Holiday Sale at Western Bikeworks

Mt. Tabor neighborhood votes 45-5 against diverters at 50th and Lincoln

Posted by on November 16th, 2017 at 4:26 pm

Pretty clear where the Tabor Rising neighborhood group stands on the issue.

Remember that opposition to the City’s plans for traffic diversion as part of the Lincoln-Harrison Neighborhood Greenway project we we warned you about earlier this month? It hasn’t gone away. In fact, it appears to be getting stronger.

At the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s open house for the project just one day after our post was published, we heard that people against the diverters “swamped” people who support them. “By a lot,” our source said.

Then, at their monthly meeting last night, the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association (MTNA) voted 45-5 against one specific part of the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s proposal: a semi-diverter on both sides of Lincoln at SE 50th. According to a BikePortland reader who was at the meeting, the vote was a motion to oppose the proposed diverter at 50th and Lincoln as currently designed and to request more information and a meeting with PBOT to ask questions and share concerns.

Diverters are a tool PBOT uses to reduce the number of people who drive on a street — and the goal with this project is to restore Lincoln as a low-stress, family-friendly bike route. PBOT’s established guidelines say the target “average daily traffic” (or ADT) volume on a neighborhood greenway should be 1,000 cars per day. Lincoln at 50th has around 1,500 ADT.

PBOT proposal for 50th and Lincoln.

While many neighbors and people who use Lincoln are in favor of the diverters, the voices opposed to it are making themselves heard.

A summary of notes from the MTNA’s November 2nd meeting (PDF) offers a glimpse of what the group is hearing from its members. Here are some of the concerns:

➤ Diverters will just make drivers cross Lincoln at other streets, causing even greater safety problems.

➤ Neighbors say this is an “equity concern” because the money PBOT would spend on this diverter could be used in “other neighborhoods lagging in bike infrastructure.”

➤ “Policies that squeeze people out of cars ignore/dismiss the needs of the disabled and of the aging… Low-wage job holders are more likely to be dependent on cars.”

➤ There’s a fear that too many diverters will “isolate” the neighborhood and increase emergency response times.

Instead of the diverters, MTNA says potential solutions could be a bike-only signal, more speed bumps, better enforcement of existing laws, and just one diverter on the west of 50th (instead of on both sides).

“We will take this vote and the sentiment it expresses into consideration as we continue to refine the design.”
— John Brady, PBOT

We asked PBOT to respond to last night’s vote. Communications Director John Brady said, “We are currently in the outreach phase of the project, so we will take this vote and the sentiment it expresses into consideration as we continue to refine the design.”

“We feel it is important for community members to know that we studied the car volumes along the proposed Greenway corridor,” Brady continued. “The diverters that we have proposed, including the diverter at 50th and Lincoln, are at intersections where the volume of cars exceed the acceptable standards in our city’s Neighborhood Greenway guidelines.”

Brady urges everyone to take the official project survey. While you’re at it, there are petitions floating around both for and against this project.

PBOT will host another open house for this project on December 5th from 6:00 to 7:30 pm at Atkinson Elementary School (5800 SE Division Street). Construction on this project is slated to begin in spring of next year.

— 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.

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

94 Comments
  • dan November 16, 2017 at 4:32 pm

    Install photo radar on Lincoln, send a ticket to anyone who drives over 20 mph. Done! Then we don’t even need the speed bumps.

    Recommended Thumb up 26

    • Allan Rudwick November 16, 2017 at 5:20 pm

      this only would be done at 1 location, tops. Unless someone figures out how to make these devices cheap enough to pay for themselves or profitable. Otherwise we’ll never have this type of enforcement be effective

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 9:18 am

      Fixed photo radar enforcement is not permitted on a street like Lincoln, per state law.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Paul Atkinson November 16, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    “Diverters will just make drivers cross Lincoln at other streets, causing even greater safety problems.”
    Translation: we know there are a ton of cars on the greenway. We know there’s a safety impact. We’re okay with that.

    “Neighbors say this is an “equity concern” because the money PBOT would spend on this diverter could be used in “other neighborhoods lagging in bike infrastructure.””
    Translation: we’re happy to take as much of the city’s money as we can get our hands on without every questioning equity, but we’re pretty sure you won’t argue with us if we present that as our concern.

    “Policies that squeeze people out of cars ignore/dismiss the needs of the disabled and of the aging… Low-wage job holders are more likely to be dependent on cars.”
    Translation: I have never done any research on transportation mode share. I assume the aging and the disabled must always use cars.

    “There’s a fear that too many diverters will “isolate” the neighborhood and increase emergency response times.”
    Translation: I have never done any research on emergency response times as they relate to infrastructure, and also I don’t know what “isolate” means. But a pamphlet I read said this was a concern.

    Okay…enough snark. Pretty sure this could be solved with a combination of education and open minds.

    Recommended Thumb up 45

    • John Lascurettes November 16, 2017 at 11:41 pm

      Policies that squeeze people out of cars ignore/dismiss the needs of the disabled and of the aging… Low-wage job holders are more likely to be dependent on cars.

      Ever hear of driving around? Only takes a much muscle effort as using that skinny pedal on the right that makes the car go. Try taking some of the “official” bike routes sometime and try it under human power.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • John Lascurettes November 16, 2017 at 11:41 pm

        Like, how is a diverter literally squeezing someone out of their car?

        Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Andrea Brown November 19, 2017 at 11:52 am

      I am taking this quote out of context, it’s from an essay about Mark Zuckerberg in the Financial Times, but you may find it relevant:

      “Mr Zuckerberg suffers from two delusions common to America’s new economy elites. They think they are nice people — indeed, most of them are. Mr Zuckerberg seems to be, too. But they tend to cloak their self-interest in righteous language.”

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bikeninja November 16, 2017 at 4:53 pm

    The auto zombies strike back!

    Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Christopher of Portland November 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    Policies that squeeze people off of bikes ignore/dismiss the needs of our lungs and of the environment…

    Recommended Thumb up 16

  • soren November 16, 2017 at 5:15 pm

    The equity arguments in the NA notes are laughable.

    1) In contrast to what is argued, lower income people and PoC are *less* likely to use cars for transportation to work.
    2) The speed bumps, increased outreach, and bike signals called for in these notes are far more expensive than the several thousand dollars needed for a diverter.
    3) This neighborhood greenway is also used by people who live further to the east of this relatively upper-income neighborhood.

    Contrasting comments from “bikers” with those from “people with personal experience” is incredibly biased. “Bikers” who use Lincoln-Harrison are people too.

    Recommended Thumb up 38

  • Toadslick November 16, 2017 at 5:32 pm

    just one diverter on the west of 50th (instead of on both sides)

    I’m guessing that Portland Rising lives east of 50th and is sad that they won’t get to drive on Lincoln anymore.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

  • Richard November 16, 2017 at 5:50 pm

    This…

    “Neighbors say this is an ‘equity concern’ because the money PBOT would spend on this diverter could be used in ‘other neighborhoods lagging in bike infrastructure.’”

    …reads as:

    “Neighbors say this is an ‘equity concern’ because the money PBOT would spend on [saving lives] could be used in ‘other neighborhoods [to save lives].”

    HOW ABOUT WE DO BOTH.

    Also: “Policies that [prioritize] cars ignore/dismiss the needs of [people, such as those most vulnerable like] the disabled and the aging… Low-wage job holders are more likely to [not afford] cars [and should be protected in their needed modes of transit too].”

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • rick November 16, 2017 at 5:52 pm

    and the neighborhood’s plan for safety is ??

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • B. Carfree November 16, 2017 at 9:46 pm

      They plan to purchase bigger SUVs to increase their safety, of course.

      Recommended Thumb up 23

  • Clark in Vancouver November 16, 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Low-wage job holders are more likely to be dependent on cars?
    What planet are these people living on anyway?

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 9:33 am

      The planet where some people have to work off-hours when transit is not running frequently?

      There’s lots of scoffing over whether “poor people” can really afford a car. I don’t know if they can, but they very frequently do. If you live in North Tabor, but work the late shift up on Columbia, you’re almost certainly going to drive to work.

      This doesn’t strike me as a particularly compelling argument for or against diverters, but let’s challenge that argument directly, rather than assuming certain classes of people don’t have cars.

      Recommended Thumb up 12

      • ps November 17, 2017 at 9:50 am

        Seems to be a fair assumption that folks of any financial means that work off hours aren’t commuting during rush hour and therefore would be less likely to be materially impacted by a diverter along their route. Frankly, anyone who works off hours is an improvement to the system as it spreads the load. Now those that are of limited economic means and have to commute during rush hour so they elect to sit in a car to do that as opposed to bike, transit, etc., that is a tough spot to be in and probably not one that will garner a significant amount of sympathy.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Alex Reedin November 17, 2017 at 4:07 pm

        We’ve gone over this before. The Census data BikePortland has presented show that lower-income households are more likely to bike to work than other households bare in the Portland metro area. Please present data to support your assertion that lower-income folks are more likely to drive than other folks, because it’s looking false to me.
        https://www.google.com/amp/s/bikeportland.org/2014/01/30/biking-matters-most-to-lowest-income-local-households-new-data-shows-100713/amp

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty November 19, 2017 at 12:13 pm

          I am sorry if my message was muddled. I did not intend to assert (and believe I did not) that the poor drive more than other groups.

          In any event, my main point was that income in the context of the diverters was not hugely relevant to whether they were a good idea or not. I still think that is true.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike November 16, 2017 at 9:16 pm

    As a resident of 57th Ave between Hawthorne and Lincoln I am in favor of the diverters as ride this route every day to work in Beaverton. There are a fair amount of cars that seem to use Lincoln to avoid Division or Hawthorne, but I rarely feel unsafe unless I am with my family (but that is the case on most streets).

    However, I am less inclined to dismiss my neighbors concerns about cut through traffic as I could see this as an issue. Although, I would love to see some actual data posted as to the increase, or lack of, once a diverter is put in place like at 52nd and Division.

    I am also very concerned about the constant speeding up or down Hawthorne between 60th and 55th by the Seminary.

    Regardless of the outcome, some more rigorous traffic enforcement on these neighbor streets or bikeways is a must.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Dick Pilz November 17, 2017 at 7:10 am

      Car traffic on 53rd increased 85% after the 52nd and Division diverter was put in, despite new speed bumps and a stop sign at Sherman.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Art fuldodger November 17, 2017 at 9:07 am

        Dick, do you happen to know the raw numbers (total daily traffic volume)?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • soren November 17, 2017 at 10:40 am

        200-300 vehicles per day!!1!!
        How can mount tabor neighoborhood people possibly cope with such horribly typical traffic on residential streets?

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Chris I November 17, 2017 at 12:30 pm

          The pearls! We must clutch them!

          Recommended Thumb up 8

          • Dick Pilz November 17, 2017 at 2:32 pm

            Great! I’ll tell all the little kids on these blocks that they will just need to suck it up.

            Recommended Thumb up 2

            • soren November 17, 2017 at 6:03 pm

              will you also tell the kids on residential streets with similar vpd that are many blocks away from the diverter to suck it up?

              Recommended Thumb up 7

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 6:16 pm

                This is kind of the problem, isn’t it? People love to say “you knew that street was busy when you bought your house, so suck it up”, as if residents have no right to try to improve conditions. In this case, they’re skipping that first part and going straight to “suck it up”.

                Recommended Thumb up 3

              • soren November 17, 2017 at 8:48 pm

                I agree. The complaining neighbors should try driving a little less.

                Recommended Thumb up 7

              • paikiala November 19, 2017 at 9:51 am

                Or consider the children living on Lincoln-Harrison right now…

                “Equity can seem unfair to those that have benefited from past inequity.”

                Recommended Thumb up 4

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty November 19, 2017 at 11:34 am

                The flaw with that argument is that the people living on Lincoln now chose to do so, whereas the people on parallel streets did not. In a very real sense these sorts of projects take from one group of neighbors and give to another. I think it’s a stretch to call this is an equity issue.

                I want more bike projects to go forward, so I’m very concerned with how the negative effects are mitigated. I think it is damaging to have a large pool of disgruntled people who may feed resistance to future projects.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Alex Reedin November 20, 2017 at 5:03 pm

                As I’ve pointed out before, streets with higher traffic have systematically lower property values for single-family homes than streets with lower traffic. There is an equity aspect here, though within a wealthy, walkable neighborhood like Mount Tabor I don’t think it’s that strong.

                http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Appraisal-Journal/14522638.html

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty November 20, 2017 at 5:22 pm

                This is true. It may be part of why, when PBOT tells people they’re going increase traffic on their street, they get upset. Not everyone who lives on a low traffic street is rich, but many have the bulk of their life savings in their home, so actions that reduce property values (or even just quality of life) is something people reasonably get upset about.

                The main point is if PBOT does a better job at addressing the side-effects of their projects, other neighborhoods may be more welcoming in the future. I want more projects, and I want neighborhoods to be more welcoming towards them.

                Recommended Thumb up 1

            • soren November 21, 2017 at 10:01 am

              hello, kitty, do you have any evidence for the claim that pbot increased traffic on 51st and 53rd?

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty November 21, 2017 at 11:01 am

                None at all. Did someone claim that?

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • soren November 21, 2017 at 6:29 pm

                doug pilz did and i *thought* that was what we were discussing. and, btw, if a diverter persistently increased traffic counts i would support evidence-based mitigation.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Hello, Kitty
                Hello, Kitty November 21, 2017 at 10:35 pm

                I would too, but I also support mitigation that will be reassuring to the next neighborhood to get a greenway upgrade.

                Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mickey November 17, 2017 at 6:37 am

    I also live in this area and am a regular bike commuter on Lincoln, and was also at Wednesday’s neighborhood meeting. Opposition to the diverter was closely followed by an equally strong desire for the city to share information and work with neighbors to define the problem and come up with solutions. The concerns outlined in that PDF are debatable, but big picture I think it’s reasonable for folks to expect the city to actually engage the various communities that would be affected (rather than just tell them what’s going to be done).

    I can see some value of having a diverter, but in my experience riding Lincoln it is the cross traffic that puts riders at greater risk, and I can see why my older neighbors who don’t ride don’t want to be diverted to Division or Hawthorne just to get into the neighborhood (the long blocks south of Lincoln and the dead end streets north of Lincoln mean there aren’t a lot of other options if you’re coming from the west).

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 9:44 am

      PBOT already visited all three NA’s to discuss proposals and the BAC before going to the open houses. The diverter at 50th was changed to the current form from a median barrier that would have also prevented west to south and east to north auto movements.
      This is the engagement. Approved policy dictates the outcome and diversion is the only tool that will accomplish the outcome. It’s not a matter of if to do diversion, but where. Diversion between 50th and 60th would be more disruptive to the local neighborhood and prevent access to a controlled intersection at 50th for anyone on the other side of that diverter.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Chris November 17, 2017 at 9:50 am

      I agree the cross traffic failing to yield on Greenways poses a significant risk. I basically have to act like I have a yield sign at every Greenway intersection when I see a car approaching, which I think virtually all defensive riders can relate to. I don’t know if there is a solution to this other than diverters blocking cross traffic at every Greenway intersection, which, if this story is any indication, is not likely to happen any time soon.

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 12:55 pm

        The belief that stop signs, signals, or any other traffic control device, *causes* what those devices command is part of the mythology.
        All such things only work in so much as people using the roadways agree to comply.
        e.g., you should always make sure opposing traffic is stopping when they are supposed to, every time.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 12:57 pm

          That said, students tell me the marked crosswalk PBOT installed in front of Cleveland HS made a HUGE difference in driver behavior for students crossing the street, despite the fact that it didn’t change the underlying rules requiring drivers to stop for crossing pedestrians.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 3:46 pm

            In the same vein, I had someone state that they thought crossing 82nd Avenue was illegal unless the crossing was marked. Genuine surprise ensued when informed they were wrong.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

    • soren November 17, 2017 at 6:18 pm

      “but in my experience riding Lincoln it is the cross traffic that puts riders at greater risk”

      Failure of cross traffic to yield has been a long-term problem on neighborhood greenways and BikeLoudPDX has advocated for mitigation tools many times. If you care about this issue please get involved via BL or as individual advocate.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • meh November 17, 2017 at 7:35 am

    It’s not enforcement it revenue generation. Getting a ticket in the mail 2 weeks after the incident doesn’t do much to link the bad behavior to the penalty. There’s more impact when you are pulled over at the time of the offense.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • nuovorecord November 17, 2017 at 8:45 am

      I disagree. I got a photo radar ticket once. I knew instantly that I’d been nabbed and it was no surprise when the ticket showed up in the mail. Definitely made an impact on my driving habits.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 9:43 am

        In France, they call it “getting flashed”. You know.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • meh November 20, 2017 at 3:23 pm

        But throw an actual police officer in a car with you pulled over. Not only does it have an impact on you the driver, but it also calms the rest of the traffic on the road. Something a ticket in the mail does not do.

        Like rubbing your dogs nose in the mess on the carpet, It happened 5 hours ago, Fido can’t even remember leaving the mess let alone learn from the experience.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 9:48 am

      Portland has rarely ‘made’ money on photo enforcement. The County courts and state take a large chunk of any final fine.
      https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/624670

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • RH November 17, 2017 at 9:42 am

    45 against is 90%. 5 in favor is 10%. That is probably the mode split between auto’s and cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 12

  • Chris November 17, 2017 at 9:42 am

    What a shame. The City has chosen to prioritize the Greenway network as the backbone of bicycling in Portland. However, those of us who use the Greenways daily know how many drivers use them as cut-through streets and roll through stops signs to cut across them. This is unacceptable for a City with a stated goal of increasing bike mode share four-fold in the next 13 years. Diverters are a simple, low cost solution to this problem. The City needs to show some leadership and significantly increase the number of diverters on Greenways throughout the City, regardless of whatever leaflet campaign is waged by residents of the adjacent streets.

    Recommended Thumb up 17

  • James November 17, 2017 at 10:09 am

    So 90% of the hood says no. Move on.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • austin November 17, 2017 at 11:57 am

      Sometimes when the majority won’t look out for the minority, someone has to step in to help.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Chris I November 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm

      Just like marriage equality, right?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • soren November 20, 2017 at 7:53 am

      Neighborhood associations are not representative of their neighborhood but maybe you are OK with this…

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty November 20, 2017 at 11:14 am

        They would more representative if a wider spectrum of the neighborhood participated.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren November 25, 2017 at 4:09 pm

          Many residents do not know these organizations exist. I personally found out by neighborhood associations/coalitions not through a general mailer but because I am an active volunteer advocate/organizer. And, to this date, I have never received a general mailer/email about my neighborhood association/coalition.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • SD November 17, 2017 at 10:21 am

    Breaking news: Some Portlanders not prepared to live in a growing city, would prefer time machine to 10 years ago.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

    • bikeninja November 17, 2017 at 10:47 am

      Well if the car-heads keep it up, the co2 pollution and resource consumption of their doom buggies will set their time machine back to the middle ages.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 10:54 am

      Seriously… And they want to ride bikes on streets that have no traffic. Move to the suburbs, folks!

      Is that what you meant?

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • SD November 17, 2017 at 11:00 am

        Finally, I dropped some commentary catnip…. it’s been a while.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 11:27 am

          🙂

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Oregonlahar November 17, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Tabor Rising (to clog our streets with cars).

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Rain Panther November 17, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    Can’t help wondering. Is that 90% opposition really indicative of the overall sentiment in the area? Or is it just that some portion of the population got sufficiently riled up that they were able to mobilize more people? Maybe the supporters figured it was already in the bag?

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) November 17, 2017 at 12:29 pm

      I doubt it’s indicative. N’hood groups are almost always dominated by older and more conservative members of the n’hood. And the good thing is PBOT knows this. PBOT is — I very much hope — smart enough to know how to decide between which opposition is actually important and credible, and which opposition is just ppl yelling bcuz they fear change and don’t want to be inconvenienced.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • John Liu November 17, 2017 at 2:14 pm

        Neighborhood association meetings tend to draw people who are more active and engaged in the neighborhood. That often tends be the longer-term neighborhood residents, who will often be older (= longer-term).

        It is hard to avoid this; there’s no way to force uninvolved residents to be involved.

        PBOT’s outreach methods also tend to draw the same type of person. After all, what does PBOT usually do: visit the NAs and hold open houses. Uninvolved residents don’t tend to show up.

        However, it would not be hard or expensive for PBOT to mail a survey postcard to every address in that neighborhood (printing and mailing cost cost about $2,000).

        If PBOT feels the input it gets from its existing outreach is insufficient, it should do such a mailing. It should not simply label one group of residents as not important or not credible, or make unsupported assumptions about what input might be from other residents if those other residents gave input.

        In the case of Tabor, I’m hopeful that PBOT will provide the neighborhood with more information that will address the concerns about cut-through traffic swerving through the neighborhood to bypass the diverters, and that this Lincoln/50th diverter will get installed. I also, personally, wish it were a more robust design that drivers won’t be able to squeeze around.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • JeffS November 17, 2017 at 4:08 pm

        So, people who don’t share your opinion aren’t “credible” now?

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Chris I November 17, 2017 at 12:32 pm

      Completely misrepresentative. I’m general, NA’s are full of busybody NIMBY’s. All change is bad. Distrust outsiders, etc, etc.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 12:55 pm

        Probably racists too.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Justin November 17, 2017 at 2:35 pm

          and I’ll bet they don’t even recycle.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty November 17, 2017 at 1:00 pm

      I’m sure it’s not indicative. Probably 90% don’t really care because it doesn’t affect them much.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Kyle Banerjee November 17, 2017 at 6:46 pm

        Whether you drive or bike, a lot of this stuff doesn’t — even if you live right there.

        I lived on 32nd near Woodward for the great Clinton diverter battle. The stakes aren’t nearly as big as either side would like you to believe.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • I'll show up November 17, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    Is anyone going to start organizing an effort to fight for these improvements? I’m more of a shower-upper than a leader. I remember on Clinton, there were rides, postcards, rallying for open houses, showing up at neighborhood meetings. I’m not seeing that with this one and it has way, way stronger naysayers. As a Mt. Tabor neighbor, I saw my neighbors there. On next door, someone posted a pro petition. Of the first 35 comments, 3 were supportive of the project. Most comments were that we shouldn’t have diversion. Some were that it somehow isn’t bike friendly enough. Are we going to see people fight for this thing or is our community ok with how things are on Lincoln?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • JeffS November 17, 2017 at 4:11 pm

      While I don’t personally live in that neighborhood, I ride Lincoln regularly and I’m fine with how it is. I view the bike boxes as dangerous and pointless infrastructure, but other than that, no complaints.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • John Liu
      John Liu November 17, 2017 at 7:57 pm

      NextDoor has a lot of problems, but it does help draw out responses from residents.

      If the ND responses were 90% opposed 10% support and the vote at the NA meeting was 90% opposed and 10% support . . . I think PBOT – and BP – shouldn’t blithely assume the opposition is just a handful of non-representative old fogeys. It probably means PBOT hasn’t done a good job of making the case for its Lincoln plans.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Doug Klotz November 17, 2017 at 9:45 pm

      The “pro” online petition now has 143 signers.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • paikiala November 17, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    John,
    do you assume PBOT did not send out a postcard?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • John Liu
      John Liu November 17, 2017 at 7:25 pm

      Did they?

      If they did, what were the responses received? % for and % against diverter?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala November 19, 2017 at 9:55 am

        The online survey and open house comment cards is how sentiment is gaged. Notification of open houses is by post card.
        Last check, 50% of respondents in favor of diversion on the greenway.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Alex Reedin November 20, 2017 at 5:06 pm

          It sounds like there’s proactive outreach to nearby residents (post cards). Is there proactive outreach to street users not from the neighborhood? (e.g. standing on a street corner and handing out flyers etc.)

          Recommended Thumb up 2

        • John Liu
          John Liu November 21, 2017 at 8:37 pm

          The postcard directs people to the online survey, with a URL?

          Does PBOT also invite responses by mailing back the postcard?

          My experience in polling a neighborhood is that a certain part of the population will respond to online surveys, others don’t do things online but will fill out a card and mail it in. Different methods tend to skew to different groups.

          How many responses have been received, ballpark anyway?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • I’ll Show Up November 25, 2017 at 2:39 pm

      As a leading member of Stop Demolishing Portland (aka CAVE Citizens Against Virtually Everything), John spends a lot of time here and other forums like Portland YIMBY causing internal conflict and getting in the way of any progressive conversation. It doesn’t matter what PBOT does. John’s goal is to get it to do virtually nothing. Good job, John.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • John Liu
    John Liu November 17, 2017 at 10:47 pm

    By the way, what position have Richmond and Hosford-Abernethy taken on the part of the project in their neighborhoods?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty November 18, 2017 at 11:17 am

      None, I believe.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Eric Leifsdad November 18, 2017 at 7:36 am

    Giving neighborhoods veto over a greenway just like we do with carways like Powell, right?

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Hello, Kitty
      Hello, Kitty November 18, 2017 at 11:14 am

      Yes. If PBOT proposed building a road like Powell through neighborhood I suspect people living there would have a lot to say about it.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • paikiala November 19, 2017 at 10:00 am

        So, Roger Geller did an analysis of how many Powell Blvds would be needed if we don’t shift people away from the current mode split.
        So, if people would oppose 10-20 more Powell Blvds in Portland, perhaps they should suggest an alternative way to get people around the city.
        Maybe a network of bike streets?
        If only there was some way to encourage people to use bikes for trips under 5 miles…

        Recommended Thumb up 3

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty November 19, 2017 at 11:22 am

          The city could take steps to slow it’s growth. One example of how would be to stop trying to entice companies like Amazon to set up shop here.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

        • Patrick November 20, 2017 at 11:05 am

          I wonder if the weather has anything to do with people’s reluctance to take bikes more frequently…?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • oliver November 20, 2017 at 8:52 am

    I will definitely make it a point to drive on 50th whenever I get over that way.

    Of course, it’s not about increasing the traffic on 50th, it’s about forcing drivers who back on to Division or Hawthorne who would rather car commute on the neighborhood street greenway because there’s less traffic.

    Recommended Thumb up 0