Facing intense pressure from a wide array of concerned Portlanders and one of their own advisory committees, the City of Portland has decided to hold off on a plan to remove diverters and make changes to traffic flow on two neighborhood greenways in northwest.

Last night’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) meeting began with an announcement from the committee chair that Mayor Keith Wilson has seen and heard enough. Just minutes before the meeting, Wilson notified BAC Chair Jim Middaugh that he wanted to pause the plan (this would be a stronger and longer pause than previously announced). Wilson’s epiphany came just one day after his own city administrator, Michael Jordan, penned a five-page memo that attempted to explain the city’s rationale for removing the diverters.

That memo was unanimously panned by BAC members, by the three city council members who showed up in person, and by the dozens of Portlanders who attended — nearly all of whom held up bright green signs in the packed room that read, “We Love Diverters,” “Diverters are Public Safety,” and “Save Our Greenways.”

Middaugh spoke on the phone this morning with Deputy City Administrator of Public Works Priya Dhanapal and Mayor Wilson’s Chief of Staff Aisling Coghlan to debrief about the meeting. According to Middaugh, “They’re hearing the need for more conversation. They are anxious about the livability issues [that spurred the diverter removal plan], but recognize there’s a need for a little bit more process.” Middaugh made it clear in my conversation with him after that call that Dhanapal and Coghlan feel the livability issues outlined in the city’s memo must be addressed as quickly as possible. (It’s unclear to me where this urgency is coming from since the issues have been going on for years and they have not provided evidence of any imminent threat to public safety.)

The initial agenda of the monthly BAC meeting included PEMO Director Anne Hill. She was slated to explain her office’s rationale for increasing access for car drivers on NW 20th and NW Johnson. Prior to the meeting, I heard that DCA Dhanapal, Portland Bureau of Transportation Director Millicent Williams, and even Mayor Wilson himself would attend; but none of them showed up. It remains unclear what exactly transpired in the hours leading up to the meeting, but their absence spoke volumes and validated an ongoing concern that no one at the City wants to be held publicly accountable for this diverter removal plan.

“I really wish there were city staff leadership here to answer questions,” said District 3 City Councilor Tiffany Koyama Lane at the meeting (she also shared that she “was begging that they be in the room”). “It is absolutely reasonable for Portlanders to expect data driven decision making, open communication and transparency around changes to our streets which impact our lives.” This issue is not in Koyama Lane’s district, but she’s thrust herself into it because she wants to be known as the political champion of traffic safety and Vision Zero (she also used to live at NW 20th and Flanders).

Koyama Lane was supported at last night’s meeting by District 2 Councilor Sameer Kanal and District 4 Councilor Mitch Green. (District 3 Councilor Angelita Morillo would have also attended but had another commitment. The fifth councilor to oppose the diverter plan is District 3 Councilor Steve Novick).

After hearing sharp criticisms about the city’s plans from BAC members and others at the meeting, the councilors shared their thoughts.

Green, who said he’s “frustrated” by what’s transpired over the last 11 days, assured everyone that “the new form of government is working right now.” “They mayor and city manager made a decision. They didn’t tell anyone. They decided to do a thing, but then a couple of your councilors raised some red flags. We reached out to press and said, ‘Hey, this is a big issue,’ and then community mobilized.” Green added that he felt CA Jordan’s memo was “really problematic” because it, “lays out a series of specious arguments that back into the result they chose to do.”

“There is nothing currently prohibiting the Portland Police Bureau from driving a car through that right-of-way,” Green added. “So if they can do it now, these planters are not a barrier to doing policing. So the benefits of taking the diverters out completely wash out — all you get is the cost of taking them out and now you have a very angry public.”

Green and Koyama Lane are not happy about the lack of transparency around the diverter removal plan, and they have a plan to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The duo plan to amend the provision in Portland City Code (16.10.100) that deals with “Road Authority.” That provision currently reads (emphasis mine),

“As the City’s elected body, the City Council is the road authority for all public streets, except state highways, as designated by state law. The City Council may delegate specific road authority to the City Administrator or Emergency Incident Commander as the Council deems appropriate.”

In laying out his argument that City Council is the ultimate road authority, Green said, “City Council adopted the NW In Motion Plan which led to these diverters. That was city council’s will. The city administrator is allowed to execute our vote. It’s inappropriate for the city administrator to pull back on investments they’ve made without at least notifying city council and asking for permission. That needs to change and that will change.”

Koyama Lane then clarified that she and Green are moving forward with legislation they hope will clarify road authority and they are, “Evaluating this specific incident to see if public involvement principles were followed.”

Councilor Kanal echoed concerns about the lack of transparency from PEMO, who’s cited their Problem Solver meetings as the origin of concerns around the diverters, yet does not take minutes, share agendas, or track attendance of those meetings. (However, Kanal shared with me after the meeting that he does not think PEMO violates state public meeting laws.) Kanal also said he’s skeptical that the PPB actually asked for the diverter removals to begin with. “I’ve seen no evidence that PPB asked for this. I hear people talking about it, but we have not seen it directly, and I’m the co-chair of the Public Safety Committee on City Council.”

Kanal went on to say this situation “is not unique.” “We have a lot of examples where regular people have to go through process after process after process to get in a small piece of community, a small piece of literal space, a small piece of belonging, and the feeling of safety — and then an entrenched interest comes along and, boom! it’s gone.”

The video above features just one of the people who testified in support of the diverters last night. Sabrina Williams lives right near NW 20th and Everett and to her, these aren’t just concrete barricades. She credits the diverters and community garden inside them for restoring her confidence and faith in her community after being victim of a horrific bias crime.

BAC members did their part last night to prevent that from happening this time. In an unprecedented move spurred by support from Councilors Green and Koyama Lane, they penned a future City Council resolution in real-time at the meeting. The text of the resolution (I will share it when I get a final version) makes it clear the committee opposes the diverter removal plan and that any such plan to make changes to neighborhood greenways in the future must go through a public process. The text of the resolution will be handed to Green’s office who will run it through the city attorney’s office and then propose it at a future City Council meeting.

With pressure ratcheted way up by the BAC, an increasing amount of media attention on this issue (there were three local news crews in attendance last night), and with CA Jordan on vacation this week, leaders of the assemblage of city offices that pushed for this ill-fated plan (Portland Solutions, the Public Environment Management Office (PEMO), city administrators and the Mayor’s Office) will likely huddle next week to figure out their next moves. This means the diverters are safe for now, but the community has no assurance about what changes might come in the future.

— The next opportunity for public discussion on this issue will come Thursday when Councilor Green attends the Climate, Resilience and Land Use Committee meeting. He was invited to brief the committee about the diverters by Councilor Novick.

UPDATE, 12:54 pm: I was just informed that PEMO has updated their Problem Solver Network website with times, dates and more information about their meetings (which are all held virtually). Check the screenshot below:

NOTE: This post was significantly updated at 5:01 pm.

First of all, this memo would not exist if not for BikePortland. This plan to remove the diverters and re-establish NW Johnson at 15th and NW 20th at Everett as two-way streets for drivers (they are currently one way for drivers and two-way for bicycle riders) was slated for implementation without any public notice. Since I intercepted an internal email on August 1st, the community’s resistance to these plans has forced the City of Portland to delay and think twice.

The memo, which was released publicly today at 12:00 noon, was written by City Administrator Michael Jordan (at right). I hoped it would add more clarity, but it has only created more questions. CA Jordan essentially doubles-down on the city’s positions and plans.

With that, here are my thoughts now that I’ve had more time to absorb the memo, followed by a few questions the community still deserves answers to…

Origin of concerns still unclear

CA Jordan did not provide any verifiable evidence about where the “community concerns” they heard about the diverters initially came from. This is a problem because if we can’t verify the origin of these concerns, what is to prevent the Portland Police Bureau, Portland Solutions (the city office that is leading this plan), the Public Environment Management Office (PEMO, a program under Portland Solutions), or any other city office or agency from simply claiming concerns about something in order to create a narrative that forces a certain outcome?

PEMO meetings in violation of public meeting laws?

One reason CA Jordan might not be able to provide this information is because PEMO (the office that hosts “Problem Solver” meetings where business owners, police officials, and residents reportedly shared concerns about the diverters) does not hold public meetings.

Despite being a city office that has influence on City policy and implements its recommendations, PEMO does not make their meetings public. I have confirmed with the City of Portland that PEMO does not keep meeting minutes, meeting agendas, or a list of attendees. I am currently aware of Portlanders who are considering legal action due to this possible violation of public meeting laws. (UPDATE, 8/13: I spoke about this concern with City Councilor Sameer Kanal Tuesday night and he said the Problem Solver meetings are not in violation of state public meeting laws but that their lack of public access is a concern that councilors are looking into.)

Emerson School, really?

The memo lists several business and organizations they claim have been negatively impacted by “public safety” in the corridor around NW 20th and Everett. One of them is the Emerson School, which the memo states, “relocated due to safety concerns.” But the Emerson School didn’t move primarily due to safety concerns. They were renting a temporary space and they moved into a larger space. This is just one example of how Portland Solutions and CA Jordan are trying to build a case with squishy evidence.

(Safety concerns at Couch Park are another stated rationale, but as I reported Saturday, the President of nonprofit Friends of Couch Park is against the diverter removal.)

PBOT didn’t support the plans initially

One of the most interesting things in the memo is how CA Jordan describes PBOT’s initial reaction to their concerns. The memo says that PBOT was approached with the plans and their first response was to do nothing and keep the diverters in place. “However, given the increased access needs and the broader awareness of the extent of the public safety-related issues,” the memo reads, “PBOT ultimately recommended the second option [to remove the diverters].”

The city’s plans make the road more dangerous for bicycle riders and pedestrians

Despite the memo’s claim that the plans, “preserve safe bike and pedestrian access,” it’s a fact that changing a street from a carfree lane to a sharrow-marked lane will make it less safe for bicycling and walking. Portland does not have any adopted city policy or goals that support a change that would make a street more dangerous for bicycling and walking.

What’s perverse about all this is the memo acknowledges that the diverter has reduced crashes. In the five year period prior to its installation there were nine crashes. In the four and-a-half years since they went in there have been three crashes.

About those new stop signs on NW Everett

The plan calls for a new set of stop signs on NW Everett at 20th. This will be the only stop on this stretch of Everett between NW 23rd and NW 19th. And given that Everett is a high-volume neighborhood collector and NW 20th a very minor, residential street, any traffic engineer will tell you there is likely to be very low compliance for these stop signs. In that context, the addition of stop signs and the false sense of security they might provide some road users, could actually add to safety problems at the intersection.

PEMO’s mission statement

PEMO is currently hiring three new staffers to implement plans like these. In that job listing, they state their mission as, “activating public spaces” and, “public space activation to promote economic vitality, community safety, and community use.” There is no precedent for trying to achieve those goals by adding more drivers and cars to a street. In fact, increasing car traffic volume has the opposite impact — which is why all of Portland’s adopted planning documents tell city planners to reduce car use as much as possible.

Some of my remaining questions:

• Will these changes be framed as temporary or a “pilot” from the get-go? If so, what will the metrics for success or failure be?
• Why are PEMO Problem Solver meetings not public? Are any changes planned to make sure they follow public meeting laws?
• If they’ve been working on this plan for 2-3 years, why did they never think to run the idea by City Council, PBOT, or the Bicycle Advisory Committee until now (which remember, is only happening because of public scrutiny)?
• Does CA Jordan and Portland Solutions think these changes will make the street safer for bicycle riders and walkers? If so, can they explain how?
• Did PEMO ever consider just keeping the one-way for drivers and training officers to go around it if/when necessary?
• Are there other neighborhood greenways around Portland that have come up at these Problem Solver meetings? If so, which ones and are they slated for changes too?

I’m off to the Bicycle Advisory Committee meeting. For more on this memo, I highly recommend perusing the amazing and insightful comments over on my previous story.