“This is something a lot of folks have been asking for.”
— Roger Geller, PBOT
The City of Portland’s transportation bureau is on a mission to improve the quality of existing protected bike lanes. At the monthly meeting of the Portland Bureau of Transportation Bicycle Advisory Committee Tuesday night, City Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller said he estimates that every mile of protected bike lane currently built with just paint and plastic posts will be “hardened” with concrete within the next five years.
PBOT has promised for years to make its paint and plastic-only protected bike lanes more robust and permanent, but this is the first time we’ve seen and heard of real policy and funding devoted to it.
“This is something a lot of folks have been asking for,” Geller said at last night’s meeting.
But despite Geller’s comment and a clear chorus from the community that plastic and paint should never be considered “protection,” official documents he shared last night say the two reasons for the projects are maintenance costs and aesthetic concerns.
As I shared in a recent post about why PBOT has removed some concrete traffic calming barrels, Geller said replacing uprooted plastic “delineator posts” has become a thorn in the side of city maintenance workers.
“Our crews are having to go out and replace the delineator posts frequently. And, you know, there’s much better things that they could be doing with their time,” Geller said. And like I’ve been saying for many years, having a bunch of battered wands littering lanes reeks of government waste and incompetence and shows our city doesn’t take cycling seriously.
When it comes aesthetics, a May 2024 PBOT memo titled, Prioritizing “hardening” protected bicycle lanes, makes the case:
“We borrow much from the Dutch — builders of the world’s best bikeways and bikeway networks. They have five considerations for bikeways: safety, comfort, directness, network cohesion and attractiveness. We have generally fallen short on attractiveness and have received deserved criticism as a result. While delineator posts are affordable and allow quick implementation, they are criticized as Portland not putting its best foot forward, especially in commercial districts.”
Geller’s comments last night prove PBOT is finally ready to build more serious cycling infrastructure. He says the bureau will put about $500,000 per year to the effort to harden its 20.5 lane miles of protected bike lanes with concrete curbs*. PBOT says the cost range is likely to be between $5 and $8 million for all 20.5 miles. (See full list of projects below.)
(*Note this initiative will not replace the plastic posts used on the Burnside Bridge or on SE Stark Street because those are in line for separately funded projects — the County’s Earthquake Ready Burnside Bridge project and PBOT’s Outer SE Stark project. And the 28th and 21st Avenue overcrossings of I-84 will also remain plastic posts and curbs because of PBOT’s policy to only glue down materials on bridge structures, “so as to not puncture the skin and allow water to penetrate to the super structure” (according to the PBOT memo).)
PBOT completed an audit to prioritize where to focus. They came up with 8.6 miles of bike lanes that will be hardened in the next five years at a total cost of between $1.9 and $2.9 million. These segments were chosen because they’ve been flagged for maintenance and/or aesthetic problems and they don’t require any additional public process to move forward with. The first two projects slated to begin this year will be NE Pacific between 99th and 102nd and NW Naito between Davis and Hoyt. The remaining 12 miles (which includes NW and SW Broadway and NE Glisan) need more process and funding. At this point in time, those and other segments are slated to be completed 3-5 years beyond the first 5-years currently planned.
Geller was resolute during his presentation Tuesday night, but also made it clear this is a new process for PBOT and they will likely refine the approach as they go along (a lot of the cost and timing has to do with the type of equipment contractors have and whether the work is done by PBOT or private crews). “Hopefully within five years or sooner, depending on the availability of funding,” Geller said. “We’ll be able to convert all of our bike lanes that are just delineator posts into some level of concrete.”
Bicycle Advisory Committee Vice-chair (and noted cycling advocate with BikeLoud PDX) Joe Perez said 20-plus miles of hardened bike lanes over fine years, “Would be amazing to see happen.” “It seems like this is an inexpensive solution to get us to 25% of trips by bicycle by 2030. Kudos. Keep it up,” Perez added.
Below is a list of the projects, estimated costs, and the year they’re expected to be completed:
###
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.
What’s less aesthetically pleasing: concrete posts or ghost bikes? Losing a friend or family member certainly hurts a lot more than infrastructure aesthetics. If we’re talking aesthetics, can we remove ugly infrastructure like the Marquam bridge?
About time! Maybe this will move Portland up to a bronze biking city (up from its current tin foil level). (Sorry but Platinum level disappeared years ago).
I am glad to hear they’re finally going to start hardening some of the protected bike lanes. Now that concrete is back on the menu, can we hope they’ll give us back our traffic calming concrete planters?
It’s going to be curbs, no doubt the mountable kind that PBOT uses elsewhere, so maybe more of an appetizer than the main course folks generally want.
Yeah, I’m afraid you’re right. I don’t think people should get too excited about this. The curbs are nice, but in some ways wands are actually better. Neither one stops or even slows a car that drives over them, but at least the wands are highly visible.
But who knows, maybe they’ll be real curbs. Something with some real height and square profile could potentially meaningfully slow or redirect a vehicle that is just veering off course.
Can you name a single place in Portland PBOT has put a vertical curb to delineate a travel lane like this?
Remember, PBOT is motivated by reducing maintenance costs, so they want stuff vehicles won’t damage when they hit it. A 4″ fin of concrete cannot withstand a heavy vehicle pushing on it without something like a sidewalk backing it. PBOT wants something vehicles can bear down on without a lot of lateral stress, like a mountable curb.
I agree that the wands are better, but the low curbs are more attractive, so that’s something.
The bike lane on outer SE Division, say around 112th? On North Rosa Parks Way?
Mountable.
I see what you mean. When I first lived in Portland, the barriers on SE 20th at Ankeny were a full 6 inches high, but it looks like the city ground them down at some point, likely in 2007 or 2008 from the old images. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5221367,-122.6455763,3a,75y,64.75h,64.54t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s1PcOIuoEglJrk2JFkJRrMQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D1PcOIuoEglJrk2JFkJRrMQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D214.5242%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e1?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Those are all the “mountable” curbs they’re talking about. And the Division curbs run from about 80th to 170th.
For what it’s worth, I think they are more effective than plastic wands. The main deterrent is that drivers perceive them as being able to damage their cars so they try extra hard to avoid them.
I am honestly more worried about wands damaging my car (by scratching the paint) than those low curbs that even a Yaris could roll over.
I’m afraid that at any curbs PBOT installs will end up being used like these ones.
Probably. And I imagine they will be covered with tire tracks no time.
This is good news. I’m reticent to ride on ANY paint-only bike lanes anymore, mostly due to distracted drivers.
I wonder what the engineering behind the “concrete curbs” is meant to prevent? Obviously, the answer is encroachment – but is it just me that feels that these curbs (maybe 3″ – 4″ high), are potential launch pads for vehicles? How do they prevent cars from going over them at speed? They don’t.
While standard jersey barriers are probably cost prohibitive – is there anything in between? A quick search shows there are smaller versions at 23.5″ tall; maybe something in the 12″ – 16″ range?
Sorry, it just feels like we’re trading one failed installation model for another. While I appreciate the sentiment and improvements, we need to find solutions that actually stop cars from entering bike lanes.
According to the PBOT memo,
“…“Hardening” the bike lanes, refers to replacing plastic delineator posts with more permanent material, typically either a traffic separator or, in the case of parking-protected bicycle lanes, a concrete island with a minimum 3’ wide surface to step on.”
The very conservative federal DOT gives examples of concrete “traffic separators”, which are low mountable curbs (sloped rather than square) 4 to 6 inches high. PBOT says they will put in “…16” width traffic separator for non-parking protected installations and on a 3’-wide island for parking-protected installations.” I have no doubt that this is what PBOT intends to use, instead of Jersey barriers or Vancouver concrete planters.
This is a VERY common traffic feature nationwide, I’m sure everyone has seen them, they are often at interchange ramps, at medians, and other intersection treatments. There is a good example of what PBOT plans to build, a “traffic separator” median at Knott & MLK. https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5420527,-122.6616444,3a,75y,145.72h,65.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s46Wow0uZGJOiWGtjUgJIKg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?coh=205409&entry=ttu
Any motor vehicle can mount them, but they do slow cars down; SUVs not so much; and big trucks not at all.
This is a totally fair take, but FWIW I do feel a lot better with short curbs than plastic for several reasons.
The presence of infrastructure like this makes clear to drivers that this isn’t a space they can use, and reinforces the expectation that they’ll see cyclists there. We lose that when plastic gets snapped off, but concrete is a lot more permanent.
And I think curbs can provide meaningful protection against more common driving mistakes like inattentiveness, especially when combined with other traffic calming measures that keep speeds below 30mph. Consider the traffic speed at which you start to feel stressed by passing cars while on a sidewalk (~30-35mph?) – I think that’s about when I’d be stressed in lanes where concrete curbs are present.
There are still issues like conflict points at driveways and intersections, and it’s true that if someone is being reckless behind the wheel of their 4000+lb weapon the curbs won’t do much to stop them. But to me they still feel like a big step up over paint and plastic.
An example I feel really positive about is next year’s work on N Willamette. The additional curbs there will also come with narrower lanes and speed cushions, which should lead to a noticeable reduction in speeding (the biggest issue that makes it a stressful ride today).
Here is an example of the federally-approved lanes that PBOT is talking about implementing, from Charlotte. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.2293052,-80.8414334,3a,75y,102.54h,67.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOFt2Ql58Ex3FdehjYquHyg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1?coh=205409&entry=ttu
I agree that the ‘mountable’ curbs do not present a meaningful impediment to autos, but they do really change the vibe in such a way that slower driving seems more appropriate. They are a meaningful and welcome upgrade to streets relative to a painted bike lane. Even though it is unpopular here, I will also say that the plastic wands serve this purpose, too. But they look janky after a few years, which I think is a legitimate consideration. As a side note, unless the curb is really beefy, it’s going to get mounted at will. People routinely drive up the normal curb in front of my house to park partially in the hell strip.
This is the way
I hope they do Toronto style jersey barriers
Toronto barriers?
https://www.seattlebikeblog.com/2024/01/23/sdot-installs-its-latest-even-better-bike-lane-barrier-on-dearborn-street/
Also called “Extruded Curbs” apparently. I like them, but will the city police object when they hit them at 90 mph, at night, with their lights off?
“Toronto” barriers – yes!
How tall? 16″?
What about the plastic wands on the Hawthorne Bridge viaduct eastbound, which the county is working on right now? Are those going to become concrete, too? I noticed Tuesday that they poured some new concrete by the bus stop.
A 7-fold increase in mode share in 5 years after a 40-50% decline???
It’s going to be fascinating to see whether BikeLoud keeps on repeating this mantra like some broken non-profit pull toy in 3-4 years.
.
Does Bike Loud have a rational theory of change or is it all just vibes for the Sam Adams “monorail, monorail” Bike Plan?
Aspirational goals can be helpful, but I can’t believe anyone thinks that even 10% is remotely possible. If your aspirational goal is ridiculous, it’s hard to maintain credibility, and that’s where I think BikeLoud is on this one.
That may be why you rarely hear PBOT officials mention this goal… which is theirs, after all.
“25%” was in the Portland Plan actually, a citywide goal. During the pandemic lockdown the city was even heading towards that goal.. but… well, you know the rest.
https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/portland_bicycle_plan_for_2030_as-adopted.pdf
The completely unfunded “Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030” was adopted on 2/11/10 while the Portland Plan was adopted in on 4/25/12.
And, BTW, it is beyond pathetic that this “Platinum” Bike City USA has not had an update to its bike plan for almost 15 years.
As someone who biked to work every damn day during the pandemic, I experienced a complete collapse in bike mode share (and my experience is supported by Census ACS mode share prints as well as City of Portland bike counts.
People like to imagine that BikeLoud has all kinds of power in Portland. They are volunteer advocates, not council members. Most are not county employees, and have regular day jobs. BikeLoud is perfectly aware that 25% or 10% mode share is unrealistic, if you are imagining PBOT is capable of reaching that all by themselves. Leaving aside the fact that, like with “defunding the police,” 25% of trips probably doesn’t mean what a lot of people imagine that it means (25% refers to the trips that you personally take, not 25% overall) it would take cooperation among a whole lot of organizations, a massive overhaul of our bike network, and our transit network, and lots of public outreach.
This appears to me to be a tacit admission that Bike Loud isn’t serious about its constantly-repeated demands. I think it also shows that Bike Loud appears to have given up on developing a politics of transformation that would challenge those who actually have power (e.g. the entrenched political interests and the conservative and dysfunctional bureaucracy these interests have created).
A walk back from a broad goal that is good but “unrealistic” to banal individualism?
Or maybe not. In Paris one political movement (Paris Socialist list) alone forced a major overhaul of their bike/ped network — there was no need for 30 different nonprofit corporations to to form a loose coalition and then settle for status quo bread-crumbs.
You’re getting a whole Lotta Sid-eye from me right now.
Feel free to organize such improvement yourself.
Without the space already carved out using paint and wands, I find it hard to believe PBOT would’ve created the space with curbs in the first place. Perhaps an unpopular opinion here… An iterative approach is better than no bike facilities at all
I certainly agree with this sentiment. I’m often surprised at the harsh criticism that bike improvements that I value receive here in the BP comments.
I share this opinion, but I also think it’s worth challenging the notion that paint and flex posts (that are specifically designed to be driven over) qualify as “protection”.
“Official documents [Geller] shared last night say the two reasons for the projects are maintenance costs and aesthetic concerns.”
[Insert golf clap here]
If aesthetics are what it takes to move toward more permanent car/bike separation, I’m not complaining.
Meanwhile, I have some “aesthetic concerns” about all those five-lane stroads you see everywhere, and car-dependent sprawl in general.
What distresses me is the manner in which PBOT staff prioritizes improvements without any meaningful (or any) public input. Outside of the downtown, there are few improvement projects in SW. To make matters worse, PBOT insists on shoving money down rat holes by investing in facilities that have exceptionally low ridership. Two projects on the PBOT list are examples.
SW BH Hwy. – PBOT continues to pour money into this underperforming bike route. The ridership is low primarily because: 1) it doesn’t connect to other bike facilities; 2) the western terminus at Raleigh Hills is a cycling disaster (courtesy of Washington Co. and ODOT); 3) the maintenance of the bike lanes is very poor; and 4) it’s just not that much fun riding next to 45 mph traffic. The 2023 city bike counts show an estimate of 70 cyclists per day on BH Hwy. In fact, BH Hwy. is very near the bottom of any SW bike count location according to PBOT data. Whereas the daily bike count estimates along Terwilliger are in the 400-500 range. Terwilliger has more serious problems including bad intersections and bike lane gaps. So why keep spending on BH Hwy. that attracts only a fraction of riders compared to Terwilliger? The city should go with the flow and focus on improving routes that people obviously want to use.
Capitol Hwy. (Stephenson to Valona) – Again this is a loser with subpar bike counts (2023 daily estimate of 155 at Barbur) and the huge issue of the Barbur/I-5 crossing. What good is it to improve a route with an intersection that is intimidating to all but the most fearless (crazy?) cyclists? Routes are only as good as their weakest links.
PBOT needs to study the bike count data, talk to the users, and then set priorities. Enough of this top – down stuff!
I absolutely agree with you about the gaps, but I still think the BH Hwy lanes are a game changer. It is one of the only flat and convenient routes in the area and is useful to me already, at least in the westbound direction (eastbound is too scary for me). If the problems you mention (connections, maintenance, auto speed) are fixed, I think it would be one of the most worthwhile bike investments in SW and ridership would dramatically increase.
I agree the BH Hwy. offers advantages by being a direct and by SW standards relatively flat. It has the potential to be a “game changer” as you describe. The big “if” is when will the connections to other facilities be in place to increase the usefulness of BH Hwy. to more cyclists? Most of the major streets that connect with BH Hwy., such as Dosch/30th, 45th, and Shattuck, have planned improvements in SWIM and/or the TSP. However, these have been identified for years, with no indication these planned bike improvements will happen any time soon, or even in our lifetime. Key connections at the west end at Raleigh Hills to Oleson and Scholls Ferry bike lanes are in the hands of Washington Co. and ODOT – two agencies notoriously auto-focused and (in spite of lip service given) uninterested in active transportation. That’s why I feel these high end improvements proposed for BH Hwy. are premature. The expenditure will not attract more cyclists, there’s no shortage of need elsewhere, and in the short-term the city should invest in projects that could increase bicycling popularity.
Good to hear. Now can we please start getting something like that on hwy 30? Because I would really love to be able to get to Saltzman or Sauvie Island without feeling like I’m playing Russian roulette.
Finally!
You know… if the plastic flappy straws bled when you hit them they would be they would have been replaced much sooner.
They could do away with all this if they just ban any powered vehicles, cars of any type trucks buses, anything other than bikes within the city limits
While I’m all for hardening our bike lanes, the proposed prices seem really inflated. ~2 million for 9 miles of concrete barrier? Maybe I’m imagining something different from what they have planned, but I still can’t imagine it costing that much.
So, no longer able to leave the bike lane to avoid obstacles, obstructions, broken glass, drainage grates, poorly patched utility cuts or just plain crappy pavement, no thanks PBOT!
“We borrow much from the Dutch — builders of the world’s best bikeways and bikeway networks. They have five considerations for bikeways: safety, comfort, directness, network cohesion and attractiveness. We have generally fallen short on attractiveness and have received deserved criticism as a result.”
But what about network cohesion and directness?
Including their brothers who make the serviceable but not completely delicious coffee.
And these networks were initially planned and built by left-wing governments — something this crony-capitalist city has never seen.
More importantly, they were demanded by the people, something else we’ve never seen.
Maybe just not demanded by enough people, pushing hard enough. The Dutch people pushed hard.
Yes, exactly, they did. I think if enough people here pushed just as hard, we’d get much better results.
And the Dutch have a long history of being a bike culture.
How do you think you (or anyone) can persuade mom & dad American to ride bikes with their kids to the grocery store every week, rain or shine?
If you can’t persuade the mass voting public to bike then you aren’t going to get politicians to make meaningful changes if they want to be re-elected.
A long history, sure. Maybe about as long a history as we have with women being able to have credit card in their name? Yeah, it would be difficult, no one is saying it wouldn’t be. As for how to convince people: some people need less convincing than others…and convincing people to ride, or take transit would be much easier *after* a massive overall the transit system. As long as what would be a 20 minute drive is a day long excursion by bike or transit, very few people are going to give us their cars vehicles. The Netherlands was not always the Netherlands. Are you saying it’s not worth doing?
I contend that any feasible transit system that works on our current model cannot compete with cars on the metrics people care most about: time, convenience, perceived safety/privacy, and, to a certain extent, cost. American cities look a lot different than Dutch cities, at least in the center, so what works there may not work here.
Some trips are great by transit; if you happen to be at Gateway and want to get downtown, it’s hard to beat the Red Line, even with a 10 minute wait. But most trips are not that.
If we want some sort of public transportation system to work more broadly, we have to do something fundamentally different than what we’re doing today.
Instead of asking if it’s worth doing, we should be asking what would a system that people would want to use look like? You know my answer, but what’s yours?
“not worth doing?”
So you were telling me that is what you were saying? First off, let’s get rid of this idea that any “feasible” system would work on our current model. “Overall” was supposed to read “overhaul.”
“ American cities look a lot different than Dutch cities, at least in the center, so what works there may not work here.”
I never said that American cities looked anything like Dutch cities, or that what worked there would work here. Don’t assume I am that dumb.
Maybe not you, but lots of others here have. Many times. Over and over.
As for worth or not worth doing, I think we should think hard about what it is we want to do, and if/how it could be made to work, and what it would cost. Only then can we decide if it’s worth doing.
I don’t think providing a transit system based on our current system (but more) can be sufficiently useful to draw people out of their cars, so for me the question falls apart before we even get to whether the benefits justify the costs.
The Dutch people also did not rely on a wimpy public benefit corporations that are explicitly forbidden to push hard based on their state charter and IRS regulations.
In commenting to the city of portland on a bike related project, they connected me with Mr. Geller. I sent him an email. The auto reply: “I work remotely and in a time zone 3-hrs earlier than Portland”. Portland can’t find someone to be the “bicycle coordinator” that wants to actually live here? Interesting.
Slow your roll, Craig. Geller lives here. He’s taking some time off.