The following discussion was shared via emails between MAP committee members. It is being posted here in the forum to share with the broader community.

Adding to the bike lane discussion,

 Eben, your comments spark debate (but I won't argue whether
bike lanes are worth it, but do argue whether they should enjoy priority over
ped needs in our neighborhoods which aren't urban, but aren't rural
either!  I will continue to complain that our streets are too
wide!).  Let me explain.

 There's definitely enough room to even consider a bike/ped
"promendade" on BOTH sides of McL, even wider that the Trolley
Trail!  Travel lanes on McL should be no wider than 10 feet and the
continuous median should be reduced to about 5 feet (rather than 14 feet
[I think that's about right]) to discourage the "third lane"
drivers Trich referred to (I 've that happen a number of times too!). 
Also, many people are leaving private drives or non-signalized side streets and
racing into the suicide lane to then wait for a break in the on-coming traffic
they wish to merge into!).  Trying to make a left turn into on-coming
45-50mph traffic into a suicide lane is exactly that –suicide!  McL is
too fast, period, with all the side traffic, left hand turn movements and
pedestrians/bicyclist trying to cross the highway.  Either we call it an
urban "Main Street" or leave it alone as a "highway" which
its been for decades (the Super Highway as it was known during the Depression
before the advent of freeways).

 As for bike lanes on River Road and Oatfield Road:  I
am concerned that these two (alternative routes to McL) are getting more
traffic and speeding than they deserve, although I haven't observed any
real congestion.  However, with the bike lanes added over the years (shoulders
paved over old gravel shoulders), they make the street seem wider (especially
River Road), which subconsciously can suggest to drivers they can speed up
(especially if they are in a hurry).  I think there are two schools on
River Road and one street crossing for students (Oak Grove
Elementary).  On Oatfield there are two street crossings peds for
schools (Concord and RPHS).

I feel these streets should be designed and improved for 30
mph traffic speeds.  The way to enforce it is to keep the curb to curb
width the width of two narrowed travel lanes, 10 to 12' each.  Think
about, how wide have our rural roads been over the decades?  Usually not
much over 24 feet and have 60 mph traffic on them.  So why a wider street
in a suburban setting?  The only difference would be the street
curb.  If the county is serious about bike usage, then create an off
street corridor parallel to it.  For much of River Road, a nice wide
ped/bike trail on one side if feasible.  The other side could be
the widened shoulder–but not marked "bicycle lane."  This
could also serve as a jogging/ped trail.

 For Oatfield Road:

 I agree that Oatfield is narrow in some spots, due primarily
to slope constraints (if not limits to the r/w), to create a full fledged
improved bike lane on each side, and I wouldn't want to see that anyway. 
Right now the so-called bike lane is more viewed by drivers as a fog line and
allows driver to veer over it knowing that they might end up in an open ditch
if they are not careful.  So the driver has more "freeboard…"

 As for our EAST-WEST through corridors, especially those
going over the Oatfield Ridge:

 (Hill Road, Thiessen Road, Jennings Road), this bike issue
is seriously problematic. 

 I feel that the local through roadways should be two lanes
with NO bikelanes and put the available remaining r/w toward constructed
sidewalks. These roads have between 40 to 50 feet of r/w at best and in many
places just 40 feet and are unlikely to realize any more r/w dedication because
most of the development has already occurred.  With an 18 to 24 foot wide
curb to curb street, that only allows only 16 feet for other uses where the r/w
is restricted to 40 feet, not a lot of room if you are trying to establish a
sidewalk on both sides (8 feet).  With utilties in the way, the sidewalk
gets shafted.  With the hills on the east side, pedestrian safety is MUCH
more important that the use of bikes on the roadway which have the same rights
as a motor vehicle.  Some of our local streets are already improved with
curbs/gutters on both sides, so there is no reason to change them (like
Thiessen from Webster to Johnson).  But where there is a hodge
podge  of improvements, we should pay more heed to the peds.

 With that said, I know there's a rather strong stakeholder
group in the county that will fight to the death to keep their "bike
lanes" marked.  I think its the kids in our neighborhood that suffer,
especially if they live within 1/2 mile of their school (or a mile from the
high school) or their neighbohood park or open space.  I don't let my kids
walk on the fog lined shoulders or designated bikelane areas of the roadway and
I see a lot of young kids that do walk that close to 35 mph car speeds. 
In certain areas, the school district has little option but to require some of
the kids to walk to school on street bike lanes and its called "safe"
(or safe enough, because they can't afford more bussing).  This forces
parents to drive their kids to school.  Its bad enough already, but why
discourage walking because of a lack of sidewalks (like along
Bilquist elementary fronting Webster and Clackamas Roads).

 In my area, I am promoting the speed limit to be 30mph or
less on these streets:

–Jennings (should be 25mph)

–Thiessen (should be 25mph)

–Aldercrest (should be 25mph); winding road and few
shoulders + quite scenic!

–Rusk Road should be 25mph (no sidewalks or shoulders,
creekside and slopes)

–Clackamas (should be 25 mph)

–Roots (should be no more than 30mph–now 35 and few
sidewalks)

–Strawberry Lane (should be 25mph due to curves)

–Lake Road, south side of Expressway (should be no
more than 30–currently 40mph); Lake Road n/o of Express is 40 and probably too
fast; 35 best.

–Harmony Road is too fast (40mph) and should have speed
study from SE 82nd Ave to Linwood

–Johnson (should be 30)

–Webster (should be 30, but 25mph between Thiessen and
Bilquist Elementary due to school and Westwood Shopping district); this street
gets a lot of shortcutting for people trying to avoid the I-205 corridor,
including backups on the Milw Express east of Webster.

 I think state-guided speed studies will bear out the lessor
speeds for the majority of the traffic.  For our neighborhoods, 1st
priority is keeping R-10, R-10; second priority is traffic safety (lower speed
limits).

 I am surprised speed limit discussions haven't been more
lively in our group.  We all complain about it when a new subdivision
comes in next door.

Thanks for listening.  Pat R

 On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Eben Polk <eben.polk@gmail.com> wrote:

A quick two cents on the comment on McLoughlin's bike lanes:
I believe there are already bike lanes along much of McLoughlin and I don't see
any reason to go backwards and eliminate them so am glad ODOT has it as
standard practice, along with sidewalks.

I do agree that River Road is a much better place to ride a bike and we should
continue to protect it as such. I don't think Oatfield is much better than
McLoughlin for cyclists because the shoulders can be quite narrow. Improvements
on Oatfield would be welcome. What also stands out as unsafe are the numerous
east-west streets without sidewalks or bike lanes.

If anything, on McLoughlin, if there are sidewalk improvements, we should get
creative about how to separate bicyclists from the traffic a bit more so that
risks are reduced–the available right of way is wide enough that you could
probably have either a grade-separated bike path or a buffered bike lane
between sidewalks and road, by narrowing travel lanes a bit.

The more safe travel options people have the more vibrant our community and
local economy will be in 20 years, and the more resilient we will be to
climbing energy prices.

-Eben

From: seigneur2@comcast.net
[mailto:seigneur2@comcast.net]

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:04 PM

Subject: Pedestrian Crossings….More comments regardling the treatment
of McLoughlin

 I it is well to keep in mind that Oregon and Portland have a bad
record in pedestrian accidents [including at pedestrian crossings] …Most are
considered "accidental" with no or very little legal
judgments….[Oregonian article Tue]…And  the more we think about more
pedestrian crossings on a Regional Arterial the more we may be
putting people  be in harms way…?……Oregon law seems to put more
responsibility on the pedestrian than other statres like California…

Sent: Wednesday, November 16,
2011 4:34:44 PM

Subject: Re: More comments regardling the treatment of McLoughlin

Pat et al

a good example of a flashing light assisted cross-walk is on

Territorial in Canby.  it is on a 35 MPH stretch and is both clear and
effective.

PS-if you are  traveling 45-55 on McL you need a ticket…..

Jim

Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 12:52 PM

Subject: Re: More comments regardling the treatment of McLoughlin

Hi all,

 Thank Trish for more input from the business meeting.

 Regarding the effectiveness of flashing yellow traffic
signasl vs. a traffic signal with green/yellow/red for a so-called pedestrian
crossing, I'd be interested in seeing the ODOT findings, especially in an urban
area, like, for example, SE 82nd Avenue or Powell Blvd (in SE Portland)
where the volume of traffic is similar to McLoughline (McL).

I consider myself a dumb driver and would be confused by a
flashing signal when I am going 45 to 50 mph.  Certainly in rural areas it
might make sense, but in an urban arterial, I have my doubts, unless there's
proper signage in advance.  I do prefer the flashing yellow lights in our
school zones, though, but I don't think they operate other than during the
immediate window of time kids are arriving at school in the am or when they are
let out in the pm.

By the time ODOT puts in a flashing light, it seems to me in
our urban setting (where we are trying to encourage "nodes" or
activity areas along McL) that the cost of actually putting in the traffic
signal can't be that much different for a half dozen locations.  I think
people are more upset that the corridor is not synchronized at a set speed,
regardless of side street traffic at signalized locations.  I think ODOT
has been trying to synchronize their signals, but tinkering with the timing of
each signal box.  I don't think they are interconnected.

 At a certain point, there will be enough pedestrians trying
to cross the arterial at a single location that warrants are probably high
enough to signalize the location.  That's the kind of planning I'd like to
hear about.

 The other apparent culprit to the ped crossing issue is when
people are trying to get on or off a Trimet bus. Considering that McL is
supposed to be a high volume rider corridor, Trimet should have a vested
interest that pedestrians using their service can safely cross the street.

 AND Thelma has been pounding the table with DTD staff to
pull together traffic accident/incident data for our MAP II group so that we
can get some idea where the key problems exist.

I also agree with Trish that the small concrete islands in
the median on McL at the cross streets (like Boardman Avenue, Risely) are
worthless and should be removed immediately.  I haven't heard of anyone
opposed to their removal, unless its ODOT bureaucrats.

 This is a common problem for any community with outdated
strip commercial on highways (as extensive as McL, like TV Highway or Powells,
e/o I-205, etc.) from a failing car centric planning and zoning
focus–a cultural suburban pattern over the last five decades whether the area
is within a city or unincorporated area.  I also think its pretty safe to
say that most of these strip commercial corridors throughout the US are
experiencing the same problems and will probably take another 50 years to
change (hopefully for the better).  Pat Pat R

All,

Some additional comments to add to my feedback last night regarding
the medians:

 During the discussion last night I mentioned that many people use
the "left turn lane" as a driving lane and there are near miss
accidents that occur all the time as you have people from both directions in
the lane.  I have experienced this myself several times since the Fred
Meyer Fuel station went in.  The owner of the Smith's Mobile Home Court
mentioned this was a problem as well.  She also had some concerns about
the medians and access to her site.  The 2 owners of East Side Athletic
were there and also agreed that was a problem, but if you know where they are
located, they have a small median in the street in front of their business,
that in my opinion is also an accident hazard.  It is short and made
of concrete so too small to be affective and more of a hindrance than an asset
since it is hard to see.  I said I thought that there is probably a
balance between an ongoing turn lane and medians.  People seemed to agree.

 Another interesting comment from a business owner who is also an
avid cyclist was that instead of spending $ putting bike lanes down McLaughlin,
cyclists should be directed to River Road or Oatfield which are excellent
cycling routes.  Gail Curtis with ODOT who was in charge of our discussion
group commented that it is ODOT's current policy to include bike lanes with all
paving projects.

 There was also a discussion regarding traffic signals.  None
are proposed with the Park Ave Station plan at this time.  They would be
triggered by development that increased traffic counts.  Gail did say,
however, that their research has shown that a flashing yellow pedestrian signal
is much more effective then an actual red light in reducing accidents. 
That requires both pedestrians and cars to pay attention where a red light
gives the pedestrian a false sense of security and they may stop paying
attention and start texting or talking on the phone while crossing the street.

Trish
Nixon | Principal, LEED® AP BD+C | LRS
Architects | DESIGN
WITH INTEGRITY

503.265.1542 direct · 720 NW Davis
Street Suite 300 · Portland, OR 97209 · http://www.lrsarchitects.com

Two important analysis are SERIOUSLY missing in our planning:

1.  A detailed summary of traffic incidents, whether involving pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicles.

2.  Speed Surveys over the years, which would provide some insight into driver behavior.  (Jim's comments about speed violators don't apply to me.  I don't speed.  If anything, I can be accused of not Moving to the Right that applies on freeways [Slower Traffic Move to the Right]  :) ).

Finally, its hard to not talk about what we mean by nodes or activity centers whilst talking about how pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists should be able to use the highway going through the area and interacting within the nodal area, getting back and forth, which would include crossing McLoughlin, making left hand turns (in and out), etc.  Pat R