randya

https://www.portlandonline.com/transp...44597&a=265909

irwin7638

Thanks for bringing this up! It will help tremendously with a project here in West Michigan.

Marc

randya

You should know that I have reservations about the plan, particularly the reliance on separated bike lanes ('cycle tracks') in an urban grid, because of the high number of intersections and thus motorist turning maneuvers cyclists using such facilities will be exposed to. I'm a much bigger proponent of the use of sharrows, which Portland for some inexplicable reason has decided to reject as a widespread solution. So before you advocate for the Portland-style approach, I suggest you read 'What Happened in Europe', pages 133-138 of Robert Hurst's 'The Cyclist's Manifesto'.

irwin7638

OH, Portland's issues are their issues. I wasn't looking at any recommendations or conclusions, what I liked was the "best practices" survey which provides such a concise description of solutions put in practice.

Bekologist

that's a very comprehensive document, and there was nothing anti-bicyclist in it.

screw the criticism, portland and its cycle tracks either will work or they won't. portland has so much positive going for biking, there's nothing a little UN-vehicularity can do to quell the tide of lawful roadway bicycling in greater Portland.

in 2030, criticism of portlands' far reaching goals in 2010 will seem so trivial.

randya

among other things, Portland will never be able to fund full implementation of this plan; and they will rarely, if ever, remove proven 'failed facilities'

Portland cyclists are already doing fine without most of this stuff, since the number of cyclists in Portland has begun to approach 'critical mass' in the last three years with very few additions to the bikeway network

IMO, The best thing the city could do is to keep installing more bike parking corrals throughout the city, something that they are continuing to do

Bekologist

i thought the city also needs to improve road conditions favorable to biking to the southwest neighborhoods, out of Alberta Arts neighborhood, and into the suburbs; also east to troutdale and gresham as well as improving road conditions overall to favor bicycling by the enhusiastic but concerned segment of portlands residents.

maybe its just me but theres still a lot of auto sprawl around portland that needs remediation somewhat although it is less the city propers' jurisdiction, riding out towards Beaverton or Gresham there's a lot of pavement and traffic conditions that're not always super bike friendly.

randya

sharrows are the simple, inexpensive solution; but, for some inexplicable reason, Rob Burchfield, PDOT's chief engineer, has rejected them

Bekologist

there's numerous benefits to bonifide preferred class lanes over shared lane space but not at all times. portland surely hasn't rejected shared roadways.


Bike boulevards and many cross town routes on low traffic streets are still bike/car shared lane space if road widths are too narrow for bikelane plus travel lane.

randya

unfortunately, it appears that they have, at least on any street classified higher than a neighborhood street. Bike boulevards on neighborhood streets are about as far as PDOT appears willing to go as far as shared roadways.

If you know the streets in Portland and look at the plan map, you will see that many narrow inner city low-level collector and arterial streets that would be perfect for sharrows are not classified as such. My brief and very incomplete list, from the parts of town I'm most familiar with:

SE Stark
E 28th
SE 11th
SE 12th
SE Hawthorne
SE Division
NW Everett
NW Glisan
SW Park Blocks
NW Park Blocks

The fact of the matter is, all of these streets should have had sharrows applied two or three years ago, and yet, barely a single sharrow is in place anywhere in the city (a short 'test section' with questionable sharrow placement too far to the right on SW 19th has been there for the last four of five years, with no follow-up).