Active Right of Way

Josh writes:

One of the often mentioned obstacles to improving 82nd Avenue is that it’s under ODOT jurisdiction. Your attendance at this meeting will help give our public officials the clear message that we want 82nd to be under the City of Portland’s jurisdiction. Getting these public officials talking with each other will start the process moving.

Meeting Announcement: 82nd Avenue Transportation Workshop

Purpose: To learn about the process needed to transfer jurisdiction of 82nd Avenue from ODOT to the City of Portland.

Format: Panel discussion with public officials and state legislators about how to move ahead on this issue. Also, information on ODOT’s currently planned safety projects for 82nd will be available.

Who: Sponsored by the Montavilla Neighborhood Association and the 82nd Avenue Business Association. Panel will include Tom Miller, Portland’s Director of Transportation, State Senator Jackie Dingfelder, and Shelli Romero of ODOT.

When: September 24 at 7:00 PM

Where: Montavilla Methodist Church – 232 SE 80th.

We ask that contacts and participants to the workshop think in advance about and send us a list of three concerns or problems you have with 82nd Avenue; and three questions you have about the transfer issue.  You’re encouraged to leave those questions and concerns in the comments below.

We first met Paramount apartments owner and citizen activist Betsy Reese through our work on streetcar bikeway safety. Betsy has been working tirelessly for many years to improve conditions for people on bike and foot in her neighborhood.

Here is a video Betsy’s son Will put together demonstrating the chaotic and confusing conditions on the ground in front of the Paramount apartments.

Thankfully, PBOT has been responsive to calls for improving this intersection immediately, particularly in light of the high rate of bicycle-car collisions at this location.  As Jonathan Maus writes:

PBOT staff reviewed every recorded collision from the DMV and the Police between 2000 and 2010 and there were 20 serious bike/motor-vehicle collisions. 17 of those 20 were right hooks at Wheeler.

The momentum appears headed toward closing NE Wheeler permanently.  This is welcome news to neighborhood activists, some of whom are still dismayed that the city intends to move forward with an I-5 highway-widening project next door.  Stay tuned.

Last week AASHTO quietly released their update to the 13 year old ‘guide to the development of bike faculties.’ If you have $144 to throw away, you can buy it here.

Streetsblog has an article on the release, and notes it’s lack of acceptance of current practice:

AASHTO says it has incorporated the strategy, popularized by the Portland Bureau of Transportation, to design streets for the 60 percent of people who are interested in biking but concerned about safety. “It’s sanctioned there as methodology,” said Bill Schultheiss of Toole Design Group, which took the lead on writing the new guide. “It’s a big deal.”

Schultheiss says that a cycle track is nothing but a bicycle-only trail, and bicycle-only trails are in there. But unlike cycle tracks, bike trails are not designed to run on streets that also include motor vehicle traffic. Advocates say there’s a big difference — a difference that matters to the “interested but concerned” population. Darren Flusche of the League of American Bicyclists says cities that have made cycling a priority will still go beyond the AASHTO guide and use the bikeway design guide developed by the National Association of City Transportation Officials, which includes on-street, protected bike lanes and other innovative designs. “NACTO has left AASHTO behind.”

NACTO itself identified the lack of protected bikeway designs as a critical oversight in the AASHTO guide.

The NACTO guide will be releasing their update in the coming months, expanding and improving on past guidance, and including a new section dedicated to designing Bicycle Boulevards.

More info soon.

From experiences in the past, the Clackamas bike/ped bridge is likely to be deleted for cost savings as the project cost soars with inflation.

UPDATE: AROW joined the neighborhoods in voting NO to the freeway widening proposal.  The proposal still passed but will be up for future votes within the SAC and at City Council.  Further coverage:

• We’re Planning to Spend $400 Million to Widen a Freeway Through the Rose Quarter
• $400 million plan to cap Interstate 5, connect Rose Quarter and Lloyd District moves forward
• City, ODOT reveal $400 million freeway expansion plans near Rose Quarter

The I-5/Rose Quarter highway expansion project presents a crossroads for Portland and the entire region. Much as the CRC is problematic, this project would further entrench our city in a piece of infrastructure destined for obsolescence.

Demolishing three good bridge structures to add one lane in each direction–while possibly receiving a few bike/ped improvements in the process–is absurd.

While there are certainly safety improvements worth making, ODOT itself admits that freeways are essentially their safest form of infrastructure in this 2009 report:

The number of crashes per million vehicle miles traveled on non-freeways for 2009 was 1.22. This is more than three times higher than the interstatefreeway crash rate of 0.38, and twice as high as the crash rate of 0.61 for other freeways and expressways. The difference between non-freeway and freeway crash rates indicates that freeway travel is safer.*

This statement, along with Metro’s recent report that main streets are deadlier than highways, raises important questions about how ODOT is choosing to spend $400 million for such small safety gains.  I think we could do a lot more to improve traffic safety with such a large pot of money. For instance, you could build out almost the entire Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030 which would bring improvements to neighborhoods across the city.

Please write your comments on the proposed plan to ODOT Senior Project Manager Todd Juhasz or attend an upcoming public comment meeting.

Photo: Greenberry INC

In CRC news, today we’ve heard that River users said Columbia River Crossing too low, and planner ignored them

“The concept of taking a bridge and making it lower is so contrary to common sense,” said Tom Hickman, vice president of sales and marketing for Oregon Iron Works. “We’re kind of baffled how they got this far down the road without listening to the concerns. They seem to have just ignored us.”

Last summer, another review instigated by Kitzhaber and Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler deemed the CRC’s toll revenue projections to be inflated by nearly half a billion dollars. The CRC was relying on outdated and inaccurate traffic numbers, the review found.

Not surprisingly, the CRC is fielding some pointed criticism from area politicians, not a good thing for an organization reliant on the goodwill of Washington, D.C. and Salem and Olympia for financing.

“We are at a loss as to how such an oversight in this design could have occurred,” stated U.S. Rep. Jamie Herrera-Buetler and three other Washington Congress members in an April 30 letter to the CRC. “Given the importance of navigation to our region, we believe it is imperative that a new bridge not limit future river commerce.”

and If you’re still on board with the CRC, you’re doing it wrong.

Funding for the project seems to be in doubt as well. The feds just rejected the ask for a $1 billion loan, citing the lack of funding support from the Oregon & Washington state legislatures.

Many of the premises used to convince Oregonians that the bridge is vital and necessary have been outed as false.

And that barely scratches the surface. It’s been a hot mess for many months.

If you’re into numbers, citations and other fun data related to why investing and encouraging bicycling is the most super-duper thing cities can do, it would be great to have your contribution to this collaborative project!

The Case for Cycling is destined to help inform the City Club of Portland’s research study on bicycling and will also serve as a comprehensive reference to help cities navigate the political and social challenges of building out their bike networks.

Chris Smith writes:

The City Club of Portland recently announced a research study: BICYCLING IN PORTLAND: A SERIOUS LOOK AT TRANSPORTATION POLICY AND PRIORITIES .

Here are the objectives of the study:

• Make a recommendation on the role bicycling should play in Portland’s transportation system, based on review of existing criteria, available studies, and witness testimony.

• Based on the committee’s recommendation for the role bicycling should play in Portland’s transportation system, make further recommendations on the goals the city should set for bicycle ridership and the necessary improvements to reach those goals.

• The committee must identify the level and sources of funding necessary to achieve the identified goals.

• The committee is encouraged to make recommendations in related areas, including safety, governance, traffic enforcement, economic development, and community outreach.

You can’t lobby a City Club research committee (and I wouldn’t want to – having participated in a couple and chaired one – I respect the process greatly), but you can make sure they have good information, and we’d like to make sure they have lots of it!

“We” in this instance is a cooperative effort of Portland Transport, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, BikePortland, Portland Afoot and AROW.
And we’d like you to help us.

We’ve launched a Wiki site: The Case for Cycling and we’re asking your assistance in populating it with the best arguments, statistics and research making the case for why cycling is good for our city, region and country.

While the motivation for this site is immediate and local, we’d like this to be a high-quality effort that can take on a longer life and be a resource for other communities.

Please check out the site, sign up for an account, and contribute your best arguments and data!