In Portland the "Better Naito" project has its own set of compromises and imperfections, but it provides a kind of framework for thinking about problems with an overcommittment to multiuse/shared use paths.
 |
| People biked on the path system (ASLA) |
The westside path system in Tom McCall Waterfront Park used to seem like it provided a generous space for people on foot and on bike.
 |
| People walking normally use space (ASLA) |
But it was increasingly congested, especially in summertime.
The post on the multi-use path on Battle Creek Road at Mahonia Crossing has generated some pushback, and it might be useful to address some of it.
 |
| NACTO: Shared use path, low walking counts only |
In the original NACTO "All Ages and Abilities" matrix, there was a very limited situation for which a multiuse or shared use path was the recommendation:
"High-speed limited access roadways, natural corridors, or geographic edge conditions with limited conflicts" and "low pedestrian volume."
Battle Creek Road is not a high-speed limited access roadway — that would be Kuebler/Cordon — and a large and important affordable housing complex is not likely to furnish "low pedestrian volume" either. The roadway context there does not call for a multiuse path.
The situation that is a better match for Battle Creek is a roadway with speed greater than 26 mph and volumes of greater than 6,000. That calls for a Protected Bicycle Lane or Bicycle Path, not a multiuse path.
Salem (including ODOT near the UGM and Police Station, not just the City of Salem) seems to be seeing multiuse paths as a "one size fits all" kind of solution. But by these NACTO standards you can see in the grid, Salem is overusing multiuse paths. To critique their overbroad use is not some argument for vehicular cycling! This blog has never advocated for vehicular cycling as a general philosophy. It sees it as part of a useful toolbox of bicycling technique, useful to have in reserve, but never primary.
As the NACTO matrix shows, just as separation from cars and people driving is valuable, so is separation from people on foot.
We shouldn't force people on foot and people on bike to battle over
scarce sidewalk space. The primary battle should be about reducing car space and car speed. Another
way to consider this is the "bad stuff flows downhill" trope. When drivers and cars dominate people biking on the road, people biking shouldn't turn around and dominate those walking on the sidewalks and paths.
The problem of scorching is the other part of the argument that is important. Zooming bikes degrade the walking environment. There's a reason we banned them from the sidewalk downtown! Who wants to be dodging zooming bikes? Even slow bikes can be troublesome. Though they aren't as lethal as zooming cars, bikes on the walks are highly annoying! When you walk in Minto Park, having to lookout for and dodge people biking is a pain. What is mysterious about this? Electrification only exacerbates the problem.
It really feels sometimes like some bike advocates don't spend much time walking and remembering what it feels like to be crowded by a person biking. They don't attend to the differential power in mobility.
In some ways walking and biking share common threats from driving and cars. But in other ways walking is not the same as biking, and the conflation of them in the "bike/ped" bucket sometimes penalizes walking as an inferior partner.
See also:
From Salem PD:
A Salem man injured in a hit-and-run collision last week has died.
At approximately 11:40 a.m. on May 5, emergency responders were called to the 4100 block of Rickey ST SE after a man crossing the street was struck by the driver of a vehicle who then fled the scene.
The crash investigation determined the pedestrian was attempting to cross Rickey ST approximately one block east of Lancaster DR when they were struck by a pick-up traveling westbound on the same street. The pick-up driver hit the pedestrian who was in the lane of travel.
The pedestrian, Randall Dale Wilson, age 75, was transported to Salem Health with injuries. He was later transported for further care to a Portland-area hospital where he passed away Wednesday night, May 8.
Officers identified the pick-up driver and arrested him at his home later that Sunday afternoon. The driver, Ramiro Gabriel Herrera, age 63 of Keizer, was lodged on the charge of failure to perform the duties of a driver.
This release is a little remarkable. It does not erase the driver in any misuse of the "hit by car" trope and it assigns agency to the driver rather than to a car or truck.
This is terrible news, but the rhetoric in the release is a real improvement. Hopefully this is a trend at Salem PD.
It will be very interesting to see if media revert to erasing the driver as they churn and revise the press release for their own publications.
Speed seems likely to be an issue also, and it will be interesting to learn more about that.
Back in January on this same stretch of Rickey, just a block away, there was another hit-and-run that did not apparently result in a person's death.
From Salem PD again:
Salem Police and other emergency responders were called to the intersection of Lancaster DR & Rickey ST SE at approximately 8:30 p.m. on Saturday, January 21, on the report of a hit and run involving a pedestrian.
There have also been Safe Routes to School projects nearby, and it is a problem area.
Addendum, May 15th
Here's the paper's note. It is a minimal rewrite and shows the importance of the initial rhetoric in the PD release. It does add that "no charges appear in online court records."
 |
| Today's paper |
This post may be updated.
The Sunday paper has a big front page treatment for a list of "dangerous intersections."
 |
| Front page today |
It says,
A Statesman Journal analysis of the crash data reported to ODOT from 2018 to 2022, the most recent available, shows the intersections where the most crashes occurred in the Salem area are centered in downtown, east Salem around the intersection of Market Street and Interstate 5, and on Commercial Street in south Salem.But it's merely a list! There's hardly any analysis in it.
Deep inside the paper was a blurb for the Ride of Silence.
 |
| On the Ride of Silence |
In the preview for City Council there was a blurb on the suite of crosswalk applications, potentially to be funded by the Safe Streets for All program that funded our Vision Zero and Twenty is Plenty projects.
 |
| In the Council preview |
Directly in the same paper there were several opportunities to connect the dots and make a real analysis of our traffic safety problem!
Though it has not occasioned much comment at all, last month in the course of the Budget Committee meetings, it came out that the City apparently is shifting formal support for the Climate Action Plan from the General Fund to the Utility Fund.
 |
| September 2021 |
 |
| Shifting CAP funding from General Fund |
Comments in supplemental reports were not clear that that ending support from the General Fund had a corresponding move to increase funding from the Utility Fund for the CAP. (See comment below for a little more. It would be nice to read more explicit discussion of this rather than having to comb through a line item buried in a set of spreadsheets! In fact, in the folder of agenda and reports for the Budget Committee, there's no obvious document that is the latest version of the budget. It's hard to follow the process. See the addendum below, also.)
Happily, a couple days ago the Committee restored funding for water service and splash pads during the summer in our parks. People flocked to support the splash pads, and several public comments in support of them cited heat events.
 |
| Front page today on heat and budget |
There could be a stronger thread for climate through the budget conversations.
Council meets on Monday the 13th, and they'll consider plans for lots of new crosswalks!
 |
| Look at all those proposed crosswalks! |
One of the items on Council agenda is a request to
Authorize the City Manager to apply for federal funding up to $10 million through the SS4A [Safe Streets for All] program, using up to $2.5 million of Safety and Livability Bond funds as match, to construct a series of pedestrian crossing improvement projects and further authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the US DOT to accept the funds.
Safe Streets and Roads for All was part of President Biden's Infrastructure package passed in 2022. In a previous round, with $2.8 million the program funded the "Vision Zero" and "Twenty is Plenty" project here.
The City says
The recommended grant application will support construction of 19 enhanced pedestrian crossings at the locations shown on [the map above] and listed below. The enhanced pedestrian crossings will incorporate safety features such as median islands, curb extensions, and flashing beacons. All these features are designed to significantly improve pedestrian safety across our community. The crossing locations were determined with input from the community through the Safer Pedestrian Crossings Program that the City initiated in 2019. Locations were prioritized based on roadway type, crash history, proximity to critical areas such as schools, parks, and transit, and demographic characteristics.
Recommended Pedestrian Crossing Improvements for SS4A Grant Application
- Lancaster Drive NE between Sunnyview Avenue NE and Wolverine Street NE
- Lancaster Drive NE at Cypress Street NE
- Liberty Street SE at Lincoln Street SE
- Hawthorne Avenue NE between Market Street NE and D Street NE
- Kale Street NE near Hoodview Park
- Madison Street NE at 17th Street NE
- Market Street NE at 25th Street NE
- Hollywood Drive NE at McKay High School
- Market Street NE at 15th Street NE
- Market Street NE between Lancaster Drive NE and Tierra Drive NE
- Market Street NE between Childs Avenue NE and Lansing Avenue NE
- D Street NE at Evergreen Avenue NE
- 4000 Block of Fairview Industrial Drive SE (near transit stop)
- River Road N at Delmar Drive N
- Sunnyview Road NE at Greentree Drive NE
- Broadway Street NE at Academy Street NE
- B Street NE at 17th Street NE
- D Street NE at 14th Street NE
- Summer Street NE at Hood Street NE
It's great to see a more ambitious slate of crosswalks proposed.
 |
| Crosswalk sites (yellow added) |
Also on the agenda is initiating the process to acquire right-of-way for a smaller set of three crosswalks already funded, planned, and in process.
The Pedestrian Safety Crossings Project will construct enhanced pedestrian crossings at three locations which include River Road N near River Road City Park, State Street at 21st Street SE, and Lancaster Drive NE near Weathers Street NE. Design has progressed to the point where it is now necessary to begin the right-of-way acquisition process....
[Council will consider resolutions] declaring a public need to acquire; the City of Salem’s intent to negotiate; and if necessary, authorizing the City Attorney to commence eminent domain proceedings for the acquisition of right-of-way and easements for the Pedestrian Safety Crossings Project.
There are some other items of interest on Council agenda, and we'll post on those over the weekend.
It's great to see a substantial package of proposed crosswalks and these deserve great support.
The Advisory Traffic Commission meets Wednesday the 8th, and they'll consider a request to ban left turns from Royvonne Street southbound onto Commercial Street.
 |
| To ban a left-hand turn from Royvonne? Note crosswalk and median on left |
 |
| A formal public hearing to ban a left turn |
The intersection here has a troubled history. Commercial Street is signed for 40mph, which is much too fast for the concentration of shopping and people on foot. Winco, Goodwill, a BottleDrop are all right here. Until the City installed the crosswalk, signalized intersections were inconveniently distant and people froggered across the street. Taking cues from the 40mph posted speed, drivers routinely flouted the legal unmarked crosswalks.
Last summer the multiuse path along Battle Creek Road was under construction out at Mahonia Crossing. It was an attempt to strike a tricky balance between road widening, tree preservation, and a new bike lane. The solution was a wider sidewalk pulled in from a curb strip with the trees.
 |
| Is this really enough for the root zone? (June 2023) |
Salem Bike Vision yesterday commented on the finished pathway.
 |
| via FB |
A commenter there said,
Rode it a few weeks ago, almost ran into a person, smoking, while walking a dog, who stepped out from behind a tree. Be careful.
With the City seemingly pushing the sidewalkification of bicycling as they install or approve multiuse paths for new Strong Road, Marine Drive, McGilchrist, Commercial by the UGM facility, and here on Battle Creek, the theory that there will be an orderly sharing of the path — SBV says "a bike path for southbound bikes" as if no one will salmon or scorch — does not seem to match very well the reality of different users, both those having a smoke and especially newly electrified ones. Micromobility seems to grow more chaotic, not less.
Over at Salem Bike Vision they note what they call a forthcoming "protected intersection" in Bend.
 |
| via FB |
While the idea of one is good in general, this particular instance is not a good protected intersection! It's not anything we should seek to emulate. The version in Bend looks like more than a little bit of greenwash/bikewash for a zoomy, autoist set of roads.
And in fact, Bend doesn't even call it a "protected intersection."
 |
| "A protected intersection...did not move forward" |
In their most recent online Open House late last month, they said, "A protected intersection design was considered...but did not move forward." Among the reasons they listed was a need to "provide the required space for passenger vehicles and large trucks to make turns."
Prioritizing higher speed turning movements really compromised the design.
In a nutshell, look at the slip lane and the way a person on bike has to jog multiple times, shuffled around and inconvenienced to maintain auto flow and speed. (A much larger plan view from the Open House is here.)
 |
| slip lane |
By contrast, the NACTO discussion of protected intersections shows a straight travel path, without any of the jogs and deflections.
 |
| NACTO shows inline travel (black comment added) |
Even in the subsection on "variations," where they discuss a "bend-out," a small deflection, it is nothing like the ones in the Bend proposal.
And the subsection "Setting Turn Speeds through Curb Radii" is about slowing turning movements, not speeding them up through slip lanes. It is wholly at odds with the slip lane function.
The plan view also shows plastic delineator wands along the bike lane. For the speeds clearly envisioned by the road design, these are nearly certain to be inadequate and run over often.
All in all this is a very inferior design for anything a person might want to call a "protected intersection" and is something that deserves a much more critical perspective as we might think about one for Salem. We should not uncritically laud this Bend example! And we should reserve the name "protected intersection" for designs closer to the template. If Bend doesn't call it a "protected intersection," Salem Bike Vision shouldn't call it that either.
Previously:
As with Bicycle Week in 1923, in 1924 it was limited. It had only a single day of promotion 100 years ago on April 29th. April 29th, 1924 Th...
