A City agency with the backing of the Portland Police Bureau has directed the Portland Bureau of Transportation to remove three traffic diverters in northwest Portland because they say the large concrete barricades and one-way streets — installed by PBOT to improve safety and calm traffic — hinder the preferred routes of police patrols. So far, at least one city council member opposes the move.
Skyler Brocker-Knapp is director of Portland Solutions, a city bureau formed in 2024 to address homelessness and related “livability challenges.” In an email today to District 4 city council members and copied to Portland Police Bureau Sgt. Ty Engstrom, Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Millicent Williams, and Deputy City Administrator of Public Works Priya Dhanapal, Brocker-Knapp wrote that diverters on NW 20th and Everett, NW 14th and Johnson, and NW 15th and Johnson must be removed.
“These locations… have been particularly problematic in terms of chronic nuisance behavior (drug dealing, vandalism, etc.),” Brocker-Knapp wrote. Apparently, staffers at the Public Environment Management Office (PEMO) have been working for three years to make this move. All the diverters (also known as “modal filters”) named in the email create one-way streets for auto users, since behind them the street becomes a bike-only lane. They were installed as part of PBOT neighborhood greenway projects and vetted through months of public outreach with a goal to calm traffic and reduce traffic deaths and injuries to the most vulnerable road users.
But if Brocker-Knapp’s email is the final word (I have not confirmed a date for removal) they’ll be torn out and replaced with sharrow markings.
The diverters in the northeast corner of NW 20th and Everett have been the target of neighborhood ire for a while now. An article in the NW Examiner last month asked rhetorically, “Do they make us safer, or just get in the way?” Article author Allan Classen wrote that the barriers, “prevent many neighborhood Fred Meyer shoppers from driving directly home.” Classen explained that drivers headed north or west on 20th from the Fred Meyer parking garage (on NW 20th Pl.) must travel three blocks east to 18th Ave before heading to their destination. 85% of the 156 people who voted in a poll posted on the Examiner’s website said they wanted the diverter removed.
From the PPB perspective, the diverters and one-way streets force them out of their way when traveling between Fred Meyer and Couch Park two blocks north. Couch Park has recently made headlines because local residents have complained that it’s a hive of open drug use and crime. Back in May the PPB conducted a focused enforcement mission around the park that resulted in three arrests, drug and gun seizures, and 12 people being transported to deflection centers. Also in May, District 4 City Councilor Eric Zimmerman made public his intention to have the diverters removed.
According to Brocker-Knapp, restoring the streets to two-way auto traffic will allow police to “better navigate” the area. The plan is for PBOT to replace the diverter with all-way stop sign configuration. (“People biking may also use the Flanders Greenway one block to the north,” the email states.)
Over on NW Johnson, PEMO is directing PBOT to remove diverters and restore two-way traffic at NW 14th and NW 15th to, “allow for easier movement for Portland Police through the area.” A spokesperson for PEMO told me in a phone conversation today that they’ve also had reports from bike riders who fear for their safety while using the underpass.
A request for PBOT comment was redirected to PEMO. In their email, Brocker-Knapp said they’ve already worked with PBOT to, “develop a solution for traffic redirection at these locations,” and staff from all involved agencies have conducted site walks with the city traffic engineer.
District 4 City Councilor Mitch Green opposes the projects. In a reply to Brocker-Knapp’s email, Green wrote, “I don’t support this at all and I’m curious to understand what the justification for this is, what problem it solves, and what consideration has been given to the new problems it creates.”
“At a time when vehicle-based pedestrian fatalities are up, it’s hard for me to see how this improves public safety.”
The PBOT Bicycle Advisory Committee has not been involved with these discussions. I’ve learned that it will be on the agenda of their August 12th meeting and a representative from PEMO and the Mayor’s Office have been invited to attend.
I’ve reached out to PPB Traffic Division Sgt. Ty Engstrom for comment. I’ve also asked PEMO how the PPB’s public safety concerns were weighed against the public safety concerns that resulted in the installation of the diverters to begin with. I’ll update this post as I learn more.
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.
Good story, Jonathan. Just made a little donation to BikePortland as thanks for this article. (Didn’t see anyplace to leave a comment on the donation form.)
I’d like to second this. Great article and Bike Portland along with Jonathan’s reporting are, for me, the gold standard for independent media.
Cue the usual Bike Portland cop hate.
Cue the usual trolling of cyclists.
C’mon, MattP – this isn’t as simple as reflexive hatred of cops. I’d wager most people who frequent BP think police are critically important to enforcing the laws that keep us all – esp vulnerable road users – safe. I certainly feel that way.
But when police make lame excuses about needing to remove infrastructure that helps cycling, then cyclists are right to call BS.
There’s an active anti-cycling constituency in NW, led by Alan Classen, publisher of the NW Examiner, who want to rip out every bit of cycling infra in the neighborhood. My guess is they convinced the police to come up with a reason to make this change. It’s baloney.
I’m curious. Is this about being anti-bike in general, or might it have anything to do with the homeless shelter that’s going in at NW Northrup? There’s a lot of cry and hue about that being “forced” upon the neighborhood, and I wonder if there’s any possible connection between making bike-ped movement harder here and quietly (or not so quietly) assuming that too much of that bike-ped traffic is being done by homeless people who may spend more time in the neighborhood once the shelter is opened? (NW Examiner’s editor and many neighborhood residents are also very unhappy about the shelter being summarily forced upon the neighborhood, with little opportunity for public comment before the decision was made.)
I think it all of the above. Part anti-bike, and part assumption that all the and bike and ped traffic there is homeless people.
I’d be open to reconfiguring some bike infra to help the police if they are too inept to do their job in the current cityscape on the condition that equivalent or better bike facilities are installed elsewhere using funds from the police budget. There was plenty of process when these went in. PBOT does not have the spare cash to throw away hard won progress.
Why can’t the police just drive in the opposite lane when there’s an emergency? I see drivers in the neighborhood do this all the time.
Exactly City Slicker, the purpose of separated bike lanes and diversion isn’t only to filter modes and improve safety, it’s also to allow emergency response to have an alternative route when car congestion blocks their path.
But the issue here is non-emergency “nuisance behavior.” Notice there is no proposal to remove car storage, maintain two-way traffic, and install a protected bike lane. There is also no proposal to remove the park or sidewalks where the majority of the “nuisance behavior” occurs. This is the type of policy that hints at a fundamental misunderstanding regarding safe street design where cars are considered the default mode of transportation.
The status quo of most residential streets considered greenways, particularly in NW, allow for a fraction of the number of people who would bike if they were safe (e.g., frequently separated by diversion). That means there is extremely limited bike traffic, and their utility can be questioned (e.g., NW Examiner). This is a public health problem looking for a scapegoat.
Those greenways are stuck with the “status quo” mostly because of carbrained cranks on NWDA who influenced PBOT to water down the Northwest in Motion Plan which was the genesis of most of these diverters.
Since Jonathan didn’t mention it in the article, I’ll post a link to the plan here: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/planning/nwim
Spot on EP. Super sad it ended up this way. NW should be one of the safest and most accessible quarters of the city. Since I lived there maybe decade ago, it’s improved only marginally. Pg 35 has the start to the divertor map for anyone interested. I’d take one actual predictably-separated route start to finish rather than an entire neighborhood of mediocre streets as NWIM exemplifies.
Why did bikes take 4th Ave when they already have a ‘predictably-separated route start to finish’ on Front street and 5th/6th are for the transit mall? Where are we leaving a nice comfortable (I.e. safe) through-street for motor vehicles?
Which streets can motor vehicles not navigate? Here’s Ankeny Plaza. Here’s the plaza next to Shake Shack. Are you saying we should remove these so cars can navigate better???
How did bikes “take 4th ave?”
Where are we leaving a nice comfortable (I.e. safe) through-street for motor vehicles? How about literally everywhere?
Safety is not the same as comfort, and vice versa.
The Problem Solver meetings that PEMO holds are open to anyone to attend. Currently the crowd most active at these meetings are older property owners and business representatives. The conversation topics tend to skew towards anti-homeless, car parking, and graffiti abatement in my experience. Diverse perspectives that advocate for universal design and human-scale solutions would be a breath of fresh air instead of doubling down on the status quo as this article demonstrates.
The conversations may be focused on those issues because the meetings are about resolving acute livability issues, and in Portland that often means a focus on a certain cluster of problems.
You can’t go to meetings that you aren’t aware of. Are these “problem solving meetings” widely publicized? Probably not, huh? I would bet not many people actually know about them. Where would you find out about these meetings?
“So far, at least one city council member opposes the move.”
That’s hardly newsworthy. The majority of the current city council is anti-police and reflexively opposes the needs of law enforcement.
Is that why there was a huge discussion over whether to give the cops a couple extra million that they didn’t even ask for?
Why not put a bike patrol in that area? If they need to chase someone, a bike will be quicker than a car and can follow people into the park. It’s bizarre that there aren’t more cops on bikes in this city, and that PPB isn’t investing in electric bikes. The lack of creative thinking everywhere, but specifically in city government is really disappointing. Hope there’s time to come up with different plans because I really like those diverters!
Part of the problem is, few PPB cops actually live in Portland. They are largely commuters from places like Beaverton or Battle Ground.
Why would that interfere with them patrolling by bike?
I’d be interested in learning more about why the police don’t use bikes as often as they once did. Maybe there’s a reason.
No reason they couldn’t drive (or take the Max or the bus!) and pick up their patrol bike at the station.
PPB does have bike patrol in that area—the Central Bike Squad. They’re out there, even if their long sleeve yellow shirts and black vests aren’t as visible as a squad car.
One drawback to a bike patrol is there’s no way to transport people to a diversion center or detention as needed. Another drawback is that visibility issue—simply having a squad car with flashing lights is a great way to disincentivize criminal activity and/or violence. It also sends a clear signal to onlookers that an issue if being addressed, which helps to alleviate fear and disorder.
But often times the bike squad is the right tool for the job. They’re able to roll up on a scene and catch someone in the act with the ease that an SUV would lack. Much like the bee in the unit’s insignia, they’re able visually unobtrusive and great for a sting. It’s all just a matter of using the right tool for the job.
Don’t be silly, PPB officers can’t ride bikes!
Besides that… I don’t think anyone in Portland will sell them bikes anymore.
100 years of prioritizing cars, why stop now?
I’m going to predict that removing these barriers will not result in the police being more effective in executing their duties.
This exactly. If the goal is to clear “undesirable” people out of the park, how will changing traffic flows on streets several blocks away from the park possibly make a difference?
The goal isn’t to make the cops more effective, it’s to make it so that NW Examiner readers don’t have to drive two blocks out of their way out of the Fred Meyer parking garage.
Bingo! If you read the NW Examiner regularly, as I do, you’ll know that it’s not really a newspaper – it’s Allan Classen’s personal newsletter and he is 100% against doing anything that will inconvenience drivers in any way.
It’s because Portland Police have a history of driving at 90 mph on back streets at 2 am with no headlights on, no sirens, and no flashing lights.
David, you’ve mentioned this multiple times. I can’t remember if I’ve asked what you’re talking about or only thought about asking. Either way, what are you talking about? Please link a story here? Seriously, no idea what this is about.
What is the burden of proof, here? These are important bike routes. Each one of those diverters works 10 times as hard as any cop on the PPB. This is like firing one of their most high-achieving traffic cops who works for free.
*10 times harder than any cop on the PPB.
This is total BS. Police and fire vehicles have always had the legal right to drive around these types of semi-diverters, against the direction of traffic, if they need to do so. Police can just turn on their sirens momentarily if they want to go around them. They do it all the time. So this justification makes no sense on the merits. This is just some cranky businesses and neighborhood people who have never liked the diverters, using crime and livability concerns as a convenient excuse to get rid of them.
Ironically, diverters and other types of street closures (like at 72nd/Woodstock) have often been used as crime prevention measures. So it’s odd to suddenly act like they’re bad for public safety when they’ve more often been used to enhance public safety.
Well said, It seems like the cops have been co-opted by local businesses/residents, because the assertion that it keeps them from makings their appointed rounds is ludicrous, Reminds me a bit of way back when, 20 years ago or so, the Fire Bureau would send a representative to PBoT public meetings about speed bumps on Willamette (and other streets) to inform the Good Citizens that their babies would burn because of the delayed response the bumps would cause fire trucks.
Those same Fire Bureau employees asked PBoT to slightly modify the speed bumps so that emergency vehicles could get through easier. PBoT refused.
Came here to say this, too. When there was a whole bunch of issues with gun violence around Mt Scott Park, one of the responses was to add (unfortunately only) temporary diverters. They are mostly gone now, but did help in the interim. Diverters seem to reduce crime, not impede police response.
I’m liking Mitch Green more & more.
He is good on cycling issues but really bad on a lot of other issues, unfortunately – IMHO. Others may disagree.
He’s been great on other issues in my opinion. He has a PhD in economics and has actually been applying the insights of the last 30 years which have been all too often ignored—like that human capital development attracts business far more than lower taxes. I think he will help us outperform peer cities over the next two decades.
A “nice” euphemism for filthy-rich investor rent-seeking
Green talks a lot about city-developed “social housing” but thus far his housing policy has been laser focused on making rich real estate moguls even richer. It’s almost as if this guy believes that getting rid of SDC fees* will solve high interest rates, credit tightening, perceived risk for development in PDX, and an incipient real estate recession#.
*SDC fees are structured in a dysfunctional manner and should be reformed but evaporating revenue that funds public goods with no alternative source of revenue is just austerity, ATMO.
#having to depend on filthy-rich capitalists who always stop developing when their perceived risk increases to provide a basic human need is darwinist capitalism at its worst. The private market is part of the problem when it comes to housing austerity.
Perhaps Green should next join the mayor and governor in begging rich capitalists to develop in Portland out of the goodness of their crumbling coal black hearts.
With SDCs – notwithstanding that they’re a dumb kludge to sort of adjust for measures 5/50 – there’s a few other things to consider.
1) They can only be used for capital projects. While I don’t like the idea of depriving the bureaus of capital funding, they’ve largely over-collected and are sitting on funds that they don’t intend to spend. Parks being the most egregious example with $140 million in unspent SDCs.
2) The vast majority of revenue from a new building comes from the reassessed property values. If a building’s new property taxes increase by $100K a year (with 3% annual escalation), and it pays $100K in SDC’s, then delaying building by two years is a net loss of revenue for the city.
3) Construction employs people. We’re seeing contractions at architecture firms and contracting firms locally. One of the largest knock-on effects of the GFC was a huge loss of employment in the construction sector. We didn’t reach 2007’s construction employment numbers again until 2022.
And this is another reason that we should be focusing on counter-cyclical spending on city-developed housing or at the very least counter-cyclical credit with enforceable regulatory buy in for the city’s housing goals. The problem with existing programs is that they have little counter-cyclical bias and are of small scale (e.g. fully funded inclusionary is a drop in the bucket). Creating a city-sponsored social housing developer* with the ability to bond hundreds of millions would solve this scale problem without running into Faircloth amendment restrictions and could even by used for YIMBYesque public private projects (not opposed to this with good enforceable regulations that create needed low-income housing).
*Given metro’s ability to bond this could be a good fit as well
For the record, I’m completely on board with that, with the caveat that we’ll need to raise an ongoing revenue source for the Social Housing developer in order for that to work.
I figured you were on board but I still wanted to flesh out what I support with the intention of showing that some “left-nimbys” do actually want to build a shit ton of housing when the “free market”* fails to build.
*one of the big differences between a pro-housing left-nimby/phimby and a yimby is that I believe our not-so-free market has and will always fail to build sufficient housing
Cool, very glad to hear that carbrains have an entirely new way to circumvent the established public process to get what they want, all in the name of “public safety”.
Zimmerman hates all PBOT attempts to increase ped safety if he thinks they will ‘impede business access’ or somehow become a hangout for drug users. He has stated his dislike of so much bike infrastructure in streets. He is sadly not an ally to pedestrians and cyclists on many levels.
In SW we have Green who is 100% pro-cycling, Zimmerman who is 100% anti-cycling, and Olivia Clark who seems pretty neutral on cycling but loves transit.
So they all pretty much cancel each other out!
I voted for the new form of city gov’t but having THREE reps now makes no sense to me at all. Better to have 12 people each repping a smaller area of the city.
That really makes no sense. How would 12 Clarkes (or 12 Zimmermans) be any better?
Would you rather have D4 represented by three councilors who wanted the diverters gone? Because there’s a much higher chance you would get that if it were divided into three districts each sending one member.
As another D4 resident, I see this whole episode as a great example of why I’m glad we have this electoral system (single-transferrable vote). Judging by the outcome of the district election, one third of this district wanted a progressive rep and two thirds wanted someone more centrist. If you split it up into three districts, that proportion might still exist, but since each would only be one representative, the progressives in the district would get nothing (unless they happened to be concentrated in one area) despite having the same numbers as before.
I ranked Green first, but I can also accept that I’m in the minority in my more centrist district. This way, the majority opinion is respected but I still have a councilor who I can approach on issues like this and feel like I have an advocate.
(as an aside, I think the BP might be having a technical issue because I’m no longer receiving any sort of email, despite unchecking the bell icon every time)
Ah yes. Another round of PPB throwing temper tantrums like a 2yr old because some donor bribed them to.
Do I love these when I’m driving around there? No. Do I care? Also no. Because I acknowledge the good they do and ultimately I’m in a machine where I can push a pedal and the giant safety cage around me and my groceries magically moves with really zero effort on my part. Pretty neat.
PPB don’t have a leg to stand on with their argument because they always have the option of going around the diverters in an emergency. A non emergency (the only situation where they maaaaybe have to honor the diverters) is by definition not an emergency and thus does not trump the safety benefits provided by the diverters. I’d love to sit next to whomever their rep is calling for this and ask whether they care more about getting somewhere in a non emergency 15 seconds faster, or scraping the dead bodies of VRUs off the pavement. Because that’s really the juxtaposition we’re working with here.
As for the locals, if they’re riding or walking the diverters makes their access to the store faster and safer, so the only argument is if they’re in a car, at which point I’ll note that the extra distance they’re whining about is shorter than the distance most folks in town have to go just to get out of their neighborhood to go to a store. To which my response is stop being so unbelievably lazy. It’s the most microscopic of inconveniences and is in no way justification for removing safety features that protect other road users.
Then there’s the simple economics of the whole thing. The PBOT budget shortfalls are widely publicized, so why on earth would they spend money on removing infrastructure when there are streets that need fixing. That’s just bad financial management. Frankly I’m pretty irritated that they’ve already wasted the time of a hopefully reasonably well paid traffic engineer plus the other public employees who have been roped into this fiasco. Time is money and when they’re talking about things like cutting the budgets for essentials we simply don’t have the capacity to be wasting money that way. How about we put the cost of the money already spent plus the money they project to make the changes, and ask people whether they would prefer that money go to something pointless like the removal, or filling the potholes folks have to resort to drawing inappropriate images around to get fixed. Gotta love it when a small interest group wastes the public’s money like this.
So you have the pleasure of a no pressure timeline after your shopping trip, whistling songs while you drive the blocks around the diverters. Also you don’t see how anyone could or should feel pressure or have the need to have that sort of timeline. Not only that but the world would be a better place if no one had high pressure timelines at all and rode their bikes in the rain all winter long.
Do you realize how small an amount of time is involved? And that there’s no impact at all if you’re driving to and from Fred Meyer from the east, west or south?
If you’re heading to and from the northeast, there’s no impact if you’re more than 3 blocks east of Fred Meyer. If you’re heading to and from the northwest, all it means is lose a few seconds because you turn right out of the parking lot instead of left, and go around the block.
The only people impacted any more than that are those who drive to and from Fred Meyer from locations between NW 18th and NW 21st, and the time impact is no more than they might have from being behind a bus temporarily, or missing one traffic light, or being behind someone at the checkout line who pays with cash or has a coupon declined.
If you’re so busy and important that driving an extra block out of the way is that big of a problem you’re better off getting your groceries delivered. Like it took you longer to come to this website, read the article, and write this comment then it would for you to get your car in and out of the stadium Freddie’s.
Plan better
Who bribed the police? And I’m not sure this qualifies as a tantrum — PBOT (apparently) allows PPB to veto things like this, and they are using the power they’ve been given. In what way is that a tantrum?
PEMO isn’t generally a fan of diverters even as it recognizes that speed bumps don’t work. I’m still not sure how it works just fine with topological traffic calming in the hills and buttes of Portland or by design in the suburbs, except to figure that there are so many that it dilutes the effect.
For my part I’m not a big fan of the sterile bike-only streets. They do seem to draw their own issues, but again the solution might be to have many more, not fewer.
Where are these streets in PDX?
We have many, but tend to call them “trails” or “MUPs”.
I see a lot of pedestrian traffic on trails and MUPs I frequent. Where are the ones only for bikes?
You’re right (apart from the fact that those are used by pedestrians as well). But I’ve never heard anyone call a trail or MUP a “sterile bike-only street”.
So, like soren, I’m still curious what Champs was referring to.
“I’ve never heard anyone call a trail or MUP a “sterile bike-only street””
I’m willing to bet you’ve never heard anyone use that phrase in any context. I sure haven’t.
I too am curious, but suspect he was just stringing words together GPT style.
Some NIMBY should sue the City to ensure that it completes an Environmental Impact Statement before removing the diverters. I speak half in jest…
Has Allan Classen forgotten how grade separated major freeways squatted on the street grid of NW Portland making many plausible routes unavailable until, perhaps, the ramps collapse in a major earthquake? Where’s his article about that? Memory loss and inexorable demographic change will have to take care of this stuff. Thank you, Joni Ernst!
It’s nuts, as other people have pointed out, that the PPB can’t patrol these areas with diverters in place. If they are addressing known issues they can approach by the open routes that another person would use. If there’s an emergency, go around the barrier. Problem solved in two sentences.
I’ve never seen any police activity using bikes that didn’t also involve various cars. What does it matter if the cars that they’re going to stuff the offenders into show up a few seconds later? Our police don’t do anything without backup and units arriving from all directions. They’re also great at operating through gaps in traffic control, like yellow lights.
Where’s the beef?
As someone who lives works bikes and drives in northwest, I support these removals. The ones under the 405 along 15th st make car navigation confusing. I would also support closing whole streets to bicycles. That would be clearer designation and navigation.
Because it would make driving easier for you personally, not because you care about police response to homeless camps. Glad you’re being on the level about the true motivation for this.
If diverters are confusing to you, and I truly mean this, you absolutely should not be driving. You are a danger behind the wheel.
Most streets are, due to car traffic, de facto, closed to bikes. How many streets are closed to cars?
It’s confusing to ride through as well. Rider is diverted onto a street making it seem like a car won’t be there but then is suddenly facing cars pointed at them because cars can enter on the other end of the block and park backwards.
“How do you do, fellow cyclists?”
As a person that drives a lot doing deliveries in this city- those diverters are terrible and ill conceived just like so many of PBoT’s ‘little helper’ projects. It is also completely retarded that drivers have no input on the decisions and it takes PPB to be like ‘yea this is really bad for car traffic’.
When do “drivers have no input”? Here is the NWIM plan.
Can you define “little helper projects”?
I promise you PBOT spends far more money and effort on the experience of car drivers than bikers.
… or the experience of pedestrians.
I imagine that there are many options available to you to save time, and that your day is filled with inefficiencies. I suggest that you take an inventory of all the ways that you waste time and energy that are within your control and address those first before lashing out. You may find that a little emotional maturity might solve all of the issues you have with driving, which I can appreciate are stressful for many people, and challenging to manage. It may also be the case that driving just isn’t for you.
Very few people *besides* drivers have any input.
I deliver by bike in these neighborhoods and the diverters are awesome at helping me with my job.
Awesome squareman. One thing that makes a consistently separated network a no-brainer, is the extreme utility that space can have for the city. A huge (and growing) percentage of deliveries in NYC are accomplished via e-bike, which navigate traffic more efficiently, for much less cost (both for the deliverista and city).
Portland doesn’t have a separated network outside a small slice of downtown, and it makes for an incredibly inefficient (not to mention dangerous) transportation system.
What is ill conceived are the thoughts&actions by selfish people who say they want safer streets when they drive a 2 ton deadly weapon of human destruction, but then ignore other people who need safe streets to walk, ride bicycles and take transit. the hypocrisy is atrocious. Great streets require a sacrifice of speed, convenience & parking for drivers and an emphasis on safety, usefulness, comfort and attraction for people walking, bicycling and riding transit
(The map has the “X” located by mistake at Flanders, not Everett.)
Speaking as someone who’s been driving on Everett for years (and shopping at Fred Meyer) I LIKE the diverters. Keeping people from driving northbound across Everett is a safety improvement, because Everett gets busy and people would take chances shooting across during any small gaps in traffic, jeopardizing safety of drivers on Everett.
Also, since cars leaving Fred Meyer who wanted to go north across Everett had to wait long times to cross, it would bog down people driving who wanted to turn right onto Everett as they left Fred Meyer.
Making people turn right and drive several seconds longer to drive home was logical, acceptable trade-off. But people often seem to rush to argue against bike infrastructure because they don’t like bikes, and blind themselves to the fact they may be arguing against their own interests as drivers.
https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5249076,-122.692582,3a,75y,91.9h,94.29t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFnd-eN1dpoQSCQ__aavWBQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-4.28783101556607%26panoid%3DFnd-eN1dpoQSCQ__aavWBQ%26yaw%3D91.89584537944086!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDczMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
Thanks for the heads up. This has been fixed.
Maybe we should remove all the street trees and vegetation and play structures in parks. That would make it easier for PPB to see everything without getting out of their cars.
Car traffic will not improve safety.
To refer to a previous article about what I “wish for” at PBOT. this is it! Stop the ridiculous backtracking on the tiny amount of hard infrastructure we have bikes.
2% of trips in Multnomah county were by bike last year. Is it reasonable to have all this infrastructure for that tiny subset of travelers? That seems like an obvious answer but things get confused when optics are involved.
Less than 1% of street space in the city of Portland, let alone the county, is dedicated to bikes. “All this infrastructure”
Thanks for the illustrative comments. Only a few short posts have outlined the perspective that come from a lack of impulse control, prioritization of corporate profits over the economy and quality of life of Portland residents, and an ill-informed view of transportation policy and distribution of resources.
This mindset would certainly cause the diverters to be frustrating, but this also makes a compelling case for why these diverters and many more diverters are necessary to deal with drivers that think this way.
Ultimately, this makes me consider the many purposes of the urban landscape that includes our transportation infrastructure. The first comment insisted that the activity of a stressed out, poorly paid laborer, grinding away for a billionaire’s yacht is unquestionably more valuable than someone experiencing joy while traveling through the city. This argument mirrors the position of sacrificing joy for the imaginary seconds that a police officer will save getting to a park; obviously a fear-based fairytale. Sadly, toxic curmudgeons have dedicated their lives to imposing their bleak world view on NW Portland, and we have all suffered for their insatiable tantrums.
Now that you have begun thinking about transportation and the many ways that people experience Portland’s central areas, I would encourage you to go beyond the perpetual frustration that entraps the mind of many drivers and consider what experiences should be at the top of the hierarchy for a city that relies on tourism and an experience-rich life for downtown residents.
Comment Of The Week !!!!
If <1% of streets were dedicated to cars only (i.e., limited to pedestrians, bikes, trams etc.), we would be saying exactly the same thing about travel by single occupancy vehicle. If you spend a hundred years gutting neighborhoods and redesigning a city to accommodate a single mode of transportation, almost everyone is going to travel by that mode.
Maybe we should get rid of ALL the bike infrastructure, so bike riders just ride in the lanes with motor vehicles.
The bikes may be going half the speed of the drivers behind them, but that shouldn’t be a problem, given bikes are only 2% of trips (which would probably drop to even lower without bike infrastructure) so the chances of being stuck behind one are minimal.
Most of our streets are, in fact, like this, and they seem to work fine for everyone. Where it doesn’t work is on those relatively few streets where vehicles are permitted to drive faster than the normal 20-25 mph. I’m guessing it’s projects on those streets that BudPDX is complaining about.
You can see what the effect of cyclists on traffic flow would be by riding along Hawthorne or Sandy or other large streets with no cycling infrastructure. When I do this, my impact on drivers seems pretty minimal and momentary. (However, the impact of drivers on me is much larger, which is why I usually only ride on streets like that briefly.)
Just so it’s clear, my comment was sarcastic, and in response to a comment critical of bike infrastructure. I said what I did because many people who criticize spending money for bike infrastructure–much of which gets bikes out of the vehicle lanes–are also the same people who don’t like sharing lanes with bikes. And a main reason they give is that the bikes slow them down.
I realize bikes and motor vehicles can coexist on most streets without causing problems for drivers.
That’s exactly why I said what I did. Bike infrastructure gets those bikes that can’t ride as fast as vehicle traffic out of the vehicle lanes, so it benefits drivers who don’t like being slowed down by them.
Also, streets where the speed limit is more than 25 mph are hardly “relatively few”. They’re common, and not easy to avoid (in fact impossible to avoid in places like SW Portland) if you’re doing more than a very short trip in many neighborhoods.
qqq no amount of evidence or real world success in increasing cycling/walking modal share in other countries is going to persuade Watts.
That’s funny, I was just thinking it felt like that’s who picking at every aspect of what I was saying, to the point of picking at things that they felt would be wrong if I’d said them, even though I hadn’t.
“my comment was sarcastic”
I realize that; I assumed you were going for some variant of “bike lanes are more for drivers than cyclists”. Which I think has an element of truth in some cases, but in the vast majority of cases bike infrastructure mostly helps bike riders.
SW is in many ways it’s own universe, and it’s where I ride least, but I was hard pressed to think of more than a handful of examples in Portland of where I could make the case that bike infrastructure actually benefits drivers more than cyclists. But I enumerated a great many examples where it primarily benefits cyclists.
I think it’s a thought provoking idea (as is the idea that drivers and bike riders are able to coexist just fine on most streets with very little infrastructure), but it doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny.
Do you think more than 20% of Portland street-miles have a higher speed limit? I think that’s an upper bound.
No, I was saying bike infrastructure has benefits for drivers, which doesn’t mean or imply it has MORE benefits for drivers than bikers. And it was a reasonable response to the comment I was responding to. I didn’t expect anyone to harp about it.
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to what I said, since you were arguing against positions I never had.
.
In some cases, bike infrastructure has benefits for drivers, agreed. But I don’t think that’s what what BudPdx was saying when he complained about spending money on bike projects. I think his complaint was that the amount we spend on cyclists is disproportionate to the number of people who ride.
I think this is basically true, even if drivers get some benefit from some of that spending.
In some cases, bike infrastructure has benefits for drivers, agreed. But I don’t think that’s what what BudPdx was saying when he complained about the disproportionate amount of bike oriented infrastructure.
I think he’s basically right, even if drivers get some benefit from some of those projects. Personally, I like that we’re building more bike stuff.
I was responding to what they wrote, not your opinion of what they meant.
If only there was some other vehicle that police might use to patrol and create a presence in and around a park. Perhaps one that was human-powered, rather than a piece of heavy machinery powered by fossil fuels. In order to make a smaller footprint that can go through the modal filters, perhaps these vehicles could be two in-line wheels, rather than a 2×2 configuration. And rather than cumbersome seatbelts and large metal doors, the cockpit of this vehicle could be completely open, allowing an officer to quickly dismount and respond to an emergent situation.
Too bad no vehicle like that exists. Ah well, one can always dream. Maybe we should get Elon Musk on the job?
With over 250 parks in Portland, which get patrolled by officers on bikes and which don’t?
With over 2,000 miles of road in Portland, which get patrolled by officers in cars, and which don’t?
And yeah, that massive rumble you just heard was my heavy eye-rolling at this incredibly bad faith question.
Seems like cops could quite easily patrol by bicycle without being at all inconvenienced by this, JUST SAYING
I wonder how these changes will affect the Chapman Bike Bus. The current route takes NW Johnson since it’s a greenway. Hopefully the increased traffic doesn’t endanger any kids.
The kids will be in danger, but PEMO & PPB don’t really care about kids; they want to make the rules, and they can do so even though they are not elected; they are only accountable to the Mayor.
Allan Classen isn’t just the author of a piece in the NW Examiner. He’s the editor and publisher and the paper is his personal soapbox. Not really indicative of “neighborhood ire” if you ask me.