This is happening now on several bike Blvd’s. Build up and over or under?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 9:59 am

      Full signals can be used to solve either issue, or if there is space, a mini-roundabout.
      The bigger issue might be the queue of traffic from Division, though requiring to keep the intersection clear may solve that issue.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Eric Leifsdad October 27, 2017 at 11:32 pm

      “Lots of bikes holding up traffic” like bikes aren’t traffic.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Doug Klotz October 24, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    A Friends of Trees planting a few years ago specifically concentrated on Lincoln (and Harrison). A few trees got planted. The rest of the owners didn’t sign up.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Pat Franz October 24, 2017 at 11:16 pm

    I’m very happy to see Lincoln/Harrison upgrades. I live just off the greenway on 43rd and I and my family ride it often. The amount of auto traffic has been going up steadily for years, but seems to have really taken off in the past couple of years. The speed bumps really helped with speeds, but not with volumes.

    As to the southbound 43rd approaching Lincoln visibility problem- part of the problem is the uphill to the east, but it’s also an unfortunately placed tree on the NE corner and the shading by tall trees of of bike riders going east approaching the SW corner. I avoid that intersection by by bike or car, just too many “almost didn’t see them” moments.

    Another spot worth looking at is 52nd and Lincoln. I ride 52nd a lot, and see lots of cars coming south on 52nd that pull out into Lincoln trying to check for traffic coming down the hill westbound on Lincoln. Bikes are going fast there. Cars also use 51st as a cut through there. I meet cars all the time at 51st and Lincoln that were stopped at the light with me at 52nd and Division.

    But again, Bravo for improving this greenway. It does see a lot of bike traffic. I predict a lot more auto traffic on Harrison between 32nd and 50th though.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Karl Cash October 25, 2017 at 4:00 am

      Yep, people will continue to fight the system that continues to provoke them to ride their bikes when they have no interest in doing so. That includes driving on any and all streets that avoids the common uses of lousy calming efforts. The city and the growing population will continue to clash. It is my hope to find enough people to stop this outrageous goal of turning every street to some sort of biking utopia.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Resopmok October 25, 2017 at 7:28 am

        The real clash comes from the growing population and their addiction to cars. Those who are unwilling to give up this luxury are causing the traffic problems which are the real cause of your frustration. People on bikes are doing you a favor, and one would think you’d be happy the city is trying to get them out of your way. Go drive on the highway, it’s already designated for motor vehicles only, and leave our green ways alone.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • SD October 25, 2017 at 8:41 am

        When you find those people, you could start a campaign for a driver education program on how to drive safely and courteously. Then, we wouldn’t need diverters and there would be some room in car utopia for a little bike utopia. That is, if car utopia is even possible for humans given that cars are incompatible with life : )

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • soren October 25, 2017 at 8:49 am

        The ongoing global tragedy of the commons is going to motivate people to be interested in all sorts of things they are not interested in now.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • bikeninja October 25, 2017 at 9:27 am

        Welcome to Bike Portland Karl, it is fun and interesting to get input from outside the bike bubble. We can often suffer groupthink and miss good ideas from outside our “box”. So I am truly interested in what you think would be good calming efforts as opposed to the “Lousy” ones currently proposed.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • dan October 25, 2017 at 10:50 am

          Bold prediction: Karl has no constructive suggestions to offer, just wants everything paved and everyone in a motor vehicle, creeping along at 5 mph.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 25, 2017 at 11:39 am

            dan,

            I should probably edit or delete your comment. How is that constructive or nice? Karl has a different opinion. Let’s not speculate about his perspectives. And please be considerate of others here. Thanks.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • dan October 25, 2017 at 1:32 pm

              No argument, but I’d ask you to apply the same lens to his post. Is that constructive?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 10:13 am

        Because the ‘car driving utopia’ is working soooo well…

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Laura October 25, 2017 at 7:24 am

    It looks like a good start. I walk, run, and bike on Lincoln (Chavez – Mt Tabor and beyond) nearly every day, for 15 or so years, and traffic volumes are one issue, but so is the increase in motorized travel speeds and discourtesy to active transportation. One thing that’s missing…why no restriction to vehicle entry at westbound 60th? Make it bike and bus only (like 52nd at Division), and plant a popo on 59th once a week during peak travel periods.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 2:58 pm

      Laura,
      I recommend you bring your diversion at 60th suggestion to the meeting. It’s possible PBOT has already contemplated this. Recall a bus route turns at this intersection.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Terry D-M October 26, 2017 at 9:43 am

        This is a good idea, except that it will push the traffic Currently using Lincoln to either Hawthorne, that as a city we have spent decades trying to calm because of the steep slope and right angled turns, or Division which is already too congested for the Division HCT Project to run on time.

        Hence why I’m suggesting we create a collector in between 50 th and 71 st between Division and Powell with clear signage “Take 58 th to Powell” similar to 60 th north “Take 57 th to Sandy”. Much of the westbound traffic is trying to actually get south and are taking advantage of the traffic lights in 52 ND and 50 th.

        We could then heavily divert Lincoln, 64 th as part of the 60 s Bikeway south AND improve Division congestion for the 60 high capacity buses…….but adding a half mile Collector is against the dogma of “let’s just make it more congested and people will change.”

        That only works to a point.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Scott Kocher October 25, 2017 at 8:29 am

    What is a semi-diverter?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 25, 2017 at 10:11 am

      Any physical object that prevents one, or more, auto directions of travel.
      By policy, all but high speed, access managed roadways shall provide access for people walking and biking (ideal future).
      Local Service streets are for access between private property and the higher order streets, as such, perfect access by any person driving is not required.
      Some diverters have names based on their form, like median barriers (Clinton/17th, Harrison/20th), or diagonal diverters (Ankeny/15th), even though they only block some directions of travel.
      The curb extensions at Clinton/Chavez and Lincoln/Chavez are typically what PBOT means when using the term semi-diverter. Updated versions avoid drainage issues by only constructing an island that blocks auto entry from a main street, like Clinton/34th.
      As distinguished from road closures or cul-de-sacs that block all auto movements (full diversion) like Klickitat 23-24th, or Holman west of 13th.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Duncan Parks October 25, 2017 at 9:11 pm

    The additional diverters (bike-only access) seem like a great idea. But 31 *new* speed bumps? Ugh.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty October 26, 2017 at 9:55 am

    Does anyone know if buses can navigate “fire friendly” diverters?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 26, 2017 at 4:51 pm

      Fire friendly diverters usually have turn or entry prohibition signs and also break away sign posts or vertical delineators that fire trucks knock down as needed.

      Bus friendly traffic diverters would be fire truck accessible.

      Something link Spokane west of 13th, or Gladstone east of 42nd, is what was envisioned for Ladd.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Terry D-M October 27, 2017 at 6:33 am

        If BAC did not think this is a problem than that group is useless as they obviously have no connections to real world conditions.

        Ladd is terrible during communter times, I do see why you would even try to do a “safety project” on a corridor this long without fixing this critical gap……any project is only as strong as it’s weakest link.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • paikiala October 27, 2017 at 9:40 am

          Ladd is proposed to get speed bumps, which should reduce some volume and will reduce speeds.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren October 27, 2017 at 1:41 pm

          SE Ladd has the highest VPD volume of any stretch of this project. The BACs decision to oppose soft diversion here is unbelievable.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • John Liu
            John Liu October 27, 2017 at 10:45 pm

            I’ll confess I started an application to join the BAC but didn’t complete it. Too busy. But hopefully others will, especially those who consider themselves less roadie like.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • soren October 28, 2017 at 10:17 am

              john, hope you find the time. we need more citizen advocates on that committee.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Adam October 26, 2017 at 7:33 pm

    YES. YES. YES.

    One question though – Trimet? Don’t they currently go up SE Lincoln at 50th? Or am I mistaken?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala October 27, 2017 at 9:39 am

      Tri-met uses 52nd/Lincoln/60th.
      PPS has been using Lincoln at 50th.

      Recommended Thumb up 0