The Portland Bureau of Transportation has revealed a new proposal for a major redesign of Northeast Broadway. And while the city will remove one general lane for driving and vastly improve several crossings, the unprotected bike lane isn’t as impressive as some folks hoped for.
To refresh your memory, this is happening because of the Broadway Pave & Paint project. Since PBOT plans to repave the street between NE 7th and NE 26th, they are seizing an opportunity to reconfigure the lanes and make other changes. These changes will ultimately connect to a major, federally-funded project from NE 7th to the river that is part of the state’s I-5 Rose Quarter Improvement Project.
But unlike the $38 million PBOT received to transform lower NE Broadway, they have only a meager $500,000 (in addition to the paving funds) to spend on the Pave & Paint section from NE 7th to 26th. That budgetary limit helps explain not just the design choices, but also the reactions to it.
The design concepts PBOT shared back in 2022 showed a parking protected bike lane. But the design proposal revealed yesterday as part of an online open house and survey is an unprotected bike lane sandwiched between two lanes used by drivers. That fact peeved some folks when I shared the drawings yesterday. “This is awful,” one person wrote on Bluesky. “When will PBOT build a real goddamn protected bike lane, and not magical wands and paint?”
BikeLoud PDX Vice-chair Kiel Johnson spoke with PBOT Project Manager Mike Serritella about the project this morning. After their phone call, Johnson told me in an interview that, “The project isn’t living up to the Transportation System Plan.” “We don’t think it will be comfortable for a wide range of riders,” he added. “And the budget illustrates that we continue to underfund these opportunities.”
The bike lane PBOT wants to build is about 11-feet wide (same as the adjacent lane for drivers) once you add buffer zones on each side. But it lacks physical separation — which has been the consensus best practice standard for years now. And in some sections, PBOT has maintained parallel parking spaces that will require drivers to maneuver over the bike lane to reach a spot.
Despite one less lane for drivers, the streetscape in PBOT’s new drawings is still dominated by cars. And as we struggle to regain cycling momentum and prevent deaths and serious injuries on our roads, any space dominated by such a deadly vehicle will fail to result in the outcomes we all say we want.
From PBOT’s point of view, this is a major step forward and all they can do with limited funds. “The team believes this recommended design optimizes resources available at this moment in time and sets up the corridor for future upgrades and investments,” their website reads. In contrast to this $500,000 to spend over 20 blocks on NE Broadway, PBOT will spend $16 million to build fully-separated and protected bike lanes on 27 blocks of SW Fourth. The agency also says their proposed design for Broadway does not preclude upgrading the bike facility with more protection in the future.
PBOT can also point to a load of other changes Broadway will receive — like protected intersections where new median islands will greatly reduce crossing distances.
Another thing that gives PBOT confidence is the fact they’ve got political support for a road diet through a major commercial district. Yes the local business association is fully on board with the changes despite losing driving capacity outside their doors — and despite a 4% decrease in total car parking spots along the corridor (11 spaces less than they have today).
It likely didn’t take too much cajoling by PBOT for the business association to agree to these changes however, because current conditions are absurdly car-centric. Between NE 17th and 26th, NE Broadway is as wide as 82nd Avenue (a former state highway). Even PBOT says the street is currently “overbuilt for automobiles” and their analysis found that — even at peak travel hours — drivers use only 50-60% of the total car capacity on the road.
Given this wasted space PBOT has 14-18 feet of roadway space, “to be reallocated along the corridor for community priorities.”
PBOT wants to use that space for a wide, buffered bike lane as well as five new pedestrian crossings (at 11th, 13th, 17th, 19th, and 22nd), two bus stop bulb-outs, and the new median islands at intersections. The maximum speed limit on the street will also be lowered from 30 to 25 mph.
Matt Zajack from the Sullivan’s Gulch Neighborhood Association likes what he sees. He’s met regularly with PBOT, reps from the Irvington Community Association and the Northeast Broadway Business Association since planning began this past summer. “Although it doesn’t hit every item on a long wish list,” Zajack said. “we are excited about the long overdue updates and changes that will bring this road in alignment with current codes and safety standards and better align the vibrant, human-centric business and neighborhood corridor we have here.”
Given the changes on the table and the new parking arrangements (neighbors worry a vast reduction in parking in the corridor means more people parking on side streets), Zajack says the neighborhood is downright “excited” about the project.
PBOT wants to hear community feedback before they finalize their design in February. If all goes according to plan, they’ll repave and repaint Broadway in summer 2025.
— Browse the open house and take the survey to make sure they hear your voice.
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.
This is a pretty good outcome.
Removing an entire travel lane on a stroad with too much capacity is welcome.
A 25mph speed limit and signals timed/tuned/dialed to that speed will slow people driving.
It is a pave & paint on a major arterial, bike lanes are being improved and driving capacity reduced by 33%
Thanks PBOT !!
Keep up the Good Work !!
Agree. I think this will be a huge improvement in the area. Also pretty pleased they can do this within the $500k paint & pave budget. With slower travel speeds and fewer lanes I’d honestly think there’s a probably a case to be made that the paint will pay for itself eventually based on reduced maintenance costs. If it gets built as-designed within budget, I think it will win people over to see how much positive change can be made within normal maintenance budgets. We don’t necessarily need to spend a ton of money to make our city better.
No amount of budget for “safety” is going to make double-jeopardy crosswalks and painted door-zone bike lanes safe, especially while we spend 2-3x as much paving the street to make it faster and continue to allocate the vast majority of space to cars. (Paving budget appears to be ~$1.3M here, estimated based on the lane-miles relative to the overall $23M “smoother streets” program.)
Yea Eric. Where did you find the info on the estimate for paving budget? I scoured the site, but somehow it eluded me. I also find this sort of project dubious. While ostensibly it has some safety benefits as well as some apparent bike and ped infra, a “Pave and Paint” project is essentially 90% for people driving cars.
Here is something that I know will be controversial to both people driving cars and many people on bikes. Please be as vicious as you would like since this is simply an opinion not based on any evidence.
Do we invariably NEED to repave streets in the manner that is commonly done? That is, when a racetrack gets built, the purpose is to create the smoothest asphalt surface possible in order to maintain a constant force and friction applied between asphalt and vulcanized rubber resulting in fast acceleration. Vulcanization is a process in which the rubber is treated with sulphur and other chemicals to give it strength and durability. The end product is a toxic but generally accepted part of our culture. And I’m ignoring the emissions from internal combustion.
We are paving our streets in the same way as building racetracks.
This is not to say that I believe we shouldn’t “pave” the street. But there are other options. I understand brick pavers are much more expensive than asphalt. Much of the current MO of PBOT is to use asphalt because it is much easier to use and much cheaper than bricks. Someone who works in this industry can chime in to question this.
However, if you’ve seen pictures of streets in Portland prior to asphalt, bricks were the primary means to build streets. They simply last longer, and here’s a judgement call where I hope a lot of people (including cyclists) will vehemently disagree:
More streets in Portland should be with built alternative materials including bricks to create space where drivers simply cannot travel fast. Portland still has a modicum of streets that exist from the age of brick. I remember the Pearl before it was the Pearl and most streets were made of brick. I am sure a lot of cyclists and drivers do not like this. But they make for a slow, pedestrian and bike friendly space. In any case I hope safety advocates and PBOT will consider this for some projects.
Re-paving is simply grinding down some of the previous asphalt (usually 1 – 4 inches), recycling much of it, then laying down a “new” layer (some of which is recycled asphalt), and sometimes adding a few islands and ramps, plus maybe modifying a few signals, then re-striping the whole thing. The purpose a repave is to help the current street last a bit longer before they have to (eventually) rip out the whole street and completely rebuild it (including the base material, concrete, old trolley rails, Indian burial grounds, layers of brick and Belgian Block [from old ship ballast], water lines, sewer lines, utilities, and multiple layers of asphalt). Think of SW 5th & 6th when they rebuilt it as part of the Greenline MAX, or outer Powell currently. A repave is relatively cheap compared to a rebuild, usually around a $1 million/mile including some extra concrete islands and signals for a repave versus $15-$30 million/mile for a rebuild (half the cost of a rebuild is simply moving the sewers and water lines).
The advantage of a repave, aside from being relatively cheap, is that you can completely re-configure the pavement markings. The main disadvantage is that in a few years you’ll have to do it all over again.
A re-build is extremely expensive, but it does allow for complete make-overs (such as on outer Powell), and some cities even go so far as to bury all their power and telephone lines and remove all the telephone poles and overhead wiring while still having street lights, allowing for taller (and more) trees.
Thanks david. Helpful stuff.
I am confused about why, if they are keeping street parking in some places, it is not configured so that it is a parking protected bike lane in those areas? That seems like it would be safer and cost the same amount?
That’s my question too. A parking protected lane would be better than the current configuration IMO. Better still in my opinion to remove parking entirely adjacent to the bike lane.
One reason is that there are a lot of parking bump outs on Broadway…
here are the roll plots to see the entire corridor:
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/ne-broadway-pave/documents/broadway-pave-and-paint-west-section/download
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/pbot-projects/ne-broadway-pave/documents/broadway-pave-and-paint-east-section/download
I have other questions like:
Will there be any signal improvements at NE 26th ?
does Taco Pedaler outdoor dining get removed or improved?
What types of hardware will be used to keep people parking their cars is the right spots?
What happens to the Bus stop at 9th, 12th, does the bus just drive/stop in the bike lane ?
Hey joe, I was assuming the same thing about the ped bulbouts being a hindrance to separation (and historically they’ve been misused by PBOT when there was the potential for just such a project as this).
But when you look at most of the intersections, there are pedestrian islands. Take a look at NE 11th vs NE 12th. Both have bulbouts. but 11th has a pedestrian island and 12th doesn’t. I am genuinely baffled by this design, and can only speculate why the engineers chose this seemingly random difference between one block and the next. Were there business owners who did not want bikes near the curb and cars adjacent to the lane??? I honestly have no clue why this decision was made.
All of your other questions are great BTW and again, I just don’t understand PBOT’s decision. I know political decisions influence engineering so maybe that’s part of it??? So. Completely. Baffled.
Cheap, “paint and post” or “paint and traffic separator” parking-protected bike lanes have been installed in many locations in Portland in recent years, and they pretty much all suck. Outer Glisan, Broadway on the westside, Rosa Parks, etc. Either not enough parking is there and used to provide protection, making it a bit pointless, or the parking is used and bikes are hidden behind a row of increasingly large vehicles, and you pop out at the intersection and are at a higher risk of right hooks. Whenever I ride on SW Broadway downtown, I feel like drivers have no idea I’m even there or that it’s a bike street, and they turn with reckless abandon. What good is protection mid-block on super-short blocks, when the intersections are less safe? I’m pretty sure the right-hook crashes got worse on Broadway after the changes, which is why PBOT is now spending big money to add signal separation at a few busy intersection.
This design flips that idea, focusing on protecting the intersections where the worst crashes occur, and not mid-block which is not really an issue. It’s more like Williams Ave, the most popular, well-used bike lane in the city, where you feel visible and seen by drivers being in a huge, wide buffered bike lane, and there are islands at some intersections to ensure that drivers don’t cheat and use the bike lane as a passing lane. And yeah, occasionally somebody has to use the bike lane to parallel park, but…who cares! It’s a momentary annoyance, not a big deal.
I don’t think we should do parking-protected bike lanes at all unless it’s fully moving the curb out, driveways out, etc, and doing a sidewalk-level bike lane, with high-quality designs at intersections and ideally signal separation between turning cars and bikes at busy intersections. 4th Ave appears like it will get close to that, and the upcoming Broadway project west of 7th Ave will be like that. But those are $10 million to $40 million projects.
The obsession with parking-protected bike lanes by bike advocates on here is sort of baffling, given that in all the great examples we love to cite from the Netherlands and whatnot, they just wouldn’t do that. I’ve been to the Netherlands a few times in multiple cities and I’m pretty sure I never saw one parking-protected bike lane.
“What good is protection mid-block on super-short blocks, when the intersections are less safe?”
Some people, usually those who have less experience, may feel unsafe when cars approach from behind, even if the actual danger is low. Intersections may feel safer, even though they are more dangerous.
Some advocates think that addressing the perceived danger by creating parking protected bike lanes is worth the trade-off of increasing the actual danger at intersections because they think it will entice more people to ride bikes.
I don’t agree with that point of view, but many people do.
They haven’t enticed more usage on Halsey and Weidler in Gateway. When I use them, I’m always on high alert at intersections.
There’s also the issue of vehicles blocking the bike lane when waiting to turn onto Halsey/Weidler.
I live in this area and avoid riding through there if possible.
I generally avoid them too, when I can.
I like where you’re going Geralt. I hear you on the flimsy delineators. They are ephemeral at best. And the recent crash reported by BP on outer Glisan shows that parking protected bike lanes (when there’s nobody parking in them) are essentially a wider road, giving people in cars the sense that it is safe traveling faster. Who knows if that was a factor in the crash on Glisan, but it’s certainly a variable to consider. So really good point there.
I’d like to see data on that before making any judgement calls, but it really does depend on the intersection. Also PBOT did not build separated bike lanes. They kind of waffled and experimented in places, so the inconsistency may have been a factor. I was cut off on SW Bway right in front of a cop (convenient for him :).
Yeah, that’s a difficult one. Parking is sacred if you haven’t heard. Agreed that parking protected PBLs are not ideal, but street design is usually an engineer’s book, a tiny bit of data and a LOT of politics. I hear you there.
Yes they are and that means that PBOT has waited to implement anything prior to getting a capital project approved and funded. Any problem with that methodology you see?
IMO PBOT is afraid of using boulders and other large unwieldy (but potentially aesthetic) objects to implement “quick build” designs. In NYC projects go through phases. Paint and literal boulders go down first. It’s nice looking and very effective.
I wholeheartedly agree with you on parking PBLs. They suck compared to physically separated bike lanes you see in NL. The obsession with parking-protected bike lanes in Portland is a function of:
1) That’s the best we’re gonna get.
2) That’s all we know.
Because parking is sacred to 95% of people (even on outer Glisan where almost nobody uses that space). To put it very bluntly Portland is a backwater when it comes to safe street design compared to other cities around the world. And some day that is hopefully going to start changing.
This will never work — we’re using all of the boulders to protect empty lots from people who need a place to sleep.
Back in the early 2000s, the neighborhood on the south side of the project (Sullivan’s Gulch) requested that PBOT make both stroads two-way rather than a pair of one-way high-speed raceways.
I was going to suggest that! That would be a huge improvement!
I think perhaps the reason why PBOT is retaining the cuplet as two lanes is the potential for a future streetcar.
13th is also missing a marked crosswalk. This seems to privilege the turn out of parking lots. Why should be people give less thought to pedestrians there than another place? It just feeds the stroad mentality.
After looking at the roll plots, finally:
-forget the angled parking
-mark delivery/gig parking spaces on every block and enforce them
-from the right hand curb: a 12 foot rose lane+bikes, a 3 foot buffer, parking, two car lanes, car parking, left curb
-advance signals for rose lane with detectors mid block
Bike riders can use the buffer to slip buses (because those buses will be moving). The right side parking will keep delivery drivers out of the rose lane. The advance signals would be sweet! Pedestrian refuge islands will daylight the intersections and keep car drivers from being too aggressive with turning movements.
If this gets built per the linked roll plots it’ll be kind of a botch but I’ll go there if it’s in my way. There’s more space for door clearance but that 11 feet is going to draw delivery vehicles like Patagonia in a free pile.
I have the same question. It seems like putting the parking between the bike only lane and the auto lanes has several advantages compared to the configuration with the bike lane running between the parked cars and auto lanes:
-parked cars serve as passive protection between moving auto traffic and people riding bikes in the bike lane;
-most frequently used driver-side door of the parked cars does not open into the bike lane;
-the proximity of parked cars calms the moving traffic;
-the ped crossing islands are beefed up by parked cars that effectively extend the auto exclusion zone.
The only apparent relative advantage of the parking-next-to-sidewalk configuration is that it is safer to enter/exit the parked cars because the cars are next to lower kinetic energy density regions (the sidewalk for the passenger side and the bike lane for the driver side vs. the bike lane and auto lane, respectively).
Another important advantage of a parking protected bike lane is that the bike lane won’t often be used by parcel delivery vans.
Parked cars block visibility of bikes, they hide bikes so drivers don’t think of it as a bike street, right hooks are more likely since drivers don’t see the bikes coming until they start to turn, people park poorly without actual curbs, debris/leaves/etc will all get trapped in the curbside bike lane and rarely get swept since it needs one of the few special tiny sweepers, and it will be harder to ride side-by-side or pass each other in the more constrained parking-protected bike lane. There, I gave you several more reasons.
Hey Geralt. You’re correct that parked cars hinder visibility between people in cars and people on bikes. But the primary means to mitigate this is at the intersection. That’s why you see pedestrian islands at the intersections. For reference look at NE 11th in the design doc.
When drivers approach an intersection any person in a bike is clearly visible since parked cars no longer block the view. I mentioned earlier that this is not ideal, but in the US where private property storage on public street space is seen as a given and sometimes even an plus in some places, parking protected bike lanes are the standard.
It’s incredible to me that after PBOT finally does a GOOD job designing decent sight-lines at intersections, “experienced” cyclists are quaking in their cleated shoes over being “trapped” in a bike lane.
If you *guys* are so deathly scared of riding in a protected bike lane, then you can always just “take the lane”.
Not legally.
100% prioritarian. love it. Except for a stupid OR law (i.e., ORS 814.420).
Whatever its original intentions, it’s an antiquated and IMO potentially harmful way to actually cause conflict. Laws change much slower than culture. Particularly subjective in this law is the “avoiding a hazardous condition,” which varies based on weather conditions, the rider, the environment and a whole other slough of variables that make this law really dumb. So heads up, you’ll get some vehicular cyclists on here to make this point pretty soon.
If only we had an Oregon law that stated people in cars must stay in the car lane (unless they are a hazard to themselves). 🙂
I guess they will just have to decide which is more scary: the bike lane or the infinitesimally small risk of getting a ticket.
Or the also-small risk of getting injured in a crash, and having problems getting insurance coverage because you were found to have been at fault for not riding in the bike lane.
The risk is still small, but the downside could be liability for massive medical bills vs. a relatively small fine.
Yes, exactly this; the risk of being found partially (or fully) liable for a crash that wasn’t really your fault is a strong incentive to ride in the lane. It’s not inconceivable you could be on the hook for damage to the car that hit you.
Yes qqq, liability is a thing that often falls on the one party with less power, not necessarily the one that’s just practicing a reasonable behavior.
I’m skeptical of this statement. Can you give some examples of where liability is commonly assigned based on power rather than behavior?
The power comes from the way that law enforcement officers interpret a situation. It’s my experience that they are flatly uninterested in a bike rider point of view. Their initial report may become the whole record in traffic court and any insurance claim follows that.
After a crash Portland police will often choose not to ticket clear violations by car drivers. If there’s any ambiguity in a situation it’s not going my way as a bike rider. A judge won’t buck a cop unless it’s over a transparent lie.
If the experienced cyclists were genuinely concerned about this*, they would enthusiastically support a modestly improved bike lane.
*see Jd’s willingness to ride in the “car lane”sic below.
Since the existence of a bike lane makes riding in the “car lane” illegal in most cases, calling it a car lane makes some sense. “Car lane” is clear and concise.
Who’s to say that experienced cyclist wouldn’t support a modestly improve bike lane, if the modest improvements solved the issues they have with riding in it?
A related issue that’s come up (I recall especially in regard to bike lanes in SW) is that bike lane designs that work very well for some riders (children and less experienced riders, for instance) don’t work well for others, who’s riding may fit in better with vehicle traffic outside the bike lane. Getting rid of requirement to ride in the bike lane would benefit everyone, except perhaps vehicle drivers who prefer that bike riders stay separated.
Anyway, the point of my original comment was that viewing the negative consequence of riding outside an available bike lane can be much more serious than getting ticket.
It might have the effect of making it more difficult to carve out dedicated space for bikes because “they don’t use it anyway.”
I don’t think designing a bike lane that doubles as a parking access lane, a delivery/temporary parking lane, and a deceleration/turn lane is a GOOD design. This a badly compromised piece of bike infrastructure by design. IMO, it is fatally flawed and hardly worth doing. Why does PBOT continue to build conflict into bike infrastructure? Why does anyone feel that is is acceptable?
My comment focused only on the intersection. The rest of the bike lane is problematic for the reasons you mention.
Parking protected bike lanes are a visibility and therefore a right hook nightmare when approaching a lot entrance or intersection. I’ve had more near misses on NE Multnomah than I care to count and will actively avoid parking protected lanes and take the car lane instead when I can.
Exactly. They create a perception of safety by creating an actual danger.
This is a good point. SW Broadway is also a right hook nightmare.
In my experience with riding both parking protected bikelanes and door zone bike lanes is that right hooks happen regardless at about the same rate.
The only difference is with parking protected bike lanes, I have more time to react before getting ran into. Plus it removes the annoying behavior car drivers do of encroaching into the bike lane as if it is some kind of deceleration turn lane.
Hey Jd, PBLs actually do work well when designed correctly. They are scary for a lot of portland cyclists because they are so rare. The primary purpose of separating traffic at the intersection is to force a car driver to slow and turn a 90, which gives a lot more time and visibility for road users to communicate safely. There’s quite a lot of evidence to support their effectiveness. LMK if you want me to cite.
When done incorrectly (e.g., without separation at the intersection, with parking up to the intersection) you’re absolutely correct, they can be incredibly dangerous. One good example of a band example is in the Cully Neighborhood here. But PBOT is learning.
While I understand PBOT’s engineers often have restrictions (e.g., political and otherwise), many project have not reflected best practices, nor have they been subject to progress monitoring to evaluate their effectiveness. So I get it, but this type of design is actually what works worldwide, particularly to encourage new riders.
There are no mixing areas and the extended concrete medians provide decent sightlines so this is nothing like NE Multnomah.
It seems like this facility is the best of both worlds. The interested but concerned get an improved bike lane and you get to ride in the car lane!
PBOT wants to have the bike lane easily accessible for Uber?Lyft/Amazon?FedEx/UPS, etc.
A similar design for the pedestrian islands was implemented on Killingsworth near a new apartment building on Cully. The design has been a complete failure because it is consistently blocked by parked motor vehicles and the city has refused to implement a level of enforcement that might make a change to that. I think this will likely be even worse on Broadway because there are many more rideshare vehicles operating in that area and rideshare drivers have a tendency to just pull into a bike lane for pick up or drop off. These islands create a more dangerous situation for people biking than a paint bike lane does because if a driver blocks the far end of the island and the cyclist doesn’t recognize what is happening there is no where to go as you are boxed in on both sides by curbs. Here is an example of a typical day at the install on Killingsworth. There are 4 vehicles illegally parked in the bike lane.
Sometimes I feel the same way about those bike lane islands, but I think the implementation on Broadway will be a net positive. The design as shown looks like a good way to daylight the intersection, while also reducing cornering speeds for turning vehicles.
Honestly think comparing to Killingsworth is apples to oranges. Kind of forcing a solution where it doesn’t really fit. If the city wanted to actually improve bike/ped (and vehicle) safety on near Hacienda CDC, they should close the slip-lane-esque connection to Lombard and revamp the intersection at Cully and Lombard.
I remember that Eli Spevak suggested fairly early on in the project at a Cully Neighborhood Land Use meeting that the developer should petition the city to vacate the west bound street there and close access to Killingsworth from Lombard producing a pedestrianized area and eliminating the sketchy left turn from Lombard. This would have made for a much safer crossing of Killingsworth as motor vehicle traffic would have only been 1 lane east bound largely eliminating the need for the islands. I do not believe the developer pursued it though.
Hey Andrew. You have some good points. I get that “bike lane islands” can be blocked by vehicles. And I agree that comparing Kworth to Bway is a huge stretch. By “slip lane” do you mean here? That is an interesting idea.
The big difference between Kworth and Bway is proximity to the central city separated bike lane network, as well as the potential for massive income increases for businesses along the route. That is a consistent trend among research focused on the economic benefit of separated bike lanes on commercial streets. The evidence that PBOT COULD get from this could be used to persuade other businesses along other corridors, if they are smart enough to progress monitor that data. That is no small tool when facing business backlash that is based on conjecture, anecdote, and good old fashioned vehicular cycling ideology (looking at you Hawthorne).
I got into an argument with some people that were parked in the bike lane on Rosa Parks, several months after it was upgraded to a protected bike lane. They said they had been told by police that they were allowed to park there whenever they needed to when picking people up or dropping off loads.
I’ve also seen cars block the bike lane at NW 19th Ave where the bike lane jogs over and around the raised bus platform.
Lack of enforcement is, yet again, one of many reasons why more people don’t ride bikes.
Yeah Yut… sigh… unfortunately the law in Oregon is pretty effed up in this case and, assuming the people who were “picking up or dropping off loads” MOMENTARILY it’s legal (doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous). That is a real subjective and IMO poorly written law that can lead to some real negative public health outcomes. If they are commercial vehicles (e.g., FedEx) then take a pic and send it to the company. Sometimes it has an effect.
In DC (i believe) and NY automated bus cameras have now been sending fines in the mail for people parked in the bus or bike lane. It’s great. Someday Portland may follow suit.
Actually, idlebytes just commented in the latest Monday Roundup that Portland does NOT have those exceptions. I would have answered the same as you until I read their comment, which looks to be true:
https://www.portland.gov/code/16/20/130
Doesn’t mean the State law shouldn’t be changed, though!
Oh interesting. I hope this is true. Is this new? I’m waiting with bated breath because this has been a thorn in the side of people on bikes for a long time.
And we just elected a bunch of anti-enforcement types to our City Council…:(
Where is this being proposed on Broadway? All the islands shown are at intersections, not mid-block, so it’s a completely different situation. Killingsworth is also a street that gets almost no bike use, so I think people are more likely to block the bike lane because they think it doesn’t matter. I think you’re showing a strawman example that is not very relevant.
While there is valid criticism that PBOT consistently under funds any bicycle improvements, paint is still a very power tool that can work out great if utilized well. Drivers drive inside the painted lanes, park within the painted lines, pedestrians generally cross at painted crosswalks, bicyclists ride within their painted lanes, etc…
Yet, PBOT continues to come up with unimaginative designs that affirm the status quo. Like, we really shouldn’t be making drivers cross over the bike lane in order to park. It is such an antiquated design, can you imagine if drivers had to cross the sidewalk in order to park? It’s unimaginable. The bike lane should at minimum be parking protected, or even just remove all the parking on the north side of Broadway and have a lane width buffer. That way the bike lane does not have to jog over every pedestrian crossing and the bike lane will be a car lane width away.
Try harder PBOT.
Isn’t that how most parking lots work? Cars cross over the sidewalk to access them.
Drivers have to slow down to approach at 90 degrees to the sidewalk which is a huge difference. I think walking on a road without a sidewalk on the shoulder is more akin to painted bike lanes, which is to say it sucks.
Yeah Daniel agreed. One of the only silver linings I can see here is if PBOT monitors progress on this stretch (e.g., modal share, crashes) and compares it to the inevitable switch to a physically separated bike lane. That data would be invaluable (even though it likely exists elsewhere) to reinforce the design that has more support from the data acquired.
When counting mode share, does it matter if you’re attracting new riders or if riders are just switching from another facility a few blocks over?
In general the evidence isn’t so robust with greenways. But what we have seems to suggest they tend to attract existing riders from nearby streets. Think of someone riding down Division and switching over to Clinton because it’s less stressful.
The evidence for separated bike lanes is pretty robust in attracting new riders (interested but concerned). Think of here a beginner who wants to try out a new cruiser and would normally ride on the sidewalk, and instead decides to ride in the separated bike lane since it’s safe.
I’d encourage you to find that evidence yourself, since I’ve shared evidence in the past and typically you have disregarded it with anecdote. Consequently, I have no interest in entertaining a similar dialogue.
“The evidence for separated bike lanes is pretty robust in attracting new riders (interested but concerned).”
Why is this is not happening in Portland? I can ride from anywhere near Clinton over the Tilikum or Hawthorne Bridges, along Naito, through S Portland, or along the Springwater or up to the Rose Quarter without leaving a protected or very low traffic Greenway.
The evidence we have both seen says folks are not starting to ride in large numbers.
I have said your evidence is stated preference, and is therefore inherently weak, and is not supported by what other more robust data shows us is happening in the street. I would encourage you to look at all of the evidence, not just that which supports your desired outcome.
Again, Watts you are purposely ignoring what I am stating. Agreed, the low stress separated bike network remains limited to the vicinity of downtown. That is an incredibly geographically limited location which does not provide much more than a recreational network for people who are already downtown.
You are purposefully ignoring the research I have provided on separated bike lanes and the influence of a separated network, and using anecdote and ideology to attempt to prove your point.
Based on your consistent MO of ignoring research and the salient parts of other people’s well-intentioned comments, it is a frustrating endeavor to have any constructive dialogue with you.
There is no real gain for me or anyone here in providing you with research because you will continue to ignore it. Go find the evidence for yourself please.
“You are purposefully ignoring the research I have provided”
On the contrary, I accept it at face value, and reference it in most relevant comments, as I did in the comment you responded to.
I do think you tend to overstate what the your research shows, and make conclusions with a level of certainly that is not warranted, especially in the face of contrary and confounding evidence. I don’t dismiss the evidence you’ve presented, I just don’t think it takes precedence over other observable, Portland specific facts (like we’re building bike infrastructure, ridership is falling, etc.) Rather, they are things to be considered alongside one another.
The reality is that most of what we “know” about getting Americans onto bikes in a serious manner is speculative. Most folks here ride in a serious capacity, which probably influences our thinking (like the comment I read earlier today that basically brushed off the idea that many people don’t like riding in the rain). Most folks who are not here do not consider bicycles a serious form of transportation, and act accordingly.
Regardless of where you come down on how to interpret and weigh the evidence, we still have the problem of building political support for more and improved infrastructure, much of which requires taking resources from someone else (space, money, signal time, etc.)
The problem is ultimately political, and that’s a much more significant issue than what you or I think about the various gradations of separated networks.
I do not want you to accept evidence at face value. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of why I share research. That indicates a problem of opinion rather than an effort to actually understand the research base I often share. Show me evidence to the contrary and I’ll be glad to review it.
This is your MO Watts. People find it annoying and unhelpful. When you ignore what people say, they tend to dismiss you outright. And that makes for an unfortunate cycle where you are involved in long dysfunctional threads that indicate parallel chat, not actual constructive communication.
That’s why I often scroll over a lot of your posts: they actively promote opinion and anecdote with no basis in any effort at a deeper understanding based on evidence. That to me is a big bucket of waste of time bilge. Maybe you can scroll over my posts as well, please?
Yes, a lot of what I write is opinion, which is true of you and almost every other person here.
Most of my issue with what you write is you take weak evidence and present it as unchallengeable fact, ignoring other evidence that does not comport to your world view.
We share the desire for PBOT to build the best cycling facilities they can. We’re not going to get a fully separated cycling network, so what can we convince them to build, and how?
Bike lanes are not sidewalks, they’re another form of travel lane. Unless they’re at sidewalk level, which there isn’t budget enough to do here.
COTW
Cool to hear, and important to mention. We always hear about the cranky few opposed to projects like this, even when most neighbors are actually excited for these changes.
We also need to create some better N/S routes to get to Broadway. It’ll be interesting to see how they link up to 26th where Broadway is a two-way. I’d certainly prefer to see better connections on NE 21st ave and NE 24th ave. Preference for NE 21st, since this provides a connection to SE PDX. People bike on this stretch all the time to connect to the bridge south of Multnomah St, and its always sketchy with cars aggressively trying to get to the I-84 onramp on Irving St. I would love to see these streets get some sort of painted bike lanes.
They’re proposing a westbound bike lane on Broadway from 26th Ave to 24th Ave to connect the 26th Ave bikeway to the Broadway bike lane west of 24th Ave. This has been a missing connection for way too long. There’s no need for an eastbound lane, because there is already a bike connection on Weidler St eastbound at 24th Ave, with a diverter and everything, onto a quiet local street. Just needs a few sharrows on Weidler between 24th and 26th.
Why not widen the sidewalk, make the bikelane “at grade” and place car parking against the curb? I get that it’s because of budget reasons. These lanes will absolutely be parked in by ride share cars.
It’s a pave and paint. They don’t have the moola for concrete stuff. BUT yes Dylan this would be way better.
We have a $7.1 BILLION dollar budget. Why don’t we have the “moola”??
“Portland’s adopted budget was approximately $7.1 billion, with a population of roughly 650,000. That works out to around $10,923 per person”
Denver, CO
Budget: $3.7 billion (2023-24)
Population: ~715,000
Per capita: $5,168
“Denver’s per capita spending is much lower, reflecting a more streamlined city government and fewer overlapping service areas.”
Portland (and Multnomah County and the State) are distinctly inefficient at turning dollars into services and infrastructure.
For whatever reason, people seem to be ok with that.
Huh? Angus I’m not sure where you got your numbers. We are talking about PBOT here right? Here’s PBOT’s budget.
earwiste,
Actually, the Portland city budget is OVER 8 BILLION dollars and you seem to be missing the point. Money is allocated to various bureaus from that $8 billion +. The problems is WHERE it is allocated. We can’t answer 911 calls in a timely fashion, respond to calls for police promptly, process permits efficiently, clean up garbage nor install PBL’s. Yet we spend WAY MORE money per capita than most municipalities. I have to ask where is the money going?
SOURCE:
https://www.portland.gov/budget/intro#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20the%20City%20of,and%20improve%20outcomes%20for%20Portlanders.
Earwiste, And if you want an example of wasteful spending, here’s a good one: $400,000 for Cannabis Empowerment Day, organized by the Office of Civic Life. Instead of focusing on the city’s real issues—like answering 911 calls promptly or reducing traffic violence—we’re throwing a one-day event aimed at promoting cannabis industry equity. What did taxpayers get for its $400K? Job fairs, networking booths, community panels, and of course, a lot of nice, feel-good speeches about social justice. But if you’re hoping that’ll fix the housing crisis or reduce street crime, you might want to look elsewhere. It’s almost like the city thinks PBL’s can wait, but hey—at least some folks now know where to apply for a job in the cannabis industry. Priorities, right? Source: The Oregonian, August 2023
I don’t doubt the inefficiency of the city budget for specific programs, nor it’s analogues in the corporate world where money is distributed in equally if not more questionable ways but subjected to much less scrutiny (it’s an oddly overlooked viewpoint to me sometimes).
But we are talking specifically about PBOT’s budget right? <2% of the general fund goes to PBOT. Apologies if I am overlooking something.
Up until about 2015, Denver was not a place run by left leaning ideologues perpetuating concepts of urban area ruining orthodoxy. It is much harder to be so awful at capital allocation when you’ve not been rewarded for throwing money away for four decades like Portland.
If you really want to identify the absolute awful job Portland does at capital allocation, remember that Denver is a CITY and a COUNTY. They spend about half what Portland does, employ 3,500 more people and retain about 30% of their budget as discretionary spending, for both city and county governments.
If even 50% of Multnomah County’s budget was added to Portland to create a more reasonable comparison, it is close to $10B in spending. All the time I look around and go, FOR WHAT?
It is exactly the same with more car parking…. I ride in the door zone on Broadway, this is not one bit different.
It is better for business on the street as there is double the parking but the cycling is EXACTLY what it is now.
You all get pretty excited over nice pictures.
Assumption 1: Door zone standard bike lanes are equivalent to separated bike lanes.
Assumption 2: Businesses benefits from parked cars
Assumption 3: The separation from traffic, particularly at intersections is the same as the status quo.
A buffered bike lane like this, buffered on both sides, is by definition not in the door zone.
the “buffered” bike lane does not appear to be buffered at all when cars explicitly have to use it by design to access the on-street parking. It is a wide lane, but it is NOT buffered, it is, in fact, a lane SHARED with cars. It is not buffered from cars if cars are intended to be in the lane-absurd!
In the image from the detail roll plot (above) at NE 7th, does anyone know what happens to the unmarked crosswalk on the left side of the intersection? Under Portland code, that currently legal crosswalk is no longer valid (because the intersection will now have a marked crosswalk).
https://www.portland.gov/code/16/90/085
I asked that about a similar situation a couple years ago here, and I recall one of the lawyers who comment here said it’s still legal to cross at the unmarked one. But although I liked the answer, I’ve never trusted it, based on what the regulation says.
Even if the unmarked crosswalk is still legal to use, I’d still like to see marked crosswalks go in at both sides of intersections where possible–but especially if adding one makes the unmarked one illegal to use.
I’d love to here a lawyer’s answer (again). I’d also be curious about PBOT’s answer, but don’t trust that it would be correct legally.
I’d be curious too, because the legal wording I cited seems pretty darned clear.
That’s a typo. It’s an image of NE 17th Ave, not NE 7th Ave (Jonathan, please fix the caption!).
Anyway, I’m pretty sure the marked crosswalks is only on the east leg because that’s the near-side of the one-way street, and the more important place to get drivers to stop. But that bit of city code you cited is likely unenforceable because under state law every leg of every intersection is a legal crosswalk whether marked or not, and there is a formal closure process that is required to change that. They should really amend that bit of code, because Portland has plenty of intersections with one marked crosswalk but two legal crosswalks.
If that piece of code is indeed unenforceable (I don’t see why it would be — the city can close crossings as it sees fit), then the city needs to remove it.
There’s also a state law that repeats the City regulation, so that would seem to throw out the idea that the City regulation in unenforceable.
HOWEVER, I found this legal analysis explaining why (at least this firm’s opinion) the unmarked crosswalk is still a legal crosswalk:
https://www.tcnf.legal/marked-vs-unmarked-sidewalks-oregon/#:~:text=Note%20that%20the%20actual%20language,crosswalks%E2%80%9D%20not%20%E2%80%9Ccrosswalk%E2%80%9D.
It references the 2019 death of a pedestrian at SW Salmon and Park, with one marked and one unmarked crossing–probably the case I was recalling being discussed years ago here.
If I had a client whose case depended on both crosswalks being legal, I’d probably make the same argument, but it sounds a bit like a Hail Mary to me.
An easy solution would be to ask PBOT to mark both crosswalks.
I agree. If it is correct legally, I’d like to see the law written so it doesn’t take a legal analysis to understand what it means. It also reminds me of the judge who ruled a few years ago that bike lanes don’t continue through intersections. I wouldn’t want to be in a courtroom relying on a judge to come to same conclusion the lawyers did.
And yes, PBOT should make both crosswalks unless there’s a specific good reason not to–especially when so many drivers still don’t seem aware of the “unmarked crosswalk” concept. To many, if you don’t have a marked crosswalk, you shouldn’t cross until you get to one.
Uh yeah. This is so confusing and weird.
How many times does this syzygy occur where:
1) We have a consensus about removing parking/car space
2) We have consensus that mode separation is best practice
3) We have a consensus from business owners who support the project
4) PBOT actually wants to separate modes but can’t because of… nebulous budgetary restrictions???
I’m genuinely confused why it would cost more to move paint and perhaps add some plastic bollards or better yet boulders. It’s baffling. Is it due to the pedestrian bulb-outs??? I can only speculate because I simply don’t understand PBOT’s decision.
There is a consensus on parking space, this project has a lot more.
Business owners support it because of that.
Broadway does not have that much car traffic.
Since they are keeping the bike lane in the door zone just like it was, when they squeeze the traffic from 3 to 2 lanes, a cyclist will actually have more cars in the lane next to them.
Take a look again at the proposed design. Aside from some intersections which have pedestrian islands AKA “separated intersections” which typically allow peds to cross much more safely as well as mitigate SOV right turn conflicts with people on bikes, much of the bike lane is “buffered”
Please provide evidence for this opinion. Most of the research done on the economic effect of separated bike lanes suggests that people on bikes visit businesses more frequently and thus, are more consistent income for businesses. Business owners consistently overestimate the income from people driving to their businesses. The old adages goes: cars do not buy things, people buy things. If you’re interested in reading research on this, I can share.
Compare the 11-feet wide buffered bike lane (admittedly not gold standard) to the baseline, often called a “standard” or “door zone” bike lane, which Portland has consistently built throughout the 90s.
The difference is indeed quite striking, albeit unfortunately and somewhat bafflingly devoid of a standard parking or otherwise physically protected design.
It is a stupid do nothing design. Bikes are still in the door zone. What are you talking about ?
When I look at the drawings, I see a buffer between parked car and the bike lane. Are bikes really in the “door zone”?
Yes you are, in fact the buffer space along with the parking is perfect for delivery vehicles to park in.
I live in the area, there is little reason to ride on Broadway, all the adjacent streets north and south are mellow and way better than Broadway and a cyclist can easily access anything on Broadway in a short block jaunt from the adjacent streets.
Taking away a lane to add lot more parking for businesses seems to be the goal, bikes are just secondary to the objective.
Hey BB I get where you’re going I’ve lived in NYC where everybody and their grama (plus the cops) park on sidewalks, bike lanes, private driveways, hell I saw private cop cars parked in playgrounds. I get it, these lanes are gonna be used as delivery lanes for FedEx and drop off for Ubers or just everyday people deciding it’s a nice place to stop and take a break.
Honestly, it’s a terrible design, and it is a sizable 11′ buffer. But’s it’s the best PBOT can do for whatever reason (reason TBD).
There is a buffer between the bikes and the parked cars, which is designed so the door can open without going into the bike lane. Therefore, it is not in the “door zone.” What do you think door zone means?!
Look at the photos or better yet go ride on Broadway.
The current bike lane has a larger buffer space to the cars than the new pretty picture does. The bike lane clearance to the cars is no wider than before in the new version. It is still a door zone bike path. All they did is add a stripe on the roadway, the distance to the cars is the same.
Same number of cars in fewer lanes means the traffic will be slower and more congested, with less risky passing behaviors. And a super wide buffered bike lane (buffered on both sides) means it is not in the door zone, nor is it directly next to traffic. That’s what the buffers are for.
Well, yes sort of. Theoretically fewer lanes means slower traffic (and that is a great point on a street such as Foster or Division). However, two car lanes offer a lot of options for people who are willing to pass and speed.
The salient point here BB may be trying to make (if I can assume correctly) is that the potential for conflict is much greater since people in cars must cross the buffered bike lane to park, can abuse that space based on Oregon law (you can park in a bike lane when dropping off people/goods), one can imagine cars using the buffered bike lane as a vehicle lane to pass other cars on the right (as reported in the BP article on outer Glisan), etc. It’s a design ridden with problematic scenarios that inevitably result in crashes, which is why it is rarely used in any place where best practices are followed.
They won’t just cross the bike lane, cars will stop in the bike lane like they do now so they parallel park.
Also the stupid back in parking on the south side they are adding will require cars to completely stop in the lane to back in.
This will just make car traffic drive around the stopped car (usually speeding), and they will get into the bike lane I guarantee.
I can’t believe you all fall for these pretty pictures.
I agree with you 100%. I’m confused why you are writing this given what I wrote above.
Money isn’t nebulous, it’s a real limitation. And if you are in favor of cheap, crappy parking-protected bike lanes, go ride on Glisan St east of 122nd Ave sometime, or even SW Broadway downtown. There are tons of negative issues that come from trying to do it on the cheap.
Also, this design does separate modes…just not in the way that you prefer. We’re not talking about sharrows, here. This is a fully separate bike lane, a very wide one, that never drops or disappears into a mixing zone. Compare that to NE Multnomah St, which has a parking-protected bike lane but fails to keep separation at some of the intersections. Intersections are where most of the conflicts and crashes occur.
Yeah Geralt I get you and agree although you might not expect it. Those plastic delineators in NYC are shit, often lasting about a few days at best (but are sometimes purposely placed specifically for emergency vehicle access). The delineators placed on woodstock and 69th (actually it’s a good read and vid on BP) are a great example of a bad use of crap materials primarily because PBOT doesn’t want to be liable for people recklessly hitting things…like houses. SMH. That’s just US culture and a whole other topic.
I think we’re talking about the same thing but using different words. Just for some perspective, in NYC a project often goes through “phases,” the first of which often includes paint and boulders and sometimes crappy plastic delineators. That paint and boulder combo is really effective at keeping cars from misusing dedicated pedestrian and and bike space because ya know boulders beaotch 🙂 Future iterations of those places include any data/tweaks/community input in the original design that weren’t very functional and the end result is a “capital project” with concrete and metal bollards. PBOT’s projects aren’t really structured like this. They do quick build or capital projects, and sometimes don’t even progress monitor on important data.
Often when people say “separated modes” that means physical separation, like sidewalks or cycle paths. A buffered bike lane is not physically separated, and has a lot of potential for conflict, which is why it’s rarely used in countries who follow best practices.
As for Multnomah, sigh, I wholeheartedly agree. That is a separated bike lane in name only. In reality it has near zero separation, particularly where evidence suggests the majority of conflicts occur: at intersections (as you said). So yeah PBOT has historically done a shitty job for most designs and maintenance, but there is some hope. Take a look at the plan for NE Bway at the Bway bridge to finally finally expand the separated network a tiny bit outside downtown: city reference doc.
This should be the No 1 priority for PBOT, and it could be done tomorrow with boulders and paint.
Like others have said, parking protected bike lanes would make a ton of sense here. Yes, you lose a bit more parking compared to what’s proposed, but that should be an acceptable trade off for a bike design that is considered superior by PBOT’s own guidelines.
Is PBOT trying to preserve as much parking as possible or provide the best bike lane they can with the available funds? The answer seems clear from this design.
Okay – this plan is MAYBE an indication that PBOT is getting serious about non-car transportation.
I have said for a while that we’ll know PBOT is serious when they start taking away space from cars.
Yes! Predictably, this comment thread is focused almost exclusively on whether the bike lane design is perfect versus less-than-perfect-but-still-good. But the real exciting thing about this for the city, for Broadway, for people walking and biking, for the main street businesses, for safety, and for mode share shift, is taking away a car lane on a major arterial. At some point we simply need less auto-dominated roads, and this is a step in the right direction.
The bike lane is not “less-than-perfect-but-still-good”, it is bad. It is designed to be driven in in a and across to access parking. Conflict between cyclists and drivers is baked into the design, it is inherently unsafe. Of course, experienced cyclists deal with this bullshit all of the time, and this is the kind of risk experienced cyclist accept. For me, and other cyclists, this will be a moderately useful segment because I can anticipate and deal with the risks of people parking and delivery drivers blocking the route. But is it is not much of an improvement, and it does not welcome or support any new types of cyclists. In this way, this really does nothing or at least very little, to improve the bike network or support new ridership. I think locking in this design with its built-in conflicts means we won’t see any real improvements for a decade at least. I think this is a design to mourn, not celebrate. this is is the type of poor design that is bikewashing- this sets our bike network back or locks in the status quo in the name of bike improvments.
COTW
As one of the folks that critiqued the plans in this thread, I want to make clear that I enthusiastically support the plan whether the bike lane is parking protected or not. My question was one of design choices that seem to carry about the same cost.
Broadway is such a disastrous car sewer I am just glad anything at all is being done that is not worse that current conditions. Removing a murder lane here is a great idea. Will this be safe enough for my kid to ride on, absolutely not. Is this quality bike infrastructure, no. But maybe this will help the street become more populated with people-centered commerce, that we can build off of in the future, as long as there is not one single crank that opposes a bike lane.
Yeah SD sigh. Often enough standard bike lanes are “place holders” for future functional infra. Some people might optimistically think this is always an “iterative process,” but I’m not one of those. And sometimes you just have to ride the sidewalk with the kid until the city gets its shit together.
While PBOT is working on this area, they should protect the Tillamook greenway between 15th and 7th. It’s an important route that is used by kids, and I routinely experience cars running the stop signs or speed up to the stop signs as if they are going to roll it until they see me at the last second, as I’m breaking. This happens both in the morning and evening. It sucks.
Damn good idea SD. I got clipped once by a driver who ran a stop sign (hit and run BTW) around there. I think you and I both know PBOT’s long and glorious history of divvying up diverters like they bbq at a family reunion… Oh wait I mean they never build diverters LOL.
And while these are fine, they don’t divert. We need a OJ saying like when the gloves don’t fit must aquit. How about: When the flowers don’t skrrt, must divert?
Surely that means the lane width will be painted to reflect those speeds such as 9 or 10 feet, right?
🙂 Thanks for this Daniel. Got a chuckle.
It should be 20MPH not 25. Hawthorne, Burnside etc are 20. Makes a big difference for ped safety especially since there will be the hazard of doubled car lanes still. 20 is statutory for the business district and consistent with City authority and policy throughout. The signals provide a great opportunity to achieve the posted speed. Great post thank you.
Why not make it 10 mph? Does it really matter if there is essentially zero enforcement that will accompany the change?
Well, yes and no. It depends on the circumstances. Given automated enforcement, drivers consistently receive a fine in the mail period. Given a limited number of lanes if one driver follows the speed limit, others are forced to do the same. And legally given a collision where speeding was a clear contributor, the driver can be held accountable much more readily than if the speed limit were higher.
Angus, give me some evidence when manned police consistently enforced and had a significant effect on speeding in the past (what was that magical year?). Because when you bang that gong constantly, it sounds like it’s got a dampener on. If you’re unable to do that, then it’s time to start looking in the mirror and sing that MJ song.
Easy partial fix, remove the car parking and put bike parking, BIKETOWN stations and restaurant outdoor seating instead.
That doesn’t sound easy to me.
Amit,
Would there be actual bikes in the BIKETOWN stations? I only see that in the downtown core.
Well at least PBOT isn’t saying removing a traffic lane and painting in an unprotected bike lane is against “our” equity goals. Guess one has to be grateful for baby steps.
We have a MASSIVE city budget but yet can only afford painted bike lanes??? WHERE is all the money going????? I don’t think we have our priorities straight in Portland.
Look in the mirror, we get what we elected.
Instead of a pair of high-speed racing tracks, why not make both streets 2-way?
2 way for the win. Make one street bus/bike/local access with retractable bollards.
Yes please to two 2-way streets. I live in that neighborhood and get around by bike and foot, it doesn’t feel safe. I’m curious about the history of NE Broadway/Weidler. The abundance of houses converted to commercial on NE Broadway suggests it was originally a slow/ safe residential street. Does anyone know the history? How long has Weidler west of 24th been a 2-lane oneway? Was Weidler converted to a oneway when Broadway was converted to a 4-lane oneway? Slowing down those two streets might encourage cars to divert and use I-84 (put them in the trench). Slowing down traffic on Broadway would probably be a boon to retail businesses. Off topic, my dream: a pedestrian bridge (like our new bridge on NE 7th) over I-84 @ NE 16th.
Because Broadway is a couplet with Weidler but houses 90% of the businesses in the corridor, I really wish PBOT would consider a two-way bikeway. I know, I know — we’d have to pay for special signals at each intersection, and PBOT seems to be wary of two-way configurations outside of a block here and there, but it makes so much sense considering how people actually use the street. They expect people to ride over the Weidler and ride that tiny bike lane next to 40mph traffic, but in reality people are just going to ride the wrong way down the bike lane or more likely, ride the sidewalk as they do now.
Steve, the 2-way Naito Pkwy bikeway made sense. I could tell it would work adequately during its trial phase with bollards. Another 2-way bikeway is along Barbur Blvd (eastside) from Harrison Street to Burlingame. ODOT, PBOT, Tri-Met and Metro proposed to scrape the gorgeous hillside of mature forest canopy its entire 1.2 mile length, with utterly absurd painted bike lanes and sidewalks on both sides, on the westside beneath 30′ tall concrete buttress walls like the west side of the new Sellwood Bridge. PBOT employees have their heads jammed up their butts awaiting a final paycheck that affords them the means to find employment elsewhere.
I live near the Broadway/Weidler corridor and when bicycling there I’ll always take a side street, Schuler, Halsey, Clackamas, Multnomah. This bikeway project is a distraction from the menacing ODOT proposal to widen I-5. The so-called Rose Quarter “Improvement” is a damn lie. I-5 is NOT a bottleneck there today, but it will become one if Kris Strickler, Lynn Peterson and incumbent Mair Ted Wheeler get their way.
I hear you Steve. When NYC started adding PBLs to avenues and streets, salmoning was incessant. And I get why. It’s a safer way to ride separated from cars, but it’s a pain in the ass for people on bikes. Salmoning tended to decline when there were convenient couplets (E.g., 13th and 12th st).
So yeah, we’ll see some people riding the wrong way. But I think this is just a function of limited funds for a pave and paint being restricted to Bway and not including Weidler. Baby steps I guess.
I would strongly recommend avoiding back-in / reverse angle parking WHEN placed on the LEFT side of a one way multilane arterial; as this placement defeats the back-in bonus of drivers being able to directly see approaching traffic before pulling out (vs traditional ‘ass-out’ diagonal parking vs ‘head-out’ orientation) when placed on the right curb side; unless local crash history trends with similar parking – that I am not aware of – proves otherwise. Furthermore, even if it adds ~2 parking spaces per block, it may not be worth the difficulty of community education / enforcement discussions (more complex vs parallel stalls) AND poor vision zero outcome.
[I make the above statement, as an individual, reflecting on past experience as an early researcher and practitioner of back-in parking nationally. https://pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE/case_studies/casestudy.cfm?CS_NUM=104%5D
I totally agree with your points here; it sounds like a recipe for conflict and crashes.
In this case, I suspect the main point was to occupy space, not provide an extra stall or two.
I can’t wait for this, but am also bewildered why the eastern segment isn’t parking protected. Instead cars HAVE to cross bike lanes to park. We know the bike lane will be a staging to park and a delivery/waiting zone too.
Both W and E segments are unprotected (i.e., buffered) based on the design docs, (except at the intersections). Yes, drivers will often use it for parking.
Here’s a recent story of a person driving into a house on NE 24th and Weidler causing a natural gas fire. Hopefully, Weidler will receive a redesign in the not too distant future.