By northeast Portland resident and bike bus leader, Sam Balto.
Portland prides itself on being a leader in biking and sustainable transportation, yet the city’s approach to traffic calming on our Neighborhood Greenways is both outdated and unnecessarily expensive. The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) continues to rely heavily on speed bumps to slow down drivers when a more effective, affordable, and bike-friendly solution exists: modal filters (a.k.a. diverters).
For years, PBOT has installed speed bumps along our greenways in an attempt to reduce cut-through driving and keep speeds below 20 mph. But speed bumps don’t solve the core problem—cars still dominate streets that are supposed to prioritize biking and walking. Worse yet, speed bumps don’t actually prevent drivers from using greenways as shortcuts. Instead, they just make the experience mildly more annoying, often leading to aggressive driving between bumps.
Meanwhile, speed bumps cost taxpayers around $3,500–$7,000 each. A series of them along a stretch of greenway can easily add up to $50,000 to $100,000. That’s money spent on a solution that doesn’t address the root issue.
Modal filters, on the other hand, are a cost-effective way to truly prioritize greenways for people biking and walking. By restricting through traffic at key intersections, modal filters reduce the number of cars using greenways in the first place. They don’t just slow drivers down; they eliminate the need for most of them to be there at all. A simple concrete planter or curb modal filter costs a fraction of what PBOT spends on multiple speed bumps, while achieving a greater safety impact.
This has been playing out in my neighborhood of Beaumont-Wilshire where PBOT recently installed 11 speed bumps at a cost of over $50,000 on NE 37th between Fremont and Prescott instead of a modal filter which was presented to the neighborhood association board members before the project. To top it off, the issue on NE 37th is too many drivers, not too many people speeding. So why did PBOT choose the more expensive option? In conversation with PBOT staff, the modal filter was removed based on neighborhood association feedback.
PBOT has a chance to not repeat the same mistake. Since PBOT delayed the implementation of Mason/Skidmore Neighborhood Greenway Project until this summer, the agency could opt to forgo building five expensive speed bumps on NE Skidmore between 37th and 42nd (which sees 85th percentile speeds at 21 & 23 mph) and instead implement the modal filter design at NE 37th and NE Skidmore. This would help PBOT meet its own guidelines by reducing peak-hour traffic counts and create a more bike-bus friendly neighborhood greenway for two nearby schools. The modal filter should cost about $10,000 (even less without drawn-out neighborhood association meetings which eat up city budgets), instead of up to $35,000 for speed bumps.
The proof is in the numbers. When PBOT installed modal filters on SE Clinton Street in 2016, it resulted in a reduction of 35-75% of annual car trips on the greenway. The decrease in drivers was so significant that most bicycle users gushed about the improvement to the street. Compare that to streets with speed bumps, where car volumes remain a persistent issue.
It’s time for PBOT to stop spending more for less. This is especially important given their ongoing budget crisis, which will not slow down in the coming years. Modal filters aren’t just a better solution—they’re the fiscally responsible one.
— Sam Balto
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.
Yes to all of this!!!
It’s great having infrastructure reserved just for me… and it usually is just me, just like shown in the photos.
Biking in Portland has never been better!
Social engineering gene therapy.
The big issue is that PBOT doesn’t want to reduce motorized traffic on greenways. Based on my conversations in the past, PBOT prefers speedbumps on greenways specifically because they don’t want to use a modal filter, they want motorists to be able to drive the length of the greenway.
This is a good example of PBOT spending more money than they have to on “safety infrastructure” to accommodate motorists. Even on Greenways cars are given the top priority.
Without the massive grassroots engagement that happened for Clinton, I can’t see diverters becoming a priority for PBOT again. And replicating that kind of grassroots pressure will be far more difficult with cycling mode share at ~20 year lows.
Doom & gloom gets rewarded in this comment section, but this doesn’t feel true to me. PBOT doesn’t do _that_ much work on Greenways generally, but when they do, they continue to use modal filters. See recent upgrades to Ankeny at Sandy and Salmon at MLK/Grand.
The early BikeLoudPDX demand was diversion every 3-4 blocks. A couple of diverters over the span of 2 years at major intersections is hardly evidence of a commitment to pervasive diversion.
I think there’s ~4 diverters on the ~50 linear blocks of Clinton. The Flanders Neighborhood Greenway, developed in 2021, has ~3 in ~25 blocks.
An alternative, less-defeatist read of the situation is after BikeLoud advocated for modal filters on Clinton, PBOT bought into that design choice and now proactively uses it when developing new or upgrading existing greenways. That’s great, but we aren’t clear on why PBOT ever invests in speed bumps on Greenways given modal filters are cheaper and more effective.
The demand was ubiquitous diversion but PBOT fought tooth and nail to avoid installing diverters on Clinton and their preferred alternative was always speed bumps. PBOT was ready to cancel diversion at ~32nd due to neighborhood association pushback and it was only due to city council/mayoral intervention (as a result of massive advocacy campaigns) that enabled the installation of diverters at 32nd and 17th.
Give me a break. PBOT has utterly failed to install cheap and effective traffic calming as mandated by the council-ratified neighbohood greenway report.
They prefer speed bumps because they maintain level of service for the bloody cage (this has always been PBOT’s focus).
That’s why we shouldn’t let pbot claim greenways as bike infrastructure. Because it’s not
Greenways are, however, generally great places to ride bikes (along with plenty of non-blessed residential streets). What bucket you put them into is an accounting measure that doesn’t change the reality on the ground.
2014 7.2% thought: cars should be guests on greenways with ubiquitous diversion
2025 3.7% thought: greenways are car infrastructure and diverters are a waste of money
I mean if they successfully eliminate 99% of car traffic such that you can happily ride a bike without seeing a car almost every single time (and the cars you do see are moving at a crawl and preparing to park) then yes, I think that does count as infrastructure. It’s low-budget for sure, but sometimes the cheapskate solution actually does create great results.
Hey AB the salient question here is: “Infrastructure for who?” If the answer is: whoever is currently biking, then the next question is: “How valuable is that?” The status quo for greenways has historically been add a divertor when advocates ask for one. Sam and his non-profit is asking for a threshold that would result in many (not one) because even an enormous group of kids traveling together to school is still unsafe at times due to the absence of consistent diversion.
So the question of whether divertors are infrastructure or not is largely beside the point. We need to redefine greenways to require diversion at ≤500, or take them off the map. Otherwise, we essentially have free PR for PBOT (e.g., miles of greenway) when their value is the essentially the same as the adjacent residential streets.
“even an enormous group of kids traveling together to school is still unsafe at times due to the absence of consistent diversion.”
Is there any evidence to support this statement?
You are correct. Look closely at most “speed bumps” in Portland and you’ll see they are mostly performative – designed to look as though PBOT is doing something about speeding when in fact the “speed bumps” don’t cause drivers to slow their cars at all.
100% agree!
Lots of great points here, I’d just add one more. The current method that PBOT is using for installing speed humps often involves leaving spots with no bump which I guess is supposed to make them nicer for firetrucks or something, but in my experience what you get is drivers swerving across the road to attempt to line their car tires up with the cuts so that they can proceed through without hitting the bump, I’ve nearly been hit head on by someone doing this on 28th. This is not an issue with modal filters.
You should check this out: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/planning/bike-bump-survey
The PBOT survey wasn’t even remotely random, nearly everyone who took it (online only) was already a bicyclist and had online access.
I wish PBOT wouldn’t call these things surveys, or use misleading language like “PBOT conducted a public survey” without a “highly unscientific” qualifier. It’s no more a survey than one of those stupid polls in Cosmo.
We agree! Who would have thought? I (and others) have been complaining here about PBOT’s ridiculous and slipshod way of generating ‘data’ for a decade at least.
Believe it or not, we agree on a lot of things.
Whenever I see a sign that says “Except bicycles,” I always add the adjectival phrase “greatest method of private transit!” afterwards, in my mind. Which I keep ensconced in my helmet as I ride on through.
Love this. My mind always changes those signs to “Accept bicycles” 🙂
I would prefer some sort of filter every half mile on greenways even it’s it’s just a partial one direction filter. PBOTs approach has been wildly different depending on the greenway. Harrison/Lincoln has five filters between 20th and 50th (1.5 miles) while Tillamook/Hancock has three or four (if you count the crossing at Sandy as one) from Flint to 92nd (5 miles).
It seems like a lot of it is directed by NAs other than the 50th filter I don’t recall a lot of push back for the ones on Harrison/Lincoln. Tillamook as been around the longest but I do remember a lot of contention about it back in the day. Before the law was changed and they flipped the stop signs there was one particularly crabby neighbor always bugging the police to do education campaigns for cyclists rolling stops along it.
idlebytes, half mile would be nice, but I’d rather the ≤ 500 threshold saferoutespdx suggested be the measurable definition, which is similar to Vancouver B.C.. Inner SE Ankeny, for example, has a lot of car traffic, which would possibly necessitate a divertor every other block. The purpose of greenways was originally to provide a low-stress, all-ages place, “that prioritize[s] people walking, bicycling, and rolling.” That simply isn’t the case for a large portion of residential streets designated as a “greenway,” as evidenced by Sam’s group advocating for safe routes to school for his kids (and the traffic counts). It’s very possible that PBOT now uses only categories and not a measurable traffic threshold for their definition, which essentially begs the question, “what makes a ‘greenway’ different than any residential street?”
I love modal filters and would really prefer to see PBOT do them more often. I hadn’t thought of the financial aspect but that is a really good point.
I’m not sure they are a panacea though. The stretch of Clinton mentioned in the piece is part of my commute and still has a shit ton of cars because of all the people cruising for parking in the afternoon.
Amen. Speed bumps are the surest sign of a lack of intelligent life on this planet. Bicyclist curse them for the bumps drivers race between them, stomp on the brakes and curse them for the bumps. SUV and passenger trucks (whatever that means!) barely shrug. When the city decides to compromise them with cutouts to facilitate emergency vehicles, inconsiderate louts swerve to align axles with the cutouts. The sad thing is that if drivers would behave like they were driving in their own neighborhoods, where their families were walking about, we wouldn’t need the bumps at all. Alas people all too often forget their community when they get behind the wheel of “a large automobile.” It’s far better to divert traffic away from the greenways every few blocks than try to slow it down with ineffective methods.
Up in St. Johns I would like to see diverters on Smith and more on Central plus some on the cross streets to encourage motor vehicles to stay on Lombard, St. Louis/Fessendon and Columbia. Get the cars out of walkable neighborhoods and people will thrive.
Stph
Modal filters will give greenways some amenity value for people not in cars. That’s almost everyone at some time or other. The existing bold lines on the bike map don’t function a lot differently than ordinary neighborhood streets for bike riders and they look like through streets for car drivers. People know which streets don’t have stop signs.
When I visit various cities I’m impressed how many put in diverters in their various forms and infinite variety. However, I personally measure their local effectiveness by observing and noting the SUV tire marks on each unit. The planters on the top photo are very popular for cities with tight budgets and for small towns – they tend to work really well and when they don’t they are relatively easy and cheap to remove. The Clinton diverter is extremely common nationwide, very popular with SUV drivers who want a bit of a late night challenge, but I’m not sure how effective they actually are.
Calling out something that is $10,000 versus $35,000 versus over $50,000 as “cheap” or “inexpensive” or even “of good value” is pure hyper-bull in a city that has 45,000+ corners on 18,000+ intersections. Cities are REQUIRED to do outreach “(even less without drawn-out neighborhood association meetings which eat up city budgets)” by federal civil rights law from the late 1960s, rather than ram transportation projects down (often poor bipoc) people’s throats, so I find it rather strange that any BP guest writer would actually advocate for such an elonmusk governance efficiency approach. I’m also a bit concerned that this opinion piece and all its examples are focused (like the earlier cul-de-sac idea) on inner parts of the city and not East Portland or the Southwest Hills which need traffic calming even more badly.
My 2 cents.
Is it an intentional insult to name M__ in reference to an opinion piece? On one hand you have a local activist supporting a particular use of city government resources, and on the other, an unelected oligarch subverting Constitutional order. It’s extreme.
For my part, I’m more likely to comment about conditions on the streets that I ride on, and be more in listening mode when people from other parts of town comment about their experience.
No, Portland can’t retroactively pour new concrete at every intersection in town to suit bike riders or to satisfy BP op-ed writers. However, when a project is going forward, why shouldn’t a daily user have input, or pass an opinion when it’s in use?
I totally agree, and moreover they could even go to a “drawn-out neighborhood association meeting which eats up city budgets” and do their civic duty of presenting their ideas and opinions in a civilized manner as well as politely listen and understand the opinions of others, as well as present their opinions on various blogs and other venues. I personally applaud it. Yay.
What I condemn is denying others those same rights and the opportunities to exercise those rights.
Re-reading Sam Balto’s Opinion Piece, I don’t see anything about forcing things on people or taking away their right to speak or vote. It’s his opinion about what works best to preserve the neighborhood character of local streets that are also designated as desirable and preferred routes for both bike riders and pedestrians (many people on foot use Skidmore/Mason both to walk dogs and to reach Wilshire Park).
I think some of the pushback on Skidmore bike infrastructure is because it passes one block from the intersection of NE 33rd Ave. and NE Prescott. Both are heavily used collectors and they meet at a stoplight with a section line offset where rush hour traffic requires multiple light cycles to clear the intersection. NE Skidmore East of NE 33rd gets a lot of traffic from people avoiding the blockage.
This intersection would be a natural spot for a traffic circle, but it would require buying out four property owners. They might welcome an offer–it’s got to be miserable to live there. I think that once constructed a circle would be universally popular. Among other things, it would help keep the #70 bus on schedule. The only worse bottleneck for this bus between Milwaukie and Sunderland Yard is the potential freight train grade crossing on SE 12th.
It wouldn’t be hard to figure out the value of time lost by motor vehicle operators at NE 33rd and Prescott.
Solutions are cheap, lack of political will is expensive. Excited to see if things will change with the new form of government.
Hi Sam –
What would be the most effective way to move this idea forward? Are there specific decision-makers at PBOT who need to hear this perspective, or perhaps a community organizing approach that might gain traction? I am looking to get involved and push this forward. Thank you.
This project is nice, and I think it could have really benefited from the mentioned diverter at 37th, but the bigger problem I see is the absence of beg buttons, stoplights, or stop signs at Skidmore and 42nd and at Mason and Cully. How are those not part of the project? Or maybe they are and I’m just not reading the plan correctly?
The stop signs at 38th and 40th are a solid improvement but the most harrowing parts of this whole segment are those two busy street crossings. Islands are a nice first step and it only took a pedestrian getting killed by a car while crossing Mason and Cully back in 2016 to get that one going, but without right-of-way alteration (green paint offers none) I think its going to remain stressful and bad. Sometimes froggering at Skidmore and Cully can feel like a better option than Mason and Cully because at Mason there is a shorter sightline for the southbound Cully traffic that comes barreling downhill around the bend at Failing — the number of cars obeying the 25 mph speed limit there is probably less than 2%…
That Mason/Cully intersection is tricky. The lane width, the blind curve, and the long run between traffic controls can make for high speeds and short intervals between cars. If I were hauling kids I might choose a step through frame and dismount at a place like that every time.
I agree that diverters are great and should be used more — I really value a number of them in my neighborhood and can’t wait for Ainsworth to get one (I swear I saw it in the list of NPIM improvements that were imminent). Speed bumps are the worst of both worlds in that they annoy everybody.
Yess!!! I feel like royalty going through modal filters. They really say this place is for pedestrians and bikers first
Wild that the neighborhood of the famous bike bus opposed modal filters that would have kept their kids safer
The bar for showing support for vulnerable communities (kids riding bikes) is so low. They can write an article in their local newsletter and think they are supporting bike buses. When they feel perceived threatened by an improvement, real meaningful support disappears.
Before concluding neighbors were “threatened” by a diverter, I’d suggest talking to them to find out what the issues really were. Call the NA chair and ask, or ask for the minutes from the meeting where the issue was discussed.
If you’ve already done this, or were at the meeting, I’d be interested in knowing more about what people actually said.
I was in all those meetings as a board member. BikePortland did an amazing job covering the meetings. Search Alameda & Fremont & Skidmore and you will see lots of examples.
Also, this article lays out the general concerns you will always hear. https://michaelschneider.medium.com/how-to-overcome-common-objections-to-bike-lanes-9d6edc5a8a0c
I’ve been in plenty of public meetings where projects like this are discussed, and often there is some opposition, but also a good deal of support for reasonable proposals. In those cases, the project should fare well, especially if no one raises any critical unforeseen issues.
If there is no such support, and especially if the issues raised are substantive, then maybe the proposal needs more work.
Methinks you doth protest too much, Watts. We all know why drivers dislike modal filters: the filters “slow them down.” That’s it, really. Drivers feel entitled to drive everywhere since that’s what they are used to.
Youthinks I am protesting too much by advocating for public involvement? What does that even mean?
“Drivers” think a variety of things. I drive (on occasion). Do I and all the other drivers on this forum (which is most of us, maybe even including you) really think we’re entitled to drive everywhere?
I do think I’m entitled to bike everywhere… Is that also a problem?
Some of us recognize that the world is more complicated (and more interesting) than a simplistic us vs. them.
It’s also not the same people in all cases. I can guarantee there are residents who don’t like the Bike Bus as it “gets in the way” and “slows them down”. These are the people who will be most outspoken against diverters.
But a much larger group are the people who don’t understand, or don’t want to understand the connection between diverters and safety for children in the neighborhood.
I’m still mystified why we never got a straight answer out of PBOT on the diverters at Ankeny & 15th https://bikeportland.org/2018/12/14/new-diverters-on-ankeny-and-lincoln-part-of-plan-to-keep-drivers-off-side-streets-293190
177 comments and still nothing from PBOT. The gaps there are wide enough for some cars to mosey right on through!
Why was this done? What sense does it make? Who signed off on that?
We probably don’t see the pushback, or veto, from the fire department.
IF you think that diverter is bad, check out the diverter on the Flanders “greenway” at 21st. It is soo wide open and frequently used by cars that I genuinely believe many divers don’t realizze they are not supposed to drive through it.
– But cul-de-sacs are suburban sprawl!
– But homeowners won’t be able to access their driveway!
– But PBOT doesn’t have any money to depave/create new parks/re-route water and sewer!
– But what if this happens to benefit privileged landowners?
Just kidding! I am glad to see this article has fewer exaggerated comments than the last few articles on this subject. 🙂
I had stopped riding clinton before the filters were installed because of repeated harassment from drivers and the sheer amount of traffic on it, even though it was the most direct route to work. When the filters were installed, I tried it again, and found it was once again the best path. That said, there are also like three dozen speed humps along the route- with varying levels of precision on the install. There’s a real bike buster around 36th, you know it if you’ve ridden it. 🙂
Take public assets paid for by all for the benefit of a performative few – Check
Refuse to get parade permits for your parades as our laws require – Check
Refuse to notify neighbors and the community about your illegal parades – Check
Sneak up on unsuspecting citizens so you can non-consensually shake your filthy genitals in their faces and the faces of their children – Check
Enforce wholly illegal and unenforceable “rules” for public parks, then try to bully others into obeying your “rules” through threat of physical force – Check
I really don’t understand how those who simply choose to engage in a little hobby they like (to pedal around) became such selfish, self righteous, tyrannical parasites as soon as they moved to Portland. We don’t see stamp collectors insisting only they get to use the counter at the post office or crochet ladies insisting our laws don’t apply to them simply because they make a banging set of pot holders.
Time to call out the Portland Anarchist Road Crew to correct such glaring safety issues as planters in the middle of the road.
“Illegal parades”
Looks like the fun police have arrived.
Just an informed and engaged citizen who believes in civil rights and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Why don’t you? Are you looking to reestablish chattel slavery too?! I don’t understand how someone can be anti-14th Amendment other than being pro-slavery.
No one in Portland is violating your 14th Amendment rights.
You don’t get to pick and choose, Equal is the mandate of the 14th Amendment. What you propose is unequal purposefully to inconvenience some citizens while benefiting others, using a public asset.
Classy.
Hey Patrick I think maybe you should get some fresh air my man. Maybe go for a bike ride! We have some great group rides.
I believe in equal protection of the law, why don’t you? Because it might impact your biker privilege.
Oh yes all those stationary objects on 20 mph streets killing people en masse… *checks notes* nope it’s shitty drivers killing people. Don’t you think you should have your temper tantrum on the article about the naked bike rides instead of one about modal filters? Better yet take the L and move on you’re getting pretty unhinged about all of this.
I have a friend who was fairly seriously injured recently (requiring surgery) by crashing into a wand demarking a protected bike lane, in broad daylight. Her helmet may have saved her life, and I suspect she may never ride again.
It was absolutely her fault, but that doesn’t change the fact that stationary objects do injure cyclists, even when they are perfectly visible.
Cyclists aren’t being killed en masse in Portland (by drivers or stationary obstacles), but the world can still be a dangerous place to ride. Try not to be so dismissive.
(And, for the record, no WNBR hate here — it’s a great experience!)
Your description of what happened to your friend has absolutely nothing to do with what Patrick was claiming. That wand is not a “glaring safety issue”. I wasn’t dismissing anything I was mocking an obvious attempt to paint a piece of safety infrastructure “planters in the middle of the road” as a safety issue. It’s not a safety issue it’s a safety improvement just like wands are safety improvements. The fact that someone can crash into either in no way changes that fact. Also I didn’t say cyclists are being killed en masse. I said people and they are by drivers around the world.
Wands and planters improve safety Patrick was wrong to claim otherwise and you lecturing me about being dismissive added nothing to the conversation.
Patrick was claiming that obstacles in the road can present a safety issue, which you dismissed. I think he’s right, even if the rest of his comment was over-the-top.
Fixed obstacles in the travel lane may be unavoidable in some contexts, but that doesn’t mean planners should be insensitive to them. This issue comes up from time to time, examples being bollards in the middle of bike paths and curbs in the middle of the street to deter drifting, and generally people do dismiss concerns about them, as you did here.
I didn’t “lecture you”, and you did sarcastically dismiss the idea that stationary objects are dangerous.
How about wounded? Or bruised? Or you damage my private property’s fender? These are also the result of numbskulls dropping obstacles in the middle of the road. You are perfectly willing to accept those harms to others as long as you preserve your special privilege, I am not.
This comment and others about the 14th amendment seem to suggest you think you have a right to drive your private property on public roads. That’s false. Your right to travel can be and is restricted by the state in the interest of public safety. If you don’t want to damage your private property by driving into fixed objects on a public road drive better or don’t drive on public roads.
You aren’t required to drive. Lets talk about privilege though. How about we stop subsidizing your chosen method of travel and charge you for all the costs associated with it. Not just the damage you do to the roads but also free parking all around the city, pollution, health costs associated with all your pollution, emergency services for all the people your mode injures and kills, and wasted space for massive roads and parking lots on valuable property throughout the city.
Nice parody.
I understand it may seem like parody to those uninterested and uneducated on the fundamentals of civil rights, but equal protection of the law is too important for mockery. I mean other than what you kids do.
I agree 100%! PBOT just installed concrete curbs across NE Mason at the 72nd park blocks a few days ago creating a paved car-free island and I already saw some little dudes on bikes taking advantage of the area to ride their bikes without fear of cars! MORE modal filters please!
Ill have to check that out. So exciting it went in. Send your comment to the city. As much as we bash them we also need to celebrate them.
Unfortunately a study out of San Francisco showed that pedestrians are more likely to be hit by cars when the cars are turning. On the St Johns Greenway, the most dangerous points for pedestrians are at the diverters.
As my parents have gotten older, I have realized that we need to put more emphasis on pedestrian safety and access to transit. Bicycling is for youger and heathier people. Walking and transit is for all ages.
Are you claiming that diverters make walking more dangerous? I’m pretty skeptical of such a claim. When I’m walking in my neighborhood, I preferentially choose the streets with diverters precisely because they are nicer for walking than the busier streets.
So your hypothesis is that diverters decrease pedestrian safety on Greenways? That’s a bold assertion that really needs to be backed up by something.
Have you considered that diverters are known to reduce total vehicle counts on these streets?
I feel like it’s a huge logic leap from “turning cars are, in general, dangerous to pedestrians” to “diverters are dangerous to pedestrians because they make cars turn”, and if we’re talking about the same set of diverters in St Johns I would even more strongly disagree. Cars turning at 30+ mph is not the same thing as cars turning at 15mph.
I walk past those diverters every day, and I see triple-digit numbers of people do the same from age 3 to 73+ (not to mention hundreds of bikes). People feel safe walking there, as evidenced by the sheer number of folks who choose that route, and they feel that way because the diverters help so much to reduce both speed and volume of car traffic.
In addition to being great for peds and bikes, diverters even improve quality of life for people inside their homes who live nearby. Fewer and slower cars does so much to reduce ambient noise.
I love that what I hear outside my window is children laughing, not engines roaring, and I have diverters to think for that. They should be placed everywhere we realistically can.
“Bicycling is for youger and heathier people. Walking and transit is for all ages.”
See if you still think that when your parents are older yet. At some point one of them is likely to lose enough mobility that car is the only way for them to go anywhere. You may find that Uber is a godsend, and gain a new appreciation for good parking options.
All of this. The greenway on NE 7th Avenue, which serves the Earl Blumenauer bridge and is one of the major North-South bike routes in inner NE/SE Portland, is not served well by speed bumps. Folks still drive too fast/aggressively and make the street feel unsafe for many bicycle users. There are plenty of better options nearby for cars – i.e. MLK Blvd/Grand Ave.
IIRC 7th was originally planned to be improved for bike usage, but pushback to that plan from the surrounding neighborhood of course made the DOA. Instead we got a badly designed facility at 7th and tillamook which diverts us to Rodney – itself in bad need of resurfacing between Russel and Stanton or so.. also still without an improved facility to cross Fremont.
Same basic story as always – PBOT has plans to make improvements and then caves to nimby pushback.
Ah what the new bridge and 7th could have been…
The neighborhood supported the project; it was resistance from further afield that was the problem.
I’d love to hear a synopsis of the demise of the 7th ave project that includes an analysis of the nature of political opposition. I think it’s important to have a realistic narrative about how we got to the point we’re at. I read a lot of comments decrying the lack of ‘courage’ demonstrated by PBOT (or, as resopmok puts it ‘PBOT …. caves to nimby pushback.’). I’m generally supportive of Sam’s call for more diverters on greenways, but I find it highly problematic that the prevailing sense on BP is that greenways cannot be improved without vanquishing local opposition. It’s just not sustainable to build a bike network through hostile territory….
Especially since, in the case of 7th, at least, it’s a false narrative. Some people think neighborhood associations are why we don’t have bike infrastructure, but that’s just not true.
Why were bike lanes removed from NE 33rd? Those were the same that led to the removal of the traffic circle on NE 7th. It wasn’t the all-powerful hand of twee Portland neighborhood associations at work, that’s for sure.
I had an interesting conversation with a former staffer for a city commissioner (back in the old system). She said a lot of the folks at PBOT really didn’t care; if the commissioner in charge said “do the project”, they did it. What they cared about was being sheltered by someone above them. (And in this context, I assumed we weren’t talking about marquee projects like rebuilding 82nd.) So “courage at PBOT” translates to “courage of political leadership.”
I really don’t know how it’s going to work now. Call the mayor?
Thank you for this healthy dose of common sense Sam!
A cheaper, better option that promotes safety, solves the root of the problem and leaves ample alternatives for drivers on more appropriate nearby roads.
Our experience on NE 7th (admittedly a major city bikeway, not a greenway) after they removed a traffic circle and replaced it with speed bumps (cost: $200k+) has been increased car traffic and speeds, much less safety on the most obvious N/S route in the area.
Hopefully impending budget cuts will bring PBOT back to reality.
Sam, thank you for this excellent post! I completely agree with your points about cost savings and the effectiveness of modal filters over speed bumps.
I can personally attest to this as I frequently use the Klickitat greenway, just one block south of Fremont, for my daily commute. It’s so clear how drivers use these long stretches to bypass Fremont. While the speed bumps have indeed slowed cars down, they haven’t stopped motorists from using it as a cut-through. I’ve witnessed numerous incidents where drivers pass cyclists dangerously close and sometimes even honk expecting cyclists to move over so they can pass on the greenway.
I’m completely in favor of reducing traffic on greenways and limiting access primarily to local residents. Neighborhood streets should be exactly that – for neighborhood access, not expressways for avoiding arterials built specifically for cars.
The financial angle you highlighted is particularly compelling. We can improve the experience for most people (including neighborhood residents who drive) while actually saving taxpayer money. It’s rare to find solutions that are both better and less expensive!
What would be the most effective way to move this idea forward? Are there specific decision-makers at PBOT who need to hear this perspective, or perhaps a community organizing approach that might gain traction?
I’ve had pretty bad experiences on Klickitat too.
Add Tilamook east and west of NE 15th as an abused greenway.
Klickitat could really benefit from the BMUFL treatment. That’s one of the few greenways where I’ve felt threatened by cars honking or revving their engines and hard braking behind me.
If you have time, and especially if you live adjacent, you can:
–put out cones, put on vest, sweep up debris
–do curbside gardening projects (green bins and wheelbarrows are good for traffic calming)
–if there is a rainwater catch basin, volunteer to maintain it. Maintain it a lot, with traffic cones, etc. There will always be trash and small weeds in it. Be thorough! You don’t need to live there, you can sign up to volunteer anywhere there is a structure.
–throw a block party. This is the queen of traffic calming. You will need barriers, if you can’t afford to rent them, ask around.
–shoot hoops
–request additional signage and crosswalk bars from the city, if you have a lot of time. The operator at 503-823-SAFE may try to pass you off to maintenance dispatch but I think that is BS, make them write it up.
–request intersection daylighting, also if you have a lot of time.
Activity on a side street also affects the traffic on the greenway. If you do any of these things, people will likely talk to you. It’s a good thing!
It’s quite simple. Pbot will pay for filters. If the association wants more asphalt, they can foot the whole bill.
Speaking of “filters” readers should be aware comments are being filtered by Bike Portland to advance their arguments. Most people would defend or shore up their arguments when give the chance, but Bike Portland is apparently dedicated to silencing those they disagree with. That’s a real sleazy and lazy choice.
Hi Patrick. That’s not what happens here. I do however, reserve the right to hold back comments and/or delete comments however and whenever I’d like. This is private property and I’m the landowner so-to-speak. Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Thanks for understanding.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” This amendment specifically restrains the federal government from limiting free expression – it does not apply to private entities or individuals managing their own property.
Jonathan’s position is entirely correct. Just as a restaurant owner can ask disruptive customers to leave, or a homeowner can set rules for guests in their house, a website owner has every right to moderate comments on their platform. You can’t walk into someone’s living room and demand they let you say whatever you want, and similarly, you can’t demand unlimited speech rights on someone’s private website.
Other examples where private property owners rightfully limit speech include:
The distinction between public and private forums is crucial. While the government generally can’t restrict speech in public parks or on sidewalks, private property owners (including digital property owners) have the legal right to set boundaries within their own spaces.
Jonathan’s stance that “commenting is a privilege, not a right” perfectly captures this important distinction.
I personally appreciate Jonathan’s moderation and would actually prefer it to be even stricter so we can continue having productive conversations that move ideas forward rather than just “dunking” on PBOT and ideas presented. Thoughtful moderation is what makes Bike Portland great. I respect anyone who disagrees with this position – that’s your right as well. But it doesn’t change the fact and law that you don’t have “free speech” rights within private entities.
“While the government generally can’t restrict speech in public parks or on sidewalks, private property owners (including digital property owners) have the legal right to set boundaries within their own spaces.”
Not exactly; there are examples of owners of private spaces to which the public has access (like malls) being required to accommodate free speech. While I am not aware of any cases where that principle has been extended online, it is an interesting question to what extent a private service like BikePortland constitutes a public forum.
But as a matter of fact, there is very little evidence that Jonathan engages in viewpoint censorship.
Malls occupy an interesting legal middle ground when it comes to free speech rights. The general rule is that privately owned malls are considered private property, not public spaces, despite feeling like public gathering places.
In most states, mall owners can legally restrict speech, protests, and other First Amendment activities on their property. However, there are some notable exceptions:
The majority interpretation today is that mall owners generally have the right to set their own policies regarding speech, distribution of literature, solicitation, and demonstrations. They can prohibit political speech, remove protesters, and enforce their own codes of conduct – just as other private property owners can.
So unlike truly public spaces like parks, streets, or government buildings where First Amendment protections are strongest, most malls remain legally classified as private property with the ability to regulate speech and expression.
Question: Is the internet considered a public space or private? How about Google, Facebook, and X? How about cell towers and the signals they send?
The Internet
The internet as a whole isn’t easily classified as either fully public or private. It’s more of a mixed ecosystem:
Social Media Platforms (Google, Facebook, X/Twitter)
These are definitively private entities:
Cell Towers and Signals
This area is more nuanced:
Telephone Poles (You didn’t mention this, but the cell tower reminded me of my previous work in this area)
Telephone poles (or utility poles) have an interesting legal status:
They typically exist in a hybrid public-private arrangement:
Unlike purely private property like a store or website, telephone poles exist in a more regulated space because they serve as critical infrastructure. However, this doesn’t make them public forums for free expression – you generally can’t post signs or materials on telephone poles without permission, and many municipalities have ordinances specifically prohibiting posting on utility poles.
The poles represent another example of how the public/private distinction isn’t always clear-cut when it comes to infrastructure that serves public needs but may be privately owned and maintained.
As I mentioned, I once worked on a project for PGE to help build a system for managing their pole inspection cycle program. As the primary owner that installs and maintains these utility poles, PGE bears responsibility for regular inspections (every 8-12 years), especially after other utilities attach their components to the infrastructure. The arrangement creates a fascinating intersection of public utility cooperation, technical compliance, and regulatory oversight that most people never see despite relying on this critical infrastructure daily.
At no point did I make any claim of 1st Amendment violation. I’m making the point that Jonathan is a paid propagandist who attempts to give his readers deliberate misinformation in order to advance his agenda. He does so while masquerading as a journalist. (“BIkePortland has been a trusted source of news, information and inspiration since 2005. Our award winning journalism…”
I’m not saying it’s black magic; it’s just marketing and advertising. But in my experience those who intend to be clear and above board about their intent don’t attempt to portray themselves as a journalism operation when they are not in order to pimp their wares. That is deliberate misinformation. I thought we had all agreed that was bad, weren’t “misinformation”, “disinformation”, threats and we need to “protect the nation’s cognitive infrastructure”, etc?. Or is that only when it is being done by people whose opinions you disagree with? “It’s fine when we do it”?
What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by shouting ugly accusations here? So far nothing of what you have written rings true, sounds well reasoned, adds to the discussion.
We here disagree about all sorts of things, always have, but in my view if one can’t have a reasonable conversation, show oneself able to hear the other, then there is little point in engaging.
“Jonathan is a paid propagandist who attempts to give his readers deliberate misinformation”
If you are going to make claims that someone is “providing deliberate misinformation”, and is being paid to do it (by whom?) you really need to provide some evidence. You don’t offer as much as an example.
I spend a lot of time here, and I disagree strongly with some of Jonathan’s viewpoints (especially related to the police), and I would agree that his opinion sometimes colors his news coverage in a way I wish didn’t happen, but I can’t think of a single time that I even suspected he was attempting to mislead.
So please either present some evidence or stop making unfounded accusations.
Patrick, I appreciate your clarification that you weren’t making a First Amendment claim. However, I think there’s a fundamental difference in how we’re viewing BikePortland’s role.
While Jonathan does have a perspective and advocacy position (which he’s been quite transparent about), that doesn’t automatically disqualify his work as journalism. Many publications, from opinion magazines to local news outlets, blend reporting with viewpoint. The line between advocacy journalism and “pure” reporting has always been somewhat blurry.
I also want to address a common conflation I see between “free speech” and “filtering.” For example, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) claim to champion free speech, yet their content is heavily driven by engagement algorithms that absolutely filter viewpoints in users’ feeds to increase engagement. These algorithms often amplify the most controversial or emotionally charged content, not necessarily the most accurate or valuable.
What I’m advocating for is clarity and recognition of the rights private entities have to exercise discretion and moderation over content. This includes opposing viewpoints if they’re not presented constructively or don’t move the conversation forward. Yes, this approach can sometimes lead to over-moderation, but the fact that we’re having this discussion right now on BikePortland is self-evident proof that excessive censorship or “filtering” isn’t happening here.
Moderation is clearly occurring, as it should, and is expected in any thoughtful online community. It’s even built into the tools Jonathan uses for comments (Disqus). This isn’t deceptive – it’s responsible community management.
Rather than seeing it as “deliberate misinformation,” I view it as journalism with a viewpoint – something that has a long tradition in American media. If you disagree with the perspective, that’s completely valid, but labeling it as propaganda seems to dismiss the actual reporting work being done.
Frankly, your comments appear to be hyperbolic without merit or evidence. Making accusations of someone being a “paid propagandist” who deliberately misinforms readers requires substantial proof, not just disagreement with their editorial perspective.
“readers should be aware comments are being filtered by Bike Portland to advance their arguments”
I believe this statement is false, plain and simple.
Assuming it does have positions it wants to advance, why would BikePortland filter out opposing comments, when those commenters are doing such a good job of showing the flaws of their own thinking?
If that were really true, I wouldn’t have been able to quote this..
BP does not support down votes, which would seem to favor diverse opinions.
I’ve noticed google maps always selects routes that avoid the greenways (but Waze does not). That might be a better solution than bumps or diversions (though I love the idea).