As BikePortland reported back in August, Senator and Chair of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, Jeff Merkley (D-OR), included $1.3 million in the FY24 Senate Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for three projects that were prioritized by trail advocates statewide: restorations and improvements in the Wenaha sections of the Blue Mountains Trail; new connectors in the Oakridge-Westfir Mountain Bike Trail System, and a detailed planning analysis needed to replace the Eagle Creek Staircase on the Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail.
All three of the projects are now funded. Below are project descriptions from the nonprofit Oregon Trails Coalition:
$300,000 for the Blue Mountains Trail will restore access to the beloved Wenaha River Trail #3106 in the Umatilla National Forest in an area highly impacted by the Grizzly Bear Complex Fire. This [15+ mile] trail restoration project will close a major gap in the Blue Mountains Trail.
$506,923 for the Oakridge-Westfir Mountain Bike Center will construct the Cloverpatch Connector [2.2 miles] and Fugrass Connection trails that will create connected loops in the current mountain bike system and aid in community fire recovery in the Willamette National Forest and nearby communities.
$400,000 for Historic Columbia River Highway State Trail will provide an alternatives analysis for replacing Eagle Creek Stairs and making this Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area trail segment accessible to users of all ages and abilities.
We are especially excited about the Eagle Creek Staircase project. You might recall that this 1996 infrastructure relic has been a major weak link in the Historic Highway State Trail project for many years. Last summer national disability rights activist Juliette Rizzo visited the stairs in a bid to raise awareness for their replacement.
ODOT officials have said replacing the stairs with a ramp, a project estimated to cost $50 million, will have to wait until all other sections of the State Trail are completed. This new planning money will make the project shovel-ready and greatly increase its chances for getting a construction grant sooner rather than later.
See the PDF below more details on all three funded projects.
With the announcement Friday of two separate grants that total nearly a half-billion dollars, the U.S. Department of Transportation has made it clear they want to see the “Albina Vision” for the Rose Quarter area become a reality sooner than later.
Oregon Congressman Earl Blumenauer and senators Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley announced they have brought home $450 million to construct covers over Interstate 5 through the Rose Quarter, as well as an additional $38.4 million for a complete makeover of Northeast Broadway and Weidler streets to create a new “civic main street” between NE 7th and the Broadway Bridge.
Ironically, the $450 million federal grant is the same amount ODOT estimated the project would cost when they pitched it to lawmakers in 2017 as a way to alleviate traffic backups through Portland. Since then the project’s estimated cost has ballooned to an estimated $1.3 billion.
This new money isn’t for the freeway widening portion of the project. Instead, it must go toward a project Blumenauer says will, “heal communities torn apart by destructive federal projects.” Senator Merkley said the project will, “Help to right the shameful wrongs inflicted on historically Black neighborhoods and to make our city a stronger and safer community for generations to come.”
This is the first federal investment into construction of the I-5 Rose Quarter project since planning got underway in earnest nearly 14 years ago.
Friday’s announcement injects new life into a moribund project that had been on life support since just before Buttigieg’s visit and it makes good on a prediction by ODOT staff in 2021 that Buttigieg would be Oregon’s “new best friend.” Now ODOT will use this grant as leverage to encourage state lawmakers to fund the (much less popular and politically dicey) freeway-widening portion of their project as they negotiate what’s expected to be a large transportation funding package in the 2025 session.
Now there’s real money on the table to not just envision what lower Albina could look like if it were restored to its former glory as a vibrant neighborhood that was home to hundreds of Black Portlanders who were displaced by racist planning decisions; but to actually build it. This announcement comes after a string of home runs already hit by Albina Vision Trust, the group that has raised well over a billion dollars and closed multiple real estate development deals since it was first launched in 2017.
The grants are a “momentous leap forward in the longstanding fight to rebuild Albina,” said AVT Executive Director Winta Yohannes.
Nonprofit No More Freeways says ODOT should “construct the caps and lose the lanes.” “Albina deserves cleaner air and affordable housing, not air pollution and endless traffic congestion, and the Reconnecting Communities grant funding should be used to heal this neighborhood without ODOT further harming the neighborhood with air pollution and additional freeway lanes. ODOT’s insistence on a costly project that doubles the width of the highway and likely violates environmental standards is delaying the opportunity to heal this neighborhood.”
Broadway Main Street
(Source: City of Portland)
The $38.4 million for PBOT will allow them break ground on their N/NE Broadway Main Street and Supporting Connections project. As BikePortland reported last fall, that project would extend and complement other surface street changes ODOT plans to make in the I-5 Rose Quarter project. The idea would be to change what are currently unwelcoming, wide, arterials into what PBOT calls a “civic main street.” At a meeting last September, a PBOT staffer said the project goal is to create a streetscape that would allow someone to, “take a pleasant walk with their young child from NE 7th to Waterfront Park.”
The great news for cash-strapped PBOT is that the grant requires no matching funds. The great news for people who breathe is that PBOT can get started on this regardless of what ODOT does with the freeway. PBOT has said the Broadway Main Street changes could even come ahead of major construction on the Rose Quarter project.
I wish I knew more than I do, but housing regulation is a subject which still overwhelms me. Which is why last week’s interview with transportation activist and bike parking expert Chris Smith was so satisfying. Sometimes it’s just nice to hear someone explain things.
The treat on top of the interview was that Smith hopped into the comment section and engaged with a couple folks. It was a good bunch of comments, but when reader “qqq” called the 15-feet-from-the-door alcove requirement for bike parking a “design hurdle” which “clearly was created by people who have never had to design units,” Smith countered that the chair of the commission was an architect.
And then he went on to say, “But I’ll bite, how would you describe a requirement that would ensure space for an actual bicycle?”
OK, this is about as exciting as life gets for me, high drama in the comment section. And qqq’s response shifted my thinking a little. The whole exchange is a good example of how to push back firmly and politely, which is what can happen when knowledgeable people have good faith conversations.
The fact that someone included similar alcoves in some projects doesn’t mean it’s something that should be turned into a standard requirement, although it could show I was wrong about it being created by people who’ve never designed units.
The first thing I’d get rid of if I were designing a requirement that would ensure space for an actual bicycle would be to get rid of the requirement that it be within 15′ of the unit door. The distance to the door is irrelevant to whether a bike fits in a unit. And although it would be nice if the space were close to the front door, that rule could be (as was, based on comments from architects and developers) a real stumbling block. Deleting it opens up a lot of perfectly good bike storage possibilities.
Like I said, I can’t find the old code language, but I also recall (could be wrong) that the rule required an actual alcove, versus simply requiring space. If that’s true, it could also be difficult to meet without distorting unit designs, and again is irrelevant to whether there is actual space. Again, deleting specific alcove requirements could open up a lot of perfectly good storage possibilities.
I understand that if there are no requirements, developers can simply say there’s space within the unit, without changing their units from what they’d be offering anyway. On the other hand, you can store a bike in quite a small space, which many units do have, and did have when the code didn’t have ANY in-unit bike space requirements.
Lots of people spent lots of time trying to solve this (which I appreciate) so I’m not trying to say I know the best solution better than anyone else. I’m mainly saying that I understand why architects and developers objected to the alcove requirement.
Thank you qqq and Chris. Qqq helped me think like an architect. How would Frank Lloyd Wright feel about a requirement to build an alcove within 15 feet of the door? And there you have it, another thought-provoking comment. The whole thread was good, start at the top.
Bikes mean business: The reader who sent this article to me said, “I thought you might want to share this article with Mingus Mapps.” It’s a summary of 40 years of research (including one study from Portland State University) that should prove once and for all that bike lanes are actually good for business. (Business Insider)
Psychology of driving: If you want to have something to chew on when it comes to the urgent need to change road safety culture, do yourself a favor and read this excellent breakdown of “motonormativity.” (BBC)
An American in Paris: Two U.S. riders stood on the podium of the major spring classic race, Paris-Nice on Sunday. And a rider with Idaho roots, Matteo Jorgenson, earned the win. (Associated Press)
Seattle doubles down: The Washington legislature passed a comprehensive traffic camera bill that is a very clear sign that they believe automated enforcement of traffic laws is the future. (The Urbanist)
Magnet man: A do-gooder in Atlanta has taken to the streets with high-powered magnets installed under a bike trailer and has collected hundreds of points of crap from traffic lanes. Who’s going to make one of these for Portland? (WABE)
Travesty of justice: The judge in this story is responding like an objective, reasonable person to the idea that killing someone with your car while intoxicated could result in a relative slap on the wrist. (SF Chronicle)
E-bike rider deaths: An analysis of bicycling fatalities in New York City has some intriguing takeaways — including a surprising number of deaths that befell people who didn’t come into contact with any other person or vehicle. (NY Times)
London gets it: The city of London quadrupled the size of its bike network since 2016 under the leadership of just one mayor. (Global Cycling Network)
Meanwhile, in Portland: Former BikePortland writer Taylor Griggs penned an op-ed in here new “Street View” column that details the abysmal leadership on bicycling in Portland city hall. (Portland Mercury)
The role:
Are you passionate about addressing climate change and doing work that advocates for transportation electrification? We are recruiting for a limited duration climate planner. In this key role, you will develop plans and implement programs to help electrify the transportation system! Apply today to assist us in bringing people to multimodal transportations and reduce the carbon footprint!
This is a limited duration appointment that is expected to end on or before June 30, 2025. Limited duration appointments are benefits eligible and have a designated maximum length of service. This position has the potential to become permanent.
How to Apply
A day in the life:
• Develop work plans to implement climate office work efforts related to improving transportation electrification.
• Lead outreach efforts for studies, plans and policy development.
• Write grants and funding proposals.
• Provide assist to local jurisdictions and partners on grants or funding proposals that strengthen climate action.
• Develop agency plans and policies for electric, zero emissions, shared vehicles and infrastructure in light, medium and heavy-duty applications.
• Develop transportation electrification policies that support climate and equitable outcomes.
• Track progress against overall transportation electrification and climate goals and mandates.
• Develop, manage, oversee and direct projects and planning efforts to implement electrification, greenhouse gas reduction and adaptation activities.
• Create, analyze and implement plans and guidance documents to summarize new laws, directives or policies.
• Write research papers, reports and best practice documents to help improve the work of others.
• Hybrid work options available – work in an office environment with occasional limited state travel required. Will need to work in office at a minimum of 8 times per year.
• To request a copy of the position description, which includes all duties and working conditions, please email ODOTRecruitment@odot.oregon.gov.
The role:
Our Climate Office is hiring a senior transportation electrification analyst! Are you passionate about addressing climate change and doing work that supports transportation electrification? In this key role, you will provide policy recommendations for transportation electrification, oversee community charging grants and lead other electrification efforts. Help us connect people to multimodal transportation and reduce our carbon footprint! Apply today!
A day in the life:
• Develop, manage, track and maintain transportation electrification programs.
• Write grant proposals for zero emission vehicle charging and refueling infrastructure programs.
• Award grants and support execution of agreements and contracts.
• Collaborate across many internal agency groups, utility and private sector stakeholders.
• Lead, plan, study and implement transportation electrification efforts.
• Secure and manage consultation services.
• Manage complex research projects and planning studies.
• Review legislative concepts and draft new legislative and policy concepts that support climate equity.
• Formulate goals, objectives, policies and plans in consultation with various levels of management.
• Partner with internal and external data analysts and perform independent analysis as needed.
• Write communications and reports, and keep website content current.
• Present information internally, to state and federal agencies and the public on emotionally charged topics.
• Hybrid work options available – work in an office environment with occasional limited state travel required. Will need to work in office at a minimum of 8 times per year.
• To request a copy of the position description, which includes all duties and working conditions, please email ODOTRecruitment@odot.oregon.gov.
Bike-friendly speed bumps have felt like something of an underdog since they burst onto the scene in 2017. But that would change if Portland’s head bike planner has any say in the matter.
Speed bumps with channels cut through them to ease the way for bicycle riders have elicited a variety of opinions over the years. Some say they make biking more comfortable and attractive, while others find them annoying and worry about costs given other priorities. For the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT), the jury had been out — even after years of use in the field.
Now results are in from a PBOT survey conducted over the summer: “PBOT recommends that bicycle-friendly speed bumps be the preferred speed bump used for neighborhood greenways,” reads a 10-page report authored by PBOT Bicycle Coordinator Roger Geller published Thursday ahead of a meeting of the city’s Bicycle Advisory Committee on Tuesday (March 12th).
Background
The first mention of bike-friendly speed bumps on BikePortland was January 2017 when we got wind that PBOT would test them on the SE Clinton Street neighborhood greenway. Since then, PBOT has rolled them out on 10 greenways citywide: N Kilpatrick, Michigan and Wabash; NE Alameda, Davis and Everett; SE Ankeny, Clinton and Woodward, and SW 60th. When they came to a greenway in my neighborhood, I was eager to sing their praises.
[Above: A new “Bike Bump Map” created by PBOT shows bike-friendly speed bump locations (in green) relative to the city’s emergency vehicle corridors.]
The impetus for giving bike riders a break from bumps comes from the irony that in order to get drivers to slow down to the 20 mph speed limit on streets where bicycling and walking is prioritized, speed bumps are a necessary evil. And I say “evil” because hitting a bump while riding is uncomfortable and inefficient — especially when riding at higher speeds on downhills or near the speed limit (much easier these days thanks to electric bikes). Hitting bumps isn’t just annoying, it can cause damage to your property when cargo is jostled and/or falls out of a rack or bag. (Keep in mind that unlike automobiles, most bikes ridden in the city have very little or not suspension.)
In addition to real-world use, PBOT wanted more direct feedback to make a final decision on whether or not to keep bike-friendly speed bumps alive. So they did a survey last summer. The report that will be discussed at the BAC meeting Tuesday night summarizes what PBOT learned from the 543 people who responded to that survey.
Three charts from the report.
Survey says
PBOT’s survey wanted to find out three things: Do people actually like to bike through the channels? Should sharrow markings line up with the channel? And, what should PBOT do if the bikey bumps cost more?
A whopping 80% of the 543 survey respondents said they prefer riding through the bicycle-friendly bumps (note that PBOT refers to the bumps as speed “cushions”). And since Portland’s adopted bicycle design policies encourage them to build the “highest quality bikeways” possible and to, “maximize comfort and minimize delays” for people bicycling; this finding had major sway in PBOT’s recommendation. “This strong preference for the channels suggests that the channels represent a higher quality design than standard speed bumps. In that sense, their use better support our design policies (“Build the highest quality bikeways”) than do standard speed bumps,” states the report.
65% of respondents liked the idea of the sharrow pavement marking being aligned right at the channel to help orient them through.
When it came to cost, a slight majority of respondents recommended installing the cushions despite a potential 10% premium on cost (survey went out before the 20% premium number was known), 40% said to save money, and 9% had no preference.
With funding such a major issue at PBOT, the report took a close look at the cost difference between the bike-friendly cushions and traditional bumps. Geller and his team analyzed nine projects and found the bike-friendly version costs 20% more. But when Geller looked deeper into the numbersand had engineers estimate how many regular speed bumps would have been required for the same project, he found there was actually “no or only minimal cost difference.” In the end, Geller says each project should be evaluated independently when/if cost is an issue.
The report also weighs in on a few key concerns about the bumps expressed by some in the community: That drivers use the channels and swerve dangerously while doing so, and that the channels can cause some riders to crash or bobble and/or be a problem for folks with trikes and other unconventional rigs.
Here’s what the report says about drivers using the channels:
Our speed data indicate that even though people may get one wheel in a channel it does not affect speed. However, that doesn’t mean that people don’t try. . However, the observation is that while people driving may deflect toward the channel when there is nobody else on the roadway. When somebody else is on the roadway, people driving stay in their lane.
And here’s what the report says about bike riders crashing in the channels:
Regarding that the cushions can contribute to crashes: there have been no reported crashes on the cushions to date. When initially deployed, PBOT staff attempted to ride erratically through the channels at different speeds and angles of approach to see if the channels created discomfort in riding. They did not.
This report makes it clear that if PBOT’s bike coordinator has his way, the bureau will make bike-friendly bumps the standard going forward.
Stay tuned for input from BAC members after Tuesday night’s meeting and take a look at the full report yourself here. You can also learn more on PBOT’s website.
Few people in Portland know more about our city’s bicycle parking policy than Chris Smith. During my chat with him yesterday he shared a history of the issue and we talked about recent efforts by the City of Portland and State of Oregon to roll back code requirements that encourage more bicycle parking. You can watch our conversation above (along with helpful graphics spliced-in along the way), or find it wherever you get your podcasts.
Smith is the consummate transportation reform activist who’s been involved with numerous efforts and projects over the years. I first knew him as creator of the excellent blog Portland Transport (first mentioned on BikePortland in 2005!) which still serves our community as a repository of KBOO Bike Show episodes. He’s also the inventor of the “Transit Appliance” — a wonderful device that posts transit arrival times and can be found at bus and MAX stations citywide. Smith has also been a candidate for Portland City Council and Metro Council. Smith has fought freeway expansions for nearly two decades and was a major voice against the Columbia River Crossing project and a co-founder of the group No More Freeways. And those are just some of his bona fides!
Smith was pulled into bicycle parking specifically for his expertise in how bikes mix with transit gleaned from his long-time position on the board (and as vice-chair) of Portland Streetcar Inc. (the private nonprofit contracted by the City of Portland to help plan and manage the streetcar). After the City’s Bicycle Plan for 2030 passed in 2010 and ridership skyrocketed, Smith was tapped to help update the code so that the hordes of local riders would have a proper place to park their bikes. BikePortland worked with Smith to host two events (one in 2013 and another in 2018) to garner input on the bike parking code and that effort led to a major update that passed Portland City Council in 2019.
Then Portland lost its bicycling mojo, the housing shortage became a crisis, and the politics shifted. As we reported here in detail over the past year or so, Portland’s vaunted bike parking code was put on the chopping block by Bureau of Planning & Sustainability Commissioner Carmen Rubio as part of a “housing regulatory reform” package. In my conversation with Smith, you’ll hear how and why this all went down, as well as the lessons he’s learned along the way.
We also talk about Oregon Governor Tina Kotek’s big housing bill passed just this week by the Oregon Legislature. One of them, Senate Bill 1537, included a relatively unknown provision that gives cities the ability to adjust their bike parking requirements to spur housing production.
Below are a few highlights from our conversation (which you can also listen to via our podcast in the player below):
Jonathan Maus:
“It also is worth saying that there was some really valid criticism [of our bike parking code]. You and I are working in the policy realm talking about words in a code. But people implementing this stuff down at the design review office or the permit office, they actually have people telling them what they can and can’t build and I think maybe one of the lessons here is this stuff can get pretty complicated and very troublesome. And we had somebody on the board of The Street Trust who was one of the biggest critics of the bike parking requirements. And I think probably had something to do with swaying the adoption at Planning Commission of rolling them back.”
Chris Smith:
“Right. It got really interesting politically for me because I had two groups that I consider myself a member of, the bicycle community and the pro-housing community…I’m a member of Portland Neighbors Welcome and I’m a member of BikeLoud PDX, who said, ‘What? You’re going to take away our parking? Come on!’ So I actually spent some energy trying to make sure those two groups didn’t go at each other’s throats”
Chris Smith:
“The [required bike parking] ratios got tweaked down. So instead of 1.5 and 1.1 [per dwelling unit], they go to 1.0 and 0.7 in the outer pattern areas. And that’s in effect for five years. So it’s not forever. And to my mind, that kind of makes sense in terms of balancing economics.
But the alcove standard [something Smith fought for in the bike parking code update to encourage higher-quality, in-unit bike storage] went away permanently, and I think that’s going to be a problem because if, if half the parking we build is ineffective in-unit parking, the it’s more like we have 0.5 left. Right? The other thing that was taken away was a standard we put in that a small percentage in large buildings had to be larger cargo bike spaces… So for five years [Portland is no longer] requiring building spaces for cargo bikes. And I think we got to have a public policy discussion about where those go.”
Jonathan Maus:
“I think the production of housing absolutely trumps in many ways, the ability to bike to that housing. But I wonder if you have any thoughts about that? Is it a choice between housing production or bike parking, and how can we avoid that going forward?”
Chris Smith:
“I think maybe one lesson I’ve learned is that 2019 package [of bike parking code updates] was kind of a gold-plated package. It was our first shot since the 1990s [to update the code] and we went for it; and we were successful in landing it. And maybe we overreached a little bit and I think we have room to go back and tweak that a little bit with some of the bike room standards and whatnot.
But, maybe we overshot a bit — it’s still the case that our Comprehensive Plan calls for us to have a 25 percent bicycle mode share by 2030. And the fact that we are not getting that mode share has some pretty devastating consequences in terms of traffic congestion in the city. Right? And if we don’t get there, eventually, we have to spend a lot more money on roads that we don’t have.”
Jonathan Maus:
“Do you have any faith there’ll be an opportunity to bring up bike parking [code revisions] sooner than later [the five-year sunset council passed]? Especially with the whole entire council change that’s going to happen in Portland with a bunch of new councilors and maybe more people who could spend some time on the policy side of this?”
Chris Smith:
“I hope. And I’ll be advocating for addressing some of the standards issues before that like the in-unit parking standard and what do we do about cargo bikes question. I’m a little bit dubious that we can revisit the [required bike parking per unit] ratios before the five years just because of the real impact and housing economics. I wish I could believe we’d be out of the housing crisis in five years. Given how many units we’re down compared to where we need to be – I don’t know that. So I’m much more focused on the standards and making sure that what we build is effective.”
And there was one question Smith wanted to make sure I posed to you. Please read it below and share your response so he can accurately represent our needs in his advocacy…
Chris Smith:
“I’m still fascinated by the bike room versus the in-unit question: Who wants to store their bike in their apartment versus in a bike room and why? Because to me, it seems like the vast majority of people, at least cycling for transportation, would want to be in a bike room. If you have a $10,000 racing bike, sure you might want to put that next to your bed. I can understand that. But for folks who are cycling for transportation, what do people really think about that?”
You can watch our full conversation along with helpful graphics by watching the video above, or listen wherever you get your podcasts.
Here are some fun things to do for bike lovers this weekend…
Friday, March 8th
Singing Through the Gorge – 12:00 noon at Ankeny Rainbow Road Plaza (SE) Join Bike Happy Hour regular and musician Steve “Chezz” Cheseborough on a ride to the Gorge to attend the annual retreat of the Portland Folkmusic Society. (More info here)
Art of Foster Ride – 2:00 pm at Portland Mercado (SE) Local filmmaker Amit Zinman is making videos of Portland’s classic loop rides and wants you to help make his scenes more beautiful. This is the first in a series so stay tuned for future versions. (More info here)
Midnight Mystery Ride – 11:45 pm at Apex (SE) Should be a clear and brisk night — perfect for riding to a mystery spot with friends old and new. (More info here)
Saturday, March 9th
Hike to the Willamette River – 9:00 am at Ida B Wells H.S. (SW) Join nonprofit SW Trails for a spirited walk/hike from Hillsdale down to the river where explorations of newly opened trail along the water could be in the cards. (More info here)
Milwaukie to Oregon City Ride – 10:00 am at Milwaukie Station Food Cart Pod Get to know the Trolley Trail on this ride led by WeBike, whose events are for, “Women, trans, and non-binary folks, which includes, but is not limited to: trans men, trans women, cis women, agender, gender queer, gender fluid, gender nonconforming and Two Spirit people. (More info here)
Sunday, March 10th
Overlook Neighborhood Ride – 9:30 am at Stacks Coffeehouse (N) Come together with neighbors to explore the ‘hood of Overlook and its myriad charms and you imbibe and treat yourself to yummy drinks and treats from a great local coffee place. (More info here)
Rocky Point Hill Ride – 10:00 am in North Plains (Wash Co) Get into some punchy climbs as you explore beautiful farm roads above Highway 26 in Washington County with the always organized Portland Bicycle Club. (More info here)
Bikepacking Meet N Greet – 3:00 pm at Lords Luggage (SE) If you have plans to head out into the wilds on your bike this year and want to get your questions about logistics and gear answered by nice folks with loads of experience, roll over to this event. (More info here)
— Don’t see an event? Please tell us about what’s going on in your neighborhood by filling out our contact form, or just email me at maus.jonathan@gmail.com if it’s easier.
A few days ago a reader emailed to share that a person riding a bike shouted at them for running on Southeast Clinton Street. “I was yelled at by a cyclist to run on the sidewalk,” the person (who also rides bikes) shared. “I responded that no, I would not run on the sidewalk because it was a neighborhood greenway.” After this random argument with a stranger, the person got home and took stock: “Was I the a**hole here?” she asked me. “Is it legal to run in the road on a neighborhood greenway?”
I figured it’d be a great question for the Ask BikePortland column. But as I got the post together, I realized I’d actually already answered that exact question in 2012 (there are 17,882 posts on here, so yes, I will often forget what I’ve already written!). But what I didn’t have in 2012 was the ability to make a video and share it on social media. So I made a video instead and shared it on Instagram and TikTok this morning. Watch it below:
So what’s the answer? Turns out Oregon law (ORS 814.070) says if you are a “pedestrian” (or runner) you must use the sidewalk if one is available. And if there’s no sidewalk, you must stay as far to the right “as practicable.” Since SE Clinton has a sidewalk, technically the cyclist in the above situation was right. It’s similar to the mandatory bike lane law some of you might be familiar with — and just like how activists are working to erase that law, I’d love to see an effort to change this one so that pedestrians could have a bit more legal right to be on the road.
After all, sidewalks (similar to bike lanes) are often obstructed and unfit for running, and riding right next to parked cars is stressful and dangerous. Not only that, but as I point out in the video, City of Portland policy is to create greenways so they prioritize not just cyclists, but everyone who isn’t inside a car.
You might hear all this and think, “Who cares what the law says, streets are for people and cyclists should just be nice to each other and chill out!” and I’d agree with you to a certain degree. But keep in mind that if a collision were to happen, what the law actually states is very important. Once a case gets to court, or an insurance adjuster’s desk, or a cop’s report, what it says in the ORS will determine who is at fault and who bears responsibility for any damages.
Got a question? Ask us! If I can’t answer it myself, I know someone who can.
West Linn, a city about 12 miles south of Portland, will be one of the first places in the state where the Oregon Department of Transportation builds a protected intersection. Protected intersections are considered the gold standard of protection for bicycle riders and walkers because they come with raised corner curb islands, physical separation from other road users, better visibility at crossings, and other safety elements.
The Oregon Department of Transportation is in the final design stage of a protected intersection on Willamette Drive (OR 43) at Marylhurst Drive/Lazy River Dr. The $7 million project is part of a larger streetscape project that includes a continuous cycle track and other safety updates on Willamette Drive between Mary S. Young park and the city’s northern limit near Marylhurst University.
Here’s more about the project from a recent ODOT update:
Protected intersection designs are intended to extend the safe environment for bicyclists and pedestrians through use of raised corner islands, forward stop bars for bicyclists, and well defined marked crossings. These defenses make it clear to all users where bicyclists are, provide physical protection in the queuing area, and further increase bicyclist visibility by allowing them early entry into the intersection ahead of right turning vehicles.
Existing conditionsProtected intersection on SE 162nd and Division.
ODOT also says the project will reduce crossing distances and come with updated signal operations to reduce conflicts.
The protected intersection concept made a big splash in local planning and engineering circles when it was proposed by Portland-based planner Nick Falbo in 2014. Falbo was inspired by Dutch examples and he’s largely credited with pushing the concept into the mainstream in America. Falbo went on to work at the Portland Bureau of Transportation and has recently left that job for a private company (he’s based locally still, but the company he works with is based in The Netherlands). You can learn more about the design at Falbo’s website, protectedintersection.com.
The folks working on a new Interstate Bridge and expansion of I-5 between Portland and Vancouver released new visualizations yesterday, including our best view yet of the potential new bike path.
The new drawings were released at a meeting of the Executive Steering Group, one of several committees formed to garner feedback on the (estimated) $6-7.5 billion Interstate Bridge Replacement Program. The ESG is made up of agency leaders and elected officials from Portland and southwest Washington. ESG members have already adopted a set of desired outcomes for the future bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Among them are that the new bikeway must “feel safe” and be “separated from moving vehicles” and that the path environment is “visible and connected.” They’ve also expressed a desire for bikeways to be “high quality,” “convenient,” and to “connect to important destinations.”
The ESG and IBRP team are currently finalizing their Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Draft SEIS), which is due out later this spring.
IBRP Administrator Greg Johnson presented the visualizations at the meeting (where he also said they’re working on new videos that will explain how bicycle riders and walkers will make their way through the corridor). Johnson stressed that the drawings shown yesterday are not final and are, “Not for decision-making or narrowing options.” “These are just to give perspective on the size of the bridge as related to, if you’re standing on the ground on Hayden Island or on the Vancouver Waterfront.”
The IBRP released 12 visuals in total — three for each possible bridge option currently being analyzed in the Draft SEIS: single level, movable span, and double-level.
As he shared the slides, Johnson acknowledged, “This [bridge] is going to be a bigger bridge than currently exists.” “And this will have impacts on Hayden Island, but we think there will also be very positive impacts by reconnecting the island and providing access from Tomahawk Drive from east to west and by making a walkable community on Hayden Island.”
For the visual of the bike path specifically, Johnson said, “We haven’t determined the full width of what what this active transportation pathway would look like.”
See all the drawings below:
Hayden Island West Side
Hayden Island East Side
Vancouver Waterfront West Side
Vancouver Waterfront East Side
Note the spiral bike path in these drawings. The ramp to connect to the bridge for non-drivers will be very long and circuitous because it must reach a height of 116-feet and have a maximum slope of 4.5%.
While it’s interesting to see more details about what the future bridge might look like, I can’t help but wonder why none of the new visualizations offer us a look at any of the seven new interchanges or new frontage roads, or a detailed view of what it will look like to drive on the five miles of wider freeways. The team of PR consultants and agency leaders behind this megaproject, which has $1 billion commitments from Oregon and Washington and recently won a $600 million grant from the US Department of Transportation, have a long record of hiding the true nature and scope of this project. Almost all the IBRP public communications focus on “bridge replacement” when the fact is only about $500 million of the project’s $6 to $7.5 billion estimated cost will be for the bridge.
The less popular and more controversial aspects of this project like the additional freeway lanes and interchange ramps that will incentivize single-occupancy car use, lower the quality-of-life for everyone in the region, and were recently called out as being indicative of a “climate time bomb” by advocacy group Transportation For America, are rarely shown.
In a public comment period at the end of the meeting, persistent IBRP critic and retired infrastructure expert Bob Ortblad had a warning for ESG members. “This group should remember the history of the Embarcadero Freeway and the Alaskan Way Viaduct and how they despoiled their waterfront. Imagine if both of those were build side-by-side, they would equal the width of each of the two IBR bridge approaches on Vancouver and Hayden Island.
If these approaches are built, our children will tear them down.”
