Harvest Century September 22nd

New piece of 40-Mile Loop path is paved and protected on NE Marine Drive

Posted by on May 9th, 2019 at 1:48 pm

Sure beats a gravel-strewn bike lane next to fast big-rigs!
(Photo: J. Maus/BikePortland)

Multnomah County and Metro recently worked together to construct a nice new piece of the 40-Mile Loop on NE Marine Drive in Troutdale. And it’s not the only sign of progress for riding in this area — which happens to be a popular gateway to the Historic Columbia River Highway.

Short but sweet.

The new path is about a half-mile long. It starts at NW Eastwind Drive and ends at NW Dunbar. The path connects to an existing section of the off-street path that begins in Blue Lake Park about two miles to the west.

I noticed the new path while on a ride last weekend. Before it was put in, this section of Marine Drive bothered me. It’s in a corner where people drive very fast and there are a lot of big trucks around (see before photo below). The bike lane was always strewn with gravel due to a big turnout space adjacent to the road shoulder. Now it’s clean and smooth and separated from drivers via a planted median.

Before the path was put in.

Multnomah County says the project was triggered by a nearby industrial construction project that required the developer to help fund the path.

Advertisement

Big sale at Community Cycling Center

Port of Portland graphic showing two new path segments to be built next year.

If you ride in this area, we’ve also got an update on another project that will add several miles of new paths that will allow for a much lower-stress connection between Blue Lake Park and the Sandy River/Historic Highway.

Remember in 2015 when I shared a few unpaved connections between Marine Drive and the Sandy River Delta area that connected directly to the new bike path over the Sandy River? A Port of Portland project to formalize these connections (that I first reported on in August 2016) has moved forward and is scheduled for construction next year.

(Harlow Road Segment as it exists today on the left, and the currently unpaved levee between Blue Lake Park and Sundial Road on the right. Photos by J. Maus/BikePortland)

Harlow Road segment.

According to a presentation at the recent Metro Quarterly Trails Forum, the Port of Portland is currently in design phase for the “Fairview Gap” project. They plan to construct a 1.7 mile path that will connect to Marine Drive at Blue Lake Park. They will install a flashing beacon west of NE 223rd Avenue and the new path will follow a currently unpaved levee crossing to Sundial Road. A separate segment will pave 1/3 of a mile north-south along the Sandy River to fill a gap between the existing Reynolds Trail and NE Harlow Road.

Construction on these two segments will start next year.

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

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

BikePortland needs your support.

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

18 Comments
  • Avatar
    David Hampsten May 9, 2019 at 1:53 pm

    “Sidepath”

    Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Shawn Small May 9, 2019 at 2:30 pm

    Great news!! I just did BOTG and my Garmin was trying to take me that way and I didn’t believe it.

    I ll have to go check it out!
    Thanks

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Avatar
    paikiala May 9, 2019 at 4:27 pm

    Protected?

    Recommended Thumb up 1

    • Avatar
      q May 9, 2019 at 10:01 pm

      Are you thinking it’s not “protected”? Granted, there aren’t steel guardrails, concrete barriers, etc. but the several-foot-wide separation offers much more protection than a standard bike lane would. Is there a standard, official definition that this doesn’t meet?

      Recommended Thumb up 1

  • Avatar
    Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor) May 9, 2019 at 10:16 pm

    Haha. Yes. Imo this qualifies as protected. There’s ample space between users, different material, and vertical delineation. Beats the hell out of paint-only buffers any day of the week.

    Recommended Thumb up 9

    • Avatar
      paikiala May 10, 2019 at 1:13 pm

      It is clearly separated, but unless it is physically higher than the roadway (ala Columbia Blvd), has a ditch between the road and MUP, or another physical barrier, like a wall, separated is all that it is. The generous space is a good start, but an errant speeding driver on that road could easily traverse the space between the road and MUP.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Chris I May 10, 2019 at 1:42 pm

        In about a decade, those trees might provide some protection.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        Dan A May 10, 2019 at 2:09 pm

        Separated is still like 100x better to ride on than painted.

        Recommended Thumb up 3

      • Avatar
        q May 10, 2019 at 4:21 pm

        Would you have recommended something different? Raising it? Adding barriers walls, or a ditch? Was this design wrong to do?

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          paikiala May 13, 2019 at 9:28 am

          Any of the things I identified would better protect the pathway. I’m less concerned about it being separated, since the location is industrial, so accessibility for path users is a lower priority. A swale, maybe 3 feet deep, between the road and path seems like a contextually appropriate feature. It will be near impossible to create a protected bike lane that is also 100% accessible between intersections, since the goals tend to be mutually exclusive.

          Recommended Thumb up 2

          • Avatar
            q May 14, 2019 at 10:58 am

            I agree with all of that.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

    • Avatar
      David Hampsten May 10, 2019 at 7:24 pm

      I agree with paikiala on this one, while it is “protected”, it isn’t by any definition a “bike lane”, it’s entirely the definition of an old-fashioned “side path”, much like the I-205 or I-84 bike or multi-use paths. Very 1970s retro. To be a “protected bike lane”, it needs to be at the same level as the roadway, with an easy entry/exit for micro-mobility users to use the main roadway for faster speeds. I’m rather embarrassed by the headline – really Jonathan, I thought you knew better.

      Recommended Thumb up 0

      • Avatar
        q May 10, 2019 at 8:27 pm

        But Jonathan called it a “path” in the headline (and in the article), not a “bike lane”. And what paikiala questioned was Jonathan calling it “protected”. So it seems you’re agreeing with Jonathan, who called it “protected” as you do, and a “path” versus a lane, as you do.

        Whatever it is, it seems like progress.

        Recommended Thumb up 0

        • Avatar
          David Hampsten May 11, 2019 at 6:55 am

          But it’s not progress, it’s in fact the most expensive and least safe type of bicycle infrastructure there is, taking away resources better spent elsewhere or spent on more useful infrastructure at this location, such as a protected bike lane and protected crossings. With off-street pathways like this one, bicyclists are now segregated (separate but equal?) from traffic with no easy entry or exit to the main roadway. Bicyclists tend to become complacent on such paths and less ready to safely cross busy roadways. Even worse, motorists now can more easily ignore most cyclists, “pushing” them to use the side path, and likely causing more crashes, and more fatal/badly injured crashes, when the side path intersects the adjacent roadway. Such facilities have a long history of being among the dangerous to cyclists, which is why I was so dismayed by Jonathan’s positive take on this new facility.

          Recommended Thumb up 1

          • Avatar
            Dan A May 11, 2019 at 8:44 am

            Let’s agree to disagree. I think most people just like to ride on sidepaths much more than they like to ride next to cars, especially riders who are newer or less competent.

            We had a few of these encircling Corvallis when I was growing up, and I rode all over the place on them at a very young age.

            Recommended Thumb up 5

          • Avatar
            q May 11, 2019 at 10:59 am

            “Not progress” would mean the new configuration is no better than what was there before. I don’t think many people would agree with that.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

          • Avatar
            q May 11, 2019 at 11:12 am

            I do agree your points could be valid is some situations, but at this location, it looks to me like this design was an appropriate choice.

            Recommended Thumb up 0

  • Avatar
    Steve C May 10, 2019 at 9:04 pm

    Hopefully this section won’t fall into disrepair like the path to the west that continues adjacent marine drive. Last time I tried to ride the path tree roots had torn up the surface. I much prefer riding marine drive itself.

    Recommended Thumb up 3

  • Avatar