Since March of 2023 (at least) I’ve been trying to help folks understand why the $185 million City of Portland effort to redesign 82nd Avenue wasn’t likely to include bike lanes. Now we know for sure. In documents released this week along with a new open house and online survey, the Portland Bureau of Transportation says the project won’t include space for cycling.
Why not? They say roadway engineering constraints would lead to significant delays for bus and car users. It’s a frustrating, yet completely understandable, conclusion to reach.
Despite the outsized role 82nd plays in the transportation system, in PBOT’s view it’s actually quite narrow. While PBOT was able to build protected bike lanes during recent redesigns of outer SE Stark, SE Division, and SE 122nd, those streets are 10-20 feet wider. Because of that extra width PBOT was, “able to incorporate protected bike lanes without creating major trade-offs for transit and other vehicles,” states a PBOT document published to their website this week.
Given that 82nd carries a high volume of driving trips and is home to the busiest bus line in Oregon, PBOT says, “There is simply not enough space to adequately accommodate all modes of travel” especially since the driver speeds and auto volumes require PBOT to build fully separated, protected bike lanes.
Here’s more from PBOT’s “82nd Avenue Bicycle Strategy”:
“PBOT explored the impact of dedicated bike facilities, focusing on effects on transit and vehicle diversion. Initial modeling showed that even with significant automobile diversion, the Line 72 bus would face major congestion, experiencing about a 50% travel time delay. For example, a 3-mile bus ride on 82nd Avenue would be delayed by an additional 10 minutes, increasing the total travel time to 30 minutes.
Given that Line 72 has higher ridership than the Orange and Yellow MAX lines and currently faces significant delays and reliability issues, the impacts of re-purposing travel lanes for bike facilities are too great.”
What PBOT doesn’t mention is the political risk. I’m not aware of anyone — be it activists or an advocacy group, a community leader or elected official — who’s willing to spend the political capital it would take to get bike lanes on 82nd Avenue. If someone did step up, the bike lanes would be pitted directly against buses, sidewalks, and local business owners. It would risk igniting east Portland narratives about not being listened to by city hall dwellers, the local media would seize on the “bikes versus everyone else” story and we’d be caught in another controversial quagmire. Then there’s the simple fact that bike lanes might not have much support among the many of the interested parties and community groups PBOT has asked for feedback.
The plan instead is to focus bicycle transportation on nearby parallel routes and to improve crossings and access to 82nd.
In their new open house documents, PBOT lists several components of their strategy to improve bike transportation in the corridor:
- Expand the Neighborhood Greenway Network: Enhance and extend the Neighborhood Greenway Network to provide more choices and more effective biking infrastructure in the corridor.
- Improve Bike Connectivity: Strengthen bicycle connections between greenways and key destinations along 82nd Avenue.
- Enhance Wayfinding: Add new wayfinding to improve navigation on existing and future bike routes, ensuring clear guidance to connect people to Neighborhood Greenways and local destinations.
- Enhance Bicycle Parking: Support the development of secure and accessible bicycle parking facilities near affordable housing and other key destinations.
- Review Bicycle Classifications: Assess the bicycle classifications outlined in this plan for consistency and update them as needed in the next Transportation System Plan (TSP) revision.
About half of the planned bike crossings and about three-quarters of the parallel greenway routes are already funded. PBOT calls their robust bike crossing strategy a “bike ladder concept.”
What PBOT doesn’t mention is anything specific about whether or not the future bus lane will explicitly allow bicycling. For riders confident enough, I have a strong hunch the bus lane will become a popular bike route. I currently ride on the red-painted, “Bus Only” lane on NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd quite often and find it to be very efficient and convenient (and only a bit unnerving as it has streetcar tracks in it at several junctures).
Given what a vital north-south street this is, and the fact that all our adopted planning goals call for more bicycling and less driving — especially on busy, destination-rich commercial corridors — it’s unfortunate we aren’t willing to sacrifice driving space to create cycling access on 82nd. But I also understand the thorny political and engineering factors behind PBOT’s decision.
— Check out the online open house and link to the new online survey on PBOT’s website.
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.
When I lived in East Portland, ODOT was seen as the “good guys” because they were willing to keep outer Powell Boulevard as 1-lane each way, as a progressive main street, in spite of bus delays and traffic congestion, in order to make it safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, whereas PBOT was fully responsible for the highest-crash 122nd, 82nd & Division corridors.
And so the saga continues…
“ When I lived in East Portland”
That was a long time ago. ODOT is not like that anymore.
I totally agree with your point about the politics of the whole thing. Another consideration is the amount of car access that would have to cross over bike lanes for parking lots and drive thrus all up and down 82nd. I have been using the 70s and 80s greenways as they are being put together and honestly think they’re a fine solution. It is a bit ‘status quo’ to have bike routes wind their way through neighborhood streets, but I get to my destination safely and comfortably so I’ll take the trade-off. What I’d like to see is some smooth pavement and diverters on those greenways more than anything.
What makes me queasy is looking at Metro’s 82nd Ave transit project and seeing that it is projected to open in 2030 at the absolute earliest. So no worries if you’re a regular 72 rider, it’ll only take 6 years to make an improvement on the most-used bus line in the entire state.
What we all know is that this project is being “rushed” by Portland standards – no community meetings to speak of, no several years of a stakeholder advisory committee, not even the usual junkets to Amsterdam – because PBOT has a Sept 30th deadline to finish all planning and start construction on new year’s day, which in the federal calendar is October 1st of every year. PBOT, like most transportation agencies nationwide, is sincerely worried a certain person will get elected on November 5th and cancel all their funding on the following January 20th through an “executive order”.
If it’s any consolation, think of this project as 82nd Avenue Phase 1; Phase 2 will have protected bike lanes plus one of the following (looped with 122nd):
Bus Rapid Transit
Cut & Cover Subway
Streetcar
I’ve been using the 80s greenway since before it was a greenway, before it was cool 🙂 The reason is because the 70s greenway is a cuthrough from Powell to Halsey by drivers trying to avoid 82nd. In their survey I told PBOT they need some serious diversion on their parallel greenways if they want people to use them. Between Division and Washington is the worst section because going north it’s a slight hill and there’s a lot of traffic in both directions so drivers get impatient and tailgate you or get outright hostile.
Hopefully they’ll listen as it’s the longer route and you have to use it eventually.
You talking 76th from Division to Washington? If so, I agree. Drivers get really weird there! I wish they’d either add diverters or get rid parking and put in bike lanes. Petty much all the houses have driveways and those that don’t have readily accessible street parking on adjacent streets.
76th Ave is a popular “unofficial” bike route, but the recently-installed 70s Neighborhood Greenway actually crosses Division St at 77th Ave, then uses Sherman St behind PCC to cut over to 80th Ave, then uses 80th Ave up through Montavilla. So maybe there’s too much traffic on your route because you’re not actually riding on the neighborhood greenway.
Two problems with 77th one it doesn’t have a proper crossing and won’t until Trimet updates its stop there. More importantly is it doesn’t connect to Woodward.
I take the Clinton/Woodward greenway to 75th which continues on 76th at Division. I may consider changing that and going down the unpaved portion of Clinton to 77th when Trimet installs its crossing but currently during rush hour it’s a pain to get across so I use the light and turn of 76th as soon as I can. Ideally PBOT will divert traffic off of 76th or pave that section of Clinton like they did on Everett recently.
Also 76th used to be the greenway PBOT shifted it to 80th only very recently. It makes way more sense as the greenway too since it connects to the Woodward and Lincoln greenways. The cynic in me thinks that was because they didn’t want to have to divert cuthrough traffic so they diverted cyclists once again.
It’s not really much of an issue for me since as I said I’d been taking 80th for years before it was made a greenway but any cyclist that doesn’t want to go further north gets to bike a half mile out of their way all for the convenience of drivers that are trying to avoid 82nd.
I recall that the 80th routing was to close the distance between accessing 82nd Ave businesses and people using the 70s Neighborhood Greenway. Unfortunately, since 80th is by large the first parallel street to 82nd, cars turning off the corridor use it circulate around or bypass 82nd like Clinton Street and Division Street businesses. Diversion is absolutely necessary for the 70s Neighborhood Greenway to be accessible to families and people of all ages and all abilities.
The Lower SE Rising Area Plan includes traffic calming (hopefully diversion) for areas adjacent to 82nd Ave. This is due traffic spillover from 82nd that is present today as well as proximity to multiple schools and parks.
76th Avenue has never been a greenway.
It would be tough to add bikes to this road at this point. In my opinion the strategy should be to keep some car roads as throughways while minimizing or removing cars from others. Somewhat unfortunately many of those through ways are pretty well decided and will be difficult to impossible to backtrack on.
One of the problems I see with PBOT’s strategy to minimize car traffic through road diets is that people start getting more desperate with their alternatives which I think is worse in the long run. Some cars and especially service traffic will always need a way through the city and making it more difficult will just increase costs for things like contractors, garbage services, etc.
In the case of 82nd I think offering parallel bikeways and limiting car traffic on nearby streets would be the way forward. Good places to put those efforts to me would be areas like the Montavilla neighborhood and the SE 72nd where it is getting rezoned and developed.
Agreed! Specifically, the East side of town lacks North/South routes. Between I-5 and I-205, only MLK and 82nd travel the whole distance. SE Chavez/NE 33rd sort of do it, terribly inconveniently.
These are almost like “sacrifice zones”.
My first reaction “is this a lie, like Hawthorne was?”
Second- “Greenways aren’t greenways without multi-modal filters.”
Of course it’s a lie, traffic modeling is pseudoscience because you can’t predict the future. A more optimist traffic engineer could say that buses are predicted to speed up by 5 minutes because the bike lanes will create a mode shift that will reduce car traffic by 10% or whatever. It’s all just made up numbers based on assumptions, and it certainly doesn’t account for mode shift.
Planners don’t just make random guesses; if you think bike lanes you are championing will reduce car traffic by 10% you need to have some rational basis for claiming that beyond wishful thinking. If the impact of bike lanes on similar streets has been immeasurably small, that’s probably going to hold for your project as well.
Forecasting cannot see the future, but it can extrapolate from the present in a way that’s more precise and (hopefully) accurate than the motivated guessing the proponents of certain projects have been known to do. It’s why every business and government agency does it to some extent.
[For the record, I have said many times that the reasons PBOT gave for rejecting bike lanes on Hawthorne were total BS.]
Actually, many do. I remember a metro planner explaining how they arrived at a set of projections for a future light rail project for Barber, back in 2010, who then gestured with his fingers, indicating they they created the numbers out of thin air, as if by magic. Other modellers have freely told me that they have to make a lot of assumptions based on tables with very questionable data based on lots of other highly questionable assumptions.
I believe this is true for things that can’t rationally be projected.
What I dislike about modeling is the inherent assumption that the future will be like the present, only more so. But it can be the most rational assumption, even when you know it’s wrong.
For example, I am very confident automated driving is coming and will be the biggest change in transportation since the invention of automobiles. The only question is when (certainly in the next 30 years, probably much sooner). But if I’m designing the Burnside Bridge (for example), do I design for that world, or the one we have now fast-forwarded 30 or 50 years? Or do I just say screw it and do nothing?
I’ll probably go with the current world (while trying to build in flexibility) even though I am pretty sure my assumptions are going to be wrong.
I second this David. I work on teams with Traffic Engineers and Zach’s characterization is spot on
Planners do make random guesses- see parking minimums as one example where the supporting data is often limited, sometimes contradictory or even non-existent. Delay and travel demand forecasts are getting better but still sidestep the reality that we can plan for the outcomes we want rather than say we are powerless to do anything because of the projections.
Can you explain what you mean by “parking minimums” in this context, and how assumptions about them feed into projections?
I think that, generally, if someone is going to assume the future is different than the present, it’s up to them to show why that is. Otherwise, their projections will not seem credible.
If, for example, a planner says “in 15 years, we’re going to have 25% of trips in Portland made by bike”, but there’s no explanation about how that’s going to happen, decisionmakers will (rationally) ignore that projection. Worse still if that deadline is only 6 years out.
Sure, if you have access to twitter see this thread from UCLA professor Michael Manville shows how planners sometimes blindly follow projections that make no sense.
https://x.com/MichaelManvill6/status/1623402567572275200
If you don’t have access, basically it highlights that the minimum parking requirements from the ITE Parking Generation Manual have absurd origins. Here’s an excerpt from professor Manville “Another random flip of the page [in the ITE Manual] and we find hotels. Again two observations, neither close to the regression line. In fact despite being very different in size, the hotels have the same amount of parking occupancy. And yet–two decimal places of prediction.”
With respect to delay analysis- the delay impacts of projects are also sometimes overstated. The models don’t accurately predict the outcome. In my city, recent bike projects were anticipated to have greater traffic impacts than they actually did when the projects were built. Who is held accountable for the discrepancy? The model used to inform the prediction has not been changed as far as I know to account for the actual reality.
Similar to the parking minimums- the field has also long held that road diets aren’t a good match when ADT exceeds 20,000, citing potential traffic and safety concerns. What is the source of this figure? Studies from the 1990s that looked at streets with volumes below 20k but didn’t look at streets with volumes higher. Then how do we know 20k is the ceiling? Thankfully practitioners have increasingly exceeded this arbitrary threshold and found road diets on streets with higher volumes can work to improve safety with minimal impacts on travel delay.
I don’t think it’s a matter of assuming the future will be different but rather acknowledging that absent real and recent case-studies, we don’t know really know what the future will look like and shouldn’t be constrained by models with demonstrated inaccuracies or thresholds that are set by limited and increasingly antiquated studies.
No one. Forecasts are often wrong. If you’re following a written methodology that’s consistently wrong in one direction, it might make sense to update that methodology. But in many (most?) engineering cases, it is better to consistently err in one direction (e.g. how many people do we think will be up on that balcony?)
I agree — what you are discussing sounds like a different issue.
But in this case, the solution is probably to follow the scientific process and do new studies to build a convincing case that a different approach is appropriate, rather than just choosing numbers that give you the answer you want or abandoning attempts at rigor altogether. If your policy is “we won’t be constrained by models that don’t give us the answer we want”, then save some money and don’t do models.
This shouldn’t be construed as an argument about the X thread, which I can’t see.
I guess the bike bill is a dead letter. Long live car dominance. We have failed.
Always has been.
The battle for better infrastructure for human beings is fundamentally a political struggle against an entrenched and destructive majority. Until the liberals, libertarians, market urbanists, and YIMBYs who dominate cycling advocacy become radicalized little change will occur.
In the olden days, the BTA might have sued (as they did over this very issue elsewhere). The Street Trust, their successor organization, has chosen a much more passive role, and did not sue even in the face of the clear abdication of ODOT to fulfill its obligations on the St John’s Bridge.
Interestingly, Rex Burkholder, one of the founders of the old BTA, is running for a council seat in District 3. For those of us living there, that suggests one possible avenue for addressing the issue.
BikeLoud PDX is the successor to the BTA in terms of bike advocacy, and has sued the City on bike bill-related concerns.
BikeLoud PDX has also joined with No More Freeways in its suit against ODOT about the Rose Quarter project.
BikeLoud hasn’t been particularly effective in the past. Hopefully these lawsuits will change that.
I disagree watts. Bikeloud has been effective in many ways… especially for a group w no paid staff
My comment sounder harsher than I intended it. I’ll grant that, dollar for dollar, they do much better than many non-profits in town. What are some wins you would credit the organization with?
Orgs like BL are useful as a way to connect like minded activists with one another, and provide “branding” that can serve as an organizing metaphor, both of which are important functions for the way bike advocacy has worked here for the last decade or two.
Is there an example organization in any US city that had been more effective?
~7% ==> ~3% is “effective”???
In order to have effective advocacy, a first step is to admit that whatever BikeLoud PDX (or the StreetTrust) has been doing has not been effective.
That was not the question I asked.
“Is there an example?”
Well sure.
The (old) BTA won a lawsuit that forced PBOT to build bike lanes through the Rose Quarter. That’s a concrete victory that would not have happened without the BTA’s involvement. Neighbors for Clean Air (and also the much shorter lived EPAC) have been very effective at getting the legal framework for air pollution changed in Oregon. The Drug Policy Alliance got measure 110 passed (which, while terribly implemented, was highly impactful).
Portland needs an organization like BikeLoud even if they don’t have a lot of concrete achievements.
That is also not what I asked.
Maybe you should ask again.
You:
Watts:
That looks like a pretty direct response to your question.
The BTA did not “win” the lawsuit in that sense. The ruling only established that agencies had to spend a certain amount of money on ped and bike infrastructure. The ruling didn’t make a determination on whether bike lanes were required. What happened is that TriMet and the City caved and went ahead and added the bike lanes, but the lawsuit did not result in that being required, and didn’t set any precedent.
82nd Avenue is not being reconstructed, relocated, or newly constructed, and therefore the Bike Bill simply does not apply. The sections that are being repaved are mainly grinding some pavement off the top, and laying down a fresh layer of pavement. Those kinds of projects have never been part of the Bike Bill.
Unfortunately, 82nd really should be reconstructed. It is a congested, poorly designed stroad that barely moves cars, let alone being a multi-modal thoroughfare.
It should be widened to accomodate all modes. 115′ at the narrowest.
I would love to see Foster, Powell and other major arterial intersections be remade into bonafide roundabouts.
This makes the long-discussed 70s Greenway crossing of Powell near WinCo even more important. Hoping to see that implemented soon!
When should we expect to see government agencies declaring “allowing private motor vehicle traffic infeasible due to climate and public health costs”? Because the climate crisis is here, and cars, trucks, SUVs are a major factor. They are also killing and injuring pedestrians, as well as bicyclists, bystanders, and even drivers and passenger in motor vehicles. How is perpetuating all of that “feasible” but ameliorating it “infeasible”?
I expect never. Or at least not until there’s an alternative available that can do the things society has come to rely on cars for in a way that’s at least as good.
In the meantime, we can at least ameliorate the climate and local pollution (and noise) problems by electrifying our transportation fleet and getting off fossil fuels. That’s something we can do (and are doing) right now.
But lithium is by far the most toxic and environmentally-destructive mineral ever mined — unlike iron ore, bauxite, coal, or oil.
There is a quantification of “environmental-destructiveness” implicit in your claim that Li is the worst. What metric would you propose? From an emissions perspective, coal and oil have proven to be destructive. Also, iron and aluminum are great (‘earth abundant’) elements, but their mining still has environmental consequences. I would urge the environmental community to reassess their past activism as they think about the future. Locacally, I would consider the successful campaign to close the Trojan nuclear power plant. IMO, by using the leverage we had against an unpopular foe in the 1990’s, we ended up making it harder to address significant climate impacts in the present and foreseeable future. By pressure and NIMBYism, we can probably make it hard to develop Li reserves, but I don’t think that’s a smart move.
My comment was sarcasm.
Give me a break, “environmentalists” (many of whom drive oil-powered SUVs) are still fighting to shut down nuclear power plants.
That’s why I posted my comment. That same reflex poses a challenge to the production of a variety of critical elements (Li and rare earths are in the press now, but I think Co will be a big fight). Your sarcastic belittlement notwithstanding, the anti-nuke campaigns were pretty successful at derailing the domestic nuclear power industry. What we got was 3 decades of building new natural gas (and even coal) plants. If the subjects of your derision are to trade their oil-powered SUVs for electric transportation, they can’t foreclose the ability to manufacture the vehicles.
In a similar vein, I was just noticing Xeets from very online Urbanists calling for the prioritization of CNG buses over BEV buses, (which are apparently the worst things ever).
Fracking > Lithium/Sodium — LOL
You forgot about Poe’s Law
“There is a quantification”
Overall, this is a great comment. I think the lithium issue will pass. There is already one Chinese automaker using sodium batteries, and, while less efficient, sodium is a lot easier to get than lithium.
Economics usually dominate these decisions.
Sodium is more efficient than first generation Lithium ion technology so I expect a linear curve going up to 150 Wh/kg in the 5-10 years.
If lithium ion battery haters were genuinely concerned about the environmental impacts of lithium mining they would be boosters of sodium technology…but for the most part they are not (which indicates that they are opponents of electrification, in general).
Sodium batteries will definitely improve, but there are inherent limits that will ensure that lithium will always be more efficient. However, sodium has the advantage of being more receptive to extremely rapid charging, which may help compensate for its other shortcomings.
But you’re right that some people have an inexplicable opposition to any technological response to climate change; for them, the only acceptable solution is societal reinvention, which just isn’t going to happen.
Exactly. There is a term for that type of opposition: “Luddite.”
One more thing; I read this morning that Sweden just opened a new plant to manufacture zinc-ion batteries for utility-level grid storage. We’re going to continue to see lots of innovation in the battery space.
You are kidding, right? Lithium hydroxide is a salt, similar to table salt. It naturally occurs in the environment. However, it can cause irritation to skin, eyes and is toxic if ingested.
Mining of lithium is one of the least destructive chemicals. You can either open pit mine it or, in places like the Salton Sea, where it occurs naturally, you can just precipitate it out in evaporative salt flats and then scoop it up.
Furthermore, lithium is not consumed in the production of electric vehicles, it is incorporated into the vehicle’s battery system. And it is recyclable, just like aluminum and steel is. Unlike oil.
Finally, we are already seeing commercial production of sodium-ion batteries, which use sodium instead of lithium. There is enough sodium on the planet to build EVs until the sun expires.
“You are kidding, right?”
Yes, he was mocking those who oppose electrification on the grounds that lithium extraction is environmentally hazardous.
Which it is, but much less so than most of everything else we mine, and certainly less so than not electrifying transportation as quickly as we can.
Comment of the week.
There’s 3 votes right there. I fourth that.
“ When should we expect to see government agencies declaring “allowing private motor vehicle traffic infeasible due to climate and public health costs”?
The 4th of Never.
I’m fine with this. I have zero interest riding on 82nd—too busy, too hot, too loud and too ugly. Improving parallel side routes sounds great!
I’m fine with this one, I hate driving 82nd and I’d hate biking it even more. I’m choosing greenways over bike lanes as often as I can.
Regarding the 82nd Avenue and the “bike ladder” concept… Interesting it shows there is a bike lane on Washington in Montavilla because there definitely isn’t one. It starts only when you cross I-205 going east. I guess it is only funded but not yet implemented?
The solid blue lines were for both completed AND those being funded. Maybe something in the TSP coming up “real soon” in PBOT jargon, you know, something within the next 20 to 30 years?
It’s being installed sometime in the next year or two.
“Infeasible.”
PBOT’s decision is 100% correct.
I really object to the the framing on this as bikes vs. buses, it’s a false choice based on a pre-determined outcome.
If we accept that the existing right-of way isn’t wide enough to accommodate everyone, the real question is why aren’t we widening the right-of-way?
Very few buildings on 82nd are built all the way up to the sidewalk, so there is plenty of land available for road widening. However, it is vitally important to begin acquiring this right-of-way NOW; if we wait until all of the car dealerships are replaced with five-story apartments, it will be too late.
Yes, buying up land will cost millions, but our government leaders have repeatedly proven they are perfectly willing to spend mega millions on things which are deemed “important.” It’s up to us, the residents and taxpayers, to demonstrate to leaders that this is important.
This is upsetting. Motor vehicles turning left seems to be taking precedence over cyclists’ safety. Another example of all or nothing thinking – just a little shoulder with white paint would be better than the current set up. If we cannot have bike lanes on 82nd, can one of the neighboring north/south streets be (gasp!) closed to cars completely?
What’s the ADT and peak-hour volumes on this street? A 10 minute delay for 3 miles is highly suspect TBH, the volumes would need to be really high
the City’s 2019 plan includes a detailed description of where they want to expand the ROW. The plan is written to address dedications and improvements when folks redevelop their properties. Could the City just start buying this frontage space? Here’s the appendix that shows exactly where they want to expand: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/documents/82nd-avenue-plan-appendix/download
Probably, if they had the money and Council wanted to spend it that way (rather than on something more immediately pressing).
The city wants to spend money widening I-5, silly.
The city can’t do “eminent domain” any more, take property by force at “fair market value”, so any property acquired has to be voluntary “dedications” or buy-outs. ODOT has tried for decades to expand the ROW of 82nd – there are several owners who refuse to sell or negotiate, and PBOT knows this very well and who they are.
When (and how) did PBOT/ODOT lose the power of eminent domain?
Regardless, there’s always a price that will convince a recalcitrant seller.
Same question here. I know it can be expensive, but typically if you have an adopted plan you can use eminent domain – you just have to pay fair market value.