Sorry Leslie, now is not the time. Adams wants to raise fees to the tune of a half billion to deal with thirty years of deferered street maintenance; maintenance that would benefit bicyclist, pedestrians, autos and freight. When you're that far in the hole you can't throw another 5.5 million (and based on history it will go way over) at an amenitie.

You don't get dessert unless you eat your greens.

Kudos to Tom and Dan for holding the line on this "emergency" ordinance.

If you're so interested in having a pedestrian friendly city, I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for them to walk 1 block in either direction instead.

The reality check of what is going on in Portland today is a lot of wonky irresponsibility spending for snail rail streetcar toys, bike boxes to protect bicyclists from themselves because they refuse to abide by the rules of the road, and yes, even this proposal to relocate the old Sauvie Island Bridge as a Bicycle/Pedestrian crossing over I-405 – all of which lacks fiscal accountability and siphons away funding needed for needed street maintenance and basic services in Portland neighborhoods. The Flanders Street Bridge is yet another glaring example demonstrating how far out of touch with reality and inconsistent with the mainstream of Portlanders Commissioner Sam Adams’ excessive misaligned transportation spending priorities truly exhibit. The public's transportation dollars could be better spent and utilized to help pay to fix or replace the ailing Sellwood Bridge that 30,000 vehicles cross daily. Obviously Adams has no conscience about depleting public resources when it comes to financing his personal agenda whims and luxurious play toys. Apparently PDOT has plenty of discretionary dollars to spend when it comes to brokering back room deals with freeloading bicyclists and affluent neighborhoods making it obvious Portland does NOT need any kind of an assessed Street Maintenance Fee.

Clearly the City Council’s vote on this matter will reveal which commissioners can demonstrate fiscal accountability, responsibility and restraint, and those on the council who can not! If the concept of reusing the Sauvie Island Bridge has any amount of merit; then a vote in favor of doing so MUST come with a stipulation that bicyclists, possibly through a bicycle tax, and the adjoining wealthy neighborhoods come up with the dollars rather than poaching the funding from other sources.

Terry Parker writes a long screed about so-called "freeloading bicyclists".

Not that old canard again. Between my job and my side business I pay income taxes on nearly $90k/yr. I own two pieces of property and pay taxes on both. Plus I drive a car and ride a motorcycle, paying fuel taxes and registration fees along the way.

And yet some still have the nerve to call people like me "freeloaders" when we want to ride our bikes safely across town.

...back room deals with freeloading bicyclists...

I know, right? I mean, all this attention on Freemasons and Big Oil, when it turns out that bicyclists have been behind every back room deal in this country for over a century now. And, why do people continue to flock to Portland when clearly we're not doing things right here. Don't they see when they get here they're just going to have to live healthier, smarter, more efficient lifestyles. TP hits the nail on the head - it is NOT the people who demand that only cars be able to move about in the public rights of way that are obnoxious freeloaders, it's everyone else.

Sadly, Terry and his ilk make the rest of us fiscal conservatives look really stupid. Most of us aren't stupid, and we outnumber the blowhards, but they overpower us with their high decibel level, and blatant ignorance.

Please forgive him, for he is an idiot.

...Everett and Glisan can be dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Both roads get a lot more thru traffic because the roads continue over I-405. I believe the idea is that Flanders gets a lot less traffic in that area, and adding a ped/cyclist only bridge would allow them to stay on that low traffic road. And that decreases the chances of there being a vehicle-bicycle or vehicle-pedestrian accident.

BCM, have another look. Both the alternatives you are suggesting are on major thoroughfares where they intersect with the freeway. They are terribly bike- and pedestrian-UNfriendly.

Despite these Bush-like scare tactics, Google Street View tells a very different story.

Leslie, I didn't quote you above, thus I wasn't referring to you when I said that the scare tactics put forth by others here are Bush-like. Read: Deathtrap

The cars are much too close to the bike lane.

You've just described half of Portland. Are we going to start throwing up bridges all over the city? I'm obviously being facetious, but if that's going be the rationale for this project, then we better be prepared for a radical alteration to our current infrastructure.

Terry Parker, You prove your total ignorance yet again. My niece was following "The Rules". She was in the bike lane designated by the city and stopped at a red light. Check your information before you pontificate on about things you have no knowledge on. Next time I see your name, I will skip the comment because I know it will be the yada yada blather of a pathetic soul that just wants to see their name in print.

Leslie, I'm well aware of peak oil. That's a topic for a later time and I'm sure you and I would agree on many of the solutions.

A Flanders St. bridge is not one of them though. It's expensive and unnecessary. It's meant to make a statement, not fix a problem. In a perfect world, with unlimited funds, the former is OK. There are issues in Portland that require much more attention and money though.

My God People Think About This.

We Need A Bridge For Bicycles & Foot Traffic In NW Portland Before A New Bridge In Sellwood ??? Or A New Fire Station, Or A (Get The Idea)

Tell City Council To Spend Money On Things We Need Not Want.

It is obvious bicyclists don’t like the term “freeloader” attached to their mode of transport. Consider however a bigger bridge project - the 4.2 billion dollar Columbia Crossing Project. A percentage, approximately 50 percent or better, of that entire project will be federally funded and come from the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The money in that fund only comes from the federal tax on motor fuels that only motorists pay when using their vehicles. One part of the Columbia Crossing project includes spending multi-millions of dollars to provide a 20 foot wide bicycle crossing and related bicycle infrastructure for a small number of users as compared to motorists. Yet the Columbia River Crossing Task Force so far is only addressing charging tolls for motor vehicles. Hence, if motorists are tolled to use the crossing, and bicyclists can use the crossing for “free” – the term “freeloader” rightfully applies.

Furthermore, income taxes and property taxes in Oregon for the most part (one exception being urban renewal districts) do not pay for streets, roads, bridges and bicycle infrastructure. Being polite, I won’t go so far as calling people stupid or ignorant who think they do, but they should know better before making posts suggesting that type of spending occurs. The money for roadways comes from taxes assessed on motorists. When a person drives, they pay a fuel tax user fee to use the road. When they leave the car in the driveway and ride a bike or use transit, at that point, they move from paying a tax for using paved transport infrastructure to using it for free thereby generating “one less driver that is one less transport infrastructure taxpayer” – hence the term “freeloader” again applies to bicyclists because they are not paying a user fee while others in cars and trucks beside them are. Bicyclists offensively proliferate any and all excuses not to pay for what they use and want, however there is a large financial cost and footprint like it or not to provide specialized bicycle infrastructure – and that infrastructure, those infrastructure costs, need to be paid for by the bicyclists who use and directly benefit from it. When bicyclists support and pay a reasonably applied direct tax on the bicycling mode of transport to pay for bicycle infrastructure, the word freeloader will no longer apply.

"Bicyclists offensively proliferate any and all excuses not to pay for what they use and want, however there is a large financial cost and footprint like it or not to provide specialized bicycle infrastructure – and that infrastructure, those infrastructure costs, need to be paid for by the bicyclists who use and directly benefit from it."

So I expect that you support Sam Adams' street fee proposal that generates revenue based on trips generated? I do, even though it will cost me more, I'm all for paying my share. Look, we all pay for roads, even as you rightly say, most of it comes from gas taxes...but that tax is passed along to me in the cost of my clothes, the cost of the food I eat, and everything else I consume that somehow gets to me via a road. And the need for freight dictates our transportation needs as much as for car travel, so you simply can't say that the only money comes from people like you who drive. I don't feel sorry for you if you pay more because you use the road more and you're out there in the car by yourself, tearing up the roads waaay faster than my bike ever will. When you pony up the costs of all the externalities from your use of your car, then you'll be talking.

I stay in my little lane so that I don't clog up your lane and we're both safer. If you don't support more ways to take me even farther from your lane, like a dedicated bridge, that's simply illogical. And as far as the fiscal argument, sometimes doing the right thing simply costs more, but in the long run, the benefits accrue.

I've crossed the Glisan and Everett bridges many times, both by bike and walking. They ARE death-traps! It's their freeway entrance ramps that encourage motorists to accellerate through the marked crosswalks. They're comparable to other death-trap entrance ramps around Portland -- Sandy Blvd to westbound Banfield freeway, NE Broadway to northbound I-5, Couch to northbound I-405, etc.

Though I'm all for a pedestrian crossing at Flanders, the old Sauvie Island bridge may not be the best fit. Awhile back, a study considered capping certain blocks over I-405. (Bridge the Divide, I think it was called.) The blocks between Glisan and Everett were determined to be good candidates, nevermind that the final proposal for the double-block was a hideous parking garage that cut off the pedestrian corridor. The study had many flaws, including that one. Still, the old Sauvie Island Bridge is incompatable with the basic vision that came out of the study. The less expensive though narrow pedestrian crossing does fit the future potential for capping I-405. Capping the freeway, while maintaining the Flanders pedestrian corridor, is still a good idea.

I'd say it's worth the extra $2 million to get what could become an iconic pedestrian and bicycle bridge. At 40' wide, there's room there for benches, planters, public art, maybe a Benson Bubbler at one end. The bridge could be improved with a good paint job (and even lit up at night with solar powered LEDs.) And if the City needs to pass the hat to raise private funds to make up the difference between a boring 12' concrete bridge and this one, I'll throw in.

BCM, do you ever actually drive/bike/walk in this city (and particularly the area concerned)? Your picture (beautifully augmented by some mad MSPaint skillz) completely fails to address the concerns of my post (though since I wasn't directly quoted, I don't know if I was intentionally exempted from the "Bush-like" smear).

Nate, thanks for noticing my MS Paint skillz. And no, I wasn't addressing your post when I replied.

I live in Portland. I do drive and walk the area in question. As for walking, I have never felt unsafe while doing so.

I don't bike anywhere in Portland simply because it's too narrow everywhere (SE in particular) -- the bike lane on the Everett overpass is the standard, not the exception. Adding one safe part on the journey isn't going to change my mind and it's certainly not worth the money when we have far more pressing issues at hand.

Perhaps I could have been persuaded before the tram, but not now. It's just a waste of money.

In the years to come will numbers of people deciding to use bicycles or walking to get around the city increase significantly? Seems likely, especially with rising cost and decreasing availability of gasoline for cars.

Will bike/pedestrian capacity of the Everett and Glisan bridges, or the federally specified bike/pedestrian width proposed Flanders St bridge adequately meet the needs of this increase in bicycle and pedestrian usage? It seems as though quite a few people either haven't thought about that, or don't care.

I wonder just how many people are going to feel as non-threatened as BCM in crossing the Everett and Glisan St bridges. Well, since it's no problem for him, maybe he would volunteer taking a post at one or other sides of the bridges and escort people safely across. I bet it's a sure thing that a lot of people that otherwise might, won't even consider making those crossings on foot or bike, just because of the hazard they represent.

The city is changing, and so are people's needs. Going ahead with reusing the Sauvie Isl bridge for Flanders may be turn out to be more fiscally responsible than people imagine, if a little forward thinking is applied.

I did a little research into these claims of the Everett/Glisan St. overpasses being unsafe. According to the Oregonian (based data compiled from ODOT), between 2003-2006 there were 0 incidents involving bikes. That's 0 guys, hardy the purported 'deathtrap' put forth by some in this thread.

This isn't necessarily to say that your claims are manufactured and overblown; it's just that if you're going to cite 'safety' as the motivator, there are several places that are far more worthy of our money considering they have recorded multiple incidents:

Bike accident map for Portland

Yes BCM. There's O incidents, because almost nobody wants to use those crossings, because they're deathtraps. That is not the way to promote walking and biking. Make travel by walking or biking so aversive that only the hardiest will consider it. What kind of thinking is that?

Why can't the Portland Development Commission obtain private funding from developers? The developers have benefited exponentially from the Pearl District, so why can't they be called upon to give something back to Portlanders who have made the Pear district so wealthy?

I am opposed to continuing using taxpayer money to line the pockets of the developers in the Pear district.

Funding question aside, the use of the old Sauvie Island Bridge makes sense from a number of different benefits. A 40 foot wide space can be turned into financial viable public center (just go to Europe and see what they would do with this space):

1. Add shops in the center: coffee, restaurant(s), small vegatable stand, bakery, flower shop, book store. We could even add a small financial branch help with the subprime mortgage crunch.

2. Public meeting space (see above fountain idea)

3. possibility of adding a green space

Why not do the whole enchilada....

A 40 foot wide space can be turned into financial viable public center (just go to Europe and see what they would do with this space)

I'm not sure that a 200 foot viaduct over a freeway -- without any sound walls -- would be a particularly attractive public space, but it's certainly true that a 40 foot width offers a lot more opportunity for creative experiments than a 12 foot walkway.

That makes the competing price argument a choice between a bag of apples and a bushel of oranges. If we look at this as the potential for more than just a bike crossing, the higher price project may prove to be the bigger bargain. Pay $4 million for a 15 foot bike bridge, or $5.5 million for a 40 foot festival street with separated bike and pedestrian crossing, plus space for public art, vendors, and even some greenery. And we get it next year, instead of five years from now.

I'm not sure that a 200 foot viaduct over a freeway -- without any sound walls -- would be a particularly attractive public space

With that, let's summarize where we stand:

Argument in favor | Result Safety | Invalid Public Space | Improbable 'Cheap,' Under $10 mil. | Unlikely

I happen to have ridden a bicycle (and driven cars and motorcycles) in and around Portland for the past 35 years. The big picture is more about operator behavior than where a given class of vehicle is operated.

If one considers that all modes of personal conveyance are subject to the same set of traffic rules, the number of wheels and how the power gets to the road is immaterial.

Dollars spent for education of operators and enforcement of traffic regulations (for riders and motorists alike), would eventually "force" cars and bicycles to peacefully coexist on the asphalt. And with that, less energy and resources would be expended figuring out where to cloister bicycles.

The most cost effective solution would be operators merely riding and driving 'friendly,' leaving the ego on the shelf. How about taking that baby step, today? Go ahead and allow someone to change lanes ahead of you. It will not hurt, i can guarantee.

Keep Portland weird, indeed; but let's also keep the traffic flowing safely, okay folks?

Build a public space over a freeway, without sound abatement??? That would be really unpleasant. Plus, does anyone remember that we live in a seismically active zone? Does this $5.5 million dollars include seismic retrofitting? Or do we not care when the next earthquake hits and all the vendors and such fall onto the freeway?

'Cheap,' Under $10 mil. | Unlikely

Based on what? The price of the bridge is known. There's no possibility of material overruns. The price of transporting the bridge to the Flanders street site is known; the technology isn't new and there aren't likely to be any surprises along the way ("oops! We didn't realize there was wire overhead!"). The price of installing is the only place where there might be room for cost overages, and given that "putting in a bridge" is something that's been done routinely for, oh, decades now, I don't see much risk of a cost overrun. It's not like the I-405 retaining walls are an unknown quantity when it comes to soil stability.

This isn't a speculative project like the aerial tram. $5.5 million probably means $5.5 million, or within a few percentage points thereof.

Safety | Invalid

I walk across those viaducts sometimes. With the traffic going on and off the freeway at Glisan -- yeah, that one's scary, and I've nearly been hit a couple of times. Everett's a little safer, but still intimidating. It doesn't help that the sidewalks are on the "ramp" side of the bridge where all the cars are turning to enter the freeway. Of course, you could walk on the other side... but there's no sidewalk.

"15' is plenty wide." Pete Forsyth

What do you base that on? I'm just curious if there are some numbers indicating that 15' will be wide enough to handle bike/pedestrian capacity 10, 20, 30 years down the road. 15' may be wide enough for today, but I'm not sure that would hold for the future, given that both walking and bike riding are increasingly common in town as a means of commuting and recreation.

Sure, the 15' concrete bridge will allow passage also, but again, will it be sufficient for anticipated increases in pedestrian/bicycle traffic in decades to come? That seems like an important consideration. This town, Portland, is changing. It's likely to become more populated and more visited in the future than it is today. It does no good to build for today's needs without taking into consideration those of the future. By the time the 15' concrete span finally gets built in 5 years, it may already be insufficient for bike pedestrian needs.

I think there's been some confusion about what's meant when the Sauvie Isl span at Flanders was described as a destination point. Theoretically, I suppose some shops and whatnot could be located on the bridge, and some people commenting even have suggested that. More realistically though, the Sauvie Isl span would be a destination point simply by the ease in which it would enable passage from one side of I-405 to the other. People wouldn't actually be hanging out, lounging around drinking tea and coffee on the span. That seems kind of ridiculous to me.