Saturday’s Oregonian (annoyingly, the article does not appear to be on OregonLive) reports that the steering committee of politicos overseeing the Sellwood Bridge project agreed with the citizens committee and affirmed the choice of a two-lane replacement bridge, compatible with the street network in Sellwood.
18 responses to “Sellwood Community Breathes a Sigh of Relief”
That’s the layout with the bike lane on each side and the 12′ shared ped/bike path on each side? That’s fantastic, and does seem to make a lot of sense for that bridge. It’ll also mean the south end of the city will be getting a lot more pedestrian friendly, with the new Sellwood and then the willamette river crossing for transit, bikes and pedestrians coming at some point in the future.
But will some future county commission try to restripe the bikelanes away on a wider Sellwood Bridge?
Why can’t we follow the same logic in North Portland? Why six lanes into three on I-5? Yes, I know “local traffic,” but then why not a local bridge?
Theoretically they could re-stripe/remove the bike lane in the future since it is not raised like Hawthorne/Broadway but this would only gain you a single lane because the auto lanes are 12 feet and the bike lanes are about 6 feet each.
I was getting errors when I tried to post in the previous Sellwood Bridge thread on Friday night, so I posted my brief synopsis on Bike Portland:
http://bikeportland.org/2009/02/05/press-release-policy-leaders-to-choose-sellwood-bridge-plan/
They could prevent the re-striping question by making the bike lanes “cycle track” style.
Proportionality was a word that was thrown around at the Sellwood Bridge Task Force public hearing on Friday. However proportionality seems totally out of whack and not taking in any consideration to unknown and unpredictable future needs when the deck space and capacity for the 30,000 daily cars and trucks that daily use the bridge is rationed while the deck space for bicycles and pedestrians is super-sized, even though the number of bicyclists and pedestrians added together do not even to add up to one-fourth the number of motor vehicles daily the bridge.
Where as the cost of the Westside interchange must be significantly increased to provide for bicycle and pedestrian safety; and since the amount of deck space allocated for motor vehicles is approximately half or less the amount of deck space allocated for bicycles and pedestrians; any funding sources also MUST reflect that same proportionality. Motor vehicle taxes and fees, including local motor vehicle taxes and fees, MUST NOT be used to fund more than 50 percent of the project. Proportionality in funding MUST require that bicyclists be directly taxed and responsible to pay proportionally the same percentage in dollars towards the project as the percentage of deck space allocated to bicycles. If bicyclists have any complaints they should not be required to pay for bridge piers and superstructure that accommodates heavier motor vehicles; then too the owners of cars and light trucks must not be required to pay for bridge piers and superstructure to accommodate large transit busses and heavy trucks. Moreover, transit passengers by way of the farebox MUST also be responsible and required to pay their share to fund the project on a percentage and proportionality basis.
As for the super-sized sidewalks, much wider than even necessary, wanted by the Sellwood Neighborhood; and since the majority of pedestrians using the bridge will undoubtedly be from the Sellwood Neighborhood; a proportional amount of the project based on the amount of deck space and other amenities allocated for pedestrians need to be paid for with a Local Improvement District (LID) that would be assessed to businesses and residences in the Sellwood Neighborhood and in the bridge impact area on the Westside. This type of LID funding mechanism is similar to the proposals made by the City of Portland to fund new sidewalks in Southwest Portland.
Paying for the project based on the allocation of space for each mode is the only just and equitable way to fund the project.
capacity for the 30,000 daily cars and trucks that daily use the bridge is rationed
What, limited hours, tolls? I don’t think so. In reality, the newly-proposed auto lanes are better than the current bridge — because there are bike lanes on either side, totalling 13ft combined, in an emergency or breakdown situation these can be used as an effective shoulder, allowing bidirectional traffic to still pass safely, although slowly and with care. You can’t do that on the current bridge at all — it jams up nearly completely in the event of an accident or breakdown.
“deck space for bicycles and pedestrians is super-sized”
6.5 feet for a bike lane is not super-sized, especially when at-grade with and immediately adjacent to automobile traffic. Would you prefer 3ft bike lanes, or bikes entirely mixed in with automobile traffic?
12ft sidewalks are not “super-sized”. That is a very standard size. Look at the private sector: Malls such as Bridgeport Village and Clackamas Town center feature sidewalks much wider than that. Why can’t the public sector provide normal-sized sidewalks where a high degree of pedestrian activity is expected?
12ft gets you:
* Two 4.5ft-wide passages so that mobility device users, families holding hands, etc., may safely pass.
* A 1ft buffer from vehicular and bike traffic.
* A 2ft area to stand against the railing and actually enjoy the view.
That’s not “super-sized”, it sounds just about right to me. Maybe even a bit tight, but they are providing a sidewalk on each side of the bridge, so I don’t mind the somewhat minimal specs.
“even though the number of bicyclists and pedestrians added together do not even to add up to one-fourth the number of motor vehicles daily the bridge.”
Of course it wouldn’t — the current pedestrian/bike facilities are woefully inadequate. There are *no* bike lanes (do you prefer bikes directly in the auto lane, Terry?), and only *one* sidewalk, about 4ft wide, on the north side of the bridge. There is no safe separation from moving vehicles, and the very narrow width makes it *impossible* for most mobility device users to safely cross the bridge, for example.
“Where as the cost of the Westside interchange must be significantly increased to provide for bicycle and pedestrian safety”
Safety *from automobiles* you mean?
“Paying for the project based on the allocation of space for each mode is the only just and equitable way to fund the project.”
Only if you completely ignore historical imbalances, the externalized costs of automobile usage, and the long-term mix of general fund tax inputs, which so many critics of pedestrian/bike improvements seem to do.
do you prefer bikes directly in the auto lane, Terry?
Based on his past arguments, he does, since they aren’t paying for their own space. Apparently, he also wants the pedestrians walking in the traffic lanes as well, since there’s no mechanism for pedestrians to pay for sidewalks.
only *one* sidewalk, about 4ft wide, on the north side of the bridge
You’re forgetting about the light poles which make that sidewalk even more restricted.
Chris Smith wrote: compatible with the street network in Sellwood.
Has anyone noticed that today, that there are no bike lanes on either side of the Sellwood Bridge?
If the idea is to be compatible with what is there today…which is a fine goal, when how does adding bike capacity on the bridge help the situation when at either end of the bridge the bikes will be thrown right back into traffic?
Is a Bike Boulevard proposed for Spokane or Tenino Streets on the eastside, and is there a connection proposed to the existing Greenway Trail on the westside?
(This is one more reason why I oppose the Streetcar to Lake Oswego. It’s just not feasible to add bike lanes on 43 south to L.O. Improvements to the bus system, plus converting the existing trolley line to a trail, would provide a better overall solution with greater benefits for all transport users.)
Bob R. wrote: 12ft sidewalks are not “super-sized”. That is a very standard size. Look at the private sector: Malls such as Bridgeport Village and Clackamas Town center feature sidewalks much wider than that.
12 feet for a sidewalk is a large sidewalk. A “typical” sidewalk width is closer to 4-5 feet, and a bit wider in more pedestrian-heavy areas.
Comparing a “sidewalk” at a mall makes no sense compared to a bridge – the malls are pedestrian-oriented, have little (Bridgeport Village) or no (Clackamas Town Center) non-pedestrian traffic…we aren’t talking about a pedestrian mall like what exists in the South Auditorium Renewal District (2nd and 3rd Avenues), or Waterfront Park. This is an actual sidewalk.
Once again, if we are to make the bridge compatible with the infrastructure adjacent to it (especially on the east side), a quick look up on Google Earth shows that the sidewalk on the south side of Tacoma, immediately west of 7th Avenue, is roughly 8-9 feet wide, while on the north side of the street is 5.5 feet wide. East of 8th Avenue, the sidewalk is about 6-7 feet wide on either side of the street. Between 9th/11th Avenues it’s about six feet wide. In the busy area around Tacoma/13th, it’s about 8 feet wide, with a 10 foot wide sidewalk on 13th north of the intersection (at the driveway).
So, it is not unreasonable for the bridge, keeping in line with the infrastructure available, to have two 11-12 foot motor vehicle lanes and two 6 foot sidewalks. (Wouldn’t widening the lane on the bridge simply encourage excessive speed?)
converting the existing trolley line to a trail
The problem is that that can not easily be done. If the land isn’t being used for a railroad, control of the land goes to the property owners (who, of course, would be quite happy to control it for themselves).
“A “typical” sidewalk width is closer to 4-5 feet, and a bit wider in more pedestrian-heavy areas.”
The sidewalk in front of my house is 6 feet wide, and if you want to pass someone, you can step off the sidewalk and into the grass on either side while the other person passes. If you both need a hard surface to pass on, (wheelchair users, for instance,) you can go to a driveway, (there is one every 50 feet or less,) or a walkway, (one every 50 feet as well,) and pass. And I’m not in a heavy pedestrian zone, the largest group of pedestrians in my neighborhood is probably either the dog walkers or the elementary school children. Now, on a bridge, if someone is coming with a large stroller, where do you stand? Off the curb, and into traffic? On the other side of the railing? What if you are in a motorized wheelchair and they have a stroller? Do you take the 100 lbs wheelchair over the curb, and then do a faceplant into traffic, or does the person with the babies have to take the babies into traffic?
For what it’s worth: about 1/3 of the Willamett Shoreline ROW is not publicly owned. Metro estimated the cost of turning the ROW into a pedestrian/cyclist path at about $7 million in their alternatives analysis. With the streetcar, the cost jumps to about $50 million.
Erik asks: Has anyone noticed that today, that there are no bike lanes on either side of the Sellwood Bridge?
Yes, I do believe I specifically mentioned that. Scroll up and take a look:
Erik: “A “typical” sidewalk width is closer to 4-5 feet, and a bit wider in more pedestrian-heavy areas.”
Less than 5 feet doesn’t meet the current guidelines anywhere in the city.
If you’re going to build a new sidewalk, it had better conform to current pedestrian guidelines (11+ years old now) or you’re going to have to justify a variance. (Justifications can include large trees in the ROW, well-established current sidewalks where you’re doing a very short extension, etc… I doubt a major infrastructure project could justify such a variance.)
From Table A, “Recommended Widths for Sidewalk Corridor Zones”, the smallest recommended width for pedestrian ROW is 10’0″, and that’s for “Local Service Walkways” and is comprised of a 6″ curb zone, 4′ furnishings zone (which can be grass and trees, concrete, permeable surface, benches, lamps, etc.), 5′ through pedestrian zone, and 6″ frontage zone. That’s the smallest new-construction you can build — believe me, I’ve been through this for my own side street and other areas in my neighborhood. There are currently 4′ sidewalks in some areas near me (which have been trimmed down from larger sidewalks sometime in the 50’s or 60’s), and it is high on the list of complaints in the neighborhood association that the sidewalks are so narrow and impassable (and nonexistent in many places, too.)
Back to your comment: “[…] and a bit wider in more pedestrian-heavy areas.”
For pedestrian-heavy areas, the guidelines recommend 15′, or possibly 12′, just what has been proposed for the Sellwood bridge.
The guidelines are well-established, and were created with a lot of input. It would be a major controversy if the new bridge violated those guidelines.
If people have a material objection to the current guidelines, that’s fine, but don’t diss the Sellwood Bridge project just because it conforms to the guidelines that projects are _supposed_ to use.
The city is looking at Spokane St. as a bike blvd.
http://bikeportland.org/2009/01/30/coming-to-sellwood-portlands-next-generation-of-bike-boulevards/
For pedestrian-heavy areas, the guidelines recommend 15′, or possibly 12′, just what has been proposed for the Sellwood bridge.
I should probably add that what we have is a preferred alternative, and the only work that’s been done is on paper. Additionally, the Policy Advisory Group stated the bridge width should be 64 feet or less, meaning widths could actually be less.
Where as the cost of the Westside interchange must be significantly increased to provide for bicycle and pedestrian safety…
Actually, a lot of it is for the cueing/merge lanes. The signalized interchange with the 64′ alignment ballooned to 100′ wide, and the only 64′ portion of what’s been advertised as 64′ was (I believe, I don’t have the documents in front of me) was 140 feet in length.
In the end, the design and size of everything can possibly come down to something symbolized by a capital “S” with a vertical bar through it.
For those who need a reminder of what it looks like:
$
And, if there’s no funding at all (or the funding plan is rejected), then no new bridge.
Bob questioned my statement; “capacity for the 30,000 daily cars and trucks that daily use the bridge is rationed”
Jason answered that question with his statement about costs of the Westside interchange when he said: “lot of it is for the cueing/merge lanes.” The congestion, traffic back ups and necessary holding lanes for cueing is not free flowing and therefore a form of rationing.
Bob also said: “12ft sidewalks are not “super-sized”
An 8ft sidewalk is not super-sized. A 12ft sidewalk is excessive and therefore super-sized. Moreover, with separate bike lanes, there is absolutely no need for a 12ft wide sidewalks.
Douglas said; “there’s no mechanism for pedestrians to pay for sidewalks.”
Actually there is: a Local Improvement District assessed on properties in the Sellwood Neighborhood and in the bridge impact area on the Westside.
a Local Improvement District assessed on properties in the Sellwood Neighborhood and in the bridge impact area on the Westside.
So why are you so obsessed with taxing bicyclists, given that you’re perfectly content to see pedestrians freeload on local property owners who may never set foot on the bridge sidewalks they’re forced to pay for?