The Portland Bureau of Transportation announced that they will be addressing pedestrian safety by “daylighting” intersections on “pedestrian priority streets.”
“Daylighting” is the removal of car parking nearest a crosswalk, marked or unmarked. Removing the parking and cars associated with it will greatly improve visibility at Portland’s intersections. Ultimately, this will reduce the amount of conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles in the intersections.
Oregon State Law 811.550 states parking cannot be placed “within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection [with exemptions].” This law has been cited by activists who have been pressuring the bureau to remove the parking in the name of pedestrian safety. This law is not mentioned in PBOT’s announcement of the new citywide guidelines. Instead these guidelines highlight that “Oregon state law allows cities to set their own regulations regarding intersection approaches,” and go on to proclaim that the city has not required daylighting intersections but “that’s about to change.” The new guidelines will require the 20’ setback on some streets designated as “pedestrian priority.” These include Neighborhood Greenways and streets on Portland’s High Crash Network.
Credit: Portland Bureau of Transportation Vision Clearance One-Pager
Safe Urban Form by Dumbaugh and Rae acknowledges the inherent danger at intersections due to the “conflicting streams of traffic.” The text goes on to highlight that the mere presence of intersections causes vehicles to decelerate or stop completely, which “reduces impact speeds, and thus the incidence of fatal crashes.” This points out an interesting paradox where intersections are simultaneously dangerous for pedestrians, yet a safer place to be hit by a car. Supporting design modifications both within the proximity of intersections and “even where intersections are infrequent… may help reduce both traffic conflicts and crash incidence.”
Jonathan Maus of BikePortland cites two pressure-building efforts as the impetus for change. First, Oregon Walks has created a campaign to inform community members of the law requiring a 20’ setback. Included on their website is an explanation of daylighting and instructions on how to get the City’s attention. They urge readers to post an image of a car in violation of this law with the hashtag “#ClearTheCorners” as well report it to PBOT by calling its hotline. Second, Forum Law Group filed a lawsuit against the city for not adhering to this law. The lawsuit was in reference to the death of a motorcyclist who lawyers claim would not have been hit by a motor vehicle if the City complied with the 20’ setback law.
The new initiative named “Vision Clearance” began in September and work is ongoing until June of next year. The funding comes from the PBOT Small Capital Project budget and funds secured by Jo Ann Hardesty, the Portland Commissioner delegated to the bureau.
By Anthony Tortorici
Edited by Asif Haque
Sources:
Eric Dumbaugh & Robert Rae (2009) Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the
Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety, Journal of the American Planning
Association, 75:3, 309-329, DOI: 10.1080/01944360902950349
https://bikeportland.org/2021/11/04/city-of-portland-says-theyll-daylight-350-intersections-340939
https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.550
https://oregonwalks.org/clear-the-corners/
https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/intersection-visibility
Hi, Anthony, thanks for your insightful blog post! I am in total support of daylighting, and such a design modification I think is supported by the literature you mentioned. I did not know that it is actually mandated by Oregon State Law, and I am now wondering how long this law has been in place. Because given this law, it is alarming to learn that the City has been non-compliant for as long as they have been and is only just beginning to implement daylighting. This may have something to say about the stringency of state mandates on local compliance. It is relieving nonetheless to learn that the City is starting to take steps in complying with State Law. I just wish this process could have been initiated sooner, as I am convinced this would have saved lives. I wonder then why such an initiative was not adopted as a part of the City’s “Vision Zero” plan. And so I wonder whether this initiative, “Vision Clearance,” will slowly become a part of “Vision Zero.” Much to look into. Thanks, again, for your post.
ReplyDelete