New diverters on Ankeny and Lincoln part of plan to keep drivers off side streets

Posted by on December 14th, 2018 at 10:46 am

New driving discouragers on SE Ankeny at 15th.
(Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)


“Things have changed a lot since we did our neighborhood greenway assessment [in 2015]… There’s more traffic pressure.”
— Roger Geller, PBOT

Life is slowly but surely getting harder for people who drive in Portland. And that’s exactly what the Bureau of Transportation is aiming for. In the past week they’ve laid down median diverters that limit where we can drive. The goal is to encourage us to keep our cars off what are known as neighborhood greenways — streets where cycling is supposed to be the priority mode of travel.

But as Portland’s roads have become filled with too many drivers in recent years, PBOT has had to do more to defend greenways from an onslaught of traffic-dodgers staring into Waze and Google Map apps in an attempt to shave a few seconds off their trip. Unfortunately those apps often lead people onto (what should be quiet) side streets that have been engineered specifically to make cycling less stressful. To end this cycle of more drivers and more stressful conditions on side streets, PBOT has added new diverters at two locations: on SE Ankeny at 15th and SE 50th at Lincoln.

SE Ankeny and 15th

As it should be: Driver forced off, bicycle rider allowed to continue.

PBOT image shows what they’ll look like when finished.

As we reported in 2014, many drivers swoop onto Ankeny to avoid the traffic further west at the Burnside/Couch couplet. Thanks to activists with Bike Loud and Buckman neighborhood residents, PBOT agreed to install a temporary diverter at 15th. They made good on their promise in July 2016 by placing large concrete planters and yellow caution signs in the middle of the intersection. The treatment prevented people from driving straight through 15th, forcing westbound drivers to turn north (back to Burnside) and eastbound drivers south.

This week PBOT made those temporary diverters permanent by laying down concrete median islands. The new islands are easier on the eye and are intended to accomplish the same result. PBOT told us this morning that more signage and vertical elements are still to come. They include (but are not limited to): stop signs facing north and south, yellow warning signs that alert people to the presence of people biking through the intersection, yellow and black striped sign, and signage leading up to the intersection indicating that it’s not for through-traffic, only bicycle traffic.

SE Lincoln and 50th

PBOT’s final design (note the car parking space on northeast corner).

It’s been a year since the infamous open house where opposition to the Lincoln-Harrison neighborhood greenway project went absolutely off-the-rails. PBOT’s attempts to reduce the amount of driving on Lincoln were met with epic opposition. Ultimately PBOT won the day with a revised plan that came out in March.

One of the biggest sticking points was a diverter at 50th and Lincoln. PBOT had to do something because this intersection had the highest volume of drivers of anywhere on the greenway — 2,300 cars per day east west of 50th and 1,500 east of it. The city’s goal for greenways is under 1,000 cars per day.

They settled on a compromise design that would place diverters in the middle of 50th to prevent people from driving through the intersection and limit some turning movements.

Thanks for reading.
BikePortland relies on financial support from readers like you.
Please join hundreds of other readers and
subscribe for $10/month or
make a one-time payment today!

Work began this week to install the diverter. However, some activists are crying foul because PBOT has altered the design since it was last shown to the public.

The plan before PBOT made the tweak to add a parking space. Compare it to the image above.

On Tuesday, local resident Andrea Brown with the Safer Lincoln group emailed PBOT Capitol Project Manager Sheila Parrott. Brown was concerned that the new design, “Has created an unsafe jog in the bicycle flow in order to accommodate an extraneous parking space on the northeast corner.” Brown added that her group was aware that an adjacent neighbor had contacted PBOT to request a parking spot in front of their house (which has its own driveway).

Parrott wrote to Brown that, “Following resident input, we revised the plan to remove the on-street parking on the south side and provide a disabled parking space on the north side. Although this type of parking space is generally used by the person making the request for the space, it is not a personal space. Anyone displaying the disabled placard can use the space.”

Another transportation activist and local resident named Betsy Reese emailed PBOT with several concerns about the new design. One problem she mentioned was that it, “Forces westbound cyclists to veer to the left to get past a stopped car, then veer to the right to line up at the gap in the diverter.” Reese wanted the parking spot moved further east to avoid conflicts at the intersection.

A PBOT traffic engineer replied to Reese to say the current layout is only a prototype and they plan to monitor her concerns as part of the evaluation

A brand new greenway treatment

Conspicuity is the goal.

In other neighborhood greenway news, PBOT unveiled a new idea at the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday night. Citing what he sees as, “more traffic pressure” on neighborhood greenways since PBOT’s assessment report was passed by council in August 2015, PBOT bicycle program manager Roger Geller said they’re considering a new approach. Geller shared a list of projects up for possible funding in 2019-2020 that included one described as, “An innovative attempt to highlight the visibility of bicycle priority on neighborhood greenways.” The idea is to double the frequency of sharrow markings, possibly add painted stop lines on side streets, and add other signage as needed.

Geller said he’s noticed that many people ride in the door-zone on neighborhood greenways — a sign of stress likely caused by fears of drivers coming from behind. Geller wants to make Portland greenways more “readable as a bikeway.” In addition to more sharrows and signage, he’d like couple that with an education program. The goal would be to make it more difficult for people in cars to pass bicycle users, which would hopefully discourage people from driving on greenways altogether.


UPDATE: Reader 9watts (who’s concerned about the width of the biking gaps being too wide) has sent us fresher photos of the Ankeny/15th diverters:

— 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

167 Comments
  • Avatar
    EP December 14, 2018 at 11:23 am

    Not sure about that change on the NE corner. Seems like a PBOT comprimise w/ the homeowners. Their house has a driveway on 50th, they converted their garage to an ADU in 2016, and the driveway into trailer storage. There was concern about safety of turning into their driveway off of 50th, with high-speed traffic and the bus stop there. Seems like the diverter would help calm traffic for them. Considerations for handicapped parking makes sense, but maybe not at the detriment of a design of something that benefits the many. Moving that space east would keep bicyclists closer to the north curb, and out of the way of people making a wide turn in their car.

    Interesting that they have blurred out their house on all Google street views… It wasn’t that way awhile back. Wow, this diverter issue made things crazy.

    Per PBOT:
    “A property owner may request a disability parking space be placed along their fronting property when:

    -Property is located outside of a metered or permitted zone and
    -Property is zoned residential and
    -There is no off-street parking (off-street parking space definition: An off-street parking space included parking lots, parking structures, garages, carports, driveways without carports or garages or any other legal parking space on private property) and
    -There are no more than 2 disability spaces already on the block face or 500 feet of lineal curb feet from the requestor address and
    -The property requesting accommodation is not on an unimproved roadway.”
    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/64922

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 11:38 am

      The property owners were against the idea of any diverter. The advocates that showed up were for them. Very little compromises were made. Unless you call a “temporary” diverter as some sort of compromise?

      What comments have been made on the PBOT post of the changes? Things like”I’ll feel safer when I travel to SE in the future,” which means that the advocates from NoPo are the one’s who will benefit from this project.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        idlebytes December 14, 2018 at 12:57 pm

        Why are you using comments on facebook to determine who will benefit from this diverter? I use this intersection almost every day and live over in that neighborhood. I also see many other cyclists on that street they will also obviously benefit from it. Do you really think most of the people biking on this street don’t live in the area?

        Recommended Thumb up 7

        • Avatar
          Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 2:04 pm

          Well, they most assuredly didn’t use the comments from the open house. And of course a select few from the neighborhood use it. My guess is 16% of commuters. I’m sad that we didn’t meet when I was a neighbor for a few years.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            idlebytes December 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm

            How could you have possibly arrived at that 16% number did you go door to door? The number I’m more interested in is the percent of the 2,900 drivers that actually need to use that road to get to their destination. As far as the comments go why would they change their stated plan to put in a diverter if there was too much cut through traffic? That’s a non starter the road is already a greenway and they have set goals for the number of cars on it. The time to comment on that was when they were considering making it a greenway.

            It’s interesting your initial post was complaining about people not living there benefiting from the diverter while you don’t even live there yourself. Don’t be sad you can always share your dislike for everything PBOT to me here 🙂

            Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Avatar
        Gary B December 14, 2018 at 2:06 pm

        Wow, second time this week you’ve disparagingly referenced North Portlanders usage of roads in southeast and our input on their design. Guess what Doug, it’s not a private road. You’re damn right it will benefit me. Thanks.

        Recommended Thumb up 14

    • Avatar
      Chris I December 14, 2018 at 12:47 pm

      If you look at Google Streetview, the entire house in question is blurred out. Very peculiar…

      Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Avatar
        paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:32 pm

        Anyone can request Google blur out their house.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        MantraPDX December 14, 2018 at 8:35 pm

        Having interacted with this neighbor a number of times I believe ***portion of comment deleted by moderator. reported by reader as inappropriate***

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          soren December 19, 2018 at 10:51 am

          Ableism sure is a nice look for cycling “advocates”.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 5:54 pm

      So what you’re saying is that because they have a driveway and garage (their fault it’s now an ADU) that they don’t even qualify for this spot. And that they’re afraid of motor vehicle traffic while driving so they inconvenienced vulnerable road users as a whole to make themselves feel better.

      And PBOT was happy to oblige.

      With the diverter and new lower speed limit things will be a lot more mellow on 50th around there. Especially with the bus completely blocking the road due to the new tapering. People will be used to being stopped and won’t be so angry at somebody accessing their driveway.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 11:27 am

    Someone should tell Roger that if the city keeps eliminating lanes on main thoroughfares then this is probably going to be the result. This really isn’t brain surgery. It’s common sense. As I have thought more about Aaron Brown’s campaign against the freeways and induced demand, I can’t help but wonder what die hard “transportation geniuses” think will be the result. If ODOT wants to put people on other roads, city streets, what do we really think the end goal will be? More stress for everyone and tranporting on eggshells.

    This will be enjoyable to watch over the next few years. Hopefully by then I won’t be cycling downtown daily or hell, live in this mess.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      BradWagon December 14, 2018 at 1:15 pm

      They don’t want to put people on other roads, they want to put people on other vehicles…. it’s not rocket surgery Doug.

      Recommended Thumb up 20

      • Avatar
        Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 1:39 pm

        GOOD LUCK 🙂

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:33 pm

      Induced demand works in reverse.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Avatar
        Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm

        I’m just merely repeating the silliness that the state, city, and nomorefreewayspdx is trying to sell the majority of the population and wrapping it up in separate efforts as to not make it sounds as wild as it is.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Andrew N December 14, 2018 at 5:47 pm

      Jonathan should start an “incoherent comment of the week” series for stuff like this. Except he is too nice. Way nicer than I’m inclined to be here at the end of 2018.

      Recommended Thumb up 7

      • Avatar
        Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 7:15 pm

        Sorry you weren’t able to understand. I feel bad for you. : (

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 5:56 pm

      I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I get on my bus or train, stare at my phone for a while, and then I’m at my destination. No fuss, no stress. Well, unless I forget my stop.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted Timmons (Contributor) December 14, 2018 at 11:32 am

    The openings are seven feet wide:

    Ford F150: 6ft 8 inches wide
    Honda Accord, modern: 6-1
    Honda Accord, 90s: 5-7
    Honda CRV: 6-6
    Honda Odyssey: 6-6
    Volvo 240: 5-7

    Ah, but it’s hard to squeeze a 6-8 truck through a 7-0 opening, you say. Sure, but it can be done at slower speed, especially if that width is at the curb, not full height.

    Recommended Thumb up 11

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 14, 2018 at 11:35 am

      I like the wider openings. And PBOT has caught flak before for making them too narrow!

      Personally, I think we should design bikeways w comfort of riders in mind, not with the deviant behaviors of auto users in mind.

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • Avatar
        Ted Timmons (Contributor) December 14, 2018 at 11:50 am

        I know there are problems with too narrow. I don’t know what the happy medium is. But it seems like how people park in bike lanes- we DO have to design for it because we can’t enforce our way out of abuse.

        Recommended Thumb up 8

      • Avatar
        Q December 14, 2018 at 11:52 am

        The diverters exist in the first place due to the deviant behavior of drivers..

        Recommended Thumb up 27

      • Avatar
        9watts December 14, 2018 at 12:43 pm

        “I like the wider openings.”

        I didn’t see your comment above before posting my concern.
        Wide is great, until it ceases to serve the primary purpose, which is surely to discourage or better prevent those in cars from passing. This is exactly why there are standards for this sort of thing, so local jurisdictions don’t just make stuff up on the fly and/or make the same mistakes over and over.

        “And PBOT has caught flak before for making them too narrow!”

        Interesting.
        I’ll ask again: why is it so hard to just copy what has been tried and found satisfactory in other cities? Diverters are not a new concept. They exist all over the place. Are we here in Portland going below—and now above—a common standard that obtains elsewhere? If so, why?

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:34 pm

          To which standards are you referring?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm
          • Avatar
            X December 16, 2018 at 11:43 am

            That’s for a through lane, not a pinch point designed to exclude oversized vehicle traffic. I would actually prefer 5 feet.

            It’s my opinion that a bonus-width bike lane invites use by motor vehicle drivers unfamiliar with the area, as well as by people wishful of having their own private car lane. It’s one reason I’m bemused by the bike lanes on SW Oak and SW Harvey Milk (FKA Stark). Those streets weren’t hard to use before. It’s no challenge to take the lane on a street where the de facto speed limit is 13 MPH through the traffic lights at each intersection. The bike lanes there set up a situation where it is suddenly “illegal” or confusing / triggering for MV operators when a bike rider makes a left turn in a normal human fashion.

            Recommended Thumb up 4

            • Avatar
              Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 6:02 pm

              “It’s no challenge to take the lane on a street where the de facto speed limit is 13 MPH through the traffic lights at each intersection.”

              But it is a challenge when the current speed is 0 MPH and you have nowhere to ride and end up walking on the sidewalk because it’s faster.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I December 14, 2018 at 12:49 pm

        Diverter openings should be no more than 6′. I’ll be surprised if even 1/3 of the drivers approaching this supposed diverter actually turn.

        Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Avatar
        bArbaroo December 14, 2018 at 2:46 pm

        I like the wider openings too! Better for family bikes and cargo bikes for sure!

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • TonyT
        TonyT December 14, 2018 at 3:55 pm

        I’m REALLY confused by this sentiment, Jonathan. Again and again advocates say that we should “design so we don’t need enforcement” and here you are essentially saying that a design that allows for more illegal behavior is better. Allowing cars to pass through makes me MUCH less comfortable. And if we want people on bikes to be comfortable rather than design for deviant drivers, then why have diverters at all? Why not eliminate diverters entirely and just use signs telling drivers not to enter? Seriously. Or why not pull out all speed bumps? Make sure to remove all bollards leading onto bike paths too.

        I’ve been working right at that intersection for 2 years now and never saw drivers going through (because they couldn’t!). Within one day of these new diverters going in, I saw a driver bypassing the diverter. And it’s waaaay wider than is required for cargo bikes. Westbound is 7′ 10″. That’s more than a foot wider on each side than most cars. That’s not making people on bikes more comfortable, it’s making scofflaw drivers more comfortable.

        Recommended Thumb up 19

        • Avatar
          Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 7:17 pm

          I would mind the removal of the so called speed bumps. Those who speed act like they don’t exist. What do they do for the cyclist? Awake old injuries.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        Betsy Reese December 15, 2018 at 4:41 pm

        At SE 32nd and Clinton PBOT engineer Scott Batson came up with a simple ingenious idea to avoid the long, narrow bike passage problem (especially a problem for longer-wheel-base bikes, cargo bikes, trailers, etc.) without making it so wide a car could fit through. He turned out the diverter on the outward flow end in kind of a V-shape, so the narrower opening was just one initial point to pass through.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Avatar
        X December 16, 2018 at 10:48 am

        ????? ok, fail. This is a diverter that won’t divert the target demographic, aggressive cut-through MV operators

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Avatar
        Daniel s December 17, 2018 at 9:21 am

        I could not disagree more. I used to live a block away from the diverter at Clinton and 32nd. I used to see cars driving through the diverters multiple times per week. Those gaps are much narrower than the new diverters. Unless these are redesigned, they will be ignored by large numbers of people.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

      • Avatar
        Jason December 18, 2018 at 4:32 pm

        But 7′ of comfort, is that really necessary? Ostensibly, a bicycle occupies the width of a person’s shoulder girdle. This is one of the chief arguments for it being a space efficient form of transportation. Three skilled cyclists can occupy a single car lane. Two cyclists of any level can easily occupy a car lane.

        Jonathan, you do a lot for the community and the community looks up to you for bringing this forum to us. I am bemused by your assessment of these diverters.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Avatar
      9watts December 14, 2018 at 11:37 am

      Funny you should post this. I just biked through there (Ankeny and 15th) a few minutes ago and noticed that same thing. I sent Jonathan some pictures of the islands with freshly painted curbs. The gaps are crazy wide. Easy for non-large cars to fit. Whose idea was it to open them up to 7′? Isn’t there a standard?

      Recommended Thumb up 9

      • TonyT
        TonyT December 14, 2018 at 2:12 pm

        Westbound gap is 7′ 10″. That’s insane.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Avatar
          9watts December 14, 2018 at 2:14 pm

          Ha!
          I only walked off the East one and assumed they were both the same… So much for standards.

          Recommended Thumb up 8

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 16, 2018 at 9:51 am

          Tony,
          Is ‘insane’ your professional opinion? Which trailer do you tow?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            X December 16, 2018 at 10:51 am

            What bike trailer is more than 4 feet wide?

            Recommended Thumb up 1

            • Avatar
              9watts December 16, 2018 at 11:28 pm

              Only when I have a load of drywall.

              Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      9watts December 14, 2018 at 11:39 am

      The car that is parked out in front of my house has a track of 5’3″.
      Just saying.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

      • Avatar
        Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 11:41 am

        If one were to break the “rules” I think they’d being doing it below the 20 is plenty threshold.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        Ted Timmons (Contributor) December 14, 2018 at 11:54 am

        a Miata is 5-5, a modern-era Mini is 5-6, an original Mini is something like 4-7. But I was trying to avoid cars that people wouldn’t necessarily lump in the “too small” range, even if I disagree with the categorization for several reasons.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • TonyT
          TonyT December 14, 2018 at 2:13 pm

          An Explorer’s track is 5′ 7″. According to Ford.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      X December 16, 2018 at 11:06 am

      DINO — diverter in name only

      Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Avatar
    bikeninja December 14, 2018 at 11:39 am

    The problem is not eliminating lanes on main thoroughfares, or putting diverters on side streets , the problem is as a form of transportation in relatively dense urban areas the personal automobile is a technological dead end. It takes up too much room to store (park) it takes up to much space to travel anywhere ( bad capacity per lane), and it uses too many resources to make and too much energy too operate. Nearly every one of the things discussed here on Bike Portland is an attempt to mitigate the inherent problems with useing a mismatched technology ( cars) to accomplish a goal (personal urban transportation). Try to solve these problems inherent in the technology just adds complexity, and causes problems to pop up elsewhere. Its like doing surgery with a chain saw, or mowing your lawn with a helicopter.

    Recommended Thumb up 13

    • Avatar
      chris m December 14, 2018 at 12:27 pm

      Only a small part of Portland is dense enough to make driving a car truly not make sense. This is basically downtown Portland during a workday, and a few of the close-in West Side residential neighborhoods (Pearl, parts of NW, and Goose Hollow/Kings Hill). Everywhere else in the city driving is relatively uncongested and parking is free and abundant. As much as I love riding my bike throughout NE/SE neighborhoods, these areas easily have enough street capacity for cars. That’s because while these places have some characteristics of urban neighborhoods, they are by and large a suburban build environment outside a few major corridors. I would love to get to the point where driving in large parts of the city is a worse option than biking or taking the train because we’ve densified so much, but at the moment Portland is broadly a suburban-style city with suburban-style transportation habits. That means we really aren’t at the point (in most of the city) where street scarcity is causing cars to be an inferior choice. We should really try our best to get there though, since all this driving is choking the planet and killing us through lack of movement.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

      • Avatar
        bikeninja December 14, 2018 at 1:16 pm

        Cars as a transportation technology in a city like Portland only make sense , as you say, when observed through the lens of the actual user. The real problem is the externalities. Many things seem like a good idea for the user like Strip Mining, Clear Cutting and Large Scale application of Pesticides but the devil is in the externalities that are paid by others. Things like cut-thru traffic threatening neighborhoods, kids no longer able to walk 4 blocks to school, excessive runoff from impervious surfaces created for cars, lack of affordable housing, and pedestrians being run down in cross walks are the externalities that represent the true costs of operating cars in the city. If they driver could bear the real costs of their transportation folly it would be a different story.

        Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Avatar
        Daniel Amoni December 14, 2018 at 2:53 pm

        Chris, I agree with your assessment of much of Portland being suburban and designed for auto use, but it would “make sense” to bike if their was a safe network. As it is, you have to be pretty able, confident, and stubborn to commit to biking as your primary mode of transportation. I am fortunate that I am all three, but for many it just doesn’t make sense to ride on streets with fast, dominating cars.

        Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    Laura December 14, 2018 at 11:49 am

    Great! Now let’s do the same on Clinton and 50th. Barrier it just past the new apartment driveway.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:44 pm

      When the project was undertaken, Clinton west of 50th was already meeting the car volume standard.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    dee December 14, 2018 at 11:57 am

    The diverter at SE 32 + Clinton is perplexing, with its narrow entry points on the sides, and yet, there is space on the curb (not painted yellow) where a car is consistently blocking the narrow NW entry way. I have reported countless parking “violations” that block this diverter, written to the city…and nothing.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm

      This location?
      https://goo.gl/maps/Cbu7qFbvsZM2
      The same 7′ gaps for bikes? And the edge islands with inside edges 7 feet from the curb?
      The centerline islands are skewed so a fire truck can straddle them.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    John December 14, 2018 at 12:01 pm

    Now only if the traffic diverters were tall enough to stop 4×4’s from driving over them…

    Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:50 pm

      And fire trucks…

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    maxD December 14, 2018 at 12:02 pm

    I love the idea of adding more sharrows marking and painting stop bars on side streets. I also like both of these diverters. I think PBOT was adding signs to the one on Ankeney this morning.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 14, 2018 at 12:06 pm

    UPDATE: Reader 9watts (who’s concerned about the width of the biking gaps being too wide) has sent us fresher photos of the Ankeny/15th diverters:

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      9watts December 14, 2018 at 12:14 pm

      Everything (the city does) has a standard. I was just surprised—assuming the folks who poured the concrete consulted those standards—that the specs would call for this width. I’d love to learn what the standards are, and perhaps even the thinking that inspired them.
      Certainly other recently installed diverters around the city aren’t all built to this standard, or?

      Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Avatar
        paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:52 pm

        page 1 of 41:
        https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/334689
        Preferred operating width is not a minimum. Things that influence final width include stuff like curbs.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          9watts December 14, 2018 at 7:43 pm

          If I found the passage to which you are referring, it is describing a bike lane. But a diverter is not a bike lane.
          A bike lane is a linear stretch of road for bikes to ride in.
          A diverter is meant to do accomplish two things, permit bikes to pass but prevent cars from doing so.

          As such, the width of a standard bike lane may or may not be the best metric to use when specifying the width of the gap in a diverter. I’m pretty sure the gap at this very location before was roughly half of its current width, and it certainly felt quite narrow because of the height of the concrete cylinders positioned there. It was a bit narrow but fine for a bike. Not sure how easy a trailer would have fit, but in any case getting the size just right is something even Goldilocks could help us with.

          I’m still waiting for someone from PBOT to explain why this width makes sense given that we have now determined that many cars can easily fit, shoot the gap.

          Recommended Thumb up 6

          • Avatar
            paikiala December 16, 2018 at 9:54 am

            So you agree that 6 feet is a comfortable width for riding a bike?
            How much would you add for safety of cyclists riding between two low curbs?
            Pulling a trailer?

            Recommended Thumb up 0

            • Avatar
              MantraPDX December 16, 2018 at 10:28 am

              If our only goal or metric is ‘comfortable width for riding a bike’ why not make them 15 feet wide?

              Recommended Thumb up 2

            • Avatar
              9watts December 16, 2018 at 12:25 pm

              “So you agree that 6 feet is a comfortable width for riding a bike?
              How much would you add for safety of cyclists riding between two low curbs?
              Pulling a trailer?”

              This line of reasoning does not make sense to me. As I said above, the issue here doesn’t seem to be what is good, best, comfortable for bikes; I think at 7 ft or 7ft 10 we are well past any of those concerns and into territory where cars can easily pass. … Two loaded bike+trailer combos could meet going opposite directions with almost 8′ of space. A standard trailer is about 32″ wide, with wider versions possible (I own some that are a bit wider).
              This, surely, has bearing on the overall goals of a diverter, but so far in all of your comments in this thread you have not deigned to acknowledge this dimension of the issue.

              Recommended Thumb up 5

    • Avatar
      EP December 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm

      Oh, wow. That fresh yellow paint is going to have a lot of tire marks on it real soon, and some chunks out of the concrete. Just like the islands on Williams. Maybe someone can install some guerilla planters on the new islands? That would give them some more visual weight.

      Recommended Thumb up 13

      • Avatar
        ALEX December 14, 2018 at 1:49 pm

        and adding planters back would likely reduce visibility.. i wish the metal signs were closer to the opening so even if i suv could drive up on the diverters, the signs would damage the vehicle (uless they are spaced for emergency vehicles to straddle..

        Recommended Thumb up 4

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 14, 2018 at 2:02 pm

          PBOT watches new installations to see how users react to them.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            9watts December 17, 2018 at 10:20 am

            My favorite comment here so far!

            Because it neatly encapsulates the problem for me.

            Whereas there are standards, conventions for anything to do with infrastructure,
            Whereas other cities both here and abroad have experience with diverters,
            Whereas the distribution of track widths for cars is readily determined
            Whereas the width of a bike+rider+trailer is also no mystery, and
            Whereas driver behavior w/r/t diverters is also understood,

            Why does PBOT through its spokes-paikiala here admit that, once again, it is throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks? Is this really a sensible, defensible, prudent approach? Because it makes no sense to me.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

            • Avatar
              mh December 17, 2018 at 10:39 am

              Because they keep redefining what constitutes “sticking” to the wall. Does it stick for five minutes? A day? Will we keep watching it for a year to determine if might stick until the building collapses? It’s going to be something like that.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:56 pm

        N Williams: 8,000 cars per day.
        SE Ankeny: 700 cars a day.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 2:56 pm

          Well under ZV standards.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      Andrew Kreps December 16, 2018 at 8:30 pm

      Huh. Well, it seems to have worked at 19th and Clinton, though I’d love to see a planter or something solid on that large triangular thingie.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 6:22 pm

      It’s still not a diverter yet and is legal for cars to pass through.

      Waiting for more signs.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Bill Stites December 14, 2018 at 12:27 pm

    If the openings are 7 feet wide, that is clearly too wide – due to mentions above of driver abuses. Just take a look at what happens out there in the real world.
    Why not 5 feet?

    With turning movements by drivers allowed from 50th northbound to Lincoln eastbound, the jog created by adding the parking space near the NE corner creates a genuine hazard for westbound cyclists on Lincoln – of getting head-on’d by drivers taking the turn too fast and wide.

    Safety must override convenience.

    Recommended Thumb up 15

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:57 pm

      Have you observed this, or is it a fear?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Jay Dedd December 14, 2018 at 2:10 pm

        Sure hope you’re not saying another youthful human sacrifice is required before consideration. Vision Zero and all. https://www.kptv.com/news/pbot-to-install-new-crosswalk-on-hawthorne-where-teen-was/article_d49ebcf8-334b-5c72-8e2f-4c368aa43764.html

        Recommended Thumb up 10

      • TonyT
        TonyT December 14, 2018 at 4:06 pm

        Ah, yes, the PBOT Reactive Gold Standard. Don’t make a change until someone actually gets hurt/killed. So Paikiala, which one of your family members are you cool with getting hurt so that you have your proof.

        Recommended Thumb up 12

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 14, 2018 at 4:14 pm

          Who decides which fear is too far to design for?

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • TonyT
            TonyT December 14, 2018 at 5:07 pm

            Oh, please. Who decides which death/injury requires a redesign? Because clearly Portland doesn’t respond to each and everyone. Decisions are being made. There are people whose job it is to make decisions. I’d just rather they happen BEFORE death/injury.

            Also, you didn’t answer my question.

            Recommended Thumb up 13

            • Avatar
              paikiala December 16, 2018 at 9:55 am

              Your question is insulting and not deserving of an answer.

              Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                MantraPDX December 16, 2018 at 10:36 am

                Yikes! I’m relatively new here and was reading your previous comments thinking “Wow, this person seems defensive. Wonder if they work for the City in some capacity?”

                Now I’m thinking: “Wow, I hope this person doesn’t work for the City and that this dismissive attitude isn’t a symptom of the culture in that organization.”

                Recommended Thumb up 6

      • Avatar
        Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 6:26 pm

        I’ve observed it at nearly every tight turn. Drivers want speed and don’t slow down enough to take the turns without veering into the other lane.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:39 pm
  • Avatar
    alex toevs December 14, 2018 at 1:43 pm

    i railed against the design and lack of visibility of the 15th and ankeny diverters when the temp design went up. the permanent design lower profile and significantly better!

    now if we could only remove parking 20 feet from the edge of curb on all sides of intersections along bikeways..

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Avatar
      Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) December 14, 2018 at 1:47 pm

      We can remove that parking! PBOT has a new policy about that and it’s complaint-driven. I’m overdue in writing abt it! Stay tuned for a post on Monday.

      Recommended Thumb up 11

      • Avatar
        Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 2:06 pm

        That was the first thing Shiela Parrott tossed out after I shared with her the odd design of this diverter. I’m beginning to think that it was on purpose.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        mark December 14, 2018 at 2:47 pm

        I actually wrote a letter to PBOT a couple of months ago, specifically mentioning that it was to serve as a formal complaint re: parking setbacks at intersections. I received a letter back from Eileen Dent, PBOT Traffic Operations.

        To summarize the response, PBOT can’t afford to do it, and they prioritized funds for high crash corridors, where fatal or severe injury crashes have already occurred. The bulk of the response was copy/paste of ORS statutes that allow cities to make their own parking rules, even if they conflict with ORS 811.550(17).

        Complain all you want, nothing will happen until someone dies.

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 14, 2018 at 4:18 pm

          Mark,

          Was your complaint about a specific intersection (what 823-SAFE can address) or proposing a city-wide implementation plan? 10,000 intersections x $75/sign+post x 2 per intersection = $1.5M just to meet the minimum standard of removing the nearest approach first space. I’m still not sure most on this blog would be satisfied.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            soren December 19, 2018 at 10:49 am

            “I’m still not sure most on this blog would be satisfied.”

            I’m satisfied with this diverter. Please install more ASAP.

            Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 2:05 pm

      Ankeny at 15th already has parking removed per the new policy (nearside left of side street on bikeway), and has parking removed on 15th opposite the stop signs.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

    • TonyT
      TonyT December 14, 2018 at 4:07 pm

      So significantly better that I saw a driver bypass the diverters within 24 hrs of the new ones going up. Finally, we’re safe from the scourge of diverters that worked!

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Avatar
    paikiala December 14, 2018 at 2:05 pm

    Ankeny at 15th already has parking removed per the new policy (nearside left of side street on bikeway), and has parking removed on 15th opposite the stop signs.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    soren December 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm

    “Things have changed a lot since we did our neighborhood greenway assessment [in 2015]… There’s more traffic pressure.”
    — Roger Geller, PBOT

    One of BikeLoud’s arguments for more pervasive diversion was that we would need to accommodate the natural tendency of Neighborhood Greenways to attract cut-through Uber/Lyft drivers and other “app” users (wayz). I hope this means that PBOT is becoming more willing to consider diversion by default.

    Recommended Thumb up 10

    • Avatar
      Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 2:54 pm

      Enough so to where they will by data from your cell company to find out.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Terry D-M December 14, 2018 at 3:34 pm

    the 52nd Greenway southbound is now so backed up some days with cars, that wait several light cycles at Division, making cyclists have to either pass and squeeze in front of a stopped vehicle or in between the travel lane and the parked cars. If this diverter at 50th is going to work, Westside parking on 52nd from Division to Lincoln needs to be converted to a bike lane, as I said when this design first appeared.

    Hopefully, Tri-Met delays will show this so PBOT can react appropriately.

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Avatar
      Doug Hecker December 14, 2018 at 7:21 pm

      Hell, I’m just hoping that the light can be adjusted so I can be inspired to actually want to wait for that light. I have yet to count how long drivers on Division get but 52nd gets maybe 8 seconds. That simply isn’t good enough.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Avatar
    mh December 14, 2018 at 3:45 pm

    I want diversion on the intersecting legacy greenway – SE 16th! Evening rush hour on 16th anywhere near Ankeny is often bumper-to-bumper northbound cars. Southbound is not as bad.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 14, 2018 at 4:21 pm

      Like at the circle?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        mh December 14, 2018 at 10:45 pm

        At Salmon? The intersection of two much-abused legacy greenways? Which one would you send motor vehicles onto? Divert them before the circle, on all four legs. (Can you hear me growling?)

        Between Hawthorne and Irving – where there is very unfortunately a freeway entrance – there should be something like four or five diverters. I haven’t fantasized which kind and which streets I’d want them on, but Portland needs to believe its own gospel, and practice what we (used to?) preach. Make greenways work.

        mh

        Recommended Thumb up 9

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 16, 2018 at 9:58 am

          Ash.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Avatar
            mh December 16, 2018 at 10:18 am

            OK, onto Ash. From both northbound and southbound 16th? I’ll buy that. Where in the 1.1 miles between Hawthorne and Irving would you place the other three or four this stretch needs to become “all ages and abilities”?

            Recommended Thumb up 3

            • Avatar
              paikiala December 16, 2018 at 11:42 am

              One way contra-flow bike between Morrison and Belmont, maybe.
              2017 counts south of Belmont only measured 500-600 car trips a day.

              Another northbound one way plus contraflow bike layout north of Burnside. The refuges at Burnside can’t become a barrier as long as Tri-Met turns north there.

              Buffered bike lanes north of Sandy or maybe a one way combination. The angle parking should change to back in, if only for cyclist safety.

              Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Avatar
                Doug Klotz December 16, 2018 at 12:29 pm

                Agree. Certainly something should be done on 16th between Sandy and Irving with the super-wide roadway. Change parking to back-in. Perhaps put bike lanes behind parking (even the back-in) and the curb, (and install a separate curb to keep parkers out of bike lane).

                Recommended Thumb up 1

              • Avatar
                mh December 16, 2018 at 3:14 pm

                SO HOW DO WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN? Contra-flow bike lane on 34th between Division and Clinton required only paint and wands; I don’t know that the political cost was huge, either.

                The need is obvious, and this has obviously been studied. What’s missing is the will, or PBOT’s confidence that Council will support active transportation projects. Do it as a quiet addition to the CCIM.

                mh

                Recommended Thumb up 2

              • Avatar
                paikiala December 17, 2018 at 9:45 am

                MH,
                Unfunded

                Recommended Thumb up 0

              • Avatar
                9watts December 17, 2018 at 10:11 am

                Unfunded…

                What I want to know is why your reliably defensive and ill-humored stance on pretty much all issues is funded.

                Recommended Thumb up 6

  • Avatar
    mark smith December 14, 2018 at 9:15 pm

    Seriously, I can get my 2001 camry through there without skipping a beat. It’s waaaay too wide.

    Recommended Thumb up 6

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 16, 2018 at 9:58 am

      You’ve tried it?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        X December 16, 2018 at 11:15 am

        No he hasn’t ridden on Clinton

        Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    matchupancakes December 14, 2018 at 9:39 pm

    BikePortland.org
    “possibly add painted stop lines[…]”

    This should be standard. Does the current inventory of stop signs within the City include a variable for “stop line present?” What is the cost of adding a stop line? Can it be scaled to roll out across the city? Where do I send my check to get this started?

    Recommended Thumb up 7

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 17, 2018 at 9:46 am

      materials are at least $50 per stop bar.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        matchupancakes December 17, 2018 at 12:07 pm

        Ah, thank for you for the material cost information! That certainly helps when conceptualizing what “completing” the thousands of stop signs present throughout the city would begin to cost on a materials alone. Greenways would be a welcome start with a more limited, focused application.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Doug Klotz December 14, 2018 at 10:34 pm

    What happened to the giant arrows planned at 15th and Ankeny (at the top of the diagonal-striped signs, which also looked larger in the photo mockup)?

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 16, 2018 at 10:03 am

      Which photo mock up?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Doug Klotz December 16, 2018 at 10:31 am

        The one labeled “PBOT photo shows what they’ll look like when finished”. Compare to 9Watt’s first photo. It looks like the “V-shaped arrows” above the striped panels won’t be able to be added at the center because of the stop sign for the other traffic. And the striped panels, especially the one on the right, don’t seem as large.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 16, 2018 at 11:28 am

          Optional tool, among others, should it be needed.

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    soren December 15, 2018 at 10:02 am

    “The goal would be to make it more difficult for people in cars to pass bicycle users, which would hopefully discourage people from driving on greenways altogether.”

    There is a cheap and effective solution to this goal, Roger.

    Pervasive diversion!

    Recommended Thumb up 11

  • Avatar
    Glenn of Confusion (that's what the world is today, hey-hey) December 15, 2018 at 11:19 am

    Maybe this has been discussed previously elsewhere, or maybe I’m not seeing the whole picture, but if I’m driving north or south on 15th, doesn’t the diverter force me ONTO a greenway?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      Doug Hecker December 16, 2018 at 4:06 am

      Yep. And many of those cars could care less about the stop signs.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        paikiala December 16, 2018 at 11:29 am

        A common complaint along greenways.

        Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        Johnny Bye Carter January 6, 2019 at 1:11 pm

        It’s the wrong place for a stop sign. It should be on the corner as is standard.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 16, 2018 at 10:05 am

      And if on the greenway, if forces them off – glass half full.
      The preservation of circulation around the church property at the SW corner was a goal of the project.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      soren December 16, 2018 at 11:26 am

      No. The Neighborhood Greenway (“that has not received the full neighborhood greenway treatment”) is on 16th.

      Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    Ted December 15, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    I think this is an unfortunate design. The precast concrete pipes set on end had soil in them, creating micro spaces for green in the ‘greenway’. This design nips out that micro green. PBOT needs to get real about integrating green in their greenway designs. They’ve gone backwards in recent years. Many of their earlier designs had more green.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 16, 2018 at 10:05 am

      The portions funded by BES?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        X December 16, 2018 at 11:23 am

        So, city departments shouldn’t work together on projects that advance more than one goal?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala December 17, 2018 at 9:48 am

          BES only pays for $20k swales where it benefits their system. Tops of hills need not apply.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Joseph Munsinger December 16, 2018 at 8:25 am

    Heads up, I don’t think the diverters at Lincoln and 50th are very popular. The reason why I say this is that last night, I was stopped at the light, headed north on 50th. A guy in big red truck, westbound on Lincoln, then TURNED LEFT, between the diverter an my car, almost hitting me. I gave a spirited honk, so maybe he has been shamed from ever doing that again. But I would be very careful of these neighborhood denizens, as they are ignoring the planters.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

  • Avatar
    MantraPDX December 16, 2018 at 11:45 am

    paikiala
    Mark,Was your complaint about a specific intersection (what 823-SAFE can address) or proposing a city-wide implementation plan? 10,000 intersections x $75/sign+post x 2 per intersection = $1.5M just to meet the minimum standard of removing the nearest approach first space. I’m still not sure most on this blog would be satisfied.Recommended 0

    This tax payer would be satisfied, despite the veiled insult.

    1.5 mil out of a budget of over 400 mil is a drop in the hat and the benefits would easily justify the cost.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      paikiala December 17, 2018 at 9:51 am

      You’re describing a city-wide effort? 823-SAFE is not the place to make such requests.
      Any criteria for where to invest first, since it appears the trained professionals are clearly wrong.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        mark December 18, 2018 at 8:48 am

        I did not make my request to 823-SAFE. I wrote a letter to PBOT.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Avatar
    sikoler December 16, 2018 at 1:18 pm

    If we didn’t intentionally gridlock main rush hour streets with ‘traffic calming’ motorists wouldn’t *need* to divert through neighborhoods.

    This is another example of irrational bike activists working against their own interests. It’s irrational to make all vehicles with 4 wheels the enemy.

    We must start working to help rush hour commuters and design for flow. The “bad for cars = good for bikes” mentality is actually harming our city.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      9watts December 16, 2018 at 3:33 pm

      “It’s irrational to make all vehicles with 4 wheels the enemy.”

      You come up with the darnedest things.

      Motor vehicles are responsible for so much collective ill (and plenty of better known if more limited individual benefits) that your attempts at rescuing them from our scorn really isn’t going to make much of a difference. Too little too late, I’m afraid.

      Recommended Thumb up 10

      • Avatar
        X December 17, 2018 at 10:49 am

        that sikoler, always tinkling at the tornado on BP

        Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      Johnny Bye Carter January 6, 2019 at 1:17 pm

      “If we didn’t intentionally gridlock main rush hour streets with ‘traffic calming’ motorists wouldn’t *need* to divert through neighborhoods.”

      I agree. We need to get those motorists off the streets so they’ll stop causing all the gridlock. But they keep thinking it will magically get better and they’ll get to keep operating their personal parlors with ease as more of them fill the streets. Those trying to get somewhere efficiently would be better off without them.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    MantraPDX December 16, 2018 at 1:35 pm

    sikoler
    If we didn’t intentionally gridlock main rush hour streets with ‘traffic calming’ motorists wouldn’t *need* to divert through neighborhoods.This is another example of irrational bike activists working against their own interests. It’s irrational to make all vehicles with 4 wheels the enemy.We must start working to help rush hour commuters and design for flow. The “bad for cars = good for bikes” mentality is actually harming our city.Recommended 0

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at. We’re here talking about a diverter on a greenway. Last I checked about 2% of the streets in Portland are designated greenways. Greenways full of peds, cyclists, etc that could otherwise be in a car adding to the traffic mess. In other words… easing car traffic on other streets to help keep things flowing.

    I don’t understand how a discussion about the design of a diverter installed on a greenway constitutes ‘irrational bike activists working against their own interests’ or a ‘bad for cars = good for bikes’ mentality.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Avatar
      9watts December 16, 2018 at 3:30 pm

      Yeah, I’m with you.
      sikoler works that (his favorite) phrase into every post.

      Recommended Thumb up 8

  • Avatar
    Andrew Kreps December 16, 2018 at 8:31 pm

    “2,300 cars per day east of 50th and 1,500 east of it. ” I assume the first east is west?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    paikiala December 17, 2018 at 9:45 am

    MH,
    Unfunded.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    X December 17, 2018 at 10:41 am

    Well then, this is the diverter for that, the common situation where a bike hauler is carrying a load of drywall crosswise 😉 That’s the way to take a lane.

    I did a scrap-wood-and-screw-gun modification to carry panels longways on my trailer, it looked pretty scrappy but it worked.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

    • Avatar
      X December 17, 2018 at 10:42 am

      supposed to follow 9watts comment about hauling drywall. Good for them!

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    MantraPDX December 17, 2018 at 3:04 pm

    paikiala
    You’re describing a city-wide effort? 823-SAFE is not the place to make such requests. Any criteria for where to invest first, since it appears the trained professionals are clearly wrong.Recommended 0

    It’s unfortunately you’re taking this approach, Paikiala. I’m not sure why you’re treating me (us?) as the enemy, but that’s not the case. Since it’s been alluded to that you’re here representing PBOT I assume we have the same or similar interests.

    You said you don’t believe anyone here would be satisfied. I replied that I would be satisfied and offered my opinion. That’s it. It’s just like, my opinion, man. Geesh.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Jason December 18, 2018 at 4:17 pm

    I was actually thinking recently that I’d like to see more of the concrete barrels on Ankeny.

    I’ve already spotted black tire marks on the fresh yellow paint. This is a sad and futile waste of money. Nothing has been accomplished. There is no deterrence.

    Recommended Thumb up 4

    • Avatar
      Daniel S December 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm

      I don’t think concrete barrels are the solution. Motorist compliance at the Clinton and 32nd facility got much better when the permanent, concrete facilities were installed. Compliance is still far from perfect there. But the barrels were essentially useless.

      Maybe barrels with narrow gaps, like the ones on N Central in St Johns would be OK. But PBOT doesn’t seem to be doing bikeway diverters like that anymore.

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    soren December 19, 2018 at 10:43 am

    This cracked me up:

    paikiala December 14, 2018 at 1:40 pm
    CROW says 6.5-8.2 feet.
    https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/334689

    If I had to guess, I would expect automobile compliance to be fairly high at this diverter.
    PBOT is fairly data-driven so I’m sure we will know whether this diverter has been successful soon enough.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jason December 19, 2018 at 2:15 pm

    Daniel S
    I don’t think concrete barrels are the solution. Motorist compliance at the Clinton and 32nd facility got much better when the permanent, concrete facilities were installed. Compliance is still far from perfect there. But the barrels were essentially useless.Maybe barrels with narrow gaps, like the ones on N Central in St Johns would be OK. But PBOT doesn’t seem to be doing bikeway diverters like that anymore.Recommended 1

    All I know is that when the concrete barrels were at SE 15th and Ankeny, cars could not bypass them. Now, the cars can drive over / through the “discouragers”.

    Recommended Thumb up 8

    • Avatar
      9watts December 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm

      Hard to argue with that concise summary.

      Recommended Thumb up 3

    • Avatar
      mh December 19, 2018 at 2:29 pm

      And where they can, some do.

      Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Avatar
    MVK December 20, 2018 at 5:45 pm

    The 50th and Lincoln diverter seems to be a success! The roundabout at 51st and Lincoln, previously a significant danger due to cars racing to beat bikes, is now calm in the evening commute. Thank you PBOT!

    Recommended Thumb up 5

  • Avatar
    Johnny Bye Carter January 4, 2019 at 5:37 pm

    Geller said he’s noticed that many people ride in the door-zone on neighborhood greenways — a sign of stress likely caused by fears of drivers coming from behind. Geller wants to make Portland greenways more “readable as a bikeway.” In addition to more sharrows and signage, he’d like couple that with an education program. The goal would be to make it more difficult for people in cars to pass bicycle users, which would hopefully discourage people from driving on greenways altogether.

    If you don’t ride in the door zone then when a car passes you it’s very close to your handlebars (and you). Many feel that people getting out of car is less threatening than a close pass. The routes with slight hills are the worst. Uphill you get the revving sound from the car’s engine along with the greater speed differential. Downhill you get a speeding driver that doesn’t like traveling within the speed limit stuck behind a cyclist.

    On many greenways it’s not legally possible to pass a cyclist because the road isn’t wide enough to leave room for them to fall over (7′) and not be in the path of the passing car. Most drivers are passing so close that I can touch their car.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      soren January 4, 2019 at 11:43 pm

      First of all, someone riding below the designated “basic” speed on a neighborhood greenway (e.g. 10 mph) is obligated to pull over and let faster moving car traffic pass.

      https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.425
      https://www.tcnf.legal/oregon-bicycle-passing-laws/

      Secondly, Oregon’s safe passing law does not apply to motorvehicles traveling at speeds less than 35 mph.

      https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.065

      The above “laws” are good examples of why I view law-abiding cycling as a form of car head.

      Recommended Thumb up 2

      • Avatar
        Johnny Bye Carter January 6, 2019 at 1:45 pm

        Why 10 mph? Isn’t it 20 mph? At least per the link for basic speeds, and the posted signs.

        That failure-to-pull-over law is so flawed it’d be easy to argue you case, especially on a greenway.

        With the passing distance some have said that the “safe distance” defined in the new law can be used as the definition of the old law.

        You have good reason to look down on those laws. The laws weren’t created for cyclists and they don’t apply very well.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

        • Avatar
          mh January 6, 2019 at 1:57 pm

          My interpretation was that the “e.g. 10 mph” was the cyclist’s speed.

          What I find interesting about bringing 10 mph into this at all is that’s the speed difference below which drivers will not get tickets. How ’bout the law not expecting us to pull over unless we’re traveling slower than 10 mph below the limit?

          Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    soren impey January 6, 2019 at 3:44 pm

    The slow moving traffic law was appealed and is now binding legal precedent.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Ted January 14, 2019 at 12:19 pm

    I witnessed an SUV roll right through the diverter on SE Ankeny & 15th this past weekend. It hardly slowed down.

    Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    Jason January 14, 2019 at 1:36 pm

    Ted
    I witnessed an SUV roll right through the diverter on SE Ankeny & 15th this past weekend. It hardly slowed down.Recommended 2

    Been really hoping I catch it with mmy bike cam. Not like video evidence would change the rank complacency that let this happen!!! Ironically, I’m told that cyclists complained the barrels were too narrow. Well now they are too wide!!!

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      9watts January 14, 2019 at 2:52 pm

      Irony is misplaced.
      This is what standards are for.
      PBOT isn’t playing a game of darts after hours; this is supposed to be their wheelhouse.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Jason January 14, 2019 at 4:51 pm

    9watts
    Irony is misplaced. This is what standards are for. PBOT isn’t playing a game of darts after hours; this is supposed to be their wheelhouse.Recommended 0

    “Standards” and “PBOT” are not words that I associate positively. Look aroumd Portland and you will see loads of zaney – one off implementations of bike infrastructure. PBOT is like a college freshman with the urge to experiment with illicit hallucinogens.

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      9watts January 14, 2019 at 5:48 pm

      I know. Hard to believe, no?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

      • Avatar
        mh January 14, 2019 at 5:59 pm

        Easy to believe, nearly impossible to comprehend.

        Recommended Thumb up 2

  • Avatar
    soren January 15, 2019 at 9:31 am

    I spent 30 mins observing the diverter during pm rush hour on Fri and did not see a single motorvehicle violation. This stands in stark contrast to my observations at both permanent Clinton diverters after they were installed.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      9watts February 9, 2019 at 9:05 am

      Maybe Richmond residents rank much lower when it comes to compliance?

      Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    9watts February 9, 2019 at 9:09 am

    Check out figure 3.21.4 here: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module3pt3.cfm

    (It is a long document and you have to scroll about half way through.)

    Although no dimensions are included, it seems pretty clear to me that the authors (transportation dept. folks) were clued into the specific relationship between auto track widths and diverter widths/approach angles, and that a standard bike lane width does not—as paikiala constantly tries to tell us—govern the thinking about diverter passage width.

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    9watts February 9, 2019 at 9:20 am

    And this from ODOT:

    “If the crossing island acts as a diverter to through motor vehicle traffic, include a separate opening in the crossing island 6’ to 8’ in width, or two openings, each 5’ wide. The cut-through area may be angled up to 45 degrees to position bicyclists to face oncoming traffic.”

    https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Engineering/Documents_RoadwayEng/HDM_13-Ped-Bicycle.pdf#page7
    Section 13.5.2.9

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar