Why the Flanders Crossing will Save Lives, Save Money and Save Our Environment.

By Sam Adams

During the political season some can feel pressured to make inaccurate or misleading statements for perceived gain, and regrettably the current season is no exception. Many inaccuracies have been uttered about the proposed new crossing at NW Flanders Street over Interstate 405 that would reuse the center span of the existing Sauvie Island Bridge. This is a terrific project as the facts clarify.

The Sauvie Island Span Moves to NW Flanders
On Wednesday, April 23 Commissioners Leonard, Saltzman, and I co-sponsored an ordinance that would direct the City to purchase the center span of the bridge currently connecting Highway 30 to Sauvie Island and relocate it to Flanders Street in Northwest Portland. When completed, this new connection between Portland's two most densely populated neighborhoods will save lives, money, and the environment.

An Easy Decision Compared to Others
As the city's transportation commissioner, I am pleased to support such a far-sighted project. Overseeing transportation in Portland is not a task for those who lack clarity in direction or detail. It's a difficult job that combines high public expectations with limited financial resources that are declining in real value everyday. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 10 being the most difficult decision I make for transportation, reusing the Sauvie span rates a 3.

Priority #1 is Safety
Knowing that expectations dramatically exceed dollars available, I prioritize projects that will save lives. That's why in 2006 I asked Transportation to identify the city's 25 most dangerous corridors and intersections and what could be done to improve their safety. Moving east to west, intersections on 122nd Avenue, 82nd Avenue/Foster Boulevard and West Burnside have the greatest number of crashes.

The Push for New Funding at City Council
That same year we held Transportation's first Safety Summit with the public. Together we prioritized locations for fixes and developed a detailed project list. I took that list to my council colleagues and secured $13 million from the city's general fund. Historically transportation has not received general fund dollars. But council supported my request because we demonstrated the needs were great, alternative funding sources were non-existent, and we had a detailed, transparent project plan approved by neighborhood and business associations that we could execute right away.

East Portland Arterials Come First
Given the concentration of high-crash corridors and intersections in East Portland, it's no surprise that we directed 76% of dollars earmarked for safety improvements there.

West Burnside Corridor is Next
As the data directed, we then turned our sights on West Burnside. Within the last month, some have made a point to dismiss the need for safety improvements in the West Burnside corridor. Apparently for some, the facts don't matter. And the facts are clear.

West Burnside kills.

As recently as October 11, 2007 the unsafe conditions of West Burnside took the life of Tracey Sparling, a 19-year old student traveling by bicycle from her apartment in Goose Hollow to her classes at the Pacific Northwest College of Art in the Pearl District. A cement truck, operating apparently in accordance with the law, ran over her at the corner of SW 14th Avenue and Burnside. She was in the bike lane. The driver never saw her.

It doesn't surprise me that facts are ignored or skewed for perceived gain during the political season. But it does dishearten me that community leaders would tolerate this tragedy by attacking a special opportunity with a uniquely wide range of attributes to improve the street environment. Tracey's plight only personalized for me what the data already show: poor bicycle and pedestrian conditions needlessly jeopardize the safety of those who travel by any mode between Northwest and the Pearl, the city's two greatest concentrations of people.

The Legal Requirement for Bicycles and Pedestrians
West Burnside's dangers immediately became clear when Transportation began to study reconstruction options for the Burnside/Couch corridor. When reconstruction occurs, state law compels the City to provide for bicyclists and pedestrians. I quote from the Oregon Department of Transportation:

"ORS 366.514, aka the bike bill, was passed by the Oregon Legislature in 1971. It requires the inclusion of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists wherever a road, street or highway is built or rebuilt. It applies to ODOT, cities and counties. It also requires ODOT, cities and counties to spend reasonable amounts of their share of the state highway fund on facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. These facilities must be located within the right-of-way of public roads, streets or highways open to motor vehicle traffic. The funds cannot be spent on trails in parks or other areas outside of a road, street or highway right-of-way."

Genesis of the Flanders Crossing
In 2002, the Burnside/Couch stakeholder advisory committee debated the best way to meet this obligation while accommodating the other goals for Burnside/Couch. Improving the safety of pedestrians crossing Burnside was their top priority, followed by wider sidewalks on Burnside and on-street parking. The group came to consensus there wasn't sufficient room to accommodate bikes in the Burnside/Couch corridor. The Bicycle Transportation Alliance made a proposal: they would cede the legal right to bike lanes on Burnside and Couch in exchange for the City designating Flanders a "bicycle boulevard" (a street designed to minimize but not eliminate motor vehicle traffic) and building a new 405 crossing at Flanders.

The Current Council Affirmed Support Three Times
City council, including Mayor Potter, has affirmed its support for the Flanders crossing three times: when it approved the Burnside/Couch proposal in 2007, when it approved the crossing as part of the list of priority projects eligible for Transportation System Development charges in 2007, and again in 2007 when it approved the study to test the feasibility of moving the Sauvie center span to Flanders over 405. The previous council also supported the Flanders crossing when it voted for the couplet in 2002.

A Correction to Potter's Assertion
On April 19, 2008 Mayor Potter issued a press statement from more than 6000 miles away while traveling in China to blast the council majority's decision to move forward with the Sauvie center span at Flanders. Potter doesn't support the move because "This bridge will give the Pearl District three overpasses in a three-block span. And while one accident is one accident too many, the N.W. Flanders site is not on PDOT's list of dangerous intersections for either autos, bikes, or pedestrians."

As a review of the Burnside to Glisan crash data map reveals, Potter has identified precisely why Flanders was chosen as a bicycle boulevard. Flanders is the safest reasonable alternative to bike lanes on Burnside and Couch and substandard facilities on Everett and Glisan. A bridge at Davis would be unduly complicated by an on/off-ramps between I-405 and NW 14th Avenue. Everett and Glisan are intended to serve, and do serve, concentrations of motor vehicles at higher speeds between the two neighborhoods as well as access points to and from I-405. The data shows these have been high-crash corridors.

Each Existing Crossing is Dangerous
Burnside, Couch, Everett, and Glisan all provide sidewalks of sub-standard width on just one side of the street due to the collection of ramps connecting to I-405. Even with one substandard sidewalk per side, a pedestrian must avoid motor vehicles traveling at high speeds to or from the freeway. It's intuitively dangerous, and the data confirms that.

Why the Sauvie Span at Flanders
With the need for the Flanders crossing addressed, the remaining question is whether reuse of the Sauvie Island center span is a good fit for Flanders. I base my decision on value and values. Would reuse be a good use of taxpayer money at the projected $5.5 million? And would reuse be consistent with Portland's expectations for itself?

In both instances, reuse comes out ahead of any alternate scenario. Much has been made of the original low-confidence estimate that a brand new span would cost the city $3.5 million. We need to explore that number in greater detail.

$3.5 million represents a low-cost estimate for a 15-foot wide design-unfriendly span that was under contract for construction today. It does not account for real-world provisions like the cost of inflation. Prior to the opportunity to relocate the Sauvie center span, Transportation originally had planned to see the new span built as part of Burnside/Couch reconstruction. Planners estimate the project will break ground in 5 years. Construction costs in transportation have been inflating at a rate of 5% annually. Thus a span estimated in low confidence to cost $3.5 million today would be projected to cost $4,375,000 in 2013.

A new span at 15 feet of width is inferior to the Sauvie's 30 feet of width. Not addressing real world constraints, a new 30-foot span today would be projected in low confidence to cost $7 million. (There is no bulk discount in bridges.) But more realistically, the bridge would more likely be built five years out at a projected cost of $8,750,000.

The Utility of 30 feet in Width for Non-Motorized Uses
Some suggest 30 feet in width for non-motorized uses is extravagant. An analysis of high volume corridors suggests existing widths that vary between 10 feet (Hawthorne Bridge) and 15 feet (Eastbank Esplanade) are inadequate to handle peak travel. Transportation projects 2000 daily crossings between Northwest and the Pearl District, the city's two densest neighborhoods. Bicycle ridership has risen steadily in the last 10 years and risen dramatically in the last 5 years. A 30-foot crossing should better accommodate demand for decades to come.

Funding Sources and Constraints
The Sauvie center span move is projected to cost $5.5 million. Sources are:
• $2 million in Transportation System Development Charges;
• $2 million in River District Urban Renewal funding;
• $1 million in Transportation Enhancement funds from the Oregon Department of Transportation;
• $500,000 from the Safe, Sound & Green Streets program; and
• Private contributions.

Some have suggested these funding sources could be redirected to other parts of town. SDCs must be used to enhance capacity, but otherwise do not have geographic constraints. Growth in the Northwest District has generated $4.3 million in SDCs but Transportation has spent just $740,000 in SDCs there. River District URA funding must be spent within the geographic boundary. ODOT's Transportation Enhancement funds are available only for projects that "enhance cultural, aesthetic or environmental values in the transportation corridor." Routine transportation improvements, like basic sidewalk development, are not eligible for TE funds. As mentioned, the Northwest District targeted the Flanders crossing as its highest priority, which is why it's included in the Safe, Sound & Green program. And finally, it's the specific opportunity to reuse the Sauvie center span at Flanders that has encouraged private citizens to seek private fundraising.

These are the reasons I support the Flanders Crossing. I know that when the facts are available to Portlanders they support strong decisions that make our city safer. This project will save lives, save money and help each Portander do our part to save the environment.

Sam

Related Documents

11 Million in PDOT One Time General Fund Safety Projects

Portland's Most Dangerous Corridors

Facts on Flanders Crossing

Ordinance