In recent years, the Oregon Department of Transportation has slowly added buffer zones to create wider motorcycle lanes on many road projects. In some cases, they have implemented road diets and reduced existing lanes to allow more space for cyclists. These adjustments are a step toward building ODOT, a formula more available to walkers and cyclists. They also abide by a general consensus among road protection and design experts that wider lanes of traffic lead to higher speeds, that more area is needed to make cycling attractive to more people. other people and that the lanes used to circulate have been wider than necessary.
But for trucking industry representatives and other ODOT advisors, considerations about narrower lanes have been felt for years. As we reported in September 2022, tensions between ODOT’s advisory teams that constitute the interests of trucking and active transportation largely revolved around the lane width debate. Giant truck drivers (and their defenders), every inch counts. They say their cars are suitable for some lanes in Oregon, and drivers are forced to head to the motorcycle lane’s buffer zone to avoid oncoming traffic.
By invading buffer zones they only threaten to run over a cyclist, but they also fear that they will be chased in the event of an accident.
Trucking advocates now need to replace Oregon’s motorcycle lane law to make it legal to drive in the middle of a motorcycle lane. They must also upload a definition of “buffer space” to the Oregon Vehicle Code. Two members of ODOT’s Mobility Advisory Committee (an organization that focuses on the impact of road projects on freight routes), Mark Gibson, government relations policy advisor for the Oregon Teamsters Association, and Walt Gamble, a member of Associated General Contractors. board of directors, shared a presentation on the factor at a meeting of the ODOT advisory committee. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, Tuesday.
“A lot of this has to do with designated freight routes across the state,” Gibson said at the meeting. “Unfortunately, nowadays, those freight routes go through a lot of urban areas, and in many cases, there are no other features for trucks. That’s what we’re looking to solve. There’s a lot of tension with being a truck driver in an urban environment.
And Gamble added: “We’re looking to keep all users safe. . . We are the ones who deliver all the concrete from pavement to rock in all those urban contexts. And that’s why we’re so passionate about it, because for our drivers, it’s very difficult to make that happen. (Gamble also said later in the meeting, “We’re all suffering from the era of the road regime. “)
To make his point, Gibson shared a slide that showed the width of a typical freight truck as 10 and-a-half feet wide (with side mirrors). “In an 11-foot lane, we have three inches on each side,” the slide stated. “Our margin of safety has clearly been reduced.”
For trucking advocates, it’s an untenable scenario that Oregon’s urban design standards (passed in 2020) require 11-foot-wide lanes, while truckers (and other cars like buses and vans) want more than 11 feet to get around. Oregon has long said they would prefer there to be no bike traffic next to the trucks, or that they were physically separated by concrete, not a painted barrier. (“I think it’s smart for everybody, but unfortunately investment doesn’t allow that to happen,” Gibson said at the meeting. )
Gibson and Gamble are members of a special ODOT advisory group subcommittee called the Travel Lane Widths Work Group, which formed in March 2023 and met monthly through November to tackle this issue. Also among the group’s members was the leader of automobile advocacy group AAA Oregon/Idaho, the ODOT Pedestrian and Bicycle Program manager, and a captain from the Oregon State Police. After seven months of meetings they sent a proposal for the ORS changes to the Oregon Department of Justice for Review. What Gibson and Gamble presented yesterday was what they hope is the final product that will now be forwarded to the Oregon Legislature for consideration in the upcoming short session.
Their proposal would amend two existing statutes — ORS 811. 370 (Do Not Drive in a Lane) and 814. 430 (Improper Use of Lanes) — and burden the new definition of “buffer space” into the Oregon Vehicle Code.
The text highlighted in yellow below would be added to 811,370:
The following yellow would be added to 814,430:
The proposed definition of “buffer space” would be:
A buffer zone is an intermediate space between a bicycle lane and a motor vehicle lane bounded by two longitudinal strips and is intended for use in the cases described in SR 811. 370(3) and OSR 814. 430 (2g).
In a public comment at the meeting, Street Trust Executive Director Sarah Iannarone questioned the reasoning, intent and timing of the updates. “It’s transparent to us what challenge this proposed review seeks to address,” Iannarone said. “In our view, the substitution proposed above is superfluous and unnecessary. “
Iannarone noted that the law, as recently drafted, states that drivers must remain in their designated lane only “as much as practicable” and that if drivers must leave their lane, they may do so, provided that “the motion can be carried out safely. ” Iannarone said his organization would prefer that ODOT adopt the secure systems technique to inform policy change. Iannarone has made it clear that the Street Trust is not making the proposed adjustments and needs the matter to be investigated further. .
It should be noted that this amendment to the law would not apply only to freight carriers. If this proposal is successful, all motor vehicle drivers will have a clearer legal right to encroach on buffer zones.
The legal prestige of bike lane buffer zones has been a bit shaky. Currently, the law does not distinguish where a motorcycle lane ends and where its buffer zone begins, or whether a buffer zone is legally a motorcycle lane or some other type of space. In my experience, drivers are much more likely to drive and/or park in a buffer zone than in a motorcycle lane and have long wondered whether or not they are breaking motorcycle lane law when they do.
A source at the Portland Bureau of Transportation said they generally consider buffer zones to be part of the bike lane. But they also shared it’s accepted that larger vehicles will sometimes intrude into buffer zones on heavy traffic roads. However, the outside paint stripe is 8-inches wide, which designates it as a bike lane in the State of Oregon (as opposed to the four-inch wide stripe for a shoulder). Suffice it to say, the current law is vague and there appears to be no right answer.
The question now is whether proposing those trucker interests is the most productive way to fix the situation.
We will hear a lot about this in the coming weeks, as a bill to replace that legislation is expected to be introduced at the start of the consultation on 5 February.
Jonathan Maus (Editor/Editor)
Founder of BikePortland (in 2005). Father of three. North Portlander. Basketball lover. Owner and driver of the car. If you have any questions or comments about this site or my work, please feel free to reach out to me on @jonathan_maus on Twitter, via email on maus. jonathan@gmail. com, or by phone/text. at 503-706-8804. Also, if you read and enjoy this site, we will support you.
If your truck can’t get through the lanes or you’re having trouble controlling it, then the truck is too big for the city or you’re a bad driver. I don’t see why we dilute security when we already have well-documented cases of people being run over or killed by smuggling goods.
Maybe they’ll buy smaller trucks. God forbid, if you want to take a few more trips or hire some other worker and cut into the profits of the candy business.
Well, I’m about to say the same thing but you beat me over. If the truck is too big, get a smaller truck!
What bothers me is that there is no logical ending to this. Do you expect to be able to drive your large cargo trucks on each and every city street? If not, maybe some of the designated freight routes are not designated freight routes. .
There has to be a trade-off. While it’s true that there’s only one way to get to the one position that giant tractor-trailers want to go, it wouldn’t possibly be safe to build a motorcycle lane there. I guess that’s fair. But the places where this is true have to be limited. Highway 30, for example (towards Sauvie), deserves to have a wide buffer zone and I don’t think there is any other direction for trucks. Or the 33 between North Portland and Marine Drive, which I think is a freight address. Is there rarely another charging address? Because we want a way to get there safely by motorcycle.
In any case, this change in the law will have to be opposed, because it simply makes roads unnecessary. Or it potentially has no effect at all, as Iannarone turns out to imply.
I couldn’t agree more. If we were to widen our lanes to 12 or 13 feet, how long would it take for the width of trucks to reach the same width?
I’ve probably said this, or something like it, somewhere else here at BP recently, so I’ll be brief. Last year I was very lucky and was able to travel abroad more than the same year in a year. When traveling to other cities, outside of North America, you are very unlikely to forget about the limited area allotted to giant cars/trucks/trucks in very old, very giant, and very dense places. But things get done. Buildings are constructed, goods are shipped, store shelves are stocked. And the guys (the same old ones, don’t bother me with this) who do all this work, don’t drive to the task site in Mega Pickups, don’t drive semi-trucks hauling 53-foot boxes (*this* surely deserves to be banned within city limits), etc. The work is still being carried out and the cars used to help accomplish the task are a good size for their surroundings.
Or slow down! The slower one drives, the more control they have.
How about prohibiting trucks from delivering motorcycles or spare parts from the moment they are manufactured?I bet you think milk magically appears in stores too. Perhaps they advise you to be careful when riding a bike?
Wow, did you at least read Nick’s comment? Nothing Nick said suggests that objects come out of nowhere or that cyclists don’t take responsibility for their movements.
Can you buy narrower sell trucks?
“I think it’s smart for everybody, but unfortunately investment doesn’t allow that to happen,” Gibson said at the meeting.
“, say truck activists fighting against investment in pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure.
Driving a vehicle that is too big for an urban environment in an urban environment deserves to generate tension. Activities that can kill someone if not done right deserve to be taken seriously. The way to reduce this tension is to ensure the safety of the vehicles. Activists in the freight transport sector sometimes oppose spending to make cars safer or right-sized.
Why don’t pedestrians and cyclists place these improvements, a tax on the kilometers traveled by bicycle?
People who bike, walk, take transit, or drive exclusively for transportation and people who use multiple modes of transportation do fund our entire transportation system. This funding includes infrastructure called “bike lanes,” “cross walks” and “side walks,” which are built more to keep people who can not drive safely from killing people than to benefit people outside of cars, who are already lawfully entitled to use these roads.
It is appealing that there is no understanding of how roads and infrastructure are funded and other people are classified as pedestrians and cyclists as if they were other kinds of human beings.
Good photo. It shows how much area there is, but the driver doesn’t care.
Thanks for noticing you Chris! Many other people have no idea how much time I spend searching my photo archive for the right photo. It took me a while to locate this one!
And just how far away from the centerline did that truck have to drive to encroach that much on the buffer?
That is why they fight, for a natural and unrestricted invasion so that they can diminish their duty and put us in our place, according to them.
I thought the same thing: there’s no explanation as to why the driver can’t put the truck in the middle of the lane.
Some issues similar to this are expressed through the OTA:
“Our margin of protection has obviously been reduced. “
Discrepar. No there is room for TY, but there is room for error. The ty margin and the margin of error are not the same thing. The ty margin would be more applicable to the lengthening of a truck tow ramp to account for variability. Operators and cars are error-prone enough that 6 to 12 inch relief makes the difference between a step and a step, so I think the challenge isn’t the width of the lane. As written, the buffer zone IS your margin of safety. It is not a clever justification for turning the rule into question.
Also, I believe that traffic designs that make vehicle drivers (trucks or passenger vehicles) LESS comfortable make streets SAFER. Safety advances when drivers have to think, evaluate, slow down, negotiate with others, and sometimes pay attention to what they’re doing. All of those things seem unsafe, but overall, our city’s streets are fine despite the slightest margin of error. What makes us less are the wide lanes, top speeds, and layouts that get people’s brains moving. control.
There’s a lot of tension with being a truck driver in an urban environment.
I agree with this sentiment, but I hope to take the opportunity to point out that wouldn’t it be a lot less stressful if there were fewer cars on the roads?It is not a question of relaxing regulations on buffer zones, but of reducing the POV on the roads. through the improvement of other modes of transportation.
I’m wondering if Mark and the Oregon Truckers Association have thought about partnering with B-Linepdx. com for a last-mile delivery solution. This type of collaboration can help keep trucks off the streets where they are less efficient and save on fuel costs. , decrease the threat of lawsuits, lane conflicts, and decrease freight traffic in the city.
There’s no way they’re going to give up on the last mile, it’s the one that closes the deal and will probably pay the maximum in the end.
They would then have to use some of that cash to buy smaller trucks and continue to get deals in places where they admit their existing trucks are too big to install safely. They can also outsource that cash to another company with smaller trucks. and concentrate its operations elsewhere.
Two very moderate features that do not involve endangering the citizens of Portland when they go out to move around their city. It is not our duty to ensure that your business is profitable, but it is your duty to operate your business safely.
“Won’t we think about the shareholders??!!”
Seriously, if your company is so reliant on maximizing profits and inventory costs at the expense of public safety, that doesn’t seem like a value that supports the business style.
Maybe you as the minority road user should stay on the bikepaths if can’t pay attention to your surroundings.
Studies have shown that about 60% of motorists break the law. 15% of cyclists break the law when they are on the road and this figure drops to 6% when riding on bike infrastructure.
Therefore, their observation is not based on truth and is influenced by the propaganda of the big oil companies.
Perhaps trucks, as minority road users, will stay on trucking routes if they can’t pay attention to their surroundings.
I think I said something about wanting to pay attention to my surroundings, but I responded to the proposal to allow trucks to encroach on the bike portion of the road.
Do you think cargo trucks make up the majority of cars on Portland roads?I can guarantee you that they are vastly outnumbered by single-occupancy cars who have no problem adapting to our lanes and entering the cycle lane protection zone.
Maybe as a minority road user the freight trucks should stay on the highways if they can’t pay attention to their surroundings.
A shipping truck in Japan looks like this.
A street in Japan probably looks like this:
So all we have to do is narrow our streets and the trucks will follow us?Great, so let’s go.
We have separate speed restrictions for truck and car traffic on our interstate highway system, it turns out something similar would make sense for the urban freight network. For example, on a 25 mph street, the speed limit for trucks would be 20 mph. If the margin for error on narrower roads is as small as they claim, we deserve to reduce speeds on the network for safety, regardless of how the law treats buffer zones.
Either way, there will be bad behavior. Take a look at the other people driving in Vancouver, southern Alberta. They are in the buffer zone between the bike lane and the traffic lane.
You mean they’re closer to the halfway point, Guy? ?
Jokes aside, I’ve noticed that too. It is for this reason that I make a conscious effort to approach cars parked on the left when driving in Vancouver. Then I notice the car in front and the car leaving a 2 foot hole to their left and wonder if they even realize how the motorcyclists they pass by feel. . . which they probably don’t feel.
I realize that many drivers also give more for parked cars than for bikes on greenways.
Yes, that’s surely true. Drivers know that hitting a parked car on one side will cause more damage to their car than hitting a bicycle, so. . .
And all of us who are not drivers know that other people who drive cars are psychopaths who wouldn’t hesitate to kill a person. . .
Oops, I stumbled upon that ?
And I also ride closer to motorcycle route cars, I think there’s an herbal tendency to have a shock.
Yes, and the last thing we want is to inspire this habit by making it legal.
I’m skeptical about the desire to amend the existing law, which seems to me to leave enough flexibility when a larger vehicle actually has to encroach on a motorcycle lane or buffer zone. But this total factor feels a bit like a typhoon in a teapot. For me, as e-commerce delivery trucks and cars routinely (and illegally) encroach and block the city’s motorcycle lanes and buffer zones. I had to drive around a huge truck that completely blocked the motorcycle lane on a busy road on the way to my paintings. This morning. There are no apps, as far as I know.
I could not agree more. Cars and trucks of all types detour into motorcycle lanes when they need space, and this has no negative consequences for drivers.
I hope lawmakers will kill this bill as soon as it arrives and on more vital issues.
I have a hard time giving credibility to the transportation people, only on the third slide of the presentation.
It’s a diagram of the front of a truck with “The total width, (odd comma) with mirrors is, (odd comma) generally, (odd comma) 10’6” wide. “Then it’s written “We have a 10′ 6” total width truck (odd comma) in an 11′ lane. “
He then cites a federal law (citing it in a strange, non-standard way) that defines “full width” as “excluding. . . external mirrors. “
Since the federal code defines “full width” quite differently than how they use it, there’s no explanation for quoting it, other than (as far as I know) to make your slideshow more official.
My experience is other people who cite regulations when they don’t have to to intimidate other people into accepting their arguments: “Ooh, this refers to transportation codes, which those other people know about and I don’t, so it seems stupid if I try to do that. Comment. “
My impression is that this slide show was put together by people who really don’t know the regulations well themselves, but want to look like they do to discourage questioning or debate.
The maximum allowable truck width in Oregon is 8. 5 feet (ORS 818. 080). Oversized trucks have other rules. The presenters claimed that their width is 10. 5 feet because they feature pendulum side mirrors.
The legislation is beautiful as it is. These transportation and structures industry lobbyists need to succeed when they kill or cause life-changing injuries. It is money that takes priority over lives. Your money, our lives.
Road diets save lives.
“There are too many birds in the sky and to protect the air we will have to reduce and control their populations and now the planes will be equipped with Gatling guns to shoot them down in mid-flight. “
When will ODOT prevent the creation of committees heavily geared toward harmful road users who profit at the expense of taxpayers and human safety?
Given the huge expenses involved in transporting goods (which require heavy, expensive structures and common repairs), when will the cargo start paying its own freight?
When will we pass a bill to end freight subsidies and reduce truck size, weight and speed and increase freight taxes to stop subsidizing the profits of trucking companies and the big box corporations they deliver to?
Amen!
I use heavy trucks on Lombard in St. Johns treating the two-way S-curve at this intersection as a one-way lane. Think of Mario Andretti. Completely unacceptable for a community where other people walk.
If trucking corporations are held accountable, they will adapt this kind of habit to anything reasonable. Road regimes and similar laws are helpful, but we want to do more in terms of accountability. Right now, freight is prioritizing performance because it can. If insurance and the legal landscape around driving focused on driver protection and responsibility, I think things can change pretty quickly.
Stph
Isn’t there already a strong incentive for insurance companies to work with companies to reduce the potential liability of their drivers?What should happen that doesn’t?
At the risk of straining a metaphor, I will talk about driving a car as an “industry. ” With this in mind, I would like to see road injuries treated as disturbing outcomes that prevent “production” (driving) in a domain until the root causes have been known and rigorously corrected. I need the driving forces involved to be sidelined until they have received the proper education and proven their aptitude to operate those cars. I need to see normal, rigorous powertrain certification and cars requiring evidence of that certification before driving. I want to see planned trips and those that are followed on a regular basis with declared responsibility. I need the road shipment to reach a protection point similar to that of the advertising air shipment. Yes, it would be expensive and impractical. Yes, that would be disturbing. No other valid industry in this country has a death toll of 40,000 people a year and you can call that “the burden of doing business. ” Legitimate corporations do not measure their error in terms of deaths consistent with the unit produced (deaths consistent with the total mile traveled). We would never settle for such a metric in the production structure or industry (i. e. the number of deaths consistent with the manufactured contraption). We deserve not to settle for that in the “driving” business.
That said, of course, no one needs to do it in this kind of draconian landscape, so we’re left wringing our hands hoping something changes.
Stph
This would require a global redesign of society or the widespread adoption of automated vehicles.
So, one way or the other, change may be on the horizon.
Which advocate complained about the street buffet on SW Western Ave in Beaverton? Most of it has been regulated and there are now motorcycle lanes and an unmarked intermediate crossing on SW Arctic Drive. I haven’t noticed a single twist of fate on the street since the paintings completed last year.
I love this game.
“A lot of this has to do with designated motorcycle lanes across the state,” Gibson said at the meeting. “Unfortunately, today, those freight routes go through many urban areas and in many cases there are no other features for the bikes. That’s what we’re looking to solve. There’s a lot of stress when riding a motorcycle in an urban environment.
The 8′-6″ truck width shown in the trucking group’s presentation is the maximum width allowed. Many cities restrict trucks to less than federal maximums.
In addition, they claim a 3-inch “margin of safety” in an 11-foot-wide lane, given that the mirrors protrude 1 foot on each side of the maximum-width truck. That’s 1′-3″ between the widest truck frame and each of the aspects of the road if the truck is driving in the middle. This means that there is a significant area in an 11-foot-wide lane for a truck to move to the right before any component of the truck. that the rearview mirror breaks the plane out of the buffer zone.
Are truckers now being cited for “mirrors that break vertical planes in the buffer zone”?It seems to me that the truckers’ organization is exaggerating the safety factor.
Many cities restrict trucking to federal maximum limits.
Are there any U. S. cities? Is there a U. S. government that restricts the width of vehicles to less than 8. 5 feet?
I don’t know. I guess width is just as important a factor as weight or length. This raises some interesting questions. If they don’t restrict the width, do they have tracks that are 11 feet wide or less?Do they have any safety issues if they do?
And lately Portland has tracks that are 11 feet wide or less?If so, are there any protection considerations due to the width of the trucks?Do truckers seek to replace motorcycle lane stops because they want space or simply because they think they can?
If this replacement is approved, will truckers choose lanes next to motorcycle lanes instead of other 11-foot-wide lanes because of the added “ty-thing”?What if Oregon said, of course, that we would replace the law this way, as long as truckers agree not to use 11-foot-wide lanes, EXCEPT when an adjacent separation zone is available?You may see trucking crews say, “NO!It’s perfect for us to drive in 11-foot-wide lanes, as even our widest trucks are only 8. 5 feet wide, giving us a total of 1. 25 feet on each side! »
And lately Portland has lanes that are 11 feet wide or less?If so, are there any protection considerations due to the width of the trucks?
We do, and I’m not sure about the trucks, but I know TriMet complains about “mirror shots,” which turns out to be the same problem.
As far as I can tell, this bill changes very little in practice, as vehicles already can incur into the buffer zone when avoiding a road hazard, and trucks and buses routinely overhang buffer and center yellow lines and no one seems to care (well, I don’t like it, but there’s nothing I can do about it).
The bill would allow an incursion into a buffer zone only “when necessary,” so if someone is injured, the law will not be protective. I don’t know what that means compared to existing conditions.
I agree. That’s why I wonder why the trucking groups are pushing for it.
It’s probably a professional organization that mirrors its members’ court cases when they’re looking for something to fill an offseason.
There are giant expanses of West Virginia, adding maximum urban areas, where the total roadway width from edge to edge (or sidewalk to sidewalk in some cases, sidewalks are rare in West Virginia) is less than 15 feet, even on many “county roads. “State trucks got stuck in the middle of an intersection because they misjudged the width of the street. I also noticed that local delivery corporations liked narrower delivery trucks, chimney trucks were sometimes narrower, and large coal corporations had giant fleets of tall but narrow vending trucks. out of trucks. However, major roads and highways meet popular national highways in terms of width.
This total procedure demonstrates how problematic it is for paid transportation lobbyists to have this access point to ODOT and to ODOT’s unconditional endorsement of destructive legislation. I hope lawmakers start to realize that the stench of ODOT corruption is sticking to them and that it will be tricky to get rid of.
I say this as an experienced transportation planner (street design) and as someone who has driven giant sales trucks for structural projects*. . .
The freight industry and the rest of the people at Complete Streets/Bike deserve to be on the same page instead of fighting. Complete, modern streets with traffic restriction gain advantages in BOTH teams in their missions: safer streets that allow your constituents/employees/goods to reach their destinations safely and on time.
THE PROBLEM is that many agencies, jurisdictions, and my industry (traffic engineers/planners) are only contemplating “half” of the solution: (1) solving road segments (creating multiple very narrow lanes) with no intermediate lanes and no turn lanes (2) focusing on the desire to make intersections more common and effective (single-lane roundabouts) so that there is no need for multiple lanes serving stopped cars, that is, empty streets as platoons of cars pass by. In addition, by employing Charlie Zeeger’s thresholds, the safe operation of an arterial road deserves to be explained through how well it handles the passage of vulnerable road users AND what its intersections (with roundabouts) can safely handle, and then through the excess volume treated in the adjacent stepped arterial pathway. (s) (and/or rails or use of marine land).
We also want regional plans to return as much regional/long-haul freight to the railways (land use) and minimize the shift to oversized multi-axle trucks that also make local deliveries in the city center and on main streets.
Load managers (and the same goes for fire departments) want to choose cars that fit the urban street environment rather than tailoring the urban environment to their choice of vehicles. In the 1940s and 1960s, there was a greater choice of delivery trucks with cab-on-engine (COE) configurations than today’s ones, which are manufactured solely through Japanese companies.
*Yes, 11-foot lanes are stressful and stressful unless the truck (and bus) driver is driving well below the speed limits of the maximum arteries and wishes to have good, well-adjusted mirrors on all sides of the truck**. [** 2008 report by Tracey Sparling and Brett Jarolimek, RIP. ]
https://bikeportland. org/2008/01/22/citation-decisions-released-on-sparling-jarolimek-cases-6423
From the PBOT Traffic Design Manual Vol 1, June 2022, Page 38 of 153 https://www.portland.gov/transportation/engineering/documents/pbot-traffic-design-manual-volume-1-permanent-traffic-control/download
2. 2. 1 GAUGE GAUGES:
The City of Portland’s recommended lane width is 10 feet on roads with road markings. Lane widths less than 10 feet will need to be approved by the city’s traffic engineer with a design exception. Track gauges greater than 10 feet may be required on:
• Routes with higher load classification or volume.
• ODOT roads.
• Roads whose geometry is compatible with the design vehicle.
• Lanes reserved for public transportation.
Track gauges greater than 10 feet may be desired for other reasons, including:
• Operational and safety reasons, such as accommodation of cargo and transit vehicles, on horizontal curves.
• Geometric features of the road, adding designs of intersections, center islands, curb extensions, traffic calming devices, or other physical devices on or near the roadway.
• Use of the full width of the roadway, in cases where the width of the roadway is a limiting factor.
• Shared car and bike lanes.
(The manual goes on to say that streets designated for traffic have 11-foot-wide lanes. )
DW: Thanks for the link and for sharing more main points that I had time to add
It looks like he’s a little behind on the hit in this case. This commentary presents some. . . Attractive catches.
Truckers are other working class people who, for better or worse, make our entire society possible. If they have concerns, we listen to them with open ears. Should ODOT show so much favoritism toward the trucking lobby? Super reactionary, “self-brained” truckers and others in the trucking industry? You bet. But most of them are smart people just looking to make a living, and we’re definitely looking to build bridges, not alienate them.
You’ll need to take a deep breath and return to planet Portland. Of course, I love cute little European cabovers as much as anyone, but you have to realize that it’s unrealistic to expect corporations and owner-operators to upgrade each and every truck in their fleet. I don’t think shipping motorcycles are the answer either. In any case, this is not the only solution.
The rhetoric about being “victims in the road diet era” is pretty goofy. But I don’t think the law change is really some vast, anti-bike conspiracy. More a response to a bunch of truckers complaining to an organization meant to represent their interests. Todd Boulanger made an excellent point about how the focus should be on improving flow at intersections rather than preserving the number of lanes.
Like many of those discussions, it’s not about cyclists versus truckers or even bicyclists versus drivers. It’s about the profits of the industry as opposed to other people simply looking to live their lives and move around safely. profits that pay Gibson and Gamble and an exclusive seat at the transportation table. The industry that does not need to be held guilty for the murders of its painters if it provides them with unsafe apparatus to use or forces them to work in unsafe conditions.
Does the truck lobby constitute the interests of the staff or the interests of the executives?I’d be suspicious of the latter, and if we went through a hypothetical, silly rabbit hutch of narrower streets – > narrower trucks with less capacity – we’d gain advantages for truckers over truckers. business owners, because they would have to employ more drivers to haul the same amount of cargo.
It’s not about truck drivers or protecting life. It’s the bad frame (your frame) that you buy. This is a reason for profit rather than protection. No one seeks to do anything against the truck drivers themselves. Their trucks are too big to safely navigate city streets. Obviously, not all trucks can be replaced nowadays, but trucks don’t last and they want to start employing smaller trucks to adapt to the reality of driving in an urban environment. That’s just the way it is.
Now how that happens, I don’t know. I think in the mean time, they’re just going to have to drive slower and more carefully. Also they already have the safety buffer they want. Nobody is under any fire here, but we need to start mandating (who? I don’t know, not my expertise) that new trucks going forward need to be narrower to conform to driving around in an urban environment.
The 8. 5-foot freight track width works great. Mirrors want to be redrawn, elevated, eliminated, whatever. It’s the mirrors.
I also think it’s vital for truck drivers to have intelligent side and rear visibility, which is why mirrors seem vital.
Sí. Me makes you think it’s a clever concept for the width constraint to exclude mirrors. If this included them, the trucks would have as few mirrors imaginable and as small as legally imaginable, to avoid reducing shipping capacity.
Legally, you can remove mirrors in the U. S. (although, for example, Daimler has developed mirrorless shipping trucks that use cameras and HUDs to upgrade them).
um — you can’t *can’t* remove the mirrors
Great, now you tell me. How am I supposed to get my mirrors back on?!?
The real solution is the length of the trucks. Here’s how the rest of the world does it.
It’s war. How many truck drivers have died horribly at the hands of a cyclist? I think that number would be zero. And now you need to remove the miserable paint and some toothpicks?
I drive a truck. It’s just a matter of having daytime taxis and a 36/24-door trailer. Any driver who is halfway decent and moves fluidly in any area.
What’s going on here? Is it a transport company? I don’t need to rent drivers and then put two large trailers on the most sensible of drivers, because it saves money. This is cash and has nothing to do with security.
As a truck driver, I’m horrified by this idea. Lead the fight against the enemy. We don’t communicate anymore. Vote for them. Find a way.
The OTA came up with a clever idea: concrete dividers between the motorcycle lane and the motor vehicle lane. The fact that there isn’t enough cash for this reflects the lack of importance of biking and walking in general traffic. If it mattered more, I would see more and more bicycle infrastructure. Similarly, urging truckers to “slow down” shows broader social disorders similar to driving that need to be addressed as part of a longer game about driving behavior in the United States. These social upheavals are exacerbated through interstate highways. road system, and it would take a lot of changes to replace our driving behaviors. This would require generations of political will that simply does not exist, and will only be when driving a car becomes expensive and impractical (as is the case in some countries). other Western countries).
It’s a long game that most people can play.
Many truck brands build trucks for older European cities and countries with very limited lane widths. So, instead of providing those special interests with hard-earned protection gains, they deserve to adopt the most productive practices and build smaller trucks, designed for everyone’s protection. It’s a game for gain, not for the smartest of them all.
Hell, it’s almost as if trucks have no place in densely populated cities, where they’re completely dead and negative anyway, and that cities instead deserve to inspire all the other more suitable modes of transporting goods over short distances, adding shipping bikes and banning giant warehouses within urban centers, in specially designated peripheral areas.
Completely ban warehouses in urban centers
The logical result of this would be that there would be more trucks on the road, some of them, the smaller ones, that could pass through a teenager who has just been handed his license.
More smaller trucks, sure. That’s something I can live with. But it’s unlikely that the specter of a teen who just got their license driving something that requires a CDL is on the table.
These giant delivery vans can be driven by someone who has never driven a mile beyond what is necessary to get their license. I know a driver hired to drive such a vehicle, and I’m sure it costs a lot less than an experienced truck. motivating force.
Luckily, the boy was so scared that he couldn’t do much damage.
Personally, I’d rather have fewer, more professional drivers on the road, but the question is somewhat academic as Portland isn’t going to ban trucks or warehouses.
Correction: I should have said “license” instead of “permit”.
I guess it’s highly unlikely to deliver cars differently, or raise the driving age, or build a more comprehensive local (and public) freight train. Yes, sir, only the length of the trucks can change. What a pickle!
Nothing is impossible, but some things are more likely than others.
The 13th-century walled component of Siena, Italy, is reserved for pedestrians. There are 260 acres of thriving restaurants, wine bars, coffee shops, bakeries, grocery stores, residential complexes, urban palaces, a cathedral, churches, the town hall, networking centers, and twice a year, a horse race. Cargo trucks are allowed. They do very well with small delivery trucks.
Don’t forget the finish to one of bike racings greatest new races Strada Bianca!
Between lobbying for wider lanes, higher speed limits, and wider turns at intersections, the trucking and freight industry is crusading against safety. ODOT and PBOT bring the water from freight transportation, and Oregon lawmakers are beholden to the transportation their lobbyists must fill. The financial hole of the crusade. Freight owns the CTA. It will take a Herculean effort to triumph over the inertia that freight has imposed on all facets of transport decision-making.
This further explains why installing real motorcycle lanes, so that trucks cannot drive through the painted buffer zone.
As a truck driver for my job, the real challenge is that the vehicles are too big and intended for cities.
Japan doesn’t have any challenges with small trucks, so maybe we deserve to start doing so.
The buffer zone already existed when the law went into effect to pass a motorcyclist safely to slow down and have 4 feet of clearance. . . It’s just been painted on the road. . .
BikePortland is produced through PedalTown Media Inc. Original photographs and content are the property of Pedaltown Media, Inc. Permission should not be used.