Neighborhood appeals Alpenrose development permit due to road safety concerns

The intersection of SW Shattuck Rd, Illinois Street and 60th Avenue, looking south-east. Source: PBOT.

There’s some hardball being played at Alpenrose, and it’s not on the baseball diamond.

On November 8th, the Hearings Officer (HO) for the Raleigh Crest Land Use application approved, with conditions, the developer’s plan to divide the 51-acre site of the old Alpenrose dairy into 263 lots of attached and detached houses. The Alpenrose site is in the Hayhurst neighborhood of southwest Portland, and its subdivision would be one of the largest housing developments Portland has seen in recent years.

Readers might remember that City staff had recommended against approving the application in mid-September, citing a number of issues which had not been resolved. Since then, the city and developer have hashed out those problems and come up with agreements on: the placement of the Red Electric Trail which crosses the northern edge of the property; environmental concerns about disturbance of the sensitive riparian environment at the site’s southern tip; inadequate sewer facilities, and stormwater management issues.

Despite the developer and City coming to terms on a range of issues, on November 11, the Hayhurst Neighborhood Association (NA) voted to appeal the HO Decision to the Portland City Council,

due to the impact of increased traffic on the safety of SW Shattuck Road and its intersection with SW Illinois St and SW 60th Ave. Neighbors also would like wildlife crossing signs to be installed on Shattuck during Stage 1 instead of Stage 4, and to be informed of the results of the wildlife crossing camera monitoring.

Traffic monitoring of SW Shattuck Road conducted by PBOT in August, 2024 showed that 91% of drivers were over the speed limit. Neighbors question the city’s decision to override the recommendation in the developer’s traffic study to install speed cushions on SW Shattuck, stating that there needs to be a “systemic evaluation” of changes to Shattuck. The neighborhood wants greater safety protection for crossing the future five-way intersection of SW Shattuck at Illinois St, which is a Neighborhood Greenway and Safe Route to School.

Before getting into the details of the intersection design, it is worth noting the interests of the three parties involved: the developer, the Public Infrastructure team of the Portland Permitting and Development Bureau (PP&D) and the Neighborhood Association.

Alpenrose development preliminary plan.

The developer, the neighborhood association and the city

An appeal is a quasi-judicial hearing, in which the City Council acts as jury, and the appellant (in this case the NA) and city/developer present their cases in a trial compressed to fit into an afternoon session of City Council. It’s a chance for everyone to play Perry Mason, with professional lawyers guiding the show. Given the upcoming holidays, an appeal could very likely not be heard until 2025, after the brand-new Council is seated. The new Council structure, with its district representation and larger body, introduces uncertainty into the outcome.

Delay is a developer’s worst enemy. So it is in the developer’s interest to avoid the legal and financial costs of an appeal. The expense of a few speed bumps and stop signs is a rounding error compared to the cost of firing up their attorney and the expense caused by the delay.

The Hayhurst neighborhood association has genuine concerns about the safety of the children who will be walking and riding bicycles from Raleigh Crest, across Shattuck, to the Hayhurst Elementary School a few blocks away.

The task of the City’s transportation review is to try to apply rational and standard roadway treatments to an area of town with a very non-standard roadway network. For example, Shattuck Road runs for nearly a mile between Vermont St and Beaverton-Hillsdale Hwy without a single through cross-street or stop sign— and without any sidewalks. That lack of connectivity and infrastructure encourages some drivers to speed, and is dangerous to any road user outside of a car.

Contrary to what often gets simplified to “NIMBY’s opposing development,” the NA’s conflict is with the City, not the developer. The role of neighborhood associations is to hold the City accountable to its own code and policies — that is a big part of why NAs were created. In recognition of that role, City code waives the $6,566 City Council appeal fee for qualified NAs.

The developer is caught in the middle, between the neighborhood and the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) engineers, holding the wallet and listening to the clock tick.

The intersection of Illinois and Shattuck

The intersection of SW Illinois, 60th and Shattuck sits at the crest of large hill. As noted above, Shattuck doesn’t have through cross-streets, stop signs or sidewalks, a common enough configuration in the southwest that I have a name for those roads — toboggan runs. Cars speed on them. Shattuck’s posted speed is 25 mph, but the developer’s traffic study, conducted in 2022, showed the average 85th percentile speed to be 11 mph faster. Also at issue is that the sight distance calculations for the intersection were based on posted, rather than on observed, speeds. And that the intersection’s situation at the top of a crest makes crosswalk marking less visible to a driver approaching from below them.

The developer’s initial traffic study, from April 2024, suggested that “The City and Applicant should collaborate to install speed cushions and the associated signage and pavement markings along the frontage of the new neighborhood on SW Shattuck Road,” per PBOT’s Traffic Design Manual. A month later, PBOT returned the study with comments, including that “Speed cushions require approval of the Fire Bureau prior to installation.”

The revised traffic study which the developer submitted in June dropped the speed cushion suggestion.

Source: EKS Engineering & Forestry

As part of the ongoing dialogue between PP&D and the development team, the developer submitted a conceptual design (above) of a tightened intersection box at Shattuck and Illinois, with striped crosswalks and bike crosses.

I asked PBOT to comment on their requirements for the intersection, specifically whether “the finding that stop signs and speed bumps are not warranted is so strong that it justifies the delay and expense of a City Council hearing.” PP&D Public Information Officer Ken Ray, relayed this response from PBOT:

As you are likely aware, the City of Portland has been working with the community and applicant on this project to identify solutions that meet PBOT’s goals for a safe, accessible transportation system, that align with traffic control best practices given the context of the land use case, and PBOT’s authority through that review.
 
PBOT is aware of the concerns related to speeding on Shattuck Road and the desire to ensure the crossing at Shattuck and Illinois is safe for all road users. The City shares those goals. Through the land use process, PBOT worked to evaluate a variety of options to improve conditions across the Raleigh Crest development site.
 
The design of the intersection at Shattuck and Illinois evolved through the public comment and hearing process, leading the applicant to include some additional improvements to narrow the existing intersection along with marked crosswalks and crossbikes were included in the design. Separate from this development, concept development for a new gateway treatment to enhance the existing neighborhood greenway on Illinois Street is underway.
 
All-way stop control at Shattuck Road and Illinois Street was evaluated through the traffic study, and it was determined that the volume of activity and the reported crash history at this location did not meet PBOT’s standards for stop sign placement. More information about the use of stop signs can be found here: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/traffic-operations/stop-sign-overview.
 
Speed cushions were also considered through the land use process. PBOT no longer has a traffic calming program due to equity concerns and lack of funding. It only installs speed bumps or cushions as part of projects for Neighborhood Greenways, Safe Routes to School, on known cut-through routes through Fixing Our Street funding, and at locations with known safety issues. Shattuck Road is classified as a Neighborhood Collector and Major Emergency Response street. Per the Transportation System Plan, “Major Emergency Response Streets that also have a Local Service or Neighborhood Collector traffic classification are eligible for speed cushions, subject to the approval of Portland Fire and Rescue.” It has been PBOT’s recent experience that Portland Fire has not been supportive of long stretches of speed cushions on Major Emergency Response streets. To be effective, speed bumps or cushions need to be placed at regular intervals along a corridor. In this case, review by City bureaus including PBOT and Portland Fire and Rescue did not establish that speed bumps or cushions are so critical the Portland Fire should consider their placement on a Major Emergency Response Route.

And that is where things stand for the moment.

I’m writing this post less than a week after the City Auditors Office wrote a critical report about PBOT’s Vision Zero program. One thing is clear to me: Vision Zero will not be successful if it is the purview of only a small group within PBOT. Everybody needs to share the Vision and make it a priority — PBOT Maintenance and Development Review, Water and Environmental Services, Fire and Police, the City Attorney, and the City Council and Mayor. I am hopeful that Portland can do this.

Lisa Caballero (Contributor)

Lisa Caballero (Contributor)

Lisa Caballero is on the board of SWTrails PDX, and was the chair of her neighborhood association's transportation committee. A proud graduate of the PBOT/PSU transportation class, she got interested in local transportation issues because of service cuts to her bus, the 51. Lisa has lived in Portland for 23 years and can be reached at lisacaballero853@gmail.com.

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

120 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Watts
Watts
21 days ago

PBOT no longer has a traffic calming program due to equity concerns and lack of funding.

Thought it was worth highlighting this.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)
Admin
Reply to  Watts

Yes this is old news. To be clear, the equity concern that staffer is alluding to is that the old “traffic calming program” he refers to is one where PBOT allowed neighbors on a specific street to pool money together and then purchase a speed bump or whatever other element to install on the street. PBOT realized this was unfair because the rich get safer streets while the poorer get more dangerous streets. I think someone should set out a proposal to re-start a traffic calming program that offers district-based grants from some sort of fund (parking or towing revenues or something like that).

Dan Fleisch
Dan Fleisch
21 days ago

Wait… so “equity” means nobody gets speed bumps?

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)
Admin
Reply to  Dan Fleisch

Nope. PBOT didn’t stop doing speed bumps. They just stopped doing them through that specific small program. They started delivering them through other parts of their work where the decision-making wasn’t based on which folks could raise money.

david hampsten
david hampsten
20 days ago

Part of the reason PBOT stopped doing so many speed bumps was technical – speed bumps don’t stick too well to certain types of pavement (oil on gravel for example) – and when they tried to put in more in poorer parts of town, they discovered that many of their own streets had substandard pavement and the bumps became loose. Some of these substandard streets they got from the county through annexation, some were built during the 1930s WPA process, but many were done by private contractors and then “inspected” by the city and subsequently approved when perhaps they ought not to have been approved – some years PBOT (or the previous Dept of Public Works) was less corrupt than others. And so there’s lots of city streets that simply need to be rebuilt to meet current city standards, part of the huge backlog that we all know about.

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago
Reply to  Dan Fleisch

No LID speed bumps, apparently. It’s a race to the bottom.

Dig into the Portland Public Schools funding schema (like I did last year during the strike) and you will see similar equity policies that look at achieving similar goals.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago

The residential purchase component was only one aspect of the traffic calming program that was eliminated a while back. (And, parenthetically, I would argue that letting “rich people” tax themselves to pay for their own speed bumps would make more funds available for “poor people” to get theirs. But maybe it’s fairer that no one gets anything and streets are more dangerous everywhere.)

I know it’s old news, but it bears remembering that we used to do a lot more to use infrastructure to reduce dangerous driving when we’re talking about the failures of Vision Zero and the growing number of traffic fatalities on our streets.

We have options, effective, cheap, proven, and popular ones at that, that we’ve chosen to abandon.

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago
Reply to  Watts

I would 100% fund a speed bump on my street, especially because we are a half block from an elementary school. But I guess if a kid gets killed walking to school, it’s only fair because they didn’t get special treatment.

PS
PS
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

Right, and you better not have a foundation at that school to provide better education opportunities, and ideally anyway, outcomes. If some kids can’t read at grade level, nobody gets to read at grade level.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago

PPS is phasing that program out, and replacing it with a total ban on school fundraising for staff positions, at least. You can still pay into a central piggy, but that money is used for whatever, so I imagine donations will drop substantially.

This doesn’t impact me, but I agree that by reducing opportunities for people to improve their local school, it will encourage some to decamp for private school, which will reduce funding for those left behind. And also a loss of that 30% money. Perhaps this a win for “equity,” but it’s a loss for actual students.

Not trying to start a debate on this, just wanted to let you know about the new system.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/05/08/portland-public-schools-fundraising-change/

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago

Just got back from a PTA meeting. Our foundation is now officially dead, so we will get no part time education assistants next year. These roles helped make up for the fact that our school gets the among the lowest funding per student in PPS; roughly half that of the needier schools, resulting in massive class sizes. The education assistants helped our K-2 teachers manage these massive classes.

We were also told that the district option to raise funds for all schools was not ready for this next school year, so we will not be holding our fundraiser this year. That will be about $150,000 in community funds that won’t make their way into PPS this year.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I’m 100% pro-public schools, but I can see why policies like this channel resources towards private schools, leaving everyone else worse off.

PS
PS
18 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

No wonder K-5 enrollment is down over 600 kids this year.

PS
PS
20 days ago

Right, under the old program, but of course the people that would appeal to likely don’t read the PPS budget to know that disadvantaged schools already get more per student than wealthy schools, so the 30% equity tax on the foundation funds was egregious to begin with.

Regardless, that’s gone, so fundraising will go down, the good schools will get worse, and people with school age children will leave as has already happened. Maybe the plus will be that people may start reading the PPS budget to know where the money comes from and where it goes.

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago

That would be interesting to see. When I calculated based on the reported PPS budget for last year, we were getting roughly $6 million for our school. If the district had funded every student equally across the district, we would have received about $8 million. Our foundation raised $150,000 and about $100,000 of that stayed at our school.

Compared to the funding discrepancy from the district, the foundation money was a rounding error.

david hampsten
david hampsten
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I would 100% fund a speed bump on my street, especially because we are a half block from an elementary school. But I guess if a kid gets killed walking to school, it’s only fair because they didn’t get special treatment.

If your street was deemed by the city to be too substandard to take a speed bump and needed to be rebuilt (as many Portland residential and even collector streets do in fact need), would you be willing to pay for that? A speed bump is around $2,000; a street rebuild, per block, is well over $100,000.

X
X
20 days ago

PBOT is stepping up towing of cars without plates or a visible VIN number. That’s got potential revenue and equity effects but it may be largely a windfall for towing companies.

Suburban
Suburban
20 days ago
Reply to  X

VIN Number… it never gets old

X
X
20 days ago
Reply to  Suburban

Oops

maxD
maxD
20 days ago

that seems shortsighted. Letting wealthy neighborhoods pay for their own safety measures would free up more money for the rest of us. Maybe instead of “no one gets safety features” PBOT could do a matching program- for every speed hump paid for by a neighborhood, they will install one in a neighborhood that can’t afford to buy their own

John V
John V
20 days ago
Reply to  maxD

What would work even better is just tax them the marginal amount they’re trying to pool for their own private infrastructure, and spend it democratically to put the speed bumps where they’re most needed. If they’re most needed where the rich people are, so be it. If that’s not where the speedbumps are needed, this is why we have taxes.

Nobody said “no one gets safety features”. We said you don’t get to decide with your income where safety features get built.

Maybe if they want more speed bumps, they should not fight taxes so hard.

John V
John V
20 days ago

It’s not really abstract, is it? Isn’t money almost always one possible solution to problems like this?

But yes, I’m vulnerable to the top level troll comments just thrown in to try and stir things up. Once things are stirred, it’s hard not to respond.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  John V

Maybe if they want more speed bumps, they should not fight taxes so hard.

Is there an actual person who wants speed bumps and is also fighting taxes? Or is it only someone you made up?

And yes, PBOT said “no one gets safety features” when they canceled the traffic calming program that was providing them to everyone, not just those who paid.

(And yes, the city still installs speed bumps, but this was a way to add them outside the context of a larger project. You know, a cheap and easy way to use infrastructure to reduce traffic speed, the thing you always say you want.)

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago
Reply to  John V

Your response doesn’t actually counter his argument. If you allow LIDs to fund speed bumps, that will free up PBOT money to focus on higher need areas. A net benefit to the city overall.

Portland already has among the highest tax burden in the nation, and our recent taxes target high-income earners specifically. Your position appears to be that local improvement districts should not exist, and are an indication that the people therein need to be taxed until they no longer feel they have enough wealth to fund local improvements?

david hampsten
david hampsten
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

Portland already has among the highest tax burden in the nation

This has been disproven many times on this very blog, Portland is actually about average – it’s the same complaint you get in every community, along with “There’s too much traffic on my street”, “Portland has more speeding than any other city”, and “Our crime rate is the worst in the country.”

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

I would love to see a comparison of services received per dollar paid; i.e. how efficient is our government compared to others.

If I’m paying “average” and getting “little” then the cost is pretty high.

Also, CNN ranks us 6th in absolute terms:
https://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/taxburden/

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
19 days ago
Reply to  Watts

Oh, that would require accountability and an admission of failure. Not happening.

Chris I
Chris I
19 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

This line of discussion is focused on high-income Portland residents, specifically ones who would be interested in funding local speed bumps.

Portland families making more than $250,000 per year are among the highest taxed in the nation:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/people-making-250k-portland-pay-140000200.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJGsdQ3-04upiSXomPGsBc3dt4NnOb6K2-Lu4HVVWT7pQxOdl44Mw3CUypyARWvR0OSdRo3vjT_EV75XV78G77F_VJRsTwqntj4XABYMIW5xKFy0PLBYQIEHbzQ9zNos3lqVY67_7X4buIiibXAbIappSxCo1uDyjR_EpCogafiT

The five cities with the highest tax rates for $250,000 earners are:

Baltimore: 41.3%

Portland: 41.1%

New York: 39.5%

San Francisco: 39.5%

Honolulu: 38.5%

I welcome your rebuttal.

david hampsten
david hampsten
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I’m glad that Portland is taxing rich people so much, it is as it should be in a progressive society. How high are poor people being taxed, those who earn less than $250,000? How does Portland rank? And how about those of us who make under $15,000 per year?

And are the $250,000+ earners willing to pay for badly-needed rebuilt streets as well as cheap speed bumps?

Watts
Watts
19 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

I’m glad that Portland is taxing rich people so much

It’s one thing to tax people “so much” if everyone is doing it, but quite another if I can move, literally, 10 miles from here and get taxed quite a bit less.

I’m staying put (for the moment), but I know a number of people who have moved (or are planning to do so).

Will
Will
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

A household earning $250,000/year is well into the 95th percentile or earners in the city. It’s perfectly acceptable to tax those households more.

Watts
Watts
19 days ago
Reply to  Will

It’s perfectly acceptable to tax those households more.

Morally, perhaps, but I think the better question is whether it is good policy to do so. That is less clear, and the details matter a lot.

Chris I
Chris I
19 days ago
Reply to  Will

I’m glad we’re all on the same page here. High income Portland families who might consider funding speed bumps on their street are already being taxed at the highest rates in the nation. We’re doing the right thing!

Watts
Watts
19 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

Not quite the right thing… We no longer let Portlanders fund effective safety infrastructure such as speed bumps because, apparently, it is considered fairer to make sure everyone is in danger.

cct
cct
21 days ago

“I am hopeful that Portland can do this”

Not likely, as a centerpost of PBOT policy is ‘once-a-generation’ corridor projects like Capitol Highway – and apparently hostility to SW pedestrian work in general. As Lisa points out, delay is the bane of a developer, and they tried to please the neighborhood with what they thought would help avoid a fight, but they obviously didn’t think they’d be arguing with PBOT over what was too much!

I was under the impression that BikePortland caught PBOT misstating PF&R’s attitude towards speed humps (need to look tha up); the essence was PBOT was using Fire as an excuse not to do them and Fire basically said ‘speed tables are fine.’ I fail to see equity as valid here, since this development could well be happening in the proletarian Burnside/120s area and need speed controls, so it isn’t an issue of privileged white folk getting their needs met. As for funding: they offered to pay for them! Another example of PBOT spending staff time and taxpayer money for a reason NOT to protect pedestrians and cyclists. When your policy is no it can take a lot of manure-shoveling to justify it.

As for this horsesh*t:
All-way stop control at Shattuck Road and Illinois Street was evaluated through the traffic study, and it was determined that the volume of activity and the reported crash history at this location did not meet PBOT’s standards

So a street that hasn’t been built yet has had no crashes, so needs no traffic control going forward. Bra. Vo.

Look, I get it; the boss has a stick up their butt about spot-treating ped issues, so sticking up for something is hard. Easier to hide behind the ASSHTO manual and claim that an antiquated-style traffic study shows no possible issues could arise from adding several hundred cars and scores of children to a busy, winding, high-speed street crossing. Surely a crosswalk will fix it… and if we start to see crashes and dead people, we can add stuff later! Why incommote those Shattuck drivers unless absolutely necessary?

Then you look at BES, where staff were worried a beaver or two would be smushed by those very same drivers, staff who looked deeply at the code, saw that code gave them authority to preemptively avoid the situation, staff who went to their bosses to argue a costly legal fight was justified – and management who backed them up!

This is completely on the cowards at PBOT management, likely just a few; cowards who refuse to lift a finger to protect ped and bikes in SW, cowards who have endless excuses why not and none for why, cowards who boldly experiment elsewhere yet hide behind paperwork and formulae as reason not to here, cowards who have some grudge against the SW active transport community as far as I can tell.

We know all-way stops work and so does PBOT; we just had an article about it.

BES management said “do the math for me; we’ll back you if it looks good.” PBOT management said “get me to NO.”

Kevin Machiz
Kevin Machiz
20 days ago
Reply to  cct

Vision Zero, but only for zero beaver deaths.

Bike Life
Bike Life
18 days ago
Reply to  Kevin Machiz

Nutrias it would appear. But this is darkly funny.

cct
cct
17 days ago
Reply to  Bike Life

Wait, I missed that – so they are making the developer spend money to protect the Cane Toads of the mamallian world?

Chris I
Chris I
21 days ago

Looks like a great spot for a traffic circle.

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

Traffic circles help keep traffic moving, not so much pedestrians crossing safely. And landscaping in the middle just makes it hard to see people trying to cross on the far side of the circle, I want the traffic to STOP and be able to see me.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago

Or, for those who think everything European is good, you can create pedestrian underpasses that let pedestrians and cyclists cross directly and without conflict.

david hampsten
david hampsten
20 days ago
Reply to  Watts

There’s a huge difference in a roundabout with a flyover or underpass, with all the costs and land involved, and a basic traffic circle that fits within the space you’ve actually got on Shattuck.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

Sure, but cost and other constraints don’t constrain all kinds of other crazy things people suggest here… I thought I’d join the party and see how it feels.

david hampsten
david hampsten
19 days ago
Reply to  Watts

There’s a proposal in Eindhoven that I really like, a flyover with paths above the main roundabout, also in a circle…

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago
Reply to  cct

Roundabouts generally are safer for pedestrians. Pedestrians walk on sidewalks around the perimeter and cross only one direction of traffic at a time. Crossing distances are relatively short, and traffic speeds are lower than at traditional intersections.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/roundabouts

Not sure I understand your comment. They are not proposing stop signs for the intersection above. A circle would be much safer.

david hampsten
david hampsten
20 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I think a traffic circle would help speed the flow of car drivers the most, followed by bicycle users, and pedestrians the least. Assuming that pedestrian safety is still the top of the modal hierarchy in Portland, I’d prefer to see instead a series of pedestrian islands, including a few going into the northwest-bound lane of SW Shattuck to form a half-median that forces drivers to slow down as they pass through or turn here. Lisa’s red geraniums would be a nice touch!

Dan Fleisch
Dan Fleisch
21 days ago

Portlanders: we need housing!

Also Portlanders: noooooooo not like that!!

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
20 days ago
Reply to  Dan Fleisch

The developer likely didn’t make large enough campaign contributions this last election cycle.

X
X
21 days ago

“…the reported crash history at this location did not meet PBOT’s standards for stop sign placement.”

Is this a case of driving using the rear view mirror? The crash history at the Illinois crossing with Shattuck is necessarily from a time before 267 housing units were developed half a mile away. Shattuck will be a route to school to every elementary student resident in that development and perhaps from a larger area if the bike and pedestrian infrastructure next to the development is linked to adjoining neighborhoods.

This linkage would be desirable and a good investment for the city. We have to get past the idea of building isolated developments as if they were not part of a matrix of walkable and bikeable streets.

The folly on SW Gibbs shouldn’t be the precedent for our entire future–it’s been shown that precedents are not sacred. When the city starts talking about Nollan and Dolan or stormwater that’s code for active transportation getting a beat down. If we can build streets and condos and offices on a piece of ground then we can build bloody sidewalks.

JeffP
JeffP
20 days ago
Reply to  X

It should also get noted or recognized crash history as provided by the traffic studies only summarizes on REPORTED crashes. They note similar for the intersection of Shattuck/Vermont and knowing neighbors there, they have witnessed more crashes in the last 8 months than are being reported in the traffic study timeframe since 2015 [or whatever they note].
Again. Only those crashes that have been reported/investigated AT THAT DIRECT INTERSECTION get logged. people exchange info and call tow trucks all the time without being bothered to call police.

X
X
20 days ago
Reply to  JeffP

Having both been in, and directly witnessed a crash of a vulnerable road user–with the right of way–vs a motor vehicle, the police regard exchange of information as the end of the matter. Even when they’re present it’s “My work here is done”.

JeffP
JeffP
19 days ago
Reply to  X

Not really following your response – the point I was trying to make is that the crash rates presented by the developer/traffic engineer are under-reported, so by PBOT using that data as their criteria for a stop sign they are not aware of ALL the crashes as most are not recorded.
The only way the traffic on Shattuck will be controlled with any usefulness is to provide stops at Cameron, Illinois and Vermont – marked/signaled crosswalks should be included at Illinois and Vermont.

cct
cct
20 days ago

Also at issue is that the sight distance calculations for the intersection were based on posted, rather than on observed, speeds.

Unless they aren’t.

Perhaps it’s just my PBOT Derangement Syndrome talking, but I recall conversations from a decade or so ago – with SWTrails or Friends of Marquam Nature Park IIRC; people had asked about getting a few marked crosswalks along SW Broadway Dr where SWTrails routes led to a park entrance at a hazardous crossing. They were told that sight distances were not adequate for the actual speeds measured.
When they then asked, well, how about something to get those speeds down to posted, so we can get a crosswalk, they were told no.

Yut
Yut
20 days ago
Reply to  cct

That’s totally on brand

Lois Leveen
Lois Leveen
20 days ago

Here’s a thought: any street/road or section of street/road in which more than 50% of drivers exceed the speed limit is closed to motor vehicles for three months. Or maybe six. With all streets/road constantly monitored for possible closure. If we kept doing that, either drivers would stop speeding out of self interest, or the few streets/roads that remained open would be so congested the drivers couldn’t speed.

(I’m writing this during a trip to NYC; although drivers do a lot of egregious things here, they generally don’t speed on surface streets, because the congestion makes that impossible.)

qqq
qqq
20 days ago
Reply to  Lois Leveen

I’m guessing there’d be a lot of closures, because each driver would feel that they’re certainly in the group whose speeding is justified.

Lois Leveen
Lois Leveen
20 days ago
Reply to  qqq

I know — and all those closures would actually be PROTECTED BIKE/WALKWAYS. Imagine how awesome that will be for public health. It’s like we can Barcelonize bit by bit!

Paige
Paige
20 days ago
Reply to  Lois Leveen

Lois, I always look forward to your comments on here because you are a consistent and dependable voice for your hopes for Portland. You’re like the Bernie Sanders of closing streets to cars, and I respect the commitment! (And I agree with you that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel when there are examples around the world of cities that raised their bike mode share, and they’ve provided steps for exactly how they did it.)

Glenn
Glenn
20 days ago

seems like there could be a few option to try at the intersection:

– roundabout.

– make the neighborhood streets at the intersection one-way either in or out.

– make Shattuck Rd a one way..from HWY-10 to Vermont st.

– or some comb of all the above.

Yut
Yut
20 days ago
Reply to  Glenn

Roundabout makes by far the most sense

Nick
Nick
20 days ago

PBOTs stop sign policies are unhinged.

Heard at my own neighborhood meeting that PBOT wouldn’t install a stop sign by a school because it would “potentially confuse drivers”.

X
X
20 days ago
Reply to  Nick

Maybe if they posted a maximum speed for proceeding through the stop sign that would clear things up.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
20 days ago
Reply to  Nick

And yet, how many different styles of bike lanes are there? Against the curb, away from the curb, on the other side of the street, etc. Even speed limit signs, I can go just a few blocks in my neighborhood and go into 3 different speed limit zones.
When relatives came from out of town they had no idea what the green and red paint on the streets were for.
Yeah, stop signs confuse drivers. If a driver doesn’t know what a stop sign is, then they shouldn’t be driving.

Yut
Yut
20 days ago

And some scoffed at me when I wrote that pbot has been cowed by the fire bureau in response to another post on this site a few days ago. Read the pbot comments, they rejected the idea of installing speed cushions (which are the preferred pbot speed bump type because fire doesn’t like normal speed bumps) without even asking fire for their opinion. This is ridiculous.

I’m all for redeveloping the alpenrose site. We need the housing. But allow the developer to do the traffic safety work that their own analysis demonstrated was needer, and which the neighborhood is begging for. To do otherwise is insanely stupid.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  Yut

they rejected the idea of installing speed cushions (which are the preferred pbot speed bump type because fire doesn’t like normal speed bumps) without even asking fire for their opinion.

I agree it is ridiculous on its face… but I can think of several possible explanations. It is possible that the PF&R has said something different in the past and PBOT was relying on their previous determination; or it is possible that PF&R says something different in public than in private; or that different parts of PF&R say different things. Or it may just be that PBOT never asked and just assumed they knew what the answer would be.

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  Watts

oh look, an article on how PBOT and PF&R were working out their differences 10 years ago

https://bikeportland.org/2014/03/21/new-fire-bureau-policy-could-allow-speed-bumps-on-more-commercial-streets-103299

and one from last year detailing the speed cushions PBOT and PF&R designed together

https://bikeportland.org/2023/03/08/the-gaps-in-portlands-approach-to-speed-bumps-371058
including great background from Todd Boulanger

somewhere I read a document with a Fire official saying they didn’t oppose speed cushions/tables on primary emergency routes any more, but I will have to dig for it. Maybe Lisa, who is organized, can find it faster.

Agreed; they may say one thing in public and another when the yes/no decision is made back at the office..

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  Watts

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/5_24_18-Webinar-Questions.pdf

Pge 2, question 7.

per this map

https://gis-pdx.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/PDX::portland-emergency-transportation-routes/explore?location=45.486126%2C-122.724896%2C15.67

SW Shattuck is NOT a Major Emergency Response Route. Speed cushions seem to be allowed.

By PF&R, at least!

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  Yut

But allow the developer to do the traffic safety work that their own analysis demonstrated was needer, and which the neighborhood is begging for. To do otherwise is insanely stupid.

No, allowing it somewhere in SW is establishing precedent. Allegedly some staff at PBOT have built their careers on removing costs to developers in SW, and the easiest one is preventing ROW work. Let some do-gooder developer build a sidewalk out of the goodness of their heart and uppity walkers in other parts will wonder why they can’t have one too!

The PBOT standard for SW is ‘a 6′ wide paved shoulder where possible.’ Allowing over that just anywhere leads to lots of litttle Olivers clutching their empty porridge bowls and asking for more.

qqq
qqq
20 days ago

I can’t read about PBOT’s lame response on this project without thinking back to the recent article about PBOT bike coordinator Roger Geller’s advocating that PBOT do a marketing campaign to encourage people to bike more.

PBOT already IS doing a marketing campaign with every action it takes, from this project’s rubber stamp to PBOT trucks parking in bike lanes and on sidewalks. PBOT advertises every day the low level of priority much of PBOT gives biking and walking.

Why bother having one group at PBOT advocating for biking and walking while its other group don’t care?

Unhinged
Unhinged
20 days ago

Let’s just skip ahead to the part where the developer gets what they want.

Chris I
Chris I
20 days ago
Reply to  Unhinged

According to the article, that would be more housing and speed cushions:

The developer’s initial traffic study, from April 2024, suggested that “The City and Applicant should collaborate to install speed cushions and the associated signage and pavement markings along the frontage of the new neighborhood on SW Shattuck Road,” per PBOT’s Traffic Design Manual. A month later, PBOT returned the study with comments, including that “Speed cushions require approval of the Fire Bureau prior to installation.”

X
X
20 days ago

After looking at various plans and maps and photos, squinting at fuzzy type and rotating everything 90° so I could think about it, I have two thoughts:
Nollan/Dolan is a big deal and obviously the city has to consider it.
But, the reference to history at the intersection of SW Shattuck, 60th Avenue and Illinois is not just an error, it seems to be almost in bad faith.

The intersection has a new fifth leg which is the likely route for any car leaving the development heading north, including downtown, or east to the school. It’s radically different than the location where history records only three car crashes. The proposed crosswalk alone is a change that can’t be ignored.

All of the drivers turning north onto Shattuck from SW Illinois will be making left turns, and all south bound drivers on Shattuck turning into Raleigh Crest will be making left turns. Maybe a traffic circle isn’t the answer, I’m no expert. One argument in favor of a circle would be that most drivers aren’t used to processing the right of way at a five way intersection. There will be a lot more traffic from the East and Southeast than presently because of course some drivers will cut through the neighborhood to enter the new development on SW Illinois.

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
20 days ago

Let’s not forget though. Even in the hearings officers decision they recognize the developer is giving everything they can and even extra (red ekdctruc trail, mup, park/open space) to the city and recognizes the NA may not agree with it but there are legal limits. .

I’ll say this every time. This is the reason why housing is sooooo expensive and why developers just hear Portland and walk away. With the city’s fee waiver program this will cost the NA a few hours of their time. But the developer is burning $10/15/20k a week easily in consultant fee and other expenses while a vacant property just sits in limbo.

qqq
qqq
20 days ago
Reply to  PDXDeveloper

Even in the hearings officers decision they recognize the developer is giving everything they can

They’re not “giving” it. They’re providing things to meet code requirements that existed when they chose to apply for permits to develop the property. Your comment is like saying the developer is “giving” the City ADA-compliant sidewalks or fire sprinklers or other things done to meet required codes.

This is the reason why….why developers just hear Portland and walk away

There are whole parts of town with so many buildings under construction or recently opened that they’re almost unrecognizable. I realize developers face problems here, including ones caused by City regulations and processes, but there are plenty of developers who are not walking away.

Obviously, THIS developer didn’t walk away from Portland, and I doubt they’ll abandon the project if the appeal results in additional requirements.

 But the developer is burning $10/15/20k a week easily in consultant fee and other expenses while a vacant property just sits in limbo.

The developer chose to submit a design that didn’t take a genius to see would be likely to be appealed if approved. The developer chose that route vs. offering more upfront to reduce the likelihood of an appeal.

Yut
Yut
20 days ago
Reply to  qqq

Development is happening way too slowly to meet market demands. It is very difficult to get financing to do major development in Portland right now. Permitting activity for new construction fell off a cliff in 2018 and hasn’t come closer to recovering. Portland’s permitting bureau laid off dozens of workers in multiple waves over the last few years, and they aren’t hiring to replace those workers.

None of that is tu say that I don’t think developer infrastructure upgrades, frontage improvements, or system development charges are a bad thing. But I think you are a bit misinformed about the scale of development that is happening in Portland right now.

Any multistory development that you see around town is likely publicly financed. There is some small scale infill development happening on a lot by lot basis, replacing single homes on large lots with row houses and cottage clusters. But the market rate development is producing dozens of units a year when the need is for thousands.

qqq
qqq
20 days ago
Reply to  Yut

I agree with that, other than the part that I’m misinformed. I was mainly criticizing the commenter’s claim that developers are walking away when they “hear Portland” because of requirements like the ones being appealed here, not trying to claim all was rosy. Like you said–as one reason–it’s difficult to get financing now. That affects projects a lot more than street and sidewalk requirements. And there are many reasons beyond the existence of those requirements for why financing is not available.

Watts
Watts
19 days ago
Reply to  qqq

Any industry that operates almost exclusively with borrowed money is going to get hit hard when interest rates climb, as they have.

But let’s blame bike parking requirements.

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
20 days ago
Reply to  qqq

If you read the city’s own documents, the minimum required improvement would have been a 6’ wide asphalt path (read the applicants own PW alternative review).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XzkVt2MJEUFaKDiicadLRLGn41fv0yeM/view?usp=drive_link

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
19 days ago

Their original application with standard PBOT improvements at the end

cct
cct
18 days ago

Don’t forget that the developer on SW Gibbs tried to make their frontage an asset to their tenants AND the neighborhood – and PBOT explicitly told them no.

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
18 days ago

I think I got the 6-ft widening wrong/mixed up with other things I have seen (this project has SSSOOOOOO MANY documents). But after getting the actual EA notes and flipping through them again, you’re correct and the standard improvements are a bike lane and sidewalk with a buffer for street trees.

But after going back through the what I can remember seeing my opinion of the developer giving the city more then they dreamed of stays the same.

That said, I’ve seen other/past iterations of their proposal to the city and do note a number of significant changes between a few of the past layouts and when I pair those with the EA notes I do see, I get the feeling that the developer is doing the best they can but also getting the runaround themselves due to the structure of the city’s permitting departments. I also get the feeling that the city really needs to get their shit together and streamline their yes/no processes based on the contradictory guidance/suggestions.

And while that photo of your crossing looks amazing, that’s not something that would fit within this roadway (just by looking at things). This site only has one travel lane in each direction and no existing median.

qqq
qqq
16 days ago
Reply to  PDXDeveloper

But after going back through the what I can remember seeing my opinion of the developer giving the city more then they dreamed of stays the same.

That could be true. At the least, the developer proposed at least enough of what the City wanted for the City to approve it.

But that’s true in every case where an approval is appealed. If the developer didn’t do that, there’d be no approval to appeal.

JeffP
JeffP
18 days ago

Not sure I would say everyone is happy about it. The MUP is so out of context for this area – nowhere else around there does something like this occur short of Vermont by Gabriel park where it was incorporated into traffic calming – and that is NOT the application here.
They need to get back to a more standard installation along Shattuck – the street and adjacent low elevation wetlands are already forcing close to 12-foot retaining walls to widen the street for all the ‘stuff’ [aka improvements].
Keep a standard bike lane/curb/walk – incorporate the treatment and landscaping to the wetland sides instead of as a buffer and make the treatment/landscaping contiguous and terraced. Use the savings for:
1) Half street improvement for an uphill bike lane/curb for the east side [north bound traffic] of Shattuck along the propoerty
OR
2) Employ the funds to a Dedicated Funding Agreement with CoP/PBOT such that the bike lane/curb/sidewalk is completed for the full length of Shattuck from Vermont to Beaverton-Hillsdale. Gives PBOT the time to budget match funds; contingency to have it complete in the same contractor/developer schedule for the last phase of the development.

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
18 days ago
Reply to  qqq

From what I’ve seen online/via Portland maps, the developer has been in talks with the city about this property going as far back as 2020.

I would think in those 4 years they would have had an idea on what the city wants to see here for this street. Claiming the developer choose to submit a substandard design is a stretch.

I was able to have one of my contacts at the city send me the developers Alternative review application (not just the city’s decision) which was the starting point of their proposed design. Then read through their Early Assistance notes that the city provided to them and it helps form a more complete picture of their proposal. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/60ktocx0k1xngonzs0jvm/9454-Raleigh-Crest-Alt-Review-Final.pdf?rlkey=ijb5jnwes1vp69r4y149npi36&st=0djofadw&dl=0

qqq
qqq
17 days ago
Reply to  PDXDeveloper

I didn’t say the developer submitted a substandard design. I said they submitted one that wouldn’t take a genius to see would likely be appealed if approved.

My perception may be off in regard to the history of the project (which I only know about from reading articles here) but it sounds like a not-insignificant number of neighbors have never been happy with the proposed traffic mitigations. If that was the case, that’s why the developer shouldn’t have been surprised it was appealed, and the fact that the delay is costing them financially wasn’t necessarily something they couldn’t have avoided.

I don’t doubt that the developer provided (or even exceeded) what the City said would be necessary to obtain City approval.

If the appeal is successful, and the decision requires the developer to do more than what the City required, the developer has some justification to be unhappy with the City, since doing what the City requires should be enough to withstand an appeal.

My comments are colored by being involved in objecting to and/or appealing several projects where owners provided what the City asked for, only to have the review body require more, because they agreed with us that the City did not ask enough of the owner. In several cases, the owners probably spent more dealing with the appeal than they would have spent improving the project enough that we wouldn’t have needed to appeal.

cct
cct
16 days ago
Reply to  qqq

Sometimes city staff simply remove an entire section of requirements. Alternative Review is notorious for this. So when

owners provided what the City asked for, only to have the review body require more,

it is because the review body clearly saw that the city had removed too many of the requirements for no good reason, other than to presumably grease the wheels for the developer. Gotta tell ya, if a review board does that, it means it was egregious, as most firmly believe the city staff are the authority on issues; they are predisposed to accept the staff’s arguments.

A staffer’s job is to get a project in compliance so it CAN be built. It takes some truly bad projects for staff  or review body to say no, especially if they’ve spent a lot of time showing the developer explicitly how to conform. Sometimes it is too expensive to conform and either doesn’t pencil out, or developer takes city to court to shed those costs. Sometimes the city staff spend a lot of time trying to convince a developer that it is cheaper to do something than fight (build a sidewalk rather than pay more money in fees to avoid buiding it) and the developer is too dumb/arrogant/etc to listen. 

There will always be people who hate change; in this case, the NA saw reality – the project is allowed by state law, and only some details are up for discussion: wildlife, and pedestrian and bike safety. At the Shattuck/Illinois intersection, and AR and PBOT are asking for less than the developer proposed, so the neighborhood is appealing.  Had PBOT delivered more, the developer would be proceeding ahead. This delay is on the city.

Watts
Watts
16 days ago
Reply to  cct

Imagine how much worse things would be if we hadn’t eliminated the bike room requirement.

“At least we did something (to make it look like we were busy)…”

qqq
qqq
15 days ago
Reply to  cct

That’s a good expansion of the :…because they (review body) agreed with us that the City did not ask enough of the owner” that was the other half of my sentence you quoted.

I’d say this delay is substantially on the City, but also partly on the developer, since they knew all along–or should have–that the neighbors weren’t happy with the City’s lax requirements. In any case, the neighbors shouldn’t be blamed for the delays, and it’s tiresome that people so often blame appellants for delays.

cct
cct
15 days ago
Reply to  qqq

In this case, once again the developer wanted to do more, and the city said no.

I’m usually a bit jaded on a developer’s motives; one could easily propose fantastic ROW work to make nice with neighbors, all the while knowing AR would remove any requirements… but in this case, the developer really seemed to try, and was willing to pay to make the intersection safer. PBOT refused to allow it.

Frankly, the new council needs to disband AR immediately, and reconstitute its functions with a panel that includes the USERS of streets.

I’d be happy with a ped/bike advocacy group suing the city over AR as an alternate…

qqq
qqq
14 days ago
Reply to  cct

If the developer proposed doing things that would have taken away the reason for the appeal, and the City didn’t allow it, then I certainly agree the blame lies clearly with the City.

It reminds me of the SW Gibbs sidewalk situation that LIsa has reported about. It also reminds me of a meeting where PBOT told my neighbors and a pedestrian advocacy group that it simply wouldn’t be possible for both of us to get our way, after we both testified that we wanted the same solution.

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  PDXDeveloper

With the city’s fee waiver program this will cost the NA a few hours of their time.

Don’t make Lisa edit my swearwords again.

First off, the NA has spent hundreds of hours of volunteer time to try and make the project better, not outright stop it. Sure, some are NIMBYs who would love to see that, but the bulk just want to make this change less of a negative than it could be.

PBOT properly pointed out that ROW improvements OFF the properrty edge many clamored for were Nollan/Dolan turf, and not gonna happen; the real N/D fight is over the wildlife issue, and again, BES management was willing to go to mat on it. Meanwhile, PBOT ‘s wasting developer’s time studying ways to deny offered improvements,.. and the community’s by declaring that they refuse to consider doing anything on their end. 2 more $200 stop signs placed on Shattuck for a safer all-way stop is not N/D territory.

“A man can not be brought to understand a thing, if his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair

to X:

it seems to be almost in bad faith.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc etc. At the Alpenrose community meeting, at least two Metro and PBOT people sniffily snapped that SW had it’s chance for ped/bike safety but we voted down the Barbur rail bond. They are still pissed, and conflate that issue with ALL other transpo issues in SW as far as I can tell. It’s not very mature.

blumdrew
20 days ago
Reply to  cct

Metro and PBOT people sniffily snapped that SW had it’s chance for ped/bike safety but we voted down the Barbur rail bond. They are still pissed, and conflate that issue with ALL other transpo issues in SW as far as I can tell. It’s not very mature.

This is really ridiculous and unfortunate, especially considering that Alpenrose isn’t particularly close to Barbur. I know that the SW Corridor plan had lots of bits about neighborhood connectivity, but it’s a stretch to imagine it would pay for sidewalks and bike safety 4+ miles away.

Watts
Watts
20 days ago
Reply to  blumdrew

“This is really ridiculous and unfortunate”

Also because the entire region voted not to move forward on that loser of a proposal. I have no idea how those concerned with this project voted, and neither do the officials who want to use this project to punish then.

cct
cct
20 days ago
Reply to  blumdrew

It’s not very mature.

it was late and I forgot to add “it’s also not very professional!”

One of the reasons some residents gave for voting NO was that for 20 years, all the money and much staff time went to Barbur corridor, and there was no plan for residents of neighborhoods off of the major arterials to safely get to the rail stations; no added bus service – in fact, ‘removal of duplicative routes’ – for many areas, and certainly no sidewalks. There would have been no way for residents of Raleigh Crest to access the rail station without walking in the road somewhere. So telling people they are being punished for not approving something which would have no effect on this situation seems churlish.

Like Mom saying you didn’t eat your dessert, so she’ll be damned if she feeds you ever again.

JeffP
JeffP
18 days ago
Reply to  cct

The amusing things about the NIMBY’s from Dover and Hempstreet is they are the same folks that people in the site hated for their continual whining about the velodrome and the ‘noise’ associated with that [all of what 4 times a year?].
Many have not been there long enough to remember that the very property they live on was once a dairy – that got developed – WITH plans for continuing through streets. No doubt to the chagrin of long ago NIMBY’s who didn’t want that built either.

Watts
Watts
18 days ago
Reply to  JeffP

they are the same folks

Are they actually the same folks? Or is this an example of “you people”?

JeffP
JeffP
15 days ago
Reply to  Watts

No direct accounting of names – I would expect there is overlap though since it is an isolated and limited neighborhood. I believe the statement stands based on the context.

EEE
EEE
20 days ago

Too bad the bike lanes on Oleson are not exactly a stress-free experience. But maybe that can get fixed after this connection goes in.

PDXDeveloper
PDXDeveloper
18 days ago

I don’t think there is an antagonistic relationship. But what I do think is that the developer is caught in the middle of a larger discussion about safety improvements and the NA is using this as an opportunity to get in front of the city council to demand additional ‘offsite improvements’. Ultimately i think the NA believes the city has ‘forgotten about them/their neighborhood’ and are feeling left out/ignored and see this appeal as an opportunity to be listened to.

cct
cct
17 days ago
Reply to  PDXDeveloper

I think the developer is caught between a neighborhhod that rightly is complaining SW is told to accept density, increased traffic, and decreased safety, and a bureau that has spent the last 10 years telling SW to suck those eggs.

The city has known this site might be developed for a long time, and would be for 4 years; it was a choice to refuse to plan for the consequences. Had the city spent ANY resources at all to improve traffic and ped safety on Shattuck – or roll out a concrete plan now to do so – much of this fight would not be happening.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
19 days ago

Interestingly enough, there is a town in Illinois called Shattuc.

Charley
Charley
19 days ago

COTW!

Just kidding 🙂

qqq
qqq
19 days ago

Everybody knows that.

Daniel Reimer
18 days ago

Late to the party but one thing I see lacking from all these discussions is that SW Illinois is a greenway! One of the very few in SW Portland!

This development could be a great way to connect to Oleson without the need to ride on Shattuck or Vermont but perhaps this will be yet another greenway that does not connect to anything.

cct
cct
16 days ago

Just now seeing that Hayhurst NA decided not to appeal, and came to an agreement with developer.

I have to say, Hayhurst got snookered. THIS:

The homebuilder told the neighborhood association it would pay for a new traffic study to support safety improvements along Southwest Shattuck Road and various intersections, including the entrance to the proposed development at Southwest Illinois Street and 60th Avenue.

is not a promise to do anything, besides add more paper to the pile of studies and plans which PBOT will not act on nor fund.

qqq
qqq
15 days ago
Reply to  cct

Yikes. That IS nothing.

When my old neighborhood association protested a Parks decision that involved a traffic study, we obtained the letter from Parks to the traffic engineer that ordered the study. It said, essentially, “We need a traffic study that says there will be no traffic impact from this project”. Then they got that.

At a meeting I was in with a developer and a traffic engineer, the first question from the engineer was, “What do you need the study’s conclusion to be?”

Even if it’s not that bad, and the study says there ARE safety needs, a study not tied to actually building anything is worthless, like you said.

Also, if the study says there will be traffic impacts from the new development, then why agree beforehand to not requiring the developer to mitigate them?

Weird.