tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-76056935954847513572024-03-13T17:56:49.635-07:00taking the lanea project to repeal oregon's far to the right and mandatory sidepath lawszach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-56420436130978086872012-03-20T00:26:00.007-07:002012-03-20T07:23:55.739-07:00my thoughts, somewhat exactly[picking up after an absence of nearly a year. the stakeholders advisory committee for the <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2011/04/stray-thoughts-on-williams.html">north williams traffic safety project</a> may finally be nearing a decision.]<br /><br />you have to begin by asking what it is you are trying to accomplish.<br /><br />and in what follows, i am not going to adhere all that closely to the ten objectives agreed to by the SAC, though i will say this was nearly as useful an exercise as if they had actually worked toward creating a consensus decisionmaking process.<br /><br />and it bears noting, of course, that (a) the ten objectives are weighted toward safety for pedestrians and cyclists and (b) they do not mention automobile throughput or the supply of onstreet parking at all. though of course <span style="font-weight:bold;">a design that had the effect of pushing through motor traffic and transient parking onto nearby neighborhood streets would be a disastrously ironic outcome.</span><br /><br />okay, so what are we trying to accomplish.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/86044902/kittelson">according to kittelson</a>, at peak hours you have about a thousand motor vehicles per hour through segment four, somewhat fewer through the other segments. <span style="font-weight:bold;">one imagines that a significant portion of the segment four count is through traffic that might usefully be diverted elsewhere.</span><br /><br />kittelson also notes high levels of speeding, especially in segment two, but also in segment four. and the crash data cited by kittelson suggests that motorists coming off 405 onto cook, turning left onto williams, and then right onto fremont, are a serious problem.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">so those are three things to look at without even talking about bicycles: diverting some of the through traffic, calming the speeds, and regulating the situation at cook.</span> while each of the eight alternatives now on the table includes putting in a signal at cook, it does not seem to me that any of them does much to divert through traffic or calm speeds. except to some extent those that take the whole thing, including segment four, down to one lane.<br /><br />so then let's talk about bikes.<br /><br />at peak hours there are as many as four hundred cyclists through segment four. total cyclists per day [at russell] are a bit over three thousand.<br /><br />it is mostly in segments two and three that you have what people are calling "bus/bike conflicts." these have been the impetus for <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/86045378/option-1A">the proposed left side treatments</a>.<br /><br />i myself personally do not have much or any difficulty with buses. if a bus is going to make multiple stops within a few blocks, i will soon leave it behind, maybe leapfrog it once or twice at most. so the only real "conflicts" arise when i first overtake the bus or if it overtakes me and then almost immediately pulls to the curb -- which should not happen if the driver is adequately trained, and actually cannot happen if i am asserting the travel lane.<br /><br />if both the cyclist and the bus driver know how to negotiate the situation, it works pretty smoothly. the driver signals her intention to pull to the curb, i move to the left and overtake only when it is clear the bus is actually stopping and i am not crowded on my left. the driver signals her intention to pull out, i hang back. there is no circumstance in which i am to the right of a bus that is anywhere near a stop.<br /><br />unfortunately, <span style="font-weight:bold;">we have almost intentionally created a culture in portland in which cyclists are asked to take very little responsibility for their own safety,</span> but are instead told to hide behind a line of white paint and hope for the best. the striped lane, the lack of vehicular cycling education, and the mandatory sidepath and far to right laws combine to create problems that need not exist.<br /><br />but enough about me. end of rant.<br /><br />there are other difficulties with the left side treatments. <span style="font-weight:bold;">a motorist entering from the west will need to pull out across the cycletrack or buffered bike lane in order to see past the line of parked cars. during peak hours, cyclists queuing to turn right will overflow the green boxes.</span> and on and on.<br /><br />my own preference is <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/86045397/option-2A">the option numbered 2A</a>, the right side buffered bike lane. this option most nearly conforms to how i use the street today, which to be perfectly frank does not usually involve staying in the bike lane except south of tillamook and north of skidmore. i will use the striped lane as an occasional refuge, but usually i am a foot or so to the left of the outside line, avoiding the door zone and discouraging overtaking motorists from passing too close.<br /><br />what i particularly like about option 2A is that it takes motor traffic down to one lane throughout, including segment four. <span style="font-weight:bold;">this is the only serious calming feature in any of these proposals.</span> a further improvement would be to put in at least one more traffic signal at failing, to allow the signal progression to force speeds down to about twenty mph. [note: this feature, signal progression, is lacking in each of the eight options presented.]<br /><br />obviously, limiting motor traffic to one lane through segment four is controversial. and actually, if we are talking about conducting an experiment and coming back to this in september, the experiment should be exactly this, to close one travel lane through segment four. people can see their fears realized or dispelled.<br /><br />which brings us to the immediate problem. at some point, possibly today, the SAC has to make some decisions that they may not be ready to make.<br /><br />there was an interval of several months during which the discussion was somewhat diverted to or refocused on racial justice issues, but i do not think we have made much progress there.<br /><br />there is all kinds of new development, mostly in segment four, including a lot of destination stuff -- cafes, restaurants, bars -- presumably for the most part owned by and leased to people who do not live in the neighborhood, though i suppose this would bear some investigation. and lately some high density residential with street level retail. i have no idea what these apartments would rent for, or if they are condos what they would sell for, but again <span style="font-weight:bold;">it seems likely all of this will lead to further gentrification.</span><br /><br />the new seasons coming in at ivy can be seen as providing somewhat affordable access to healthy food in what is otherwise almost a food desert, and they claim they will be employing kids from the neighborhood. but the profits are still going to shareholders and executives who live elsewhere.<br /><br />by all of which i mean to say that <span style="font-weight:bold;">anything we do here "for bikes" is merely a symptom, not a cause, of gentrification.</span> there is much that ought to be done to rebuild these neighborhoods, and i suppose the argument might yet be made that elements of this project that go beyond basic safety concerns should be held hostage to the city making serious commitments on that front.<br /><br />i would like to think that we could focus on the safety issues without that distraction. but i am afraid we may not be there yet. obviously, i am not privy to whatever conversations may be occurring among various members of the SAC outside the public meetings, but it is my impression that very little has been done to establish trust among people whose perspectives and interests seem sometimes to be radically divergent.<br /><br />even before the SAC was expanded by nearly half, the committee had made no effort to organize itself or to create mechanisms for decisionmaking or for communicating among themselves outside the public meetings. at the november meeting, they had an opportunity to try to establish a consensus model for making decisions, but they instead settled on a two-thirds vote with minority reports.<br /><br />if the whole thing falls apart, as i am afraid it might, we will be looking back at lost opportunities.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">postscript re <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/86045409/Option-3">option three</a>.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">the signal at cook and the rapid flash beacon at failing and at least two or three of the curb extensions are probably the least you could get away with here and say you had done anything useful at all.</span> it would be better to have a full signal at failing. the green bike boxes are for the most part superfluous, with the possible exception of russell. the box at fremont is redundant and inconsistent with the transitional lane. most of the other intersections are manageable in their present form. option three does nothing to divert excess motor traffic or to calm speeds.<br /> <br />and it does nothing to address the problem that we have a narrow bike lane sandwiched between a line of parked cars and a ten foot travel lane through much of segment four. this is substandard even by PBoT's own criteria, and their criteria -- set forth in <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27590560/Bicycle-Master-Plan">appendix A, part C2a of the bike master plan</a> and illustrated in <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/86045409/Option-3">the cross section diagram accompanying option three</a> -- ought to be unacceptable to the rest of us. if the distance between the line of parked cars and the center line of the street is fifteen feet, i am riding three or four feet from the parked cars, and motorists should be giving me at least three feet clearance. but of course <a href="http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.065">the safe passing distance statute does not apply</a> where there is a striped bike lane or the motorist is going not more than 35 mph.<br /> <br />even as a vehicular cyclist (though not in the forester camp), i cannot support option three.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-54395230608729542802011-05-19T19:40:00.001-07:002011-05-20T00:17:20.566-07:00down the rabbit holeword on the street is that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the stakeholder advisory committee process for the lloyd district bikeway development projects may be broken</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">a couple of the freight people have literally walked away from the table</span>, and some of the commercial real estate interests are raising eleventh hour objections to stuff that was agreed to months ago.<br /><br />but as of this morning, they were at least limping along okay, still getting stuff done. <span style="font-weight:bold;">looks like they are keeping the bus/bike only lane on vancouver south of broadway</span> in the plan after all, etc.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">but something weird has happened to the 12th avenue overcrossing project.</span><br /><br />back in april, david lorati of the central eastside industrial council <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/55860472/12th-CEICletterFreight-4-19-11">publicly trashed the SAC process in an open letter</a> to project manager ellen vanderslice. go ahead and experiment with signal timing on the 12th avenue bridge, he said, but don't change the lane configurations for at least a year because<br /><br /><blockquote>"truck users remain unconvinced that reducing a lane will not severely restrict their movement on a major entrance and exit to the district."</blockquote><br /><br />they "remain unconvinced." <span style="font-weight:bold;">obviously this is not data, and in fact it seems to anticipate rejecting whatever data might be produced.</span><br /><br />here is some data that might be relevant: at what hours exactly does franz bakery run its 105-foot, 40-ton triples over the bridge, and when exactly do they encounter traffic congestion, and to what extent is it actually the case that they cannot use any other route, etc.<br /><br />if some of these businesses have become dependent on running oversize loads through a mixed use district, <span style="font-weight:bold;">maybe they should be assessed some portion of the cost of upgrading the transportation infrastructure they are in effect taking away from other users.</span><br /><br />and frankly, if freight has difficulty with congestion on the 12th avenue overcrossing, <span style="font-weight:bold;">the problem is not bicycles or pedestrians, but private automobiles.</span><br /><br />a week later, dave lister ran <a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/04/freighted_with_skepticism_in_t.html">a screed in the oregonian</a>, talking about the "agenda-driven mayor" and the "politically appointed transportation chief," skateboarder tom miller, who is supposed to have told the CEIC in exactly so many words, <span style="font-weight:bold;">"portland hates freight," whatever that is even supposed to mean.</span><br /><br />while he did not directly reference lorati's letter, lister cited eleven hundred businesses and eighteen thousand jobs at stake, which numbers roughly correspond with the geographic reach of the CEIC. but that district extends all the way south to powell, and includes <span style="font-weight:bold;">hundreds of businesses that for one reason or another have chosen not to join the CEIC</span>. anyone south of, say, stark is probably less concerned with an exit from 84 onto northeast 12th.<br /><br /><a href="http://bikeportland.org/2011/04/28/city-gets-push-back-on-12th-ave-bike-access-improvements-52255">jonathan maus reported</a> that the project had "gotten enough heat," that "sources" said the mayor's office had "taken an interest[,]" and that his transportation policy advisor (presumably katja dillman) would be meeting separately with the CEIC.<br /><br />but then <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2011/05/13/ne-12th-ave-overcrossing/">gerik kransky posting to the BTA blog</a> indicated that portland bottling and franz bakery have said privately that they are "willing to accept the needed improvements [kransky's words] being proposed in option 2" -- which kransky calls "the most desirable solution" -- if the changes in signal timing actually yield better traffic flow over the bridge.<br /><br />it is unclear how this will be measured, or over what interval. but more to the point, it is unclear <span style="font-weight:bold;">who cut this deal, if it is a deal, and with what authority.</span><br /><br />freight interests are/were already represented on the SAC. there is no reason this constituency should be given a larger, separate voice from any of the other stakeholders. the stakeholder advisory process is not perfect, but it is what we have. <span style="font-weight:bold;">you want to turn these decisions over to lobbyists and power brokers, you better bring a lot of money.</span> watch what happens to the milwaukie light rail bridge over the next several months.<br /><br />something like 1,750 cyclists cross the 12th avenue bridge every day. roughly a quarter of these are heading south over the bridge and taking a left onto irving. while some significant fraction of these are sufficiently daunted by the difficulties of fighting for a space in the left turn lane that they will take the sidewalk and wait for a cross light at the south end of the bridge, <span style="font-weight:bold;">another sizeable number do assert their rightful space on the road and execute a vehicular left.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">whatever PBoT ends up doing here should not make life more difficult for these vehicular cyclists,</span> and it should not impose additional bike traffic on the pedestrians using the sidewalk along the west side of the bridge. the number 70 bus stop should be moved off the bridge and to the south of the intersection under any scenario, and pedestrian crossings should be adjusted to facilitate this.<br /><br />the so-called "option 2," which would put southbound bicycle traffic on a ten-foot wide multi-use path with pedestrians, is not acceptable, <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/08/tally-of-two-intersections.html">for reasons i have detailed elsewhere</a>. while "option 1" places southbound bicycle traffic in a segregated bike lane, it has at least the virtue of keeping cyclists on the bridge deck and making it possible for a cyclist who intends to turn left onto irving to do so in a somewhat vehicular fashion.<br /><br />at the SAC meeting in march, ellen vanderslice was quoting rob burchfield as suggesting <span style="font-weight:bold;">an "enhanced do-nothing" option, which would simply put sharrows on the bridge deck</span> indicating that a cyclist may assert the travel lane. this would be in combination with changes to the signal timing and maybe facilitating the existing use of the sidewalk as a southbound MUP. but <span style="font-weight:bold;">apparently "enhanced do-nothing" is now off the table.</span><br /><br />so apparently freight gets its way here, and southbound cyclists will be relegated to an MUP. <span style="font-weight:bold;">the argument can certainly be made that a mixed-use path is a "bicycle path" for purposes of <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.420">814.420, the mandatory sidepath statute</a>.</span> certainly motorists will expect to see cyclists up on the MUP rather than on the deck once this is in place.<br /><br />i would say thanks a lot, but i am not sure whom we have to thank. possibly the BTA.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-25341464695580147472011-05-02T22:52:00.000-07:002011-05-03T16:03:48.601-07:00not there for youon his blog earlier this week, joe rose (i know, i know, <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/11/deconstructing-joe-rose.html">consider the source</a>) gives <a href="http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2011/04/bicycle_transportation_allianc.html">the briefest possible summary</a> of an interview he recently had with rob sadowsky over an eight dollar sandwich.<br /><br />supposedly they talked about "the directions that [sic] the BTA is moving this year," but all we are allowed to hear is that "the word 'integration' was used a lot."<br /><br />anyway, the money quote is here:<br /><blockquote>The BTA will also work on its image. It's not there for the "take the lane" cyclists who want to fight motorists for the right of way around every corner. "They don't even want bike lanes," Sadowsky said.</blockquote> <br />let's parse this a little.<br /><br />first, <span style="font-weight:bold;">if the BTA has an image problem,</span> i am pretty sure <span style="font-weight:bold;">it is not that it is identified with the vehicular cyclist agenda.</span> but that is what rose implies here. joe sixpack thinking g*dd*mn BTA out there pushing this here hardcore foresterite agenda.<br /><br />on the contrary, the BTA has <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2010/09/29/blumenauer-adams-and-sadowsky-to-speak-at-burnsidecouch-ribbon-cutting/">positioned itself</a> as a <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2010/09/21/portlands-newest-bike-box-installed-at-ne-grand-couch/">largely uncritical cheerleader</a> of <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/10/because-this-sht-matters.html">whatever the hell PBoT throws down</a>.<br /><br />second, who exactly is it -- rose or sadowsky -- who characterizes vehicular cyclists as "fight[ing] motorists for the right of way"? the offhand use of the phrase "around every corner" here suggests that this is rose, not sadowsky, speaking. "taking the lane" got not much to do with corners.<br /><br />no one is "fighting motorists," and the issue is not "the right of way." the vehicular cyclist simply wants to be permitted to share the roads under existing right of way principles. <span style="font-weight:bold;">build all the sidepaths you want, but repeal the far to right and mandatory sidepath statutes.</span> and educate the motoring public that cyclists are not required to use the sidepaths.<br /><br />i will accept that sadowsky probably said "they don't even want bike lanes," because this is a roughly accurate statement about vehicular cyclists. well, <span style="font-weight:bold;">except for the word "even," which seems to suggest that anyone who does not "want" a striped bike lane is some kind of luddite.</span> but maybe even the word "even" made sense in some fuller context, which we are not given.<br /><br />to clarify, incidentally, <span style="font-weight:bold;">what a vehicular cyclist "does not want" is to be legally required to use a bike lane where safety considerations would indicate asserting a position somewhat farther left.</span> the mandatory sidepath law literally <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/02/subparagraph-two.html">forbids a cyclist to exercise this judgment</a>.<br /><br />but again, the way rose has framed this, it would appear that what sadowsky is saying is <span style="font-weight:bold;">that the BTA wants nothing to do with vehicular cyclists</span>, or has no interest in representing their concerns. <span style="font-weight:bold;">i asked rose whether his notes reflected a full, verbatim quote, in context. he deflected the question.<br /></span><br />if it is in fact the case that the BTA would openly oppose any effort to repeal the mandatory sidepath statute, i think <span style="font-weight:bold;">sadowsky needs to state the matter plainly</span>, not in some garbled paraphrase in joe rose's blog.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-71186837231312214172011-04-18T14:52:00.000-07:002011-04-18T14:55:22.056-07:00open letter to ellen vandersliceellen,<br /><br />i enjoyed talking with you the other day at the open house for the northeast williams traffic safety project. you guys put on a very good presentation, and i think you provided a good opportunity for meaningful public feedback.<br /><br />i actually like what you are proposing for segment 1, not that i myself have ever had any difficulty passing a bus on the left where appropriate and letting the bus overtake me safely where appropriate. but i acknowledge that certain formal treatments such as the cycletrack with the boarding islands to the left can actually facilitate a rational interaction between modes. and i said as much to adrian when i spoke with him.<br /><br />much of what michelle and alta and PBoT have put forward is reasonably well thought through. but as i mentioned to you, and to michelle, and to adrian on saturday, i do have problems with your plans for segment 4.<br /><br />if you cannot persuade the merchants to give up onstreet parking, and you choose to yield to them on the issue, then you should give up the second travel lane, simple as that. <span style="font-weight:bold;">the existing configuration is unacceptable, because a narrow bike lane is squeezed between a narrow travel lane and a not very wide parking strip.</span><br /><br />i simply will not use the existing bike lane, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">an overtaking motorist can just move over to the left lane</span> as far as i am concerned, 814.420 be damned. what PBoT should do is <span style="font-weight:bold;">reinforce this reality by removing the stripe and putting in sharrows</span>. the proposed dashed "advisory" bike lane is unacceptable, because it continues to suggest to both cyclists and motorists that it is somehow safe for the cyclist to ride that far to the right.<br /><br />on a somewhat different note, let me reiterate something i suggested to you on saturday, for which there really was not time for any lengthy discussion.<br /><br />by saying they cannot do without the onstreet parking, <span style="font-weight:bold;">the merchants are acknowledging that they are burdening the transportation infrastructure</span>. this is just a tautology. <br /><br />PBoT is trying to address a situation here that involves a heck of a lot of traffic -- motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians --, and that has potential effects throughout the neighborhoods, not just on williams, if any substantial diversion results from anything you are doing.<br /><br />to me, this almost cries out for a <span style="font-weight:bold;">transportation system development charge overlay</span>. suddenly, we are talking serious money. you can actually signalize all these intersections and put in some curb extensions, boarding islands, and so on. and you can actually deal with some of the side issues on cook or fremont or wherever, maybe build out the rodney greenway.<br /><br />it is not too late to start thinking on a larger scale here. let's do it right.<br /><br />r.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-70260211803410870272011-04-18T14:46:00.000-07:002011-04-18T14:52:20.539-07:00stray thoughts on williams[slightly edited from something i posted to the AROW discussion boards the other day]<br /><br />in segments 2 and 5 (that is, from the I-5 onramp to russell, and from skidmore to killingsworth), they are talking about <span style="font-weight:bold;">taking it down to one travel lane, but that lane would be 13 or 14 feet wide</span>. apparently emergency vehicles need this if there will be only one travel lane.<br /><br />so speed reduction in these segments is to be accomplished not through narrowing of lanes, but only through the mechanism of preventing anyone from passing the slowest motorist.<br /><br />the details of managing bus/bike interaction in segment 1 (weidler to the I-5 onramp) and i guess segment 2, to russell, have not really been fleshed out, but the emerging concept seems to be <span style="font-weight:bold;">keeping the bus to the left of a through cycletrack</span>, with passengers crossing the cycletrack to board and de-board on some ADA-compliant island.<br /><br />the idea of creating a shared bus/bike lane is almost off the table. in rolling this out at the SAC meeting last week, adrian witte of alta literally said, quote, <span style="font-weight:bold;">"shared [use] is a downgrade."</span> i told him this was my takeaway quote for the day, and that i strongly disagreed.<br /><br />last tuesday night at the BAC meeting rob sadowsky raised the shared lane as a possibility he thought ought to be considered. it works in other cities, he said, it is a matter of socialization. i thanked him by e-mail afterward.<br /><br />note also, witte acknowledged to me that they have not yet thought through <span style="font-weight:bold;">how to manage conflicts at intersections</span> if the cycletrack model is selected.<br /><br />the eight hundred pound gorilla is of course segment 4, cook to skidmore, where all the street level retail is coming in. <span style="font-weight:bold;">the plan thus far is pretty much to do nothing.</span> not the "enhanced do nothing" that i think would actually be a good solution on the 12th avenue overcrossing, but literally nothing. except maybe put in some signals to bring the speeds down. give the place a "main street" feel, which i actually think would be a good idea, but not as a standalone treatment.<br /><br />we are looking at <span style="font-weight:bold;">parking on both sides, two ten-foot travel lanes, and a narrow bike lane in the door zone</span>. the merchants are coming forward with the story that <span style="font-weight:bold;">we need all the onstreet parking</span>. why we need two travel lanes is less clear.<br /><br />i asked witte whether they had done any utilization counts for onstreet parking on side streets. it didn't seem like they had. also whether maybe some of these street level retailers, at least on the west side, could put some parking in the alleyways behind.<br /><br />at the very first SAC meeting, and again last tuesday when dan layden was presenting this to the BAC, i pointed out that <span style="font-weight:bold;">williams is designated a neighborhood collector, not an arterial</span>, and that PBoT maybe should think about diverting some of the through traffic off to MLK and interstate, maybe by way of fremont.<br /><br />layden made the interesting claim that fremont is also technically a neighborhood collector, but i am looking at <span style="font-weight:bold;">counts of over 12k</span>, so this would appear to be a more completely lost cause than williams.<br /><br />someone might remind PBoT that when they go to salem and ask for authority to control speeds only on roads with counts below 3k and existing speed profiles below 35 mph they should think of trying to keep some roads under these numbers, <span style="font-weight:bold;">otherwise they cede control to ODoT</span>.<br /><br />at the first SAC meeting, i also commented that we might think about <span style="font-weight:bold;">whether we want more "destination"-type development</span> here, bringing in outsiders for a couple of hours at a time to just park, drink, throw their trash on the ground, and leave. or maybe instead some stuff that actually serves the neighborhood.<br /><br />something that has not been addressed yet at all in the material presented by alta and PBoT to the SAC is pedestrian crossings. and not just in segment 4, though this is critical. the story, apparently, is that they want to get the "floor plan" down first.<br /><br />i actually have no problem with <span style="font-weight:bold;">separated facilities, where they are appropriate</span>. depending what exactly they do here and there in segments 2 and 3, a buffered bike lane or a cycletrack could be workable. but in segment 4, i would like to see an enhancement to the "do nothing" option, specifically, <span style="font-weight:bold;">take out the door zone lane and put in sharrows</span>.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-32631275966293470192011-02-27T21:33:00.000-08:002011-03-01T22:33:03.577-08:00head fake in the fiftiesthe theme of last tuesday's meeting of the citizens advisory committee on the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53345">50s bikeway project</a> was <span style="font-weight:bold;">a lowering of expectations</span>.<br /><br />feedback from the open house in january was largely positive, with comments focusing much more on <span style="font-weight:bold;">reducing speeds and diverting motor traffic from neighborhood streets</span> than on what have you done with my onstreet parking.<br /><br />but co-project manager rich newlands wanted to brace the committee for some disappointments.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">first, delay.</span> they want to have a second open house, sometime in april or may. there will then have to be yet a fifth CAC meeting after that, in may or june. design and engineering will have to be pushed back to late 2011, and construction would begin in summer rather than spring 2012.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">next, more delay.</span> if they implemented everything in <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53345&a=331817">the november design proposal</a>, they would be over the 1.5 million budget by some unspecified amount. so they are looking at <span style="font-weight:bold;">breaking the project into two phases</span> and funding the second phase from other sources down the road. the suggestion seems to be that the alternate route at the southern end of the corridor would be phase two.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">and then the killer.</span> while it looks like they will be able to put in some kind of user activated signal at 53rd and burnside, <span style="font-weight:bold;">they have not been able to get ODoT approval for a crossing signal at 54th and powell</span>, on the alternate route. maybe they can get a rapid flash beacon, maybe not.<br /><br />this is <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=se+54th+and+powell+portland+or&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=33.710275,79.013672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=SE+Powell+Blvd+%26+SE+54th+Ave,+Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97206&ll=45.497429,-122.607143&spn=0.00728,0.01929&t=h&z=16">a particularly horrible crossing</a>, and several of the committee expressed disappointment bordering on anger -- one pointing out that the whole idea of the alternate route was to provide something less stressful than 52nd for the faint of heart, and that forcing these people to cross powell at 54th without a solid red signal for cross traffic would be <span style="font-weight:bold;">"leading lambs to slaughter,"</span> another saying his neighborhood association would "walk away" from the project if ODoT could not be persuaded to change its position.<br /><br />newlands said he would try to set up a further conversation with ODoT, maybe bring someone from the agency in to talk directly with the committee. another delay.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">then, scaling back.</span> the bike boxes and the "cross bike" markings are off the table for now. apparently none of the proposed locations for the bike boxes meets existing criteria for volumes of right turning motorists versus through bike traffic. there literally are no criteria at all for the "cross bike" markings, and head traffic engineer rob burchfield says "not yet."<br /><br />note that <span style="font-weight:bold;">these would not have been covered by the federal grant anyway</span>, as they are not MUTCD compliant.<br /><br />between foster and powell on 52nd, they are now looking at removing the center turn lane and widening the bike lanes, rather than painting the bike lanes green or blue or some such, which would have inconsistent with the uses of those colors elsewhere, to identify conflict zones.<br /><br />and a non-controversial change. rather than struggle with removing parking on northeast 57th between hancock and thompson, they have decided to just <span style="font-weight:bold;">take 53rd on up to thompson and connect to 57th from there</span>. apparently there is already a pedestrian activated signal there.<br /><br />the downside is that anyone coming west on hancock from father east, intending to head north on 57th, or anyone coming south on 57th intending to head east on hancock, would either be diverted a few blocks or have to suffer a couple of blocks on 57th without striped lanes. on the plus side, the existing curb extension on the northwest corner of 57th and hancock would not have to be rebuilt.<br /><br />also the <span style="font-weight:bold;">residents there get to keep their onstreet parking</span>.<br /><br />speaking of which. the project managers seem to be comfortable with the feedback from the open house on <span style="font-weight:bold;">removing some parking from 52nd south of division</span>. this would allow space for six-foot bike lanes, but it would also exacerbate the need for traffic calming and pedestrian crossing measures. and this was mentioned in the comments from the open house.<br /><br />lewis wardrip was there from traffic operations to talk about curb extensions versus medians through this stretch. the latter treatment would actually remove more parking spaces from near the intersections, and if you made them 160 feet long instead of 120 you could get some serious traffic calming.<br /><br />in deep wonk mode, wardrip explained the "gap study" his office would have to do before making final recommendations on pedestrian crossings. a pedestrian is assumed to be moving at 3.5 mph, which is a little over five feet per second. if the street is forty feet curb to curb, it would take a pedestrian about eight seconds to cross.<br /><br />somebody stands there with a stopwatch and clipboard and counts the number of times per hour there is a gap in motor traffic of eight or ten seconds or whatever the criterion is. sixty gaps per hour does not need a refuge island or a curb extension, fewer than sixty does. you get down to twenty gaps per hour you got a whole 'nother set of issues.<br /><br />the posted speed limit on 52nd south of division is 30 mph. measured 85th percentile speeds are 36 to 37 mph. you might not be able to get ODoT to consent to reducing the posted limit to 25 mph, says newlands, which i sort of get, but then he says "you might not want it."<br /><br />if he explained why, i did not catch it. possibly this was supposed to connect up with one of his themes for the evening, which was something like, we have to keep in mind what is our scope here, <span style="font-weight:bold;">are we planning a bikeway, or are we trying to address liveability issues</span> more generally. seeming to imply that the liveability people can get their own d*mn process, though possibly the opposite was intended.<br /><br />which brings us finally to the one seriously positive development, which pretty much got buried in all this other negativity.<br /><br />oh, but first. on this business about speed limits and traffic calming and median refuges and so forth on 52nd south of division. at the CAC meeting i attended <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-fifties.html">back in september last year</a>, i was among those who raised the question why we might not think more aggressively about reducing speeds and traffic counts through here. my recollection is that newlands said we were limited by the fact that <span style="font-weight:bold;">south of powell, at least, 52nd is designated a neighborhood collector</span>. (between powell and division is it actually a local street, where calming and diversion measures are permitted.)<br /><br />at the time, newlands suggested that there is such a thing as revisiting the designation, but -- and here is the point i am making, finally -- it does not appear that he or anybody else is following up on that approach. <span style="font-weight:bold;">you define certain things as not achievable, and then you simply do not pursue them.</span><br /><br />anyway. the large positive.<br /><br />the november design included diversion of motor traffic from 53rd between glisan and burnside, and from 52nd between lincoln and division. residents along the route between burnside and stark were asking for speedbumps, but apparently after talking with the project managers they would be satisfied instead with a diversion of traffic from their neighborhood.<br /><br />unposted, thus default 25 mph. rather narrow right of way, with onstreet parking on both sides. a safer limit for all concerned would probably be below 20 mph, but of course that is not on the table.<br /><br />newlands stopped short of making a firm commitment, and in fact he made it sound as though all three proposed diversions were uncertain, but he said he wanted to conduct a "separate public process" around these, apparently including presentations to each of the affected neighborhood associations. yet another delay.<br /><br />bottom line. okay, there is a very serious stumbling block at the 54th and powell crossing. but this is the so-called alternate route, and we could always talk about taking it a block or two further east. the delays going forward seem modest in geologic time, and the disappointments on some of the non-MUTCD treatments here and there seem not only slight, but in retrospect obvious, as in, these could not have been funded with federal money anyway.<br /><br />but <span style="font-weight:bold;">we seem to be looking at three -- count 'em, three -- diversions</span>. compare that to anything you could have accomplished ten years ago. and yet the committee is left feeling they did not get everything they wanted. meanwhile, the public has been engaged right and left, and apparently not only is losing some onstreet parking not such a big deal, but many of the neighbors along the route want even more traffic calming.<br /><br />on balance, a reasonably good outcome.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-58182976654907045002010-11-10T11:24:00.000-08:002010-11-10T23:38:21.957-08:00deconstructing joe rosei sometimes wonder if there is some way to find out how many unique hits joe rose actually gets on his blog, "hard drive," on oregonlive.com.<br /><br />maybe there is only some small handful of people who actually read the thing, and i am wasting my time monitoring the blog to correct misstatements he makes <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/09/re-move-over-blog-post.html">as he constantly stirs the "cars versus bikes" pot</a>. and if i could somehow confirm this, maybe i could just let it go.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">maybe i should just let it go anyway</span>, like television and processed food and the consumerist culture generally.<br /><br />but here is <a href="http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/10/cars_crossing_bike_lanes_bicyc.html">yet another case in point</a>. a little over a week ago, rose posted what purported to be a reader's question about <span style="font-weight:bold;">a supposed uptick</span> in incidents of cyclists "slapping cars with their hands to get a driver's attention when things get tight in traffic."<br /><br />rose calls this "the <span style="font-weight:bold;">impolite and ubiquitous</span> 'yo, i'm here' slap," as though it were a common practice, and as though it would be used in a situation where politeness could be even a marginal concern. the questioner says "i've seen a fight break out. is this legal? what can i do if a bicyclist damages my bmw x5?"<br /><br />for purposes of discussion, <span style="font-weight:bold;">let's suppose this is an actual question</span> from an actual reader, though as a writer i will suggest that there are fairly clear indications that it has at least been edited, if not created from whole cloth, to set up what rose wants to get across.<br /><br />things get tight. fight breaks out. x5. gimme a break.<br /><br />rose begins by <span style="font-weight:bold;">pretending to identify himself with the cyclist</span>, saying he has been "mightily tempted" to use the technique "when i've encountered a space-case driver while pedaling downtown." not to mention a motorist who crowds you intentionally.<br /><br />but then <span style="font-weight:bold;">he immediately undercuts this</span> by saying "we've evolved beyond such primal communication, right?" and "when you start abusing a stranger's property," etc., "don't expect it to change any hearts or minds."<br /><br />well, let's hold up a minute here, joe.<br /><br />first of all, let's make it clear to your handful of readers that <span style="font-weight:bold;">we are talking about a serious threat to the cyclist's safety</span>. this is nowhere mentioned in your summary, and of course it is completely ignored in the comments posted by the owners of x5s.<br /><br />and "primal communication"? "abusing a stranger's property"? <span style="font-weight:bold;">how is slapping a car any more "primal" than sounding a horn?</span> [and how is it that the latter has become so accepted in this culture that someone parking at the curb and walking away from his x5 just touches his key fob and the horn blares. oh, i was just locking my car. b*llsh*t.]<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">you attack me with your x5, you can expect to hear someone knocking on the panels.</span> the "stranger's property" is at that moment an immediate threat, a weapon.<br /><br />and who said anything about "hearts and minds"? a hundred years ago, it was <span style="font-weight:bold;">the stranger operating one of these killing machines on the public right of way</span> who was stigmatized, not those whom he was threatening. somehow we have gotten this turned around.<br /><br />then rose takes it a step further by actually <span style="font-weight:bold;">encouraging motorists to escalate the situation</span>. "it's not illegal" to slap an x5, he quotes the traffic division captain todd wyatt as saying, "but it's a good way to incite some serious road rage."<br /><br />excuse me? the guy threatens my life because he is not paying attention, i give him the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">somehow it is i who is inciting him?</span> again, we are turned around here.<br /><br />but wait, it gets worse.<br /><br />"if an angry bicyclist leaves a dent and rides off," rose continues, "that's vandalism. and oregon law gives the victim of a crime the right to use 'reasonable force' to make a citizen's arrest."<br /><br />leaves a dent? what is your x5 made of? a minute ago we were talking about the ubiquitous "yo, i'm here" slap, and now we seem to be talking about hammers or u-locks or something.<br /><br />okay, so now we are saying to the motorist, <span style="font-weight:bold;">go ahead, chase the cyclist down, and feel free to use "reasonable force"</span> to detain him. this is how we share the roads. thanks, joe.<br /><br />and <span style="font-weight:bold;">it is not even good legal advice.</span> oregon law does not in fact give a motorist whose x5 has been slapped by a cyclist he nearly ran off the road a right to use force, reasonable or otherwise, to effect a citizen's arrest.<br /><br />this is a close question, so bear with me a minute. but it has everything to do with <span style="font-weight:bold;">what kind of society we want to live in</span>.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.205">ORS 161.205</a> says you can use reasonable force to defend your property, "as hereafter prescribed," and the relevant "hereafter" is <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.229">ORS 161.229</a>, which says only as necessary to "prevent or terminate" a theft or "criminal mischief."<br /><br />we are not talking about theft here, so let's look at "criminal mischief," which is what rose is apparently talking about when he uses the word "vandalism."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/164.345">ORS 164.345</a> defines third degree criminal mischief, a class C misdemeanor, as "tampering" or "interfering" with someone' property "with intent to cause substantial inconvenience," and without "reasonable ground to believe" you have a right to do it -- as in, y'know, <span style="font-weight:bold;">warning someone he is about to kill you through inattention</span>.<br /><br />second degree criminal mischief, <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/164.354">ORS 164.354</a>, a class A misdemeanor, is where you do more than five hundred dollars damage, and first degree, <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/164.365">ORS 164.365</a>, a class C felony, is where you do more than a thousand dollars damage. these x5s are delicate beasts.<br /><br />in any event, if we are talking about chasing the cyclist down after the damage is done, we are not talking about "preventing" or "terminating" anything, so let's look at the actual citizen's arrest statutes.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.255">ORS 161.255</a> says a private citizen can use physical force <span style="font-weight:bold;">only as reasonably necessary</span> to make a citizen's arrest or to prevent the escape of the person arrested, per <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/133.225">ORS 133.225</a>. that statute, in turn, permits a private citizen to arrest someone for a "crime" committed in his presence, where he has reasonable cause to believe the person he is arresting committed the "crime."<br /><br /><a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.515">ORS 161.515</a> defines "crime" as "an offense for which a sentence of imprisonment is authorized." so is a class C misdemeanor a "crime"? well, yes, under <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.615">ORS 161.615</a> the maximum sentence is thirty days.<br /><br />so, let's review:<br /><br />you nearly run me off the road with your x5, i slap the fender to get your attention, you imagine that i have left a dent. you chase me down to detain me, i resist, you wrestle me to the ground.<br /><br />you had better be careful not to use <span style="font-weight:bold;">more force than "necessary,"</span> and you had better be reasonably certain not only that i <span style="font-weight:bold;">intended to cause you "substantial inconvenience,"</span> but that i had <span style="font-weight:bold;">zero reasonable ground</span> for doing what i did.<br /><br />in other words, you have to know a lot about what was going on in my head. whereas <span style="font-weight:bold;">a minute ago, you didn't even know i was there</span>.<br /><br />you might also want to look at <a href="https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.275">ORS 163.275</a>, which makes it a class C felony to detain someone under threat. "coercion," or what they used to call "false imprisonment." the punishment for a class C felony is a bit more than that for a class C misdemeanor. five years and a $125k fine.<br /><br />anyway, my point is.<br /><br />the guy has a platform that he could be using <span style="font-weight:bold;">to persuade people to behave with some consideration toward one another on the roads</span>. weirdly, that was actually the frame of this particular column. the anniversary of brett jarolimek's death, and why can't we all just get along.<br /><br />but <span style="font-weight:bold;">the default point of view on the blog is that of the beleaguered motorist</span> asking "why do i have to put up with these g*dd*mn cyclists, and within what limits might i retaliate against them." not "how can we get motorists to wake up and pay attention."<br /><br />if a motorist calls or writes in saying "i had thus and such a negative interaction with a cyclist the other day," instead of always stirring the pot, rose could use his platform to suggest "maybe you could think of doing things differently. the age of the complete dominance of the private automobile over absolutely everything else is fading."<br /><br />if i slap your car to get your attention because you are about to run me down, is this not also "self-defense"? <span style="font-weight:bold;">why are we even talking about whether you can then chase me down and beat me and get away with it?</span>zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-531195833487499542010-10-16T21:24:00.000-07:002010-10-27T17:16:02.872-07:00open note to dan gutierrezhey, dan, a voice from the past.<br /><br />saw <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/caboforum/browse_thread/thread/fd0d8356ef297fbb">your post on the CABO boards</a> the other day, where you say <span style="font-weight:bold;">roger geller told you thus and such to your face</span> at the LAB bike summit three years ago.<br /><br />specifically, you said roger<br /><blockquote>told me to my face at the [2007 summit] when I asked him about the driver rights in Portland, that <span style="font-weight:bold;">those who prefer to act like drivers will just lose their rights</span> in Portland, Oregon, in order to further the City's <span style="font-weight:bold;">social goal of promotion of bicycling through mandatory segregation</span>.</blockquote><br />gotta say it, dan, that sounds like you are paraphrasing rather than quoting. maybe the original sounded more like<br /><blockquote>"dan, we are working toward <span style="font-weight:bold;">a future in which the private automobile is completely secondary</span> in the urban transportation mix, <span style="font-weight:bold;">and unless someone works to get the far to right law and the mandatory sidepath law repealed,</span> which is not PBoT's role, but which we do not oppose, and in fact <span style="font-weight:bold;">our master plan for 2030 includes <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513614/4-2D">express statements</a> that we want to have that conversation</span>, then yes, someone who adheres to vehicular principles will find himself outside the law. but <span style="font-weight:bold;">we are not going to let that stop us</span> from implementing strategies that will lead us ultimately to complete streets."</blockquote><br />ya think?<br /><br />and for those on this thread who have tossed about the word "charlatan." that word has a dictionary definition. it means someone who pretends to an expertise he does not in fact have, in order to deceive someone. this could be seen as a slander, if we are talking about someone's profession. the guy has a masters from tufts in urban and environmental policy, which maybe should be a hint why he sees things differently than you do. but presumably you are not calling into question the quality of the education he received at tufts. <span style="font-weight:bold;">he has himself been a vehicular cyclist for thirty-odd years, quite a number of them on the streets of boston.</span><br /><br />i have it on reasonably good authority that roger has moved on from this conversation. you guys are fighting a rear guard, and you find yourselves defending a status quo that was created by the dominance of the private automobile and need not be preserved.<br /><br />r. williszach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-82985943633112897012010-10-16T17:32:00.000-07:002010-10-18T10:02:42.991-07:00back to the fiftiessat in on this community advisory committee stuff on the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=35953&a=305344">fifties bikeway project</a> a couple of weeks ago. a number of neighborhood associations and business associations at the table, but a very bicycle friendly crowd, and if anything the voices from the table were pushing rich newlands farther than he seemed ready to go. he backed away early from moving the entire route south of lincoln off 52nd into some convoluted side routes through the neighborhoods. by the end of the meeting, he seemed willing to just do some crossing work and signage there and focus the identified route as 52nd, but he was still hesitant about the extent to which the city can expect to remove onstreet parking without substantial pushback from the residents.<br /><br />and that is where we still are today, when i joined the crew for a ride of the route, to discuss specifics at a number of selected intersections. maybe cut back the curb extension at 57th and hancock, maybe some signage at the unsigned crossing of hancock with 53rd, maybe an advance stop line at halsey, maybe some lane striping and possibly a box at glisan, that kind of thing. whether to divert traffic south of glisan or do a partial diversion at everett. whether to put a HAWK beacon at the intersection with burnside. i could go on.<br /><br />we ran into something really quite remarkable at 52nd and madison, coming down the steep hill from salmon. the moms and kids, and actually even dads, were out in force, with signs and chalk on the street, lying in wait for this group to arrive, to again ask the city (in the persons of mr. newlands and sarah figliozzi) to put in speed bumps and a four-way stop.<br /><br />there was a moment of confusion that might have become awkward, but [someone in our group] said loudly and in an exaggerated tone, "yes, we have come from the sky to bring you speed bumps," and then we all stopped and had quite a conversation, lasting several minutes. how they are lying at the bottom of two descents, how often there are crashes or near crashes, how intersections a block in either direction have been given stop signs, and so on.<br /><br />biking away, ms. figliozzi told me they are ineligible for a four-way stop for some reason i did not quite get, but that the likely outcome will be speed bumps with a two-way stop giving the bikeway on 52nd dominance. her concern seemed to be how to sell this to the residents who would see it as a half-measure.<br /><br />the low point of the expedition was the intersection of 52nd and foster. six lanes on the diagonal, two and a center turn lane on 52nd. parking lots and vacant buildings and pavement everywhere. i don't know what the traffic volumes are, let's just say high. what is needed there is comprehensive redevelopment, bringing store fronts to the sidewalk and putting the parking lots behind. unfortunately, that is not where the city is headed with this, yet. the little ceasar's pizza just went in a couple of years ago.<br /><br />and then the whole what to do about 52nd on south thing. will five-foot lanes be enough? if six, then we have to get rid of parking on one side, but which side? get rid of parking on both sides you have enough room for buffered bike lanes, but you might be removing enough clutter that motorist speeds will increase. they are already a bit high.<br /><br />in the end, whatever comes out of this process will be more friendly to cyclists than may float with stakeholders who have not yet been part of the process. moving the route away from 52nd south of lincoln seems to be off the table, so we are looking at some kind of intrusion into the space that motorists have come to understand 52nd to be, and probably removing quite a bit of onstreet parking.<br /><br />mr. newsome and ms. figliozzi seemed anxious about the rollout, wondering whether to so a mail-in survey first or just go ahead and stage a bunch of public forums. in which manner it would be more productive to deal with whatever pushback will surely come.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">postscript 10/18</span><br /><br />i was talking with someone about this entry, who said these two, rich newlands and sarah figliozzi, seemed to know what they were doing, having learned from past experiences dealing with upset neighbors. this person felt that his own experience of the route would be improved by the proposed treatments.<br /><br />i agreed to both points, but with slight reservation. part of the reason i wanted to get involved in the 50s bikeway planning process though i myself seldom use the route, was to be able to talk with whoever from PBoT as they go through that process. these two were thinking, what if we take a survey and people say "no"?, should we frame the question so that bikes are not the centerpiece somehow?, etc.<br /><br />i said put on a lot of public forum stuff early and then if people don't come, to hell with them. that's why i was so impressed with these people standing at the corner of 52nd and madison. they live there and they care what the hell is going on. people want to protect their onstreet parking, let them show up and identify themselves, none of this return a survey nonsense.<br /><br />then maybe when they actually engage with their neighbors, they will come to see that accommodations should be made for other human beings. if you take the other approach, hide the ball, how do we educate them?, you get the perception, and ultimately the reality, of demagoguery and totalitarianism.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-84780531654662036752010-10-04T18:21:00.000-07:002010-10-05T22:16:28.419-07:00because this sh*t mattersi took the reopened broadway bridge into downtown the other day. they have restriped the last block approaching the bridge from the east, between benton and larrabee, so that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the bike lane now hugs the right curb, inside the right turn lane</span>.<br /><br />before all this construction to put in the streetcar tracks, the bike lane had been to the left of the right turn lane for the last half block. there was a half block gap after benton that functioned, however inadequately, as a transition across the turning lane.<br /><br />of course, <span style="font-weight:bold;">i always took the travel lane anyway</span> from at least ross, disregarding the bike lane against the curb, so that the merge to the through lane was a matter of only a few inches and i did not have to compete with motorists merging right. but with the lane striped solid all the way down to larrabee <span style="font-weight:bold;">this becomes somewhat more overtly a political act</span>.<br /><br />there is an advanced stop line at larrabee, and one supposes that this will soon be marked as a bike box.<br /><br />this was not on <a href="http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/14/city-unveils-list-of-11-new-bike-box-locations-39519 ">greg raisman's project list</a> presented to BAC two weeks ago, incidentally.<br /><br />when i got home, i sent somewhat intemperate e-mails to the entire crew at BAC (minus one, whose e-mail address i have not been able to unearth) and to rob sadowsky and gerik kransky over at BTA. <span style="font-weight:bold;">"another genius move by PBoT,"</span> i said, and a couple of people reacted at least slightly negatively.<br /><br />but it does seem to me that we are careening down a dangerous path with these bike boxes in lieu of proper lane placement and sharrows, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">those who are positioned as advocates for cyclists either are silent or have affirmatively bought in</span> to these treatments.<br /><br />BTA is <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2010/09/29/blumenauer-adams-and-sadowsky-to-speak-at-burnsidecouch-ribbon-cutting/">participating in the ribbon cutting</a> for the burnside/couch couplet next tuesday, october 12. they have been promoting this with <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Built_cyan21-294x300.png">a variant of the "build it" logo</a> saying "built." <span style="font-weight:bold;">what the hell was "built" for cyclists? a striped lane on couch from 6th down, inside two right hooks and a bus stop</span>, and a sidepath through an s-curve onto the bridge where lane widths and a tight radius at the last right turn pretty much force motorists to encroach. <span style="font-weight:bold;">thanks a lot. "built."</span><br /><br />oh, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">a green box at couch and grand, which accomplishes nothing at all on the green signal phase</span>. again, thanks. that atrocity actually was on greg's project list, at the very top, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">no one at BAC said sh*t</span>. but <a href="http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2010/09/21/portlands-newest-bike-box-installed-at-ne-grand-couch/">BTA has endorsed it</a>.<br /><br />but neither his project list, nor any project list anywhere that i have seen, says anything about whatever is going on at broadway and larrabee, and they do not include <a href="http://bikeportland.org/2010/09/16/first-look-at-citys-final-plans-for-broadwaywilliams-39645">the reconfiguration of broadway at williams</a>. it is my firm impression that <span style="font-weight:bold;">neither of these was even reviewed by the BAC, [not] much less given a rubber stamp</span>.<br /><br />in a follow up message to rob sadowsky, i said, "i am good with advanced stop lines, and i am good with restricting right turns on red. <span style="font-weight:bold;">my issue with the bike box is that it reinforces very forcibly the far to right and mandatory sidepath requirements</span>."<br /><br />for me, the descent on couch from 14th to MLK, downhill, with the lights timed to something less than 20 mph, is very comfortable. <span style="font-weight:bold;">until you get to the lane striping at 6th</span>. then all of a sudden you are told <span style="font-weight:bold;">to squeeze to the right and let motorists overtake you in a not very wide travel lane</span>. and then there is a bus stop and the right turn onto grand. i simply take the lane, and i defy anyone to show me that this facility, which was not included in the 1998 bike master plan, and which <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/27590560/Bicycle-Master-Plan">violates the technical specifications</a> of that plan, can be treated as a mandatory sidepath.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">this is what got that woman hurt the other day, not the absence of a bike box</span>. indeed, a bike box would have had zero effect, because what happened to her happened during the green signal phase.<br /><br />now, of course, i do realize that until PBoT gets these PSU studies squeezed through MUTCD the bike boxes, as such, are not mandatory sidepaths. but (a) they eventually will be, despite <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/01/green-box-report.html">the weaknesses in the PSU studies</a>, and (b) even now, before mandatory status kicks in, we have <span style="font-weight:bold;">the problem of public perception</span>.<br /><br />i already get grief from the occasional motorist for not using the bike lane on couch from 6th to MLK or on the s-curve ramp onto the bridge. and i already get grief from the occasional motorist for not using the existing bike lane configuration on broadway from ross down to larrabee.<br /><br />but if you push the striped bike lane over to the curb and put in a bright green box, even if the mandatory sidepath statute might not technically apply here or there, motorists (you know, those dull-witted motorists we all love to hate) will be <span style="font-weight:bold;">led to believe that cyclists "belong over there,"</span> and not here, competing for space in the travel lane.<br /><br />i reminded rob that when he and i first met, at the alice awards, just before he formally stepped into the executive director's chair, i described myself to him as a "vehicular cyclist" by inclination, self-taught, having read forester's book only after the fact, and i said, as i often say to people to explain my perspective, that <span style="font-weight:bold;">"forester and i are no longer on speaking terms."</span> there is actually a story behind that, and someday maybe i will tell it.<br /><br />but the point is, <span style="font-weight:bold;">i "get" that separated facilities have a place</span>, and i "get" that we have to make it noticeably less convenient for motorists to run roughshod over all other modes. i do. i got rid of the car awhile back. but we have a very long way to go, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">in the meantime we are putting in poorly conceived half-solutions that serve only (or largely) to exacerbate the problems</span>.<br /><br />people talk about encouraging the newbies, or whatever, and the "educational" function of some of these treatments. by striping a lane on couch from 6th to MLK, or by pushing the bike lane to the curb on broadway from ross to larrabee, and especially by capping these treatments with bright green boxes that serve no function at all during the green signal phase, <span style="font-weight:bold;">we are encouraging and educating "newbies" to put themselves in harm's way</span>.<br /><br />BTA is identifying itself with the wrong side of these issues, and it would appear that BAC has been cut entirely out of the loop.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-51003543173227586502010-09-15T19:27:00.000-07:002010-09-15T19:39:56.193-07:00the law of unintended consequencesso i went to this open house a couple of weeks ago for the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53364&">davis street improvements project</a>. <a href="mailto:ellen.vanderslice@portlandoregon.gov">ellen vanderslice</a> was there to explain the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53364&a=315667">storyboards</a>, field questions, and listen to feedback from whoever stopped by.<br /><br />during the time i was there, at least, the event was thinly attended. of the handful of people who showed, two or three were business owners there in the neighborhood, which i would describe as a sort of warehouse/industrial district.<br /><br />one of these, whose name escapes me, was teasing ellen that "maintain truck circulation" should be moved from third to first in the list of project goals. ellen insisted gamely that there was no priority among the three listed goals, but she tried to accommodate him by writing "improve" on a post-it note and sticking it next to the word "maintain" on the first storyboard.<br /><br />i think the larger point the guy was trying to make was that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the project has been framed largely in terms of bike traffic</span>.<br /><br />i talked with this guy for a few minutes, and asked him to elaborate his concerns. has truck access already been adversely affected by the changes to burnside and couch, i asked, and is he worried that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the proposed changes to davis -- speed bumps east of 12th, removing the center stripe, putting down sharrows</span> -- will somehow make things worse, that kind of thing. yes, he said, and yes. and subtracting some small number of onstreet parking spaces on couch has made it more difficult for customers trying to get to his business.<br /><br />and those g*dd*mned bikers blow right through the red lights. of course, i am standing there with the messenger bag and the fingerless gloves.<br /><br />i asked him whether the trucks that were making deliveries to his business, or picking up or whatever, were coming in off sandy or down 12th from I-84 or from where. he didn't know.<br /><br />i was curious about the parking issue, because (a) <span style="font-weight:bold;">the businesses in this district are for the most part not retail</span>, so we are talking primarily employee parking, and (b) the aerial photos seem to show a lot of offstreet surface parking alongside many of the businesses. and i pointed out (commiserating) that when the streetcar comes through there will be even less parking on couch. he knew, he knew.<br /><br />somewhat interestingly, he claimed that the onstreet parking on davis is largely park and ride -- in other words, <span style="font-weight:bold;">roof rackers from gresham who park in this district for free and bike the rest of the way in</span> to their jobs downtown (and inflate the numbers on the bridge counts). i suggested that this problem could be addressed by limiting onstreet parking to two hours. but he and i agreed that lack of enforcement would probably undermine this approach.<br /><br />also, i am wondering why these people don't just bike to the MAX. possibly this guy is overstating the problem, but it is certainly the case that we need to come to grips with onstreet parking as part of any comprehensive transportation strategy.<br /><br />anyway, to get to the point.<br /><br />the impetus for the project, according to the storyboards, is that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the burnside/couch couplet has pushed some bicyclists onto davis, but also some motorists, quite a number of whom are speeding</span>. the speed bumps are already scheduled to go in, <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53364&a=315665">pretty much right away</a>. removing the center stripe and putting down sharrows are still awaiting approval.<br /><br />the feedback PBoT was actually looking for from this open house has mostly to do with <span style="font-weight:bold;">intersection treatments at 12th and at sandy</span>. nothing in particular has yet been proposed, and in fact the third storyboard says pretty much straight out that <span style="font-weight:bold;">they are not looking at signalizing the intersection with 12th or extending the curbs there</span>, because this would impede the flow of truck traffic. <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=53364&a=315668">they are looking for "creative" solutions</a>. got any? i don't.<br /><br />the situation at sandy for cyclists heading east is complicated by the fact that the approach is at such an oblique angle -- and midblock, halfway between 15th and 16th. there really is nothing you can do there, apart from a signal, but i scribbled out some post-it notes and stuck them here and there on the map to suggest that they <span style="font-weight:bold;">divert eastbound bike traffic to 14th and then put a much larger cut through the island they have constructed there</span> to allow cyclists to continue east on couch. of course this would require an additional signal phase specific to bike traffic, and possibly some alteration of the curb extension they have already built to prevent motorists from connecting across on westbound couch.<br /><br />off in a corner of the third storyboard was a summary description of something called the <a href="http://www.pdc.us/bb/docs/Burnside-Bridgehead-Framework-Plan.pdf">"burnside bridgehead framework plan,"</a> which is a project of the <a href="http://www.pdc.us/bb/default.asp">portland development commission</a>. among other things, that plan would connect davis down to 2nd and from there up to the burnside bridge. but there is a great deal more to it than that.<br /><br />the plan would <a href="http://www.pdc.us/bb/images/framework-plan-components.png">completely redevelop a four-block area</a> north of the burnside bridge to davis, from 2nd to MLK, as a sort of catalyst to redevelopment throughout the district. all kinds of mixed use, etc. might have the effect of slowing traffic on MLK itself.<br /><br />not sure what kind of feedback, if any, ellen is expecting on the bridgehead framework plan.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-28340653110121960162010-09-09T19:41:00.000-07:002010-09-10T10:48:10.114-07:00re "move over" blog postsent the following <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/37184891/e-mail-to-joe-rose">e-mail message</a> to joe rose last night:<br /><br />joe,<br /><br />i really cannot express how disappointed i was to see this blog post.<a href=" http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/09/ant_keep_up_mr_bicyclist_the_p.html"><br />http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2010/09/ant_keep_up_mr_bicyclist_the_p.html</a><br />the statute clearly says that a cyclist can claim the lane if it is too narrow to share.<br /><br />typical speeds downtown are about 12 mph (unless you want to make a full stop at each light), and there are usually adjacent lanes motorists could use to overtake. (and hey, if they can't overtake, then maybe the cyclist isn't actually going slower than traffic after all.)<br /><br />your treatment of this subject was very sloppy, and the headline is an outrage. in case you had not noticed, a great many people are completely incapable of thinking for themselves and rely on the popular media to tell them what to believe. this places a special responsibility on journalists to do the critical analysis and lay it out there for everyone to see. instead, you add fuel to this ongoing "controversy" between cyclists and motorists. i put the word in quotes because in fact the only motorists who have a problem are those who buy in to the story (see above re "incapable of thinking").<br /><br />you say you spoke with this motorist on the phone. what street was it? how many lanes in each direction? what was the speed of traffic that this cyclist was supposedly not keeping up with? was there onstreet parking? etc., etc., etc. if you asked these questions, which i doubt, the answers should have been spelled out in your blog post (see above re "lay it out there").<br /><br />i call shenanigans.<br /><br />r.<br /><br />p.s. on an unrelated subject. the phrase "begs the question" refers to a logical fallacy in which the conclusion you are trying to prove is assumed at the outset. the phrase you are looking for in your little aside about the $94 fines is "raises the question."zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-58424308631347432012010-09-09T18:49:00.000-07:002010-09-09T18:51:53.132-07:00boneshaker<a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/37183271/Fixed">something i wrote</a> for <a href="http://www.wolverinefarmpublishing.org/publications/boneshaker.html">boneshaker</a>zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-36355822179300020552010-08-30T21:59:00.000-07:002010-08-30T22:02:04.658-07:00first foraylast friday evening we did this scattermass traffic-calming pedestrian action l. is calling <span style="font-weight:bold;">"the human speed bump project."</span> all two of us met outside the star e rose and went inside for a cup of something before hitting the streets. the organizer required us to swear commitment to "safety first." at five promptly we went out into the field.<br /><br />one by one, at a distance of roughly a block apart, we crossed <span style="font-weight:bold;">each and every zebra striped crosswalk</span>, two at each intersection, working our way east to 31st and then back, sometimes the same crosswalk twice in a row if the opportunity afforded. we gave buses and fire trucks and even cyclists a pass.<br /><br />the idea was to start into the crosswalk just an instant before the gesture would seem political, but when the effect would still be to cause the motorist to slow down. if the motorist had to stop, i would give a friendly wave thank you. l. had one situation where the motorist simply veered around her, a big red pickup. but that was unusual.<br /><br />even with just the two of us this was surprisingly effective. we often succeeded in slowing motor traffic for two blocks at a time. with a much larger scattermass the effect might be to <span style="font-weight:bold;">take back the street for primary pedestrian use</span>. this is something people can actually do.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-63137977095631082432010-08-22T20:25:00.000-07:002010-10-15T22:48:31.625-07:00a tally of two intersectionsrecently i <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=44671">volunteered to count bicyclists</a> at each of four intersections as part of PBoT's annual effort to estimate the number of total bike trips. they are trying to do counts at about 175 intersections during peak hours in july, august, and september. not sure if they have enough volunteers to cover everything.<br /><br />i chose <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/36276927/Counts">these four intersections</a> specifically because they have issues with which i am familiar, and because i have my own ideas about what "should" be done to make them more amenable to bike traffic.<br /><br />so i admit i went into this with an agenda.<br /><br />let me talk about just two of the four intersections. the intersection of northeast 28th with glisan, and the intersection of northeast 12th with irving. there is some pretty substantial throughput of cyclists through these intersections during peak hours, together with some pretty high volume motor traffic.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">northeast 28th at glisan</span><br /><br />in the space of two hours, from four to six p.m. on tuesday, july 27, i counted 277 cyclists, about two-thirds male, about one-third not wearing helmets, of which latter group not quite three-quarters were male.<br /><br />i mention helmets because they had us counting that, and the male/female split, together with how many of each of the twelve possible maneuvers through the intersection -- straight through, left turn, right turn from each of the four directions -- cyclists performed.<br /><br />somewhat more than half the bike traffic was straight through north or south on 28th. slightly over one-third arrived at the intersection from the south on 28th, slightly less than a third from the north. about twenty percent arrived from the west on glisan, and only about one-eighth from the east. <span style="font-weight:bold;">fully seven percent were riding on sidewalks</span> through part or all of the intersection, mostly north along 28th, which brought the nominal intersection count down to 269.<br /><br />five people (not quite two percent) <span style="font-weight:bold;">found it necessary to execute left turns in the "copenhagen" or "box" fashion</span>, including at least three arriving from the west on glisan and heading north on 28th -- and this <span style="font-weight:bold;">despite the fact that there is a dedicated left turn lane</span> there.<br /><br />quite a number of cyclists heading straight through north on 28th were <span style="font-weight:bold;">positioned so far to the right that they found themselves trapped behind parked cars on the far side of the intersection,</span> outside the laundromat, and had to wait to swerve out. to me, this says "sharrows on 28th, throughout the corridor" but again, i have an agenda.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">northeast 12th at irving<br /></span><br />on thursday, august 5, again from four to six p.m., i counted 302 cyclists, again about two-thirds male, about one-quarter not wearing helmets (a different crowd), of which latter group slightly over three-quarters were male.<br /><br />somewhat over half of the bike traffic was straight through north or south (about two to one north in the first hour, about even the second hour). <span style="font-weight:bold;">roughly one-quarter were turning left onto irving from southbound 12th,</span> and of these more than a quarter -- <span style="font-weight:bold;">close to seven percent of the entire intersection count -- executed this turn as a "copenhagen" left,</span> many of them arriving on the sidewalk. a fair number made the turn from the left edge of the through lane, but those who asserted the center of the left turn lane seemed to be confident of their position. my observation.<br /><br />in fact, <span style="font-weight:bold;">more than one-sixth of the entire count, exclamation point, completed some portion of their transit through the intersection on the sidewalk</span> -- mostly southbound on the west side of the bridge, and then getting into the bike lane on the far side of the intersection. this did not bring the nominal count down much at all, because nearly all cyclists who did some part of their transit on the sidewalk did another part on the street.<br /><br />it was my impression that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the northbound count was probably low,</span> due to the construction that still continues at 12th and burnside. the counts are continuing through september, and if the construction clears up, i intend to go back and count this intersection again.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">anyway.</span><br /><br />what lessons to take from this left turn business, and from the high proportion of riders taking the sidewalk (again, this is primarily a matter of southbound traffic on the west sidewalk). one: people don't much, statistically, "like" the southbound setup on the bridge in general, and they don't like the left turn situation in particular. granted, we are talking about one-sixteenth of the total bike volume here, people southbound, turning left to go irving. but even the through lane, some significant number of people don't like. if there is no striped lane, you gotta fend for yourself, <span style="font-weight:bold;">and a lot (and i mean "a lot") of people just will not do it.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">however.</span> and here i am speaking as a vehicular cyclist, if you will forgive me. oh, and incidentally. quite a number of left turning motorists were firing up their cell phones for the long highway trek east on 84. quite a number. i wasn't counting them. anecdotal.<br /><br />okay, so i don't really object to marking these sidewalks as multi-use paths. go for it. and you can even guide people in to the copenhagen left the way you did at weidler and williams. i get it, okay. and hey, <span style="font-weight:bold;">maybe a sufficiently intrusive infrastructure will get some of these motorists off their cell phones.</span> right now they are on autopilot.<br /><br />but there are twenty-something percent of people making this left who kinda know how to do it (though some of them hang just outside the right edge of the turn lane). and what i do not want to see is something that tells motorists, "they [meaning "those cyclists"] belong over there."<br /><br />not just talking the mandatory sidepath legality here, though it seems to me this kind of treatment could actually fall within 814.420. i am talking perception. <span style="font-weight:bold;">you have been putting sharrows all over these sidestreets, but out here where they could do some good, nothing.</span> and if you put up the multi-use path and the copenhagen box, and you do not put down sharrows, <span style="font-weight:bold;">the message will be clear, and the vehicular cyclist will be even more unwelcome.</span> the motorist will feel that his sense of entitlement to the travel lanes has been vindicated. <span style="font-weight:bold;">sharrows are a must here, whether or not you do the multi-use path.</span><br /><br />but <span style="font-weight:bold;">these people are not entitled, they are intruders,</span> and they need to be reminded of this. i was once one myself. man, i was mean, but i'm changing that scene, and i'm doing the best that i can. <span style="font-weight:bold;">let's not continue to cut motorists slack.</span> you wanna get vehicle miles traveled down, you gotta bring down the hammer, make it difficult, turn the tables, <span style="font-weight:bold;">make them the outsider.</span><br /><br />there. i spit my piece.<br /><br />and another point. i was not stationed at the north end of the bridge, but i go through there all the time, and can tell you -- again anectodally -- that a cyclist coming off the sidewalk northbound unexpectedly when i am making a right onto lloyd to get to the left turn lane, a cyclist doing that at anything faster than a walking pace, is a problem. first hand experience just the other day. so let's not be exacerbating that problem, either.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-14156913705019619572010-07-12T13:23:00.000-07:002010-07-12T14:24:51.313-07:00open letter to the BACJuly 12, 2010<br /><br />Open Letter to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:<br /><br />At the BAC meeting in April, vice chair Robert Pickett gave a report from a subcommittee looking into the committee's policy review process. Among other things, Ofcr. Pickett proposed that the committee find some mechanism by which it might "proactively" seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory, rather than limiting itself to reviewing projects PBoT chooses to bring to the committee.<br /><br />After the meeting, I approached Ofcr. Pickett to suggest that the committee might go farther, by proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. Ofcr. Pickett acknowledged the point.<br /><br />As it happened, something along these lines had occurred <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/04/diversion-street.html">earlier that very evening</a>, when Liz Mahon, project manager for the Division "streetscape" project, presented <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29935843/Mahon-Memo-041310">draft language</a> to be added to the project report prior to its being adopted by the city council. The draft language acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that diversion of Division motor traffic onto Clinton as a result of the project would be unfortunate.<br /><br />The draft language proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed in about two years, and it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on Clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices "or passive/active diversion measures on Clinton" between 12th and 39th.<br /><br />At least one member of the committee expressed the concern that the phrase "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (<span style="font-style:italic;">i.e.</span>, bringing the counts back down), and Ms. Mahon said she would try to work on appropriate language. One member of the committee, Tom Ralley as I recall, noted that traffic counts on Clinton at 26th are already right around 3k.<br /><br />Roger Geller agreed the draft needed "a more comprehensive look."<br /><br />I will acknowledge that this interchange did not take the form of a motion, with a second and discussion and a vote expressing the sense of the committee that language concerning remediation "should be added" to the report as submitted to the council. In any event, no change was made to the draft language in the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=51323&a=305520">final report as submitted</a> to the council, <span style="font-style:italic;">i.e.</span>, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34232069/Diversion-Statement-Final">nothing was said</a> about remediation. Of course, remediation of an existing situation is not really within the scope of Ms. Mahon's project.<br /><br />However, I would suggest that this is exactly the sort of issue on which the BAC might find its proactive role. Something needs to be done at 26th and Clinton. The committee might ask PBoT what has become of the Clinton Street bike boulevard "enhancement" project, that was supposed to have been completed last year. The committee might write a formal letter to PBoT expressing the sense that the proposed reconfiguration of the intersection at 26th is urgent, etc.<br /><br />The committee might make similar inquiry of PBoT with respect to the diversion of motor traffic onto Ankeny as a result of the Burnside/Couch couplet project. This does not appear to be a temporary phenomenon, related only to the ongoing roadwork at Burnside and 12th, but a potentially permanent consequence of perceived bottlenecks at that intersection and at Sandy and 14th.<br /><br />In each case, the committee might recommend that "passive/active diversion measures" be implemented. There are four speed bumps on Ankeny between 12th and 20th, but these do not seem to have alleviated the problem. Perhaps something a bit more forceful, like the diverter at 20th, could be put in every three or four blocks, restoring Ankeny and the various side streets to their intended use as local service streets and neighborhood collectors.<br /><br />In this connection, it might be noted that using shared lane markings, or "sharrows," on bike boulevards is at least arguably inappropriate, as these are <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32802487/9c-07">intended to indicate lateral lane positioning</a> on somewhat more heavily traveled streets, where the outer travel lane is too narrow to safely share, advising cyclists to move away from the curb or out of the "door zone" and advising motorists that they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane. Sharrows are not intended to designate lower trafficked streets as giving priority to cyclists, and although they might be seen as "passive" traffic calming devices, they are unlikely to have the effect of stemming the diversion of, for example, Burnside traffic onto Ankeny.<br /><br />Yet (and this is another issue on which the BAC might become proactive), PBoT has begun to use sharrows in exactly this manner, as "wayfinders" on several of the newer bike boulevards. Evidently, PBoT <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32095568/16449-Prospectus-Final">sought and obtained a grant</a> of $1 million from federal stimulus funds specifically for this purpose. On the narrower streets, such as Klickitat and Holman, these markings are placed literally on or even to the left of the center line, so that it is apparent they are not being used (and no motorist seeing these would imagine that they are being used) to indicate lateral lane positioning.<br /><br />The committee might ask PBoT to explain its decision to put sharrows down as wayfinders on bike boulevards, rather than as lateral lane positioning indicators on streets where they are much more obviously needed -- 28th from Stark to Broadway, for example, or Division itself (and not just at 21st), or Hawthorne from 12th to 50th. Or <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-were-they-thinking.html">instead of the striped bike lane on Couch</a> from 6th down to the bridge ramp.<br /><br />The committee might express a concern that the use of sharrows as wayfinders on bike boulevards <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/06/sharrows-as-wayfinders.html">could dilute the intended function</a> of this traffic control device, so that if they ever are installed on some of the streets where they are needed, they will have become ineffective.<br /><br />There are no doubt fifty or a hundred other issues on which the BAC might proactively engage, but I mention these because it seems to me they have some urgency.<br /><br />None of this is meant, incidentally, as an attack on PBoT's efforts, but simply as underscoring the need for BAC to adopt a more proactive stance in order more effectively to fulfill its advisory role.<br /><br />I would also like to express some slight concern as to the legal status of the committee's voting membership. Section 2 of Article II of the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34232248/Bylaws">committee's bylaws</a> requires that invitations to the community to apply for membership on the committee are to be extended "at intervals not to exceed two years." Section 3 of the same article states that the term of membership is three years. The last invitation to the community was made sometime in 2007. Five members <a href=" http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=37435&a=259891">joined the committee in January, 2008</a>. Probably the terms of some of the other members have expired. This matter should be addressed sooner rather than later.<br /><br />As indicated above, this is an open letter. I am sending a .pdf copy to Roger Geller with the request that he distribute it to the committee, but I have also posted the text to my blog, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/34233891/Open-Letter-to-BAC-071210">with a .pdf copy linked</a>, at http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter-to-bac.html. The text as posted includes hyperlinks to various documents and to earlier blog posts. These links are listed below.<br /><br />In addition, although my list of e-mail addresses for individual committee members is incomplete, and although it may include some stale addresses, I intend to distribute the letter to at least some of the committee members directly.<br /><br />Signed,<br /><br /><br />R. Willis<br />rawillis3@juno.com<br />http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-49189696547895020462010-06-21T15:30:00.000-07:002010-06-21T20:59:37.008-07:00sharrows as wayfindersthe device over there on the right, with the silhouette of the bike and the two chevrons, is a "shared lane marking," or more colloquially, a "sharrow."<br /><br />the 2009 manual on uniform traffic control devices <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32802487/9c-07">includes the sharrow at section 9C.07</a> as an optional treatment on roads on which the outer travel lane is too narrow to share. the intended purpose of the device is to indicate "lateral lane positioning," that is,<br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">(a) to tell cyclists they should move to the left, away from the curb or out of the door zone, and<br />(b) to tell motorists they should expect to see cyclists claiming the entire lane.<br /></span>the device may be used in conjunction with signage indicating "bicycles may use full lane," though this is not required.<br /><br />over the past several weeks, PBoT has been putting these down on some of the newly designated bike boulevards -- klickitat, holman, going, etc. but they are not being used to indicate lateral lane positioning. <span style="font-weight:bold;">they are being used as wayfinders.</span><br /><br />evidently, PBoT made this choice because <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32095568/16449-Prospectus-Final">there was stimulus money available</a>, but they needed to use MUTCD compliant signage and pavement treatments to get the grant. they did snag close a million dollars for this project, but it seems to me <span style="font-weight:bold;">the money would have been better spent putting sharrows where they are actually needed</span>, for example on northeast 28th, or on southeast hawthorne, <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-were-they-thinking.html">or on the couch/burnside couplet</a>. evidently putting sharrows on those roads is not a priority for PBoT.<br /><br />as wayfinders, the sharrows are quite visible. but something else on a similar scale would have served just as well, though the money would have had to come from some other source, maybe bioswales.<br /><br />my objection is not only that we need sharrows elsewhere, but that they are inappropriate here. <span style="font-weight:bold;">lane positioning is not really an issue on a bike boulevard</span>, where there is hardly any motor traffic, relatively few cars parked on the street, and average speeds are in the teens and low twenties.<br /><br />and to make matters worse, on the narrower streets, like klickitat and holman, these sharrows have been placed not just to the left of the door zone, as contemplated in the MUTCD, but right on the center line (sometimes, weirdly, slightly to the left of center). <span style="font-weight:bold;">this completely negates the intended purpose of the sharrow, diluting its usefulness in situations where it is actually needed.</span>zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-12185742754615411802010-06-01T12:57:00.000-07:002010-06-02T19:17:01.448-07:00pushbacksome weeks ago in <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/04/so-is-this-done-deal.html">"so is this a done deal,"</a> i described the first of two open houses at which PBoT rolled out its plans for the klickitat bike boulevard, um, neighborhood greenway. the subtext was the extent to which decisions might already have been made, and the open houses might have been a facade.<br /><br />but something did actually happen on the way to the second forum.<br /><br />at the first open house, the storyboards showed <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32324309/Medians">alternative intersection treatments</a> at key crossings such as MLK, 15th, and (the focus of today's discussion) 33rd.<br /><br />klickitat at 33rd is a pretty tricky situation even if you are not trying to put in a bikeway. just a block down a pretty steep hill from a signal at fremont. close to 10k cars each direction every day. posted thirty, but you know how people do.<br /><br />there is a striped crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, with the yellow diamond signs, etc., but not on the south. in fact, on the south, there are signs warning pedestrians not to cross. there is a median strip to the north of the crosswalk which presumably is intended to slow the downhill traffic somewhat. and it provides something of a pedestrian refuge halfway across, albeit unprotected.<br /><br />why anyone thought it would be better to put the crosswalk only on the uphill side of the intersection i don't know. possibly so that a northbound motorist wanting to turn left onto klickitat would not be left hanging in the intersection waiting for pedestrians to clear. though there is a center turn lane there. hard to say, really.<br /><br />the existing design exposes a southbound motorist who condescends to respect the pedestrian crosswalk to the risk of being rear-ended.<br /><br />anyway, the proposed treatment at this intersection, as presented at the first open house, was to <span style="font-weight:bold;">extend the median through the entire intersection</span>, with cut-throughs for bike traffic and another pedestrian crosswalk on the south, with both pedestrian refuges protected. the existing center left turn lane northbound on 33rd would be removed, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">left turns would be forbidden</span> (actually, physically prevented) from any direction.<br /><br />well.<br /><br />this drew a response from at least one resident. a guy named jim knoble, who lives a few doors east of the intersection on klickitat, <a href=" http://www.scribd.com/doc/31044874/Klickitat-Flyer-no-to-Median">put up flyers</a> around the neighborhood, urging people to contact kyle chesik at PBoT and voice objections to the proposed median extension. and show up at the second open house.<br /><br />knoble's argument was that residents in that one block of klickitat would be forced to travel uphill either on 33rd or on klickitat itself to get out of the neighborhood, and that this would be especially troublesome when there was snow or ice on the streets. he also noted <span style="font-weight:bold;">that the proposed treatment would do nothing to slow motor traffic pouring downhill from fremont</span>, which is of course the actual problem.<br /><br />what knoble proposed was to retain the existing configuration but add a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, synchronized with the signal at fremont.<br /><br />the flyer did attract quite a number of fresh faces to the second open house, which was crowded into a space in the front end of the library in the alameda elementary school. not all of them agreed with knoble's analysis. some people felt that if you were going to leave the intersection at 33rd unregulated and then also turn some of the stop signs along klickitat west of 33rd around, you <span style="font-weight:bold;">would defeat the purpose of discouraging cut-through traffic</span>.<br /><br />but the weird thing was, and this is the point i have been leading up to here, before the meeting even began, <span style="font-weight:bold;">PBoT had taken the extended median idea completely off the table. no longer even an option.</span> <a href=" http://www.scribd.com/doc/32324512/Intersections-2">the new storyboards</a> showed simply that the intersection remained a problem, and that maybe a hawk beacon (question mark) might be put there.<br /><br />greg raisman was there at the second open house, along with an engineer whose name escapes me, providing backup to kyle. greg said it would cost too much to put in a pedestrian and cyclist activated crossing signal, etc., under more recent MUTCD standards -- a quarter mil or something --, and that the beacon actually has a higher compliance rate anyway.<br /><br />he did not really respond to the objection that <span style="font-weight:bold;">leaving the intersection unregulated while turning stop signs along klickitat would invite cut-through traffic,</span> except to say that <span style="font-weight:bold;">other calming measures several blocks away would somehow discourage this</span>. he pointed repeatedly to a proposed pocket park at the alameda crossing, and to the closing of the block between 23rd and 24th at the magdalen school.<br /><br />so that is what we are left with, subject to possible adjustment after monitoring the situation for a couple of years. the existing striped crosswalk, with maybe a hawk signal. kudos to knoble for effective advocacy, i guess, and a lesson to the rest of us.<br /><br />in a <a href="http://www.jmknoble.net/portland/klickitat-greenway.html">followup posting to his webpage</a>, knoble says PBoT has committed to "a pair of better-marked, more visible crosswalks," plus the hawk beacon (without the question mark). i think this somewhat overstates the actual commitment.<br /><br />interestingly, an <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/32340424/Evaluation-Goals">"evaluation goals" document</a> released after the second open house mentions "curb extensions" at a number of intersections, to "reduce crossing distance and improve crossing visibility." 33rd is listed, though this may be an error.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-69545407853198524752010-05-12T00:08:00.000-07:002010-05-12T08:04:26.699-07:00well, well, wellsome interesting stuff at tonight's BAC meeting.<br /><br />item one:<br /><br />roger geller asked for input on <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31239789/Letter-to-Cities-Counties">the current ODoT bike/ped grant cycle</a>. proposals due july 9. up to one million to be awarded on a single project, twenty pct. of the entire grant budget. OBPAC saying "think big," "showcase projects," "community-wide impact," etc.<br /><br />roger mentioned a couple of "candidate projects," maybe put "hawk" signals at every major intersection along some corridor out east, beyond 82nd, maybe "improve" the klickitat walkway, taking advantage of a greater portion of the sixty-foot right of way. looking for other suggestions.<br /><br />alicia crain urged that any proposal should focus on closing what she called <span style="font-weight:bold;">the "equity gap," increasing bike/ped access for underserved populations</span>. she mentioned cully in particular. mark ginsberg suggested going for the cutting edge, maybe close the transit mall to automobile traffic. several other ideas put forward.<br /><br />item two:<br /><br />among the informal announcements at the start of the meeting, mark ginsburg mentioned that the BTA board election is coming up in september, and in effect <span style="font-weight:bold;">put out a call for anyone interested in contesting some seats</span>.<br /><br />item three:<br /><br />katja dillmann, transportation policy advisor to the mayor, asked for feedback on <a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-were-they-thinking.html">the difficulties with the couch approach to the burnside bridge</a> and on <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/31240583/PBoT-Press-Release-050610">PBoT's response to date</a>. maybe implying that further decisionmaking on this matter might be made <span style="font-weight:bold;">over susan keil's head</span>.<br /><br />ian stude said he had biked down couch from 14th and found that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the lights seemed to be timed to about 20 mph, rather than 12 mph</span> as had been stated in the planning documents. dillmann actually <span style="font-weight:bold;">confirmed that this was the case</span>. apparently the change was made by some traffic engineer (she said who, but my notes are sketchy) in order to accommodate the throughput from sandy.<br /><br />i seconded stude's suggestion that the timing be brought down closer to 12 mph, and i also suggested that PBoT simply <span style="font-weight:bold;">get rid of the bike lane altogether</span>, pointing out the conflict with the bus stop and the right hook at grand, and that they reduce the posted advisory speed on the transition itself to 15 mph.<br /><br />somewhat to my surprise, there was a certain amount of support for these views among the committee. <span style="font-weight:bold;">a straw poll actually favored asking the mayor's office to "look at" taking out the bike lane</span>.<br /><br />more to come.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-66649532966775684892010-05-04T13:21:00.000-07:002010-05-11T09:39:06.446-07:00what were they thinkingthe couch street portion of <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=46449&">the burnside/couch couplet project</a> is essentially completed, and there has already been <a href="http://bikeportland.org/2010/04/20/how-are-burnsidecouch-changes-treating-you/">some negative response</a> from cyclists.<br /><br />couch itself is now one-way west from 14th to MLK, with signals at every intersection timed to about 20 mph during peak hours. posted limit 25 mph. seven foot parking lanes on both sides, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30905705/Figure-5">two eleven foot travel lanes, no striped bike lane</a> until you get to 6th.<br /><br />at MLK, <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30905756/Figure-7">the entry ramp onto the burnside bridge</a> begins. an "s" curve of about 300 linear feet. there is a striped bike lane, five feet wide, and two travel lanes, each twelve feet wide. <span style="font-weight:bold;">a hard turn to the left, followed almost immediately by a hard turn to the right</span> onto the bridge.<br /><br />over on the left as you cross MLK is a yellow diamond hazard sign showing the left turn, with an advisory speed reduction sign indicating 20 mph. nothing similar on the right.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">a more sensible speed indication would be 15 mph, and a more sensible treatment would be not a striped bike lane but sharrows.</span> a motorist in the right travel lane making the final right onto the bridge will tend to encroach into the striped bike lane, and a cyclist who allows herself to be relegated to the bike lane will inevitably get pinched in the corner.<br /><br />what has already happened is that a cyclist or two has wiped out on the thermoplastic lane stripe itself. and <a href="http://bikeportland.org/2010/04/30/safety-concerns-result-in-changes-to-new-curves-on-couch/">in the course of responding to this</a> apparently PBoT discovered that the line between the two travel lanes was mistakenly placed a couple of feet to the right of center, making the right travel lane too narrow (and exacerbating the problem at the right turn onto the bridge).<br /><br />the present plan apparently is to <span style="font-weight:bold;">widen the bike lane to six feet and create a four foot buffer</span>. not sure where they are going to find room for all that. through most of the "s" curve the available pavement width is 29 or so feet. so presumably we are talking only about the final right turn onto the bridge.<br /><br />again, <span style="font-weight:bold;">getting rid of the sidepath and slowing motor traffic to 15 mph</span> would have been a much better treatment. in my view.<br /><br />early on, some of the negative commentary on bikeportland.org was to the effect that PBoT should have striped a bike lane on couch from 14th on down. and here i disagree. <span style="font-weight:bold;">with eleven foot travel lanes and lights timed to 20 mph, a cyclist should have no difficulty taking the lane.</span> again, maybe sharrows. (note: when the streetcar goes in, the design calls for <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30905742/Figure-6">dropping the north parking lane</a>, which would then become a seven foot bike lane.)<br /><br />aside: <span style="font-weight:bold;">why they want to waste paint putting sharrows on these "next generation" bike boulevards is beyond me.</span> these are not route markers, they are a device to alert cyclists and motorists that the lane is too narrow to share, and to indicate that a cyclist is likely to assert a position somewhat to the left of the door zone or the gutter. in other words, to discourage unsafe passing. if motor traffic on the bike boulevard is sufficiently calmed (or diverted), sharrows should not be necessary.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">meanwhile, there are thoroughfares where this kind of marking is actually needed, such as couch, and instead we are given sidepaths at the critical junctures</span>.<br /><br />query whether this sidepath, couch from 6th onto the bridge, is mandatory per ORS 814.420(2). there was a public process, after all.<br /><br />but incidentally. or not so incidentally.<br /><br />in <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30905761/Exceptions">applying to ODoT for an exception</a> from AAHSTO standards on lane widths on couch -- cross section 36 feet rather than 38 on a minor arterial -- <span style="font-weight:bold;">PBoT indicated it would post the speed limit at 20 mph rather than 25 mph</span>. among other things, they wanted to preserve the twelve foot sidewalk and planting strip to enhance walkability. no indication in the public documents whether the exception was granted (presumably yes), whether the exception was conditioned on the lower limit, or <span style="font-weight:bold;">what the hell happened to the 20 mph limit</span>.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-19542806803998411552010-04-17T22:45:00.000-07:002010-04-19T14:43:56.450-07:00diversion streetliz mahon, PBoT project manager for the <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/30130023/Division">division "streetscape design" project</a>, distributed <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29935843/Mahon-Memo-041310">this memo</a> at the BAC meeting last week. <span style="font-weight:bold;">it does not purport to be bureau policy</span>. what it purports to be is an internal memo, liz to roger, copy to the BAC, suggesting that certain language be added to the project report prior to its presentation to city council, <span style="font-weight:bold;">addressing concerns expressed by BAC at an earlier meeting</span>. her stated purpose in appearing before the committee last week was to confirm that this language sufficiently addressed those concerns.<br /><br />if that does not give the appearance of public input from a bicycling constituency into the policymaking process, then you have to ask yourself what exactly BAC is.<br /><br />and what the proposed language said was<br /> (a) it acknowledged the existence of the clinton street bike boulevard as "a vibrant and well-established bicycle facility."<br /> (b) it acknowledged BAC's expressed concern that <span style="font-weight:bold;">diversion of division traffic onto clinton as a result of the project</span> would be unfortunate.<br /> (c) it proposed to monitor traffic counts between 12th and 39th, and specifically to take counts before the project is commenced and again after the project is completed <span style="font-weight:bold;">in about two years</span>.<br /> (d) it committed, in the event PBoT found diversion did occur, to take "measures" to "prevent any further diversion," with input from "the community and residents on clinton," possibly including traffic calming devices <span style="font-weight:bold;">"or passive/active diversion measures on clinton"</span> between 12th and 39th.<br /><br />someone expressed the concern that "any further" did not address the problem of remediation (<span style="font-style:italic;">i.e.</span>, bringing the counts back down), and liz said she would try to work on appropriate language. someone else asked <span style="font-weight:bold;">what about diversion during construction itself</span>, and liz said the project plan would provide for diversion that did not encourage motorist use of clinton. tom ralley noted that <span style="font-weight:bold;">traffic counts on clinton at 26th are already right around 3k</span>. roger suggested that was sort of the upper limit, clinton was an early rollout of the bike boulevard model, etc.<br /><br />roger said the memo needed "a more comprehensive look."<br /><br />the rest of the meeting was taken up with a discussion of the project review process. a subcommittee headed by robert pickett gave its report, proposing a more formal process for presentations by staff, and <span style="font-weight:bold;">a mechanism by which the committee might pro-actively seek presentations on projects the committee itself identifies from PBoT's inventory</span>.<br /><br />another way in which the committee might be proactive would be in proposing projects or policy that PBoT has not already come up with. for example, the BAC might suggest to PBoT that <span style="font-weight:bold;">the existing situation on clinton already needs to be addressed</span> with calming and/or diversion, without regard to what further burdens might flow from the division streetscape project. i suggested as much to officer pickett. he seemed to take my point.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-76587738463381209272010-04-10T20:24:00.001-07:002010-04-13T16:42:41.111-07:00so is this a done dealwent to this open house the other night. the guy from PBoT was there, kyle chisek, project manager, with three easels and a bunch of huge storyboards, the first set of which introduced the idea of what exactly a bike boulevard -- excuse me, "neighborhood greenway" -- is, and sort of generally why klickitat was chosen, etc. <br /><br />and at this point a naysayer puts up a hand and asks, "so is this a done deal," and then, "but it's a done deal, isn't it," when kyle doesn't all that clearly explain that sir, you did have your chance back when we were doing the 2030 plan, and if you showed up then and objected, guess what, the party has moved on. three or four people from the audience heckled "let the man give his talk," and after awhile the guy left.<br /><br />i heard later that a cyclist waylaid him in the vestibule on his way out and had a civil conversation in which they concluded that they actually agreed on some things. actually, the guy says, i'd rather put more bikes on fremont and slow these speeding cars the hell down.<br /><br />meanwhile kyle moves forward, talking about traffic counts and calming and the benefits to everyone, on a bike or not, and people seem receptive, actually, with the conversation occasionally nudged by one of several bike activists who have placed themselves about the room. friends of trees gonna put in some street trees.<br /><br />and pretty soon we are talking about <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50518&a=295581">specific treatments at specific intersections</a> and which of two or three proposed alternatives do people like or hate. a consensus actually emerged that <span style="font-weight:bold;">west of 11th and maybe even as far as 19th you pretty much should be on siskiyou</span>, and the only real question is how to get across at MLK, and there were some voices in favor of morris, <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50518&a=295578">which is what the storyboard indicated</a> was PBoT's favored choice.<br /><br />interesting conversation about what to do at 23rd, where one block has been closed during school hours at the magdalen school. kyle had a card suggesting some serious narrowing and maybe bollards, and if it turned out there was still a problem with cyclists blowing through a bunch of kids, <span style="font-weight:bold;">maybe even a gated chicane</span>. someone pointed out that the intrepid one percent would simply deviate several blocks in advance, and this linked back in an interesting way to the comment one resident made near the outset -- yes, there was more than one cautious to negative voice in the room -- that hey, if this is the bike boulevard, can we then ban bikes on fremont? to a lesser extent, the party had moved on from this as well.<br /><br />there was more, but right about here i split. it was after eight. a little over fifty people in the room when i arrived, maybe twenty when i left.<br /><br />there will be a follow up on may 6, similar format, in which however what kyle will be presenting will in fact be <span style="font-weight:bold;">the done deal</span>.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-54024679561456905582010-04-06T16:57:00.000-07:002010-04-06T21:08:40.361-07:00meeting notesthis is is a page from a presentation PBoT has put together to promote bike boulevards:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513837/Northeast-Going-at-33rd">http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513837/Northeast-Going-at-33rd<br /></a><br />the page shows the intersection of NE going with 33rd, crossing offset more than a hundred feet. no signal, stop signs on both going approaches, 33rd treated as the through street, posted limit 30 mph. right of way 36 feet, parking on both sides, with occasional bulbouts, effective travel lane about 11 feet each way.<br /><br />the plan is to carve out a two-way cycle track along the west edge of 33rd, with <span style="font-weight:bold;">some kind of box</span> at the north end for cyclists heading north and east to sit in, waiting for cross traffic to clear. not entirely clear from this diagram how wide the bike lanes would be, but let's say six feet with maybe a three-foot buffer. something like that.<br /><br />onstreet parking would be eliminated in this half block, and motor traffic would be forbidden to enter going from 33rd altogether.<br /><br />a modest accommodation for the going bike boulevard, <span style="font-weight:bold;">if a bit clumsy at the box</span>. existing signals at alberta and again at prescott perhaps explain a decision not to simply signalize the intersection.<br /><br />my point is this:<br /> (a) obviously <span style="font-weight:bold;">it would be absurd</span> to require me to veer across 33rd to pick up the cycletrack if i am heading north on 33rd from farther south;<br /> (b) even if i am turning left onto 33rd from going heading north, if i am not planning to continue east on going <span style="font-weight:bold;">there is no point</span> in my getting onto the cycletrack and getting hung up in the box when I could simply take the lane;<br /> (c) there will be all kinds of <span style="font-weight:bold;">confusion in and around the box</span>;<br /> (d) motor vehicles parked along the west edge of the road north of the crossing will <span style="font-weight:bold;">block my view</span> of southbound traffic;<br /> (e) etc., etc.<br /><br />frankly, I do not care for the proposed treatment at all, and if it were within the scope of any of the <a href="http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?c=50519&">upcoming open houses</a> i would state my objections there.<br /><br />also [footnote] since this is not an AASHTO/MUTCD approved treatment, it may not technically be subject to 814.420(2), but i begin to tire of PBoT's intentionally obfuscating that question.<br /><br />bottom line, i should not be required to use this facility, and there should not be a statute on the books that gives the police a weapon to require me to show up in traffic court to defend my decision not to use it.<br /><br />if the concern is what do "we" say to a legislator who says, hey, you asked for all this paint and we have a statute that requires motorists to keep out of the designated lane, how can you also ask that you yourselves not be required to use it?, my answer would be, the paint is there to provide comfort to the less intrepid, to encourage them to leave the truck in the driveway every once in awhile and bike to the grocery or the library or whatever.<br /><br />but the more intrepid -- the vehicular cyclists who have been out there for years, just going about their business and mixing it up with the motor traffic -- do not need or want the sidepaths and <span style="font-weight:bold;">should not be corralled into them</span>. an analogy might be training wheels, or one of those pedestrian-activated crossing signals: if you do not need it, you should not be required to use it.<br /><br />i know BTA has been supportive of all this infrastructure, but i think the constituency is larger than that, and "we" need to not ignore the needs of the vehicular cyclist. if not BTA then someone needs to maintain a voice that is identifiably separate from PBoT.<br /><br />the city <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/26579905/Moline-Ltr-112309">takes the position</a> that the public process preceding adoption of the 1998 bike master plan is sufficient for the public hearing requirement. but in the 2030 plan PBoT is considerably more ambiguous with respect to <span style="font-weight:bold;">whether the mandatory sidepath statute applies to the "experimental" treatments</span>, and possibly the two-way track on 33rd would fall into that category. but again, it would be better to have clarity across the board that cyclists are not required to use even the striped bike lanes, period.<br /><br />and frankly my longer range agenda would include getting rid of the far to right law. ORS 811.315 already requires a slower moving vehicle to stay to the right. there is no reason to treat cyclists as secondary road users in the statute, at all.<br /><br />though i do appreciate the exception at 814.430(2)(c) for asserting the lane where it is too narrow to share.<br /><br />at <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/29513614/4-2D">section 4.2D of the 2030 plan</a>, PBoT says they want to engage with "community groups," among others, on the question of possible legislative changes to the mandatory sidepath law. who will step forward?zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-4849983638014961152010-03-22T16:14:00.000-07:002010-03-22T21:59:00.637-07:00the outboxsent the following to mark moline in the city attorney's office:<br /><br />back in november you sent me <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/26579905/Moline-Ltr-112309">the attached letter</a>, taking the position (in effect) that the public hearing requirement of ORS 814.420(2) is met, and a striped bike lane is therefore subject to the mandatory sidepath requirement, if (paraphrasing here) the facility was listed in the 1996 bike master plan, as updated in 1998, and conforms to the design and engineering guidelines set out in appendix A to that plan.<br /><br />i did already understand that this was the city's position, but it was useful (in my view) to get it out in the open, on paper.<br /><br />taking this conversation a step further, i would like to suggest to you that <span style="font-weight:bold;">quite a number of the facilities mentioned in the BMP do not in fact, paint on the ground, conform to the stated guidelines</span>.<br /><br />one example would be northeast tillamook at 41st -- a <span style="font-weight:bold;">four-foot bike lane sandwiched between a seven-foot parking lane and a ten-foot travel lane</span>, flat out nonconformance with the engineering guidelines. and there are many others.<br /><br />in the particular case, you might say, well, if it's in the door zone, and ORS 814.420(3) says you can leave the bike lane to avoid a hazard, what is the problem? but you are telling me the bike lane is certified "safe" per 814.420(2), so <span style="font-weight:bold;">how can it make sense to disregard the stripe because i think the stripe itself is unsafe?</span> probably subparagraph (3) is limited to the case where someone is actually opening a door.<br /><br />more generally, where a narrow bike lane is placed alongside a relatively narrow travel lane, an experienced "vehicular" cyclist would <span style="font-weight:bold;">simply take the lane,</span> and the argument would be that she is <span style="font-weight:bold;">avoiding the hazard of being overtaken too close</span>. as you may know, ORS 811.065, the statute that requires a motorist to leave a safe passing distance in overtaking a cyclist, expressly does not apply when the cyclist is in a striped bike lane.<br /><br />i would like to encourage the city to re-think this, and to announce publicly that the BMP does not, in itself, constitute a public hearing for purposes of 814.420(2), <span style="font-weight:bold;">at least with respect to facilities that do not in fact conform to the engineering guidelines</span> that were the subject of (purported) public hearings.<br /><br />thank you for your continued attention to this matter.zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7605693595484751357.post-41830976552564812392010-03-10T17:29:00.000-08:002010-03-12T17:37:18.185-08:00followupawhile back, in an entry called "<a href="http://taking-the-lane.blogspot.com/2010/01/unfinished-business.html">unfinished business</a>," i talked about a hit and run that happened back in st. louis two years ago. some jerk blew through a red light in a 98 yukon and took out a guy on a mountain bike, breaking his leg and his pelvis and puncturing his lung.<br /><br />lots more detail in the earlier post, but briefly:<br /><br />the prosecutor went to the trouble of getting a grand jury indictment, and the perp was required to post a secured bond of $25k. but then he failed to show for some pretrial hearing, because (as it turned out) he had been jailed across the river on a burglary charge (unrelated, unless maybe he was trying to pay off the bail bondsman).<br /><br />eventually he pled guilty on what they call a <span style="font-weight:bold;">"blind plea," meaning the prosecutor was not offering to recommend a reduced sentence</span>. the maximum sentence in missouri for <a href="http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5770000060.HTM">leaving the scene, class d felony</a>, is four years prison and a $5k fine. <span style="font-weight:bold;">the judge actually did impose the four years, but then suspended execution on two years' probation</span>. apart from the usual conditions -- weapons, controlled substances, associating with other criminals, checking in with your probation officer before leaving the area, etc. -- the probation order required the guy to keep a full time job.<br /><br />what prompted the earlier post was that there was a hearing scheduled to revoke the probation. at the time i supposed that he might have lost a job, but from talking with the prosecutor's office i am gathering that this was actually some kind of fallout from the burglary conviction in illinois.<br /><br />so anyway this is an update.<br /><br />bottom line, on february 19 of this year the probation was reinstated. if this guy can stay out of trouble until march 25, 2011 (which does seem unlikely), he is clear.<br /><br />oh, and he is required to pay $46 to the victims compensation fund. not clear whether he has paid that yet. also unable to find whether the victim has sued the guy for his injuries, which were pretty severe . . .zach benderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09889172803907937727noreply@blogger.com0