Portland will daylight 200 intersections over next two years

A large truck completely blocks visibility of a curb ramp in Portland. This type of parking is illegal in Portland. Trucks over six feet high are not allowed to parking within 50 feet of an intersection. (Photo: Melissa Kostelecky)

The City of Portland has made a new commitment to daylight 200 more intersections over the next two years. The news comes in the form of a quiet update to the Portland Bureau of Transportation’s website.

Daylighting, or what PBOT refers to as “vision clearance”, is an intersection treatment that removes visible barriers like parked cars and trucks from corners in order to improve visibility. The treatment has gained popularity among transportation advocates nationwide because of how it can radically improve safety at intersections (where most serious injury and fatal crashes occur) and it’s extremely inexpensive. In Oregon it also has legal backing.

In 2020 nonprofit Oregon Walks launched a “Clear the Corners” campaign to ratchet up pressure on the City of Portland to abide by the Oregon Vehicle Code (ORS 811.550 section 17) which says drivers can’t park within 20-feet of a crosswalk. But the law makes individual cities responsible for parking regulations, and road safety activists think PBOT is using that to shirk legal requirements. Also in 2020, the City of Portland was slapped with a lawsuit brought by a person who was hit as a result of what his lawyer claims was negligence on the part of the city to enforce the daylighting law. Pressure from the lawsuit (which is still pending in the Court of Appeals) and advocates worked. In 2021, former Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty secured $200,000 to daylight 350 intersections.

But as BikePortland reported one year ago, there are still way too many intersections in Portland with terrible visibility due to people parking cars at the corner.

In fact, an analysis by Portland State University student and road safety advocate Melissa Kostelecky found that there are about 4,000 intersections in Portland that should be cleared of parking. At around $600 per intersection (the price for signs and poles at four corners), that would cost about $2.3 million. Kostelecky’s report analyzed 18,143 intersections citywide and looked at factors such as proximity to a school, presence of ADA ramps, crash history, speeding patterns, bike network connections, and so on.

Determining which corners to clear first is part of the challenge. PBOT’s standard practice is to apply vision clearance standards (no parking within 20-feet of the corners) on all major paving and capital projects. But when they find extra funding, they have expanded that scope to include more locations. The upcoming treatments will be targeted near schools, neighborhood greenways, and in designated pedestrian districts (as identified in city plans). PBOT will also respond to specific locations based on complaints. Anyone can call PBOT Parking Enforcement at 503-823-5195 (and wait for option 3) to report a dangerous corner for consideration.

The latest promise from PBOT to daylight 200 intersections will be funded from a $50,000 commitment from the Fixing Our Streets (local gas tax) program and from a portion of PBOT’s General Fund allocation for safety improvements.

View a map of eligible daylighting corridors and learn more on PBOT’s Vision Clearance website.

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Jonathan Maus (Publisher/Editor)

Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Car driver. If you have questions or feedback about this site or my work, contact me via email at maus.jonathan@gmail.com, or phone/text at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and appreciate this site, please become a paying subscriber.

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

168 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Todd/Boulanger
3 days ago

This is great news (20FT set back vs 0FT citywide or 5FT Alphabet District), BUT only a first step, as few trucks / cars made today are under 6FT in height for the 50FT set back. [And most pedestrians are not tall enough to have an eye height over 6FT too.] In reality – unless traffic speeds drop AND enforcement [self / auto enforcement or police] becomes commonplace then the set back for full compliance to see a ped crossing [esp. elderly] is at least 100FT per approach to a crosswalk [without a signal or stop control] in a downtown setting.

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/older-road-user/handbook-designing-roadways-aging-population/chapter-7-intersections

PTB
PTB
3 days ago
Reply to  Todd/Boulanger

I’m gonna dump on this even though I support it. Without rolling parking enforcement this is performative trash. On this site I can find articles regarding traffic enforcement coming back (May 9, 2023) and parking enforcement going on the offensive (June 25, 2024). The last car I saw pulled over was, I believe, summer 2023. I see cops all the time, and *endless* traffic violations, but somehow the cops don’t. I see loads and loads of cars with no plates, expired tags, parked on sidewalks, parked the wrong way, blocking the bike lane (OUTSIDE ROCIO’S ON GLADSTONE ALL THE TIME), but I never see anyone buzzing around in the little parking cop vehicles. Sure, daylight every intersection in the city, it won’t change anything if no one pays a price for violating the daylighting laws. So tired of all of this.

Angus Peters
Angus Peters
2 days ago
Reply to  PTB

Careful PTB or you will also get this curious message from Mr Maus:

“The reality is that the anti-enforcement era has been over in Portland for a while now, so you’ll have to come up with a new way to bash the libs. Good luck!”

PTB
PTB
3 days ago
Reply to  Todd/Boulanger

Todd, I didn’t mean to post my cranky rant as a reply to your comment. I have no gripes with your comment or Jonathan’s reporting, just the city at large.

Steven
Steven
3 days ago
Reply to  PTB

People complain about high taxes and then want an army of paid parking enforcement officers patrolling the streets 24/7. OK then, lobby for removing limits on density and mixed-use development to expand the tax base.

ExIjNB7VIAImhbV
donel courtney
donel courtney
3 days ago
Reply to  Steven

It’s just strange how there USED TO BE enforcement, back when taxes were lower. How did Carmen Rubio rack up so many tickets?

It isn’t this way in most cities in the US and the World or in those MAGA hellholes like Milwaukie, Oregon City and Seattle, where police are regularly pulling people over.

For a long time it seemed everyone in city government had an agenda that was against police.

Rule breaking was because of societal oppression according to the SEIU.–as long as the broken rule wasn’t replanting an dangerous tree you removed for $6000, elsewhere in your yard from what you marked on the map.

So they have money to track my 78 year old mom down and fine her about a misplaced tree, but they can’t find enough resources to stop cars from driving on the MUP or pull people over for speeding?

Boom–total cynicism from your populace–why? Because of all the virtue signaling which we used to call hypocrisy.

Steven
Steven
2 days ago
Reply to  donel courtney

“For a long time it seemed everyone in city government had an agenda that was against police…”

You mean the same city government that gave PPB its highest budget ever even while the police failed to comply with a DOJ settlement over unconstitutional use of force?

In any case, this is about civil parking violations. Should we be paying cops $87k – $117k per year (plus pensions and overtime) to write parking tickets instead of, you know, catching criminals? Surely a wise use of government resources.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

Every department budget has gone up, I believe.

Do you want to tell us how services all over the city have gotten better?

Steven
Steven
2 days ago

In other words, PPB have gotten a consistent share of city funds year after year. I think you just refuted Donel’s complaint.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago
Reply to  donel courtney

Carmen Rubio racked up a bunch of tickets partly because she worked in a building with very little attached parking but an adjacent 2hr maximum city owned surface lot that was regularly patrolled. A busy person committed to their job probably couldn’t do a great job of feeding the meter, even with the best of intentions.

The ‘nearby’ free surface parking was on the other side of a three lane street with fast driving and bad sight lines, a familiar place that I’ve always thought was bad for my bones.

I’m not with the police but I guess if an officer runs a plate and sees some violations the driver just might be getting another ticket. There’s always a way.

That’s really hard on your mom, busting her for what sounds like a pretty innocent mistake. It’s a whole different bunch of people and maybe one of them is going around angry. Is there an appeal process?

BrickLearns
BrickLearns
3 days ago
Reply to  Steven

Pay for the enforcement with the fines

Carl Prehn
Carl Prehn
2 days ago
Reply to  BrickLearns

Spot on Brick…why not have an ordinance that lets registered tow trucks handle it? With photo evidence, they could just roll up, document the violation, and tow the car away. The city would set the rates for towing and storage, making it straightforward and efficient. This way, we keep intersections clear without all the red tape. ⚖️

Steven
Steven
2 days ago
Reply to  BrickLearns

Using fines to balance city budgets unfortunately leads the public to see parking enforcement as a cash grab, not a safety measure. It also encourages disproportionate enforcement in low-income & minority neighborhoods since residents there have less time and money to fight tickets in court. All of this will create a populist backlash where people elect politicians promising to slash enforcement, erasing any previous gains.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

Dude, parking fines are avoidable. You’re making it sound like minorities and the poor have no personal agency.

Watts
Watts
2 days ago

While I regard parking fines as essentially voluntary taxation, using them to fill holes in your budget is still a bad idea.

Steven
Steven
2 days ago

As I said, the problem is the government specifically targeting vulnerable residents with enforcement. But please, tell us more about how everybody just needs to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

Well don’t they?
If folks are waiting around for the government fairy to come save them from themselves, they’ll never get anything out of life.
Guess drinking beer and smoking pot all day is a great time, but when it doesn’t pay the bills sometimes, yes, sometimes someone has to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and get out of their mess by their own ability. Waiting on our government saviors will likely result in total futility.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

Waiting on our government saviors will likely result in total futility.

Especially now.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

Tell that to the wealthy Americans who get a subsidy from the “government fairy” in the form of the mortgage interest tax deduction or any of the myriad forms of accounting trickery that billionaires use to avoid paying taxes entirely. In America we have socialism for the rich, “rugged individualism” for everyone else.

PTB
PTB
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

Who is being targeted? Just park correctly. Parking is quite literally the easist part of driving. You stop the vehicle at the curb or in a driveway. No, don’t park facing traffic, park with traffic! No, don’t park on the sidewalk, people walk there, park elsewhere! If there’s a meter (lol), pay for parking or find a free spot and walk a block or two to your destination! Is there a “NO PARKING” sign? Don’t park there, in theory you’ll get a ticket (lol, again). If these scenarios are too challenging you simply shouldn’t be driving. This has nothing to do with your place in society.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  PTB

“In theory you’ll get a ticket…” In reality, those tickets are mostly paid by those who lack the time or money to fight them in court, which leads to perverse incentives to ticket mainly in low-income areas if you’re using that revenue to balance the budget, as I already said.

PTB
PTB
14 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

I live in outer SE. According to plenty of reporting, the poorest and most diverse area of the city. NO ONE IS GETTING PARKING TICKETS OUT HERE. There are stunning numbers of busted ass cars all over. When there is a sidewalk or bike lane, you can just about bet someone is parked on/in it. There are vehicles on Holgate that haven’t moved in so long, there’s enough dirt that’s been washed and blown under the cars that grass and weeds are growing. Etc. Parking tickets aren’t an attack on poor people. Please stop.

Steven
Steven
12 hours ago
Reply to  PTB

I didn’t say parking tickets were always an attack on poor people. Please read what I actually wrote.

360Skeptic
360Skeptic
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

No, that’s not necessarily the paradox. Another one is that the city claims to do stuff over and over but doesn’t actually do it. If the city can’t do it because of XYZ, then fine. But if that’s the case, then the city ought to STOP CLAIMING IT.

PTB
PTB
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

Steven, I’ve never once complained about my taxes or Portland density here on BP. Well, hold on, taxes; I have complained because my outer SE property taxes are higher than some long time, close-in owners that I’m friends with. I pay more and arguably get less. Also my homes market value is considerably less than theirs. That’s sorta frustrating. I’m not sure what you’re on about here.

Steven
Steven
2 days ago
Reply to  PTB

Exactly. Unless you want to pay even more in taxes, you’d better argue for increased density. how else do you propose to pay for increased parking enforcement and other city services?

Watts
Watts
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

increased density*

*To the extent the existing infrastructure can support it… otherwise it’s back to increased taxes to pay for the new parks/sewer lines/libraries/schools/whatever.

Steven
Steven
2 days ago
Reply to  Watts

Existing infrastructure is under-utilized and can support much more density than we currently have. Sprawl demands more infrastructure investment for a given number of people.

PTB
PTB
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

Ok, but again, I didn’t bring up either thing. I just want a basic enforcement of easy-to-enforce traffic rules that make the streets safer for all road users. Increase the density of Portland, fine. It’s no longer the city I grew up in, not really, everything is gone for the most part, an increase in density isn’t gonna bum me out now.

Steven
Steven
2 days ago
Reply to  PTB

Not sure why anyone would be bummed to have more neighbors and new places to go, but OK, glad you’re on board I guess.

PTB
PTB
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

Dude, increase density. I don’t care. I love the UGB. What’s your deal?

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  PTB

Sorry, but you seemed to be saying that if Portland had somehow been unchanged since the 1990s, you’d want to keep it that way now, which is strange.

Trike Guy
Trike Guy
15 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

Dude, downtown Portland in the early 90’s was a wonderful place to live. I’d take that back in a heartbeat. That feel is exactly what I’ll be looking for when I retire and leave.

PTB
PTB
13 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

I’m not sure missing the times and places of your youth is strange. I do miss Old Portland. I miss having long hair (I could grow a sick skullet now, I suppose). I miss working late nights downtown and meeting friends at The X-Ray or Satyricon or Fellini or wherever. Getting coffee at La Patisserie. I miss part time slacker work and $250 rent minutes from downtown. I miss Arvydas Sabonis, Rasheed, Stoudemire, Shrempf and all those Blazers. Beavers baseball was to me, infinitely more enjoyable than soccer. I also miss a no tech life. Bored? Meet friends OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOUSE rather than mindlessly scrolling on phones, staring at a streaming services menu or arguing with Steven about *parking enforcement* FFS. Nostalgia, Steven, pretty wild. Try it sometime!

Lisa Caballero (Contributor)
Editor
Reply to  PTB

I spent a lot of happy times in Civic Stadium with my little boy watching the Beavers, and I don’t even care much about baseball.

Steven
Steven
12 hours ago
Reply to  PTB

Those feelings are understandable. But nostalgia for one’s lost youth is not a basis for sound public policy. And it definitely won’t make rent cheap again.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

It bums me out when nice old houses get demolished, and replaced by ugly generic boxes, mature trees get chopped down, and green space is replaced by hardscape.

Neighborhoods like Ladds Addition are a delight to walk and bike through exactly because they have been able to resist the transformation you cheer on. They retain a unique character that we are losing elsewhere.

I get that these things are not important to everyone, but they are to me. New neighbors are great, but quantity is not how I measure community, and new development is almost always expensive, both environmentally and financially.

I don’t want to start an argument about development, just reminding you there are two sides to the coin, having more people packed into a place comes at a cost, and will not necessarily fix the problems you believe it will.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

Neighborhoods like Ladd’s Addition retained their “unique character” through decades of outright racism. Frankly I’d rather see more people living in “ugly generic boxes” than homeless on the streets. Dense, mixed-use, infill development is less costly then sprawl, both fiscally environmentally. That’s the whole point.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

You mean the way they were redlined? One of the reasons the neighborhood survived intact is that no one wanted to invest there.

You have just reinforced my point that new development will not necessarily fix the problems you think it will.

Destroying the things that make Portland such a great city is not the only alternative to sprawl.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

I’m sure it seems like a great city if you were fortunate enough to buy a house 20 or 30 years ago for under $100K that’s now worth half a million. The entitlement of people who live in market-rate housing saying we don’t need more market-rate housing truly knows no bounds.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

I’m not saying we don’t need more housing, or more market rate housing. I didn’t say that, I’ve never said that, so I don’t know why you are attributing that to me.

That said, if you really want to address homelessness, we probably need more public housing. That’s as close as I’ll get to seeing what you say claim I did.

Steven
Steven
12 hours ago
Reply to  Watts

Right, just so long as that new housing gets built somewhere else and doesn’t “disrupt” any areas with “nice old houses”. Classic NIMBYism dressed up with terms like “unique neighborhood character” and “context sensitive design”. Yeah, I’ve heard that one before.

Watts
Watts
10 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

just so long as that new housing gets built somewhere else and doesn’t “disrupt” any areas with “nice old houses”.

Yes — new development should fit its context, wherever it’s built.

Steven
Steven
8 hours ago
Reply to  Watts

With the “fit” to be decided by those who already own property (i.e. wealth), based on their own subjective feelings. How convenient.

PTB
PTB
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

I’m with you here, Watts, mostly. However, I grew up over in Vancouver and if I’m asked, “Would you rather increase density in town or let shit go wild like in Clark County?”, I’m picking density. I too don’t like when already built, lovely old homes are torn down for what usually seems like a Monster Sized Modern Box for some rich transplants. I do think there are loads of underused lots all over the place and we should be building a decent number of housing units on those lots. The very rural-ish areas I grew up riding bikes around over there, Orchards, Five Corners, Burton, Evergreen, stuff east of 205, gah, it’s all a nightmarish blend of curvy street housing developments and big box strip malls.

They’re putting in a bunch of new houses out at the base of Powell Butte, visible from the Springwater. Huge, single family McMansion Dream Homes. They’re not gonna do a goddamn thing to help our housing woes. The trees are already cleared, housing is going up, I just wish it was something else to accomodate more people (but then there’d be more people at Powell Butte, which annoys the living shit out of me).

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  PTB

That’s right. The answer to bad development is not no development, but better development. Some people see the world through a binary lens, but multidimensional problems rarely only have two answers.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  PTB

The area around Powell Butte is zoned for low-density residential use (one lot per 5,000 sq. ft.). It’s legally impossible to build anything denser than a fourplex (or below-market sixplex) on the vast majority of residential land in Portland, let alone mixed-use development with shops, libraries, schools, etc. If you hate McMansions (as I do), then work to legalize four floors and corner stores citywide for starters.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

I love how organizations like the one you linked to never advertise the sort of development their polices actually result in. They always show photos of old, classy buildings built in the context of other tall classy buildings, rather than the sort of stuff that typically gets build these days in the context of a neighborhood of much smaller houses.

I would absolutely support building more neighborhoods like the ones shown on that website that featured great design in areas like S Waterfront, Lloyd District, Gateway, and other places that have excellent transit access and wouldn’t be disruptive to existing neighborhoods.

But context sensitive design is not what this group wants. Randomly placing buildings like that on Powell Butte, for example, makes no sense at all, except, possibly for spite.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

No one is building anything on Powell Butte. Multifamily development next to Powell Butte actually makes a lot of sense unless you think only upper-middle-class homeowners deserve easy access to green space.

The type of “classy” middle housing preservationists claim to love today was called “artificial” and “inauthentic” when new. Aesthetic tastes and building codes change over time. (Not to mention that labor and materials were cheaper a hundred years ago when we had little regard for workers’ health and safety as well as having vast swathes of old-growth forest yet to be clear cut.) Personally I care more about people being priced out due to high rents than I do about offending some people’s delicate sensibilities.

blumdrew
15 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

Multifamily development next to Powell Butte actually makes a lot of sense unless you think only upper-middle-class homeowners deserve easy access to green space.

The area around Powell Butte is one of the last parts of Portland where homeownership is relatively affordable. Median home values in Powellhurt-Gilbert, Pleasant Valley, and Centenial are like half of the City of Portland median, and are places where homeownership may be affordable for middle or working class families still (here’s a random lower end listing near 153rd and Powell that has an estimated monthly cost of ~2k). And it’s not like there are no apartments or lower cost housing within close proximity to Powell Butte. A mobile home park backs up to it on Powell, and I count three or four apartment buildings within a very short walk.

If we want equitable access to regional green spaces, having a coherent trail/transit system is more important than having high density housing. Powell Butte is honestly pretty good by this standard too (with the 9, 17, and Springwater), though a bus on 162nd could go a long way to improving it. Only so many people can live near Mount Tabor or Laurelhurst, but they are made much more accessible by having good bike and transit links. Denser housing in neighborhoods like Tabor/Laurelhurst/Irvington would be great, but that’s because they are also close to regional job centers and super productive commercial corridors.

And yes, taste is subjective but building materials are not. There’s a lot of survivorship bias when talking about differences between old and new developments, but no one is building things to the same durability standards as they were 100 years ago. That old growth timber is way stronger than the particle board and adolescent Douglas Fir that makes up most new builds these days, and at some point that will matter.

Steven
Steven
12 hours ago
Reply to  blumdrew

Only so many people can live near Mount Tabor or Laurelhurst Park precisely because those neighborhoods are expensive (especially Laurelhurst) and zoned for low-density housing. Proximity to green space increases property values because people like being close to nature. The question is who gets to enjoy those benefits. Personally I think it should be everyone, not just the relatively well-off.

I’m sure you’re right about the durability of new vs. old building materials. But that’s a building code issue, not a zoning issue.

blumdrew
10 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

I’m saying that only so many people can live close to a park in general, regardless of density. Obviously more density means more people can be nearby, but for major regional parks (like a Mount Tabor or Powell Butte) having good transportation access is a key aspect of equitable access. And increasing density does not necessarily increase affordability. The example that springs to mind as it relates to park access is New York, where proximity to Central Park is generally very expensive, even though some of the tallest residential buildings in the world are there.

Personally I think it should be everyone, not just the relatively well-off.

Sure, I think that too. That’s why we should pay to run the bus to the park on weekends. I love hiking in Forest Park, but I do it far less than I would otherwise since only like 2 trailheads are accessible via the bus.

Steven
Steven
8 hours ago
Reply to  blumdrew

Manhattan is a bit of a special case, being arguably the nation’s most important cultural and economic hub with extremely limited land area (and its own history of exclusionary downzoning). But if you’re saying that limiting density near Central Park (i.e. making proximity to the park even more exclusive) would somehow lower housing prices, that just doesn’t make any sense.

Middle o the Road Guy
Middle o the Road Guy
2 days ago
Reply to  Steven

How about insisting any city employee living in another city give up their job? That should fund a few positions

Steven
Steven
2 days ago

Does that include the 82 percent of PPB officers who live outside Portland (as of 2021)?

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

If you were a police officer would you really want to live in a city that shows you total hate and the politicians little support?
Maybe that’s part of the reason why Portland can’t seem to hire enough police officers.
Portland got a bad rap because of the actions of a few. It’s unfortunate but the rap is still very much alive and well around the country.
We are the poster child of Dysfunctional Cities.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

Asking police to follow the law=”total hate”
Demonizing homeless drug addicts=”compassion”

Make it make sense.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

Remote work doesn’t seem very compatible with policing!

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

Who said anything about remote work?

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

MOTRG. It seems crystal clear from the context. You do know what’s going on at City Hall, right?

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

I was talking about cops living outside the communities they police every day, not white-collar employees working remotely from home. But since we’re on the topic, please explain how adding even more rush hour commuters (who apparently avoid transit and bicycling like the plague) is going to help fix the problems with our transportation system.

Watts
Watts
1 day ago
Reply to  Steven

Maybe you were, but MOTRG wasn’t, so don’t blame me for trying to change in context.

But really, who wants to walk into the Safeway with their kid on a Saturday afternoon and confront the guy they arrested the week before for beating up his wife?

Not me, that’s who.

But sure, fire cops for that. Sounds like a perfectly reasonable position.

As for work-from-home, I think it’s great, so pick that fight with someone else.

Steven
Steven
1 day ago
Reply to  Watts

“Who wants to walk into the Safeway with their kid on a Saturday afternoon and confront the guy they arrested the week before…?”

Call me idealistic, but in this totally common and not at all contrived hypothetical scenario (where violent criminals are apparently lurking around every corner), I would think that a cop who saw citizens as fellow members of their community (rather than as a hostile enemy to be pacified and controlled) would have no problem meeting them on equal terms outside of work. The consequences for assaulting an off-duty cop or their family would be swift and severe regardless.

Watts
Watts
15 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

“But really, who wants to walk into the Safeway with their kid on a Saturday afternoon and confront the guy they arrested the week before for beating up his wife?”

Steven does. And no one else.

You don’t need an assault to have a very ugly scene. But maybe such obviously contrived hypotheticals would have a positive outcome in places like Mayberry or Portland.

Steven
Steven
11 hours ago
Reply to  Watts

Once again I would hope that someone who has sworn to protect and serve others would put that responsibility before their own irrational fears. But I guess that’s just my naive idealism talking. According to Watts, police are fragile creatures who need to be insulated from the results of their actions at all times. Curious.

Watts
Watts
10 hours ago
Reply to  Steven

that’s just my naive idealism talking

Yes, it is.

Todd/Boulanger
2 days ago
Reply to  PTB

PTB: no worries.[I complain a lot locally about the poor state of parking enforcement by police and parking officers too]

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
3 days ago
Reply to  Todd/Boulanger

“as few trucks / cars made today are under 6FT in height for the 50FT set back”

A great unintended consequence of enforcing the 6FT-high/50FT-setback law:

To avoid a reduction in available curbside parking, more people will make a point of only buying cars/trucks that are under 6FT in height, and more manufacturers, in turn, will produce vehicles that under 6FT tall.

Chris I
Chris I
3 days ago

Crushing blow to people living in dense neighborhoods with no off street parking. This is going to be interesting.

Hopefully they prioritize Safe Routes to School corridors.

Duncan
Duncan
3 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

Crushing blow to people living in dense neighborhoods with no off street parking.

Ironic metaphor you choose. Daylighting is supposed to help avoid the crushing of vulnerable road users and also help drivers avoid crushing each other. Loss of curbside parking for gigantic vehicles is hardly more than an inconvenience in comparison.

Ryan Ernst
Ryan Ernst
3 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

When I was looking for a place about 9 years ago, we visited a house in Lents that didn’t have off street parking… the house was amazing. The lack of parking quickly made us move on. Eventually settled in the still barely affordable Brentwood Darlington. All that say, I live in a tiny house in the woods now. Life is good.

Let in the daylight
Let in the daylight
3 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I think you mean “huge improvement for people living in dense neighborhoods and imperceptible inconvenience to people who store their private property easily and freely on public land”

Watts
Watts
3 days ago

If you are right, this will be an utterly uncontroversial action, and everybody will love it.

Matt
Matt
3 days ago
Reply to  Watts

People can and do argue against things that are actually to their benefit, all the goddamn time. Have you ever posed an argument that was not in defeat of an obvious straw man?

Watts
Watts
3 days ago
Reply to  Matt

Maybe it seems like a straw man because you misunderstood my argument. My point is that the “imperceptable” downsides are likely to be quite perceivable to those the commenter was so obviously dismissive of.

It’s that sort of contemptuous BS that got Trump elected.

Dan
Dan
2 days ago
Reply to  Watts

Are you the poster formerly known as 9 Watts? If so, you’ve changed, man

Watts
Watts
2 days ago
Reply to  Dan

Nope — 9watts is still around, sometimes. Watts is my nickname.

blumdrew
3 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

It’s really fine. I live in a dense part of inner SE (about 20k people/square mile) in a small apartment building with no surface lot and parking is really not bad. I’ve never had to walk more than two blocks. Everyone who complains about parking being “so bad” is also never willing to walk like 500 extra feet. I’d personally rather walk a little bit further than die in a crash because I couldn’t see around a corner.

Sure, there are places like South Philly that are twice as dense with basically no off street parking where there are legendary parking difficulties, but there’s nothing like that in Portland (not even in NW).

idlebytes
idlebytes
3 days ago
Reply to  blumdrew

It’s Portland People Problems. They don’t have a perspective of a world outside their bubble so they complain about everything.

Steven
Steven
3 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

“Dense neighborhoods with no off street parking…” You mean the ones already served by public transportation? To be fair, I’m sure regulations on hazardous waste were also a “crushing blow” to those accustomed to dumping poison into the groundwater supply.

Will
Will
2 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

I live in Nob Hill without off street parking. This is the opposite of a crushing blow. They can’t do this soon enough imo.

idlebytes
idlebytes
3 days ago

A number of the roads on their map have already been daylit and have been for years. Burnside between 71st and 82nd for instance. Parts of Clinton and Lincoln greenways as well.

Melissa Kostelecky
Melissa Kostelecky
3 days ago
Reply to  idlebytes

As far as I’m aware, the city doesn’t keep a database of spots it has already daylit, so there are bound to be some intersections already done.

When I was doing the analysis, a city employee told me they don’t even keep a database of streets that restrict parking. That made it pretty difficult, since I don’t have the time to check thousands (or even hundreds) of individual intersections. I do mention in the analysis, though, that a site visit would in theory be necessary before any treatment was put in. I say “in theory” because this was a project I did at PSU and was not commissioned by the city. My project was meant mainly to bring awareness to daylighting and offer a theoretical basis of what criteria could be used to prioritize locations.

I would hope the city knows what they’re doing when selecting intersections, but considering how randomly some of the new ADA ramps have been slapped onto corners with no adjacent sidewalks, who knows :/

idlebytes
idlebytes
3 days ago

I would hope the city knows what they’re doing when selecting intersections, but considering how randomly some of the new ADA ramps have been slapped onto corners with no adjacent sidewalks

Ya living in Montavilla this is absurd. I doubt they know. There are so many ramps with no sidewalks attached to them. They’re just putting them up anywhere that’s easy to meet their legal requirement. This would actually be a good article for bikeportland if Jonathan could get any info on it. It’s a waste of money with no safety improvement.

cct
cct
2 days ago
Reply to  idlebytes

They’re just putting them up anywhere that’s easy to meet their legal requirement.

malicious compliance is the term. Letter of law, but not spirit, if you will.

Jessica
Jessica
3 days ago

Will this enforcement also apply to moving pods? A pod had been parked within 20 ft of the intersection at NE Going (a bike thoroughfare) and NE 23rd for at least 6 months and is an absolute safety hazard.

Chris I
Chris I
3 days ago
Reply to  Jessica

Report it.

Fred
Fred
2 days ago
Reply to  Chris I

To what end? I find that even when I report road hazards, nothing is done about 95% of the time. City of Portland gov’t is the least responsive city gov’t in history.

Hotrodder
Hotrodder
3 days ago
Reply to  Jessica

If you look up NE 23rd Ave & NE Going St on google maps, that Pod shows up in the street view thumbnail.

Ryan Ernst
Ryan Ernst
3 days ago

Awesome, only 17,943 left to go.

david hampsten
david hampsten
3 days ago
Reply to  Ryan Ernst

When I worked for PBOT in the mapping section in the early noughts, my boss told me there was something on the order of 46,000 street corners in the city.

Ryan Ernst
Ryan Ernst
3 days ago
Reply to  david hampsten

AI via a Google search gave me those numbers. Either way, it’s a start and we have a very long ways to go.

david hampsten
david hampsten
21 hours ago
Reply to  Ryan Ernst

Given that there are many T-intersections throughout Portland, both numbers may be correct.

…there are about 4,000 intersections in Portland that should be cleared of parking. At around $600 per intersection (the price for signs and poles at four corners), that would cost about $2.3 million. Kostelecky’s report analyzed 18,143 intersections citywide and looked at factors such as proximity to a school, presence of ADA ramps, crash history, speeding patterns, bike network connections, and so on….The latest promise from PBOT to daylight 200 intersections will be funded from a $50,000 commitment from the Fixing Our Streets (local gas tax) program and from a portion of PBOT’s General Fund allocation for safety improvements.

Assuming $600/intersection and 18,143 intersections, it would cost around $11 million to fix them all, just for signage & poles, not including pavement makings, staffing, outreach, design, trips to Amsterdam, etc.

Given $50,000 + “general funds” to fix 200 intersections over the coming two years, that would work out to $25,000+ per 100 intersections/year, or $250/intersection, so if it actually costs $600 per intersection, then $350 of general funds (likely PCEF funding) per intersection, $35,000/year, or $70,000 for the two year program. $50,000 + $70,000 = $120,000 total, not including public outreach staffing, supervisors, labor, etc.

At 100 intersections per year, and 18,143 intersections total, it should take only 181.43 years to fix them all, so figure a completion date by June 15th 2206. Even the top 4,000 intersections should take 40 years, by 2065.

qqq
qqq
3 days ago

Is the City changing the code to match the State’s standard? I couldn’t find that it has from the PBOT link in the article. In fact, since PBOT is prioritizing WHERE it will daylight corners, it looks clear that Portland has NOT changed the code.

Why not?

I realize there’s signage (for instance, signs regulating parking with “Park Here”, “2 Hr. Parking Limit”, “Truck Loading Only”, etc.) at hundreds or thousands of corners here that tells people it’s legal to park closer than 20′ from the crosswalk. So it wouldn’t be fair to ticket someone for parking within 20′ when the signage says its OK. So it IS necessary to change that signage, as PBOT is doing.

But there are thousands of corners with no signage. Those would be daylighted (by law at least) by changing the regulation.

Why not have the regulation match the State’s at all locations UNLESS there’s signage that contradicts it?

Think of fire hydrants–it’s illegal to park within the required clearance area, even though there’s no curb markings or signage saying you can’t. An education/phase-in period would make sense for the corner parking, of course.

So hopefully I’m wrong, but I get the impression Portland isn’t changing to match the State regulation, but instead is saying you CAN park within the 20′ clearance area UNLESS there’s signage saying you can’t. That’s weak.

maxD
maxD
3 days ago
Reply to  qqq

COTW

idlebytes
idlebytes
3 days ago
Reply to  qqq

What city code are you talking about? The city code as far as I understand is more strict than the state statute. They just haven’t been enforcing it.

qqq
qqq
3 days ago
Reply to  idlebytes

My understanding is the City allows parking within 20′ of crosswalks, but the State does not, so for that the State is more strict.

In the City code section you linked to, unless I skimmed over it I don’t see a prohibition against parking within 20′ of a crosswalk for vehicles under 6′ tall.

idlebytes
idlebytes
2 days ago
Reply to  qqq

You don’t need to have a redundant city ordinance state law applies everywhere. In fact most state traffic laws don’t have a redundant city ordinance. City Ordinances generally add to state laws not supersede them. So the city code I linked doesn’t need to have a prohibition against parking within 20′ of a crosswalk as the state law still applies.

qqq
qqq
2 days ago
Reply to  idlebytes

The reason I’ve been talking about Portland changing its regulation is that Portland has argued that another state law allows it to deviate from the State law: From https://bikeportland.org/2020/02/20/5-9-million-lawsuit-says-city-of-portland-is-negligent-for-allowing-parking-at-intersections-311314

In the past, the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation has said another state law (ORS 810.610) gives it the right to deviate from the 20-foot requirement and establish their own local regulations.

I’d like you to be right, but my understanding is that the City disagrees with you. I don’t know if the City is correct legally or not (I’d like them to be wrong). If you asked the City if it’s legal to park within 20′ of a crosswalk, everything I’ve seen from the City tells me they’d say yes, it is legal in Portland. They would not say, no, it’s not legal, but we don’t enforce it. The City has erected hundreds or thousands of signs (anywhere parking is regulated with payment or permits) that tell people specifically that parking is allowed within 20′ of crosswalks. That’s another indication the City believes it’s legal, versus not legal but unenforced.

That’s why I’ve been saying Portland should change its regulation, because–right or wrong–the City seems to be convinced the State law does not apply.

Also, if you compare Portland’s parking regulations to the State’s, Portland repeats almost all of the State’s regulations. But it does not repeat the 20′ regulation. So–at least to me–it doesn’t look like Portland shares the idea that if there’s a State regulation, Portland doesn’t need to write it into its own regulations. It looks to me like Portland didn’t include the 20′ regulation because Portland does not want that regulation to apply in Portland.

We both agree the regulation SHOULD apply in Portland, and I’d like you to be right that it already does, but isn’t enforced. But it seems clear the City does not believe that. And that’s why I’d like to see the City change its own regulations to specifically add the 20′ clearance requirement.

idlebytes
idlebytes
1 day ago
Reply to  qqq

That law doesn’t require the city to deviate from state law they could at any time change their mind and start enforcing state law. Technically law enforcement doesn’t have to enforce any laws as we saw with various sheriffs offices saying they wouldn’t enforce gun laws we’ve passed.

Are you sure the city disagrees with me? This is an article about the city choosing to daylight hundreds of corners after it did hundreds years before. I think you’re making a lot of assumptions about what the city as a whole thinks. I’m sure it’s a little more nuanced than that and different parties have different opinions. Besides a city lawyer is paid to defend the city they don’t necessarily represent what the city or more specifically PBOTs managers actually think.

I think the city has had a change of heart about this enforcement but recognizes suddenly switching and enforcing that law without a sign alerting drivers would piss them off and is political suicide. Even removing a handful of parking spaces is difficult politically in this town doing that and fining people is even harder.

qqq
qqq
1 day ago
Reply to  idlebytes

No, I’m not sure and like I said, I hope you’re right. I still think the City should add the 20′ clearance rule to their own code, just as they’ve added many other State regulations to their code. It would make it clear, and also make it clear this regulation is just as important as others that the Portland code DOES spell out.

I haven’t yet read Betsy’s reply yet which may have more info.

I also emailed PBOT’s Vision Zero group and asked them if it’s not illegal in Portland, or is illegal but not enforced. I’ll post any answer I get.

If you’re right, and the City could start enforcing the law now, I’d like to see PBOT come out and say that. I think your idea that they’re not enforcing it due to political reasons could be very likely.

If the law does apply but isn’t being enforced, PBOT seems to be working hard to avoid telling anyone that. I can understand not suddenly starting to enforce it everywhere, but I don’t like PBOT not just coming out and saying it’s a current law that they’re not enforcing.

Melissa Kostelecky
Melissa Kostelecky
1 day ago
Reply to  qqq

I agree with both idlebytes and qqq: the city shouldn’t need redundant city ordinances that just confirm OR state law. But the way they currently do it… lack of enforcement and in many cases inviting drivers to park within 20′ by placing “1-hr parking” signs right at the intersection just leads to confusion on the park of the public. In fact, I’ve discussed this with other safe streets advocates and we’ve asked lawyers, and nobody really seems to know for certain what the city’s *official* policy is.

Betsy’s comment below is pretty eye-opening and points to the possibility that the city is intentionally overriding OR state law on the 20′ setback issue (at least for vehicles under 6 ft tall). As you noted, this is important, because the “enforce the law” argument doesn’t help much if PBOT doesn’t consider a vehicle under 6 ft within 20 ft of an intersection to be in violation of the law. They won’t enforce something they don’t consider illegal.

The lawsuit stemming from a motorcyclist’s death may ultimately set precedent regarding whether the city can legally override OR 811.550. Regardless of the outcome, I plan to take my concerns to city council and point out the absurdity of allowing vehicles to block visibility of intersections and leaving it up to the public to report those they deem hazardous. The vast majority of the general public is not engineers or experts on ROW hazards. There are not enough people out there who would even think to call these violations in. If they did, the city wouldn’t have anywhere close to the resources to go out and ticket every vehicle blocking visibility of intersection. And given the sheer number of intersections in this city, reactive policies–rather than proactive policies–will only continue to lead to injuries and death.

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
1 day ago

Email sent to me directly from then-director of PBOT Leah Treat: (I have more detailed and in-depth written communication clarifying PBOT’s position and intentions directly from Leah Treat as well. Melissa, Jonathan can connect us directly. – Betsy)

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Treat, Leah <Leah.Treat@portlandoregon.gov> wrote:

Hello again,

 

We currently enforce parking restrictions within 50’ of an intersection if a vehicle is over 6’. We enforce the 20’ limit on a complaint/resource driven basis.

 

I have asked my parking team and engineers to get together and come up with a recommendation to increase our parking enforcement around intersections. There will be several issues we need to sort through – parking meter districts, signalized intersections, speed limits, etc. But I agree with you all that we need to do more and that as our City grows, sightline issues are becoming increasingly challenging and dangerous. Also, to be effective and fair, we will need to do a heavy media push to make sure people understand that we are changing the way we do things.

 

Thanks,

Leah

 

Leah Treat, Director

Portland Bureau of Transportation

1120 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 800

Portland, OR 97204

503.823.5085

Lyndon
Lyndon
13 hours ago
Reply to  idlebytes

The city code only affects tall vehicles, taller than normal passenger vehicles.

State code only applies to state-owned roadways, since Oregon has devolved most traffic-related laws to local jurisdictions.

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
2 days ago
Reply to  qqq

I would like to share here some of the intel I got in 2018 on the City’s enforcement policy of ORS 811.550(17,18) re.: parking near intersections. In case I one day get hit by a bus, this can be recorded here, remembered, and built on. As I’ve mentioned in comments before, many of us who have worked on this issue for years are still questioning the primarily complaint-driven enforcement of the 20FT-from-crosswalk-parking rule. In the fall of 2018 the City unveiled it’s Daylighting complaint-driven program. I nominated an intersection near my home, SE 33rd and Clinton, and Andrea Brown nominated one near her home, SE 35th and Clinton. They were quickly marked “No Parking” and became the first and second intersections in the city to be “Daylighted”. 35th got signs and 33rd got curb paint. Eventually 33rd also got signs after the curb paint mysteriously disappeared, was repainted by the City, and disappeared immediately a second time. Here below is conversation with the PBOT’s (now retired) Parking Group Manager Dave Benson, who consulted with (still with the City) City Attorney Ken McGair. This is part of a larger conversation with Leah Treat, then head of PBOT, and came out of a discussion after Fallon Smart was killed at SE 43rd and Hawthorne. Anyone interested in taking up the torch on this issue is welcome to my archives.

BTW, some of you may remember Jessica Engelman, an early advocate on this issue, who informed me and many others to help get this ball rolling.

Dave Benson’s response regarding City’s enforcement policy of ORS 811.550(17,18) re.: parking near intersections Re: Another cyclist injured – vehicles blocking visibility parking (illegally!) too close to intersections Re: To Dave Benson Re: Anyone remember Leah Treat’s response regarding enforcing parking law at intersections asked at this meeting? Re: Another ped
Betsy <betsy.w.reese@gmail.com>Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 12:41 PMTo: “Benson, Dave” <Dave.Benson@portlandoregon.gov>
Cc: [redacted]

Hello, all,

I had a nice telephone conversation with Dave Benson (Parking Services Group Manager) on Monday, which I will recap here. I will then cut-and-paste his email sent to me later in the day after he was able to speak with city attorney Ken McGair in order to address my question: “Where specifically in ORS 810 the City of Portland is exempt from enforcing the law regarding parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk.”

Dave told me that the city has been working diligently on a new policy addressing the issue of visibility being obscured by vehicles parked near intersections, including education of the public and enforcement of the law. He said they are working on a “more nuanced approach” and it is not ready for public release yet. The lead on this project is City Traffic Engineer Lewis Wardrip (Traffic Design).  He said that Carl Snyder (Traffic Operations) is a city traffic engineer dedicated to safety who is the staff member in charge of evaluating this issue at specific locations on a case-by-case basis. PBOT welcomes and appreciates the public helping identify and report to them intersections where vehicles parked too close to the crosswalk create a safety hazard by obscuring visibility.  City Engineer Steve Townsen (Engineering Group Manager) is also involved.

Dave said we are welcome to call him with any questions at any time. It was helpful to me to get to know the PBOT organizational chart https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/506031 and some of the top individuals through their short bios https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/499810. Everyone mentioned in this email string is cc’d above. I encourage fellow advocates to communicate directly with PBOT staff and quote them by name. I appreciate so much those staff who are willing to communicate directly with us, including, incredibly, all the way up to Bureau Director Leah Treat.

Below is the City’s response about the legal basis of not enforcing ORS 811.550. I admit I have not had a chance to read it thoroughly enough to understand the legal wording or determine whether or not I feel satisfied with this explanation. I wanted to get this out in a fairly timely manner as I know many people are awaiting the City’s response to this. Hopefully some other advocates will be better able to translate this.

Dave, thank you for taking the time to speak with me and to run down the answer to this legal question. Could you please respond to the group with clarification if I got anything wrong or left anything out of the recap of our phone conversation?

Thank you to each person on this email list for whatever it is you do to promote traffic safety.

Betsy

TO ALL: My email policy: The address list here is open information. There are no blind cc’s. Anyone who wants on or off this topic list, please let me know. I try to cc anyone I mention in an email, so they can chime in, correct me if I’m wrong, and most of all, know what I’m saying about them so it won’t be behind their back. Please feel free to forward, reply, quote, publish, or correct anything I’ve said here. I’d appreciate a cc whenever you do. I encourage everyone to hit Reply ALL when they reply, so that everyone can see each other’s comments. I likely will forward this email to others in the future. I won’t forward anything you write in reply without cc’ing you. Tx B

SEE BELOW FOR EMAIL FROM DAVE BENSON

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Benson, Dave <Dave.Benson@portlandoregon.gov>
Date: Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 4:16 PM
Subject: Information follow-up
To: Betsy <betsy.w.reese@gmail.com>
Cc: “McGair, Ken” <Ken.McGair@portlandoregon.gov>, “Treat, Leah” <Leah.Treat@portlandoregon.gov>, “Warner, Chris” <Chris.Warner@portlandoregon.gov>, “Wardrip, Lewis” <Lewis.Wardrip@portlandoregon.gov>, “Townsen, Steve” <Steve.Townsen@portlandoregon.gov>

Hi Betsy: I enjoyed talking with you this morning. Here is the information you requested regarding parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk:
 
While ORS 811.550 prohibits on-street parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection, other sections of ORS, specifically ORS 810, authorize cities to establish their own local regulations and/or practices which may deviate from the 20-foot State requirement. In Portland, the city has chosen to exercise the authority granted to it by the state to allow parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection. We do realize that there are cases where exceptions to this policy are justified. For that reason, we certainly encourage residents to let us know where there is a temporary sight line hazard or if it should be designated as an intersection with a 20’ set back. Our Traffic Engineers routinely make these designations, often informed by concerns raised by residents. You also asked for the specific references in the Oregon Revised Statutes that allow for the deviation from the 20-foot state requirement. Those references are as follows: 
 
ORS 810.010 identifies who is the road authority. The State is road authority over state highways and interstate highways. The City is road authority for roads within the incorporated city.
 
810.010 Jurisdiction over highways; exception. This section designates the bodies responsible for exercising jurisdiction over certain highways when the vehicle code requires the exercise of jurisdiction by the road authority. This section does not control where a specific section of the vehicle code specifically provides for exercising jurisdiction in a manner different than provided by this section. Except as otherwise specifically provided under the code, the responsibilities designated under this section do not include responsibility for maintenance. Responsibility for maintenance is as otherwise provided by law. The following are the road authorities for the described roads:
     (1) The Department of Transportation is the road authority for all state highways in this state including interstate highways.
     (2) The county governing body is the road authority for all county roads outside the boundaries of an incorporated city.
     (3) The governing body of an incorporated city is the road authority for all highways, roads, streets and alleys, other than state highways, within the boundaries of the incorporated city.
     (4) Any other municipal body, local board or local body is the road authority for highways, other than state highways, within its boundaries if the body or board has authority to adopt and administer local police regulations over the highway under the Constitution and laws of this state.
     (5) Any federal authority granted jurisdiction over federal lands within this state under federal law or rule is the road authority for highways on those lands as provided by the federal law or rule. [1983 c.338 §145; 1985 c.16 §45]
 
ORS 810.160 identifies authority to control parking and says “each road authority has exclusive authority to regulate, control or prohibit the stopping, standing and parking of vehicles upon its own highways” with some minor exceptions where the State may still have authority. 
 
810.160 Controlling parking on highways; limitations. Except as otherwise provided in this section, each road authority has exclusive authority to regulate, control or prohibit the stopping, standing and parking of vehicles upon its own highways. The Oregon Transportation Commission shall act as road authority under this section in lieu of the Department of Transportation. The authority granted in this section is subject to all of the following:
     (1) The commission has exclusive authority to regulate, control or prohibit the stopping, standing and parking on all state highways:
     (a) Within the corporate limits of a city except where the highway is routed over a city street under ORS 373.010.
     (b) Within the corporate limits of any city if access to or from the section of highway and real property abutting thereon was restricted, controlled or prohibited by the commission before the section of highway was included within the corporate limits of the city.
 
I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have additional questions.
 
Dave
 
Dave Benson,
Parking Group Manager
Portland Bureau of Transportation
1120 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 800
Portland, OR  97204
503.823.5444 Direct
503.793.9320 Cell
Dave.benson@portlandoregon.gov

Melissa Kostelecky
Melissa Kostelecky
1 day ago
Reply to  Betsy Reese

Thank you, Betsy… I plan to address city council in the near future about some of my concerns over daylighting and this is extremely helpful. As a couple others have mentioned, I’ve started to notice instances where the city has put a “1-hour parking” sign right at the intersection, essentially inviting people to park in violation of ORS 811.550. Knowing what legal authority they have to do so helps me tailor my messaging accordingly.

qqq
qqq
1 day ago

You could find hundreds of examples easily just in downtown, or any neighborhood with pay parking or permit parking. The parking signs are often even attached to the stop signs right at the crosswalk.

qqq
qqq
1 day ago
Reply to  Betsy Reese

Betsy, thanks for all that info, and all your work that went into getting it!

This to me is the key part of the City’s response:

In Portland, the city has chosen to exercise the authority granted to it by the state to allow parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection. We do realize that there are cases where exceptions to this policy are justified. For that reason, we certainly encourage residents to let us know where there is a temporary sight line hazard or if it should be designated as an intersection with a 20’ set back

In other words, the City has flipped the State regulation backwards. The State assumes all intersections deserve daylighting, but the City has decided that NONE deserve daylighting unless PBOT decides–on its own or in response to a citizen making a case that it’s dangerous–to daylight it.

This “it’s fine unless someone proves it’s not” view is really weak.

The other obvious thing is this is from 2018. The City has had 6 years (at least) to do a safety campaign and make daylighting the standard.

In fact I’d bet there are MANY signs allowing parking within 20′ that have been ERECTED (vs. taking down) since 2018. It would be interesting to look at how many of the recent infrastructure projects (bike lanes, etc.) since 2018 include parking signs that ALLOW parking within 20′ of crosswalks. There shouldn’t be any.

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 day ago
Reply to  qqq

Many US states have hierarchical roadway regulations whereby the cities must do as their counties dictate, and counties and cities must do as the state dictates, but this is far from universal, and obviously Oregon doesn’t have this legal hierarchy – each jurisdiction operates in parallel, each covering their respective domains. Even federal regulations are for from universal (thankfully.)

If ODOT thinks that all stroads ought to have a 45 mph speed limit, why is Portland allowed to have any 20 mph streets at all? The fact that Portland does have 20 mph streets, quite a lot of them in fact, should be a clue to y’all that Oregon does not have a hierarchical transportation regulatory system like other states y’all might have come from, that the city and Multnomah County can and often does regulate their streets separately from the state DOT.

qqq
qqq
1 day ago
Reply to  david hampsten

Yes, I don’t recall seeing anyone in the comments disputing the City’s claim that Porltand has the right to create regulations that differ from Oregon’s.

We also don’t need a clue about it being true, because multiple people have posted the exact Oregon law that allows Portland to do that.

david hampsten
david hampsten
18 hours ago
Reply to  qqq

Reading through the 139+ comments so far, I’d say at least 25% say that Portland must obey the state daylighting law without really understanding the wording of it (which I’m sure the city does legally do, on the rare state highways within the city that allow for on-street parking), another 25% or so believe that Portland should obey the state daylighting law on all city streets without really understanding the wording of it (the state daylighting law only applies to state roads), and a somewhat larger percentage does in fact fully understand that the state daylighting law only applies to state roads but that Portland really ought to be daylighting all its intersections for purposes of pedestrian and bike rider safety.

My question: What are the actual benefits of allowing for for parked cars up to the crosswalk, aside from a potential (18,143×4=) 75,572 extra parking spaces? Does parking so close to intersections slow down car drivers making turns, like curb extensions are supposed to do? If we daylight intersections, will car drivers be able to move faster around intersections, assuming usual the lack of speed enforcement?

Watts
Watts
12 hours ago
Reply to  david hampsten

What are the actual benefits of allowing for for parked cars up to the crosswalk

One benefit is that parked vehicles can act as a sort of protected curb extension, allowing walkers to get further into the street while still in a place of protection. This requires a bit of attention on the walker’s part, but I have found that parked vehicles can make crossing some streets safer and easier.

I believe the daylighting primarily benefits drivers and cyclists by improving sight lines and reducing collisions. And yes, the absence of parked vehicles effectively increases the turn radius, allowing faster turns.

JBee
JBee
3 days ago

This is good news, all intersections should have proper visibility for safety. The 6 foot limit is far too high though. Kids can be some of the most unpredictable ROW users and can easily be hidden behind vehicles that are 4 feet tall.

EEE
EEE
3 days ago

On my morning bike commute through Sullivan’s Gulch a few years ago, I would see this shiny import SUV occasionally parked up blocking the sidewalk. One day on the way in it was again blocking the sidewalk, but I noticed the rear window was smashed with glass everywhere while the surrounding cars were seemingly unscathed. It’s still there but I haven’t seen it parked blocking the sidewalk anymore.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
3 days ago

Let’s just start enforcing the existing law.

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
3 days ago
Reply to  Betsy Reese

Reply to mh

Daylighting-2
Coulter McPhail
Coulter McPhail
3 days ago

Portland, making everything worse in the name of Safety! I’m super happy that it will cost millions of dollars for people to not park too close to corners. What an effective usage of taxpayer money! It’s super easy to park in Portland so who cares about the parking inconvenience. But let’s get excited for millions of $ in new signs for people to ignore! From someone who has plenty of miles on two wheels, but doesn’t have the luxury of biking to work

qqq
qqq
3 days ago

Daylighting benefits drivers.

Hot chocolatey milk
Hot chocolatey milk
2 days ago

Luxury? I don’t like living close to work, or even cycling with vehicle traffic, but it’s a sacrifice my household makes for a greater purpose. More like you have the luxury of a faster, easier, climate controlled commute which you pay a premium for.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
3 days ago

They have the money to daylight some intersections but have no money for maintenance.
Yep, same crying story every time. We don’t have money to take care of the things we already have, but hey we’ll spend a bunch of money on new stuff, that we won’t take care of in the future either! More bonds, more taxes, more rising rents, more homelessness.

idlebytes
idlebytes
2 days ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

We don’t have money to take care of the things we already have, but hey we’ll spend a bunch of money on new stuff

Intersections aren’t new and people getting hit by drivers because people are parked illegally close to them isn’t new either. For some perspective though the current estimate for maintaining what we’ve got is at $6 billion. So the cost of daylighting the 4,000 intersections found by Melissa Kostelecky is 0.04% of what we need to maintain what we have.

Julian Dunn
3 days ago

Would it not be more straightforward to pass a law stating that it’s not legal to park within 20 feet of an intersection, rather than doing it by exception? If there are 50K street corners in Portland, and each of them costs $62 to daylight ($50,000 / (200 intersections x 4 corners each)), that would cost >$3M, which seems like not a great use of dollars.

idlebytes
idlebytes
2 days ago
Reply to  Julian Dunn

That law already exists.

ORS 811.550

Places where stopping, standing and parking prohibited

(17) Within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection.

The city has an additional ordinance that makes it illegal to park within 50 feet of a crosswalk if your vehicle is over 6 feet.

Neither are enforced though so most people don’t even know those laws exist. The cost of ramping up enforcement to teach everyone would likely exceed the cost of installing no parking signs and it would piss a lot of people off.

qqq
qqq
2 days ago
Reply to  idlebytes

I think you and Julian are both right. The law exists as a State law, like you said, but State law doesn’t require city laws to match it, and Portland didn’t, so Portland can’t just start enforcing the State regulation without making a change in its own regulations, like Julian said should happen. I think you, Julian and I (comment above) are all saying the same main thing–that Portland should have the same regulation as the State’s, and stop letting people park within 20′ of crosswalks (and further for tall vehicles).

idlebytes
idlebytes
2 days ago
Reply to  qqq

so Portland can’t just start enforcing the State regulation without making a change in its own regulations

That is not correct. The city doesn’t have any ordinances against speeding but they still regularly enforce that traffic violation. The state gives the authority to local law enforcement to enforce state laws. We also don’t have ordinances against murder but I’m pretty sure PPB has the authority to arrest and charge people for it.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
1 day ago
Reply to  Julian Dunn

Accepting your arithmetic, if the the signs cost $3.5 million, and it saves one life, that’s a good investment. It’s a field of study. In Europe and Australia/NZ, estimates for the value of a life range from $3-4 million. In the US estimates are mostly $5-10 million.

The numbers are based on ‘What is a reasonable public expenditure to avoid a casualty?’ and not a person’s future wages or something similar. These numbers make more sense for the city if you think about how big a jury award could be for a preventable fatal traffic crash.

Many more crashes result in injuries than deaths. A death is a loss for as long as any one survives the victim. An injury is a little easier to put a raw dollar value on, because our medical treatment comes with a bill, but maybe a person’s mind or body is never quite the same. Tell them their safety wasn’t worth a few signs.

Lewis Sutton
Lewis Sutton
3 days ago

You guys are poseurs, and don’t understand how nice you have it. I learned how to cycle in North Texas where literally no one cares about your safety on the road and actually sometimes they throw objects at you from big trucks as they drive past you. All the rights on the road do you think you deserve you to not? And you should be much more cautious with your safety. It’s all on you. I literally actually used to commute to my jobs where there were none of the freedoms you were advocating for for cyclists, and just don’t think you fully grasp the situation in hand. I’m literally a cyclist and not one of the spandex. Rich guy outfits. I’m a blue jeans bike riding guy with no special shoes. What really annoys me is all the bucket bike. Rich ***portion of comment deleted by moderator*** electric bike riding fools that I think they own the bike bath.

Hot chocolatey milk
Hot chocolatey milk
2 days ago
Reply to  Lewis Sutton

I don’t think anything you said negates the need for improved safety on Portland streets for cyclists and pedestrians. I will agree that when you come here from Texas, the negativity bias in Portland is unreal. West coast cities have some of the highest standards of living anywhere in the country, certainly the world.

Watts
Watts
2 days ago

The negativity bias in Portland is unreal. West coast cities have some of the highest standards of living anywhere in the country, certainly the world.

Yeah, and everything sucks here.

Charley
Charley
16 hours ago
Reply to  Lewis Sutton

This comment is just a bunch of poorly thought out insults. Are you trying to be convincing to other readers, or just blowing off some steam?

heretomakeyouclutch
heretomakeyouclutch
3 days ago

Or Portland people can use sense, but thats too much to ask. On with charging people who have less than you more money to make Portland more affluent!

Chris I
Chris I
2 days ago

Who makes less? What?

People who only walk and bike for transportation are the poorest in our society. The wealthiest people in Portland own cars. Usually multiple.

Rusty
Rusty
2 days ago

This is no different than a silly 20 mile per hour speed change from 25 if it’s not vigorously enforced no one is going to abide by it because if you go by these protocols living in Portland or visiting with a car is just going to get more and more difficult and people will stay away you’re harming the city to try and placate to pedestrians there is already not enough parking especially after covid outside dinning & high density living without proper parking thank god I live on the west side & can avoid PDX.

Fred
Fred
2 days ago
Reply to  Rusty

Also punctuation is not vigorously enforced.

Jeff S
Jeff S
2 days ago
Reply to  Fred

And syntax not collected.

david hampsten
david hampsten
1 day ago
Reply to  Jeff S

Comment of the article!

Lois Leveen
Lois Leveen
2 days ago

Worth reminding all of us that daylighting intersections is good for drivers as well as bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchair users, etc. Why? Because it stinks to be driving into an intersection where you can’t see oncoming traffic, human or otherwise. So let’s promote this as a win for drivers, too.

And hey, if PBOT feels cost is a limiting factor, maybe this is an opportunity for community engagement. Why not a trial program in which PBOT has volunteer days, in which volunteers come paint curbs? And/or contribute $$ for paint and signs? It could be like those “highway maintained by” programs, where people or organizations can pledge the cost of daylighting intersections. Or we could just charge more fees for registering vehicles, especially oversized vehicles. Whatever. So many ways to save lives, let’s take a few (ways, not lives).

Charley
Charley
16 hours ago
Reply to  Lois Leveen

I curse bad sight lines way more often when I drive! It’s way easier to see/hear traffic when I’m walking/riding.

Donttrip
Donttrip
2 days ago

Ummmm you can still see the on ramp in that picture lmao stop exaggerating

Jesse
Jesse
2 days ago
Reply to  Donttrip

Weak troll attempt lol

Fred
Fred
2 days ago

Two thoughts:

  1. If CoP can find a dumb and expensive way to do something, they will. As other commenters have said, just start enforcing the law that already daylights intersections. Traffic court can mitigate fines for the first six months of enforcement, but there’s nothing like a ticket to get drivers to change their behavior. Paying millions to put up signs everywhere is waste of $$. You don’t see signs saying “Pull over for emergency vehicles” since we all are required to know the law when we have a driver’s license.
  2. Speaking of potentially expensive but beneficial and PASSIVE ways to enforce the law, the city should keep building street treatments (swales, bike racks etc) near intersections that physicially block parking spaces near intersections.
qqq
qqq
2 days ago
Reply to  Fred

One thing the City has been doing like that regularly is parking bulky City vans and trucks next to or on crosswalks–always with the orange VISION ZERO stickers–so people are unable to park there and block visibility.

Seriously, that (#2) is also an extra benefit of curb extensions, if you make them wide enough. They don’t just allow pedestrians to go further into the street before crossing, they keep people from parking too near. Same with islands (where the bike lane is inward of parked cars) if the island is wide enough.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
13 hours ago
Reply to  Fred

I’m in favor of swales because they’re a good way to manage storm water on site as well as including, perhaps, a few native plants. However they are so much more expensive than the signs you say we can’t afford, how do you figure that?

Vivacious Women
Vivacious Women
2 days ago

I don’t have a problem with better visibility. I do hope that instead of only targeting drivers that the program also targets landscaping. I’ve had much greater difficulty seeing around over grown shrubs and tents than cars.

Dan
Dan
2 days ago

What about shrubbery that blocks visibility at an intersection? Will the city come and prune that or do you need to get the property owner to do it?

Watts
Watts
2 days ago
Reply to  Dan

You can file a complaint with 311, and if the city finds the bushes are in violation of ordinance, they’ll send a letter to the owner telling them how to address the issue. If they don’t fix the problem, the city will send a crew out to do the work and bill the owner.

You need to provide your name when you make the complaint, but that information is not shared with the property owner.

Dan
Dan
2 days ago
Reply to  Watts

Thanks! The guy is two houses down and we have a friendly nodding acquaintance, so maybe I should say something directly before filing. It’s a 20-ft tree with branches all the way down to the ground, could easily limb it up to 4 ft or so without damaging the aesthetics

Jeff S
Jeff S
2 days ago
Reply to  Dan

Property owner’s responsibility.
Can be reported at safe@portlandoregon.gov or 503-823-SAFE.

Tom
Tom
2 days ago

Do these daylighting plans include curb extensions or bump outs? Or is this just signs and paint? The former is the only way to get compliance.

blumdrew
2 days ago
Reply to  Tom

The former is the only way to get compliance.

In every city I’ve lived in other than Portland, they daylit intersections either by yellow/red paint or with signs. It seemed to work just fine

Mike
Mike
2 days ago

Did I miss the part where homeowners have taken the corner of their yards and the parking strip and grew jungles or built oversized fences? Too low hanging of fruit? Too logical?

J_R
J_R
2 days ago

A few years ago some neighbors near Reed College, apparently tired of students parking on “their street in front of their houses,” installed their own “No College Parking” signs. It was obviously illegal. The City ordered the signs’ removal but apparently had to go through a 30-day process to allow the neighbors to remove them.

Too much process; not enough action.

It looks like the same thing is happening here. Why not load up a truck with posts and “No Parking Here to Corner,” get a tape measure and a hammer and install the damn signs? A crew of two or three could install them in 30 minutes per intersection. We ought to be doing 300 intersections per month.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago
Reply to  J_R

I agree with you in principle. It’s illegal but a fine way to make a stink and would provoke some action from the city, if only to come out and remove the signs. You’re supposed to call for utility location even for night time work, and keep an eye out for irrigation lines, etc. Adjacent residents are the people most like to report you.

Lazy Spinner
Lazy Spinner
2 days ago
Reply to  J_R

What I find funny is that super un-cool suburbs like Beaverton and Hillsboro have been way out ahead of Portland on this issue and doing what you suggest: simple signage, easily installed, and without the need for years of studies, townhalls, and “inclusive” design reviews. Measure off 20 feet and then drive that pole into the ground!

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
2 days ago
Reply to  Lazy Spinner

Yes, isn’t it just amazing how much better our surrounding neighbors are doing on various issues that cities have. Portland just can’t seem to do anything right anymore.
Of course, lets give our new politicians time to work, but I’m not going to hold my breath and the way the new prez is doing everything he can to destroy the country to get back at them libs’ will there be really anything left worth wanting. The next 4 years are going to suck.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
2 days ago

I’ve noted some of the comments saying that the existing laws are not enforced, and/or this is a waste of money. We’ve heard that the PBOT parking patrol is stepping up enforcement in neighborhoods although I haven’t noticed a lot of action or impact from that.

Maybe the daylighting process could be partly incremental. If every greenway development or new curb cut installation is posted with daylighting signs as part of the design there would be a cost savings because a crew would already be on site to do the work.

The lack of public awareness of parking laws could be remedied by adding a sign with the telephone number to call for enforcement.

SolarEclipse
SolarEclipse
2 days ago

Remember these are silo’d bureaus. One bureau would go tear up the street, repave it, then a few weeks later another bureau would come do their work and repave yet again.
Don’t count on the new form of government to improve upon that situation.
Oh, and the crews that do the curb cuts are not the same ones that put up signs so no savings there.

Robert Gardener
Robert Gardener
1 day ago
Reply to  SolarEclipse

No savings–I get it. I still like the idea that if PBOT does work at a corner it gets daylighted. It’s simple and it works. Put those corners in a database. When you get tired of incrementalism, go back and fix the rest.

Lisa Caballero (Contributor)
Editor
Reply to  SolarEclipse

PBOT for years has done an admirable job of piggybacking on the work of Water and BES, it’s the only way they get anything done in SW. Water/BES opens the street for pipework, PBOT uses the opportunity to improve the surface. The most recent example is the work along Duniway Park, coming off Marquam Hill into downtown.

Donna
Donna
2 days ago

Yes!! Oregon is the only place I’ve ever lived where it’s legal to park right up to an intersection. I’d lived in big and small cities, small towns and rural areas, and was just blown away by this accident-waiting-to-happen practice.
Even though I’ve lived here for 14 years, I still park safely back from all intersections. It just makes sense.

sabrina Keyhani
sabrina Keyhani
1 day ago

I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. You have a bunch of citizens criticizing the city for fining people for parking violations from what I’ve read here & then you have those that are up in arms because there is the issue of improper parking creates dangerous intersections. To address all those people who are complaining about parking enforcement being perceived as a cash grab or that the city weaponizes enforcement to extract revenue dollars from violators— well, duh! Hasn’t that always been the situation.
Furthermore, it’s always been understood that parking illegally has consequences & depending on the severity of the violation, the higher/more expensive the consequence. WHY NOT have officers issue violations when they are able to? I’ve gotten parking tickets from a police officer on my windshield before so why shouldn’t that be the same situation now. It’s always been understood that police officers could & did ticket improperly parked vehicles but didn’t sacrifice more serious crimes committed as a result of parking enforcement.
I say put city of Portland residents on notice, if you park illegally expect a the minimum of a fine & maximum of impound.

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
14 hours ago

Daylighted intersection in Nashville

Zoom I’m on the sign. This on all for corners. 

No messin’ around. 

Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
5 hours ago
Reply to  Betsy Reese

Let’s try that again.

Daylighted intersection in Nashville.

Zoom in on the sign. This on all four corners

No messin’ around. Tow-away zone.

IMG_8921
Betsy Reese
Betsy Reese
5 hours ago
Reply to  Betsy Reese

Daylight sign in Nashville.

IMG_8921-1
Lyndon
Lyndon
13 hours ago

New York City recently found that daylighting intersections with signage alone either had no safety benefit or made safety worse in many situations. They found that “hardened” daylighting (where it actually changes where the pedestrian waits before crossing) was the only type of daylighting that had a safety benefit. So perhaps we should be careful about this assumption that universal application of daylighting has safety benefits.

https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/daylighting-and-street-safety.pdf

Watts
Watts
12 hours ago
Reply to  Lyndon

Yes to more sidewalk extensions! They make a big difference in how safe it feels crossing a busy street, though I know some cycling advocates oppose them.