What Else Can We Do with Bioswales?


The Mayor’s office has released a video demonstrating how bioswales can be used to help define bike infrastructure while still achieving their water-quality function. Would that they had produced this about 3 weeks ago…

But that go me thinking… what else could we do with bioswales to further our transportation objectives?

I suspect most of the bicycle applications will also improve pedestrian crossings by narrowing the width of street crossings. Are there some direct applications for improving the pedestrian environment?

How about for transit? Could we use these to create better bus stops? Let’s get creative!


24 responses to “What Else Can We Do with Bioswales?”

  1. Id bet if a different city department had “extra” cash laying around these jokers could find a way of spinning it into paying for their bike vision.

    My understanding is that even bicyclists hate bubble curbs because at most places they force the rider into traffic (this intersection being a notable exception).

    All that aside, does anyone here really think Portland’s 2-lane streets are too wide without these obstacles being built? Most cities have 6 lane roads as the standard width and don’t have any problems.

  2. Id bet if a different city department had “extra” cash laying around these jokers could find a way of spinning it into paying for their bike vision.

    I think the Mayor’s choice to tie the bioswale program to savings on other projects was a very poor framing. The fact is that we have sewer fees to support achieving water quality standards the Feds have imposed on us, and this re-allocation is about choosing a different method to achieve the water quality improvements. This would be a good idea whether or not we had save money on other projects.

    My understanding is that even bicyclists hate bubble curbs because at most places they force the rider into traffic (this intersection being a notable exception).

    That’s not correct. As a cyclist you experience curb extensions in two ways:

    1) If you’re traveling along a street with curb extensions, they are generally going to line up with parked cars, so they are not narrowing “the line” along which you are riding.

    2) If you’re crossing the street that has the curb extensions they narrow the crossing distance (as they do for pedestrians).

    So they are either neutral or a win, depending on the direction of travel.

  3. I’d also like to know what Anthony’s definition of “not having any problems” is regarding other cities’ 6-lane roads. I suppose the 40,000 people a year dying in traffic collisions are not a problem?

    I think we could really stand to re-think a lot of our placement of bus stops in general, it would be cool if this usage of bioswales was a catalyst for that. It seems like maybe creating a corner curb extension like this with the onstreet parking just before it eliminated and turned into a bus stop could be a great idea.

    Currently our bus stops are often right on top of crosswalks, and make it nearly impossible for other street traffic to see pedestrians trying to cross at those crosswalks and for pedestrians to see other street traffic while trying to cross – and also often makes it confusing if pedestrians standing there are trying to cross or waiting for the bus. Having the buses pulled over off of the street well before the crosswalk, and having the sidewalk at the intersection extend out further might help that a lot.

  4. By moving bus stops to curb extensions, curbside parking is increased. Also buses do not have to re-enter traffic, speed bus transit trips. Other traffic is slowed..ie made safer for others.
    The real challenge is how to combine bike lanes with bus stops at curb extensions…maybe there is just no solution. NE Broadway/Weidler which still have 3 lanes in each direction with bike lanes and bus stops would be a good place to try something…maybe combined with the next Streetcar extension to Hollywood.

  5. Chris wrote, regarding curb extensions and bicycling: “So they are either neutral or a win, depending on the direction of travel.”

    There are, unfortunately, exceptions to this.

    In my neighborhood, take a look at the intersection of NE 57th Ave. & NE Hancock St:

    Google Maps Link

    There are a number of problems here which combine to annoy cyclists and motorists alike.

    1. 57th is sufficiently narrow that people don’t even like to park their cars in the normal way, for fear of side damage or loss of mirrors. You’ll frequently see cars parked with their tires up over the curb and in the grass or flowerbeds. This is apparently such a common behavior on this section of road that the city (usually) doesn’t ticket for it.

    2. Despite the tight margins between curbside parking and the travel lanes, the concrete of the curb extension extends a couple of feet wider than “normal” parking. There is insufficient room for a car and a bicycle to pass (without the car crossing the center line), thus forcing cyclists to merge into automobile traffic.

    3. These extensions are also a bus stop, complicating matters when buses are stopped or happen to arrive in both directions at the same time, eliminating any clearance for cars to cross the center line to give breathing space to a bicyclist.

    This particular curb extension pair was already installed (IIRC) when I moved to this neighborhood in 2002 — perhaps the city has improved guidelines since it was built. But it could really use a slight trim to assist cyclists.

    A member of our neighborhood’s transportation & land use committee is an experienced cyclist who commutes to work by bike on most days, and he absolutely hates this intersection.

    Curb extensions are a valuable and useful part of the streetscape. A study in Albany has shown that they dramatically cut down on lawbreaking by motorists when a pedestrian is waiting to cross. But they must be carefully designed, especially when ROW is tight, to facilitate all street users safely and conveniently.

  6. Dave:“I think we could really stand to re-think a lot of our placement of bus stops in general, it would be cool if this usage of bioswales was a catalyst for that. It seems like maybe creating a corner curb extension like this with the onstreet parking just before it eliminated and turned into a bus stop could be a great idea.”

    ws:Not a bad idea, especially as a marker for where a bus stop is. People are looking for “permanence” in regards to transit — if it looks like a transit stop they’re going to know it gets used and a bus is coming and therefore will use it more. It also helps when buses pull in to free up traffic from behind.

  7. My understanding is that even bicyclists hate bubble curbs because at most places they force the rider into traffic (this intersection being a notable exception).

    When I am cycling and come to a bubble curb I don’t like it. So, here is one person who thinks they are annoying. There may be some justification where there are truly large numbers of people regularly gathered at an intersection, but that doesn’t happen that much or ubiquitously. They have reduced on street parking spaces, which to me is also a negative.

    Honestly I don’t see that much practical demand for them, and from the looks of the concrete work they are fairly expensive to build, so it would be better to save the money for some other need.

  8. I am currently visiting Albuquerque, New Mexico (and Rio Rancho, New Mexico, an suburb/exurb of Albuqurque).

    I was noticing some things this week, as I have been on vacation and traveling around the city at various hours of the day. Things that I never would have noticed had I not lived in Portland for the last decade and a half…

    1. The streets here are REALLY big. Not only lots of lanes (usually 6 or 8, often 10) but large lanes at that. They are so large (even in residential areas) that they look extremely unfriendly to cross. Even in crosswalks. And we rarely see people crossing them. At intersections they will often add a few (yes, a few) turning lanes so that at intersections you can have as many as 12 wide lanes to cross as a pedestrian. This is extremely inhospitable to walking.

    2. Most of the newer streets have great bike lanes. I mean bike lanes sometimes 10 or 12 feet wide and separated from traffic with a 3 to 5 foot buffer. And no one uses them. Because distances are so far! Everything is miles apart. I have a friend who lives literally within a stones throw of the main road – but there is no way to get there on a bike, walking, or even in a car. So we measured how far out of our way we have to go to get to his house… 4.5 miles around and through cul-de-sac neighborhoods to get to a home a hundred feet off the main road. And his “subdivision” is 7 miles from the closest services, and 10 to 15 miles from any real employment. So only hard core road cyclists ever ride.

    3. They have huge articulated busses. I sat waiting for a friend last summer – during rush hour on an 8 lane road arterial – for over an hour. During that time 5 articulated busses passed by, completely empty. This visit, I have been all over town, during peak and non peak hours. I have yet to see one of the large busses with more than 5 people riding.

    People who like to condemn curb extensions, or narrow streets – are really not thinking or seeing the true differences that they make for the simple hospitability of walking or riding. Sure, curb extensions in the right or wrong circumstances can make pinch points. But in the over-all system those pinch points are part of what makes them successful I think. It forces traffic to slow. It forces bikes and cars to integrate and be aware of eachother. It makes transit more of a focus in the corridor. It puts pedestrians out in visibility instead of hiding behind parked cars. I think all of those things – make it much more comfortable and practical to walk ride or bus, and make it much more common for car drivers to encounter other modes and get used to there being people and bikes and busses everywhere.

    Just my opinions and anecdotal observations from my desert vacation. Your mileage may vary.

  9. Here’s another vote for pedestrian curb extensions being incompatible with cycling.

    I believe they can be designed more effectively, particularly when combined with cycle-track type dedicated lanes. As bump outs are now, though, they don’t play well with bike needs.

  10. I have never thought curb extensions were worth the cost, both in money and in carbon dioxide released from the concrete. I have no trouble walking out to the edge of the travel lane to wait for a chance to cross the street. Oh well, they are there now, and I guess they help some people cross the street. When they are incorporated into swales they make more sense.

  11. As a driver it always seemed easier to know a pedestrian wanted to cross and wasn’t just standing on the extension for whatever reason. The nice part is that it makes it less likely a parked car will block my view of them, so there’s that trade off.

  12. So bicyclists take precedent over pedestrians (regarding curb extensions)?

    Curb extensions bring the pedestrian within view of the cross-traffic. It’s more than just reducing the lane width for them.

  13. So bicyclists take precedent over pedestrians (regarding curb extensions)?

    My general philosophy is that in designing for safety, the precedence should go to the slowest/lightest/most vulnerable vehicle/user.

  14. John Reinhold says (re: curb extensions)
    It forces traffic to slow.

    There…a moment of candor. Have you ever thought that other folks might have a valid REASON for wanting to get somewhere on time? A 20 to 30 mph limit around Portland is slow enough. If someone is going too fast they should get a ticket. Perhaps we should allow citizens to complain about speeders, and even though there might not be sufficient evidence for conviction, a warning from the police dept. would help curtail speeding. I’ve had it with social engineers who don’t understand that other people have good reasons for transporting themselves in the way that they see fit, if they are not violating established laws. How many laws are you going to enact—-that are removing us from long established precedent?

    Obviously, this is an attitude that has swept the nation…..and will shortly be repudiated.

  15. Ron, in my opinion you have it backwards.

    Being phoned by policed and admonished for speeding when someone (anonymously?) calls the cops == social engineering.

    Engineering the streetscape to reinforce safe speeds and facilitate the safe sharing of space between all travel modes == civil engineering.

    Frankly I’d much prefer more (properly engineered) curb extensions and other traffic calming infrastructure to nagging, nanny-state police phone calls. The police have far better things to do with their limited time and resources, anyway.

  16. Engineering the streetscape to reinforce safe speeds and facilitate the safe sharing of space between all travel modes == civil engineering.

    The speed limit is 20 mph in downtown Portland; it is 25 in residential neighborhoods. Many main streets have a 30 mph limit. Are these unsafe speeds? And how much do you propose to spend to combat the unproven problem of unsafe “sharing of space between all traffic modes.”

    The people have far better things to do with their limited money and resources, anyway. Items like the traffic calming devices you mention certainly are a money maker for contractors. If you think traffic should be limited to 10 mph why don’t you just come out and say it? Then that law would apply to bicyclists, as well. Furthermore a computer generated letter is far less of a nanny state solution than what you are proposing.

  17. Items like the traffic calming devices you mention certainly are a money maker for contractors. If you think traffic should be limited to 10 mph why don’t you just come out and say it?

    Because I don’t think any such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

    Curb extensions and bioswales in no way limit traffic speeds to 10mph.

    unproven problem of unsafe “sharing of space between all traffic modes.

    What do you mean “unproven and unsafe”? I’m talking about things like curb extensions, sidewalks, bike lanes and bike tracks, crosswalks, etc., and how they can all work together.

    You’re talking about people tattling on drivers and having the police contact those drivers and issue warnings.

    I’ll leave the subjective decision on which is a more draconian form of “social engineering” to anyone who might actually still be reading.

  18. Furthermore a computer generated letter is far less of a nanny state solution than what you are proposing.

    It’s also a nice way to harass someone who someone feels disrespected or slighted them, whether by taking their parking spot, not letting them out of a parking lot, just being mad at a neighbor, angry ex-girlfriend, etc. Without an officer reviewing the complaints it would be way too easy to abuse.

    There are already people who will have a SWAT team show up at someone’s door as a prank. (It’s called “Swatting”, you can find a lot about it online.) I don’t think opening the system up to more abuses that could be easily coordinated is a good idea over trying to design streets to be driven at or near their posted limit safely.

  19. This isn’t Europe and it will never be. The economy is dependent on motor transport, not bicycles. Too much expended already for too few people involved. Ride at your peril.

  20. Ron,

    If you need to get somewhere on time, and slower safer traffic is in your way: leave earlier, take a different route, or move closet to your destination.

    I would prefer the safety of myself and my family be more important than inconveniencing you at a few intersections.

    If “social engineering” helps people not run over me or my family then by all means, I’m for it.

    I, however, contend it has been “social engineering” which has built so many communities across the United States that prioritize automobiles to the point of FORCING people to drive. Can you think of any roads or highways prohibit pedestrians or bicycles? Isn’t that “social engineering”? Or is it “social engineering” only when it’s stuff you disagree with?

  21. I think a really great way to utilize boring pavement is to make maps of the city at key intersections.

    These maps would have grooves located in the pavement, denoting the different streets. A person with visual disability could use these grooves to guide their walking stick and get a better sense of where they are at any given corner.

    Additionally, these grooves could have small slits in them that allows water to filter into nearby bioswales, also aiding the city in reducing storm water runoff.

  22. These maps would have grooves located in the pavement, denoting the different streets. A person with visual disability could use these grooves to guide their walking stick and get a better sense of where they are at any given corner.

    They’d have to be too big to be read with a walking stick. A better solution is tools like the smartphone for the blind I saw featured on WorldFocus today that uses GPS and voice commands to assist the blind through areas they don’t know, transit trips, etc.

    There was also a segment on congestion pricing in action during the same program. The system for the blind was pretty cool, as it alerted them to the number of stops before they had to exit. Something I never considered that a blind user would need to go by, but it makes sense.

    If you want to watch it I’m sure it’s online at worldfocus.org, they put all their content up there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *