82nd Avenue Transportation Workshop


From the Active Rights of Way (AROW) mailing list:

If you are interested in improving 82nd Avenue, please get this meeting on your calendar; September 24 at 7:00 PM.

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

Meeting Announcement: 82nd Avenue Transportation Workshop

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

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

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

When: September 24 at 7:00 PM

Where: Montavilla Methodist Church – 232 SE 80th.

Given that one of the currently planned ODOT “safety projects” for 82nd Avenue, the 82nd Avenue/Causey project, involves removal of the bus lane on 82nd near Clackamas Town Center, putting the street under control of local authorities strikes me as a wise idea. (This particular stretch of 82nd is outside the Portland city limits, and is located in Clackamas County; but ODOT has traditionally cared more about moving cars on its facilities than it has about moving people and facilitating local access). As there is a perfectly good freeway just to the east, there’s no reason to maintain 82nd avenue as an ODOT facility. (Likewise for Barbur Boulevard, Hall/Boones Ferry, and a few other streets I can think of…)

,

13 responses to “82nd Avenue Transportation Workshop”

  1. For the record, ODOT is not opposed to a jurisdicitonal transfer of 82nd Avenue. We welcome the opportunity to begin engaging in these conversations at the request of Montavilla Neighborhood Association and Senator Jackie Dingfelder. ODOT has enjoyed a good partnership with the City of Portland and TriMet as well as the community relative to the development and implementation of the 82nd Avenue High Crash Corridor Safety Action Plan and worked together to leverage funding for improvements along 82nd over the last 5 years in particular.

    As a transportation agency, we are concerned with all modes of transportation and the movement of goods, services and people on our regional transportation system in a safe and efficient manner.

  2. involves removal of the bus lane on 82nd near Clackamas Town Center, putting the street under control of local authorities strikes me as a wise idea

    In other words, removal of one of the best things that encourages faster bus transit options, and forcing buses into slower general travel lanes?

    Seems backwards to me, but it’s just another anti-bus move rather than building more bus-only lanes to move towards BRT on 82nd Avenue – home of TriMet’s single most successful transit line – and a move that should be celebrated by transit advocates.

  3. Erik,

    Precisely. (The 82nd/Causey is an ODOT project, one pegged as a “safety improvement”; there are better ways to improve safety without compromising bus service.)

    A center bus lane strikes me as an excellent idea, and could be the start of a longer 82nd avenue BRT.

  4. A center bus lane strikes me as an excellent idea, and could be the start of a longer 82nd avenue BRT.

    I don’t buy into the center-lane transit; it creates hazards for pedestrians getting to/from transit, and it segegrates transit users from other street users/pedestrians/businesses creating an environment in which transit users are removed from others. Transit should be an integral part of the overall environment, not something shunted off to be out of the way. And TriMet has done a horrible job, by doing a very poor job of bus stop placement and working with businesses to create a seamless environment from business to bus stop. Never, ever, should a bus stop be next to a parking lot, or on the side of a business. Plus, a bus stop opens up space that creates visibility for the business by motorists; where if parking were allowed a delivery truck or van could block the business.

  5. Center-lane transit is actually more effective than side-running transit, Erik.

    1) It separates transit from right-turning vehicles, improving both safety and reliability. It also plays nicer with bike lanes.

    2) Transit stops are generally located near signallized crosswalks; so safely crossing the street isn’t an issue. It is possible (though I don’t know of any working examples) to configure signals to give a pedestrian/transit phase when a transit vehicle approaches, thus allowing waiting pedestrians a chance to cross and catch the bus or train, instead of watching the vehicle leave the stop before the “walk” signal appears.

    3) If you think of round trips, you still generally need to make an entire crossing of the street–if your bus is adjacent to your destination, the return bus will be located across the street.

    4) Putting transit in the center of the street makes it more prominent, not “out of the way”.

    5) It can reduce the amount of street space; as bidirectional single-tracked center-lane busways (or tramways) are certainly possible. The EmX line in Eugene is an example, in many places there is a single lane which is travelled by both eastbound and westbound vehicles, with signals ensuring that no collisions occur.

    The big drawback with center-running is that the optimal configuration requires vehicles that can board on the left (in countries which drive on the right). Boarding on the right either requires contraflow operation (which confuses motorists) or dual platforms (which adds to the size of the right-of-way needed). The vehicles used by EmX have doors on both sides; no existing TriMet rolling stock (other than the trains) has this capability.

    Your criticisms of stop placement may well be correct–there are plenty of examples of stops placed in bad spots. OTOH, that has nothing to do with whether the bus runs in the center or the side.

  6. What you could do is stagger the side platforms and have the transit lanes weave around them.

    Never, ever, should a bus stop be next to a parking lot, or on the side of a business.

    What if an entire stretch of street or important landmark is like that? There’s often not a place to put a (regular) bus stop that’s both desirable (in front of a business) and practical (good spacing from adjacent stops and location)

  7. 2) Transit stops are generally located near signallized crosswalks; so safely crossing the street isn’t an issue.

    Tell that to the large number of pedestrians hit in crosswalks along the eastside and Interstate MAX lines, where sight lines are impaired by the design of the station platform (especially so on the eastside MAX line with large brick walls, structures and substation buildings, where pedestrians literally “come out of nowhere” and right into the street.

    4) Putting transit in the center of the street makes it more prominent, not “out of the way”.

    No, it is out of the way of everything else the person is trying to get to. Stops should be integrated with the nearby pedestrian uses. When you separate bus riders from everyone else you create the segregation effect. Look at MAX stops, especially downtown, that are carefully placed and located to be NEXT to prime destinations; while bus stops are often located in less than prime locations. Or, as TriMet does far too often, puts bus stops next to completely incompatible uses like gas stations, parking lots, vacant lots, and even bars and liquor stores (good for adults, not good for younger riders, and makes some riders feel uncomfortable).

    If a center-street BRT platform can be well designed to be part of, and not separate from, the surrounding environment, then great. But I look at TriMet’s own well-demonstrated history and track record…just look at the bus versus rail divide at Clackamas Town Center when TriMet could – and should – have done better. Or Powell Boulevard, or Main Street. Or the Milwaukie Park & Ride, which is in no way comparable to the various Park & Ride lots built for MAX, or even stations like Mt. Hood Avenue, Cascade Station, Civic Drive, or Rockwood.

  8. Erik,

    unless you happen to live/work between two adjacent blocks with contraflow and/or left-hand-boarding transit service (like the transit mall or Yamhill/Morrison), you’re either going to have to cross the street coming or going. I’m not aware of any evidence that center-running transit poses greater danger to pedestrians.

    As far as MAX vs bus downtown, there are plenty of prime locations along both. Of course, center-running doesn’t make much sense on a one-way street; but there is a reason that the transit mall is contraflow.

    And I should note that I’m speaking of state-of-the-art bus infrastructure here. TriMet has so far not invested in BRT, which is a big reason that bus stops don’t have rapid-transit amenities. (And yes, I think they should build some BRT).

  9. Is ODOT allowed to remove the bus-only lane? This is a frieght route, and per ORS 366.215, ODOT is not allowed to reduce vehicle carrying capacity on the street. I wonder how they are getting around that.

  10. perhaps instead of going all the way to removing a bus-only lane they could make it a bus+HOV lane? this might forestall any added congestion

Leave a Reply to Jason McHuff Cancel reply

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