Imagine the irony of a transit agency not building dedicated bus lanes because they’re worried about how it might impact car traffic on a nearby freeway. That’s the position TriMet is in as the agency ponders a decision on dedicated bus lanes in their 82nd Avenue Transit Project.
As BikePortland has been covering for months now, a key decision about the extent of “Business Access and Transit,” or “BAT,” lanes on a 10-mile stretch of 82nd Avenue has been become fraught. TriMet faces threats of lawsuits from business owners who say the lanes would drive car-using customers away, while BAT lane boosters (which include advocacy groups, politicians and more than one TriMet board member) say they won’t stand for even one block to be built without them. In the middle of the controversy are TriMet project staff who’ve felt heartburn over increased costs of a design option known as “More BAT” — which would build semi-dedicated bus lanes on nearly the entire scope of the 82nd Avenue project — might delay and/or otherwise jeopardize the project timeline.
While we’ve understood “More BAT” would come with more costs since this story first heated up back in September, now TriMet has shared another hurdle for dedicated bus lanes to clear. In documents shared ahead of a key project committee meeting tomorrow (Friday, January 16th), TriMet has laid out seven “areas of concern” that have been identified by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
This entire project is possible because ODOT transferred jurisdiction of 82nd to the City of Portland Bureau of Transportation, so why is ODOT still sticking their neck in PBOT’s business? Because 82nd Avenue is 3,400 feet away from Interstate 205 and the northern part of the project touches ODOT’s Highway 30, also known as Northeast Lombard. ODOT worries that if more space on 82nd is dedicated to bus travel, less of it will be available for car users, and the resulting diversion and congestion could cause backups near and/or on their precious highways.
As many of you know, transportation departments live and die by highway design manuals (both state and federal) that tell engineers and planners how to respond to various levels of auto traffic. Models based on lane characteristics, current and predicted traffic volume, distance between signals, and so on spit out numbers that tell engineers whether a design will succeed or fail (in the eyes of the manual). If engineers and planners willingly choose a design the formula says would fail — one that exceeds the target volume-to-capacity ratio, or v/c — they must receive permission from ODOT through a “design exception” in order to move forward.
According to a presentation ODOT will share at the 82nd Avenue Transit Project Policy & Budget Committee meeting Friday, they found seven locations where this might become an issue. ODOT says five of those seven locations require some sort of mitigation (such as a change in the design) or must receive a design exception.
We got a hint of these challenges at the December TriMet Board of Directors meeting when TriMet Interim Director of Major Projects Michael Kiser mentioned congestion from diversion at specific intersections under the “More Bat” scenario and said, “Maybe we pull the BAT lanes back in those areas.”
Now we know more precisely which areas he was talking about. Below is the list of locations ODOT has flagged for more scrutiny along with their assessment of what must happen if “More BAT” moves forward (see slides above or the full presentation for more):
• 82nd Ave at Powell Bl: Requires mitigation or DE
• 82nd Ave at Lombard St: Requires DE or mitigation
• Cully Bl at Lombard St: Requires DE or mitigation
• 82nd Ave at Johnson Creek Bl: Requires DE or mitigation
• SE Powell Blvd at SE 92nd Ave: Requires mitigation or DE
• I-205 SB off-ramp to Powel: No mitigation or DE required but extensive queues
• I-205 NB on-ramp at SE Foster Rd: No mitigation or DE required
Keep in mind that “mitigation” would always lead to higher project costs (something TriMet has already flagged as a concern) and that needing a “DE” or design exception requires a leap of faith because ODOT could ultimately deny it. While these are clearly risks to doing “More BAT,” it’s important to remember that TriMet’s own studies show “More BAT” provides the most overall transit benefit and would provide improvements in pedestrian safety and comfort because the lanes would create buffer between humans on the sidewalk and people driving cars.
The project team will share more about these ODOT traffic studies and concerns at the Policy & Budget meeting tomorrow. TriMet says no final decision will be made about bus lanes at that meeting and that the Policy & Budget Committee will make a final recommendation on BAT lanes at their meeting on February 13th.
Find out how to take part in tomorrow’s meeting on TriMet’s website.
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.
“ODOT worries that if more space on 82nd is dedicated to bus travel, less of it will be available for car users, and the resulting diversion and congestion could cause backups near and/or on highways.”
ODOT is essentially saying that 82nd should remain an accessory highway forever.
This is maddening. 82nd was transferred to the city because of ODOTs policy of prioritizing throughput over safety. The idea that we can’t reduce throughput and increase safety on 82nd because it might cause some people to use 205 instead of 82nd is absurd. Drivers shouldn’t be using 82nd to cut-through the city to save a few minutes avoiding 205.
What’s the point of transferring it to the city if their prioritization of throughput over safety will still apply?
Can anyone elaborate on why the BAT lanes are more expensive? They seems like just paint a few signs. Do they have unique signalizations and is that really that much of a increase in cost?
Primarily because there are 2 intersections that would need to be widened to accommodate bus movements.
thanks! 2 intersections in a 10 mile corrridor…
This sounds confusing. Maybe needs some edits?
Was supposed to say “withOUT them”. I’ve edited.
I’m not sure I understand how ODOT has jurisdiction over this. It’s not like they can refuse to let apartment buildings be built just because they’ll lead to more traffic. This isn’t much different – people making land use choices on land they don’t control that affects overall traffic patterns.
Either way, ODOT is under specific instruction from the state legislature to move toward transferring roads in the city, or at least Powell specifically, to Portland. So why get in the way of something the city wants over a road that the city should be controlling?
While I’m at it, who’s paying for ODOT staff to spend time modeling the traffic outcomes of a TriMet project on a road no longer in their jurisdiction, and create presentations to try to stop a transit project from being too good? Based on my work experiences with ODOT, I’m sure this took more people and more labor hours than many of us can imagine.
Any time a roadway impacts a state-owned facility (in this case, I-205 and Lombard), ODOT has veto power. For example, when a PBOT street is an overpass of an ODOT freeway, ODOT gets to sign off and/or change the design. This has always been the case. It is often one of the silent things ODOT does that really screws over our network.
Yeah, I follow – thanks for responding. And since they’re altering intersections, that’s ODOT R.O.W. It’s an abuse of their scope though for sure.
This gets into a huge can of worms, but really our overwhelmingly Dem. state gov’t needs to overhaul the mission of ODOT to make clear that something like this is not what they should be doing.
Without getting too specific, I’ve worked on a project where another city was creating a new intersection with an ODOT highway. The biggest online meetings I’ve ever been on, and everyone at ODOT was clueless about what was going on while the couple of private consultants kept reiterating all the steps that had been taken, and what was needed next from ODOT. And everyone there was being paid by that city, since it was their project. And that’s all without the complication of the opposing philosophies between a city-oriented transit network and a highway department. It’s so frustrating, I could rant all day.
if TriMet decides to capitulate to cars, what happens to the $55.5 million in PCEF money that has flowed to 82nd Ave ?
“in December 2024, TriMet won $55.5 million from PCEF for their 82nd Avenue Transit project.”
https://www.opb.org/article/2024/12/18/portlands-climate-action-fund-awards-dollar300-million-to-large-scale-projects
https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy/news/2025/9/8/82nd-ave-motion-tour-community-led-and-climate-investments
https://www.portland.gov/bps/cleanenergy/documents/pcef-82nd-ave-tour-guide/download
It will probably be used for nicer stops and signal upgrades for transit signal priority. If they don’t do bus lanes it will be mostly the same situation as FX2 on outer Division.
ODOT has chutzpah, that’s for sure
Be strong, Trimet! The new lanes won’t drive any customers away! Look no further than Hillsdale to see an example of rose lanes that haven’t hurt business at all. And the business owners in Hillsdale made all of the same threats and even did a petition drive.
All the rose lanes have done is speed buses up and make right turns (into the strip mall) much more relaxing – and cycling in the bike lane is also more relaxing. The impact on traffic in Hillsdale is negligible: a bit more waiting time during rush hour but not much.
Trimet should know a red herring when they see it.
I can’t really think of being deterred from going anywhere I needed something because driving was a pita to get there, but I have definitely been deterred from biking/walking/bussing somewhere because that would have been a pita.
What I don’t understand about the logic of the “congestion will cause customers to go elsewhere argument” is:
Genuinely, help me make sense of this.
The sheer audacity to demand that a transit improvement project must also improve driving.
We would be better off if Trimet could veto ODOT projects that slow transit times, like the rose quarter freeway expansion.