PBOT testing modular speed bumps to slow down left-turning drivers

PBOT testing modular speed bumps to slow down left-turning drivers

Continue reading PBOT testing modular speed bumps to slow down left-turning drivers at BikePortland.org.

PSU will make block of SW Montgomery a carfree plaza in May

This block of SW Montgomery is one of only three between the river and I-405 that isn’t already carfree.
(Photo: Tim Davis)

Portland State University will create a carfree plaza on the block of Southwest Montgomery Street between Broadway and 6th avenues. The plaza will be installed for the month of May and if all goes well, school officials hope it becomes permanent.

Yellow square is location of plaza.

If this sounds familiar it’s because back in September 2017 — before the street reopened following development of the Karl Miller Center — we reported about how Montgomery is a natural place to create a plaza. Local civic booster and transportation reform advocate Tim Davis launched a mini-campaign to encourage PSU to prohibit driving access and open the block to other uses.

It’s not clear if PSU staff was directly influenced by Davis, but they’ve clearly embraced the idea. According to a statement released by the school yesterday, the Montgomery Pop-Up Plaza project will prohibit driving and parking on Montgomery for the entire month of May and, “transform this space into an outdoor campus public space for everyone to enjoy.” “This is a great opportunity for members of the PSU community to engage with the public realm and make this underutilized street at the heart of our campus into a more welcoming and inclusive place,” reads a PSU website devoted to the project.



Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.



Ellen Shoshkes, PhD, is on the faculty of PSU’s Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning. She’s spearheading the project and is working with students to turn the block into a “living lab” by planning a myriad of activities throughout the month. Architecture students will build “street seats” where people currently park cars. May is Bike Month and Pride Month at PSU. Clint Culpepper with PSU’s Transportation & Parking Services says pride will be a big theme.

“The first thing people mention when they hear we’re blocking off the street is, ‘We should do that permanently.’”
— Clint Culpepper, PSU Transportation & Parking Services

Culpepper said in a phone interview this morning that he and other staffers hope the block will someday become a permanent carfree plaza. For now, the plan will be to block auto access with large planters (bicycle users will still be allowed to pass through) and create a large-scale, pride-themed painting on the street that will cover the entire block. “The street will appear quite different from Broadway and 6th. It will be a clear demarcation that this is not just a street for folks driving through; but that you’re meant to walk on it.”

In addition to the painting, street seats, and even opera performances, there will be a lighting project to activate the space after dark. Five street trees will be illuminated and cycle through different colors.

Feedback from student and staff surveys has been overwhelmingly positive, Culpepper says. “The first thing people mention when they hear we’re blocking off the street in May is, ‘We should do that permanently.’”

This section of Montgomery is surrounded on all sides by PSU campus buildings, but the right-of-way itself is owned by the City of Portland. Culpepper says they’re working closely with the Portland Bureau of Transportation to pull off the month-long project. With thousands of people walking and biking on the campus every day, Culpepper wants to make sure there’s no negative impacts to them or to drivers who need to pass through the campus.

“Hopefully this is a launching pad for an annual event,” Culpepper said. “If we can do that, then we can drum up support and financing to make it a permanent plaza.”

Stay tuned for more details as May approaches.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.



Commissioner Eudaly pushes tolls instead of new lanes on I-5 through Rose Quarter

Commissioner Eudaly pushes tolls instead of new lanes on I-5 through Rose Quarter

Another brick in the wall to stop this project.

Continue reading Commissioner Eudaly pushes tolls instead of new lanes on I-5 through Rose Quarter at BikePortland.org.

The Monday Roundup: Cycling paradise in Africa, stick shifts for safety, and more

The Monday Roundup: Cycling paradise in Africa, stick shifts for safety, and more

This week’s Monday Roundup is sponsored by Treo Bike Ranch in Eastern Oregon, who reminds you that it’s time to plan your 2019 trip! Let Treo pick you up from Portland and whisk you away to an all-inclusive cycling vacation on quiet backroads.

And with that bit of business out of the way, here are the most notable stories we came across in the past seven days…

Brilliant: A Dutch bike company created a pop-up bike parking area inside of a “car” to make a point about how we use public space.

Continue reading The Monday Roundup: Cycling paradise in Africa, stick shifts for safety, and more at BikePortland.org.

Comments of the Week: ODOT bait-and-switch, a lesson for bike advocates, and jerks in River View

Comments of the Week: ODOT bait-and-switch, a lesson for bike advocates, and jerks in River View

Looking back at yet another eventful week here on BikePortland, I was struck by how many solid comments we had. I couldn’t pick one, so I’ve decided to highlight three.

Riding in River View Cemetery

The first comes from axoplasm in response to our story on River View Cemetery:

“Oh geez do I have Opinions. I lived for a decade at the top of Riverview & it continues to be a major part of both my commute and leisure rides.

Continue reading Comments of the Week: ODOT bait-and-switch, a lesson for bike advocates, and jerks in River View at BikePortland.org.

The Street Trust is ‘alarmed’ by I-5 Rose Quarter project, joins calls for expanded environmental analysis

The Street Trust is ‘alarmed’ by I-5 Rose Quarter project, joins calls for expanded environmental analysis

Oregon’s largest active transportation advocacy group is the latest to request that the Oregon Department of Transportation complete a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for their I-5 Rose Quarter project.

In a letter dated today, The Street Trust’s Executive Director Jillian Detweiler says an EIS is needed, “So that project impacts and mitigation can be better developed and understood by the public.”

“The Street Trust is alarmed by the likely impact on walking, biking and transit during the construction period.”

ODOT’s project, which seeks to significantly expand I-5 through the central city and add new travel lanes in a bid increase capacity, has come under heavy fire in recent weeks.

Continue reading The Street Trust is ‘alarmed’ by I-5 Rose Quarter project, joins calls for expanded environmental analysis at BikePortland.org.

There’s no longer a “BikeBar” on North Williams Avenue


The walls often displayed bike-related images like these portraits of Williams Avenue commuters by Jim Golden. (Photos: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

Hopworks’ Christian Ettinger pouring pints from the Hopworksfiets (note the bike hub beer taps).

Is it yet another sign of cycling’s decline in Portland? Or just a business wanting to freshen-up their image?

Hopworks announced today that its iconic BikeBar on North Williams Avenue will be relaunched as the North Williams Pub and Beergarden.

No matter the reason behind the change, it’s sad to see “BikeBar” go. It was fun to have a place whose entire brand was devoted to bikes.

BikeBar opened in June 2011 amid a flurry of cycling-centric development on what I consider to be the best bike street in Portland. It was Hopworks’ second location (their original spot was also very bike-centric when it opened in 2008, but BikeBar was next-level) and it was an immediate hit with bike lovers throughout the city. Outside there were stationary bikes that generated electricity. Inside was all manner of bike-themed decor; including a collection of glass bottles held to the wall by water bottle cages, an impressive array of bike frames over the bar, and beer taps made out of bike hub shells.



Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.



Having a “BikeBar” of our own always felt pretty special. (Photo: Jonathan Maus/BikePortland)

Hopworks Urban Brewery was founded by Christian Ettinger, a bike rider and racer who has been very supportive of our community over the years. His company popularized the idea of a “beer bike” by commissioning the Hopworksfiets — a bike with integrated taps that could carry full kegs and became a scene-maker at events throughout Portland. Hopworks’ original location on Southeast Powell Blvd has played host to the BiketoBeerFest and the Handmade Bike & Beer Festival.

I’ve asked Hopworks to share more about their rationale for the name change. I’m also curious if all the bike-themed decor survived the remodel. I’ll update this story if/when I hear back.

The remodeled space between N Failing and Shaver will open to the public on April 2nd with a party to welcome the new name and the release of three new beers.

For now, let us collectively mourn yet another part of Portland’s illustrious bike culture that has disappeared.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.



The post There’s no longer a “BikeBar” on North Williams Avenue appeared first on BikePortland.org.

Why does Oregon State Senator Lew Frederick support a freeway expansion in his district?

(Image of Lew Frederick by K. Kendall used under CC by 2.0)

The I-5 Rose Quarter project being planned by the Oregon Department of Transportation lies squarely in the district of Oregon State Senator Lew Frederick. With an official biography that says his legislative focus is on, “justice in public safety, education, and ‘quality of life’ issues,” some readers were surprised to find out he supports a project that will significantly widen Interstate 5 to accommodate more auto traffic in Portland’s central city.

I interviewed Sen. Frederick last week to learn more about his position. Below is a version of our conversation that’s been slightly edited for clarity.

Why do you support this project?

“This particular plan, I don’t think has as much of an impact on climate as some are making it out to be.”

“First of all, I recognize you have a particular point of view on this as well. I’m not expecting to convince you of my view. I support it primarily because it is a promise that was made to other people in the state of Oregon. In 2016 the Transportation Committee [which Frederick is a member of] went around the state and talked with people in 19 different places and heard about what people wanted in transportation. There were several things that came up: One thing they talked about was the bottleneck in the metro area. There were two particular spots: the 205 area between West Linn and Stafford Road, and the other one that everyone talked about was the ability to get people — and especially products, and produce — through the Rose Quarter area because it was a clear bottleneck.

So we said we’ll do something about the Rose Quarter area if you’ll tax yourselves, and we’ll have the ability to get it done. At least have some effect. There was no promise it would eliminate all of the congestion or anything like that. There were also promises to incorporate bicycle approaches, a promise to look at the congestion pricing, and a promise — one that was not part of the [2017] transportation package but that we are in middle of making some changes to — and that’s regarding diesel.

There was an expectation there would be a number of approaches for dealing with the Rose Quarter and one of the things was changing the entrance and exit ramps and the pass-through lanes. That’s one of the things that was asked for and agreed to by legislators around the state, not just the Portland area. It appears as though this is something that will have an impact [on congestion] and that’s the impact we wanted to have when we passed the transportation package.”

What have you heard from your constituents about the project?

“There are several groups of my constituents that have different approaches to dealing with this issue. Some have been given, frankly, misinformation about it. There’s a whole group of folks who were told that we’re somehow increasing the freeway by this incredible amount of new lanes. It’s not a whole group of new lanes, it’s entrance ramps and exit ramps, and a pass-through situation. It’s not putting in five lanes going to Vancouver. And it’s a small section of the freeway. But they were given misinformation about it in my view.

I’ve also had people who say they understand what this is set up to be. It’s not set up to be the end-all thing. They believe it will bring at least some change. So I’ve heard constituents on several different sides of the issue. Some people would like to have the money spent on high-speed rail. I’d like that too. But the money being brought in by gas taxes and other sources cannot be spent on rail.

There are people concerned about how close the freeway is to Tubman Middle School. I’m also concerned about that.

So I have a range of folks… There are some very vocal people who, frankly, believe this is the way to suddenly turn around everything that’s taking place regarding global warming, so you have that kind of constituency as well.”

Do you think that concern around climate change is valid?

“Yes it’s a valid concern. I think that this particular project will have a minimal impact on climate. I think it will have a greater impact, quite frankly, on the way we deal with the economy of Oregon. This project was not set up to try to deal with a major climate change issue. It was set up as a promise with the rest of the state that we’d do something about the bottleneck at the Rose Quarter, and that’s what it’s designed to do.”

Given the seriousness of the climate issue, don’t you think it’s better to err on that side than the economic one?

“[Chuckles] I think we have to figure out how we balance a lot of things. One of the things we need to understand as we look at the climate issues is that there is not, in my view, a valid way to say, ‘We decided we are going to ask you for growth; but we’re not going to do what you asked us to do regarding this particular place.’ I think this project is important. I think there are other approaches that we can take to deal with the climate issue that I think this project has a minimal impact on and we have much larger possible impacts by dealing with the diesel issues and some of the other plans that are around right now… This particular plan, I don’t think has as much of an impact on climate as some are making it out to be.”

Why not? Can you expand on that?

“Well, I have yet to hear from folks who are talking about the climate what their alternative is for dealing with the bottleneck at the Rose Quarter. I have not heard a valid answer for that. I’ve yet to see an alternative at this point that gets commerce and other traffic through I-5 and that we could work on right now… And I realize congestion pricing is one of those things that’s part of this whole package.”

Yes, congestion could have an impact, yet ODOT is very dismissive of it at this point. They say it’s a separate project that’s “years away”. Do you think congestion pricing should play a larger role?

“I think you’re mistaken on that. In every conversation I’ve had with anybody regarding congestion pricing — and congestion pricing has its own issues as well — but it’s clearly part of these discussions. The timing is a question I think; but congestion pricing is clearly part of the discussion. I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that it’s not.”

[Note: Congestion pricing is not part of the I-5 Rose Quarter project. ODOT’s own materials make it clear tolls are years away. A recent ODOT video on tolling said it’s “years away at best.”]

What if we spend all this money to expand the freeway, then toll it, only to find we don’t need the extra capacity? Are you concerned it would be a waste of money?

“No I’m not. I think we need to do something as quickly as we can, physically, on the ground. I think we’ve got to do both at the same time. We can be looking at congestion pricing and getting a project done that we know will have at least a minimal impact on congestion.

I want to make it clear: I don’t think this one thing [freeway widening] is going to be the fix. There are other parts of it we need to look at. The congestion pricing in my view has its own problems. What’s the impact on the neighborhoods and surface streets? And the other thing is, quite frankly, who has the money to pay for that congestion pricing? If you are a low-income person and you’re driving an old car, what happens to you in terms of congestion pricing? Those are issues we also need to be dealing with.”

If your congestion pricing concerns could be allayed, would you support doing it sooner? Would you support a measure to not move forward with the Rose Quarter project until we have a congestion pricing pilot in place?

“I’m not interested right now on doing a delay on this project. I think that would be an issue we’d be dealing with later on when we start to ask the rest of the state to do other things with us or for us — things like schools and health care and housing. If we decide we’re not going to pay attention to the promise we made regarding this, I think that would come back to haunt us. I think congestion pricing is something I would support looking at and perhaps try to find a way to allay the fear and concerns about it; but we should continue the I-5 project.”

But wasn’t the promise to relieve the bottleneck, not specifically to widen the freeway? If congestion pricing could relieve the congestion, wouldn’t that fulfill the promise?

“I think what could come out of that is misunderstanding just how many different approaches are needed to deal with that bottleneck. The bottleneck is clearly a physical bottleneck. We need to find some way to deal what the physical bottleneck.”



Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.



What do you think about the fact that the project is strongly opposed by the Portland Public Schools Board, PBOT’s bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees, and several other groups?

“I haven’t talked with the school board folks. The city folks you talk about, I’m not surprised. I appreciate the bicycle folks, I appreciate the pedestrian folks as well; but I think this has an impact, and a much larger one than that particular area of the city. Again, I think this is part of a promise we have to deal with and a bottleneck that affects the whole state.”

(Graphic of proposed widening. Source: ODOT)

One thing these groups are concerned about is ODOT’s obfuscation. They’ve been unwilling to say it’s a widening project or that it’s adding capacity; but the fact is, the freeway is getting substantially wider and according to ODOT’s own analysis, people will be able to travel through this area faster. So wouldn’t those two things increase capacity on the freeway?

“That certainly is the hope that it will increase some capacity. But it’s not like adding a full lane. Again, it disturbs me that you’re presenting it this way. We’re talking about entrance ramps and exit ramps. We’re not talking about an additional third or fourth lane that’s going to continue all the way up to Columbia Blvd or the river. This is a small section right there at the Rose Quarter. Characterizing it as somehow adding lanes, is not just a mistake, but a mischaracterization of what it’s about. The whole idea is to allow people to move through quicker. It’s not going to solve the whole problem but will certainly help make things smoother going through that area.”

But don’t you think it’s problematic that our state transportation agency denies it will add capacity when it clearly will?

“Let me ask you this question: What is the problem in terms of it adding some capacity at that spot? What is so upsetting about the idea that somehow, at that spot, we will be able to have an easier flow of traffic for a very short length of freeway. I’m not sure I understand why that’s a bad thing.”

Well there are two reasons it’s a problem: First, there’s a concern that ODOT isn’t being honest with the public and that they’re willfully hiding the impacts of their plans. The other thing is, it’s upsetting because making it easier for people to drive is a very problematic thing in light of the crisis of a changing climate, in light of concerns about emissions, in light of the fact that driving is the least efficient and most expensive way to get around…

“Yes they’re going to change the lanes to allow folks to move through that area… But the alternatives that we have right now — and it’s not congestion pricing by the way — in my view, this is one piece of the alternatives is to try to make it so things are moving through. One of the problems we have at that spot, because it’s a bottleneck, is you have cars stopped and you have people on idle and we don’t have an electric vehicle… I’m driving a Prius. I’d love to be able to afford an electric vehicle and the charging station in my house. But the fact is that we have a system right now that if we can start to adjust the kind of vehicles we’re traveling with, the kinds of power that’s used… We’re trying to do the cleanup of the diesel. I don’t see this small section of the freeway — and I’m going to stress that — making it a little less obstructed as somehow violating my basic concerns about what’s going on terms of climate change.

The money we have is devoted to the roads. It’s devoted to the roads by way of a statewide taxing system that we agreed to and that’s what I think we should follow up on.”

If we could spend the money on something else, would you support that?

“If we could, Yes. But we can’t. If I could take money from the prisons and put it into the schools. I’d do that. I’ve been suggesting high-speed rail for some time and trying to find some way to pay for it and encourage it. I think we need a high-speed rail system from Eugene to Vancouver BC. That’s what I’d like to see. If nothing else, a system from Vancouver, Washington to downtown Portland, that’s what I’d like to see.”

Do you worry that investing in the freeway system will erode support and demand for high-speed rail?

“No. I do not think that erodes it at all. I think in fact it may actually help it. I think if we get something done on the freeway, it adds to the idea that we are in fact serious about changing the transportation system.

I think by supporting this project, I’ll have the ability to go in and say, ‘OK, we now need to do something with high-speed rail,’ because I’ll be able to say, ‘Look, we’ve done this [freeway project] and now we need to do this next piece and we will have a great impact on the climate change.’”

Would you support a request for another 45-day comment period?

“Yes. I can’t see a big problem with being able to have more comment time.”

What about joining several groups, including the PPS School Board, to request completion of an Environmental Impact Statement?

“I would support an EIS, especially as it relates to Tubman. I don’t think that’s been done as well as it should be… But if the EIS is basically an attempt to try and stop the project — then let’s be honest about that. If you’re not trying to find a way to create a solid change in terms of the environment around there, and are just using the kids as a prop. That’s not OK.

I want to make it very clear we need to look at the environmental impact. We need to be looking at what we can do regarding diesel. I think diesel in that area along the entire I-5 corridor, not just for that particular spot. If we’re going to have an EIS just for Rose Quarter project, I think that’s a narrow approach. If the EIS is only defined as a strategy to try to stop the project, then just say so. Don’t say you’re so concerned about the kids. If the EIS is being set up just as a proxy, I’m not interested in that. I am interested in impacts of diesel fumes in that whole area, which has the highest asthma rates; but don’t use this as a proxy to delay the project. I won’t buy that line.”

Do you share concerns of the Albina Vision plan about the freeway lid designs?

“I have some concerns about the lids as well. How strong they are, where they’re placed. But let’s also be very clear about something here: the Albina Vision does not “recreate” the community that was once there. It will bring people back into that area; but there’s no way it can recreate what was once there. I don’t like folks using things as a proxy for other issues.”

Do you think the I-5 project will hurt or help make the Albina Vision a reality?

“In my view it will help Albina Vision becoming a reality because it creates an opportunity for making some physical changes in real time within a larger project. I think that gives us the opportunity to actually make some changes we would not otherwise be able to make. It’s going to be disruptive for sure; but if it’s disruptive and it opens up the possibility of connecting the Albina Vision — which is something that people have been talking about for a long time — and giving us a a reconnection with the river… I think the project on I-5 will provide an opportunity to get those kind of infrastructure things done as well.”

Thank you Senator Frederick for taking time to share your thoughts.

Have you shared your thoughts about this project with ODOT yet? The comment period ends at 5:00 pm on Monday, April 1st. You can submit an official comment by emailing info@i5RoseQuarter.org.

In related news, don’t miss Joe Cortright’s latest analysis where he reveals how the Columbia River Crossing is influencing this project. Also read OPB’s story: ODOT Used Long Dead I-5 Bridge Replacement To Plan Rose Quarter Upgrade.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.



The post Why does Oregon State Senator Lew Frederick support a freeway expansion in his district? appeared first on BikePortland.org.

PBOT’s biking and walking committees oppose I-5 Rose Quarter project

One of the main points the Oregon Department of Transportation is using to sell their I-5 Rose Quarter project is that it will vastly improve cycling and walking conditions on the surface streets above the freeway.

Turns out that’s not exactly the case. The two official committees that advise the City of Portland on cycling and walking strongly oppose the project and recommend a “No Build”. That’s awkward because the Portland Bureau of Transportation is a key ODOT partner and has staked their support on the quality of surface street upgrades.

The position of the PBOT’s Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) and the PBOT Pedestrian Advisory Committee (PAC) should raise major red flags about the credibility of ODOT’s claims about this project.

In their March 22nd letter (PDF) to PBOT Commissioner Chloe Eudaly and ODOT Project Manager Megan Channell, BAC Chair Rithy Khut and Vice-Chair Elliot Akwai-Scott outline many major concerns about the proposed cycling infrastructure design and about ODOT’s handling of the project in general.

The BAC says they haven’t had enough time to provide meaningful feedback because of ODOT’s, “obfuscation and delay in providing information” and they have requested that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be prepared. Even with what they feel is limited information, the BAC has decided that, “the Build Alternative would fail to achieve the stated project goals and objectives, especially in critical areas related to bicycling, but also including the resulting conditions for walking and transit, local connectivity, safety, equity, and climate outcomes. This is in direct conflict with city and state planning goals.”

To put a finer point on it, the letter states: “The proposed bicycle facilities in the I-5 Rose Quarter project fail to provide meaningful safety improvements, improve travel times for bicyclists, or encourage the desired city-wide bicycle mode splits.”

Specifically, the BAC calls out the fact that ODOT’s proposal would mostly rebuild bikeways where they already exist — and it would remove the Flint Bridge which currently provides a direct connection that’s used by about 3,000 bicycle riders a day. The BAC says the negative impacts of losing Flint won’t be replaced by any of the proposed facilities. Another big concern is the fact that construction-related delays would have a significant negative impact on the approximately 8,000 bicycle users who travel through the project area every day. “After five years of construction,” the letter states, “the Build Alternative would not offer compelling or substantial improvements for bicycling.”

ODOT’s cycling pitch focuses on two new crossings: One at Hancock/Dixon and the other at Clackamas. The BAC pans the Hancock/Dixon crossing because it won’t include physically separated cycling facilities and it would include, “a permanently inaccessible 10% grade.” For perspective, that’s about the same as the steepest sections of Mt. Tabor. North Williams Avenue currently has about a 1.5 percent grade from the Rose Quarter heading north. The steepest part of the N Mississippi Avenue Hill is 6.5 percent. As for the Clackamas bridge, it would be carfree, but it doesn’t support any existing travel demands, the BAC says.



Thanks for reading BikePortland.

Please consider a $10/month subscription or a one-time payment
to help maintain and expand this vital community resource.



The Hancock-Dixon overcrossing comes with a very steep 9-10 percent grade.

In general, the BAC says ODOT’s surface street proposals clearly put the needs of auto users above the needs of people bicycling and walking. Increased travel times for cycling (and transit too) and unsafe infrastructure with wide corner radii and unsafe transitions between two-way and one-way facilities.

That increased travel time flies directly in the face of Portland’s adopted Transportation System Plan (TSP), which states that major bikeways, “should be designed to… minimize delays by emphasizing the movement of bicycles.”

The BAC’s letter is based on an eight-page analysis of the project’s bicycling facilities that was created by PBOT staff for the committee. The analysis was based on information provided by ODOT in their Environmental Assessment (EA).

PBOT’s walking advisory committee plans to release a similar letter in the coming days. That letter will also request completion of a full EIS before the project moves forward. Portland-based nonprofit Oregon Walks has also come out against the project. In a statement posted to their website yesterday, the group says ODOT should “slow down the process” and that, “We cannot support a design for surface streets through the Rose Quarter that accommodates large vehicles at the expense of pedestrian safety.”

In related news, this strong opposition and demands for an EIS are shared by the Portland Public School Board. At their March 19th meeting, members of the board grilled ODOT and PBOT staff about how the project would impact Harriet Tubman Middle School. The sharply critical (borderline angry) questioning was the most detailed takedown of the project I’ve seen from elected officials thus far. You can watch the meeting via YouTube here.

The comment period for this project’s environmental assessment ends at 5:00 pm on April 1st. You can learn more and file a comment on ODOT’s website and/or at NoMoreFreewaysPDX.com.

— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org

Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.

BikePortland needs your support.



The post PBOT’s biking and walking committees oppose I-5 Rose Quarter project appeared first on BikePortland.org.