This Land Use/Transportation meeting has been split from a Land Use-specific meeting to take place on October 7th. This meeting will take place from 6:30-8:00pm at Laurelhurst Cafe.
This is a secondary meeting focused entirely on transportation issues with maps being available.
The proposed agenda is as follows:
1) Halsey Redesign. Let us discuss, and endorse a letter to PBOT.
Background: Back in May PBOT did an outreach representation at Rose City Park NA that included bike lanes from 65th east to 74th to provide conductivity and increase safety. Sometime this summer the decision to make this change, was changed without our notification. To push PBOT to re-examine this discussion we need to officially endorse this new roadway configuration (See attached slide). The residents of “the Pocket” between 60th, Glisan and Halsey have no way due to Rosemont Bluff and the steep hill on 67th to get directly east without going onto Glisan or Halsey, neither of which are family friendly for bikes. If Halsey was redesigned from 67th to 74th crossings could be safely built and bike lanes could be added so residents could get north and east. The official complaints that killed the project was the loss of four parking spaces just east of 65th, endorsing the alignment east of 67th pulls this issue off the table.
Action Item: To draft a letter of support to bring to the full board
The remaining action items are all “should we include this in the second comprehensive letter in the city, and if so in what fashion”
The goal of all of these projects is to have a safe transportation network so all of our residents will have family friendly routes to walk, bike or take transit to our parks school and comercial zones. This is not meant to supplant our first letter approved last February, but to augment it and further clarify what our transportation priorities are long term. This is not meant as a “built this now”statement, but rather as a long-term plan to provide a safe network for all users as our neighborhood grows over the next generation.
2) Bike Lanes for Glisan 62nd to 71st, endorsement to remove a row of parking 62nd to 71st and convert long term into a two way bike lane/cycle track (see attached file).
Background: Unlike on Glisan west of 58th where the center lane could be converted into bike space, due to the pedestrian islands at 78th and 65th and the higher traffic volumes the center median space needs to be kept for safety and turning movements. Should NTNA endorse removal of a row of parking (which is hardly ever utilized) from 62nd to 69th-71st (depending on Montavilla) to facilitate local bike access to Fred Meyer and points East.
3) Endorsement of Metro’s Regional Active transportation Plan
Background: Much of Metro’s regional active transportation plans has already been built, or has previously been endorsed by NTNA, in our first comprehensive letter. Let us solidify this endorsement with a global statement reinforcing that the city should built this transportation network as soon as financially feasible.
4) Endorsement of sidewalk infill on Thorburn/Gilham including a lead pedestrian warning light at 62nd
Background: In our first letter we endorsed a greenway to Mount Tabor Park based on 62nd and SE Scott Drive, which includes a crossing at 62nd/Stark/Thorburn. This is part of Metro’s regional ATP from Burnside to Montavilla Business district, plus a sidewalk on Thorburn from Gilham to Stark is on the city’s radar for possible sidewalk infill. If and when this occurs, let us endorse a lead yellow flashing warning light east of 62nd on Thornburn to allow for a safe crossing for the 62nd /SE Scott drive Greenway and residents accessing the commercial node at 60th and Stark.
5) Fire Engine friendly speed tables for 47th and 67th:
Background: We previously endorsed solutions to the cut-through issues at 45th and NE Willow. There are also chronic safety problems with speeding coming down the hills at 47th between Glisan and Stark, especially at the off-set greenway intersection at Davis-Everett. On 67th, Drivers speed down the hill past Fred Meyer making it dangerous because of poor visibility to access the store from “the Pocket” and further north/ east. Should NTNA include an endorsement of fire friendly speed tables for these stretches of roadway.
6) SRTS route network:
Background: We are a neighborhood without a school. As such, we have multiple school districts. Based on the Greenways of 41st, Davis-Everett and 62nd/NE Oregon let us approve an official SRTS network throughout the neighborhood.
7) As a corollary, should we request that if and when the JAG shop at 5710 redevelops they be required to build a 14 foot wide sidewalk instead of a 9 to provide room for a bus shelter and a cross-direction bike route for Mount Tabor Middle School Students?
Background: Previously we have endorsed a modernized Burnside with buffered bike lanes through this stretch. Due to the roadway width and the need for an 8 foot median center refuge island we have limited space to fix this off set intersection for a safe crossing for MTMS (Mount Tabor Middle School) students. We will be applying for a SRTS grant to build this crossing soon. If we had another five feet, this would significantly decrease the cost and likelihood we will get funding when it come time to repave and modernize East Burnside. Should we endorse this concept (see attached slide).
8) Requesting the 19 be upgraded to frequent service, the 20 move towards 24 hour service
Background: We have previously requested modern shelters that align with upgraded safe crossings on our bus lines of the 71, 20 and 19. Should we go a step further and request that the 19 be upgraded to frequent service, including a turn around with a direct stop at Providence hospital entrance to facilitate more mass transit to the hospital? On a corollary, should we request that the 20 be moved to 24 hour service?
9) Endorsement of Montavilla’s Transportation Requests:
Background: A representative from PBOT suggested that we would have more gravitas in our requests if North Tabor and Montavilla cross-endorse our transportation priorities. Our organized group ride co-sponsored with Montavilla on Oct 12th will highlight many of these requests. Should we include this generic cross endorsement, or should we just choose specific projects? Lew from Montavilla recommends we do a general “we cross endorse each other” as it would have more authority and create a conductive network, giving us more chance of having it built.
10) Long term 45th as a Greenway alternative:
41st as a greenway has serviced the central east side for a generation, but has significant wanderings and off-set intersections that cause it to be a difficult and slow north-south bikeway. Long term, should NTNA endorse making 45th a secondary bikeway as this provides a direct north-south route from NE Host just north of the bike lane drop off at 47th and Glisan south to Powell without turns. As part of this, should we include an endorsement of center median diverters at Burnside and Glisan to solve the cut-through problems on 45th which happens in the evening and morning rush time during traffic light back-ups.
