By Sam Balto, northeast Portland resident and co-founder of Bike Bus World.
A recent Bud Light Super Bowl commercial features a neighborhood cul-de-sac transformed into a joyful community hub — kids playing, neighbors socializing, and life happening at a human scale. It’s a striking image, not just for beer drinkers, but for anyone who cares about livable streets. And yet, in cities like Portland, we’ve spent decades resisting the very concept of cul-de-sacs in favor of a traditional street grid that prioritizes car movement.
It’s time to rethink that approach.
Urban planners and transportation advocates have long dismissed cul-de-sacs as a suburban mistake — inefficient, disconnected, and automobile-dependent. But they miss the point: Suburban neighborhoods don’t design cul-de-sacs with cars in mind; they design them with quality of life in mind. By blocking through traffic, cul-de-sacs create safer, quieter streets where people — especially children — can comfortably walk, bike, and play. In Portland, where we claim to prioritize active transportation, why do we let cars dominate our residential streets while the suburbs have already solved this problem?
Let’s embrace cul-de-sacs — not by copying suburban sprawl, but by adapting the concept to make urban neighborhoods safer, healthier, and more connected.
– Sam Balto
The Problem: Through Traffic Ruins Neighborhoods
Portland’s street grid is great for navigating the city by car, but that’s exactly the problem. Too many residential streets are treated as cut-through routes, with drivers using neighborhood roads to shave a few minutes off their commute. The result? Speeding, noise, and unsafe conditions that discourage walking and biking.
Take a typical Portland side street: despite being designated as a “neighborhood greenway,” it still allows car traffic to pass through freely. This means families walking to school and kids riding their bikes are constantly at risk from impatient drivers who see the street as a shortcut rather than a shared public space.
The Solution: Embracing the Best Part of Cul-de-sacs
Rather than rejecting cul-de-sacs outright, Portland should borrow their best elements. We should design more residential streets where cars can’t cut through, but people walking and biking can. This is already a proven concept: Barcelona’s superblocks restrict vehicle access while keeping streets open for pedestrians and cyclists. Dutch woonerfs (living streets) make cars second-class citizens in residential areas, rather than the default priority.
Portland has dabbled in this with diverters on greenways, but they are too few and far between. We need to go further. Imagine a city where entire residential zones are blocked off to through car traffic, where every street functions like a cul-de-sac for drivers but remains fully permeable for people walking and biking. This would make our streets quieter, safer, and more inviting—not just for kids, but for everyone.
A Call to Action for Portland
If we truly believe in walkable, bikeable neighborhoods, we need to stop prioritizing car convenience over community livability. That means rethinking our approach to residential street design. Let’s embrace cul-de-sacs — not by copying suburban sprawl, but by adapting the concept to make urban neighborhoods safer, healthier, and more connected.
Portland doesn’t need to resist cul-de-sacs. We need to reclaim them — on our terms.
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.
Super idea! Let’s get this going! I tried to get some traction on a similar idea that I thought would have a low barrier to implementation and would give enough back to residents that it would entice neighborhoods to demand it for themselves, once they saw it demonstrated. I wrote to several councilors, including Novick when he asked for ideas to move the needle. Haven’t heard much back, but the new council may be a way to move something forward.
Here is the proposal that I wrote a while back, with a lively discussion in the comments, of course.
https://bikeportland.org/2023/06/21/guest-essay-a-plan-for-a-passoire-filled-portland-376392
Thanks Stone! It’s in the “Related Posts” above, but folks seem to be missing it. As far as Councilors to contact, you’re in D3, right? Angelita Morillo is on the T&I committee, and the chair is Olivia Clark, D4. I think Mitch Green, D4, is also on the committee.
The Passoire article is great, I just re-read it again. COVID brought out some cool ideas around the world, too bad more of them didn’t stick here. I dream of closing off/diverting my local side street intersections and cutting off cut-through traffic. If only PBOT would do some more quick and easy pilot projects with giant concrete barricades and get people excited about reclaiming their neighborhoods.
How much would this cost, on average?
Who would maintain them? Neighbors? PBOT? Parks?
It’s a great idea, don’t get me wrong, but Portland has a tendency to build things, then forget about them because maintenance just isn’t job one. I wouldn’t mind one at the end of my street, but I could only imagine after a couple years it’d be a mess.
They’re already here. All that’s needed are some barriers creating dead ends for cars, and some signs, plus some provisions for fire trucks (either ways for them to continue through, or keeping under the length limit for dead ends).
It’s a logical extension of the traffic diverters already being done in neighborhoods, You just arrange them to create some streets without vehicle through-traffic.
I live in a tiny neighborhood that’s a dead end for vehicles, but not for people biking or walking. It’s incredible, and I’d love to see other neighborhoods that want that be able to have it.
Here’s one in East Portland, on 129th, part of the 130s bikeway, supposedly maintained by PBOT. Multomah County put it in before the city annexed the area in the late 80s.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5001834,-122.5311989,3a,75y,18.25h,82.63t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sTYapObNhzJ6OwqRjEPtSyw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D7.366139056346569%26panoid%3DTYapObNhzJ6OwqRjEPtSyw%26yaw%3D18.245349557851636!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Maintenance of these dead-end culs-de-sac varies a lot, largely by how nice your neighborhood is and how wealthy the people living in them are. The example here on 129th is one of the “nicer” ones in East Portland – many others have evidence of camping, garbage dumped, booby-traps, and so on.
There are many others in EP, including: on 113th between Glisan & Oregon; on NE Holladay between 155th & 157th; on 167th between Market & Mill (part of an existing superblock).
That’s a nice example and good info. It’d be interesting to ask people living on or near those if they’d like those to remain or be removed.
Honestly, maybe instead of using fire trucks instead of ambulances, and this country having the largest fire trucks in the world, maybe we should start using the smaller fire trucks and other emergency vehicles that are already produced for that purpose, and take advantage of the fact that they can bypass car traffic by navigating bike trails and greenways.
I know that’s kinda wishful thinking, but we shouldn’t have to compromise on safety for the purpose of allowing an oversized overencumbered fire truck through when even for a fire, a smaller vehicle can do the job.
In 2016, the pilot diverters on Ankeny cost $5,000. I couldn’t find a cost for the permanent diverters in this article from 2 years later, but it doesn’t seem like it’s all that expensive to me.
The version closest to me is just a couple of concrete planters, and they get the job done beautifully. Folks even decorate them for holidays sometimes.
With a bit of creativity the treatment could be done super cheap and last decades.
Cul-de-sacs that include through traffic for bikes and pedestrians would be great.
The more “up to date” version of many cul-de-sacs in our region since the 90’s did start adding walking connections between many cul-de-sacs by smart developers and or city code…some of this was an attempt to incentivize walking trips. Some of the early designs were too narrow ~10FT especially once fences added + landscaping matured. This was a ‘rediscovery’ of the of the 1930s “Greenbelt” MD influenced walk network.
One idea I am sharing with the group to improve cul-de-sacs: I wish there were a regional investment firm that would strategically buy home and then create these missing links (dedicate to city or as an easement). The house then would be put back on the market.
Love this idea. Our neighborhood is filled with cut-through traffic every weekday afternoon, making it hard for us to safely cross the street. Blocking off streets to cars cutting through would be transformative
I understand trying to use us cul-de-sac as an analogy for a livable street, but I think it is misguided and overly complicated. A cul-de-sac is a part of a system of unsustainable development that relies on stroads and strip malls and everyone using a motorized vehicle to get around. Once you get to the actual cul-de-sac, it is quiet, low-car paradise, but the farther you get, the worse it gets, and much higher numbers of people experience the bad end of the spectrum than get to live on the cul-de-sac. we don’t need to reimagine or take the best parts of a cul-de-sac and try to work it into our streets- it already exists! Greenways should have diverters to filter out cars every 4 blocks or so. We don’t need a bunch of re-imagining and pilot projects, we just need PBOT to actually follow through on the greenways we already have and add diverters. WE may be saying essentially the same thing, but I am here to suggest that the call to action we need is not to “reclaim cul-de-sacs, but rather to hold PBOT accountable for their lame, half-assed greenway designs. They absolutely know better, they simply choose to prioritize cars. Greenways are bikewashing.
we are saying the same thing. Diverters on greenways every 4 blocks is what PBOT should be doing asap. Especially if they aren’t building a protected bike lane network on arterial roads.
I support the idea, but I think rather than an “every 4 blocks” or similar number, we choose a more targeted approach. Mayor Wilson has already stated that he wants to take a data driven approach. I imagine he and council would be more receptive to “here’s where we want them and why” from each district. Empower neighbors to thrust their blue cans to the sky in support of safe streets.
Next step might be to establish criteria for priority for creating a cul-de-sac. I’d start with locations where two Greenways meet. Then phase in locations that are consistently used to bypass traffic signals (e.g. NE Klickitat and 42nd). Also create provisions for small traffic circles for those intersections where closing through traffic is impractical.
As a side note, we should still be pursuing bike lanes (protected or not) on arterial streets as well. One does not preclude the other.
Awesome Andrew, agreed. Fortunately (or not), Those criteria already exist(ed) and could simply be reincarnated and made more specific. It appears PBOT has quietly rid itself of the troublesome measurable definition of greenways, likely because it is politically difficult to limit cars on many important sections of road where there is a lot of people who want to drive (e.g., SE Ankeny), and much of the “greenway network” didn’t meet PBOT’s own definition of greenway.
The previous definition of a greenway was:
Greenways now have “components” and not measurable parts, i.e., the type of street isn’t defined operationally, just aspirationally. That is fundamental problem when the purpose of a greenway was originally to limit car traffic to create safe spaces, and it begs the question: “what is the difference between a greenway and a residential street?”
If we are to reincarnate greenways as cul-de-sacs or whatever, my first questions would be:
1) What is the definition of that thing (Whatever we call it)?
2) Would PBOT use it in any meaningful way?
This is so succinct and articulate- thanks- COTW
I’d guess that when most voters think of cul-de-sacs, they don’t think of sprawl, car-centric development, or auto-dependency. Instead, most voters probably think “man, I’d love to live on a quiet cul-de-sac.” In other words, the ideas in their minds are positive associations, having to do with a quieter, low stress, low traffic home.
In contrast, I would bet that many (maybe most?) local voters have negative associations about “bikeways,” “greenways,” or “diverters.” These terms probably call to mind inconvenient changes to their local driving patterns. They probably don’t think “oh, that’ll be great for riding” because *most people don’t ride.*
If I’m not mistaken, Mr Balto is re-framing “bikeways” as “cul-de-sacs” because the cultural resonances for many voters will be more positive!
If he succeeds, we might see more “diverters” in our grid network, simply because there will be more voter enthusiasm… even if we never use the word diverter.
I mean, I’d love to have a diverter on my street! I’d show up for that meeting! My neighbors, won’t understand that term, but they’d probably *love* to own a home on a low-traffic cul-de-sac! They don’t give a shit about bikes, and might oppose some kind of “bikeway,” but they’d immediately understand the property value improvement of a quiet street.
That reasoning may not resonate for some of us urbanisty, bikey folks, who are steeped in the language and ideas of that movement.
It can be uncomfortable when someone tries to broaden a coalition to effect change. Sometimes we have to compromise on principles or outcomes. Other times, it may be that we simply need to see things from our neighbors’ perspective, and make an argument that appeals to them (especially if those neighbors represent an electoral majority), instead of simply doubling down on ideologically satisfying, but less convincing arguments.
they made a whole super bowl commercial about how great cul-da-sac’s are. Lets use that to our advantage to get what we all want.
COTW
I agree, Matt. The point about diverters is a great one: if you are car-dependent (even by choice), the word “diverter” is a negative one for you, since it means slowing you down and taking you out of your way. Cyclists calling for diverters is like declaring war on cars (a great title for a podcast??).
This .
I remember after I moved to Portland in 2011 and was talking with another more veteran transplant – his most proud advice was “residential streets are 25 MPH with connected grids, perfect for avoiding traffic”.
It left a bad taste in my mouth that has not improved over time. I see the same line of advice of using neighborhoods as cut-throughs on a lot of NextDoor welcome to the area posts. It’s a “local secret” that really worries me – but also doesn’t seem like a secret anymore. Google Maps has started giving me directions cutting through a neighborhood as the default vs using the road hierarchy because it saves some unspecified handful of seconds.
As we lower speed limits / experience more traffic on our larger roads I expect this will become more of an issue. I think the only way is to eliminate the possibility of cut through traffic. My experience with my neighbors is that they absolutely support this for the roads they live on, and oppose it with every fiber of their being for other neighborhoods.
“My experience with my neighbors is that they absolutely support this for the roads they live on, and oppose it with every fiber of their being for other neighborhoods.“
The neat thing about this is that the incentive structure would be in favor of cul-de-sac retrofits. That’s because any proposed retrofit would have a small number of extremely local homeowners who would stand to gain a great deal (living on a quieter street).
In contrast, while there would be relatively larger number of people who would be inconvenienced, that inconvenience would be relatively marginal, relatively distant, and harder to imagine (because resulting traffic patterns might be difficult to predict in advance).
While the city would undoubtedly notify people living on the street in question about the upcoming change, the thru-traffic drivers likely live further away, and won’t be as likely to hear about the project, or step up in opposition.
It’s a win-win, as long as the local homeowners are sold on the benefits.
How do we decide if my street or the next one gets the diverter? Whichever it is, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose, as one of those streets will get all the traffic.
Maybe we can convince the half that don’t get diverters that it’s a win for them since it will be easier to drive to their house. Convince the half that do get them of how nice it is to have a quiet street to live on. Now everyone is happy and any objective inequities can be ignored.
This is the danger of trying to reinvent the wheel. Starting a cul-de-sac program that involves selling hard to individual neighbors would spend a tremendous amount of resources on outreach. We have adopted plans for the whole City that have weighed the transportation and life safety needs and identified greenway routes. Many of these are already signed. I think a more likely path to success is to identify some champions on City Council to “finish” the greenways and complete the work that has already been vetted by the City, through outreach and is a part of an adopted plan. Adding diverters to these greenways should be as straightforward as fulfilling a maintenance order, except that PBOT has shot itself in the foot by trying to accommodate every driver and person who has a preferred driving route. We now have a professional City Manager and a professional head of PBOT and more representation on City Council. If Council could be convinced of the value of diverters and the value of providing complete greenways, there should be plenty of cover or incentive for PBOT to finally build these things.
Not sure if you’re presenting this as a non-starter, or if you’re actually looking for feedback on how to decide. I think we could come up with some good metrics to decide. Greenways and areas near schools come to mind as priorities. The 80/20 rule probably applies here. We could probably reduce 80% of cut thruoughs by installing diverters on 20% of streets. It would be up to City Council/PBOT to establish priorities, and for neighborhoods/districts to advocate for specific locations.
Take NE 37th as an example. PBOT just removed stop signs along the Greenway route, encouraging higher speeds and more cut throughs, specifically between NE Prescott and Killingsworth, and even through to Holman. Thus, it becomes a preferred route to bypass NE 42nd. Additionally, many drivers use NE Alberta here to cut through from 33rd to 42nd. Parallel streets are not nearly as practical because of non-continuous routes. Put a diverter/cul de sac thing at 37th and Alberta, and you’ll probably limit cut thru traffic in this and surrounding neighborhoods significantly. Prioritize these locations first. If neighbors nearby want one too, sure, but let’s get these high impact locations taken care of first.
I know when I work out in East Portland, I drive through the neighborhoods because it’s faster at rush hour than sticking to Division or Powell.
On a side note, I’ve been meaning to ask you if the latest crackdown has caused you to update your plates? I was curious if the intimidation factor was high enough for the average person.
https://bikeportland.org/2025/01/16/portland-police-target-enforcement-on-ghost-cars-without-license-plates-392289
And it’s literally limited to the street they live on. A street a few blocks away that they use to get to their house is a no go. Look no further than the Lincoln diverter debacle with the Mt Tabor Neighborhood association. Most of the people using that street before the diverter went in were cutting through even still the NA opposed it because it would require people living there to take a slightly different route. Now Lincoln is almost entirely local traffic with a small amount cutting through the via the north south routes. 52nd southbound is the worst and they really need to divert traffic at Division like they did for the north bound route.
I think the city actually relies on cut thru routes to avoid having to make meaningful improvements to arterials. Why bother creating space for a left turn lane when drivers can cut through the neighborhood? Especially if that means *gasp* taking away parking space! No right on red? Not a problem if you can cut through.
By restricting cut thru traffic, we may actually force improvements to collectors. Portland had grown. Time for our street grid to grow up too.
yes! to avoid actually dealing with issues, PBOT sacrifices bike infrastructure. Look at Better Naito, NE 7th, the Blumenauer Bridge, etc.
The key is pedestrian and bike connectivity aka model filters or traffic diverters. The problem with the suburban implementation is that they’re not set up for bike/walk connectivity in most cases
I love the term “modal filter”!
1000% agree! Cut-through traffic is the worst, and in my opinion, creates the most unsafe conditions for vulnerable road users. I’ve been trying to advocate for more diverters on the greenways in order to keep traffic where it belongs, on the arterials and off the neighborhood streets!
How about using parking-based chicanes instead? Particularly for the narrow streets in hilly SW Portland?
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2095666,-87.5578857,3a,75y,233.62h,66.74t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1suwfH4p3JEvzazUVF4hGHcQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D23.264296662452466%26panoid%3DuwfH4p3JEvzazUVF4hGHcQ%26yaw%3D233.61616787219197!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
that is an interesting example to see, thanks for shairng
I saw lots of other clever stuff in that same community of Tuscaloosa: curb-protected bike lanes, median 2-way bike lanes, curb-protected intersections, sharrows on traffic-calmed streets – very progressive, especially for ultra-conservative Alabama – but then it is a college town, home of the University of Alabama.
That seems like a lot of smart, practical solution, reminds me of Portland back in 2008-2011 era.
Seems like this is just a choice of language? Cul-de-sac with bike/ped cut-through versus diverter? Same policy either way. If the former messages better, I’m fine with that. Someone run a focus group!
Diverters reduce vehicle traffic, but most don’t create dead ends for vehicles. Even though they may cut through-traffic off from one direction, they still allow it from another. It’s more than a choice of language, because while you can create cul-de-sacs with diverters, most diverters don’t create cul-de-sacs.
Diverters re-direct traffic.
Cul-de-sacs dead-end traffic.
But diverters can also create cul-de-sacs.
PBOT’s new ones don’t — look at the ones on Clinton. They divert but they don’t sac.
There’s a bunch in Sullivan’s Gulch near NE 28th that PBOT put in the 80s or 90s that do sac.
I always assumed these were related to the Fred Meyer being built there to prevent traffic from cutting through but I don’t know if that’s true.
I think you are correct.
Not really. If we just block the end of a narrow Portland block, it will trap large vehicles because they will have no space to turn around. I don’t know if an 18-wheeler delivery truck having to blindly back down a SE Portland street is going to improve our safety.
And yes, companies do use trucks like this in Portland. Construction, road work, etc.
I also wondered about this problem, particularly garbage trucks, but then I noticed how many dead end streets there are on Portland’s grid. Some in my neighborhood that I had never thought about before. The people who live there seem to be doing ok.
There are hundreds of dead-end streets in Portland–with no turnarounds at the ends–where large trucks routinely back out. I’ve lived on one for years.
It’s not particularly dangerous, given that there’s almost no traffic on dead ends, and the times very large trucks need to come down a dead end are limited. Garbage trucks come down ours 1x/week with no problems on our very narrow dead end.
The length of the dead ends created is also totally controllable.
I was thinking the same as Chris, it’s just semantics. Thanks for your take on it, explaining the differences. I’m thinking both could be useful for different situations around town. Let’s get it done!
My hot take in transportation networks is that we should aim to be closer to a standardized grid that distributes traffic, rather than our current hierarchical system (local -> collector -> arterial -> highway). Concentrating traffic on a few select streets creates hostile environments, and it makes traffic worse. Especially now that people have access to near-real time traffic information, the value of a grid to distribute traffic loads is higher. If you’re going five up, five over you have like 25 different route options so it hardly matters if one route has lots of traffic. Evidently, this is entirely impractical since Portland is not platted on a very regular grid. Even in the “grid-like” inner eastside, there are far too many jogs at major roads. So this is all a bit of a moot point in terms of actual solutions to the real issues.
But I do think fighting cut through traffic with cul-de-sacs and diverters risks mildly reinforcing car dependent structures. At some point, you’ll have to cross the major road, or travel along it for a few blocks to reach some destination. If everyone is driving on one road, it’s politically more difficult to justify lane reallocations, and bikes get squeezed out even when they do happen (see: SE Hawthorne).
Our street grid is a messy and mildly chaotic result of nonexistent planning practices in the early 1900s alongside car-focused late 1900s ones. The result of both is that basically the only logical routes between neighborhoods are roads like Hawthorne, Stark, 82nd, and the like. I fear that creating more neighborhood greenways as a means to improve cycling conditions will not be successful, and will instead create more islands with deeper channels between them.
This is an interesting and thoughtful view point. Philosophically, is a little more risk everywhere preferable to a lot of risk concentrated in a few places? I’m not sure.. This is going to spin around in my head for a while.
At the very least, I do see some wisdom in not going overboard with diverter installs. Not that we’re immediately at risk of that.
Comment of the Week.
Even though I like the cul-de-sac idea, this comment’s caution is valid.
One of the reasons cul-de-sacs went out of favor among New Urbanists was they often came with a whole package of auto-dependent development. Bellevue, Washington and other suburbs that were developed in the 60s and 70s epitomized it. People loved living on cul-de-sacs, in neighborhoods that were nearly cul-de-sacs themselves–no through traffic.
But once you left your dead-end street in your dead-end neighborhood, you had to get onto a 35- or 45 mph street to get to any shopping or schools, or onto a freeway to get to work. Even if you could walk or bike far enough to use those, it was too dangerous.
I like the article because it stresses taking the good aspects of cul-de-sacs and not the bad. But if you start with creating new cul-de-sacs from existing gridded streets, I agree there’s a risk of moving towards the 60s/70s situation, especially if it’s not done carefully. That may be a bit different from what you’re cautioning about, but if so it just makes your comment that much more valid.
> But once you left your dead-end street in your dead-end neighborhood, you had to get onto a 35- or 45 mph street to get to any shopping or schools, or onto a freeway to get to work. Even if you could walk or bike far enough to use those, it was too dangerous.
The solution is to make these 35-45 mph streets safe to bike on, not to not make neighborhood streets more pleasant.
Exactly. You’ll simply re-create East Portland in the inner part of Portland.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with the East Portland grid though, the arterial streets just need to be made safer and more efficient for all modes.
Between 122nd and 148th (1.3 miles) there are exactly two neighborhood streets that connect them in the ~5 miles between Sandy and Powell Butte (Mill and San Rafeal). In a similar sized tract in Inner East Portland (between 12th/15th and Cesar Chavez/41st/42nd, Killingsworth to Sandy), I count 8 (Klickitat, Stanton, Hancock, Couch, Ankeny, Pine, Salmon, and Clinton). There’s a few more marginal cases too (like Pine is if you cut through Laurelhurst). I would say that 4x fewer neighborhood through streets is evidence that the street grid in East Portland is not very connected
I hear what you’re saying, and I don’t completely disagree, but cut-through traffic is the result of the grid system we have, and creates safety issues when non-neighborhood traffic is using neighborhood streets or greenways. I like the cul-de-sac/diverter approach better since we don’t have good mode separation in most of Portland. I think the ultimate goal is to decrease the total number of vehicles by giving people other transportation options and making it less easy to just drive everywhere. If we had tolls or ferries across the rivers instead of bridges, the number of people choosing to cross the rivers would plummet. People tend to not change their behaviors unless forced. I commuted by car for decades until I started working downtown at a building with great bike parking. The free parking in the building is way more convenient than the $13 parking garage a couple blocks away. I also don’t have to sit in traffic on my way home, I just have to deal with the frustrated drivers who cut-through on the greenways endangering my life and the kids who live on the street. People at least can expect to deal with cars and traffic on the arterials.
The problem with the greenways is that they almost always have confusing jogs and turns, usually at borders of old subdivisions where developers didn’t bother directly connecting streets. In places where greenways don’t have this, it’s usually because they follow some specific historical transportation link (like an old streetcar route) or some good fortune. Using solely neighborhood streets as the “backbone” of the bike network is doomed to failure, since the neighborhood streets inevitably have some poor connections. Cut through traffic is a problem, but it’s lessened by the fact that drivers inevitably are moved towards major roads as a result of the wacky street grid.
Neighborhood roads in Portland work best when they are neighborhood roads. They connect homes with parks, schools, and other local destinations. That’s great! But that is not a good foundation for an interconnected, city-wide network, it’s a local distribution system. Our extant arterials exist as de facto car only spaces because they are the best (and often only-est) logical routes between different parts of the city. They have been designed that way. If we don’t work to undo that, biking will never be as convenient of an option as it could be.
I don’t know why, but this triggered the thought that we’re making our bikes more car-like, first by enlarging them to carry cargo, and now by motorizing them to increase their speed and reduce our effort (or increase their convenience to use the parlance).
While bikes are a great option for going to the next neighborhood, or the one after that, they are less good for longer inter-neighborhood trips, like getting from yours to St John’s, a role cars excel at. So maybe it makes sense that the best inter-neighborhood routes are designed for that.
“…we’re making our bikes more car-like, first by enlarging them to carry cargo, and now by motorizing them to increase their speed and reduce our effort (or increase their convenience to use the parlance).”
THIS.
I do think this is an interesting point. I’d be surprised if the next generation of cargo bikes included airbags and body armor, but not like shocked.
Ironically, I think the focus on neighborhood greenways hurts bikes more for short to medium trips than long trips (since the detours and curvy bits make up more of the overall route). A 2 mile route with a half mile detour is more frustrating than a 10 mile route with a half mile detour, at least in my experience. It feels awkward to go up to Lincoln or Salmon to get 15 blocks down Hawthorne, it feels less awkward to choose Clinton as your street of choice en route to Lents via Foster rather than Division or Powell.
I guess this is to say that if the neighborhood greenways are the arterial network of the Portland bikeways, then the arterials need to be the local distribution system. If our road network had no local streets, it would be much more difficult for everyone to drive. From a design standpoint, our greenway network is all (poorly articulated) arterials that leave riders with no clear way to get to a final destination.
Sure, you can always park and walk but I like to ride my bike in part because I can usually count on bike parking within a few steps of my destination. On this point, I bike to the Hawthorne Mud Bay for cat food and regularly come from the Salmon greenway. I’ve realized that the fastest way there is taking 30th to Hawthorne, since 32nd Pl is the next street that goes through from Salmon to Hawthorne and Mud Bay is on 31st. If I were to follow the directives of PBOT, I supposed I’d ride down to 32nd Place, park, and then walk a block and a half. No person does this, and it’s ridiculous to imagine that someone would. Of course, this is basically PBOT’s policy on Hawthorne – and underlies the logic of their (indefinitely delayed) extra connecting greenways. It’s just nonsensical policy. What’s the point of riding a bike if you remove one of the primary benefits to it (easy to park right in front of wherever you go)?
Airbags for bikes? Like this? https://en.helite.com/bicycle-airbag/ (one of several I could have picked)
One unfortunate side effect of the redo of Hawthorne is that it is harder to ride on the street. Previously, it was easy to take a lane, and drivers could get around without much trouble. Now, things are a bit more crowded.
The part I most frequently ride along, from 12th uphill to 19th is still two lanes so it’s not so bad, even going slow (I don’t have a motorized bike).
Interesting, I find the three lane section of Hawthorne to be a better ride than the four lane section. Where it’s three lanes, it’s so wide that there’s usually room for a de facto bike lane. Where it’s 4 lanes, I’ll only ride going downhill. But both aren’t as good as even the blah bike lanes on like Glisan
I agree that a designated bike lane would be better than either profile we’ve discussed.
I’ll still ride on the 3-lane portion of the street (and find most drivers to be understanding), but I do prefer having an entire lane to myself.
I’ve found the same to be true on Sandy where the profile also switches around — taking one of two lanes is often preferable to squeezing into one.
Sandy would also benefit from an official bike lane.
Seems to me this is an effect of our urban planning being designed and developed around car-travel as the primary means of transportation. If our day to day needs could be served mostly within walking distances from our homes there would be a lot less incentive to build and own bicycles designed in these ways.
As a transportation replacement, we’re attempting to fill a car shaped need with a bike shaped solution. It makes sense that bikes will grow to fit the need as technology allows.
Except the large “fiets” bike originated in Holland, where, presumably, this problem has been solved for some time.
I agree that bikes will continue to evolve to become more car-like, though I can say, with some degree of certainty, that mine won’t.
COTW
The common issue is the negative externalities cars create. If these issues are simply migrated to another area with the use of diverters and cul-de-sacs, then I would conclude that these are not viable solutions. If they are used in such a way that car trips are replaced with alternative modes then fantastic, but if it is simply to create a quieter street at the expense of another then it seems like wash and not worth doing.
I do this in city skylines all the time. It has a good analogy of mode choice to the real world – people simply use the mode that gets them to their destination quickest. If I see a road that gets too much traffic, I will study the routes people are taking in their cars and try and speed up the alternative modes for in-between those sections of my city. If I can’t make alternative modes faster, then I will consider closing or slowing down the street experiencing excessive traffic so that my citizens have to take a longer route that will typically edge them to an alternative mode. It’s extremely effective, especially compared to the dark days when I would try and widen the road or speed it up. That always resulted in untenable congestion.
Okay, I love Cities Skylines too but good luck closing a road because it’s busy in the real world. Evidently, this is what Vision Zero should do, so I don’t mean to be a curmudgeon, it’s just that it feels that even the activist sphere in Portland is having a hard time pushing for those kinds of interventions.
From a practical stand point, I simply do not believe that greenway-only bike design is a way to induce alternative mode trip. I feel that this is borne out in the data in Portland (where bike share has stagnated and/or declined in the 15 years since the greenway build out began in force). If people are biking to destinations, the lack of facilities and safety at or near those destinations eventually matters a lot.
Let’s consider the bike divide between East Portland and Inner East Portland. In both areas, the majority of destinations are on arterials. West of 82nd, the arterial network is (mostly) navigable in short stretches on bikes with a few exceptions (like Powell or MLK). East of 82nd, it’s almost entirely 5+ lane roads where biking just feels out of the question. If I make a wrong turn and end up on my destination street from a greenway west of 82nd, I can manage a few blocks biking on Hawthorne, Belmont, or Stark without a big problem. If I do the same east of 82nd, I’m risking life and limb (or at least it feels that way). I’ll take the lane on Stark in the 20s, I’d be hesitant to even ride the Stark sidewalk in the 120s.
So even though I think the greenway only design is fundamentally flawed, it’s much worse in East Portland (far fewer choices, much more circuitous routes). No wonder that bike ridership is lower, even though income is also lower (despite what the historical data from Portland says, bikes are not and should not only be considered tools for the well-to-do to reach office jobs!).
COTW.
It’s important to note that we still haven’t seen any evidence that greenways increase bike mode share, despite decades of planning and installation. Also, Greenways are more of a “feeling” than an actual design, since PBOT defines them with potential “components” rather than measurable things like speed and car counts.
This is true; we don’t know what actually drives bike mode share in Portland, either up or down.
I agree with you. It took me a long time to realize the implications of induced demand and I find it hard believe that the general public will get there anytime soon. Strong Towns is doing the good work here tho, and all we can ever do is try. If we expect to fail and give up, then it’ll definitely never happen. Closing a road is like a drastic last measure though. We could do a lot to first speed up the alternatives. Bus only lanes on all 5 lane arterials are a great first step. Public transit being independent of traffic is the lowest of all hanging fruit and would dramatically change our transportation mode share.
Agreed. I believe these dangerous road configurations are unpopular. I live westside so I am tracking progress over here, but here is a 5 lane arterial that survey respondents really want to see downsized and made into a safer 3 lane configuration.
> Concentrating traffic on a few select streets creates hostile environments, and it makes traffic worse.
This is totally wrong. You just make these major/arterial streets safe and traffic-calmed, with protected bike lanes, like Amsterdam does, and it works super well. The idea that fewer streets to drive = more traffic and more streets = less traffic is the delusion that the last century of auto-centric highway construction has been based on. There’s NOT some fixed amount of car traffic, traffic behaves like gas not water, etc.
That’s not the idea I’m proposing though. I’m saying that if we had a uniform grid where each street was equally good or bad to drive on that traffic would be more evenly distributed throughout, and that is generally more fair. That’s anti-highway, which always involves selecting specific corridors for widening/speed projects. I think getting closer to more uniform streets has benefits for everyone (including drivers) but I also recognize that it is entirely infeasible in most of Portland (excepting areas that do have a legitimately uniform street grid – mostly the area bounded by the hills and the river on the west side).
Sure, we can and should make busy roads safe for bikes and people walking. I just don’t personally feel that it’s worth it to make a 100 islands free of traffic floating in a primordial arterial soup is a good way to do that. If anything, it may make things more politically difficult – since motorists will feel squeezed on both sides. A less navigable local street network for cars is only a benefit if we have good alternative options for those drivers to take, so I feel like we shouldn’t put the cart (fully diverted greenways/superblocks) before the horse (safe arterials for cycling and walking).
What do you mean by “good” or “bad” to drive on? Streets in the NL, both arterial and neighborhood ones, are generally known to be some of the most pleasant to drive on in the world. If, in the name of “fairness,” you invite more drivers onto neighborhood streets that should be car-free or car-lite, it would just induce more traffic and make all streets less safe and pleasant for everyone. Much better to choose a few streets where through traffic belongs, make them super safe and pleasant, and divert/ban traffic literally everywhere else (neighborhood streets and commercial centers). This is basically the Dutch model, and it works super well.
> I feel like we shouldn’t put the cart (fully diverted greenways/superblocks) before the horse (safe arterials for cycling and walking).
Both are crucial
By good/bad I primarily mean speed. Having arterials and highways that are much faster options for drivers but much worse options for everyone else is bad. Slowing those down while adding protected, high quality bike infrastructure is good. Making them transit/bike/pedestrian focused in places. I think that having car traffic more evenly distributed on a grid-like network of essentially neighborhood streets would make a better network than we have now.
To me, using arterials as borders to separate distinct, local traffic only neighborhood cells is still not the best solution to the urban traffic problem – since that still creates a gradient of pollution, traffic noise, etc. clustered along discrete corridors. In Portland, that’s also where we put all our high density housing, and it’s all renter housing, so there’s an additional public health burden that we are placing onto people who live there – inevitably lower wealth and income folks.
I have the impression that both of you might be on a similar track but may be describing them differently. Do we filter car traffic through residential areas (passoire) and prioritize low traffic residential streets or “greenways” or make almost all streets safe/multimodal? That to me might be interesting as an overall city design philosophy, but honestly, it’s too abstract to be practical, and seems beside the point.
Since funds are extremely scarce, the most important question for me is: Where is the break in the low-stress network? Wherever that is, residential street, bridge, major arterial, whatever. That is where we should focus our very limited resources. And that depends entirely on context and neighborhood.
I mean, if we built a separated bike lane on Broadway/Weidler and redesigned Williams/Vancouver, that would be a huge leap in getting access to a safe and separated network for “interested but concerned” in much of inner N. But that doesn’t mean adjacent residential streets should be left alone. Similarly, the connection from the Tilikum and inner Clinton requires a LOT more diversion to be a low-stress greenway (to fit the original definition of greenway), but it also requires frequent low-stress access to Division (e.g., cul-de-sac) in order to be practical.
I think Sam is certainly on to something simply calling divertors cul-de-sacs to ride the PR wave. PBOT has almost no money and very little public trust. Because divertors or “cul-de-sacs” can create space with virtually no cars (aka separate space) for very little money. Despite what people believe, Portland is really still in its very nascent stage of building a low-stress, separate network, something that isn’t even on the city’s radar.
Totally agree. Blumdrew and others have offered compelling critiques of the greenway network. I don’t ride in SE that much, so I can’t speak directly to the examples cited, but for many trips I think there are good bike routes that are not necessarily obvious or easy to follow. I would suggest that PBOT could mend/fix many “break[s] in the low-stress network” with better signage and information. This type of bike network improvement seems relatively affordable and free from conflict with car advocates. One important bit of information might be marking where bike improvements have been installed up to some point but no further in anticipation of future improved continuing routes that do not yet exist. Some suggested work arounds would be great at this locations (I’m thinking of somebody riding W on Glisan in east PDX, e.g.).
“I would suggest that PBOT could mend/fix many “break[s] in the low-stress network” with better signage and information.”
PBOT has been saying the the same thing for, literally, decades. I think they’ve done the best they can do. Since I think their choice of greenways is, on some cases, utterly bizarre, I’ve given up on their signage and use riding as an opportunity to exercise my hippocampus. I use my own Greenway network. Wattsways.
Do you mean the greenway signage we have now (which I find useful when it exists) is the best achievable or that better signage is possible, but PBOT has not been able to manifest it on our streets? That PBOT has failed to do something for decades is not a good argument against doing it. At the very least cues to the interactive online map (that the government has already developed, presumably at nontrivial cost) could be pretty impactful.
I mean that greenway signage may be the best effort PBOT can muster. It’s not just that PBOT hasn’t been doing the thing for decades, it’s that they keep saying they’re improving it, and that has got us where we are.
I’m not arguing against doing better, I’m just saying don’t get your hopes up.
What might, just possibly help would be to give PBOT some very specific suggestions. I think they want to do better, but just don’t know how.
Hey Micah. I think your suggestion about making where infra improvements have been made recently. PBOT has “difficult intersections” indicated on their map, but it begs the question: difficult for who? The answer seems to be avid cyclists, who would already ride in difficult conditions regardless of the infra.
While I agree with the substance of your comment, the “network” that an adult who bikes typically refers to, and the “network” that an 8-year-old would use are vastly different.
That is the specific break I’m referring to (not to say the “break” you personally find important isn’t relevant). Most cyclists aren’t really able to empathize with an 8-year-old (or a parent with a kid in a bakfiets etc.), and I think that has permeated through the city and most of PBOT as well. You will hear so many people on BP say, “But I feel safe,” without thinking about who we want to ride, and who is unable to ride.
If an 8-year-old were to be on the Waterfront, would they be able to cross the Broadway Bridge and go to North Portland without riding on the sidewalk? Clearly not. That hard break at NE Broadway/Weidler is the blind spot where I think PBOT and advocates must start focusing on. Portland doesn’t even have a basic, low-stress separated network stretching out from downtown. The use of the word “network” generally seems to be any line on a map regardless of its condition, continuity or comfort level. That definition becomes even more ambiguous when greenways have “components” rather than measurable speeds and traffic counts.
I hear what you’re saying about the novice rider, and I’m fully aware of my privilege as a competent bike pilot. I was looking for some low-hanging fruit that could realistically be achieved and make marginal improvements on what we have — for riders of all abilities. You say we need solutions that work for an unescorted 8 year old. I say we need solutions that can be implemented by the government we have. I think we share the same vision. I would push back a little on your criticism of the greenway-based ‘network’, which I think is better than a lot of folks on BP make it out to be.
To engage with your hypothetical situation: an 8 yo on the waterfront could take the Steel Br. to Lloyd to NE 7th to Tillamook to Rodney and on to wherever they’re going in NOPO. This route is certainly not free of interaction with car traffic, but it’s pretty tame for the urban terrain that it traverses, is fairly direct (depending on where you’re trying to get to…), and has good signalized crossings of all the really bad streets. It is a notch less stressful than going up Williams and gives the rider building confidence an alternate route that is a little longer and a little safer. I understand there are riders for whom this route is still too exposed, and I would like them to have more access. But that’s not a reason to improve what we have.
The number of 8 year-olds out riding around the city unescorted is going to be near zero, regardless of conditions on their route. Your neighbors would probably turn you in to CPS if they saw your 8 year-old doing that. That’s an utterly unrealistic policy benchmark.
When I think about the kinds of destinations I would expect kids to ride to (with their parents, of course, who can help navigate tricker crossings, just as they do when walking), I think about school, local stores, and other neighborhood destinations, relatively short trips that can often be made without traversing the most awful parts of the Portland bike network.
I wouldn’t expect many 8-year-olds to be riding across the Broadway Bridge regardless of conditions there, just as I expect the number of kids riding across the Tilikum Bridge is pretty small, despite the good facilities.
If we are really concerned about conditions for 8-year-olds, let’s worry less about the Broadway Bridge, and instead empower neighborhoods to identify places where their local networks are weak and give them the resources to improve them. I don’t expect planners at PBOT to have much of a handle on what needs to be done at the community level — they don’t know the neighborhoods in enough detail to understand how folks really use (or want to use) the streets.
The hypothetical 8 yo was eawriste’s thought experiment, but I think the desire to foreground the interests of the “vulnerable” has some merit — not the least because they may be easier than others to persuade to ride bikes. When I made the suggestion for improved signage, I had regular people in mind (i.e. those that can tolerate courteous car traffic at moderate speeds on the roads they are biking on).
Totally agree about publicly sourcing community bike route needs at the neighborhood level, but I see this as a separate project. I’m envisioning better on-the-fly visibility for the greenway (or other recommended routes for bicyclists). I personally have trouble following the greeways. If I ride through and unfamiliar neighborhood, it’s likely I will lose the sharrows and only find the ‘correct’ route after the fact when I’m looking at maps on my pc.
Yes to better signage.
Micah, with respect I wholeheartedly disagree. You’re asking an 8-year-old to navigate streets with relatively fast moving traffic and no separation, while going many blocks East to get to North Portland. Take a ride with a person in a wheelchair, or an elderly person, and ask them if they feel safe riding with cars. Here’s Lloyd Blvd, 7th, more on 7th.
Right because the Williams/Vancouver couplet is not separated from traffic.
So in general you don’t see a lot of 8-year-olds, elderly, or people with disabilities in those bike lanes and using those streets. Why? It’s not because they don’t need to go there. Typically when I see kid riding, or people using a wheelchair in a separated bike lane overseas, I get reminded that they have to drive here, and it makes people less independent. That is because we don’t have a separated, low-stress network outside of downtown so they can safely move themselves.
That is certainly a worthy goal, and I don’t mean to disregard any advocacy particularly for a specific place in your neighborhood. Not all places are equal, however, nor should they be treated as such (PBOT’s MO).
I’m trying to get us to back up and ask why most of the cyclists we see in Portland are “strong and fearless,” and why we have very few “interested but concerned.” Why other cities like NY, Montreal, Paris, Bogota, and Vancouver are expanding a separated network and getting tons of new people to ride?
PBOT could strategically invest its money on projects that looked at the existing gaps (e.g., East end of the Broadway Br), and build those low-stress separated places where there is an enormous potential for demand. Instead we make “marginal improvements,” across the expanse of the city resulting in a network for the “strong and fearless.”
Because, in general, there aren’t a lot of elderly or disabled folks out riding anywhere in Portland, and if you’re riding at the speed of your 8-year old, you’ll probably want to use a parallel side street that’s quieter and makes it easier to ride alongside your kids.
Because these categories are mostly fictional.
> The number of 8 year-olds out riding around the city unescorted is going to be near zero, regardless of conditions on their route. Your neighbors would probably turn you in to CPS if they saw your 8 year-old doing that. That’s an utterly unrealistic policy benchmark.
As a father this view enrages me. It did not used to be like this and the fact that this is now mainstream is a horrible result of some very bad decisions.
Take a trip to the Netherlands. Kids still have independence there and we should want the same for our kids. It would be good for our economy and for our future.
The token NJBs related video
https://youtu.be/oHlpmxLTxpw?si=OSB8Fd37OU3Czgul
Hey J1mbo. Thanks for speaking out. I’m hoping other parents will share how they navigate the city with kids, because this perspective is invaluable to the cycling community. The bike to school program is a step in the right direction, but Portland has a long way to go. That vid is great.
It’s a simple fact that Americans don’t let young kids wander around cities on their own. I am well aware that things are different in places with less of a cultural sense of stranger danger.
And yes, it did not used to be like this. Many things about raising children have changed, not 1all for the better. I’m guessing you have yielded to many of these changes yourself, and are merely lamenting their passage.
Considering I am on my city’s Safe Streets For All task force and I would say that I am not yielding to anything. I have also seen lots of kids out and about on Portland streets, and yes, before I had children I thought it was weird.
Now that I am a Dad I am aware of just how capable and smart my 5 yo is. She could absolutely walk by herself to Kindergarten on her own. She is still a little young though, and that bike ride with her is one of the best parts of my day. I think by the time she is 8 she will be more than capable of navigating on her own. However, if we get there and I still don’t let her it go it alone it won’t be because of “stranger danger” or some other nebulous or abstract fear. It’ll be because of the very real danger from cars. Because even as an adult there is no real safe way to cross the arterial near my home, a single speeding and distracted driver would be all it takes.
Things won’t get better unless we do something about it. This holds true for improving cycling conditions and for providing our children with the independence they crave and deserve.
There is no reason crossing the burnside bridge should be dangerous for a 8 year old other than we messed up in it’s design. The new transportation design criteria should absolutely start with the 8 or 80 rule: “Can we see a 8 or 80 year old safely use this infrastructure”. If not, it should be redesigned until we can.
I walked to kindergarten alone, along a busy state highway (that had a sidewalk but no curbs in some places, and which I had to cross), so I know children are capable of it. It’s generally parents that are the problem.
It seems you think your presence will help protect your daughter against a speeding driver. That is in opposition to the idea that she is capable of navigating the city on her own.
I totally agree, and encourage you to do the something. If you figure out what it is, please let me know and if it seems like it would work, I’ll help.
Thanks for the reply. I absolutely support more separated bike paths (and, in fact, the first of your street views shows separated bike facilities on Lloyd that are wheelchair accessible). Realistically, getting around Portland by bike means riding on streets with cars some of the time. Your hypothetical 8 yo may not be able to do the route I sketched (although I think it is reasonable for an accompanied and adept 8 yo rider). But a 12 yo could easily handle it. Insisting that every intersection be traversable by the meekest in society is not a realistic stance, at least in the near term, given where we are now. I would forgo improved signage if it would meaningfully contribute to extended traffic-separated bike routes. I don’t think it will, so I think we should get better signs (low barrier accomplishment) while we work for new separate facilities (high barrier accomplishment). I think you misinterpret my comments if you think I’m gatekeeping or concerned only with my neighborhood or with conditions for the “strong and fearless”.
You’ve mentioned the east end of the Broadway Bridge twice. I would love to hear you explicate why you see this as a pressing ‘break’ that needs strategic investment. I bring this up because it seems like the Steel Bridge is a nearby alternate route with a separated path. Its existence makes me deprioritize Broadway. This disagreement highlights the difficulty in reaching consensus regarding where PBOT should spend their limited money. I know there are official lists/plans, but I don’t know much about them. Is it your position that we need to reconsider these official plans/pipedreams or that we need to adequately fund the plans we already have?
Thanks Micah, I get it, our budgetary limitations are pretty strict atm. That’s why PBOT has to be strategic in where it builds (i.e., connected to the existing separated network).
Apologies. That wasn’t my intention.
Not sure which plans you’re talking about. Unfortunately, the 2030 plan is essentially meaningless now, since there are no requirements or priorities set. The CCIM is an ok plan, but has prioritized bus lanes over separated bike lanes.
So what should we prioritize? We want to 1) increase the number of cyclists, 2) by building separated spaces connected to the current network in the places that will have the most demand, 3) by using the cheapest materials.
Network Gap: I often point to the East end of the Broadway Bridge for a few reasons: It’s most direct connection to N Portland, has potential for high demand (e.g., connects to downtown, Williams/Vancouver commercial corridor), and is already connected to the existing low-stress, separated network.
Materials/Quick build: Having lived and traveled in a few places, I’ve seen the difference in how various in cities build projects. Portland’s MO is both frustratingly slow (waiting for capital project funds), and non-strategic in where it builds (islands of infra). Bogota sometimes uses old tires, while NYC typically uses boulders in its first phase. PBOT doesn’t really have that capacity (or is unwilling). If PBOT asked BikeLoud for boulder/planter donations, I’m sure we could put our wallets together and get a dump truck full, but it’s just not a priority for the city. Hope that answers your question 🙂
Some more diverters would be nice to have but the piles of roughly broken glass some ******* is depositing in bike lanes all over Portland is a more immediate problem.
I just had to replace my tires and decided to add Tannus Armour liners because of repeated flats!
Tire liners have been a thing for years, Tuffies are another brand. They need to be carefully installed (shave off the corners, use talcum powder) with tire pressure maintained consistently or they’ll wear a hole in the tube.
I hated S____ tires for years because they felt stodgy but the set I put on last year have 4000 miles without a flat. The core isn’t as squishy as the original design so they run a little better.
Yes please! How can we build as many as possible, as soon as possible?
Easy enough, move to East Portland, which was built with cul-de-sacs and parks with public schools at the center of super-blocks, “best practice” urban design of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. Beaverton has superblocks too.
It’s just out there the schools are significantly underperforming and most of the time parks have RVs stalking the area.
East Portland does not have good pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Not at all like what the writer is talking about.
Unfortunately lots of cul-de-sacs are built without walking/biking permeability and nobody’s going to use eminent domain to retrofit them. It would be a great idea though.
I think about the only way we’ll get these excellent renovations is if people know their neighbors and build a constituency for it.
Permanent rotating street parties!
I think there are two different ways people use the term superblock, which are opposite. The Barcelona superblock is opposite the US superblock of the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s that Jane Jacobs critiques.
The Barcelona superblock, which is what I think Balto is proposing here, increases connectivity by recognizing that the impediment to mobility is dangerous motor vehicle traffic. Modal filters, diverters, or cul-de-sacs with openings for walking, biking, and using transit appear to create conditions for increased local mobility.
The other superblock, which inspired suburban US development, was intended to cut off people walking, biking, and using transit, and only allows access to people driving – via a circuitous route. The similar terms, and treatments, with opposite meaning and intent causes confusion.
It looks like when Jane Jacobs refers to superblocks she is talking about developments that are the size of a full city block, or possibly bigger, that are designed all at once, usually with a homogenous use.
Barcelona superblocks, superillas, directly translate from Catalan to super-island, and maybe that would be a better term to use. The intent there is to cut off car traffic from the interior of neighborhoods to restore the original Cerdà “green city” vision, where the interior streets were public green spaces, but which had been overrun by accommodations to vehicular traffic.
I think Jane Jacobs would probably like Barcelona super-islands because of the diversity of intermingling uses they foster, like micro town squares with playgrounds, businesses, and mobility all sharing the same space.
Taking an American suburb and punching a hole in the end of the cul-de-sacs does not immediately create a superilla, because you still don’t have businesses, intentional play areas, and other mixed uses on the street, and even if you did, the dispersed housing makes those other uses hard to sustain.
Converting a typical Portland neighborhood to a full on super-island also takes more than just diverters, but you do have to start somewhere.
To a certain extent US shopping malls and Walmarts imitate what you are talking about in Barcelona – they are at the center of huge parking lots, themselves heavily traffic calmed with speeds limited to 5-10 mph (anything faster and you are going to hit someone), so if you added housing nearby (some which have already done so), you start to develop an organic superblock.
What is needed in inner Portland is a full network of permeable sets of culs-de-sac, with diverters and traffic calming at the neighborhood business nodes, maybe with hydraulic bollards with keycard access at the ends of streets so as to restrict access only to emergency vehicles and local residents. Between neighborhood superblocks there needs to be restrictions between neighborhoods and the superblocks (to discourage cross-town traffic), but flow of traffic in between (to allow for free movement.) Very tricky to design and implement.
Great idea Sam. Reminds me of Stone Doggett’s opinion piece a few years ago. I have increasingly thought of cars as needing to be channeled, sort of like dispersed water, onto main collector/arterial streets. This would require not just diverters to keep them off greenways, but also to minimize places where cars can cross greenways. After all, for me one of the most nerve-racking parts of greenway riding is when a car appears as if it will roll through a stop sign and cut me off. Many stop at the last second, others don’t. Either way, I have to slow down or stop, even though I have the right of way. Assuming the worst in drivers is something experienced riders grow accustomed to, but makes it difficult for beginner cyclists to learn and get comfortable.
One issue that arose in the comments to Stone’s piece is how delivery drivers would navigate through neighborhoods with heavy diversion. I think hardening greenways to discourage both riding on them and crossing them would create consistency that would allow delivery drivers, first responders, neighbors, etc., to plan alternate routes without too much disruption.
Retractable bollards. Neighborhood delivery drops. Last mile bike delivery from a depot in each zip code where freight is cross docked from electric trucks to cargo bikes.
We don’t have to invent this stuff, it exists. Things cost money for sure, but the amount of money we jointly spend on redundant private vehicles that are parked 90% of the time is ridiculous.
In fact, people could use bike delivery and neighborhood drops right now if they wanted, no policy change or government action required.
That’s funny, Watt! I hadn’t considered that the absence of bike delivery as a straightforward critique of our bike network. To be clear, I think it is funny because you have frequently commented about how much improvement our bike network has received over the last years while I maintain that the improvements have been incomplete and unwise (indirect, unconnected, and incomplete). IF PBOT had spent the last 10 years speeding the same money on the same projects, but simply prioritized bikes and bike network connectivity instead of prioritizing driving and parking, we would have a far better network and we might even have bike delivery options.
I’m not sure it is. I think it’s better understood as an economic and logistics issue — hiring one driver and giving them a van is far more financially and managerially efficient (and, with Amazon’s new electric delivery vehicles, possibly more energy efficient* as well) than hiring the equivalent number of B-line drivers to deliver packages around the city.
I think, by comparison, the quality of our bike lanes is a pretty minor, possibly non-existent, factor.
*This is purely speculative, but I think it would be an interesting computation.
But why would they when they can just park their Amazon truck right in the bike lane with no consequences?
Amazon has lockers that you could use today if you wanted to. What are those if not “neighborhood drop points”? And for me, at least, almost everything I buy is delivered by bike or foot.
I’m living the dream!
A good example of this is the West End neighborhood in Vancouver BC. Trying to maneuver with a car through the residential streets south of Robson Street is a pain by intent, while the grid connectivity is preserved for people walking and biking. Makes for nice, quiet residential environments in a very high-density area – while in the United States high-density is equated with noise and traffic.
If I recall correctly, Northwest Portland residents had advocated 20 years ago for something similar, but PBOT at the time pushed back, based on thinking that connectivity needed to be preserved for all modes. Probably time to rethink this if Portland is serious about prioritizing walking and biking, especially in higher-density neighborhoods where most residents are within walking distance of commercial services and transit.
That is a great example!
First, Sam is a superhero. I love his work. He is an invaluable part of Portland’s bike culture. If we can get Sam to rebrand greenways as cul-de-sacs and by doing so, have them comply with PBOT’s original definition, great.
A little on Greenways: Portland has historically attempted to avoid building meaningful separated infrastructure because it is politically difficult to take “space from cars.” Instead of spending political capital on building the 2030 plan (and a basic separated bike network connecting downtown to N, NE and SE), most mayors and council members tended to support neighborhood boulevard (rebranded as “greenways”) in place of connecting downtown to the rest of Portland.
Sam has made a powerful example of what greenways can do. It is very important for PBOT (and Portland) to understand what greenways can and cannot do (I’m not sure were there yet).
Greenways were specifically defined with the number of cars/hour early on: “Automobile volume target of 1,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT), with 1,500 ADT acceptable and 2,000 ADT maximum.” Speed was defined as 20mph as the 85th percentile (i.e., around 15 percent of drivers travel over that speed).
From the 2015 Greenway assessment:
This means that much of the “older greenways,” primarily those that were originally designed in the inner neighborhoods as a connection to downtown rarely reached PBOT’s definition of a greenway (e.g., Ankeny, Clinton, etc). Even with the lax definition of 2k cars and 85th percentile speed, they weren’t compliant. There was no mention of adherence to the definition in the 2020 report, and there continues to be no evidence that greenways attract new riders.
The main takeaway I hope we can start to digest is that Greenways are great for short trips on residential streets for students going to school or the park. And we should support Sam’s effort to that end.
Greenways are not a silver bullet. They are not good for trips that start and end on commercial streets, commuting along a commercial corridor (e.g., Williams/Vancouver, SW/NE Broadway), commuting downtown, attracting new (adult) riders, etc. Greenways are not good for getting to the Broadway bridge.
Whether we rebrand them or not, a few people like MaxD have recognized that we could just “hold PBOT accountable for their lame, half-assed greenway designs.” I think we should simply remove the greenways from the map that do not adhere to PBOT’s original definition (and reissue to the public).
Blum said something I think resonates with people who might hope we start rethinking how we define our streets, (particularly how PBOT uses the type of street and car counts to preclude any consideration of other modes): “I fear that creating more neighborhood greenways as a means to improve cycling conditions will not be successful, and will instead create more islands with deeper channels between them.”
Frankly, I am confused as to whether this article is about new developments on bare-fields, or redevelopment of existing neighborhoods. If the former, this is a “street design standard” issue, which there is no shortage of opinions on, nor is there a shortage of debate. Given Portland’s lack of vacant subdivision land, I suspect the article is about retrofitting existing neighborhoods. I doubt the concept practical for retrofitting simply due to the challenge of getting existing property owners to agree. You would have to obtain either an easement, or purchase right-of-way from an existing homeowner. I seriously doubt many would say – yes. That leaves the option of condemnation. I seriously doubt condemnation would be feasible. Ask anyone involved in the implementation of urban trail projects through developed neighborhoods and I think it would become clear – few existing homeowners welcome trails in close proximity to their homes. Sad but true.
If you define “cul-de-sac” narrowly enough (houses built around circle of roadway) then you’re right: Balto’s plan would never fly.
But it looks like he’s talking about adding diverters of some kind to the roadway itself. The roadway could be blocked with landscaping and curbs, without encroaching on any homeowner’s property.
Yes, I see now what are saying. thanks
Creating a cul-de-sac without nearby owners’ consent could be construed as a “takings” and could be liable to lawsuits against the city.
There’s also the issue of emergency access, particularly by the fire department (the actual veto power for most street reconfigurations). With a diverter, at least the fire trucks have an exit option, but with a dead-end cul-de-sac, parking would need to be restricted to allow fire engine turn-arounds (as well as for garbage trucks, deliveries, and movers).
What’s being suggested is not necessarily impossible, it’s just that all these things need to be considered if you actually want to implement such changes, rather than just fantasize about them.
Possibly. On the other hand, it could be incredibly popular among homeowners, since it cuts 100% of through-vehicle traffic from their street, with all the livability and safety improvements that brings.
Not true. Fire regulations allow dead ends without turnarounds up to a certain distance (300′? but I didn’t look that up to verify) and they don’t need particularly wide clearances to back out. Fire trucks can also serve properties well beyond where they can drive. Garbage and other large trucks serve dead ends–including narrow ones–all over without turnarounds. I see it daily in my neighborhood. Since they’re dead ends, they’re likely to not even have any traffic approaching while they back up.
That seems a bit patronizing, given the article is written by the person who spearheaded an incredibly popular, widespread biking movement.
I don’t know if we need cul-de-sacs specifically, but ten or so years ago, when BP was talking up the (undelivered) promise of protection-by-default, I was arguing for diversion-by-default.
I’m not going back to find my first comment about it, but the point is and was that we are now closing in on the better part of two decades since most drivers started carrying around pocket computers that could make a through route out of pretty much any street.
We are not going to get this, however.
I’ve had recent (2024) discussions about this with ex-PBOT in the mayor’s office—they’re not going to do it, they’re even going to take more out, even when the need is demonstrable. Something something emergency services, which for some reason work differently in the City of Portland vis-a-vis the suburbs… never mind the complexity of serving West Hills addresses.
Last year, we had commissioners who could override that inanity. This year and into the future, we do not.
I think you’ve got it backwards, Champs: PBOT is now protected from the inanity, since they now have a policy-making city council to direct their efforts, which can act as a kind of heat shield.
“I don’t like this blah-blah treatment on my street!” PBOT can reply, “We are carrying out the will of the voters. If you don’t like it, contact your elected representative.”
Last year a rich guy could call the commish in charge of PBOT and get something ripped out, which is why PBOT was too afraid to do anything that might piss off rich people.
Exactly. If you want a diverter, no longer can you make your case to an elected official at the top of PBOT; now you have to get your representatives to convince the rest of the council to create a policy that, hopefully, will result in PBOT doing the thing you want in their own sweet time.
And if your reps try to short-circuit the process and go directly to PBOT, it will blow up like the Zenith permits did.
And you didn’t need to be rich — I can point to at least two things I got done this way, to the benefit of cyclists, without the prospect of money.
My only personal experience with cul-de-sacs dates from the late 1960s in suburban Philadelphia. It was a brand new neighborhood with multiple cul-de-sacs connected by winding, non-grid streets. Some single family houses and a lot of four-plexes and six-plexes lined the streets. There was a lot of grassy field on the backsides of each street and cul-de-sac, and saplings planted here and there.
I went back some thirty years later. The trees were huge, the houses and six-plexes looked smaller. A lot of the green space had been removed and replaced with infill housing, mostly smaller single-family houses, and long driveways added to facilitate access.
So I wonder: how would creating cul-de-sacs work in Portland? Where would these be created? Would existing housing density make it harder in some neighborhoods?
It sounds like an interesting idea, but the execution of it seems less clear.
I think there are a handful of things like this already in Portland, and this location comes to mind: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zAUcAYr7fWSQTwJN8
I don’t see why this sort of setup couldn’t work in a variety of settings, whether single family neighborhood like this, or some place with more density.
Here’s another one (two, actually!) outside of Chief Joseph School in North Portland. There may have been a recent BP article about someone running over the bollards? It’s sad that most of these closed streets/bollards/mini cul-de-sacs were all installed decades ago, and that progress seems to have stalled on installing more.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/fw5zikP4QSNM3uFx6
The ad depicts a party on someone’s large suburban lawn (that it’s on a cul-de-sac is not actually relevant). Therefore, we need more large suburban lawns along our greenways in order to enable the sort of spontaneous drunken parties that only shooting cans of Bud Light at neighbors and crashing through fences with various vehicles can promise.
I totally can’t wait!!! Portland is going to be so fun!!! Shoot me a Bud Light as I ride by, bro!!!
Just trade the suburban setting shown for your favorite city park. Plenty of grass at Laurelhurst Park for this kind of thing. Don’t mind the off leash dogs.
The ad depicted a surprising number of vehicles for such an inherently non-vehicular event. Do you think I could drive them through Laurelhurst Park?
The more I think about it, the odder it is that this group would take inspiration from that ad.
100% agree!
While PBOT was putting sidewalks on my side street due to the school down the road, and ADA corners in, they blocked my street for about a week. It was wonderful, no cars zooming down my narrow street! People could drive on the side street as usual, but my street was suddenly a dead end. I thought to myself, I wish they would just leave it this way! Let’s do this!
I watched the progress on some PBOT work this past summer where they redid four street corners at 80th and Glisan for a new pedestrian crossing on the 70s Greenway. They blocked off 80th and made these impromptu car free plazas and it was amazing how much nicer it was outside of the pizza place and how much calmer 80th became. It could’ve had tables and planters added and been just like the plaza at 78th and Stark. IF ONLY they could’ve been permanent!
PBOT’s curb ramp work has been blocking major bike routes in many locations for many months on end. When bike mode share was growing PBOT went out of its way to create a path through or, at the very least, a detour but those halcyon days are a dim memory. And when the project is over, PBOT crews leave the roadway in worse condition — with new bone-jarring patches and new ruts/cracks.
I grew up on a cul-de-sac in Albany, Oregon. We were poor, but the cul-de-sac made it feel like we lived on a private street. I had a childhood very different than what my children are experiencing now. What’s crazy is our household makes 3x more than the household I grew up in as a kid, but it feels like we have a lot less.
To be correct, it should be “culs-de-sac”, not “cul-de-sacs”
Madame de Villeneuve, is that you? (my 8th-grade French teacher).
The OED accepts both. Anyone not familiar with French (<.01% in the US) will also likely add the standard plural /-s/. For practical reasons adding the plural /-s/ can be beneficial, e.g., for ESL learners.
I agree. That makes us like two pea-in-the-pods.
Ahem, two bowls of mushy peas for you! 🙂
I think it’s “mushies pea”.
I think people are getting hung up on the cul-de-sac term. I think what Sam is proposing is to block off some of the existing neighborhood streets from through traffic. Stop thinking that Portland is going to look like the sprawl in Beaverton, it’s taking the existing Portland neighborhood grid and removing cars, it doesn’t eliminate the walkability or bike-ability of the neighborhood, it just forces the through traffic onto the arterials where it belongs.
I agree that calling diverters culs-de-sac is unnecessarily confusing.
I grew up on a cul-de-sac in a 1950’s neighborhood in the midwest. It was mostly a grid pattern, but there were some curvilinear streets and a few similar culs-de-sac. As I recall, ours was the only one with a landscaped island, measuring about 30 by 60 feet, in the middle. There were eight houses fronting on the circle.
In the beginning, most of the neighbors took a turn mowing the grass. After a while, it was my dad and one other neighbor who mowed the circle, though one neighbor occasionally paid me an extra fifty cents to mow the circle when I mowed his lawn ($1.50). When my father asked a new neighbor to take a turn, he flatly refused, indicating he thought the city should do it. The point is, ongoing maintenance is, and will always be, an issue.
Living on the cul-de-sac was great. That’s where my brothers and I and other neighborhood kids learned to ride bikes. We made endless circuits around the circle and even staged bike races. I’d recommend it for those reasons.
As others have pointed out, culs-de-sac and diverters reinforce the creation of (or result in) a hierarchal system of streets that gathers and concentrates traffic resulting in the dreaded, evil, four-lane, high speed streets that all of us hate as a cyclist or pedestrian. You need not look very hard to find vast developments with “nice” neighborhoods of narrow, comfortable streets, but you have to drive to any destination such as a grocery store, coffee shop, gym or library. Those destinations are in commercial clusters at the intersections of major arterials with four lanes on each road plus turn lanes. Pedestrian crossing distances are 100 feet and signal cycle lengths are 120 seconds. Definitely a non-friendly environment. Even schools are built adjacent to major arterial roads. It’s no wonder no one walks.
So, be careful what you ask for. There are tradeoffs with every choice. It’s a difficult balancing act.
I’m perfectly happy to reject cul-de-sacs outright! Grids 4life. I grew up on a cul-de-sac in an intentional subdivision community and do not think they can or should be redeemed as a tool of traffic calming in a city. Diverters, sure. But cul-de-sacs do not make for easy walking in a neighborhood, and in fact they make it harder. Hence why I want no part of cul-de-sacs in my neighborhood.
Now I’m on board with Coach Balto’s diverter program or chiccanes as David H. suggested. I also really liked Rod B.’s mention of Vancouver, BC’s approach to making it a PITA to drive around, but a joy to walk and bike. I think that’s what Stone’s passoire article was getting at. I don’t think we need to appropriate suburban terms to convince anyone! These are good ideas on their own! People who live in the suburbs probably like it there just fine, and we don’t need to convince anyone to move to the city if they don’t want to. Idk, good ideas, Coach, but the framing is weird.
As Watts sarcastically alluded to, I think what the ad is emphasizing (and what we can capitalize on in the city to foster stronger/safer community) is that people love a gathering place close to their house. Even better if it’s green and grassy. Two simple solutions come to mind: make neighborhood parks awesome, and make it easy/simple to block off your street for block parties. There’s an idea floating around the zeitgeist that we need to have more parties and if everyone hosted one or two parties a year, we could have gatherings every week (or whatever). I’m planning to have a block party this summer, and I live half a block from a fantastic neighborhood park (shoutout to Farragut Park, which just got a ton of new play equipment making it a real neighborhood hotspot, especially to bike families), so I’m hoping to capture some neighbors on their way to the park to join us for a little bit.
But, I also second Blumdrew’s caution regarding funneling traffic to specific streets. Lombard has two functions in my neighborhood: keeps it fairly quiet (not a lot of cut-through), but it also sucks to cross, walk or bike around. Don’t get me started on the stupidity of the spiral pedestrian bridge over I-5. Lombard would be so so so much better if it wasn’t a highway cutting us off from the neighborhoods south of my little corner. The improvements made to Lombard farther west toward St. Johns is a great improvement. There are actually lots of storefronts the further west you go. It would be great to integrate it more into the neighborhood, but I appreciate that changes of that nature would invite more cut-through traffic. Pros and cons! Give us some speed humps and a strong community commitment to watching out for each other (via parties??).
Monty Don, a British gardening personality, has this great rule of thumb that he uses when advising people on designing their gardens. Often people want to create a whimsical winding path from point A to point B, but Monty always points out that in practice, people will skip the path and just create their own, straightforward path from A to B. This cul-de-sac appropriation thing feels like a winding path when just talking about diverters or other would make more sense.
We don’t need to pretend to be in the suburbs in the city. The city is awesome. 🙂
I don’t get out enough, but the best party I remember in Portland was at a couple houses on ~ SE Stark where the owners simply took down their fence so that while they still had one of everything they also had more of each thing. It was amazing and the social environment that resulted was beautiful.
Very local measures like that can have a huge effect on quality of life. I was also hugely impressed by the semi weekly block parties on NE 7th Ave, even though I only got to a few of them. While the party was on the change in the street was notable from Tillamook to Alberta.
I’ve heard people say that individual efforts don’t fix anything and we have to do things at scale to get results. No need to repeat that, I’ve already got tinnitus.
That’s only true if you want results at scale. If you want to make your life better, individual efforts make all the difference.
COTW
Don’t get me wrong – more diverters around greenways would be fantastic, but there would be some unintended consequences to adding more dead-ends and diverters throughout our neighborhoods. Right now, drivers can choose multiple routes to exit the neighborhood, depending on where they are headed. This disperses traffic so that no one local street gets all the traffic.
If drivers’ options are limited, they will funnel onto just the few streets that go through, and, it could lead to overall MORE driving (in terms of miles traveled), because now you have to go out of your way to exit your neighborhood in the direction you are trying to go. Imagine if you live on one of the streets that ends up seeing more car traffic due to the changes in routes in and out of the neighborhood.
While more diverters to ensure that greenways meet the city standard are needed, I’d rather see general traffic calming elsewhere – preserving connectivity for all modes.
This is why it is crucial to design an entire neighborhood super-block at a time. Design so that there are no cut throughs. I would gladly, elatedly, take an indirect route to get to and from my house, if it meant that the only people driving on my street were going to the houses on my street. If it meant that my kids could have the run of the neighborhood without encountering cut through traffic.
Wonderful idea. They don’t always have to look like diverters or gardens, too. Something like the plaza/parklet at 26th & Clinton could be copied a lot of places in the city!
Here’s a fun fact for you: “cul-de-sac” is one of the stranger French terms to make its way into English, literally meaning “ass of bag”.
Or “bottom,” maybe more literally.
I prefer “Freedom Sacs!”
Yes! Let’s hope “culus” will see a reincarnation 🙂
Another aside for the language nerds out there. There is some evidence that the more people learn and are exposed to foreign languages, the less prescriptive or emotionally charged they become concerning rules in their first language (and some other rules). I’m guessing that’s why the OED and other dictionaries are slowly becoming more open to “incorrect” language use, e.g., “cul-de-sacs” not “culs-de-sac.” Now if we can just work on our spelling system…
Fundamentally disagree. Culdescas are designed to maximize available lots in a subdivision and disconnectivity in street grids arent the solution to social woes (you can start a block party on a streetgrid too.) We need car free/pedestrianized streets, but culdessacs arent it.
Maybe it’s many different possible solutions to fixing issues with vehicles. Some a cul-de-sac, some a dead end street, some something else.
Why must we close off our minds to things the others might be happy with?
Agreed! There are various building and construction projects that create temporary cul de sacs like this, they often hold for years before the project completes. PBOT should consider making those closures permanent after the development finishes, as the neighborhood has often adjusted to the change. Heck, perhaps the developers could cover the costs of the permanent conversion!
Love the concept Sam, brilliant reframing. One suggestion: Get some high-quality renders made to show people realistic before-and-afters of actual neighborhood streets, from grey asphalt to people, greenery, life. This will really help sell the idea to the council and neighbors and make this a vision for the future of Portland that everyone can get excited about. Speaks 1000x louder than words, etc.
Yes to pictures! The term has such different resonances for people, depending on how familiar they are with the ideas of urbanism. It’s a slightly muddled conversation.
These are two renderings that a good friend made for the initial implementation that would be inexpensive and quick. This first stage would allow for the study of the flow of traffic and use. Very similar to diverters, but the key is that it would be neighborhood-wide. The second stage would progress to more usable resident space. Garden, tree, tamale stand, fruit stand, micro library, etc. Even in the first stage I think that more of the intersection could be occupied.
I think the design has a lot of room for modification, but gives a sense of scale and starting point for what could be done.
I’ve been wanting to participate more in this conversation, but have been tied up with work. I thought I would share one of the letters that I sent to a councilor.
Thanks, Sam, for starting this discussion.
Problem:
Many residential areas in Portland have unpredictable through-traffic that discourages use of neighborhood streets for purposes other than driving. The dangers of anonymous, unpredictable, speeding or distracted vehicle traffic creates safety hazards on residential streets. Traffic is often shunted onto neighborhood greenways that often run parallel to arterials and have stop signs that are turned to facilitate biking, but also encourage speeding cut-through drivers.
The negative results are:
1) Decreased physical activity of children and adults who may need the extra space of the street in front of their homes to play or walk for recreation
2) Decreased travel by biking, walking or rolling for children and adults out of fear
3) All of the negative downstream effects of 1 and 2, including disrupting community building through spontaneous social encounters.
4) Anonymous through traffic, may be perceived as a safety and crime threat by some residents. On the other hand, if more than 99% of vehicle traffic in an area travels to and from a limited number of houses/ residents, drivers are identifiable and dangerous drivers are more recognizable and responsible for the danger they create. PBOT measures car volume on greenways, but this metric misses dangerous drivers. If one out of a hundred drivers are distracted or speeding, this has a chilling effect on the active use of that street.
Shortcomings of current PBOT approach:
Prioritizing a single street or “green way” through a neighborhood with physical barriers that divert vehicle traffic is often unpopular because it may increase traffic on adjacent residential streets within the neighborhood. It pits neighbor against neighbor by unevenly allocating resources and potential harms. Moreover, the diverter designs currently used by PBOT miss the opportunity to provide many residents with something of value other than traffic control. Speed bumps and other traffic calming measures fail to decrease dangerous driving by a meaningful amount.
Proposed Solution:
The solution to these issues is implementing multiple filters simultaneously at a superblock/ neighborhood level. These “filters” would include the entire space of the intersection and be able to be used as public space by the residents. The design goal is that each residence will have one or two routes from the closest arterial to their residence. This design would essentially block through traffic. If more than one entrance and exit is required, then the route from one arterial to another would require multiple turns and would not be desirable to through traffic. This would be established by transforming redundant intersections into multipurpose vehicle filters. The filters would allow micro transit to pass through and stop cars and trucks. The filters would also serve as community spaces that could be activated by socializing and spontaneous use. The paths for micro transit would leave space for trees that could mitigate urban heating during the summer.
The primary strength of this proposal is that it provides clear incentives for residents who do not currently use micro transit or have an interest in the typical benefits of multimodal transportation. Incentives with broad appeal would be less anonymous traffic and increased home and neighborhood value.
The key measure of success would be that the residents’ embrace the change and desire to keep it. And that other neighborhoods desire the same filter design.
Potential obstacles and solutions:
This design would create more dead end streets for cars and trucks. Many dead end streets already exist throughout Portland and are managed by drivers and municipal services, however, increasing the number of dead-end streets may slow certain services. The actual impact of slowing may be negligible as many to these services are “stop and go,” but they should be measured or predicted. Another solution would be to design the filters or some of the filters in a manner that they could be traversed by municipal vehicles, by using manual or electric retractable bollards as are used in other cities.
Pilot implementation is feasible:
Ultimately, adoption of this design would result in improved safety, quality of life, transportation mode shift to micro transportation, climate resiliency, decreased street maintenance budget, and storm water management by increasing permeable surfaces. However, this design could be tested and refined in a single superblock/ neighborhood.
Initial measures and data generation:
-Decreased through traffic of large vehicles
-Increased use of micro-transportation (bikes, scooters, motorized wheel chairs, small golf-carts, walking, bike-buses, etc.)
-Community use of space contingent on size (benches, tree canopy, fruit stands, tamale vendors, beatification with flowers, plants etc.)
-Real-world knowledge and analysis, identification of barriers and solutions, that could be shared with PBOT, neighborhoods, and other cities with similar obstacles to implementing rational transportation infrastructure.
-Subjective experience of residents, e.g., looking down a street and seeing more green canopy and visually enclosed space, rather than a long strip of parked cars and asphalt.
Heck yeah!!!
It would be cool to see an example superblock, maybe somewhere in SE where there is significant cut through traffic on the greenways. Which intersections would get a diverter/filter? Have you sketched this out using any neighborhood examples?
I played around with it in my old neighborhood, see very simple image below. One thing I realized was that street width is variable and some streets may be better than others. It is a fun exercise for anyone to look around their neighborhood and imagine how it can be transformed. Something that I found to be more powerful than I expected was to look down the street in front of my house and imagine a few trees in the middle of the road at the intersection instead of a looking at a long line of cars and asphalt.
Also remember that the street blocking doesn’t have to occur only at intersections. You could also set one up mid-block, and create two short dead-ends. Or set the blocking off-center of the intersection and create just one, instead of four.
It’s interesting to see how cul-de-sacs and dead ends are utilized or forgotten.
@everydeadendproject is ran by Erik @truemarmalade over on instagram. He’s documenting every dead end in the LA metro by bike to raise money for the LA bike academy.
I just realized Sam probably chose to call them cul-de-sacs because it would have been self-deteating to say, “My solution is a DEAD END!”
That’s a clever click-bait headline, since many readers here decry conventional cul-de-sacs. But this piece isn’t really advocating for cul-de-sacs, it’s advocating for more partial closures and diverters within the existing grid. It’s a good idea as long as 1) the street network for cars is still robust enough to not push all cars to a handful of arterial streets, making those streets a disaster for all other users of those streets, and 2) people walking and biking can still get through; lack of such access is one of the biggest problems with conventional cul-de-sacs.