(BikePortland video shows current conditions on SE Hawthorne eastbound (29th to 49th) and westbound (49th to 34th).
It’s been several months since the City of Portland finished making major changes to SE Hawthorne Boulevard as part of their “Pave and Paint” project.
As most of you know, this was (and still is for some) a very controversial project. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) had an opportunity to restripe the lanes any way they wanted. But instead of finding space for bicycling, they opted to remove one lane and make the existing lanes wider. They also added several new crossings and median islands.
The choices made by PBOT made it clear that they don’t expect most people to feel comfortable biking on Hawthorne. Their idea of bike access is to improve nearby neighborhood greenways and crossings, and to have people to walk their bikes on sidewalks to their destinations. That works fine for a lot of people; but many others will still bike on the street itself and will share the lanes with car and truck drivers.
Advertisement
On Thursday, local bike advocate Cathy Tuttle, a former planner and nonprofit founder who recently moved to Portland to retire, shared her experience cycling on Hawthorne for the first time since the changes were made.
In a Twitter thread posted Thursday (below) Tuttle shared how even riding her e-bike at 20 mph people in cars still passed her. Tuttle pointed out that she feels the wider lanes — which vary between 11 and 14-feet — are too wide to simply “take the lane” and even for a “cycling pro” like herself this encourages drivers to make unsafe passes.
And that’s exactly what happened to her. “So I’m … pedaling at top speed for 5 blocks, looking for the café where my meeting will be, taking the lane, and a driver edges close to pass me because a wide lane + center turn lane simply are too wide to ‘take’.”
Today I biked to meet a colleague at a café on Hawthorne Blvd in SE PDX.
Hawthorne was just repaved w a center turn lane + two very wide travel lanes for cars. Wide travel lanes help people who drive go fast + feel entitled. I knew that, but still biked 5 blocks on Hawthorne 1/8
— Cathy Tuttle supports Good Trouble (@CathyTuttle) February 25, 2022
Have you ridden on Hawthorne since the changes went in? What has your experience been like?
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.
10 foot lanes for one of Portland’s major transit routes?
This unintentional or intentional anti-transit position is a bad take.
As a pedestrian* who lives two blocks off of Hawthorne the road diet has made an enormous difference. In the past, I would avoid trying to cross Hawthorne during peak traffic hours but now there is 95%+ compliance at the new median-islands at 23rd and 25th. I am very pleased with this road safety project.
*disabled when my inflammatory arthritis flares
I also live very close to Hawthorne and have to cross it regularly. I find the unmarked crossings to be down right scary. The marked crossings with islands are definitely an improvement. If the city wants to improve pedestrian safety then – at the very least – every crossing in the main section of corridors like Hawthorne ought to be marked, on both sides of the street.
I do not find marked crossings to be particularly safe on 4 lane cage sewers (Hawthorne prior to this project) so I will take your comment as a tacit admission that the conversion of this stretch of Hawthorne to a 2 lane pedestrian corridor with 10 new median safety islands is a game changer.
Still with the childish “cage” comments to describe people who drive cars? We should be trying to persuade them to get out of their cars, not roll there eyes and think to themselves “there’s another over-the-top bike advocate we can just ignore”.
i own an ev-cage and believe it is wrong to use language that normalizes this unsustainable transport mode (in urban areas).
It’s been unsustainable for 100 years, and it’ll be unsustainable for a 100 more.
100 more? That is very optimistic of you.
There are also a handful of marked non-crossings — i.e. places that would otherwise be unmarked crossings that PBOT has put up those “no pedestrian” signs.
I agree with the crossings with pedestrian islands being a lot better. Just wish there were a lot more of them.
Buses run on 10′ lanes all over Portland, and will do so on many stretches of the Division Transit project. Where there are dedicated bus on the project they will typically be 10.667′ wide. There is no transit based justification for lanes as wide as 14′, as we now have on Hawthorne.
8.4′ wide transit buses with a 2′ door zone = 10.4′.
I wonder why 11-12′, not 10′, is seen as the optimal width for a dedicated bus lane?
Soren are you still part of bike loud? If you look at the video there is a deadly parking space where Fallon Smart was killed. Time is 2min 59seconds. Do you support parking in this spot? Would you co-sign letter to get that spot removed?
I cross Hawthorne twice daily for the last 8 years. I do not feel the city cares about vision zero, and I feel the evidence in this video makes that very clear. I’ll make another video on a warm August Friday about 5pm and that will be another test of your assessment of “enormous difference”
We can measure how many cars are over 20mph and passing Jonathan.
Definitely not a member of bikeloudpdx because I would never support an org that is a de facto “market urbanist” affinity group.
A bike lane was not a priority for me on a designated major transit route (and future BRT route, hopefully someday). I would have liked to see two bus-only “Rose” lanes installed (by removing parking) but PBOT dismissed this idea.
I am rather surprised at the large number of unmarked crosswalks. Was this a low or limited budget project?
My guess would be that if every intersection was signed/striped crossing, it would result in driver “attention” fatigue, and drivers would just stop paying attention to the crossings. I for one welcome our autonomous self-driving car overlords for that very reason (computers can be confused, but at least don’t take mental breaks).
I really dislike riding on Hawthorne and, as a result, I do it rarely. Drivers are very aggressive in large part – as Cathy states – because the lanes are so damn wide. These wide lanes promote speeding and the largely empty center turn lane encourages recklessness (eg, illegal passing).
Some of the worst portions of the “new” Hawthorne are from 23rd to 29th and everything east of Cesar Chavez.
If PBOT didn’t want to add bike infrastructure then they should’ve inexpensively reallocated space for people walking and using mobility devices by widening sidewalks with wands. Yes, you need to remove car parking to achieve this. This is not radical; Hawthorne used to have wide sidewalks before car hegemony was the ethos.
We need a paradigm shift at PBOT.
This wasn’t really part of this project. They added a few islands but most of the actual road work was between 22nd and Chavez.
An empty center turn lane allows the driver to pass with more space between the car and the cyclist. Isn’t passing too closely the reckless version?
Disappointing that the bike parking corral outside of bread and ink has not been replaced. That space has just been informally given back to cars.
Imagine showing anyone the photos from this blog post and trying to convince them that Portland once called itself the “cycling capital of the USA”.
Imagine showing anyone these photos and trying to convince them that the city has a Bicycle Advisory Committee and that they are given any consideration at all.
Comment of the week.
Comment on the weak fight put up against the city from some bike loud members who now praise the city for this project. “road diet has made an enormous difference.”
Given how much pedestrian traffic on Hawthorne, I’d expect a lot higher building density with many 10-20 story apartments with underground parking, like the Pearl.
Are you meaning that you’re surprised that there can be that many pedestrians there without those larger buildings? Or that given that there are so many pedestrians, you’re surprised that larger buildings aren’t being built there?
The latter. Given the popularity of the street, I would expect higher densities.
Most of Hawthorne is zoned for 5 story building maximum.
Meanwhile Portland YIMBYs (e.g. P:NW/PfE) have fought tooth and nail to deregulate lot subdivision which disincentivizes construction of multistory housing (on RM1 and RM2 zones) and incentivizes construction of luxury single unit housing (detached or not).
Be honest, maccoinnich, you don’t really support housing as a human right (e.g. real rent control, right to remain, and legalizing social housing everywhere). It’s also ironic that you hail from Scotland where left-wing governments have rescinded right-to-buy, have routinely blocked purchase of urban land by greedy “market rate” developers, and have rightly focused on a massive build-out of social housing (instead of the luxury “market rate” housing YIMBYs fawn over).
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-what-is-the-snp-doing-to-boost-affordable-housing/
https://www.snp.org/policies/pb-why-did-the-snp-abolish-right-to-buy/
PS: YIMBYs love the USA’s version of “right to buy” (e.g. Proud Ground, Habitat for Humanity etc.). Permanent social housing is a real solution to our housing crisis, unlike “right to buy” which often causes subsidized housing to disappear after only one round of tenancy.
I’m unclear about what any of this gish gallop has to do with my simple reply that the reason Hawthorne doesn’t have 10-20 story apartments on it is because they’re not allowed there.
Given how the city rammed this repaving project down everyone’s throats (including the BAC), how long do you think it will be before the city eliminates SFR and height restrictions citywide in the name of equity, to match East Portland?
The old guard of neighborhood activists who blocked McDonald’s all those years ago are now old and dying, and there are so many new people moving in, that the traditional NYMBY forces are weakening. There is a lot of economic pressure to increase housing densities in what is in reality the best served transit community in the city with the highest walking score. It’s only fair that Hawthorne and nearby Belmont should serve and accommodate more people in the community.
Why should only a tiny fringe of Hawthorne’s or Belmonts’s traffic sewer be open to multistory development? And why is much of Hawthorne limited to luxury mixed-use commercial instead of cheaper rental housing? Why do we even need more luxury mixed use commercial in Portland given the many dozens of vacant first floor commercial units scattered through the urban center.
Let’s re-legalize 3-10 story rental housing in residential neighborhoods and lets make sure that many of these units are affordable to the young and low-income people who are being priced out of Portland by the speculation that developer-associated YIMBYs carry water for. And let’s also make it impossible or illegal to build unsustainable, climate-threatening, luxury single-unit housing (detached or attached).
Portland desperately needs multistory rental housing in resource-rich RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods but the lobbyists associated with P:NW/PfE/Sightline have spearheaded multiple law changes that have made it easier and cheaper to build luxury single unit houses on lots specifically zoned for multifamily housing (RM1 and RM2 but also R zoned lots). Moreover, these same groups helped block any attempt to allow multistory 8+ unit rental housing on residential lots because their focus has always been on providing more of the type of housing they can see themselves or their friends/lobbyist-colleagues living in (e.g. $600,000+ luxury single unit housing or luxury condos in fancy-schmancy mixed use commercial developments).
Still not sure what the latter half of your comment has to do with the former.
If, indeed, there’s a cadre of nominally pro-density organizations that are, in fact, advocating for luxury single-family homes, no one here is doing so. I don’t think anyone here would openly argue against multistory rental or social housing throughout the entire region, but purely residential neighborhoods are, in fact, part of the problem, because they don’t allow for good job or social amenity/service density. Multistory rental housing, absolutely, but mixed-use, also, and everywhere, with ubiquitous protected cycling infrastructure, and transit for longer distances or to service those who can’t cycle.
Part of the Portland metro region’s (and most American cities’) problem is job sprawl, necessitating car ownership to access work for a lot of people, compounding the issues of inadequate or infrequent Trimet service. Make sure people have access to work that pays a fair wage, preferably without requiring car ownership, and that there’s enough housing for everyone.
1) The advocacy of P:NW/PfE/Sightline for multiple new laws that deregulate lot-subdivision on land zoned for multistory rental housing is the epitome of advocating for luxury single family units. It’s absurd and saddening that so-called YIMBYs can’t admit that legalizing multiple single unit houses on lots that were specifically zoned for multistory rental housing is harmful to lower-middle and lower-income tenants.
2) Advocating for condoification of ultra-low-density housing (so-called small houses*, attached single units, and duplex condos) favors owned single-unit housing.
3) The laser focus of P:NW/PfE/Sightline on RIP (ultra-low-density housing) and their avoidance of BHD (where I was a stakeholder representing a tenants union who wanted to see 8+ story rental housing re-legalized on most multifamily lots) is a bias towards luxury single unit housing.
4) Low-income tenants and tenant unions advocated for unit minimums on many residential lots** and on all RM lots but P:NW/PfE/Sightline lobbyists either ignored or dismissed this position. This was a pro luxury single unit housing position.
5) Low-income tenants and tenant unions advocated for legalizing multistory non-market housing (not just small “mixed income” plexes) on all residential lots and P:NW/PfE/Sightline lobbyists were dismissive of these ideas.
(I could go on.)
* A luxury single unit developer/lobbyist leads the powerful and un-elected “Planning and Sustainability Commission”. This is one of the best examples of “conflict of interest” in Portland’s corrupt “bureau” government.
** If it were up to me housing development smaller than 6+ units would be immediately banned and there would be massive subsidy for rapid development of 50+ unit social rental housing anywhere.
I’m assuming this rant is directed at me, but I a) have only ever lived in multifamily buildings in Portland and b) support the idea of allowing apartments throughout the inner east side.
It was not directed at you personally but at groups/orgs who lobby for low-density housing while claiming the mantle of caring about lower-income tenants. Lobbying for laws that allow Renaissance homes (for example) to build a bunch of mini-McManansions on land specifically zoned for multi-story rental housing is so very supportive. Thanks alot, “abundant [luxury] housing” advocates.
This is personal: people who have monetary conflicts of interests when it comes to housing development and housing policy should disclose them, ATMO.
Come on Soren, there aren’t any activists lobbying for the Renaissance Homes to build large mansions. Aside from this being a completely ridiculous claim I still don’t get how any of this is in any related to my original comment.
Where in Portland is this happening? I thought this was a suburban issue.
The repainted Hawthorne is certainly better than it was before (particularly if you are a pedestrian trying to cross the street), and definitely feels safer to bike on than it did before, but also:
It shouldn’t be radical to put bike infrastructures on streets like Hawthorne that have lots of businesses, and doing so would implicitly communicate to people that actually they should ride their bike to [insert a business]!
Right now Hawthorne, Division, Belmont, Alberta, Mississippi…basically every street that runs through a business district lacks any real bike infrastructure so doing something like riding your bike down the street to look for a restaurant to eat at only feels as safe as the least aggressive driver you encounter. It means that if you are trying to ride your bike to a business, there is at least some portion of that ride where you will have to leave bike infrastructure to get to your destination. This is an untenable state if one of PBOT’s goals is actually to reduce the cars’ share of trips under 3 miles and increase the share of trips taken using sustainable transportation.
I think Cathy’s point though is that it doesn’t feel safer on a bike than it did before. Before when there were two lanes, you could easily take one of them and cars could use the other. Now that there is just one and a tempting empty turning lane, if you try to take the lane then cars swerve around you with varying degrees of danger.
I’m not saying the earlier road design was good; I think the new design is better than it was for pedestrians. But it’s not actually better for biking.
Hawthorne still has very substandard pedestrian infrastructure. The business district should be fully pedestrianized not converted into an arterial with substandard bike lanes and substandard pedestrian infrastructure.
Where does the bus go if the business district is fully pedestrianized?
Two bus lanes and the rest pedestrianized a la countless examples in democratic nations with social safety nets (unlike the USA in either respect).
BTW, you know very well that I called for two bus lanes for Hawthorne based on interactions with me in previous threads so enough with the mean YIMBY gotchas.
No, I don’t know what you’re calling for. You put “fully pedestrianized” in bold, so I assumed you wanted it to be… fully pedestrianized.
If there were two bus lanes on Hawthorne at 11′ wide each, that would leave 24′ to 27′ to work with on either side of the street, which is more than enough room for much wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes.
The idea that we would need protected-bike lanes in a pedestrianized district is simply absurd. ***[Moderator: personal and antagonistic, deleted last two sentences.]***
Why is it bad to provide dedicated space for both pedestrians and cyclists?
The horror of allowing bus-only lanes* in a pedestrianized commercial district where people on scooters/bikes are also, of course, allowed:
One of many examples in nations that are not cage-centric anocracies:
Very roughly what Hawthorne’s cross section could look like:
*Hawthorne is a major transit route in Portland according to the comprehensive plan.
That’s a very nice streetscape, but like 1st Ave in Old Town it’s not fully pedestrianized. There are clearly defined edges to where pedestrians are meant to be, places where they’re meant to cross the vehicle lane, and signals to indicate when they are meant to cross the lane. That’s fine; it would be a huge improvement on what Hawthorne looks like either today or in previous years. But it wasn’t an unreasonable question to ask where the bus is meant to go.
I have zero argument with that. I wasn’t saying it was great, just that it was better than the (abysmal) prior situation.
I was very skeptical of this project when I saw the plans. But in practice I actually love it. My old death-crossing at 23rd now has an island, and my regular trip on Hawthorne from 34th to 38th turning left into Fred Meyer is a breeze now, instead of a terror. My inner planner still says tsk, tsk, but for the way I personally use Hawthorne it totally works.
You can thank your neighborhood association for 23rd (assuming you live on the S side); it is indeed greatly improved.
Hawthorne before this project failed to serve drivers, transit riders/ operator, pedestrians/ pets and cyclists with a quality transportation product. After this project, Hawthorne just fails cyclists.
Could have been a CoP / PBoT grand slam for many of the reasons discussed on BP for many years.
The changes have induced increased road rage by people operating cars when they interact with someone riding a bike. Cathy is absolutely correct that the tendency to pass often far too close is rampant. I would agree that for people trying to cross the street on foot at some intersections it is an improvement, but it is also just a matter of time before someone in a rage fit kills someone riding a bicycle on this stretch. There is no reason for the lanes to be so wide, or for the center lane to be designed in such a way that it encourages people to use it as a passing lane.
I would be more impressed if the person was actually fallowing the rules of the road, lane splitting isn’t legal. Just like any car would get ticketed passing on the right, just because you’re on a bike doesn’t mean you get to sneak past and overtake… also driving in the bus only lane… come on. This is a terrible example to set.
That’s not the law. This is:
“Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaking vehicle is a bicycle that may safely make the passage under the existing conditions.”
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.415
You can’t just cherry pick the bit you like and pretend the rest doesn’t exist, it’s pretty clear what the rule is stating and it doesn’t cover lane splitting…
(B)Overtaking and passing upon the right is permitted if the overtaken vehicle is proceeding along a roadway in the left lane of two or more clearly marked lanes allocated exclusively to vehicular traffic moving in the same direction as the overtaking driver.
They weren’t in a marked lane at all, so again totally illegal by law.
qqq was quoting section (C), which creates an exception for bicycles. By my reading, it is legal.
As stated at the beginning of section (2):
“For purposes of this section, a person may drive a vehicle to overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle under
any
of the following circumstances:”…
The law then proceeds to list both (b) as you bring up, and (c) as qqq quotes above. All circumstances don’t need to apply, just
any
one of them.
To be fair: the use of the bus only lane is not permitted and should not have been exercised… But a TRUE multi-modal redesign would have made this a bus-bike-turn lane, though.
“You can’t just cherry pick the bit you like and pretend the rest doesn’t exist”.
Actually, you can, because that’s exactly what an exception is for. It allows anyone in the excepted group to ignore the rule that applies to others.
Under your interpretation, almost all situations on the road with bicycles would be illegal, unless the bicycle is taking the lane. Otherwise, if the person bicycling is riding on the right side of the lane, every car passing them would be breaking the law, and every time the cyclist passed a vehicle, they’d be breaking the law.
Thank you! All I could think watching that video is that I would want to pass that cyclist. Take the lane or don’t. It is not only dangerous to ride where you are trapped between swinging car doors and moving vehicles, you are exerting your entitled cyclist privilege. This increases road rage/aggressive driving. If I can keep up with traffic, I take the lane and stay there even when it’s stop and go. If I can’t keep up, I avoid that road or expect to get passed. I still do not pass on the right without a bike or other traffic lane if the car(s) that passed has to slow. I feel that I am usually treated with respect and patience in return.
Also, one lane in each direction instead of two is always safer. One vehicle stopping for a pedestrian may obstruct the view of a second vehicle passing the first resulting in a collision with the pedestrian.
All I could think was that I wish them luck not getting right-hooked or doored when passing those cars on the right.
Your criticism of “driving in the bus only lane” that’s directed at the person riding and taking the video brings up the question of whether that should be made legal. (It actually IS legal in the cases where the striping and signage shows that it’s legal to drive or bike in the bus lane if you’re going to turn right, but I assume not legal outside those areas, or if you don’t turn.)
Why not allow people to bike in the bus lanes, and to continue straight instead of turning? It’s rarely going to slow buses down. It seems safer than riding on the right side of the adjacent lane and passing or being passed by vehicles you’re sharing the same lane with. My experience is that many drivers get more aggressive in passing you when you’re biking in the lane, or less patient with you when you’re riding in front of them, when there’s an empty lane (bus lane or right turn only lane) to the right.
It seems like the benefits of allowing biking in the bus lane sections outweigh any negatives.
We could always vote with our dollars and favor businesses on friendlier streets.
I go where I am welcome, which means having hardly any relationship with Hawthorne, Powell, MLK, Lombard, Burnside, 39th, 82nd, Sandy…
Let’s talk about the segment of SE Hawthorne between MLK and SE 12th. The new protected bike lane is somewhat of a right hook death trap now, since it is very hard for right turning motorists to actually see if anyone is in the bike lane and the new turning radius for cars turning right means they are going even faster than they used to be at the point they are crossing the bike lane. I am an experienced cyclist and I simply refuse to use this facility, I’d rather ride in the bus/right turn lane here.
PBOT removed a safe pedestrian island at SE 12th and Hawthorne and put in plastic that is pretty much ignored by cars and takes a beating. I wonder if this is what bike loud members mean by “road diet has made an enormous difference.”
I also live just off Hawthorne. I do agree that the additional pedestrian crossings make life easier, so I’m pleased about that. However, I would still not feel at all comfortable biking along Hawthorne, and that is a shame for a car-less person. Missed opportunities, IMO.
I haven’t ridden that section of Hawthorne for years, other than maybe a block or two. I’ve been perfectly happy taking the parallel neighbor greenways to the blocks I need, just like the city wants. Jonathan writes that the nearby neighborhood greenways work “fine for a lot of people” and that is my sense, too. But do “many others” actually bike on the Hawthorne? In 35 blocks of video I didn’t notice any other cyclists. What the video showed to me looks like nice improvements for cars, buses, and pedestrians crossing. I acknowledge the changes offer nothing for cyclists, but I don’t feel slighted at all.
Everybody else gets benefits except for you, and you don’t feel slighted? Sounds like a case of Stockholm Syndrome.
I don’t have a myopic view of myself as a cyclist. Rather, I think of myself as your ‘everybody else’. I primarily get around on my bike, and I’m also a pedestrian, an occasional driver, and a homeowner a few houses down from a popular neighborhood greenway. I benefit tremendously from the comprise most seem to have embraced where we cede a few commercial corridors to cycling comfort in exchange from an abundance of pleasant neighborhood routes that get us to the same place by deviating a few blocks.
Well that looked thoroughly uncomfortable.
Not one mention of hardesty? Impressive.even for bike Portland.
Number one reason to ditch Hardesty and vote in someone with experience and expertise. This is a literal crime scene.