For more than 40 years we have been promised a traffic signal at this intersection. Enough is enough. Only organized grassroots citizen activism is likely to bring enough pressure on our public officials to improve the situation at this intersection. Here’s a plan for action.
The intersection at Garden Home Road & Multnomah Blvd. (& 69th Avenue) needs modern traffic control. During rush hours, it is difficult for westbound traffic on Garden Home Road, or traffic from 69th Avenue, to proceed safely. It is also extremely hazardous for pedestrians and bicyclists. A large part of the problem is that most vehicles exceed the posted 25 MPH speed limit by 33% or more (and police seem disinclined to enforce it). Also, incursions into the bicycle lanes by automobiles (particularly on the north lane in front of the Old Market Pub) are a problem. Approximately 75% of automobiles cut into the bicycle lane, with a third of those actually straddling the lane completely and trespassing into the pedestrian area north of the bicycle lane! (See photo)
Much of this is due to excessive speed. The south bicycle lane is deemed so dangerous that the city has painted it blue. Finally, pedestrian access across or around the intersection is dangerous and pedestrian features, such as sidewalks, crosswalks, etc. are non-existent. Pedestrians must keep a lookout for traffic from six different directions!
The city and/or county has been promising a signal at this intersection since at least the 1960’s. The county admitted it was not high on their priority list, so more than 15 years ago, in May of 1992, the City of Portland assumed responsibility for the intersection because it “has been identified as a high accident location by the City. The improvement of this intersection is a priority for citizens from surrounding neighborhoods and is included as an outyear project in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan.” (See attachment).
It would seem, however, that SW Portland is not a priority for city road dollars and so this project has a decades-long history of broken promises, regardless of stewardship. The pattern seems to be: begin planning for improvements, set some money aside for it, then decide that the project is too costly, and re-appropriate the money for other projects. This occurred most recently in 1998, when approximately $70,000 was set aside to study the intersection, but those dollars were subsequently re-appropriated elsewhere. And this cycle may be repeating itself, as new money was apparently set aside in late 2001, but the project appears to be inactive and nobody at PDOT seems to be assigned to it. When this happens, money has a way of getting re-appropriated.
Further complicating matters is that this intersection, while presently in the City of Portland, is in Washington County. Under a deal brokered by Metro in the 1990’s, the City of Beaverton will eventually annex this area. Once the surrounding unincorporated areas are annexed by Beaverton, Portland has agreed to de-annex the area and allow Beaverton to annex it. The question has been raised just how sincere is the City of Portland is about investing money to solve a traffic problem in an area which someday will be ceded to Beaverton? PDOT, however, denies that this is a factor in their decision making process.
Metro mentions the intersection in its 2003 action plan for the Fanno Creek Greenway Trail. In it they say: “Add traffic signal to intersection- warrants exist to provide signal.” They estimated the cost at $150,000 (page IV-4; pg. 17 of PDF). This is simply to install the traffic light hardware. The city of Portland has a different view of the intersection. They want to completely reengineer it, purchasing right-of-way, realigning streets, installing sidewalks, etc. Their price tag is $996,990. They have set aside $449,829 from their System Development Costs budget for this project.
PDOT has no excuse not to implement an all-way stop immediately. They have already identified the intersection as needing traffic signals, and according to PDOT’s own standards: “Four-way stop signs are used where traffic signals are needed; four-way or all-way stops may be used as an interim measure.”
It would seem that coordinated grassroots activism is necessary to pull us out of this decades-long quagmire. Those citizens who are interested in seeing improvements to this intersection need to unite, be proactive, and apply pressure to the city to solve this problem. So we have set up an eMail mailing list to keep citizens informed of matters pertaining to this intersection, and to advise citizens when it might be valuable to make calls or write letters. We know that this intersection affects a great number of people, and if we can mobilize a few hundred people to make a phone call from time to time, or attend a meeting to voice their concerns, we just might see some action from the city, rather than 40 more years of broken promises. There is power in numbers. It is, after all, the squeaky wheel which gets the grease.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| GHR-Mult. Blvd jurisdiction agreement.pdf | 149.67 KB |