(Photo: Sent in by reader)
A 60-year-old woman who says she was hit by a car driver while bicycling on Northeast 53rd Avenue Saturday said the incident was so upsetting that she will no longer ride her bike because, “It’s gotten too unsafe.”
The collision happened on 53rd at NE Glisan, and the woman was bicycling on a designated neighborhood greenway route (known as the 50s Bikeway). As you can see in the photo, 53rd has green coloring across the intersection (adjacent to the crosswalk) that aims to create a visual continuation of the bike lane. According to a witness, the bicycle rider was headed northbound when the driver turned left across the lanes and struck her.
The woman, “Bee F.” posted about her experience on Nextdoor on Monday. Here’s what she wrote:
“I just can’t cycle on roads any more. It’s gotten too unsafe. I was struck by a southbound car turning left illegally across the marked bike crossing. Police and EMS had to come and the driver was cited (I have a police report). The light had turned green and I was proceeding in the marked lane. She had come out, then stopped, so things seemed normal, until she floored it. I had no time to escape. She said she didn’t see me.
It’s gotten so dangerous that every ride, every day, I think I’d be dead if I didn’t keep my eyes peeled and react quickly when a car breaks the law. I’m too old for this and my spouse is so afraid. I am going to have to cut back to cycling only trails now, no roads at all. At 60 and not being a driver, I feel I’ve lost my most important mobility tool and that life will never be as good for me. I’m very sad.
I hope that you will consider and encourage friends and family to be extra cautious around marked crossings where peds, cyclists, wheelchairs, etc… have the right of way once we have “dipped a toe in the water” to signal our intent to cross. Because we are not motor vehicles that could hurt someone driving, it is human nature that we are not part of threat assessment; thus, invisible. So, the only way to stay safe is to ACTIVELY scan for people in crosswalks. I hope you will. I hope no one else has to lose so much as I just did.”
Advertisement
For anyone who cares about Portland, this is gut-wrenching to read. Especially since she was using a “low-stress, family friendly” neighborhood greenway, which the Portland Bureau of Transportation says “foster the best elements of Portland’s transportation culture by creating safe streets.”
If we can’t keep people like Bee safe from the reckless inclinations of car users, we can’t create a safe system.
As for the infrastructure here, I originally assumed it was what PBOT calls a “crossbike”, a type of crossing treatment the city has used with increasing regularity since they debuted in 2016. But according to a PBOT source, the green paint here is a bike lane extension from a bike box at a signalized intersection.
Legally-speaking, bike lanes continue through intersections whether they are painted or not. This was always the case, but a rogue Portland judge muddied the waters with a controversial ruling in 2009 that led to confusion (and mimicry by a judge in Bend nine years later). Thankfully, a bill passed by the Oregon Legislature in 2019 has settled the matter once and for all.
That bill should help clear up confusion that has dogged these crossbike designs since they first went in. It’s also interesting to note that PBOT has collaborated with Portland State University to research the effectiveness of crossbikes. At the recent meeting of the Bicycle Advisory Committee, PBOT Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller said the research, “found a beneficial effect for both people biking and walking where the crossbikes were installed.”
Crossbike or not, confusion still might persist around these painted bike crossings as to how they impact right-of-way decisions by users. Laws around painted crosswalks are much more widely known and respected. It’s unclear in this specific case on Glisan whether either party in the collision was confused by the infrastructure itself or if there were other contributing factors.
NOTE: If anyone witnessed this collision, Bee would love to hear from you. Please get in touch with me and I’ll pass you along.
— 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.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
Awful to hear, thanks for highlighting this. Unfortunately we have many clients who also feel compelled to stop riding, or limit riding to protected/separated facilities, after they are hit.
I think there is also an important distinction between cross-bikes (legally meaningless, green zebra stripes typically at greenway crossings of arterials) and bike lanes (legally significant, marked by 8″ white line and bike symbols). 53rd and Glisan appears to have a bike lane clearly marked before and after the intersection for northbound bike traffic (like Bee). The section within the intersection resembles a cross-bike, but is part of the bike lane, as made clear by the 2019 law and as you confirmed with PBOT.
In contrast, the cross-bikes at many greenway crossings of arterials, including NE Tillamook at 15th, for example, do not have bike lane markings before and after the intersection. At those crossings, riders typically face a stop sign, the cross-bikes do not provide added legal protection, and riders must yield to cross traffic. To make matters more confusing, cross-bikes are often marked with an 8″ wide white stripe that resembles some bike lane crossings.
So, unfortunately I think the ambiguity surrounding cross-bikes noted in the 2016 article remains even after the 2019 law clarifying bike lanes. That, and their name is already confusing for cyclocross aficionados!
“cross-bike” or not, this intersection has a light. So the cyclist travelling straight has the right of way over a car turning left regardless of what paint is in the intersection.
Regardless, this story is so sad. I regularly ride through this intersection, and while usually it is low stress, some cars seem to think bikes are invisible and turn left regardless of oncoming cycling traffic.
My husband and I were pushing our grandchild in a stroller walking north on 53rd at that same intersection last Friday. Being exceptionally cautious as new grandparents, we started to cross the intersection but made triply sure that no one was going to hit us. A car came south on 53rd and started to turn right into us. We pulled back and then she saw us and stopped to let us through. It seemed clear to us that perhaps because of the sunny day and the shade we were in that she had not seen us. If we have been moving at the speed of a bike we would have been hit. I don’t know what the solution is. Just another perspective
I’m confused. Does the 2019 law cover crossbikes or not?
No. The law is about bike lanes continuing whether painted or not. Keep in mind that crossbikes are often used when there is no bike lane on either side.
aha. I’ll continue to swerve over to the white painted crosswalks, then.
Doesn’t matter – not one driver on the planet even knows what a “crossbike” is – I don’t, and I’m nearing a million miles driving motor vehicles.
This makes me sick. Where is the equity work that PBOT espouses? This 60 year-old person just lost their ability to move about freely. Complicity in car culture, lack of political will and ho-hum street design will never encourage more people to ride a bike (or walk or take transit) to get to their destinations. This is shameful for a “Vision Zero”, “Platinum” bicycle city.
The article didn’t say there were injuries that would prevent her from biking – it said she was too afraid to bike after the accident and that’s understandable. She learned what is common knowledge: riding a bike in traffic has risks. For MANY, the risks are too great. I don’t like having my back to traffic when I’m riding in a bike lane, but I like to get exercise so I take the risk. I’ve won the bet so far, but just one loss of the bet can change your life forever.
I can respond from similar experience. I’m 56. I got hit in a similar way (left cross) exactly 1 year ago at Sandy and 42nd. The scene looked nearly exact the same as the photo in this story, except his windshield was punched in (by my body).
I broke two ribs (and his windshield). But the torn back muscles are the worst of it. Still not right after PT for a year. Gaining weight due to fear of the cars now. I spiraled down pretty hard and am struggling. The mind, body spirit nexus is real. All are injured and they don’t just heal without work.I’m hopeful, but soft tissue injury healing is excruciatingly slow. I’m thankful for my health and uninsured driver insurance. Carbon bike was a total loss though (not covered). $3600 insult to injury.
The guy was an uninsured recovering addict. He was cited and left. I didn’t sue, because it would be pointless except to add to the pain of this world. I do place hand to earth at times and cry when anger takes hold.
Stay safe out there everyone!
Equity? Go down and walk the halls of government and look at all the people working on “equity”. How’s that working out for the taxpayers?
Err… so I’m confused too. I thought the white borders on the “crossbike” makes it legally equivalent to a crosswalk, meaning that drivers are required to yield right of way. Is that not the case? They’re just informational?
That’s correct. PBOT took s design that internationally confers ROW and used it in a manner that does not confer ROW. Impressively dumb, I know.
Left turn has to yield to oncoming traffic, period.
Yes. The presence and meaning of a “cross-bike” are moot for this case, I would think. the fact that left-turning traffic must yield to oncoming traffic, and that in general, operators must yield to vehicles “already in the intersection” would be the applicable principles/laws here. I’m wondering what the distinctions between “failure to yield”, “improper left turn”, and “dangerous left turn” are…
Unrelated, but I am curious–does anyone know how the principle of “yielding to traffic already in the intersection” applies to right-hook scenarios between drivers and bicyclists? If there is a bike lane, it seems clear that drivers must yield to bicyclists, even if a bicyclist is slightly behind the driver’s vehicle (but likely to catch up to a driver who is slowing to turn), but in the absence of a bike lane, does it come down to nit-picking over who “broke the plane” of the crosswalk/stop line/continuation of sidewalk first? If I’m riding along, no bike lane, and just as I get to an intersection, a driver overtakes me and makes a right turn into me or so close that I can’t avoid plowing into their car, is it my fault if they squeaked into the intersection first? If they slow down right beside me prior to making the turn, such that they are moving slower than I am just before entering the intersection, does that make me guilty of improper passing on the right? (Yes, I know to and usually do merge in line with traffic at intersections, but suppose I’m naively riding AFRAP, as many believe is required at all times).
Sorry to throw oddball musings in here, but back to the topic–I get very frustrated at times just knowing that my ability to recover damages from a careless person comes down to such niggling and ambiguous criteria. Having even more ambiguity thrown in via street markings that have no legal meaning is just nuts on top of a sundae that a lactose-intolerant person with a nut allergy is forced to eat.
I cross here all the time, it’s our most frequent route from Cully to all of inner SE Portland, and really the best crossing of I-84.
Unfortunately there is too much traffic on 53rd at this one particular block, due to people in cars turning out of the Providence Medical Center offices and garage which are located off of 53rd, just south of the I-84 freeway, a block north of this intersection. May want to turn left here to get to the freeway on-ramp to the east, and may be in a hurry. Perhaps we need a separate left-turn signal phase. Or PBOT could re-route medical center traffic to 47th and make this a truly low-car route.
Joseph E,
This is my daily commute route and agree that the traffic on 53rd in this area is too heavy for a designated neighborhood greenway. It certainly doesn’t feel like what should be part of the Greenways network. Given the number of cars coming out of the offices and garage ready to make that the turn to the freeway on-ramp, your left-turn signal idea is astute.
Looking at the map again, it looks like it would also be possible to re-route all the Providence traffic to 52nd, which is only 1 block away, with the addition of another signal on Glisan.
Even better would be to eliminate all the car traffic, by building another bridge over I-84 on 52nd or 54th for cars (or for bikes), and separating north-south bike and car traffic on different streets in this neighborhood.
This absolutely needs to happen. Make 52nd one way southbound with a signal at Glisan and prevent vehicles exiting Providence from getting to 53rd altogether. The other dangerous movement in this area are the vehicles heading east from Providence and then crossing or turning left onto 53rd. They blast past the stop sign on the west side of 53rd (which is also a blind corner), making it really hazardous for southbound pedestrians and cyclists.
Agree that the Providence Medical Center traffic dumps a ton of traffic onto 53rd ave at a two-way stop just one block to the north making this intersection filled with drivers seemingly desperate to get home. The internal roadway is one-way only and forces traffic from several huge parking garages onto 53rd. Seems like this can and should be changed. There are two traffic signal controlled exits (on 47th and Glisan) for the rest of the medical center campus that cars leaving can be more safely directed to.
Coincidentally, I had a near miss incident while biking at this same intersection a few years ago. Totally different circumstances. A truck deliberately ran a red light on Glisan. Just floored it while the rest of the traffic was waiting for the red. I hit my brakes hard and missed colliding with the side of the truck where I likely would’ve ended up under the rear wheel if I didn’t stop quick enough. Sigh..
I also cross here all of the time, and I’m always hovering on the brakes, ready to emergency stop when approaching 53rd and Glisan from the south. Drivers are focused on punching it left onto Glisan, and will completely ignore cyclists heading north. In this particular case, it sounds like even a careful cyclist would have been hit. This driver basically faked her out and then gunned it into her. Ridiculous.
I also cross here all the time cutting over from the Tillamook-Hancock bikeway and taking the 53rd bikeway to the Ankeny bikeway which takes me downtown and beyond. Crossing Glisan has always been unsafe due to the car traffic. As far as I see it, the problem is that 53rd is one of the few streets that cross over the I-84 Banfield freeway so a lot of cars use the 53rd bikeway as well. Couple that with all the Providence Hospital traffic and you get a very unsafe bikeway. I agree with those advocating that 53rd should be one-way for auto traffic either southbound or northbound to reduce the number of cars and make 53rd a true and safe bikeway.
Agree with that assessment – IMHO left turns should not be allowed when oncoming traffic or pedestrians can go. It’s stupid.
I used to ride thru that intersection quite frequently before I started crossing @ 52nd (no light – just make sure no traffic near on Glisan & GO!
HOWEVER… crosswalk, “crossbike”, bike lane, or not… It is STILL an intersection and the south bound turning driver had the obligation to be attentive to & avoid ANYTHING/ANYONE in her intended path of travel.
“Didn’t see” more like “Didn’t care to look”. Good she was cited, now do the rest of ’em.
Makes one wonder, would she feel the same if she were simply walking across the intersection?
Good that there won’t need to have a Ghost Bike for Bee at that corner…
The crosswalk or bike crossing seems like a red herring. Isn’t the issue really that the driver failed to yield to oncoming traffic? Does it matter if that traffic is a car, bike, or pedestrian? Clearly it matters if you’re hit, but isn’t it the same law regardless?
Drivers do seem worse now. I have only recently begun riding my bike into downtown again, after working from home most of the pandemic. I was nearly right-hooked three times in a mile yesterday, on Broadway. The first time was particularly outrageous: a driver in a car driving west across the Broadway Bridge and then right onto Lovejoy went into the right turn lane, where there was a red arrow and “No turn on red” sign for them. The cars proceeding left down Broadway had a green, and I had a green bike signal. The driver turning right didn’t even slow down in the right turn turn lane. Against the red light and the “No turn on red” sign, they went at full speed around the corner to Lovejoy, cutting me off. I was far enough away that I wasn’t hit, but it was shockingly poor driving.
I am more and more convinced that the only safe infrastructure is the kind that completely separates us, with physical barriers and separate traffic signals, from car beasts.
I could not agree more with this. I’ve gotten too uncomfortable lately to let my kid bike alongside me on the NE Rodney greenway. It’s too unnerving to be constantly on the look out for ppl running stop signs, having to cross streets with no protection/daylighting/crosswalks, and constantly facing down massive trucks and SUVs using the greenway that could crush us at any time. I’m exhausted and so angry that pbot won’t put diverters on greenways. We will never get families out of their cars in portland without family and kid safe bike infrastructure. The greenways are a joke.
Nora, I’m sorry to hear about the danger on Rodney! I take Rodney fairly often by myself and find the major crossings pretty stressful, especially since some of the intersections are offset. And while there’s a Rodney diverter south of Fremont, I don’t think there are any north of there? I wonder if it’s worth asking PBOT to do a traffic count of Rodney north of Fremont in some stretch now that it’s been a greenway for a few years. I wonder if the cut-through traffic now just stays on Williams to Fremont.
I feel safer on greenways than in bike lanes (especially ones that separate general lanes from curbside parking), FWIW.
Getting hit in a bike lane made me realize that many if not most auto drivers don’t even think to check if the bike lane is occupied before crossing it. At least in a full-sized lane they have better visibility of me, and I have better visibility and maneuvering room.
I often agree, and I’ve found the best greenways are just as fast as busier streets with bike lanes since greenways don’t have frequent stoplights.
It only matters for apportioning liability if there is a collision. Not too keen on getting run over in the “crossbike” then being told it was my fault and having to pay for it.
How many times have we seen the same behavior by drivers at conventional crosswalks but somehow, in this instance, it’s the crossbikes fault?
“So sorry this happened to you. And what an excellent opportunity to learn to drive! It is life changing when you can drive.”
From the comments. NextDoor really is a total cesspool.
35 comments there right now. Most of them are helpful or supportive or sympathetic; two, maybe three, are kind of jerkish. Not really reflective of a “total cesspool”.
NextDoor has a bad reputation online for gossiping busy-bodies, criminals finding out when people will be out of town, etc. I would not join it if you paid me.
I think this NextDoor comment is spot-on. It’s just aimed at the wrong party.
The commenter–and the driver–here ought to be thinking about how “life-changing” it can be for other people if you don’t drive responsibly.
I feel you, Bee, I feel you.
I had to stop riding about the time I turned 60 because I can’t get my leg over the bike because of a broken hip from getting hit in 2001 when I was just 42. My doctor said because of the injuries from the wreck I would physically age faster and here I am at 63 barely able to walk with a cane and unable to get on the bike because of lack of range of motion in both hips. Even surviving a catastrophic bike wreck doesn’t mean having a decent quality of life. And the older you are in a severe injury wreck, the less likely you are to recover. The victim of this wreck will probably have physical problems from the wreck the rest of her life.
In case you haven’t already looked into them, some step-thru frames may be helpful for yourself and others with similar mobility constraints.
Not only is the pain in lifting your leg over the bar, there is also pain at the top of the pedaling stroke. Running a 170mm crank will help with this but I was unable to ride my bike(s) 8 months prior to my hip replacement. My doctor informed that my arthritis had eaten away the top 2 inches of my hip. Since my replacement I have been able ride with no issues. So Opus I understand your what your going through. Have you looked into a hip replacement?
“Laws around painted crosswalks are much more widely known and respected.” LOL. By whom?
I’m with you in agreeing that too few don’t know and/or respect crosswalk laws, but that doesn’t negate the possibility even fewer know and/or respect laws around bike lanes, crossbikes, etc.
Yup, how many places in the USA use green paint on the roads? I’ll bet not one drive in 1,000 has ever seen green paint on a street, and I’ll bet not one in 1,000,000 drivers has ever heard of a “crossbike”.
It is not just in their interactions with bikes. Drivers in PDX have become just plain terrible. Three times in the last week, while waiting at the Goose Hollow Max station, I have watched drivers pull in front of the bus ( in the bus only lane on Jefferson) and race all the way up the street in the bus lane while the bus driver honks at them. Last week I watched a guy driving up NW Broadway, stop at each red light, look both ways, then drive right through the light as if it was a stop sign. I am not sure this is just driving behavior. I think a large portion of our population have become dangerous selfish cretins. I am not sure more enforcement will even fix it. As another 60 year old I wake up each day praying for Peak Oil to hurry up and work its magic and consign happy motoring to the dust bin of history.
Nah, they’ll must buy electric vehicles & be just as bad. And smug & self-righteous for being electric…maybe?
Those EVs will make ICE vehicles seem like sloths. Cyclists will be wishing for ICE vehicles again. EVs are dragsters in comparison.
“This makes me sick. Where is the equity work that PBOT espouses? This 60 year-old person just lost their ability to move about freely. Complicity in car culture, lack of political will and ho-hum street design will never encourage more people to ride a bike (or walk or take transit) to get to their destinations. This is shameful for a “Vision Zero”, “Platinum” bicycle city.” – hamiramani
“I could not agree more with this. I’ve gotten too uncomfortable lately to let my kid bike alongside me on the NE Rodney greenway. It’s too unnerving to be constantly on the look out for ppl running stop signs, having to cross streets with no protection/daylighting/crosswalks, and constantly facing down massive trucks and SUVs using the greenway that could crush us at any time. I’m exhausted and so angry that pbot won’t put diverters on greenways. We will never get families out of their cars in portland without family and kid safe bike infrastructure. The greenways are a joke.” – Nora
I would love to know what Portland’s so-called “bicycle coordinator” has to say about comments like this because this sure ain’t the kool-aid he was selling us 10 years ago. Come on, man, speak up or resign.
My dad’s 80th birthday is coming up and we want to buy him a new bike but aren’t going to because we don’t want to end up being responsible for getting him killed. It’s just not safe enough. That is an epic failure if you ask me, especially in a “Platinum”-level city that once sold us on a future where the “8-to-80” set could get around town in a HEALTHFUL, sustainable, and joyful manner. I thought that was why we taxpayers were paying for all the cute overseas trips to “see how they do it Copenhagen” – what a f*cking lie. On the other end of the age spectrum my 6-yr-old son just got a new, bigger bike but we’re too nervous about riding around with him in our inner-NE neighborhood, even on the Going greenway. Just a few weeks ago we were witnesses to a dramatic crash at Mason and 7th while riding through an intersection just a block away and now my partner is nervous about even using our box bike to ride 20 blocks to visit family. What does PBOT want us to do? I put the complimentary Vision Zero sign out in the median strip just like they suggested. What now?
Even if we had “8-80” infrastructure, your dad would only be able to enjoy his new bike for a year.
There is really no reason to allow left turns by motor vehicles at this intersection, all it does is to encourage more auto traffic to use this greenway.
If you eliminate the Providence traffic, 53rd will turn back into a relatively quiet neighborhood street. Force all Providence traffic south at 52nd, with a new light at Glisan, and this problem goes away.
I think if you look at a map you will see great number of houses north of I84 but south of Halsey that use this road to go south to Glisan St. This is most direct rout to get on I84 West. I suspect that is why there is a light at that intersection. Both North and South have two lights. Since the North side has a left turn lane, is the one light for left turns? Do the lights turn green for both North and Southbound at the same time? Busy or quiet doesn’t matter when one driver makes a bad choice and puts other people in harms way. If you cannot see pedestrians or riders (bicycle and motorcycle) then it’s time to have your vision checked or maybe stop driving.
I am one of the houses north of Glisan in that area, and we use 53rd both in our car and when riding. This is why I proposed routing the Providence traffic onto 52nd, rather than restricting left turn movements from 53rd to Glisan. 53rd and Glisan has unprotected turns on green for all directions. Preventing people from turning left onto Glisan at 53rd will just send them down the frontage street just south of I-84, and onto Glisan at an unsignalized intersection. Not safer for anyone.
I am 74 years old and have been riding for 70 years, 500,000+ miles and about two years ago, I stopped riding on the streets of Bend. I was hit twice in two years, from behind. Traffic has gotten much more aggressive and dangerous the last five or so years. That, along with the City’s addiction to round-abouts, convinced me to stop riding in town. I still ride four times a week, but I now load my bike onto my car, drive about 3 miles to a park or school on the edge of town, and start my ride. I hate the fact that I do that, but it is self-preservation. Occasionally I will start from home, but invariably I have close call within the first couple of miles. I commuted in Portland from Beaverton to NW and it was challenging, but surviveable. I cannot imagine what it is like now.
I’ll take the roundabouts over stop signs that drivers blow through and stop lights that increase the odds of a right hook/left hook. In a roundabout you can tell when the approaching driver isn’t looking and is about to blow the yield.
Keep driving to your starting point. You have presented an iron-clad case that it’s for your own safety.
The article’s photo shows the scene well from the viewpoint of the person who was hit. This one, looking south so showing the driver’s view, also says a lot:
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5266691,-122.6089435,3a,75y,177.64h,83.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sH496lebom-bKNkh0nUF6vQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Although it’s pre-improvement, you can see it’s got pretty much perfect visibility and no complexity–very sad there are drivers who can’t manage to make a left turn safely here. Yet I also recall that one of the most common types of crashes in Portland is pedestrians getting hit by cars while crossing legally within marked (and even signalized) crosswalks.
Nice to see that the streetview link provides a view of the Providence Laboratory services vehicle stopped in the bike box on the south side of the street too.
Notice how none of the BP posters saying I was hyperbolic for making a metaphor about car dependency being a sinister force and likening cars themselves to monsters are in this post defending their right to subsidies for driving and car ownership?
*slow clap
Sorry Tony, I didn’t see people defending their right to subsidies in that other story either. I did see some people supporting an ages-old practice that you characterized as a subsidy, but which is not broadly accepted as such. Your characterizations + your definitions ≠ winning the debate.
So no, I didn’t notice.
Car-dependency (e.g. not have any other decent option than the cage) is not a problem for most who live in resource-rich neighborhoods like Buckman or Sunnyside (whether they are car-light or not). Car-dependency; however, is the lived experience of many low-income folk who live in geographies where crossing arterial traffic-sewers feels (and is) unsafe, where limiting distanced walked from their car to their home (at night) is important, where jobs/hours make every single additional minute with their familiy a precious and essential commodity, where lack of decent sidewalks/bikelanes/transit schedules is a bonafide barrier to being car-light, and where there is not a grocery store/bank/preschool/school/health-clinic/pharmacy reachable in a 3-30 minute walk.
As you know very well, I believe that punitive mandates/taxes/fees that discourage low-occupancy cage use are essential to creating a more safe and sustainable urban environment. However, instead of disproportionately impacting low-income renters who have no other decent choice than driving, I believe we should stop subsidizing (and even penalize) the SUV/truck/(sedan)-centric lifestyles of affluent people in resource-rich neighborhoods (who by nearly every metric pollute the most).
What might some this policy look like from a “parking” standpoint?
First of all, we should support an equitable way for low-income people who live on the metro periphery to access resources/services (e.g. healthcare, education) in inner Portland. In other words, until we build decent transit for all, we need a ring of cheap park and ride facilities connected to transit (the solution used in most non-USAnian# affluent cities). Subsidized EV car-share for low-income people is another potential mechanism to reduce disparity on a transitional basis.
Secondly, permits for parking on public land should geographically target those who pollute the most (e.g. affluent people) and should be more equitable in their financial impact. For example, people who do not live in affluent inner Portland could have an automatic household exemption (“pre-bates” means-test an essential service in low-income areas). Low-barrier income-based permit exemptions should also be available to all.
Thirdly, revenue from parking fees/taxes should reduce transportation disparities in the metro area.
Fourthly, we should selectively tax those who tend to pollute the most via a variety of mechanisms, including:
* Fees/taxes for private garages/driveways/parking-lots that target affluent resource-rich areas. This could include area-based taxes for garages/driveways.
* Punitive fees for homeowners who store their 2nd cage, RV, boat, or other additional vehicle in the public right of way in affluent resource-rich neighborhoods.
* Fees/taxes for TNCs/car-share in affluent resource-rich neighborhoods.
* Fees/taxes for package delivery services in affluent resource-rich neighborhoods.
#just for you MOTRG
Selectively targeting rental housing parking spaces for fees/taxes (a policy championed by Portlanders for Parking Reform) is the most anti-poor parking reform I’ve seen yet.
That’s a lot of good ideas Soren and I agree with almost all of them and I think I try to incorporate many of those concepts in my advocacy. Much of the spirit of these ideas is in the POEM recommendation, in fact.
It’s worth recognizing that the residential neighborhoods with parking congestion are usually the affluent ones, the primary exception being NW and the Pearl where there is more diversity of income.
“Develop and implement a fee on privately-owned, off-street parking lots”
This policy would disproportionately harm low-income people who rent. I don’t agree with it at all.
Very very unlikely. Almost certainly this policy will not apply to residential parking lots. The ordinance and report was very vague on details but the target is downtown commuter parking (mostly white collar office workers) and sprawling commercial surface lots.
Furthermore, the POEM committee backed everything in there with concrete ideas and proposals for mitigating the impact of pricing on low income households. I notice you use “pre-bate” I specifically have called for automatic prebates as a task force member and in my testimony.
Parking reformers have been strenuously advocating for private parking lot fees/taxes for many years and when the above draft policy was released there was lots of crowing online about “all urban parking lots” being priced. I simply don’t trust your claims that this is “very, very. very unlikely”.
What crowing?
And what reformers? Bring receipts and face reality. The likelihood that we’ll tax private multifamily residential parking (most of which was required to be built by the city) anytime soon is really far more extreme than anything I’d even propose.
The closest I’d come would be to an impact fee for NEW parking spaces built.
Calling BS. you’re impossible. I literally agree with so much of what you say but you give no quarter to reality.
Most of the multifamily housing being built in Portland is zoned as “commercial” so, once again, I don’t believe you.
With all due respect, QED.
We agree that we should wage war on cars but we don’t agree on how this should be done.
For example, like Kshama Sawant, I support free parking for working class Portlanders. I would go even further by creating automatic parking fee/permit exemptions for working class/low-income Portlanders (free parking everywhere).
https://twitter.com/twjpdx23/status/1448871084502097923
So you have no backing up any of your accusations. Furthermore, you would rather provide free parking to workers rather than what you quote in my tweet, CASH… how paternalistic of you.
It’s kind of funny that you see means-tested cash gifts as being less paternalistic than simply allowing working class people to park their d*mn cars.
I do read your tweets, Michael Anderson’s tweets, and the tweets of a few other prominent parking reformers/market urbanists. I saw posts that I viewed as “crowing” and feel no need to “back up” a personal opinion — and especially so when it involves searching through past tweets (something Twitter makes intentionally difficult).
Subsidizing parking is only a benefit for workers who can afford to drive and are able to drive.
To backpedal and say your statements were “personal opinion” is not credible. You said there was crowing about taxiing all urban parking lots as part of POEM… if it happened, I didn’t see it and I am sure I read more parking tweets than almost everyone.
Have a good one Soren… we came so close to being in general agreement! Maybe next time.
And I wish you and your family the best, Tony.
Run for office on all that.
Soren, what’s the reasoning behind discouraging package delivery services? Won’t that promote more traffic if people have to leave their residences to pick up their merchandise? Aren’t package delivery services like mass transit for packages?
Most folks who read BP regularly expect over-the-top comments about how evil cars are so aren’t likely to comment when they see it. I drive a car. It’s a tool, just like a bike pump or a screw driver. I do not get any “subsidies” for driving and car ownership. In fact, for my mid-90s car which is nearing 300K miles and worth perhaps $1K to $3K, I pay over $200 every 2 years for license renewal/smog; about $300 every 6 months for full-coverage insurance with high amounts for liability/damage/medical/etc, not to mention paying for gas, tires, and maintenance/repairs. Haven’t gotten any subsidies lately; I guess I could if I traded it in for an EV, but can’t afford one. Don’t really want one either – like unlimited range, unlimited heat when needed, etc of an ICE vehicle and would never consider a car that drives itself.
Do we have a right to own a car? It’s not guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, like your right to own a gun or your right to believe in Donald Trump is, but I’d say it’s kind of a right as long as you don’t abuse it. Are mistakes like the one in this article abusing your right? Not if they are, in fact, mistakes; and if the driver isn’t a repeat offender. People make mistakes – that’s what people do – all of us with no exceptions. I try hard to be safe and not hurt others and have been 100% successful to date, but driving is not an easy task today with so much aggressive traffic.
If you are going to ride in traffic put on the high viz, multiple flashing lights front and rear, ride defensively, and be ready for anything.
Oh but you do.
For example, the price of gas is heavily subsidized by the ~$649 billion dollars in direct and indirect government subsidy of private fossil fuel companies.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2021
The roads you use are designed for SUVs/trucks/(cars) and receive many tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidy from general public funds.
https://taxfoundation.org/gasoline-taxes-and-user-fees-pay-only-half-state-local-road-spending/
And, finally, the immense negative exernalities of ecocidal tail pipe pollution are almost entirely ignored by our society (which is likely the greatest subsidy of all).
I think HfH is correct on this.
The price of gas is artificially high due to gas taxes and government regulations – there is no “subsidy” for it – it is a negative subsidy because it raises the price.
Yes, the roads are designed mainly for motor vehicles so that we can have a modern society. That’s what people want and the roads are paid for by user fees of car taxes, gas taxes, and all kinds of taxes. That is not a “subsidy”.
The positive externalities of tail pipe pollution far outweigh all the negatives by many orders of magnitude. Without FF use our modern society would not exist, and neither would most of us alive today.
Your views, while emotional, are not reality. The reality is we are on a cold planet in a total vacuum of cold infinite space and FF use has made our modern society possible.
27 lb E-bike:
750 kmh:
5.3 m/kwh – ~180 mpge using dirty USAnian power mix
I guess the thoroughly capitalist IMF is also “emotional”.
https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509
IR, much of our modern society is nothing to celebrate. We have room to celebrate its aspects that have minimized suffering while also acknowledging much FF usage has been very wasteful and destructive.
And free parking on public streets and spaces is a subsidy.
Layers of irony here:. Hospital motor vehicle handling creates an unsafe situation that effectively ends a person’s mobility, freedom, and ability to get (healthful) exercise in their normal course of life.
American health care invests huge resources in treating trauma and disease. Maintaining and protecting healthy bodies, not so much.
It sounds like there’s a local fix for the conflict hazard that Bee encountered but that’s not to exclude the agency of the m.v. operator at fault. If the popo can see your mistake wow that’s capital At Fault. Strict legal liability for m.v. operators in collision with people outside their cars. Insurance claims that remain open for the lifetime of the damaged person. Whatever it takes for people in charge of large machinery to take a full stop and activate their senses. Their sense.
It’s also my firm belief that if we are going to rely on greenways to carry bike rider traffic they have to be designed to turn out motor vehicles frequently and reduce crossing conflicts as much as possible. I had several Yike moments commuting on NE Going this morning as people driving N-S were somehow able to focus on the little green Going signs but missed the big red ones– I thought I heard an echo of my shout once but it was a bike rider two blocks behind having their own encounter.
The existing design of NE Going is deficient (it’s the bike route I’m most familiar with). I actually prefer the riding experience on NE Skidmore, two blocks away on the other side of Prescott. There’s a dad with two kids who’s been a bell buddy for some months, but then dropped out of sight. I was worried but then sure enough I met them on Skidmore.
Let’s assume strict liability. Then what? Auto insurance premiums on everyone go up a little, and those who strike a pedestrian or cyclist have them go up more. That’s pretty much the system we have today but with a skimcoat of extra money on insurance premiums.
Cyclists and pedestrians who are unfortunate enough to be crashed into might have less insurance hassle (a good thing), but they’ll still be just as injured. Still maybe worth doing, but hardly a panacea.
There’s a rusty, dusty Vulnerable Road User law. It’s is presently interpreted in such a way that unless the victim is dead AND the motor vehicle operator is drunk/caught fleeing the scene it has no force. Is this travesty really the legislative intent? We won’t find out while police investigation is slack and prosecution burdens the victims.
the safest intersection is always a properly implemented traffic circle.
tbs. . .
here in Reno the stoplight by Renown hospital on Mill St (central E W bike corridor) was set so obviously stupid anal long as to have super effectively trained local motorists to chill around the unfortunately busy facility.
such a no brainer.
also, we have zero off street infrastucture around the core so people have little but advanced situational awareness skill to keep aware.
to the person set to quit. . .
we gen jones arent wired to quit ever, please heal and reconsider.
love,
rain
PPB MUST BE EMPOWERED TO BREAK THE BEHAVIOR OF DRIVERS AND CIVILIZE THEM BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. EQUITY SCHMEQUITY–TRIAGE IS NEEDED. STOP THE BLEEDING FIRST. STOP THE BLEEDING FIRST.
Did not read anything about her injuries – I hope they are not serious, and that whatever they are, that she has a full recovery.
Quote: ” It’s unclear in this specific case on Glisan whether either party in the collision was confused by the infrastructure itself or if there were other contributing factors.”
It is not really unclear. The driver plainly stated that they did not see the cyclist. That is the root cause of this collision. That cause MAY be made more likely by high traffic volumes and speeds where the driver has to make a split-second decision to “GO” in a gap between cars. This is perhaps backed up by the cyclist saying the driver “floored it” – I’m guessing to make the turn between oncoming cars which left them with little time to look for anything other than other cars. As the cyclist said, that is human nature – car drivers must look out for other motor vehicles first in order to survive.
Left-turns at intersections kill, as best as I recall from years ago, about 9,000 people per year – mostly people in cars.
Important and crucial information left out of the article are facts on the color of the cyclists attire, whether they were using flashing lights, etc. Those items can save your life.
HfH
This is a simple failure to yield violation. The presence of green markings for the bike lane through the intersection doesn’t alter the existing laws on traffic lights and yielding. This is an unprotected left turn, and the driver failed to yield the right-of-way.
Agree with simple failure to yield violation, BUT did the cyclist contribute to it by not using proper lighting, high-viz clothing, etc. Maybe, maybe not, it wasn’t stated. And maybe the cyclist was lit up like a neon sign and the driver just failed to see her. It happens. Cars have pillars that hold up the roof and form the frame for the windows and doors. Those can get in the way of your vision. Drivers need to “weave and bob” their head at intersections so they can see around those pillars. Big trucks/busses with huge mirrors blocking the drivers view are even worse.
Question: When I went to school, we took a Drivers Education class – do students take that class today?
Are you trolling? The cyclist was run over in broad daylight on a clear, sunny day. There is no obligation for any cyclist to wear any particular kind of clothing or to use any type of lighting in situations like this. If the operator of a motor vehicle cannot see a cyclist on a bright sunny day, they are probably visually impaired and should not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle in the first place. If their vehicle has pillars that prevent them from seeing people that are in the middle of the road, it is an unsafe vehicle and it should not be approved for use on public roadways. Do you see the photo that is posted at the top of the page??????
Have you ever driven a car? ALL cars have the vision-blocking pillars IR referred to. The woman who was hit admitted that it is human nature for drivers to not look for cyclists. Do what you want, but if you don’t do your part to be visible, don’t complain if you get hit. I think it is law that motorcycles have lights on even during the day – it’s just common sense.
Yep, I own a car. The pillars on my windshield are pretty easy to see around. I’ve never run over a cyclist.
If you don’t do your part to be visible, don’t complain if you get hit in broad daylight? Really? Is that your attitude when you drive a MV? Are children crossing the street safe when you’re driving?
Is there any way we can we revoke the language used around these “greenways?”
The whole “low-stress, family friendly” that “foster the best elements of Portland’s transportation culture by creating safe streets.”
Is there anyway we can get rid of this designation?
Sure, vote for people who will not lie to you.
Agreed! I am really tired of “Portland Speak”. I feel that more than half of the problems and confusion for riders, pedestrians, and drivers alike is language invented by bureaucrats and advocates that are more interested in sounding highly educated than achieving smart policy goals and better infrastructure.
I feel for Bee. We’re the same age. Before the lockdown I rode all over the city, but since the end of lockdown car drivers have been driving faster and more recklessly. I haven’t ridden across a bridge over the Willamette since 2019, and I doubt I’ll feel comfortable enough to do so again anytime soon.
Since the pandemic lifted, people are driving faster and more recklessly than ever, and I do not feel safe riding more than a couple of miles from where I live. Today my rides are very short and limited to neighborhood streets near home, and during daylight hours only.
I rely on public transit for most of my longer trips now.
Motorized traffic feels busier and more aggressive than before the lockdown, and I don’t feel reassured by a striped bike lane, or by a simple line of bollards between me and cars traveling at 40mph or faster.
I guess I’m just not as intrepid as I once was, motorized vehicle operators are more aggressive than before, and I’m now part of a demographic that feels completely ignored by traffic planners, city and state leaders and law enforcement.
I see no meaningful solutions on the horizon.