A project to build a new biking and walking path under I-205 that would connect a key neighborhood greenway in east Portland near the Gateway Green bike park is slated for cancellation due to what the city’s transportation bureau says are unexpected budget risks, safety concerns, and construction complications. The news was made public via a notice posted Friday on Metro’s website that outlined proposed amendments to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP), a list of all the federally-funded transportation projects and programs in the Portland region.
An eagle-eyed BikePortland reader (thanks Chris Smith) noticed that a list of projects to be removed from the MTIP included the “I-205 Undercrossing,” — which means the project would be defunded. This news comes despite Portland City Council accepting a $1.6 million grant in 2019 from the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to design and engineer the project. I’ve since learned more about the project and have confirmed with City of Portland that they have cancelled the project and plan to return funds to the federal government.
Here’s what happened…
There’s a very big gap in the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s (PBOT) Tillamook-Holladay-Oregon-Pacific (“T-HOP) neighborhood greenway route (green lines on map above) near I-205 and NE Halsey and the city received a federal grant (via ODOT) in 2019 to close it. One element of the T-HOP plan was a bike path under I-205 between I-84 and NE Halsey to connect the greenway to the existing I-205 path and Gateway Green bike park. The path had been eagerly anticipated because access to Gateway Green from the west is severely lacking in convenience and safety. The current bike route from NE 92nd and Halsey takes riders against traffic on the northern sidewalk of the Halsey overcrossing, then across six lanes of traffic into the Gateway Shopping Center parking lot before getting to the I-205 path. The route is indirect, stressful and annoying.
The 2019 grant allowed PBOT to begin the design and engineering phase of the path project that would greatly improve this connection. According to PBOT Communications Director Hannah Schafer, that’s when things got complicated.
The dirt road you see in the photo above was built around 2021 by Portland Parks & Recreation to be used as for service and maintenance access to Gateway Green. It’s on Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and is not open to the public (nor is UPRR ever likely to allow the public to use it, Schafer says). PBOT planned to align their path on ODOT right-of-way which sits above this existing access road (upper left of image above). Schafer told BikePortland Tuesday that while the PP&R road was a helpful start, “PBOT was still faced with the same constructibility challenges trying to establish a path between the support columns for various structures as well as continued safety concerns about constructing a path underneath these freeway structures with limited visibility.”
As PBOT survey crews analyzed the location, Schafer said conflicts with other planned capital projects from PP&R and TriMet (A Better Red) made it even more complicated and created “budget and permitting risk.” PBOT also had public safety and maintenance concerns due to limited visibility of a path under I-205, “and risk of camping activities along the alignment,” Schafer explained.
So PBOT worked with ODOT to explore shifting the alignment to an overcrossing of I-205 using the NE Halsey Street bridge as a supporting structure. But ultimately, Schafer said, cost estimates skyrocketed due to added complexity and inflation. By June 2023 when 60% plans were drawn up, the estimate was up to $5.5 million — 120% over the available budget of $2.5 million. PBOT then considered reducing the scope to get the price down, but in consultation with ODOT they determined such drastic changes would likely jeopardize the federal funds (which were awarded based on a specific project description).
“Since PBOT is unable to identify additional local funding to address the shortfall,” Schafer said in her email to BikePortland yesterday. “The decision was made to cancel the project and return the federal funds.”
Schafer agrees it’s frustrating to see this project cancelled. She wants folks to know that any remaining funds will be added to PBOT’s NE Halsey Street Safety and Access to Transit Project which will build new sidewalks, buffered bike lanes, and other safety updates between 85th and 92nd (to the west of the Halsey overpass), “And help ready a future bicycle connection over I-205 on NE Halsey should additional funding be identified.”
If alignment along the railroad and PP&R’s service road is a dead-end, perhaps we should shift the focus to building a tunnel under I-205 at NE Hancock (north of Halsey). This would create a direct connection between NE Tillamook/Hancock and Jason Lee Elementary on the west side of the freeway and Gateway Green and the I-205 path on the east side. If that sounds like a pipe dream, it’s worth noting that this is the exact alignment recommended on page 21 of TriMet’s 2016 Bike Plan (above right), so someone at ODOT must have considered it at one point.
While PBOT goes back to the drawing board, the gap remains. This weekend hundreds of riders and their families will come to Gateway Green for a big celebration to mark the re-opening of the park and the completion of a new section of the I-205 path built TriMet. Events like this underscore the need for strong bike connections to this cherished regional park, the I-205 path, and nearby neighborhood greenways.
— The MTIP amendment isn’t final. Comments will be accepted now through 5:00 pm on October 30th via email to summer.blackhorse@oregonmetro.gov. Learn more on Metro’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.
Well at least ODOT spent like 10 times the cost of this “too expensive” project just thinking about what the rose quarter freeway expansion should look like
To eliminate one of the worst bottlenecks on the west coast? Seems worth every penny.
Building more lanes doesn’t solve traffic congestion. If ODOT wants to solve the bottleneck, they’d be better served by figuring out how to get all of the personal automobiles driving through the Rose Quarter off of the road and their drivers and passengers into more efficient modes.
Sounds easy! /s
If they were serious about fixing the bottleneck at a lower cost, they’d fix the ramp at the Morrison Bridge so that freight trucks could use it to get on I5 again, and then close the ramps in the Rose Quarter.
Unfortunately, those more efficient modes aren’t more efficient where it counts.
Some examples:
For passengers, bus and Max and bike are almost always slower, especially for longer trips, with a small handful of exceptions, and while bike can be quite flexible, bus and Max follow TriMet’s clock.
For freight, train is often slower, and always less flexible, and, for small lots, more expensive, if it’s an option at all for something as tiny as a trailer full of melons. Barge is rarely available for anything that isn’t a huge volume of stuff on very specific routes.
The whole “worst bottleneck on the West Coast” thing is such a weird take. Why can’t long-distance traffic divert to 205? You know, the freeway that was built for long-distance freight traffic to use. The Rose Quarter is a freeway widening project designed to keep car commuting more convenient. If you’re pro that, just say it.
There it is, the “unload our problems on the poor / working class / POC in East Portland” response I’ve come to expect from this community.
Well, I live a few blocks from 205 and I guarantee that it doesn’t have the capacity, regardless of how little regard you might have for us and our health.
Anyhow, weird flex keeping cars idling for hours every afternoon at the Rose Quarter. Seems like that would be a problem that Climate Change catastrophists would want to resolve?
You do know that adding freeway lanes does not reduce emissions, right?
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/363013/wide-highways-climate-environment-pollution
Saying adding highway capacity can never reduce emissions is as silly as saying it always does. It’s entirely context dependent.
I’m unsure how electrification will change the equation; but given the timelines involved, having this conversation without taking electrification into account is pointless. Ideally, electrification will remove emissions from the discussion altogether; it will certainly reduce the difference between “higher emissions” and “lower emissions”.
And just for the record, I (strongly) oppose both the RQ project and the highway components of the IBR project.
On the East Coast, Amtrak operates a daily train with flatbed (train) cars to hold automobiles belonging to passengers, to supplement busy I-95, from the DC area to Florida and back. Why not have a similar service between LA and Seattle?
https://www.amtrak.com/auto-train-experience.html?intcmp=wsp_promo-card_link_auto-train-experience_hpcard3
Why not, indeed. This would be great!
Is there sufficient demand and a way to load/offload vehicles at stations without killing the schedule?
Good thing ODOT is committed to “fixing” the bottleneck at the Abernethy Bridge then right? Surely adding capacity elsewhere won’t exacerbate issues downstream.
Adding a few lanes to the Rose Quarter is not likely to fix the problem, especially since almost all of the persistent congestion in the afternoon is a result of the bridge anyways. And on that topic, the IBR project is also not particularly likely to solve that problem based on their own models (most of the models show continued, persistent congestion on I5 in peak hours – especially northbound in the afternoon).
Now, there is an already existing route with excess capacity just a stones throw downstream from the Interstate Bridge. But because no one at ODOT can conceive of using a train to offer real travel options for Oregonians, we’re stuck at 6 trains a day (all of which are funded by WSDOT mind you). Yes, I know that BNSF is not likely to be a happy partner in this, but other Class I’s do allow more service on arguably more important lines (most notably, 8 trains a day on CPKC’s Chicago-Milwaukee line). Per the FRA, there are about 40 trains a day using the double-track line from Portland to Vancouver – no where near the total carrying capacity. It would cost ODOT/WSDOT a rounding error of the budget of the IBR to help modernize the existing rail bridges (with a 25 mph speed limit – how’s that for a real bottleneck?), fix the junction with UPRR in N Portland, and build real platforms at the stations, with enough left over to consider electrifying the line for gods sake.
It’s 20 minutes from Vancouver to Portland on Amtrak, but the schedule categorically does not allow for anyone to use it for commuting. The rolling stock being intercity focused doesn’t help either. Insisting that every “congestion relief” project needs to be a highway widening is ridiculous – give people other options that are reasonably competitive on time, and they will take them
Great comment! The fact that rail between Portland and Vancouver is useless for most cases is so unfortunate.
You know what would make them a happy partner?
Truckloads of money.
But that leaves open the question about whether a 20 minute trip from Vancouver to downtown Portland departing, say, every 20 mins would entice enough people to make it worthwhile. During morning rush hour, Google maps says the drive from what it deems “Vancouver” to downtown Portland takes between 22 and 45 minutes, plus whatever parking time it takes in Portland.
If the train itself takes 20 mins, plus an average of 10 minutes waiting to board, plus whatever travel time is required on either end to get to the station, park your car, and get from Union Station to your actual downtown destination (passing through some of the most unpleasant territory in Portland these days), would that really entice enough riders to justify the cost?
Good thing the IBR project seemingly has that for advertising/PR!
And in terms of the actual commute: the TCRP (see Ch 9) has a travel time elasticity of 0.2 to 0.4 for travel times and ridership on transit lines, which should let us get a very rough estimate of how much transit ridership could be induced on peak hour commuting (by comparing commute trips between Vancouver and Portland using the LEHD). There were a little over 7,000 total commute trips taken from Clark County to Portland in 2021 (from the OnTheMap Tool for the LEHD – Clark County selection area + destination analysis), or 5% of the workforce in the county.
Per the census, roughly 3,000 workers in Clark County commute via transit (~2%). For the life of me, I can’t find per-route ridership data on CTRAN (boo! the 105X route ridership would be so useful!), but I think if we conservatively assume that workers in Clark County are twice as likely to take transit if they work in downtown Portland, then we arrive at around 300 transit riders/day who currently spend ~75 minutes daily on point-to-point commuting on the fastest route. Note that this is overestimating the importance of downtown (since some workers obviously do not head to downtown), but it’s maybe going to be a useful guesstimate for the purposes of a comment here anyways.
A round trip on Amtrak from Vancouver to Portland would be ~45 minutes of travel time (with some padding – the fastest trip time scheduled is somewhat less than 20 minutes) – a 40% decrease in travel time. So our lower bound for ridership on the new service would be 20% to 40% more than 300 – 360 to 420 (nice). This is a very conservative estimate, especially since the TCRP estimation figures are sort of wack, and that existing transit ridership is almost certainly very constrained. The unreliability of traffic probably has just as much to do with this as speed – something not even considered here. And for commute trips, which are both time and delay sensitive, I think functionally beating the car travel time would make a huge difference but would require more than this silly back of the napkin stuff I’m doing.
In terms of the operational cost of running the service, I imagine it would be somewhat high but not crazy. Let’s take a comparison to a similar-ish system, the New Mexico Rail Runner. It costs them a little under $30/vehicle revenue mile to operate their system (which does allow for commuting between Santa Fe and Albuquerque). If we consider a minimum operating schedule of 20 trains/day (3/hour in the peak, and filler service as freight schedules allow), that’s 200 revenue miles/day, so operational costs of ~$6,000/day ($2.2M/year). Obviously, this is a very simplistic approach, but $30/VRM is pretty par for a diesel US Commuter Rail (the much maligned WES managed to somehow cost $85/VRM in 2022 though.. despite being stable around $40 prior).
Anyways, I obviously think $2.2M/year is well worth it for a service like this though of course there would be significant capital costs to pay (plus rent on the railroad aint cheap). It’s way cheaper than expanding the freeway
$2.2M is significantly less than what it costs to run WES service (BP reported that cost just over $7M way back in 2016), and you’ve neglected the not insubstantial cost of running the trucks carrying the cash required to secure access to the ROW.
I agree that spending $2.2M annually to not expand the freeway would be a bargain, but I’m not sure 400 daily riders would make that a salable tradeoff (especially if you believe that induced demand would replace that freed highway capacity).
If you want rail service to Vancouver, the most logical way is to extend the Yellow Line north over a new bridge, then leverage existing infrastructure and personnel the whole way.
But the real problem is there is no transformational demand for this service unless it’s so good it’s worth the hassle.
https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/26/as-trimet-puts-another-2-million-into-wes-some-imagine-the-bike-trail-that-wasnt-184348
WES is a longer alignment – it has similar per mile operating costs (outside of 2022) as other diesel operated commuter rail services in the US. Since I have no real way of knowing the cost of renting the rails, I have no idea what it would be. I do happen to know that BNSF cannot prevent any carrier from using it’s bridges, since they cross a navigable water way, but that’s more like random trivia.
I’ll also say that there was never any chance of a bike trail on the alignment of the WES. It doesn’t make any sense to consider it, as it’s a main line for a Class II railroad. Sure, it’s just Portland & Western and it’s relatively lightly used, and they do technically have other routes (over Cornelius Pass) they could use it would essentially mean they could no longer transload with UPRR for any freight traffic originating in Washington County (or points further north on the line towards Astoria). Planners reflexively look at rail lines and think “bike trail”, and I think everyone is worse off for it. It creates an antagonistic relationship between public officials and railroads, it gives people riding bikes false hopes, and it ignores any kind of reality of the freight rail world.
The induced demand worth going for is that on transit – and I think a commuter service between Vancouver and Portland would generated something much more significant than my 400/day lowball.
I want fast and reliable transit to Vancouver, and the Yellow Line is too slow to reasonably compete with driving. It’s already ~30 minutes from the Expo Center to Downtown – plus another 10 to 15 to Vancouver… more than twice as slow as a made up commuter service only I’m talking about 🙂
So you call on Amtrak?!?
The most important advantage that LRT has is that it is within the realm of the possible, even likely, as long as the legislature doesn’t get cold feet. Converting the BNSF ROW to passenger use is not.
But another advantage of LRT is that it’s more likely to take people where they want to go, which for almost all potential riders is somewhere other than Union Station.
Bro, a frequent regional rail line from Vancouver to Oregon City would be transformational for the region’s mobility in a way that no highway project could ever hope to be. Paired with bus and bike infrastructure improvements it could get people out of their cars in a big way.
We already have a frequent rail line running most of that section, and it has hardly been transformational. In fact, it’s barely used.
Would it really change that much to extend the train across the river to the north, and push it a little further south?
If the MAX was expanded to serve Oregon City and Vancouver, probably not. The max is way to slow and not comfortable to be on for a long time.
But a limited express regional heavy rail system could be a big deal connecting Vancouver to Portland to Oregon City.
Why would this be such a big deal? Are you anticipating there is a large number of people who would want to ride from the Vancouver Amtrak station to Union Station or all the way to Oregon City (or the reverse)? A few hundred (or even 1000, if you could find them) riders a day won’t transform anything. And why heavy rail?
My limited imagination needs a more fleshed out vision to understand why y’all think this would be such a big deal.
It takes 2+ hours utilizing the CTRAN 60, MAX lines and the 33 (it’s 1:45 to do the 35R from the 105) for a drive that takes 35 minutes in traffic. Of course it hasn’t been transformational, there has been no serious attempt at building regional transit in the Portland area basically ever. The MAX masquerades as regional transit, but is far too slow to be even sort of competitive.
On Amtrak, it takes 1:15 on two trains/day with a ridiculous amount of padding. There’s a lot of padding around Portland (mostly since so many boardings happen), but a service running rolling stock better suited for intensive use, and with rebuilt platforms at Portland (not free, but >$10M projects) and no other service upgrades could have a travel time of ~45 minutes (20 minutes VAN – PDX, 25 minutes PDX – ORC).
The amount of investment required to get the line up to snuff, buy new trains, and retrofit stations would be trivial compared to the three projects planned/underway to “relieve” congestion (Rose Quarter, IBR, Abernethy Bridge). Probably well less than $500M with operational costs in the ~$20M/year range (at $30/VRM and ~30 miles that’s ~30 trips/day/direction). That’s enough for frequent service in peak hours + filler service in the off-peak, though specific schedules really should rely on how many trains are needed to operate peak frequencies
The biggest issue with going all the way to Oregon City is that the junction at the Steel Bridge is very congested and poorly laid out. It’s surely possible to make it work, but UPRR is also generally more hostile than BNSF for this kind of thing from what I’ve heard
I meant the Yellow/Orange line. Maybe extending it a bit on either end would unlock all it’s hidden potential, but probably not.
It’s only reasonable to compare the cost of rail to upgrading the highway if they are alternative means to the same end. I don’t hear you making a compelling case (or any case, really) that beefy Amtrak service would relieve congestion on I-5 to the point where the legislature is no longer pressing ODOT to widen it.
Extending the Yellow Line to Vancouver makes perfect sense, but it’s not going to change much except at the margins. Thrice hourly Amtrak service makes less sense (and none if you consider the likely cost/passenger), and is not going to happen anyway because no one is going to pay to get the tracks.
Better rail service through Portland would be great, but it’s not going to fundamentally change the dynamics that lead people to drive on I-5.
For those of us who do not drive or own a car, and who are too old and slow to navigate long city distances by bicycle, Transit is absolutely necessary.
I don’t need transit to be “transformational.”
I just need it to be reliable, frequent, widespread and affordable.
Those of us who rely on public transit as a primary mode of transportation have been on the bottom of the heap for far too long.
I totally agree! Requiring transit to move people as conveniently and fast as personal automobiles neglects all of the users for whom driving is not feasible or convenient. A similar comment can be made about disability accommodations: they can seem expensive an ineffective until you appreciate the social benefit of the participation they facilitate. I think our society is enriched when non-drivers have a way to get around town so that they can participate in our society. Even if I have to subsidize the bus line that they use.
This is only true if you don’t care if people who do have access to a car use the service or not.
Not sure I follow your logic, Watts. I think the bus (or any collective transportation scheme) will struggle to be as fast/convenient as single-occupancy vehicles — it has always been significantly faster to drive, and, unless there are fairly drastic changes to our road system, it will continue to be so. If your assertion is that transit is unviable unless it is competitive with the single occupancy car on the metrics on which the single-occupancy car is strong, I think you are failing to credit transit with a lot of its value. What I think is achievable is transit service that is a reasonable compromise and allows non-drivers to participate in society in the same way that drivers do. And yes, I do think that good transit service will attract those that could drive.
I do not think a ‘fair’ accounting of the costs and benefits will show collective transportation to be worse than solo driving. But I do think that such an accounting, no matter how reliant on ‘data’, is an inherently subjective exercise through the definitions of the performance criteria.
I assert that transit cannot be competitive on the metrics which people most care about — travel time, convenience, cost (to a certain extent), (perceived) safety, etc.
I like this metric as a standard for evaluating system performance, and for many trips we have it already. But that is not, evidently, enough to get people with options onto the bus.
I was responding skeptically to a claim that rail service between Vancouver and Oregon City would be transformational. At this point in time, transit is not a particularly efficient way to get around (either from an individual or systems level view), and a large number of former riders have abandoned the system.
If transit is going to have a future, it will need to change. I believe some form of public transportation will always exist, but I don’t know if it will look like the system does today.
That’s great to see some East Portlanders here! Welcome. I am from over there. But I believe in science. What you propose is not supported by research. I hope you’ll agree that we should make our policy decisions based on evidence, yes? Particularly if we are to go billions of dollars in debt over that decision.
Your assumptions:
1) Roads have a fixed capacity
2) Increasing road lanes will reduce congestion
3) Increasing road lanes will reduce emissions
Other cities overseas have largely solved the congestion problem. 100+ years of building more freeway lanes was not the solution.
If you are interested in reading evidence, I’m more than willing to provide it. Thanks 🙂
> Other cities overseas have largely solved the congestion problem.
This is true but not in the way you think. The cities that have ‘solved’ congestion has made places not worth going- that is the only way to eliminate congestion. When many people want to go to the same place, that creates congestion. The cities in the world with the best transit also, and will always, have high levels of congestion. In fact, because transit and bikes improve mobility and allow more density, and thus more ‘things to do’ within a geographic area, they may make congestion *worse* (look at London, for example).
Congestion is largely self-limiting for the same reasons induced demand is a thing. Congestion indicates an area is healthy.
Transit and bikes are not about ‘reducing congestion’ but about ‘improving mobility’- allowing more people to move given the same space and resources. Lots of people get this wrong, I wish they didn’t, because it’s an important distinction.
Well, yes and no. I think we may agree on much here. I was thinking of cities like Stockholm that have implemented congestion pricing, and have largely eliminated congestion. But I take your point. There are cities in the US where congestion was largely “solved” via removing much of the historic center city and replacing it with parking lots and freeways.
“Congestion indicates an area is healthy.” Yes! And this is why I find many responses to congestion (DOTs or otherwise) nonsensical. If we want to make a livable place, the most effective thing to do when a commercial street is congested is not to count vehicles and increase car capacity, but to remove/reduce car access.
Studies of freeway and arterial widening in congested corridors have demonstrated that increased emissions from additional trips offset any potential gains you get from reducing emissions from idling vehicles. People will just drive more to fill up the additional capacity if you open up the bottleneck, and greenhouse gas and particulate emissions will not go down.
Building another couple lanes of I-5 in the Rose Quarter will not cause people to drive more. That is simply not true. Nobody is going to suddenly decide to drive a car because I-5 ends up having 3 lanes of traffic each way for a half mile stretch through the Rose Quarter. Also, I-5 already has up to five lanes of traffic each way at various points just north of Vancouver and south of Portland, but only two lanes each way through a key stretch inside a major American city, which is pathetic. I-5 should have 4-5 lanes each way from the Marquam Bridge to the Vancouver.
“Nobody is going to suddenly decide to drive a car because I-5 ends up having 3 lanes of traffic each way for a half mile stretch through the Rose Quarter”
This is an uninformed strawman, and a bit of a non sequitur. Whether or not someone chooses to own a car is not the issue. It’s the frequency and duration of use that’s the issue. If someone in Portland buys a car, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will end up driving it on I-5 in north Portland at precisely 5 PM on a Tuesday. They might opt to take the bus, ride a bike, travel to a different, less congested destination, forgo a trip, or delay travel.
I-5 should have 4-5 continuous lanes through the entire city? Why?
The academic literature on how/why people choose to make trips in cars is pretty robust. Like it or not, but each trip and routing decision is influenced by internalized understanding of vehicle travel speeds, time, distance, and safety considerations. People factor in similar considerations when deciding where to live or where to seek employment.
Your whole attitude belies a lack of understanding of the dynamics of supply and demand, or a failure to see that the principles that govern economies also apply to transportation networks.
Widening freeways most definitely influences travel patterns and travel decisions. It’s silly to argue otherwise.
We all know that it won’t eliminate the bottleneck even if they build it, which they probably won’t because there is no money.
Perfect is the enemy of good.
While you’re waiting, hoping and praying that someone will just say “cars are banned!!”, the rest of us are busy trying to minimize damage to our environment.
Wait, you’re “trying to minimize damage to our environment” by advocating for more freeway lanes?
I’ll bet you can come up with better solutions. Maybe less convenient, but if you’re serious about that intent, figure out how to drive less.
The worst bottleneck on the west coast is where all to money goes into ODOT and nothing valuable comes out.
Wow, this is really crappy. They don’t want to do one thing, and can’t do the other, so now the answer is to do nothing?! There needs to be a better way to get across the snarl of I-205/84/railroad tracks there. Saying the scheduled Halsey improvements west of 92nd will “help ready a future bicycle connection over I-205 on NE Halsey should additional funding be identified” means nothing, as it would likely take another decade for something to get designed and built.
I’ve been waiting for the Halsey improvements out to 92nd, they should be great. But then we’ll have a great section of the network that then connects to nothing. People moan about “no one using the bike lanes in Gateway”, and that’s because nothing connects to them! Connecting the (entire) city west of 92nd & Halsey to Gateway NEEDS to happen already! Connecting to the 205 MUP/GG via the undercrossing is the easiest option, but the overcrossing seemed like the next best thing. Ideally, both over and under crossings should be done.
If you ride to/from GG on that “closed” access road, you realize how convenient and safe it is riding on a flat, car-free road to get to GG. The alternative route is horrible; you go way up and over the bridge/viaduct and the cross the I-84 Gateway off-ramp and then go through Gateway Shopping Center and then the Gateway Transit (but walk your bike) Center, and finally ride down the new Better Red bridge to GG.
Can they use the 1.3million to pay for my MAX fare from the 82nd station to the Gateway Transit Center station so I can safely get myself and my bike to Gateway Green? The program could be called “Free rides to Gateway Transit Center if you’re going to Gateway Green because we gave up trying to find a fix”.
Yes. I have no idea why these two are presented as mutually exclusive. It is immensely frustrating that bike infrastructure is so often considered either/or. The underpass is a necessary and viable connection to GG and I-205 path. Halsey overpass bike lanes are a necessary and viable connection to East Portland.
I don’t think this is true. PBOT has fixes. They just won’t do them.
I don’t see how the safety and maintenance concerns of a tunnel under I-205 are any less than for a path crossing underneath I-205 next to the UP right-of-way. If anything, there’s even less visibility in a tunnel than under an overpass.
I think if a tunnel is designed well it can work well… But yes I agree with your point. Just keep in mind that the tunnel idea might be just a very very preliminary concept that was included in the TriMet bike plan. I don’t think it’s something that has been seriously considered AFAIK. I just added it to show a possibility and thought it was interested that it was in the TriMet Bike Plan.
Tunnels and underpasses periodically offer some of the sketchiest experiences on the 205 path. I shouldn’t have to squeeze through a 3′ gap between a tent and a barrel fire to enjoy a public facility.
They should have just built the underpass once they had the funding, and worried about the safety issues later. If it turns into a homeless encampment, fine. The path will still be there. When the city (or region, or state, or nation) finally gets enough housing built to meaningfully address homelessness, it’ll still be there.
If a fire damages the overpass, it would be a disaster.
Furthermore Gateway Green has enough challenges from illegal vehicle access already, both from trespassers crossing BNSF’s bridge to the NE, and from I-205 itself (a previous camp went so far as to make their own “exit ramp” and just cut whatever fence they pleased). We don’t need more people driving on the path and this would almost certainly result in more of that, and even vehicles in GG itself. IMO, the city should backfill the road with boulders now that construction is done. Gates, fences and bollards have been proven to do nothing.
If the path is blocked by encampments of people who have nowhere else to go, then it’s no longer a path, but an ad hoc housing project.
I don’t see how the safety concerns of the path underneath I-205 are any less than having to ride up Halsey against traffic with a 1 foot curb drop into 50mph traffic then try and figure out how to rearrange yourself to cross 6 lanes of traffic then do battle with aggressive drivers trying to cross the parking sea to then cross multiple rail tracks to finally reach the MUP that leads you to the actual destination. Safety concerns for lack of visibility?? Give me a break…
Sad news. Gateway Green is neat, but it’s absolutely miserable to ride there. I live less than 2 miles from it and rarely even bother going. (I did enjoy being introduced to the term “constructability,” however.)
As someone who lives a block away from the west end of the Halsey overpass, I cannot express how frustrating this entire situation is. Between I-84 and I-205 and the associated dangerous overpasses at Halsey and 82nd, my neighborhood is effectively cut off from Gateway to the east and Montavilla to the south. I’m confident and strong enough of a rider to take the lane on 82nd, but I wouldn’t bring my wife and children along with me, so the alternative is to go 10 blocks west out of the way (20 blocks from my starting point) just to even begin heading south. Going east along Halsey is awkward and dangerous at 92nd as one tries to figure out how to navigate onto the sidewalk, and then you’re confronted with a very steep grade that will stop all but the most athletic (or electrically assisted) cyclists. The alternatives are crossing at Glisan, which is half a mile out of the way (not counting the aforementioned problem of getting north/south across I-84) and not exactly the easiest road to bike on, either, or going north to Prescott, which is a somewhat calmer street, but still lacks any bicycle infrastructure at all and is a full 1 1/2 miles out of the way.
I was already concerned when I heard that “budget issues” were delaying the Gateway bike connection, even as the Halsey project between 60th and 92nd were moving forward, but the fact that they’re scrapping the project entirely is infuriating. Particularly when a pretty simple solution is staring at us right in the face: turn the north and south lanes on the Halsey overpass into shared bike/bus lanes! I’m sure ODOT is standing in the way of that, because God forbid we reduce the “level of service” (all transiters are equal, but some are more equal than others)! Never mind that Halsey is already reduced to two lanes of travel from 80th west, or that PBOT is planning to give the same kind of road diet right up to 92nd.
There’s my angry two cents thrown into the void.
The good news is the Halsey Safety and Access to Transit project will put a bike lane on the Halsey and 82nd overpass and a roundabout at 80th that will help you get to the 70s greenway. The bad news is that due to federal funding restrictions, PBOT can’t bid the project until they get their agreement with Union Pacific RR finalized. They are hoping for a spring 2025 start but the timing of the railroad agreement adds uncertainty.
We need some kind of eminent domain power for getting railroads out of the way of progress.
Suddenly PBOT is concerned about people camping on Multi Use Paths???
Only when it means they can cancel projects to save money.
The ceding of the paths has certainly had many consequences…
https://bikeportland.org/2020/10/27/mayoral-candidate-sarah-iannarone-addresses-off-street-path-safety-concerns-322077
Looking at old maps, Hancock Dr used to connect to Maywood Pl before I-205 was built, it even looks like the MUP runs along part of its old alignment. So if the Hancock Dr option is built it would actually be a revival of a freeway destroyed route between neighborhoods.
Apparently there use to be a county jail down there as well.
Yes, David, there was a county jail in that area now occupied by Gateway Green.
Yes, the asphalt is still there, it runs between the path and the freeway. It’s usually fenced off but construction recently opened the gate.
I actually saw some very confused looking cyclotourists on it a few months ago, they’d followed the old track all the way up to where it intersects with 205.
If I understand this right, it’s wild that a plan to convert 2 car lanes to 1 car and 1 bike lane costs upwards of 120% more than building a brand new path. I’m sure there’s transitions etc that increase the costs, but super frustrating if taking back a < .5 mile lane costs that much.
What a bummer! This also impacts the accessibility of Gateway Transit center, which provides a lot of connectivity to an area that is otherwise not very well served by transit.
One thing I’ve noted when driving I-84 westbound to I-205 southbound is that the existing tunnel is two lanes, and then immediately merges into one when heading south. This tunnel absolutely does not need two lanes, so why can’t they install a jersey barrier and make a MUP on the north side? They would then just need to run an at-grade path from NE Thompson east, then turn north along I-205, enter the tunnel, and then climb to the east before switching back west, terminating into the I-205 trail just before the bridge that crosses into Maywood Park.
Of course, as with anything in this area, “public safety” is going to be a concern. But this seems like a relatively simple path that would require no major structures, and would open up access to the eastern side of Rocky Butte.
A few months ago I trespassed on the new road just to see where it went and ended up at a locked gate down by Halsey. Given the area’s isolation I can’t see a path becoming anything other than a new spot for abusers to set up their stolen car stripping operations, much like what happened on the NW side of Gateway Green a couple years ago (and like the ongoing operations under the 102nd railroad overpass).
But that’s how things go these days, nobody is surprised. Tolerance and encouragement of destructive “camping” is why we can no longer have nice things.
Thanks for the reporting but also what a bummer.
It feels like the railroads are leaving us with the only solution being to buy out (or in some of our pipe-dreams nationalize) the RR alignments in Portland
This is the only way we might be able to control our own destiny and build right up to the tracks.
It’s crazy to me that we can’t just use the access road.
Getting across I-205 (going to GG or not) is a real pain. Every time I try to come up with a route to go on a ride out that way, that is always the big sticking point. There is always some mysterious unknown path you’re supposed to take to navigate that thing. This would have been nice.
This project will go back on the RTP once we have a new Portland city council and new people at METRO who prioritize bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Your vote in November is your voice.
The MTIP amendment isn’t final. Comments will be accepted now through 5:00 pm on October 30th via email to summer.blackhorse@oregonmetro.gov
I want everyone at PBOT who is involved in cancelling this to take a ride from 92nd & Halsey to Gateway Green and then tell us why they can’t improve anything. First they have to ride over 205 on Halsey and then through the Gateway Shopping/Transit centers to GG. On the way back they can just take the under-crossing gravel road. Then they can tell us why it’s a bad idea to do the right thing (that they said they were going to do).
The Union Pacific will let people camp *right by the railroad tracks* for long enough to erect plywood buildings, but will not allow people to ride the gravel road to get under a freeway overpass. (See link below.)
I understand there would be concerns about liability, etc.
However, this weird mix of lax maintenance and strict, unhelpful control from out of town landowners and land managers is one of the reasons why people in Portland are so upset about camping. If UP is so serious about preventing travel from law-abiding bike riders, why do they allow so much outright trespassing from campers?
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/local/homeless/portland-central-eastside-homeless-camps-train-tracks-union-pacific/283-833af7c4-5bc2-4cd1-89eb-357365079f1c
You can find other news stories about camps on UP land, too.
I think the railroad has given up. No matter what fence they erect, it’s cut down. The few trespassers that get charged with crimes will be back out on the street in a matter of hours. Heck, they’ll probably get a free MAX ride right back to Gateway TC.
I’ve ridden over the rail access bridge, which is definitely trespassing, then passed through the camp you’re talking about. Got threatened, lovely… though I had as much right to be there as the guys dismantling stolen cars.
Anyway, it used to be fun exploring off the beaten path in Portland, be it on foot or on two wheels. I mostly avoid it now, because not only is every nook and cranny occupied, it’s also completely festooned with garbage. We need real solutions in this town because the laissez-faire status quo is only making it worse.
The potential outdoor recreation opportunities—hiking, trail running, rock climbing, biking—that come from activating Rocky Butte and connecting to Gateway Green via an carfree route (ie an underpass) are vast. Making this a reality is especially important bc it’s located in a part of Portland devoid of outdoor recreation and that shoulders the burden of the daily (massive) harm of I205 having been built to rip through the community.
And yet, here we are, apparently without the will to muster the resources to serve this community. Yet another reminder of how many amazing things we could build if all the resources weren’t being sucked into the interstate bridge freeway expansion, the Rose Quarter freeway expansion, the 217 highway expansion, and the proposed I205 and Boone Bridge freeway expansions. Yet another example of the “yay car projects, boo quality of life projects ” that pervades our transportation decision making.
Rocky Butte is such a gem, for all the potential activities you mention, and throw in the fact it’s also home to The Grotto, a bona fide tourist attraction on the east side (however one feels about “religion,” it’s really pretty there.) I love the faded old signposts around the butte that harken to its days as a “scenic drive.” It’s tough to imagine that this kind of green space would be left to rot, so to speak, in any other town, especially one that espouses the values that Portland does. Honestly, this town seems like such a phony half the time. It’s baffling. And oh so frustrating. *rant concluded*
Once upon a time, during the planning for Gateway Green, there was a serious proposal for Pill Hill-type gondola to connect Rocky Butte with Parkrose Heights (the neighborhood east of 102nd) with a stop tower on Gateway Green. No doubt PBOT intends to fund the design of that next.
But we have $310,000 to fund Bike Buddies. Doesn’t that make this okay? Oy vey…. the priorities in this town are so messed up.
Different funding sources. We also “have” $10B for the IBR, but that doesn’t mean that money can be transferred to local projects willy-nilly.
The funding “sources” can and should be changed. Unfortunately the nonprofits now are addicted to this massive amount of PCEF cash which requires limited accountability and so far has proven to have added little value to our community. We are not locked into this. This is still a democracy.
This is purposefully misrepresenting the program, which has a specific governance structure voted on when the measure passed. I find PCEF to be fairly transparent on its reasoning and programs funded.
Sure, but changing funding sources willy-nilly because Angus Peters of the BikePortland comment section isn’t exactly good governance. If you want to talk about the democratic process, then you have to respect its outcome even if you don’t like it.
The real fear subtly endorsed by PBOT is that this connection could pave the way for further cycling connections to east Portland. It smells like a modern redlining strategy.
Wow that’s a new one EEE! Got anything to back that up? Because the facts say that PBOT has spent over $320 million in active transportation-related projects in east Portland in the 10 years between 2011 and 2021.
And if you add in State, and TriMet dollars, it’s closer to half a billion, by my back of the napkin calculation. I think that $$ needs to be spent in E. Portland, that’s where the house is on fire with traffic deaths. But gee whiz, do old narratives die hard.
My figure is $400 million, but I’ll go with a half billion. I used to keep a spreadsheet of all the projects back in the day.
It’s not strictly the total amount the government pumps into projects. It’s decisional, or lack thereof, that maintains artificial restrictions between regions. The fact that this location is a prime hub with a slew of transportation easements and that it would provide a much needed east-west and north-south connection for cycling and pedestrians, and that the stated reasons for not doing it are borderline absurd, suggests something else is going on, like a desire to keep east, east, and to maintain a barrier therebetween, a red line, if you will. Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
You mean like all the gaps in Terwilliger? The only N-S connection on the west side? It’s not hard to go anywhere in Portland and find similar problems.
That doesn’t disprove the theory, but does suggest it could be at scale.
Well yesterday using the current way east on the Halsey overpass & then onto Bell ave to get to N 102 I was almost struck by a car IN THE BIKE LANE as I was turning left on to the 2 way bike path. Hee was in the bike lane to turn right onto Bell to go to eastbound Halsey avoiding the light.
It was very upsetting. I just gave up on biking and came home.While the new path would have been a safe alternative.
Rail- There are plenty of examples of railroads being willing to share their right of way. It may take a lot of convincing, creativity, and careful engineering, but it can be done. For an overview the Rails to Trails Conservancy has a guide: https://www.railstotrails.org/trail-building-toolbox/rail-with-trail/
almost none of those trails are along busy main lines with topographical constraints, as the case is here. Most of them are along publicly owned passenger oriented lines, or short lines.
Hence:
There is such a huge gap in the east-west bike network connectivity here. It is ~2.25 miles between NE Prescott and NE Burnside, and the only connections between those streets are at Halsey and Glisan and they are bad/difficult/dangerous/on a sidewalk. This area really seems like it should be a priority that PBOT would find funding for. I am shocked that they would let this get cut without something better lined up to replace it.
I want to second this excellent comment. (At least one of) Halsey and Glisan need bike lanes from the central eastside to 205 in the worst way. IMO, one thing that makes the 205 path seem isolated is that there are no good ways to get to it from the W between Burnside and Alderwood. It seems like you’re on a different planet. Of course the whole mess is a consequence of putting a freeway through the city.
Halsey is one lane eastbound approaching 92nd. How much would it cost to move the jersey barrier one lane over to keep Halsey as one lane eastbound over the viaduct, and then widen the sidewalk/bikeway on the north? Seems to me that it shouldn’t be all that expensive.
If PBOT could do that, then they could run a ramp from the I-205 path to the north side of the viaduct, and there’s the bike connection. Is that the project they were looking at?
None of this is to say that a better crossing isn’t needed, because I have my own horror story, but the trail was never a good idea, and I said so a the time. Now it’s just as dead as the political career of Shemia Fagan, its champion.
“Canceled” doesn’t need to mean “dead.” I think that Ned Flanders Crossing is a good example of that, as well as the frustration of how long it takes to get the right thing financed and built, especially if interim solutions like lane reallocation are off the table.
Serious question from a pavement rider, though: does it not feel like the city keeps sabotaging Gateway Green?
From its very location, to the fact that it’s been under reconstruction for years, it does sometimes feel like the odd child of the Parks. I wouldn’t go as far as sabotage, though.
Gateway Green was always politically supported chiefly by the State of Oregon (Governor’s Office and ODOT) and Multnomah County, as well as (ironically) the East Portland neighborhoods (technically the park is in Madison South west of the park, hence the need for the path, but only Hazelwood NA in East Portland has current access to it on the south end, plus the City of Maywood Park to the north.) The City of Portland was always a reluctant partner, first by Parks & Rec, later by PBOT. Much of the funding came from private sources and various grants.
Sometimes it feels like leadership’s objective is to find the most expensive solution. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. We don’t need a bridge. We don’t need a tunnel. We don’t need a new bikepath tucked up under the bridge between pillars. Right now there is a perfectly good, wide, smooth, gravel, fenced service road that’s sturdy enough for trucking in heavy equipment. We just need to negotiate with the railroad and open it up to bikes/peds. There, connection made and zero dollars in extra expense. A solution like this should be a politician’s dream. Look how much wasted money can be avoided! I look forward to new leadership that is willing to look for simple and cost effective solutions to problems.
A side note, this connection is critical for activating Rocky Butte as a park, which will create a 4 mile multi-use loop in conjunction with Gateway Green.
Couldn’t agree more. The fear of litigation and the all-American “this is MY land” perspective (I’m looking at you railroad companies) kills lots of common sense solutions, just as the one you outlined here.
That’s why we need a bridge or tunnel!
It’s amazing what an easy, pre-existing solution it really is. The railroad doesn’t want to give an inch here as they’re likely afraid it could lead to the Sullivan’s Gulch Trail actually getting built.
It’s great to ride up to the Bible college and then drop down the back side of Rocky Butte on the trail/dirt road through the camps, then cross 205 at Prescott and ride down to Gateway Green. I hope someday there’s a trail along 205 and the east side of the butte to really complete the off-road loop.
I rode the east side from Skidmore to Sacramento a few years ago. You have to carry or walk your bike in some parts and over a few logs but it was otherwise manageable. And that could easily connect to a tunnel to GG or the obvious solution via Halsey Frontage.
Sadly I won’t go that deep into the butte woods anymore after I biked past an isolated camp and had two very large and aggressive dogs charge at me. Fortunately the owner managed to get them to slow down, otherwise it could’ve been bad. Normally I’d be up for the adventure and help improve a trail or similar but now I try to stick to the more well-traveled paths back there and avoid the extra sketchy parts.
I don’t really understand “limited visibility of a path under I-205″? The 205 trail goes under several roads, admittedly not under 205 until you get down into Milwaukie. Is UP planning to drive down the road at 35mph?
If you want to talk poor sight lines, check out the confluence of 205 and springwater. No visibility and fast cross traffic.
Oh and my sassy answer for the “worried about camping” is well let’s close all the car underpasses, too. 😉
It’s strange how they’re “concerned” about campers in this space as the current ROAD would let the authorities easily cruise under that bridge at any time to observe what’s going on. Since it’s the service/access road for Gateway Green, it frequently has vehicles coming and going for maintenance and such. There are a lot of people driving under that bridge for “official “work that would be in a good position to report any illicit activities.
This pic is a couple years old, but reflects the current state minus the new fence.
I was not aware that this project had been cancelled — and that they are returning the funds to the federal government!