Ruckus Warehouse Sale

Council date set for $30 million Central City in Motion plan

Posted by on October 9th, 2018 at 2:24 pm

PBOT concept drawing of protected bikeway on SE Hawthorne at 6th.

UPDATE, 11/8: Council date has been changed to Thursday, November 15th at 2:00 pm.

October 31st*. That’s when the Portland Bureau of Transportation plans to present their Central City in Motion project to Mayor Ted Wheeler and the rest of city council.

93 percent of respondents said the CCIM projects would make the central city safer, and 85 percent said the projects would make them more likely to take transit, walk, or bike

PBOT made the announcement on Twitter yesterday while explaining that the goal of the project is to, “improve and optimize our transportation system for all users, ensure that people driving, walking, biking and taking the bus know where they are supposed to be on the road and how they’re supposed to use the network.”

Regardless of the diplomatic way they describe it, this could be the most important investment in major bikeways in Portland for decades. With protected lanes as a default and an estimated budget of $30 million, we could finally see a few crucial pieces of the puzzle laid out in relatively short order (the first batch of projects would begin construction next year).

The plan comes into focus as a dire new report on climate change once again raises the stakes of our decisions on issues like transportation. Yesterday on Twitter, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said the report is, “powerful, precisely because it makes clear that we are not yet too late.” “Now is the moment to continue our commitment to transforming our economy,” Wheeler posted, “by embracing low carbon technologies that will create millions of good, local green jobs while providing cheap abundant energy for all and cleaning the air that we all breathe together.”

Wheeler will get his chance to show he’s not scared to lead and make good on those words on Halloween when PBOT staff present the Central City in Motion plan.

The projects

Late last month we reported that PBOT has whittled down the initial batch of projects to 11. Upon closer inspection we know see that the list is 12 projects totaling $33 million. The projects range from a new couplet on SW Broadway and 4th with an estimated cost of $5.8 million to a project that would add safer crossings of West Burnside for around $866,000.

Here’s the list:

Learn more about all these projects here.

Keep in mind PBOT is focused on “1-5 year implementation projects” and just because something isn’t on this list doesn’t mean it won’t get built. There are 18 projects that passed PBOT’s screening process and I could see any one of them moving up the list if necessary (due to controversy, political heat, and so on). What PBOT wants to do is bring a list of “highly implementable” projects to council and use the political endorsement (if it passes) as momentum to push through to the design, engineering and construction phases.

At their most recent (and final) Sounding Board meeting, PBOT revealed results of two recent open houses and an online survey. 93 percent of respondents said the CCIM projects would make the central city safer, and 85 percent said the projects would make them more likely to take transit, walk, or bike. This are positive results, especially given that over 70 percent of respondents said they currently drive into the central city nearly every day or “sometimes.”

Advertisement

Those open houses also told PBOT that the four most popular projects are: the Broadway/4th couplet that aims to, “create a signature north-south bike facility”; a host of updates to West Burnside including safer crossings and bus priority and protected bike lanes; a permanent “Better Naito; and a project that would create transit lanes on MLK/Grand and safer crossings and protected bike lanes on SE 6th and 7th (note that the MLK/Grand elements of the project have been dropped).

There’s been some confusion around cost estimates shared by PBOT so far. In a presentation to the project’s Sounding Board committee last month, PBOT shared three slides of a potential project on SE Hawthorne Blvd that illustrated a low, medium, and high-cost build options (note: PBOT says current estimates are based on medium-build level):

Girding for pushback

Slide from PBOT staff presentation to Sounding Board committee on September 27th.

PBOT knows this plan is likely to raise more concerns from people and organizations who fear a change to the status quo. Thankfully, the agency has done some homework in anticipation of these sky-is-falling proclamations that are sure to come.

They’ve done the traffic modeling math to show that, in tandem with other policy shifts expected by 2035, the addition of CCIM projects will lower average motor vehicle speeds in the central city by just 1 mph on average. For people who say we don’t have room on our roads, PBOT has calculated that the total right-of-way in the central city dedicated to transit and bikes will increase only 1 percent: from 3 to 4 percent for bicycles and from 1 to 2 percent for transit vehicles. Put another way, PBOT says if they built all 18 of the projects that survived their initial screening process, the additional 2 percent of space on those affected streets would have 61 percent more capacity.

What about car parking? It’s true that the CCIM projects will lead to hundreds of fewer places to park cars. As we’ve reported previously, PBOT is hard at work on a “parking mitigation strategy” document that will outline, “A multi-pronged approach to help ease the transition [to less parking] during and after project implementation.” This strategy will have three priorities: find more spaces where/if they can, use “operational improvements” to make existing spaces more efficient, and reduce demand.

A marketing push

Now that we’re in the final few weeks before the council date, PBOT’s communications team has taken to the web to raise awareness of the plan. With the #centralcityinmotion hashtag on Twitter, PBOT is explaining why these street updates are necessary. Their primary argument is that the central city is primed for major growth in the coming years and — since our streets can’t grow along with the population — we must fit more people onto them. “If we don’t take action now,” reads one of their Tweets posted today, “it’s going to become more difficult to travel around the central city – whether you’re on foot, a bike, riding a bus, or in a car or truck.”

This statement echoes Mayor Wheeler’s contention that “We are not yet too late,” to make bold decisions in the face of imminent climate catastrophe. Giving the CCIM plan a strong vote of support would be a good start.

*UPDATE, 5:10 pm: PBOT just announced that the council date has been pushed back to November 14th.

— 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

79 Comments
  • Daniel October 9, 2018 at 2:38 pm

    What happened to project #2? In the version portrayed by the CCIM project website, it extended to the Broadway bridge and cost $6.6 million, but here they’ve lowered the price and left an obvious gap between this route and the improved Broadway/Weidler couplet (project #18). The part they’re leaving out happens to encompass an intersection that’s been written about multiple times on this blog as one of the most dangerous (for cyclists) in the city. Why are we ok with this?

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Terry D-M October 9, 2018 at 4:56 pm

      My guess is that the Post Office redevelopment project will interface in such a way, as of yet not designed, that it makes sense to delay it.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Daniel October 9, 2018 at 7:32 pm

        Well, that’s unnerving and incredibly disappointing. I ride that section every day, and it’s probably the most dangerous part of my ride. My girlfriend was hit by a car (and had her bike totaled) in the exact stretch they’ve removed from the plans. She doesn’t ride it any more.

        I was a huge proponent of that project, and thrilled that the city had decided to finally do something to improve the situation there; I should have guessed they’d pull a bait-and-switch.

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Old Town October 9, 2018 at 8:18 pm

          A north bound lane on Broadway from Burnside to the bridge is long overdue. The parking is dramatically underutilized and there are many vacant buildings on that stretch. Makes no sense not to connect these new routes together at the Broadway Bridge.

          Recommended Thumb up 7

          • Andrew Kreps October 10, 2018 at 1:46 pm

            Yeah, I was bummed that they didn’t paint a lane there when they resurfaced NW Broadway back in 2016. Real bummed.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Bald One October 9, 2018 at 2:57 pm

    Visualized designs for Hawthorne and 6th – not safe for bikes at any cost.

    Why bother even putting in a bike lane like this? Just take the car lane and let the gutter go to the scooters, pedestrians, and bus riders.

    Floating bus stops: bad design and dangerous for cyclists.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Andrew Kreps October 9, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    You know, I’ve had the opportunity to ride in Seattle a lot lately, and they’re at least 5 years ahead of us on bicycle infrastructure. I’ve ridden the 2nd ave protected (by concrete) bike lane several times and I have to tell you, it’s almost like being in Amsterdam. I’m really glad to see us taking steps in the right direction, even though it’s going to take several years to get there.

    A journey of a safer bike lane begins with a single budget meeting.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • David Hampsten October 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm

      Repeat ad nausium.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Matt Meskill October 10, 2018 at 12:07 pm

      And I recently had the pleasure of riding in SF. So nice. And so far ahead. Portland is really losing ground.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Terry D-M October 9, 2018 at 3:54 pm

    SE Uplift Board of Directors voted on October 1 to endorse the goals of CCIM and that “PBOT should build as many of the projects as quickly as possible.” There was a significant block of abstentions, but no one against. The biggest concern was not enough dedicated transit facilities.

    I’ll be testifying in favor on behalf of our organization and the residents we represent. I wonder if it would be appropriate to be in costume?

    Terry Dublinski-Milton
    Co-Chair SE Uplift

    Recommended Thumb up 7

  • Chris I October 9, 2018 at 4:04 pm

    Instead of a parking protected bike lane, why don’t they just dedicate the right lane for transit only? Seems like the busses are just going to get stuck in traffic with everyone else.

    Recommended Thumb up 14

  • John Liu October 9, 2018 at 4:21 pm

    I cannot see any real functional difference between low, medium, and high cost Hawthorne & 6th.

    I don’t consider bioswales and moving bus shelters around to be significant.

    Let’s go low cost and get more done.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • eawriste October 9, 2018 at 5:01 pm

      Yes please! Can we use the same basic low-cost, separated design on most of these projects and increase the number of total projects with the extra money?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • David Hampsten October 9, 2018 at 6:58 pm

        One issue is that cheap projects are easier to cut later on during the next budget crunch, while the high-end projects tend to be (eventually) implemented even after the cuts. You also need to look at these projects from the point of view of drivers – will they respect the configuration of a low-end project as much as the platinum-level one?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • 9watts October 9, 2018 at 8:46 pm

        Probably as good a time as any to recall that *all* of these projects represent defensive expenditures, necessitated by the overbearing and ubiquitous auto.
        If we banned autos from the central city (some cities are doing this now) we could skip all(?) of these infrastructure upgrades, or?

        Recommended Thumb up 5

        • Stephan October 9, 2018 at 10:48 pm

          Good point, and what I am thinking as well. These are expensive projects that try to marginally improve transit, biking and walking while putting as little burden on people driving as possible. We could do so much more with the money if we considered bolder steps, but PBOT certainly is not considering them.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

        • paikiala October 10, 2018 at 8:57 am

          What are the densities of the cities you’re thinking of?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Julie Hammond October 9, 2018 at 7:08 pm

      I don’t think those are bioswales in the rendering, but rather planters that hug poured concrete curbs as part of the parking protected bike lanes. In my experience in Vancouver, BC planters like this provide an extra visual to vehicles that there is something (and someones) on the other side of the curb (or painted line), and they make the street and city look a little nicer.

      I happen to be on the side of the fence that thinks we should build the deluxe versions of bike lanes to show just how nice they can be, both to attract all ages & abilities riders and for aesthetics (plastic bollards look terrible). In my opinion, which has admittedly been skewed by my time living in BC, this high cost version is only getting close if – and it’s hard to tell from the drawing – the bike lane and sidewalk are on the same level which is raised above the street, and physically separated from cars. I would love to see little trees/benches further separate the bike/ped lanes. And, if all the lanes are separate from each other, they can save all that green plastic for something else. Here’s a just-built example in Vancouver that is a treat to ride: https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/quebec-and-1st-ave-street-improvements.aspx

      Recommended Thumb up 8

    • J.E. October 9, 2018 at 11:29 pm

      If you look closely, medium and high cost builds have a HAWK light. Low cost doesn’t even have zebra striping. That’s a huge difference on a street that has few natural gaps in traffic (due to right turning vehicles from Grand and the Mult Co parking garage).

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • John Liu October 10, 2018 at 8:56 am

        You are right. I was focusing on the bike lane part of it.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • MO October 10, 2018 at 9:22 am

      Agree. Would love a concrete barrier to make a truly protected bike lane like 2nd in Seattle instead of bioswale here and there.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • soren October 9, 2018 at 4:58 pm

    The presentation did not include the $6.6 million federal grant that Portland won in 2013. What happened to these funds?

    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/699073

    BP piece on $6.6 million grant:
    https://bikeportland.org/2013/09/18/city-council-backs-21-million-for-better-walking-and-biking-citing-boost-to-economy-94178

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • David Hampsten October 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm

      I know you are not going to like this answer, but as I recall when I was sitting on the PBOT Budget Advisory Committee, the $6.6 million Central City Flex Funding was used partly to provide seed money for starting the bike share program downtown and partly to pay for the Williams/Vancouver bike lanes, both of which were controversial projects at the time. That money is now long gone, while East Portland is still waiting for its projects to be completed.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 9, 2018 at 5:13 pm

    *UPDATE, 5:10 pm: PBOT just announced that the council date has been pushed back to November 14th.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Steve B. October 9, 2018 at 5:31 pm

    Such a bummer that MLK & Grand were nixed from that portion of the project. A tremendous opportunity to enhance transit service and improve pedestrian access in the area. Here’s hoping it gets revisited in short order.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Christopher of Portland October 9, 2018 at 7:04 pm

    Hopefully they have enough reflective plastic sticks laying around to deter people from parking in the bike lanes. I ride NE Multnomah a couple times a week and I rarely get to do it without a motor vehicle with its free parking lights flashing being in the way.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • soren October 9, 2018 at 7:53 pm

    Are you freaking kidding me?

    So instead of this:

    2013: $9.1 million to enact parts of the East Portland in Motion plan and $6.6 million for what promises to be a historic upgrade of central Portland bike facilities

    We got this:

    “seed money for starting the bike share program downtown and partly to pay for the Williams/Vancouver bike lanes”

    Poof and it’s gone. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmFo-LKHGY0)

    The fact that these kinds of critically important decisions are being made in virtual secrecy by PBOT is disgraceful. And so much for PBOT’s claims to care about equity.

    One would think that this is the kind of story that a blog that seeks to inform and inspire would report on.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • soren October 9, 2018 at 7:55 pm

      This was supposed to nest under David Hampsten’s comment above.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • David Hampsten October 10, 2018 at 7:45 am

      What we need is an investigative journalist to find out what exactly happened to that $6.6 million. Is it still there? Was it spent? If so, what on?

      Now where could we find such a journalist? Hmmm…

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Sigma October 10, 2018 at 1:21 pm

        According to the article we are commenting on, the project has a $30 million budget, which is quite a bit more than $6.6 million. What’s the problem, exactly?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • David Hampsten October 10, 2018 at 7:25 pm

          Did you notice that $33 million wasn’t on the table? Where exactly is the $33 million coming from? How are you going to prevent it from being cut during coming budget shortfalls?

          It’s like buying a Surly bike. You know that the bike you want costs $1,200, so your “budget” is for $1,200 plus the Oregon bike tax. But where is that $1,200 coming from? Are you going to forgo rent? Save your money? Spend it on something else?

          City Council is happy to adopt a plan that costs $33 million, just as they were to adopt the 2030 bike plan for $600 million. But are they actually committing a penny towards it? Not what I read.

          Recommended Thumb up 3

          • Sigma October 11, 2018 at 8:16 am

            So the problem is that money might get reallocated in the future, not that money has been improperly spent in the past. Thanks for clarifying.

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • soren October 11, 2018 at 10:28 am

              “So the problem is that money might get reallocated in the future, not that money has been improperly spent in the past.”

              This part is a strawman.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

        • soren October 11, 2018 at 10:23 am

          May 2013
          PBOT has applied for $6 million in regional flexible funding (administered by Metro) in order to improve the transportation network in the downtown core.

          https://bikeportland.org/2013/05/23/citys-6-million-plan-for-downtown-bike-access-taking-shape-87204ke facilities”

          This 2013 grant was specifically won to build bike facilities in central Portland. The numerous delays (and firings) related to this project were a topic of discussion on bike portland for years. The fact that this money was re-allocated to other uses in virtual secrecy while bike advocates were wondering WTF was going on is a testament to a fundamental lack of democratic oversight at PBOT.

          Moreover, your claim that this project has a budget of $30 million is irrelevant because these funds come from sources that were not available in 2013 (FOS and a different federal grant). I could argue that this project should have had a budget $36.6 million were it not for PBOT’s grant funding shenanigans.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • soren October 11, 2018 at 10:33 am

            I guess we now know why Rick Browning was fired in 2016:

            “Browning lasted just over eight months in his position. With an annual salary of $80-90,000, he was hired as a Capital Project Manager. According to the job description, his initial focus was supposed to be on PBOT’s “Central City Multi-Modal Safety project”. That project is meant to improve biking and walking access downtown and establish a network of protected lanes. However, despite winning a $6 million federal grant three years ago the project has yet to break ground. PBOT’s latest promise is that the public process won’t start until this summer.

            https://bikeportland.org/2016/02/11/rick-browning-out-as-pbot-bike-project-manager-174701

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • David Hampsten October 12, 2018 at 7:43 pm

            Soren, I apologize. I thought you were talking about an earlier $6+ million grant.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • soren October 13, 2018 at 8:56 am

              So this grant was not re-purposed? I still want to know what happened to the funding…

              Recommended Thumb up 0

  • B. Carfree October 9, 2018 at 8:09 pm

    One has to love the vague polling that lets people claim they would be more likely to walk or ride. This isn’t the first such poll in PBoT’s history. Have they ever followed up? A decade of non-growth says these “I’d ride if…” responses are BS. It’s like people who claim they would exercise and watch their food intake if… Years later, they’ve made no changes.

    It sure looks like everything has been done to fake support for plans that are at best uninspiring and at worst a way to lock in a car-centered PDX for as long as possible.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • 9watts October 9, 2018 at 8:50 pm

      Hear, hear.

      Lots of crappy tax-payer funded survey questions have been surfacing here lately.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • B. Carfree October 9, 2018 at 8:15 pm

    Prediction: ebikes will result in a brief increase of cycling modal share in PDX and elsewhere over the next five years. PDX will probably get to double digits for a year or three. Shortly thereafter, modal share will drop and keep dropping back to 6% or so (maybe less) as the built-in conflicts and car priority of these separated facilities create more problems than people can contend with.

    Also, cyclist and pedestrian slaughter will continue unabated. Notice the emphasis on no loss of speed for motorists in PBoT’s analysis.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Jd October 9, 2018 at 8:16 pm

    I ride NE Multnomah every day. Is it just me or so protected bike lanes like depicted above leave cyclists more vulnerable to right hooks due to obstructed visibility from parked cars as well as passenger side door swings?

    Recommended Thumb up 12

    • mark October 9, 2018 at 9:39 pm

      Nope, not just you. This is the reason I’m fully against “parking protected” bike lanes.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • oliver October 10, 2018 at 9:22 am

        Third.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Dan A October 9, 2018 at 9:43 pm

      Since you ride Multnomah every day, and we are talking about polls, I’d like to poll you. Do you stop for people crossing in the mid-block crossings at 6th and 8th? Or am I the only one?

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Jd October 9, 2018 at 9:56 pm

        I do!

        Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Gary B October 10, 2018 at 8:04 am

      It is definitely a challenge for parking protected lanes. But I’d argue a bus stop at the corner is probably the best version of such a set-up, since it is clear the vast majority of the time. I don’t have a ton of experience with them, yet, but riding the new parking protected setup on Rosa Parks, with parking setbacks, it seems to work well (i.e., no worse then the typical risk of right hooks as drivers punch it to get slightly ahead of me then turn).

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Andrew Kreps October 10, 2018 at 1:52 pm

      The way Seattle’s left-hand side bike land on 2nd ave works is simple- if the bikes have a green light, left turners have a red light. And vice versa. If we remove the legal ability for cars to careen to the right at will, we remove the risk of a collision at that intersection when everyone follows the signals.

      The solve is so simple, and yet we have not implemented it. The closest thing I can think of is the signal on b’way and Williams, but there’s no protection there. At all.

      Oh yes, there’s another one at the west end of the b’way bridge, but you end up sitting there for what feels like minutes- the lights in Seattle are timed so I could hit about 5 of them in a row, wait 30 seconds, then hit another 5.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Brandon October 9, 2018 at 8:43 pm

    Please don’t do that to Hawthorne. That design is a perfect setup for a right hook collision

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty October 9, 2018 at 10:06 pm

    On those Hawthorne designs, if you’re going to turn left (as I often do to get a beer at the Lucky Lab), how are you supposed to get out of the bike lanes? Swerve out at an intersection? And when drivers want to turn into the parking garage, will they see cyclists hidden (but moving quickly) behind a parked car?

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Brian October 10, 2018 at 8:41 am

      Do what I see a lot of people choose to do now, take a right at the light and then U Turn when it’s safe in order to cross Hawthorne with the light. Sucks, and I see it as the only option if this comes to fruition.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty October 10, 2018 at 12:40 pm

        Separate and unequal. Would we ask drivers to do this?

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Brian October 10, 2018 at 2:04 pm

          Nope. It sucks. Heading left from that right sided bike lane within the span of two blocks is not a pleasant experience for many. What about a brightly colored bridge that arcs over Hawthorne that drops right into the bikelanes heading North? That would be rad.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Jim Lee October 9, 2018 at 10:10 pm

    What does Roger think of all this?

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Mike Quigley October 10, 2018 at 5:08 am

    All the incompetence I hear about ODOT, PBOT, this and that, makes me think, really, does anything work in America anymore? For sure, the federal govt. has come apart. But you would think the locals could at least get something right (carbon tax, higher gas taxes, sales tax?). The future looks grim.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • David Hampsten October 12, 2018 at 7:54 pm

      My German-made Schwalbe tires seem to work real well. I like the fact that I can now easily buy 45mm wide 700c/29er rims. The 1787 US Constitution seems to be working pretty well on limiting Potus’ power to screw things up, as well as balancing Congress and the courts into stasis. In spite of downtown city government incompetence, both yours and mine, our water still flows, our toilets flush, the phone still works, the power’s on. In spite of global warming, the Walking Dead, the Matrix, and Russian hackers, somehow life continues…

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Kittens October 10, 2018 at 5:27 am

    Folks will have a wonderful view of the sacred line of parked cars, while they sit in traffic in a bus during the PM commute right along with all those SOVs trying to go home.

    I just don’t get it. Are the of 30-40 parking spots, and varied business interests on this stretch of lower Hawthorne so awesomely powerful as to render us impotent to use that space for something- anything- more constructive? I thought by now the combination of magic fairy dust, unregulated TNCs, thousands of electric scooters, dockless bikeshare, and billions of dollars in transit, would render parking moot at this point in Portland’s history. Otherwise, remind me again why did we did all that?

    I know this image of Hawthorne is just one of many under consideration, but it is emblematic of a failure of imagination on a grand scale, one that will prove both costly and cruelty ineffective at solving our problems now and in the future. I am left to question the value of a masters in planning if these are the best solutions they can come up with. God help us.

    Recommended Thumb up 17

    • Gary B October 10, 2018 at 8:15 am

      Indeed. Move that curb over one lane and have a curb-separated bus lane, which also protects and provides a clear visual for the bike lane. Then let the line of cars watch a stream of buses and bikes cruise by. Just a few dozen parking spots.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

    • soren October 10, 2018 at 10:54 am

      1. Business interests are incredibly powerful.

      2. Active transportation interests are very weak.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Hello, Kitty
        Hello, Kitty October 10, 2018 at 11:13 am

        Why are business interests anti-active transport?

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) October 10, 2018 at 11:21 am

        soren… that depends on who is assessing the power.

        from my view, “active transpo interests” are incredibly powerful because they represents the vast majority of Portland (when the issue is framed corrrectly). “Business interests” are weak by comparison because they don’t represent a large number of people and the values they stand up for do not jibe with the values our city has adopted as local law/policy direction.

        like i’ve always said… Gov’t gets to decide who has the power. Unfortunately, in our case, PBOT too often gives the power to the wrong group based on their own fear of political consequences rather than what’s needed to change the status quo.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Hello, Kitty
          Hello, Kitty October 10, 2018 at 11:43 am

          Political consequences is the power.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Hello, Kitty
    Hello, Kitty October 10, 2018 at 6:09 am

    The other thing I dislike about this design is that there is no good way for cyclists to pass one another. Given the number of riders on this section, wouldn’t it make sense to make the bike lane wider?

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • David Hampsten October 10, 2018 at 7:50 am

      Especially as scooter users will be moving in the opposite direction.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Bald One October 11, 2018 at 1:39 pm

      Right, it’s as if the folks that designed this have never ridden a bike through here in the afternoon commute.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • paikiala October 10, 2018 at 9:03 am

    Changing a few blocks of side streets to one way with angle parking on one side could offset parking loss along the main corridor.

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • dwk October 10, 2018 at 9:54 am

      Should there not be some disclosure about what you do?
      I might be wrong, but you certainly come across as a PDOT or ODOT employee.
      I could appreciate your comments more if you simply stated who you work for?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • PDXCyclist October 10, 2018 at 10:53 am

        Or we could respond to the idea presented instead of hinting people have some kind of agenda. Not sure it makes a difference who this commenter works for if you want to engage with the idea and decide whether you agree with it or not. This is a bike advocacy website not congressional testimony

        Recommended Thumb up 5

      • David Hampsten October 10, 2018 at 7:37 pm

        There’s actually a lot of commentators on this blog who currently work for government agencies or have done so in the past (such as myself). I for one appreciate piakiala’s comments, even when we disagree, as the writer often presents well-informed and sometimes inside information to PBOT projects (but not so much for ODOT projects). I think many advocates both inside and outside government use these blogs to test new ideas before they blow up on them or hurt end-users. And most commentators are using pseudonyms to protect themselves for various reasons, whether they work for government or not. I use my real name because I’m proud of what I do, even when I screw up. How about yourself?

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • oliver October 10, 2018 at 9:19 am

    Agree, but the plan is surely to move bicycle traffic off of Broadway; onto some two-way contra flow MUP nonsense once they figure out how to fit in some superfluous, signalized road crossings across the Post Office site once it’s redeveloped. /s

    //s

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • oliver October 10, 2018 at 9:21 am

      Sorry this was a response to user Old Town’s comment.

      Old Town October 9, 2018 at 8:18 pm
      A north bound lane on Broadway from Burnside to the bridge is long overdue. The parking is dramatically underutilized and there are many vacant buildings on that stretch. Makes no sense not to connect these new routes together at the Broadway Bridge.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • MO October 10, 2018 at 9:29 am

    Amsterdam: wider paths allow passing for multiusers (mopeds even), but for left turns, it’s at intersections via bike signals and only at key spots. Works great for thousands and thousands.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • PDXCyclist October 10, 2018 at 10:50 am

    Why did 7th steeet bikeway proposal shrink by 11 blocks? It used to reach Wiedler in the original map..

    Recommended Thumb up 3

    • John Lascurettes October 10, 2018 at 11:31 am

      Came here to ask the same thing. We could *really* use an improvement between Broadway and Killingsworth too. That used to be part of it wasn’t it?

      Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Andrew October 10, 2018 at 3:58 pm

    Dan A
    Since you ride Multnomah every day, and we are talking about polls, I’d like to poll you. Do you stop for people crossing in the mid-block crossings at 6th and 8th? Or am I the only one?Recommended 0

    I’ll double your sample size and say that I in fact stop there as well. I stop at any crossing when a pedestrian shows intent t cross.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Andrew October 10, 2018 at 4:05 pm

    What is the cost difference between medium and high? The addition of plants instead of a solid concrete curb certainly cost too much. The improved bus shelter may or may not be necessary. A medium-high cost option of a standard bus shelter plus plants on the curb seems reasonable. It provides more visual distinction between bike lane and parking lane, and is generally more pleasing aesthetically.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Andrew October 10, 2018 at 4:06 pm

      *Certainly can’t cost too much

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • David Hampsten October 10, 2018 at 7:46 pm

      It’s a bit hard to see, but in the high-cost version they moved the gutters (and presumably the sewers), putting the green bike lane on the sidewalk level rather than the street level. Thus the median planters now have water for the plants, from run-off. As you might recall from the 82nd portion of the Powell-Division BRT project, “moving curbs” triggers a huge increase in costs, basically doubling the project price, since you also have to move the sewers. In addition, a lot of the underground conduit work also has to be moved or shifted.

      Recommended Thumb up 1