The Springwater Corridor is as important to bicycle riders as nearby SE McLoughlin Blvd/Highway 99E is to drivers. That’s why, when a sign appeared at the Springwater’s northern entrance last week announcing a full closure for five days, many of our readers took notice.
Not only is closing off this vital cycling corridor a big deal, but the signs appeared out of nowhere and there was no other information posted online or in any kind of statement from either Portland General Electric (whose name was on the signs) or Portland Parks & Recreation (who owns and manages the Springwater path).
I posted all the information I could find last Thursday. Then on Friday, after many folks had tuned out for the weekend, I heard back from officials at PGE and Parks. They confirmed a project was taking place, but the dates and times were different than what was posted on the signs. Given the significant detour required for a closure like this, folks need time to learn about a closure and make plans on how to handle it.
It wasn’t until yesterday (Monday, July 30th) that I finally confirmed precise details of the closure with a PGE official. Here’s what you need to know…
According to PGE Spokesperson Drew Hanson, the path between SE Ivon to the turnoff at Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge (where the train overcrossing tunnel is) will be closed on the following dates and times:
- For two days between Aug. 5 and Aug. 9 (likely to be Aug. 5-6, but schedule flexibility given due to heat event in the forecast)
- Aug. 26-28: Partial trail closure
- Aug. 29-30: Complete trail closure
“We know this can be inconvenient to cyclists and pedestrians that use the trail, and we appreciate their understanding while PGE performs maintenance and repair work along that section of the trail,” Hanson said.
Hanson said the closures are needed so PGE crews can perform routine system maintenance. New signs should be posted by today (Wednesday, July 31st) and flaggers should be present during closures directing traffic to alternate routes.
For more information, call PGE Customer Service at 503-228-6322 and ask about the Springwater. Or visit the Portland Parks closures and delays page.
Here’s the detour map:
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.
Proposing a new PBOT rule: if the Springwater Willamette trail ever needs to be closed, there must be a contingency plan already in place to temporarily close parking on one side of Milwaukie and convert it to a bike path.
(And then maybe that can be a stepping stone to a permanent protected bike path, but baby steps first)
Why baby steps? Why should bike lanes (protected or unprotected) on Milwaukee be contingent on closing the Springwater?
These are the kinds of things we should have anyway, because they are good. If the recent discussions on BP are any indication, we’re really shooting ourselves in the toe clips by relying on stepping stone solutions.
Because removing parking always results in a backlash that PBOT probably doesn’t want to deal with. Framing it as a necessary measure to temporarily accommodate detouring cyclists gives them a defense to opponents, and it allows to community to get a taste of having a bike lane in that area without committing to it.
That’s exactly the problem I have. This method isn’t working (see also: temporary planters, broadway bike lane scandal). If it’s worth doing it’s worth doing right the first time. There’s going to be backlash no matter what you do. Like I said before, we can’t make everyone happy, but we CAN make our streets safer.
I see no real benefit to letting folks to “get a taste” without committing to real changes. I’m open to being proved wrong here, but I’m unconvinced that temporary bike lanes will get more of the community to adopt cycling.
I honestly think it’s disingenuous to sneak something in by framing an improvement as a temporary measure when the real intent is to make it permanent. There are many good reasons (and legal requirements) to build better bike infrastructure, we don’t need to hide the spinach in the mac n cheese here. How would you feel if PP&R decided to permanently close the Springwater trail following this maintenance?
If you treat every change as permanent, it will make PBOT less likely to take risky steps and try new things that have some chance of failure. Temporary measures also let people see that the real impacts are smaller than the feared impacts, making it easier to move forward with a permanent project.
The cost of the approach you’re advocating is that PBOT will be even more conservative in what it does.
Sometimes I agree with Watts, and this is one of those times.
I’m all for the idea of asking for a dollar, always. But sometimes you have to take fifty cents. The reality is that PBOT needs cover for the unpopular decisions (with drivers) they make to help cycling. That’s the reality of Portland’s political milieu.
That is a plausible outcome, sure, but we’ve also seen the PBOT director try and remove non-permanent crucial bike infrastructure. More generally, I think the “Portland Nice” way is not creating adequate solutions as well as drivers have become increasingly brazen (I’m sure most people on BP probably have at least a few examples). Rather than focus on what I don’t like, I offer an alternative that I’d prefer to see:
Background: Portland has many design standard 35ft RoW streets like Milwaukee Ave, most of which do not have bike lanes or other bike infrastructure. The Oregon Bike Bill requires that footpaths and bicycle trails be provided wherever a highway, road or street is being constructed, reconstructed or relocated.
Recommendation: PBOT should have a policy directing minimum design standards for 35ft RoW streets (and other types) to satisfy ORS 366.514. As an example (I’m not a transportation engineer), but based on guidance I can find for the desired speeds, a 35ft RoW could be modified to two 10ft travel lanes, one 8ft parking lane, leaving 7ft for bike lanes or paths. This could be painted bike lanes in two directions, or a protected lane in a single direction. The policy could provide specific examples and exceptions that fall outside of ORS 366.514.
Maybe PBOT already has a policy directing compliance with ORS 366.514 with minimum design standards for different types of streets. If so, maybe it should be stronger. Lets take the politics off of those charged with project development, and instead take it at the policy level. I think we’d get a lot more done this way. This is kind of how the military would do it. Congress creates a law, HQ issues policy, commands develop implementation, units make changes.
And permanent bike infrastructure as well (see NW Broadway bike lanes and NE 7th). “Permanence” is no guarantee of permanence.
Appreciate you looking into the statutes and exploring applications within real world applications.
The PBOT Traffic Design Manuel call for “minimum 5 feet wide” full width bicycle lanes. With that in mind, bike lanes on both sides of the right-of-way is a net 10 feet minimum.
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/permitting/city-standards-guidelines-requirements-impact-space-right-way#toc-bicycle
In the 35′ ROW example, 35′ minus 10′ leaves 25′.
Two travel lanes at 11′ (if there is transit service) is 22′, leaving 3′.
“Buffer” the painted bike lanes with a second line adds 1.5′ each and now the full ROW is accounted for.
It’s reasonable if the Transportation System Plan designates the route as a priority bike street. Assuming that other traffic designations (e.g. transit, first responder, freight, etc.) are lower, then the bike lanes should prevail.
There will be no parking which speaks to your original concern about PBOT’s sensitivity to “public outcry.”
I am glad that this is at least being clarified. I have no faith in the road and trail closure signs that pop up. I generally adhere to them, even though there is rarely adequate detour signage provided. But often, if I check them out, there is an obvious clear and safe path, or the signs were just left up but there is no work being done. The “work zone WTF” issue was never fully addressed. Most of the contractors or people who set these signs up seem to think that shutting down a full travel lane for someone on their way to work or school or other important destination is no big deal.
I agree, SD, but the remarkable thing about this closure for me is that cyclists got any warning AT ALL. In so many other parts of the city (like SW), key bike routes will just close without warning. You can be three-quarters of the way along a route and run into a work party that tells you to turn around.
The last time that happened to me, I asked the flagger, Why didn’t you put a sign at the START of the trail. His response?
“Because we’re not required to.”
So helpful, right?
As one of the many people who commutes twice a day on this route, I now have to reckon with TEN DAYS of not being able to commute regularly. Why? Well, closure one may only be 2 days but since it is 2 out of 5, do I bike to the Springwater each day hoping it isn’t closed? Or find another way to get to work? And for closure two, is the “partial closure” on those three days going to involve the part I commute on or not? What happens if one gets partway to work and then come upon the portion that is closed?
Is this a 24 hour closure? Previous sign said it was from 8 to 4. If I start on the Springwater at 7:45, what happens if I’m on it at 8? SO CONFUSED.
Also, could they provide the map of the alternate route in some form that can be downloaded? It’s just embedded on the webpage, and now here, but not so easy to read if one is in transit (and not displayed AT ALL on the sign indicating the closure).
You’ll be fine. You’ll just ride through.
It’s 17th Ave to Clinton Street Vortex. You can use a pen to put that on the back of your hand. What the detour has going for it is that you can hop on the train or bus if riding along 17th isn’t your cup of tea. They both head to Tillicum Crossing, so effectively same place as the end of the Springwater (if you’re headed N)
I commute to/from Lewis & Clark. I assure you there is not a train option and not much of a bus one either. Not that I could lift my bike onto the bus rack anyway. And maybe define what “Clinton Street Vortex” means. But other than that, thanks for responding???
The train and bus definitely run along 17th avenue from 99E to Tillicum crossing. I used to take them regularly. The bike detour starts at Oaks bottom and takes you to 17th Ave. At 17th and Holgate, you could hop on a train or bus if you don’t want to ride along that section of 17th. The bus or train would eventually stop on either side of Tillikum Crossing. From there you could continue your bike commute as normal.
The Clinton Street Vortex is Trimet’s bike infrastructure centered around where Clinton, Gideon, 12th, and Milwaukee all coalesce. When it was initially installed, it was quite confusing. Paint and signage have been added to make it less so, but I’m not sure if it works or if I’ve just become accustomed to it.
PPR had a terrible track record when it comes to communicating about closures on the Springwater. Maybe next time it will be better — or at least we will have one person to complain to (the City Administrator) who is clearly accountable for both park land and transportation infrastructure.
Why wait? We have a City Administrator right now:
https://www.portland.gov/transition/government/city-leadership#toc-city-administrator
The future is here!
You can even drill down to the ‘deputy’ level:
People are going to be really let down in a few years when they realize that this newfangled city government structure we voted in doesn’t end up actually improving anything.
It’s already improving things.
I’ve seen only one real change so far, which is the consolidation of bureaus under the mayor (something Wheeler also did during his first year in office).
What other improvements have you seen?
Hi Watts. I’ll shoot a question back at you, what are people expecting?
Here’s what I’ve seen so far:
At the Friends of Alpenrose Transportation Summit last June, eight D4 candidates attended, to listen and speak about SW transportation needs. That alone is huge. (I remember testifying before City Council a few years ago and one commissioner confusing Barbur Blvd with Scholls Ferry Rd.) So, depending on who is seated, they will take office already knowing some local transportation issues.
One candidate has already contributed knowledge of possible funding sources for putting in a sidewalk on Shattuck, north of Alpenrose. That’s before even being elected.
Candidates are meeting with advocates. I spent a couple hours one-on-one with a candidate giving them a storm water tour of SW.
In terms of influencing PBOT, I imagine on small-bore issues it will be much the same as it is. As a neighborhood advocate, I’ve been pretty successful working directly with PBOT managers, and I can give you neighborhood tour of all the infrastructure I’ve influenced via SWIM, Safe Routes to School, Safe Streets. I don’t see that changing. But I expect PBOT to no longer be jerked around by the political needs/predilections of commissioners with no previous experience in transpo: no more pre-election flurry of photo ops; no ripping out of bike infrastructure to curry favor with biz interests; no more lectures about how one part of town is undeserving of attention from the city.
I expect an improved city council, with some competent people on it. And I expect them to do what legislative, representative bodies do. I’m looking for experience with government, knowledge of funding avenues, policy chops, ability to work behind the scenes and influence others.
As I look at the candidates, I see mostly an impressive group of people, who have experience in a range of areas. That’s an improvement that multi-member districts brings — more issues see the light of day, and the barrier of having to campaign across the city is removed.
Watts, maybe you are accustomed to weekly coffees with city commissioners, but I’ve never even gotten an email returned. (Although sometimes I’ve connected with an aide. But that might be because I write for BP. Before BP, crickets.)
I’m not sure what naysayers are thinking someone like me expects. I’m expecting a more competent government, less beholden to passing trends, and one in which representatives will not put up with unfairness directed at the people they represent.
And finally, what has already come to pass, which might be what bugged me the most about Portland political culture: have you noticed that people (even on BP) have stopped claiming to be the voice of some other group? All those inner eastsiders who were so, so concerned about far east Portland? That seems to have stopped. The good people of District 1 are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, and their top candidates are among the best in the city. District representation has got people minding their own store, keeping their own nose clean.
Better candidates is hopeful (I also liked the candidates for Multnomah County that we had this year; I was able to meet all of them in person, and we had several I thought would be good, so maybe accessibility and quality is in the air?).
It remains to be seen how that translates into better government, but that’s no different than it’s always been. I’m sure you’ve experienced being very excited about a candidate only to have them turn out to be a dud.
I wasn’t sure what you meant, so I appreciate the clarification.
PS I didn’t answer your question about what people are expecting. I think there’s a wide range of expectations. Some folks (like me) are expecting things to be more or less the same after a year-or-so shakeout period, but with different levers of power and with the bureaus enjoying increased insulation from the public (and council knowing much less about how they operate internally). Others expect everything will change, and the government will become much more responsive to their personal issues. At this point, of course, it’s too early to tell.
Flaggers and alternate routes? I saw none or that on my run. There should be additional signs along the Waterfront trail and bridge to give both pedestrians and riders proper notice.
I encountered this blockade on my commute Tuesday morning. Surprise! And now I hear that cyclists are going to be barred from the Hawthorne Bridge for over three weeks — a closure that begins this evening as was just announced earlier today.
https://www.multco.us/bridges/news/traffic-alert-all-eastbound-traffic-lanes-close-hawthorne-bridge
It’s almost like someone doesn’t want people to commute by bike.
The way read that, someone (i.e., traffic crews) don’t want *anyone* in any transportation mode to commute over the Hawthorne Bridge. It hardly singles out cyclists.
They are only closing the bridge one side at a time. The official bike detour (for the closed direction) is the Morrison Br. Pedestrian traffic is diverted to the sidewalk on the other side of the bridge. An inventive cyclist who did not fancy going up to the Morrison could perhaps covertly travel the wrong way on the other side of the Hawthorne. It’s not a war on bikes.
I think Richard wrote that because the Hawthorne Bridge closures are coming right on top of the Springwater Path closure. A (the?) major bike commuting bridge closed right after a (the?) major bike commuting path being closed. And lots of people whose bike commuting route uses one probably use the other as well.
I get that. But if a bridge needs to be repaired, it should be repaired in as timely of a manner as possible. If the Fremont had to be closed to repair damage, it wouldn’t be seen as an afront to motorists. It’d be the opposite really. Letting infrastructure fall into disrepair would be far more detrimental in the long run.
Multnomah County revised the announcement. The original announcement said the bridge was closed to cyclists and pedestrians at all hours, all days through August 30. It also said it would be open to cars from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.