Splendid Cycles Big Sale

PBOT needs your local knowledge for two key northeast Portland projects

Posted by on November 13th, 2020 at 3:00 pm

PBOT’s proposal for the 70s Greenway would create a carfree lane through Rose City Golf Course.

Are you an expert on the North Tabor, Montavilla, or Madison South neighborhoods? If so, the Portland Bureau of Transportation needs your help designing two key projects: the 70s Neighborhood Greenway and the Halsey Street Safety and Access to Transit Project.

The $4.5 million 70s Neighborhood Greenway Project aims to create a five mile low-stress cycling route between SE Flavel and NE Sacramento. It would be a valuable north-south connection parallel to 82nd Avenue. Since we last checked in on the project in summer 2018, PBOT has done a lot of planning and design work and is on track to break ground in next summer.

The 70s Greenway will have all the greenway bells and whistles we’ve come to expect from PBOT like curb extensions, median islands, and flashing beacons to make intersections safer — and new off-streets paths and protected bike lanes to make cycling better.

Beyond the usual, PBOT has some special features they’d like to build. One of them is a fully carfree lane through Rose City Golf Course. The current proposal (see below) is to limit NE 72nd Avenue between Tillamook and Sacramento to one-way (southbound) for car and truck drivers. The eastern lane would become carfree.

Another significant element is a major crossing update of SE Foster at 78th that would include a two-way “cycle-track connection” across the off-set intersection.

Advertisement


PBOT is also working on major updates to NE Halsey between 68th and 92nd with an eye toward making it easier to walk and bike to the 82nd Avenue MAX station. The Halsey Safety and Access to Transit Project includes several significant changes.

PBOT wants to add buffered bike lanes where no cycling space exists today on Halsey between 70th and 80th…

The project would also reconfigure the 68th and Halsey intersection…

Another part of the proposal is a roundabout at the Halsey/80th/81st intersection…

And check out their plans for a two-way protected bike path on the Halsey Street overcrossing of I-84 Avenue…

Going further east toward 92nd, PBOT wants to create space for cycling along Halsey. These are just some of the project elements. I haven’t even mentioned new sidewalks, new streetlights, and transit improvements!

Neighborhood resident Eric P shared his comments about these projects in the BP Forums. He’s excited about these proposals and he wants more people to join in him taking the survey PBOT just launched today. He reports Nextdoor is already buzzing about the potential carfree lane through the golf course. Eric P is also worried about how the greenway proposal jogs so much north of Glisan. “They want to send the greenway down a narrow, dark alley-like street on Pacific between 76th & 77th,” he report. “It would be great if this greenway stayed closer to businesses on 82nd and connected more directly to the 82nd MAX hub.” He also worried about people driving carelessly through the roundabout.

I agree with Eric that if you want to make these plans better — or want to tell PBOT how much you like the designs, please take a few minutes for the survey. This is the stage in the project where PBOT is dreaming a bit and flying some trial balloons to gauge community interest. To make this stuff a reality they’ll need to know where you stand.

Here are those links again:
70s Greenway
Halsey Street Project
Survey for both

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
— Get our headlines delivered to your inbox.
— Support this independent community media outlet with a one-time contribution or monthly subscription.

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

62
Leave a Reply

avatar
12 Comment threads
50 Thread replies
2 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
24 Comment authors
paikialaEawristeDavid HampstenHello, Kittysquareman Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
maccoinnich
Subscriber

One day I’d love to understand why PBOT loves proposing roundabouts in locations where there isn’t enough space for a roundabout. It appears that the intent here is to route people on bikes onto the sidewalk at the south side of Halsey…?

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Agreed, the cycletrack across the freeway is great. But if the intention is to have people on bikes ride the sidewalk at 80th, that becomes a non-design. It is the equivalent of PBOT designing something for cars where a street stopped and people were expected to just shrug and find their way through a parking lot. Make it a continuous, marked MUP, not a no man’s land.

maccoinnich
Subscriber

It certainly looks like the intent is for people to ride on the sidewalk between 80th and 81st—and in two directions, no less. The illustration appears to show the new sidewalk meeting the curb line of the existing sidewalk further east, and that’s pretty narrow, with an electrical pole in the way.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

It’s not really a roundabout, as it doesn’t allow for cars to pass each other. It’s more of a traffic circle, one lane only, so faster cyclists can feel fairly safe passing through it sharing the space with cars (and I hope PBOT adds sharrows in the travel lanes), while the sidewalk lanes are for slower cyclists, scooters, and other users.

maccoinnich
Subscriber

Roundabouts don’t have to be multi-lane to be a roundabout.

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

passing in a multi-lane roundabout is very unsafe. It’s the second most common error drivers make. The first is not yielding to both approaching lanes.

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

Mini-Roundabouts
Mini roundabouts are less common in North America, but frequently used in the UK. Their footprint is smaller, making them suitable for retrofit situations with right of way constraints (and lower cost). They are also commonly used where truck U-turns are not needed, so achieve all the safety benefits of compact modern roundabouts at a much lower cost. They are all truck apron, and in the UK are sometimes just paint on the road.

HW 54 and 16, Turin, GA: https://goo.gl/maps/1iRqxXNrGfo
White Center, WA: http://tinyurl.com/white-center-mini
Dimondale, MI: http://tinyurl.com/dimondale-mi-mini
Missoula, MT: Toole and Scott:
Before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jwOPI8Tfp0
After: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6enK7FfvuY
San Buenaventura, CA: http://tinyurl.com/sbv-ca-mini
Anacortes, WA: https://goo.gl/maps/PjtjKdc2wogtBUoDA
Bel Air, MD, Tollgate & MacPhail (see 2:08): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KLbr1awEbk
Maple and Horner, Elmira, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/QDYNzD4orRU2
Maple and Caldwell, Elmira, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/vMwYQM1yUm12
NW 12th and N Jefferson, Ava, MO: http://www.douglascountyherald.com/2016/05/avas-new-roundabout-in-place/
Charlottetown, PEI: http://city.charlottetown.pe.ca/news.php?id=1543
Roads & Bridges article: https://www.roadsbridges.com/web-exclusive-right-sizing-roundabouts
Mifflin Rd. & Woodmill Dr., Dover, DE: https://goo.gl/maps/tcqa8utEYbN2
Lake Ozark, MO: https://goo.gl/maps/qbTWsoSo3mw
Maple and Horner, Elmira, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/QDYNzD4orRU2
Maple and Caldwell, Elmira, NY: https://goo.gl/maps/vMwYQM1yUm12
Chattanooga, TN, 4th Ave and 37th St: https://goo.gl/maps/RpTaL1hBiuG2
Vienna, VA, Park and Locust St: https://goo.gl/maps/3PsC91opoHC2
Federal Way, WA: https://goo.gl/maps/rM5XH2E9BM92
White Center, WA: http://tinyurl.com/white-center-mini
164th Ave NE and NE 76th St, Redmond, WA (15,000 vpd): https://goo.gl/maps/dhab1DZ4ucn
SR 432, Kelso, WA (5 days to build): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py_B6Wfu1DQ https://goo.gl/maps/RZvRNdYNMDapxzAV6
Shawnee, OK: http://www.pawhuskajournalcapital.com/news/20171029/community-grant-shawnee-roundabout-project-wrapping-up
Spring and Argyle, Friday Harbor, WA: https://goo.gl/maps/aemtTDSWjMoqi7B87

Steve C
Guest
Steve C

Yeah, that’s how I read it too. The curb bulb-out cuts off the bike lane at a critical point. It forces cyclists to either shift into the car lane to maintain momentum or ride the sidewalk and make a right angle turn across the right of way of car traffic turning right out of the circle to 81st. I really appreciate the update to Halsey with the bike lanes, a much needed change to an extremely unsafe road. But I don’t understand why this intersection prioritizes car traffic. New designs expanding our bike network should prioritize consistency, ease of navigation and momentum of cyclists. If you want to ride a specific route don’t make me stop and wait for cars.

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

The best modern roundabout design for cyclists provides two choices. The more confident cyclist should merge with through traffic and circulate like a motorist. This is made easier by the low-speed operational environment of the modern roundabout, which should not exceed 20 mph (30 kph).
The less confident cyclist should be provided a ramp to exit the street and use a shared use path around the roundabout. Such paths should be at least ten feet wide (3 m) and cyclist operate at low speeds, crossing at the pedestrian crossings. Sometimes space constraints, as with other intersection types, limit ideal design.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

The roundabout here is more to fix a dangerous intersection. People trying to turn left onto Halsey here have a tough time. Sightlines are poor and traffic moves fast.

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

Single-lane modern roundabouts (50-120 feet in diameter) can handle intersections that serve up to 20,000 vehicles per day with peak-hour flows between 2,000 and 2,500 vehicles per hour.

The best modern roundabout design for cyclists provides two choices. The more confident cyclist should merge with through traffic and circulate like a motorist. This is made easier by the low-speed operational environment of the modern roundabout, which should not exceed 20 mph (30 kph).
The less confident cyclist should be provided a ramp to exit the street and use a shared use path around the roundabout. Such paths should be at least ten feet wide (3 m) and cyclist operate at low speeds, crossing at the pedestrian crossings. Sometimes space constraints, as with other intersection types, limit ideal design.

EP
Guest
EP

I worry that this design will make more drivers turn right on 80th to avoid the roundabout as they cut over to 82nd. It would be interesting to block off 80th to turns from Halsey, and extend the bike lane through that area and into/around the roundabout.

Robert Saiget
Guest
Robert Saiget

I voiced my approval for this roundabout on the PBOT survey, but after reading some of these comments I’m beginning to see the flaws in this design. Would a traffic light here be better? and safer? and cheaper? I did note in the survey that while bicyclists like me welcome all the new infrastructure, the auto lovers are going to hate it. This overpass over 82nd and I-84 is a pretty high auto trafficked road and that roundabout is going to cause some traffic snarls and safety issues for cyclists coming off the proposed overpass cycletrack. As I live north of Halsey, I will probably avoid this area and continue to use the Tillamook bikeway. btw, the Rose City Golf Course proposal is great!

EP
Guest
EP

There really is a lot of room for improvement here over what’s existing. If done right, the roundabout would slow traffic on/off the overpass. The lanes on the overpass would make for a great 82nd bypass. As it is now, I’ve only ever ridden the overpass once. Vowed never again…

paikiala
Guest
paikiala
Matt
Guest
Matt

NE 72nd is just fine as it is. Leave it alone.

Bobcycle
Guest
Bobcycle

Well, I live on 72nd and couldn’t disagree more. Currently the section of 72nd just south of Sacramento is a difficult passage for cyclists and even more so for pedestrians. The dirt pathway used to avoid 72nd is slippery and steep. There is zero shoulder for pedestrians and cyclists on 72nd as they approach Sacramento. The southward downhill travel allows cyclists to travel at speed but does nothing for pedestrians forced to walk on a narrow road with no shoulder. While the proposed solution will inconvenience northbound cut through auto drivers it will provide safe passage for those of us who live in the neighborhood and walk and cycle in the area. An alternative would be to replace the steep dirt cut through with a gradual paved or gravel pathway connecting to Sacramento, though this would not eliminate the sharp right turn for autos heading north on 72nd.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

What’s to stop a car from illegally going around the barrier?

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Common decency.

MaddHatter
Guest
MaddHatter

Is that like “common” sense?

BEL
Guest
BEL

Well I live off NE 72nd & Sacramento (North side) and agree NE 72nd needs to be open for use both ways by cars (only) those of us nearby. Why is that those in the nearby neighborhood always are the ones “punished” with inconvenience most?
Rather than deal with the drivers that cut through mostly turning right at top of hill on Sacramento & then north on NE 72th. Fix that by making no right turn. Also do not allow trucks to use that section of 72nd.

Definitely agree that improvements needs to be made!
There is space to make a path next to the right side of the 72 along with winding paved path up the hill where it is now dirt. Better for bicyclists and pedestrians both which use it now. by walking their bike up. I just bicycle up it as I have for last 30+ yrs.

EP
Guest
EP

I can’t wait for the day that PBOT wants to do something to limit cut through traffic in my neighborhood. I’ll gladly be slightly inconvenienced if it means greatly reduced cut through traffic.

maccoinnich
Subscriber

It’s also maddening that PBOT has a project to add bike lanes on Halsey from 68th east, but a separate project to repave the street between 47th and 62nd won’t add bike lanes to Halsey. When I emailed PBOT staff about this last year to ask why they decided not to follow the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan the response was that a) people can just use the greenway on NE Tillamook and b) there’s a six block gap between the projects (as if that’s an insurmountable problem).

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

4-lane roads like Halsey and Sandy are one of the least safe road designs. Unfortunately, the first goal of PBot is not safety. Capacity, speed and parking. Until these standards are taken out of road design, we will continue to have unsafe streets.

Doug Hecker
Guest
Doug Hecker

What? That response was neat in 1985. And sadly, not true in 2020.

Matt
Guest
Matt

My batteries just died in my Walkman. Damn!

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Unfortunately, the first goal of PBot is not safety.

You’re right. It’s “equity”

Which they’re using on other projects to prioritize capacity and through-corridor travel speed.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Perhaps they are trying to make inner Portland as dangerous as East Portland, to even up the traffic deaths and injuries? Death equity?

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

Any evidence to support your safety missive?

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Iowa DOT, MN DOT, and FHWA guide.

Doug Hecker
Guest
Doug Hecker

I’ve heard project managers talk about “missed opportunities” and retroactively add crosswalks and new paint after the fact. Latest example is SE45/46th between JC and Woodstock.

CR
Guest
CR

I live nearby and was active-ish in following updates on Halsey pre-covid times. My understanding was that the RCP neighborhood association was very vocally opposed to extending the future bikes lanes along Halsey westward beyond 68th. PBOT folks informally figured that once the bike lanes were in place east of 68th, it would be easier to eventually extend them westward to articulate with the upcoming 60s north-south route. As for the Halsey repaving project between 47th and 62nd, my understanding was that PBOT felt bike lanes would be too unpalatable to the neighborhood and also challenging from a road engineering perspective because of width: with 2 protected bike lanes, Halsey would have to narrow to 2 lanes only, traffic would back up/slow down and bus travel times would be adversely impacted, plus there’s quite a bit of freight along parts of Halsey from that industrial park just north of I-84…something along those lines, plus they viewed Tillamook as a decent already existing option (never mind how it poorly articulates to the Hollywood transit center)…they had their reasons, though it felt they could have used some more ingenuity in their proposed options.

Doug Hecker
Guest
Doug Hecker

They should do what they didn’t do right on outer Glisan and create those weird bus only lanes. And keep them bus only from 6am- 9am and 4-6pm

Momo
Guest
Momo

The problem is Halsey is only 36 feet wide in that section, and you need turn pockets at 60th and 57th to deal with the offset nature of the collector streets. So there’s not enough room for bike lanes anyway.

squareman
Subscriber

And check out their plans for a two-way protected bike path on the Halsey Street overcrossing of I-84 Avenue…

I wouldn’t call plastic wands “protected”. Separated, yes. But that separation is like paper and less of a barrier than a high curb to a guy in an SUV choking on his cola – yes, that’s a reference to the Burnside Bridge incident from three years ago.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

Uh… the driver you are referring to mounted a curb when he crashed. If you want to protect against every eventuality, we probably need covered tubes made of bullet and meteorite resistant glass.

Chris I
Guest
Chris I

Or maybe just jersey barriers.

squareman
Subscriber

You miss the point, Kitty. Wands mean even less than a curb (a high one at that) which is a form of physical separator. Wands mean pretty much nothing, barely more than paint on the ground. They are not a way of making “protected” infrastructure.

Hello, Kitty
Subscriber
Hello, Kitty

No, I got it. My point is that it is very rare for a cyclist to be run down while in the bike lane. Wands probably provide as much protection as a cement wall 99.999% of the time. How much is it worth to add another 9 to that number?

Eawriste
Guest
Eawriste

Just finished the survey and was sort of shocked at the poor quality of the design. For example, there was a section of 2-way cycletrack with a 2 foot painted buffer and 4 car lanes (one parking). That would mean cars and bikes passing within 2 feet going opposite directions without grade separation. My guess is that PBOT is retaining the capacity, speed and parking and sacrificing basic safety. Kind of speechless at how incompetent this design is.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

The design for 81st to 92nd is disgraceful. I can’t believe that PBOT has fallen so low. At a minimum sidewalks are needed on both sides, as called for in their own pedestrian master plan. People need to exercise, walk the dog, catch bus 77, and kids need to walk to school. Buffered bike lanes on both sides of course, and only one traffic lane in each direction. Put in a parking-protected bike lane on the north side – people park there, take advantage of it.

PBOT seems to suffer from dementia – they are using 1960s designs now.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

I’m surprised PBOT didn’t put in a second traffic circle at 68th & Halsey, a twin of the one at 81st. Double-roundabouts have a proven ability to slow overall traffic, especially when there are trees or public art in the center of both.

paikiala
Guest
paikiala

There is a preliminary design already created.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

Where’s the 1% for public art on these plans?

John Mulvey
Guest
John Mulvey

ODOT loves the 70s bikeway project because they intend to use it to justify their future refusal to put bike facilities on 82nd Avenue.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

You mean PBOT? The 70s bikeway is a PBOT project, and ultimately PBOT will receive 82nd from ODOT.

John Mulvey
Guest
John Mulvey

No, I said ODOT and mean ODOT. ODOT owns 82nd Avenue and has sole authority over improvements to it.

ODOT funded the 70s bikeway planning because they intend to use that bikeway as the excuse to avoid the requirements of ORS 366.514, which would require the addition of bike lanes on 82nd.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

And you are saying that PBOT will accept 82nd without bike lanes when ODOT hands it over?

John Mulvey
Guest
John Mulvey

That’s twice that you’ve implied that a transfer to the City is imminent. It’s not. There are no negotiations. There’s no funding identified. Jurisdictional transfer would be years away even if someone was pursuing it, which nobody is.

Last year, Alissa Keny-Guyer told a community meeting that it could be decades before a funding package is passed, because they need a “holistic” solution for tranferring all the orphaned highways statewide.

ODOT will continue to control 82nd for the foreseeable future and they’ll continue to be grossly derelict in their responsibility to the communities that live there.

David Hampsten
Guest
David Hampsten

John, you know more about 82nd and the politics related to it, than anyone else I know.

We both know ODOT wants to get rid of its “orphan highways” ASAP. We also know that PBOT and City Council prefer that when they receive an ODOT orphan highway, that it meets certain city standards, which usually involves the highway being completely rebuilt into a city street, as is happening on outer Powell right now.

But we both also know that Oregon will never have anywhere near enough funding to fix all those orphan highways within Portland (let alone in the rest of the state). So PBOT and the city have a dilemma – do they wait 1,000 years for the Oregon legislature to adequately fund the rebuilds and continue to deal with the high crash rates where those orphan highways intersect city streets, and the resulting deaths? Or does the city take over the stroads “as is”, like they did when they took over the county stroads in East Portland in the 80s, and redesign the roadways themselves without ODOT interference?

I’m convinced they’ll do the latter.

Corporatocracy
Guest
Corporatocracy

That’s the preferred vision of the very powerful “Business Association” centered on 82nd. And, yes, PBOT will bend over backwards do what these business owners want — just like they have always done.

Let's Active
Guest
Let's Active

John M., ORS 366.514 is only applicable if ODOT has a modernization or other project with scope beyond paving on a highway. So it’s not really a “requirement” right now on 82nd Ave. The city of Portland owns the ROW beyond the travel lanes (ie. the sidewalks) on 82nd Ave. Maybe the 70s project will help PBOT avoid building proper sidewalks along the corridor until the jurisdictional transfer takes place (in 2030?)?

John Mulvey
Guest
John Mulvey

I’m well aware of what ORS 366.514 says.

If ODOT does not intend to rely on the 70s bikeway to avoid the legal requirements of 366.514, they’re perfectly free to say so. They haven’t and they won’t.

John Liu
Guest
John Liu

It has been a while since I rode through the golf course, and I’ve never driven there. My question though, would we need auto access through the golf course at all? Traffic trying to cut through the golf course could divert around it. Traffic trying to get to the clubhouse can access it from the southern Tillamook entrance to the golf course, without needing to go through.

EP
Guest
EP

The nextdoor comments are mainly from drivers who don’t want to deal with the “inconvenience” of losing their personal park shortcut. Can you imagine the outrage nowadays if the city wanted to run a street through a park?!

Let's Active
Guest
Let's Active

Regarding the Halsey crossing treatment over I-84, you say: “And check out their plans for a two-way protected bike path on the Halsey Street overcrossing of I-84 Avenue…” And you show a graphic of wands separating the path. Do wands really count as creating protection? is that the standard? It’s an honest question. I do not feel that wands provide me much protection through the Lloyd District, for example. Hard curbs would be protection in my opinion.

Paul Cone
Guest
Paul Cone

I live on 76th just off Burnside and I go north and south regularly. I don’t understand why there is focus on the crossings at Stark and Washington but no mention at all of how the crossing at Halsey will work. To me that is the one that is the most unsafe and in need of improvement. You are crossing four lanes of traffic, which can be done fairly easily going northbound via the signal on 74th, but the signal doesn’t control traffic southbound — you have to either wait for a gap in traffic, or ride your bike eastbound on the sidewalk to hit the ped crossing button. And the four car traffic lanes on Halsey make it like a freeway.

EP
Guest
EP

I don’t get the route north of Glisan. I get that they wanted it to shift over from the crossing at 80th & Glisan to the proposed one at 76th & Halsey. But all the turns are what can make bike routes a pain. Along the way, there is the narrow/sketchy in the dark “alley” that is NE Pacific between 77th & 76th. Then there’s the offset/jog at 76th and Multnomah, which is uncontrolled and has bad sight lines and often speeding cars. My vote would be to keep the route on 80th, straight up to Halsey. Give the greenway on 80th a better treatment/priority at the roundabout with a diverter or bumpout. Then it could better connect to the Halsey bike lanes both across Halsey (westbound) and headed east on the overpass.

Paul Cone
Guest
Paul Cone

I like the idea of crossing at 80th to take advantage of the roundabout but don’t think I would want to be on Halsey for any longer than necessary, even if it’s just two motor vehicle lanes. And I don’t agree that Pacific is sketchy. And if you stay on 80th, you still have to offset/jog at Oregon.

(I think you meant “across Halsey (northbound) and headed west on the overpass (westbound)”.)

EP
Guest
EP

I didn’t think of that block of Pacific as being that bad until I mentioned it to a female friend who said she felt unsafe going through there at night. Instead, she uses Multnomah. Later, I walked through there in the dark and had to agree. It’s a narrow one-lane, shadowed in the middle, tall fences, no sidewalk, and I’ve had to step onto the grassy shoulder to avoid a car whipping around the corner. It’s always good to look at these routes from the perspectives of a variety of other users.

Agreed you have to jog east or right at the Oregon & 80th tee. I guess I just like when routes stay on one numbered street for as long as possible, to avoid suddenly losing the route. Even 79th seems better than the multiple jogs.

My last part is talking about trying to better tie 80th into the new westbound bike lanes that start on the north side of 80th (across Halsey), and the new eastbound bike lanes that start east of the roundabout and go up the overpass. If you’re headed north on 80th, you would cross Halsey to one lane, and you would stay on the south side at the roundabout to get on the east/west two-way. I am glad they’re not routing the westbound lane along the north side of the overpass with an on-ramp gap to cross.