Green Loop SWPDX Appendix

Appendix 1- Supplementary Materials

Appendix II- Public Participation
Appendix III- Existing Conditions
Appendix IV- Maps
Appendix V- Image and Report Sources

Appendix I- Supplemental Materials

1.1 Explored Alignment Possibilities
1.2 Possible Funding Sources
1.3 Additional Case Studies

1.1 Explored Possible Alignments

Cultural Park Blocks Potential Alignments

Cultural Park Blocks: SW Salmon Street to SW Market Street

A. Running the Green Loop on SW Broadway
Strengths:
Fewer stakeholders to coordinate with
Expands tree canopy
Avoids conflict on PSU Park Blocks

Weaknesses:
Misses connections with destinations
Misses potential partners and funding sources
Difficult to find other streets with similar low traffic volumes

B. Running the Green Loop down the middle of the South park blocks
Strengths:
Does not require street reconfiguration
Potential improvement to park blocks irrigation
Facilities do not run through traffic

Weaknesses:
Impacts the character of park blocks
Programming a whole block without disrupting Green Loop
Impacts to existing statues and plazas

C. Creating a two-way cycle track down either 9th or Park Avenues

Strengths:
More coherent mental map of the Green Loop
Implementation only impacts one road
Potential to increase the width of the park blocks
Easily links North and South Park Blocks

Weaknesses:
May limit economic benefits to one side of the park blocks
Impacts visual balance and symmetry of the park blocks
Two-way facility on a one-way street may be disorienting

D. Continuing the couplet of one-way streets with one-way facilities on 9th and Park Avenues
Strengths:
Equalizes economic benefits to both sides
Adds width to both sides of the Park Blocks
Bikes will move with the flow of traffic
Could make easier turns for cyclists

Weaknesses:
Creates two crossings at each cross street

E. Running the Green Loop down SW Columbia and then up through the Halprin Sequence
Strengths:
Links the South Park Blocks and the Halprin Sequence
Avoids bicycle and pedestrian conflicts in the PSU segment of
the South Park Blocks

Weaknesses:
Presence of stairs within the Halprin Sequence, that make
cycling almost impossible
Historic Designation limits the ability for change
Bypasses PSU, on of the large anchor institutions in the district
Requires a two-way cycle track on high- traffice one-way street

PSU Park Blocks Potential Alignments

PSU Park Blocks

A. Create a bicycle and pedestrian walking-speed mingle zone along the west side of the PSU Park Blocks
Strengths:
Maximizes existing right of way; not a full redesign
Stays on park blocks, leveraging existing tree canopy and creating
more coherent connection
Can be integrated into Viking Pavilion redevelopment
Could be done through redesign of PSU Park Blocks

Weaknesses:
Does not separate cyclists and pedestrians
Would require cyclists to dismount for farmers market or other
programmed events
Large amount of east-west foot traffic

B. Avoiding the PSU Park Blocks for cyclists by using a two-way cycle track that directs to SW Broadway
Strengths:
Could take advantage of existing TSDCs
People are already familiar with bike facilities existing on SW
Broadway

Weaknesses:
Impacts coherence between bicycles and pedestrians on
the Green Loop
Costly to implement Green Loop facilities on both PSU
Park Blocks for pedestrians and on Broadway for cyclists
Requires a jog of the trail for cyclists, destroying simplicity
of route and momentum of cyclists

Park Blocks to SW Naito Potential Alignments

Park Blocks to SW Naito Parkway

A. Using SW Hall Street for east-west connection

Strengths:
Secure bike parking nearby
Could make use of existing light on Hall and SW 4th Avenue

Weaknesses:
New bus routing alignment creates conflicts
Few businesses along Hall would benefit from increases in
bicycle and pedestrian traffic

B. Creating a flyover along I-405 shoulder (ODOT right-of-way) from end of park blocks to Naito
Strengths:
Truly iconic structure and views from structure
Avoids many conflict points with cars
Does not take any parking or traffic lanes

Weaknesses:
Very expensive
Personal safety questions, including lack of natural surveillance and ability to exit the structure
Bypasses businesses and other trip origins and destinations
Difficult to create green infrastructure and provide
environmental benefits

C. Connecting to PSU Park Blocks south of Shattuck Hall with University Place redevelopment via SW College Street
Strengths:
Large amount of existing businesses that could benefit from
the Green Loop
Connects to MAX Light Rail
Avoids bus conflicts on Hall
Connects to PSU student housing
High amount of existing pedestrian traffic along SW College
Connects with the southern edge of the Halprin Sequence

Weaknesses:
Potential loss of parking and/or travel lanes

SW Naito to SW Moody Potential Alignments

SW Naito Parkway to SW Moody Street

A. Connect Naito to SW Water and SW Sheridan Streets via San Francisco Lombard-like street on SW Caruthers Street
Strengths:
Improves crossing of Naito and eliminates unsafe tunnel
underneath Naito
Could be an amenity for International School
Direct connection if Green Loop goes behind condos
Re-urbanization of Naito extends fabric of downtown further
south towards waterfront

Weaknesses:
Limited natural surveillance on Caruthers on evenings and
weekends
Steep grade
Water and Sheridan underneath Marquam Bridge ramps
has perception of safety concerns with little redevelopment
potential
Likely to impact parking and drop-off space needed by
International School

B. Use SW Grant Street to connect with existing infrastructure on SW River Parkway

Strengths:
Keeps parking and drop-off space on Caruthers
Could provide plenty of room for flyover approach alongside
Naito if flyover alternative is chosen
Also provides more room for a gradual slope change along
Naito

Weaknesses:
Creates an out-of-direction jog in the Green Loop
Steep grade
Likely to impact on-street parking

C. Use SW Sherman Street instead of SW Caruthers to connect to SW Water

Strengths:
Avoids the hard edge of I-405 that exists on Caruthers
Runs through the middle of the International School, connecting
them to the rest of the city

Weaknesses:
Running through the middle of the International School may
disrupt their operations and security
Steep grade
Could impact parking needed by International School
Limits natural surveillance on nights and weekends

D. Connect SW Water with SW Moody via SW River Parkway

Strengths:
Streetcar route creates natural surveillance
Potential to tie into new development around River Parkway

Weaknesses:
Streetcar tracks create hazard for cyclists
May require taking a traffic lane, which creates difficulties due to
River Parkways role as gateway to south waterfront
Not the most direct routejogs out of the way in the name of
safety

E. Running the Green Loop along existing path below MAX flyover
Strengths:
Route already exists and is part of peoples mental map of
infrastructure
More direct than River Parkway
Connects directly to cycle track on SW Moody
Development with adjacent parcels could address the Green
Loop by coordinating with developers

Weaknesses:
Current facility does not separate bicyclists and pedestrians
Conditions of TriMet easement may limit enhancements to trail

10

1.2 Funding Possibilites

Finding financing for the construction of this facility is
integral to its implementation. There is no one source that
will be able to fund the facility in its entirety. Instead, it
will require a variety of sources. The following funding
suggestions illustrate the variety and type of funding
available. This should not be considered an exhaustive list.

Community Prevention Grants program. Community

Prevention Grants are administered through the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention. The funding can be used
to help local communities implement programs that address
chronic health issues such as cancer, diabetes, and heart
disease. While this federal source of funding cannot be used
for infrastructure, it could be used to help program the Green
Loop.

Federal Funding Options

There are number of sources for funding that may be
available at the federal level. Some of these require
collaborating with the US Department of Transportation,
while the Oregon Department of Transportation is
responsible for allocating others.

Local Funding Options

Assessment Districts. Assessment Districts are fairly
common ways to fund improvements within the right-ofway. Most frequently they are known as Local Improvement
Districts, Business Improvement Districts, or Economic
Improvement Districts. Essentially, property owners agree
to an additional assessment on their property taxes. That
money is then used to fund projects within the boundaries of
the district. In this context, it might be challenging to raise
the money to fund the construction of the Green Loop in a
short amount of time, so this could work well as a permanent
maintenance and improvement fund.

Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). These funds

are used for trails and other bike and pedestrian projects
across the country. This money is allocated through ODOT
in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
process.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
(CMAQ). Funding for this program must be used for
transportation projects that are designed to improve air
quality and decrease congestion. The Green Loop would
be considered an eligible use of funds under activity
number eight, which allows for non-recreational bicycle
transportation and pedestrian improvements that provide a
reduction in single-occupant vehicle trips.
Surface Transportation Program (STIP). Money from the
Surface Transportation Program provides states with a flexible
fund of money. It is predominantly used to improve federal
highways, bridges, and tunnels, but can also be used for
walking and biking infrastructure and transit capital projects.
The Transportation Investment Generating Economic
Recovery (TIGER) program. The TIGER program is
managed directly by the US Department of Transportation.
This particular grant process is highly competitive. Projects
that are awarded funding must fulfill five long-term goals
including safety, economic competitiveness, livability,
sustainability, and a state of good repair. The Indianapolis
Cultural Trail received a $20.5 million TIGER grant. It is
relevant to note that Portland recently received upwards
of $40 million in TIGER grants to improve the Sellwood
Bridge and the SW Moody Avenue project.

This type of funding can sometimes be met with

disagreement for a number of reasons: Some stakeholders
believe that it is an easy out for the government because
private property owners are paying for improvements the
government should be providing. There is also the freerider problemthe facility will attract and benefit those all
over the region, but only those with property in the closest
proximity would be funding it.
Tax Increment Financing. In the state of Oregon, projects
located within designated urban renewal area (URAs) are
eligible to take advantage of tax increment financing (TIF).
In this financing source, the funding comes from future gains
that are expected after the area is redeveloped. In Portland,
TIF funding has been used for major infrastructure projects
including the Portland Streetcar. Because the Green Loop will
pass through many districts that are designated URAs and
is expected to help in regards to economic development and
enhancing quality of life, it might be able to take advantage
of some of these funds.
Transportation System Development Charges (TSDCs).
TSDCs are fees charged during the development process
based on the impact the development will have on the
transportation system. The developments that these are
collected for are identified through overlay zones. The
Innovation Overlay Zone encompasses a leg of the Green

11

Loop. This funding, however would only be available for use

if the project ran up SW Broadway, because streetscaping
and an improved cycle track have already been identified as
eligible projects entitled to this funding source. From our
recommendations, one of our alignment alternatives could
seek out this funding.

The Oregon Community Foundation: The Oregon Community

Foundation gives grants to projects that focus on art,
education, environment and health in the community. More
specifically, the Oregon Parks Foundation Fund awards
money to projects that fund the preservation of existing parks
and the creation of future parks.

Private/ Non-Profit Funding Options

Large Company Sponsorship. There are a number of
business located within Portland that should be approached
about sponsoring the trail. Businesses within the sports
and health realm, such as Nike, Columbia, Adidas, Under
Armour, Alta Bike Share, Kaiser Permanente Northwest,
and the Adventis Medical Center, may be the best fit for this
type of sponsor. This type of sponsorship has been seen most
recently with the rise of bike share. For example, in Seattle,
Alaska Airlines sponsors their bike share system and uses
advertising space on the bikes.

The Nike Foundation: While the Nike Foundation gives

grants on a global scale, the Nike Employee Grant Fund is
reserved for non-profits within the greater Portland area.
These grants, which are approximately $550,000, are given
to projects that create early positive experiences for young
people through physical education, sports and play. Pursuing
this type of grant would require a non-profit to manage the
Green Loop.

Small Businesses. Portland is a city with many small

businesses that will benefit from the implementation of this
type of facility. They may not have the financial ability to
contribute in the same way a global businesses headquartered
here can, but, contributions from small businesses could add
up. A system could be set up where local businesses purchase
lower tiered sponsorship options and are advertised on the
Green Loop outlets. This may not create a lot of money to
cover the cost of building the facility, but could create a
funding stream for maintenance. A program similar to this
was done with the Indianapolis Cultural Trail.
Institutions. As with local businesses, there are a number
of institutions along the Green Loop that will benefit from
its implementation. This includes, but is not limited to,
Portland State University, Oregon Health and Sciences
University, the Pacific Northwest College of Art, the Portland
Art Museum, the Oregon Historical Society, the Oregon
Museum of Science and Industry, and Portland5 Center for
Art. These institutions should be approached to help fund
some of the facility or amenities on the facility near their
institutions. This could take the form of public art outside
of the Portland Art Museum or an educational installation
outside of OMSI.
Foundations. There are a number of foundations that have
a significant giving presence in Oregon. While grants are
not a stable source of income, the money obtained could
help build Green Loop. Relevant foundations include the
following:

12

Northwest Health Foundation: The Northwest Health

Foundation gives grants to organizations in Oregon for
projects that encourage conditions that enable everyone to
live a healthy and prosperous life. As the Green Loop will
create conditions that encourage more walking and biking,
this would be a good source of funding to pursue.
Meyer Memorial Trust: Although the Meyer Memorial Trust
is not currently giving our grants, their intentions are to
begin giving in the future with an emphasis on equity. This
foundation should be reevaluated and approached as the
Green Loop begins looking for funding.
Crowdfunding. Crowdfunding is the act of raising funds
for a project or product by collecting small monetary
contributions from a large number of people via an Internet
platform. Crowdfunding started formally in the early 2000s
in the art community and has since morphed into a means of
launching businesses, producing creative projects, and, most
recently, funding improvements within the public realm.
These types of projects have appeared on IOBY, Citizinvestor,
and Kickstarter. The online aspect of crowdfunding allows
for greater coverage across networks, filling the gap that
traditional fundraising approaches can experience. Perhaps
most important though, crowdfunding allows for community
members to have a direct say in the things they would like
to see in the community. Projects range in size and funding
needs and can take the form of anything from public art
installations to funding bike lanes to urban gardening. This
type of funding could help fund a variety of attractions along
the Green Loop.

1.3 Additional Case Studies

Bike Corral Program
Portland, Oregon

Discover Ottawa
Ottawa, Canada

Portlands Bike Corral Program, which began in 2004, is a

local example of bicycle infrastructure improving the local
economy. Business owners fill out an application requesting
the City remove on-street parking and install bike corrals in
front of their business, pay a fee ($2,600 in FY 2012-2013),
and agree to maintain the bike parking. As of April, 2015
there were 120 bike corrals in Portland, [6] which is a 200%
increase in the number of bike corrals throughout Portland.
Of those surveyed, 40% of businesses reported an increase
in customers who bicycle. Furthermore, all businesses
reported that bicycle customers continue to increase or have
remained steady since the installation of bike corrals.
Despite the associated fee, required maintenance and loss of
parking, business owners continue to request additional bike
corrals because they have improved business by increasing
the number of customers, improving the pedestrian and
sidewalk environment, and making businesses more visible
and attractive. [1] [2]

The City of Ottawa worked with Ottawa Tourism and

Purple Forge to create the Discover Ottawa iPhone app,
which promotes the city and provides visitors and locals an
opportunity to find and share information about attractions
and events. It allows people to take pictures and create
custom postcards that can then be posted on social media
outlets (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram), as well as
on a photo and video library of local events and attractions.
In addition, it includes a QR code reader, up-to-the-minute
travel information, information about local businessed, and
is bilingual.
The app has been very successful. It is one of the most
heavily downloaded city apps in the Canadian app store and
can now be downloaded on BlackBerry and Android phones.
The app provides users access to up-to-date information and
increases the likelihood of them visiting local attractions. By
integrating a postcard and social media platform, the city also
receives advertisement. [3] [4]

13

Old Street Promenade of Light

London, UK

Palmer and Winthrop Streets

Cambridge, MA

The Old Street Promenade of Light was the result of a

competition to reclaim a busy but poorly maintained street
by addressing the crowdedness of the street in order to make
it more accessible, ensure better transit, and give the zone a
sense of identity. The project cost approximately $2.3M to
implement.

Responding to inadequate pedestrian facilities, Cambridge

included both Palmer and Winthrop Streets in the
Harvard Square redevelopment project. These streets were
transformed from access alleyways into shared streets by
changing various design elements. The streets were already
well supported by retail but lacked sidewalks, so unique
paving materials and designs were employed to define
the space and zones within the space. Street furniture
also differentiated the streets from each other in order to
maintain each streets identity as unique places. Parking for
the streets was moved off-site to a nearby parking garage.

The redesign opened up the thoroughfare and created more

space for pedestrians. It added trees, benches and bicycle
infrastructure, as well as permeable surfaces and light posts.
The lighting, which is designed to be responsive to both time
of day and season, has increased safety after dark and made
the space useable for more hours of the day. The street
has been coined The Promenade of Light, marking its new
identity and meaning as a recognizable place where a variety
of people feel comfortable throughout the day. [5] [6] [7]

14

The changes have allowed for a more efficient use of space

on the streets, facilitating non-car oriented activities such
as outdoor dining, strolling, and bicycling while integrating
street performers, restaurant uses and commercial activity
into balance. The new streets are ADA accessible (the
previous designs were not) which increases accessibility and
activity for the streets. Business owners along these streets
have shown more cooperative behavior when it comes to
maintaining the streets. [8] [9]

New Road
Brighton, UK

Shattuck Hall Ecological Learning Plaza

Portland State University, Portland, Oregon

Due to geographic limitations, some portions of Brighton

are perceived as inaccessible and have suffered disrepair as a
result. In order to combat that and improve the pedestrian
realm, Gehl Architects and Landscape Projects teamed
up to revamp New Road, which was originally laid out in
the early 19th century. Early observations noted that the
highest pedestrian use was at night; therefore, the design
was especially sensitive to needed lighting and safety.
Rumble strips on the street signal entrance and departure to
vehicles and varying tones in the paving indicate how traffic
should organize itself, which prioritizes pedestrians and
encourages vehicles to slow down. The improvements cost
approximately $2.7M.

The Shattuck Hall Ecological Learning Plaza was built and

planted in 2012. It was a joint partnership between PSU
Architecture, SRG Architects, and Metro, and received grant
funding from the Citys Grey to Green Initiative program.
The space provides an outdoor learning experience by
displaying a mock Eco roof and green walls with signage,
demonstrating how they function over time. Lastly, a variety
of seating allows people to use and enjoy the space.

New Road links Brightons cultural district and was

always primed with destinations and though recently it
was described as unsafe and unsightly, New Road is now
described as one of Brighton city centers most important
public spaces. Today, people spend time on the street rather
than simply using it to pass through to a destination. The
focus on safety and inclusion of seating encourages people
to linger in the space. People rate it as their fourth most
favorite place to spend time in Brighton. Vehicle traffic has
decreased by 93%, pedestrian use has increased by 162% and
cycling has increased by 22%. The street has experienced no
accidents and 80% of local businesses feel it has improved
their financial wellbeing as well as prestige. [10] [11]

15

This educational display provides additional habitat and

attracts pollinators and wildlife. It also provides an additional green space for PSU students, downtown residents,
employees, and visitors to enjoy. In addition, it serves as an
educational amenity, allowing users to experience green-infrastructure firsthand and visualize how it works. Ongoing
monitoring will help improve green infrastructure by determining what types of plants are best suited for eco roofs and
green walls in Portland. [12]

Appendix II-Public Participation

2.1 Public Participation Strategy
2.2 Public Participation Results
2.3 Copy of Survey

2.1 Public Participation Strategy

This describes the teams strategy for engaging the public
and getting their input for the Green Loop project. It was
written at the beginning of the project and is included here
for reference.

Why are we engaging the public?

Urban planning is a process that should not be undertaken in
isolation, but with a vast number of stakeholders yielding a
variety of concerns and interests. This can be challenging, but
the benefits of meaningful engagement are immense. These
include the following:
Addressing the communitys concerns and interests
Discovering new ideas
Creating buy-in, thus bolstering the likelihood of
this project being implemented, used, and maintained

Who are we concerned about

Engaging?
There are a number of stakeholders who will need to be
engaged, given the large geographic scope of the project and
its location within the city. The downtown location, with
residential, employment, institutional, and open space uses,
will have city- and region-wide draw.

Employment
One of the selling points of the Green Loop concept is that
it will bring bicycle and pedestrian traffic closer to the retail
core, whereas right now such traffic is congregated along
the waterfront. While the Green Loop has clear benefits, it
will often require trade offs in the form of a loss in on-street
parking, which could be a big concern to business. The needs
and concerns of business owners and employees may be
very different than those of the of residents and users of the
Green Loop. There are a few organizations that represent the
business interests in the area, including the Portland Business
Alliance, Downtown Safe and Clean, and the SOMA
EcoDistrict. It may also be worthwhile to meet with some of
the businesses directly adjacent to the trail.
Institutions
There are a number of institutions located within our study
area. They are major anchors in the community and may
provide insightful information regarding our project. The
two biggest are Portland State University (PSU) and the
Oregon Health Science University (OHSU). A segment
of the proposed Green Loop will help connect these two
universities, which will be crucial as both schools work
together to expand their presence into the South Waterfront.
The planning department of each should be contacted.
In addition to these two large education institutions, there
are a number of arts and cultural institutions in the area. This
includes the Portland Art Museum, the Oregon Historical
Society, Portlands Center for the Arts, and the Oregon
Museum of Science and Industry. Because the Green Loop is
intended to be not only a bicycle transportation facility, but
also a cultural amenity for the city, these institutions could
be insightful. In this respect, Travel Oregon could also help
provide insight into what would help heighten the cultural
identity of the loop.

Residents
There are number of people who live within the study area.
It is important to engage them as the Green Loop will
directly impact them and the use of their neighborhood.
The implementation of this segment of the Green Loop
will also help to connect two neighborhoodsSouth
Waterfront and Downtown. A number of organizations
represent residents within our study area. They include the
Downtown Neighborhood Association, the South Portland
Neighborhood Association, South Waterfront Community
Relations, and the American Condo Association.
The presence of Portland State Universitys also means there
are a vast number of students living in the project area.
While this group is usually only in a community during
their time of enrollment, they likely represent the needs and
desires of future students and should be included within the
engagement strategies. Efforts to engage with them can be
done through PSUs housing office, The Vanguard (PSUs
student newspaper), and a number of other outlets. Outreach
can also be targeted at University Pointea college housing
building unaffiliated with Portland States Housing Office.

17

Potential Users
Understanding potential users of the trail will be crucial
in the usage of this facility beyond implementation.
Engagement with this group can be used to understand what
type of facility they would like and would be most likely to
use. There is interest in better understanding those who may
be interested in cycling, but are concerned about safety. This
could include families and those who typically ride along the
waterfront for recreational purposes, but are apprehensive
to travel into the city center. Engagement with the cycling
community must go beyond just current bicycle enthusiasts.
The trail will also have a pedestrian component, so strategic

Portland City Agencies

An advisory committee filled with representatives of
various city agencies has been established by the client. This
committee will be at all meetings and will provide input
and insight into our project during all phases. In working
with them, we will be able to address the needs, desires, and
concerns of each agency.

outreach to runners and walkers will be useful. There are

number of ways to understand both the needs of these
population and to engage these populations including PSUs
Bike Hub, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, the City of
Portlands Bicycle Advisory Committee, Oregon Walks, the
Portland Running Company, and general commuters in the
area.
Relevant Community Groups
The project area is home to the South Park Blocks and the
Halprin Block Sequence. These open spaces are well known
and loved by many in the city. Groups of community
members have rallied around ensuring that these facilities
remain a staple within the City, and should be engaged.
These groups include the Friends of the South Park
Blocks, Halprin Blocks Conservancy, and Friends of South
Auditorium Green Environs.

Residents

Visitors
-Travel Oregon
-PSU Farmers Market

-Downtown Neighborhood
Association
-South Portland Neighborhood
Association
-South Waterfront Community
Relations
-American Condo Assocation
-Portland State University Housing
-University Pointe Housing

Visitors
Residents

Businesses

Community Groups

-Portland Business Alliance

-Downtown Clean and Safe
-SOMA EcoDistrict

Businesses

Potential Users

Potential
Users

City
Agencies

Community
Groups

Institutions

-Friends of South Park Blocks

-Friends of South Auditorium
Green Environs
-Halprin Blocks Community

Institutions
-Portland State University
-Oregon Health Science University
-Portland Art Museum
-Oregon Historical Society
-Portlands Center for Arts
-Oregon Museum of Science and
Industry

-Oregon Walks
-Bicycle Transportation Alliance
-City of Portlands Bicycle
Advisory Committee
-Portland Running Company

Green Loop SWPDX Stakeholder Analysis

18

How are we planning to engage

with them?

our focus area will be included at the beginning to familiarize

people with the project. The survey will be used to gauge
which type of facilities people would be interested in, to
understand the potential usage of this type of facility, and
to understand which types of environments the population
might be interested in. Incorporating visuals into the survey
will be useful. The segment of our study area that houses the
Park Blocks would be a good section to ask specific questions
about because community members are likely to have used
the park blocks, but may not be familiar with the other
sections of our study area. Lastly, a demographics section will
be included in the survey to understand who participated.

Key Stakeholder Interviews

We plan to hold interviews with individuals from the
various organizations outlined above. These individuals will
be able to represent a specific population and are informed
enough to express the potential interests and concerns. This
will help to set the basis of our research. While conducting
these interviews, we are also focused on the ability to build
relationships. These key stakeholders can help us cast a
wider net with the disbursement of our survey and other
engagement techniques.
Engagement on the Road
We plan to use existing meetings and well populated places
as a means of bolstering our engagement efforts. We will be
working with the neighborhood association and community
groups that have regular meetings to get some time on their
agenda. At the meetings, we are hoping to get a few minutes
to explain our project, answer questions, collect interested
individuals email addresses, and hand out information
sheets. We also plan to have paper surveys available for those
who are interested, but lack Internet access. We are also
happy to stay after the meeting and chat with those who are
immensely interested, but didnt get a chance to speak in our
limited time-slots. We believe that this approach will help
us reach a greater audience of people than relying on getting
everyone into the same meeting solely related to our project.
The risk of using existing meetings is that we will engage the
most engaged citizens, who may not necessarily represent
the average community member. To quell this risk, we also
plan to table on a few occasions in areas that will have high
concentrations of regular Portlanders. These could include
an information table at the PSU Farmers Market and near
the food cart pod on 4th Avenue. During this time we will
explain the project, answer questions, collect emails, and have
printed surveys on hand. There is also potential to have some
type of visual activity in this setting like visual dot polling or
postcard to the future.
Survey
We will be using a web-based survey (Qualtrics) for this piece
of engagement. We understand the limitations to hosting
a survey predominantly online, and will also be providing
paper surveys in order to include those without Internet
access. An introduction to the overall concept and a map of

19

Disbursement of the survey will happen in a number of

different ways. We are planning to use our social media
page, as well as distrubiting the survey via those belonging to
those organizations we have built relationships with during
this process. During all of our meeting visits we will also be
collecting emails of those who are interested. We plan to use
the emails to follow up with people the next day including
a link to our survey and social media pages. As mentioned
previously, we will have paper surveys available for those
without access to the Internet.
Focus Groups
We will be using focus groups to engage with very specific
segments of the population if they are not captured in our
survey. The format of a focus group fosters conversations
between participants that will enrich our data. We plan
to start the focus group with an activity that requires
participants to think about the Green Loop in the future.
This sets the stage and helps them envision what they would
like it to be like. From there we can delve into specific
questions and conversations.
Internet Presence
In this age of social media usage, we believe this could be
a useful way to keep the community engaged around our
project. We plan to create a Facebook page for the group.
This will be used to update people about our progress,
announce what meetings we will be at, and disburse our
survey. Facebook can also be a good platform for posting
relevant and through-provoking articles. Through the
innovation stage of our work, social media could be used to
ask followers to vote on aspects of the Green Loop, such as
which bike rack design they like best. We are also planning to
tap into the relevant stakeholders Internet presence wherever
possible. During the key stakeholder interview and meeting
attendance, we are hoping to build relationships. From this,

we anticipate that these groups would be willing to share

links to our survey on their media outlets, allowing us to
capture a greater market than just our followers.

When are we engaging with

them?

We also plan to maintain an email list of interested

individuals using a system such as MailChimp. After each
collection drive of emails we plan to follow up with a thank
you and link to our survey and social media outlets. We
would like to keep email correspondence to a minimum to
prevent people from tuning them out. The email list can be
used close to the end of the project to announce where we
will be talking about our final concepts.

The majority of our engagement will be held from midFebruary through the month of March, with our survey
open from approximately February 22nd to March 20th.
There is some flexibility in our public participation strategy
in the sense that if another relevant interest arises outside
of the window, we could still be willing to meet with them.
The goal, however, is to have a majority of outreach done
before spring break (March 2327) so it can be analyzed
before our innovation month begins. This is crucial as
engagement is intended to inform our research`.

A clear exit strategy is necessary when social media is used.

At the end we will email out a final thank you, expressing
apprecaition for the participants and including a link to a
copy of our final plan. We plan to keep our social media sites
up after the project is over. We believe that by doing this,
the community will have a place to refer to for information
regarding the process and project. We understand that this
presents a risk, with the public assuming it is still a platform
to engage with. We will be very clear that the project is
over and that no one will be monitoring the site to answer
questions, post links, etc.
Final Meeting
At the end of April or early May we will go back to the public
to tie up our engagement efforts and get some feedback
on our plan. At this point, all our public engagement and
existing conditions will be analyzed and many concepts will
be thought through. This meeting is a good opportunity to
summarize what we heard and show the public what we are
proposing. Doing it in early May before our plan is finalized
will allow us to incorporate feedback from the public.
Additional work needs to be done to determine whether we
will be hosting our own meeting or if there is potential to
get a sufficient segment of time at an existing organizations
meeting.

20

2.2 Public Participation Results

During the months of February and March of 2015,
the team carried out a number of different engagement
techniques to better understand the concerns and
expectations of people who will interact with the Green
Loop. This was accomplished via stakeholder interviews,
surveys, and presentations at community events. The
following section was written previously to highlight the
techniques we employed and the major trends that emerged.

Stakeholder Interviews:
We spoke with eighteen stakeholders representing a number
of different organizations and perspectives. Stakeholder
interviews, in most cases, were attended by two group
members. We found that people were more forthcoming
when they were off the record, so interviews were not
recorded, in order to have a more authentic discussion about
the project. Team members took notes, which were later
analyzed to identify primary themes. We held interviews with
the following organizations:
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Friends of South Park Blocks
The International School
Metros Active Transportation Division
Oregon Health and Science UniversityCampus
Planning, Development and Real Estate
Oregon Health and Science UniversityCampus
Transportation
Oregon Walks
Portland Art Museum
Portland Business Alliance
Portland Running Company
Portland State UniversityCampus Planning Office
Portland State UniversityTransportation and Parking
Services
South Auditorium Green Environs
SOMA EcoDistrict
South Waterfront Community Relations
Travel Portland
TriMet
ZRZ RealtyZidell

Major Themes
Connections
A major theme that arose from stakeholder interviews was the
need for connections that get people to and from the Green
Loop. Without this network of connections that feed to the
Loop, a trail around the Central City is not as functional as
it could be. Anecdotally, we spoke with someone who puts
their bike on their car, drives downtown, and then bikes
the waterfront loop for exercise because they dont feel safe
getting to it any other way.
The ability for the Green Loop to connect all of the regional
trails within the area is integral and a major selling point. It
could serve as the current missing link connecting regional
trails like the Intertwine and Springwater Corridor. Once
built, the Green Loops connection could expand the loops
potential far beyond its planned ten miles, by linking to over
forty miles of trails.
Connections to Marquam Hill could be a major benefit
to many different groups. The largest employer in the city,
OHSU, is located on the hill and is largely disconnected
from Downtown. A bicycle and pedestrian connection
between Marquam Hill and Downtown could reduce some
existing traffic and parking issues, while also opening up
additional running and biking facilities to Downtown.
Stewardship
The necessity for stewardship was a prevalent theme in all of
our interviews. It is one thing to find funding to build and
implement the Green Loop, but money should also be set
aside to maintain and program the spaces. While much of
this will run through land that is already stewarded by the
City, increased bike and foot traffic will bring more people.
This increases the presence of litter and other impacts, as
well as the need to better maintain and care for plantings.
Additionally, public spaces along the Green Loop will benefit
from programming to help create a sense of place and attract
people to the facility. A budget for these needs should be
created and funded during the planning and fundraising
stage.
An organization should be established to maintain and
program the facility. This organization would be responsible
for maintaining the facility and organizing the various
partnerships that may be necessary to make this type of
project a success.

21

Facility Design
The most resounding thing we heard in regards to bicycle and
pedestrian facilities was that they be separated. Many pointed
to the conflicts that exist on the waterfront loop currently
due to the lack of mode separation. Separation via paint or
different pavers would not suffice; instead, it was suggested
that curbs, planters, etc. be used.
There was a lot of talk about how the different types of
cyclists might be accommodated on the same facilities,
with varying speeds of cyclists being the concern. Some
stakeholders felt this shouldnt be a major concern as those
electing to cycle quickly would stay on the street with cars.
Other stakeholders suggested the possibility for dual spines
that would allow for safe and quick speeds as well as slow and
meandering speedsfor both modes.
The other major concern our interviews surfaced was the
need for thoughtful intersections. Due to its location in the
urban core of the city, the Green Loop will cross streets that
are busy with vehicle traffic. Safe crossings could be achieved
through signalization, but that comes with trade-offs that also
need to be considered.
Wayfinding
Clear and interesting wayfinding signage was a desire. The
signage should show a user not only where they are on the
trail, but should also feature what is within a certain radius
of the Green Loop. Additionally, the Green Loop has the
potential to educate users both in regards to sustainability at
work and historical and cultural components of the city.
Many stakeholders also articulated the importance of having
a web or app-based presence. With the increasing use of
technology, many people have access to the Internet. A
complementary technology could articulate and expand upon
information available on the wayfinding signage. A website
could also feature local businesses and highlight community
events, which will change more frequently than hard signage.
Safety
In every stakeholder meeting, concerns regarding safety of
some variety were brought up. One major issue was that of
anti-social behavior, such as drug usage, that is becoming
more prevalent in public spaces. While some attributed this
behavior to the homeless population, others pointed out
it occurs regardless of demographics. These issues must be
addressed at a scale much greater than the Green Loop, but
until they are they could inhibit a sense of safety on the loop.

22

Promoting walking can be challenging if perceived safety is

limited. There are areas of the proposed facilities that are not
currently activated. This lack of eyes on the streets can foster
activities such as camping and diminish the ability of users
to walk or cycle there. Another issue is the recent rise in bike
thefts across the city. People may not be willing to bike into
the downtown area to eat or shop if they fear their bike may
be missing when they are ready to return home.
Politics
Many stakeholders felt that political support will be necessary
to get this project off the ground and implemented. This
could be a challenge as many of the citys agencies operate in
a rather siloed fashion. Considering the Green Loop is being
planned by BPS, but will be on PBOT, ODOT, and Portland
Parks and Rec land, it is crucial that there be a strong
alliance and communication across the agencies as well as
commitment to implementation, quality, and maintenance.
There has also been a large debate recently about funding
projects in the Central City versus projects in the east side.
This is perfectly highlighted by the suggestion to cut off
all water to the downtown fountains in order to keep two
community pools open on the east side. While investment
into all neighborhoods of the city is important, this conflict
could negatively impact the Green Loop.
Alignment
Stakeholders articulated a number of concerns and interest
in certain alignments. These alignments were those originally
outlined by the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability, and
do not refer to the alignment alternatives we propose in
our final report. First, while the Citys Alignment C may be
considered out of the way for most users looking to quickly
access the South Waterfront and cross the Tilikum Crossing,
there are a number of groups including OHSU, NCMC,
and runners that could benefit from this southern alignment.
While it may not be practical for this to be the main
alignment for the Green Loop, stakeholders recommended
that the Citys Alignment C be considered as an offshoot that
reconnects at the South Waterfront.
Additionally, there were a number of thoughts on the
proposed stretch through Portlands South Park Blocks. The
segment that runs through Portland State University was
identified as a potential site of conflict due to large events like
the Farmers Market held every Saturday and the heavy foot
traffic during school days. The northern segment of the South
Park Blocks was favorable for the Green Loop alignment due

to its current low volume of traffic. It was noted by some,

though, that connection to the major employment corridors,
such as 5th and 6th Avenues, will be integral to the success.
Associated Benefits
Many of our stakeholders articulated potential benefits that
the Green Loop will have if implemented. These benefits
spanned a number of topics including economic value,
health, and the environment. By creating a space in the
Central City where all feel comfortable walking and biking
and where additional green space is cultivated, people may be
more likely to participate in physical activity, translating to a
healthier community.
Economic benefits were articulated as the strongest benefit
associated with the implementation of the Green Loop.
If active transportation access is safe and convenient, The
facility would attract more people and families into the
Central City. This translates into greater spending at local
shops and eateries. The facility could also spur the need for
additional related businesses such as bike shops, tourism
and food carts. It is also possible that property values could
increase due to the Green Loops proximity.
Environmental benefits were also identified. The ability that
the Green Loop helps to divert people from cars and onto
bikes and walking could help improve the regions air quality.
Air quality could be further improved with the addition of
more green spaces in the Central City. The inclusion of green
infrastructure will, in turn, manage more stormwater in a
natural and sustainable manner.

Surveys

To better understand what types of environments people

would prefer for the Green Loop, we conducted a visual
preference survey. The survey was hosted on the Internet
through Qualtrics. It was compatible with desktop, laptop,
and mobile devices. Understanding the limitations of
hosting a survey predominantly online, we had paper surveys
available at public events such as the Farmers Market and
Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting. Our survey
was open from February 27, 2015, through March 25, 2015.
The survey was disbursed through a number of different
outlets. In preparation for the survey, we had collected emails
at community meetings and those people were sent a link to
the survey and invited to share the link with their networks.
Additionally, we used our Facebook and Twitter accounts to
expand the surveys reach. Due to the short time frame for
this project, leveraging existing networks was crucial to the

23

success of our survey. We were able to get our survey featured

on the following newsletters and/or social media pages:
Portland State Coverage
Institute for Sustainable Solutions
Multicultural Center
Resource Center for Students with Children
Bike Hubs newsletter
The Virtual VikingPSUs weekly school-wide
newsletter
The Womens Resource Center
Community Coverage
Downtown Neighborhood Association
Pearl District Neighborhood Association
South Waterfront Community Relations Newsletter
SOMA EcoDistrict Newsletter
Tower Chatter March Edition
South Auditorium Green Environs
Friends of South Park Block mailing list
Bike Portland article
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Travel Portland staff
Art Museum staff
Various Twitter outlets
The survey was designed to understand how often and how
comfortable people were walking, biking, enjoying public
spaces, shopping/dining, and attending events in Downtown
Portland. We were also keen to understand what could be
done to make them feel more comfortable. The remainder
of our survey centered on visuals. Participants were asked
to select bike facilities that would make them feel safest,
wayfinding they would feel most confident using, and a plaza
where they would most like to spend time. Additionally,
respondents were asked to rate environments in terms of
comfort, then asked to describe what they did and did not
like. Three hundred and fifty eight surveys were received.
Summarized results follow.

Age
There was a wide range in ages of survey respondents. The
largest respondent group was ages 2544 (48%), followed
by those ages 4564 (22%). Those aged 1824 made up the
smallest group of respondents (10%). Nineteen percent of
respondents were over the age of 65 years old.

Survey Responses
Neighborhood
The Green Loop facility will benefit residents in the entire
city and, considering we will be proposing some strategies
that will affect the entire facility, we aimed to understand
more than just our study area. Responses successfully
represented residents of the entire city while still ensuring
that the majority of respondents were from our study area.
Residents in the study area made up 40% of the responses
(South Downtown/PSU: 26%, Downtown: 5%, South
Waterfront: 9%). High response rates outside of the project
area include Southwest Portland outside of the Central
City (12%), Southeast Portland (15%), and Northeast
Portland (11%). Other areas within the city (Pearl District,
Goose Hollow, Lloyd District, and East Portland) had lower
response rates ranging from 1 to 4%. Additionally, 4% of
survey respondents visit Portland but do not live here.

Income
The responses in regards to income were distributed fairly
equally through the categories with the highest response rate
being those making more than $125,000 per year (20%) and
those making less than $25,000 per year (19%).
Race
A majority of our respondents (82%) identified as White,
which is just slightly higher than the percentage of the
population in the neighborhood. All other responses made
up a small percentage. If additional engagement efforts are to
be carried out by BPS, outreach to more diverse population
could be warranted to understand whether the needs of
minorities along the Green Loop are particularly different.
(Chart 1)

Gender
The majority of our survey responses (56%) were female.
Males made up 40%, and 2% of the respondents identified as
transgender or other. The higher response by females is in line
with the gender breakdown of the neighborhood. Women
are also known for having greater vulnerability when it comes
to walking and cycling, so the slight over-representation is
advantageous in understanding the specific needs of that
vulnerable population.

Education
As our study area connects two major universities in
Portland, we expected that many respondents would be
highly educated. Survey respondents with a bachelors degree
(35%) and masters/PhD (46%) were the largest response
category. Those with some college, but no degree (10%)
made up the third largest response category, highlighting the
students that are attending PSU or OHSU.

Chart 1: Racial Composition of Survey Respondents

100%

82%

80%
60%
40%

to

te

ns
we
r

no

/C

ic

re
fe
r
Ip

24

ta

sia

th
er
O

te
rn
cif
Pa

ea
r

/M

id
dl

Am
ive

at

Ea
s

an
er
ic

ra
ul
ti
N

tin
o/

isp

an

cia

ic

k
ac
Bl
La

As

ian

0%

8%

2%

1%

0%

au
ca

1%

an
de

1%

hi

3%

1%

Isl

2%

20%

 Addition of protected bike lanes: 83 responses

Reduction of antisocial behavior (drug use,
panhandling, harassment) 34 responses
Address the presence of homeless people and camping:
28 responses
Need for greater safety: 15 responses
Reduction of car traffic: 14 response

Employment
This category was not mutually exclusive, meaning that
people could identify as more than one thing. Twenty-three
percent of respondents identified as either part or full-time
students. Sixty-six percent of respondents identified as being
employed, with the larger share (46%) being employed fulltime. Twenty-percent of respondents were retired and not
participating in the workforce. Lastly, 7% of respondents
identified as a parent.
Downtown Comfort
To aid in the design of facilities, it was important to
understand the level of comfort that people currently have
doing a variety of activities in the downtown. We asked about
walking, biking, attending events, enjoying parks and plazas,
and shopping and diningall things one could presumably
do on the Green Loop. Respondents were very comfortable
or somewhat comfortable doing all activities in Downtown
except riding a bicycle. This sentiment is echoed with the
largest number of respondents articulating the need for
protected bike lanes in Downtown in order to make them
feel more comfortable.
Furthermore, respondents were asked What could be done
to make you feel more comfortable doing these activities
(walk, ride a bicycle, attend an event, enjoy parks and plazas,
and shop or dine) in the downtown area? We received 235
responses to the this question. The top five themes were as
follows:

Waterfront/Eastbank Esplanade
The Green Loop has been compared to the Tom McCall
Waterfront Park and Eastbank Esplanade. Because of this,
we wanted to understand what it is about that facility that
people do or do not enjoy. Therefore, we asked people to
identify what they liked or disliked about the waterfront
facilities. (This topic is explored in much greater detail in
the Activate the Waterfront Strategy Plan produced in the
2014 MURP workshop class for BPS.) Our responses are
summarized below. We received 285 comments on this
question, with the most frequent responses as follows:
Consider it a great amenity (views, proximity to the
water, mix of people, events, and the facility in general):
72 responses
Dislike the presence of the homeless population: 54
responses
Dislike how overcrowded the facility is: 43 responses
Articulated a desire for separated facilities for cyclists
and pedestrians: 33 responses

Chart 2: Respondents Level of Comfort by Activity

250
200
150
100
50
0
Very uncomfortable
Walking

Somewhat
uncomfortable
Riding a bicycle

Neither uncomfortable Somewhat comfortable

nor comfortable
Attending events

25

Enjoying parks and plaza

Very comfortable

Shopping/dining

To better understand what it was that respondents liked

about this particular image, they were asked to select their
favorite three features in the scene. Top responses were
separation of bikes and pedestrians, crosswalk patterns and
materials, and the presence of public art. (Chart 4)

Image Preferences
Respondents were shown the following images and were
asked to identify how much they like the image and their
favorite three features within in the scene. Respondents were
then given the opportunity to expand upon what they liked
or did not like about the image.
Image 1
Sixty percent of respondents liked this image either quite a
bit (46%) or completely (14%). Only 7% of the respondents
did not like this environment at all. (Chart 3)

When asked what they liked or didnt like about the

presented environment, the following themes emerged:
Like the unique and safe sense of place: 65responses
Too busy/confusing: 59 responses
Like the separation of bikes and pedestrians: 22
responses
Separation is not enough to instill a sense of safety: 14
responses
More trees needed: 12 responses
Chart 3: Image 1 Level of Preference
16
39
80

48

Not at all
Only a little
Neutral
Quite a bit
Completely

142

Chart 4: Most Liked Features in Image 1

300
225
150
75
0
Sidewalk
patterns and
materials

Crosswalk
patterns and
materials

Separation of Public art (the A clear identity Pedestrian area

bikes and
lighted lady)
pedestrians

26

Benches

Planters

Crossing
signals

Image 2:

The top three features in the image were the separation of

bikes and cars, separation of bikes and pedestrians, and
the landscaped median. (Chart 6) This theme of the need
for separated facilities between all modes is evident in this
preference for features. Additionally, the open response
answers highlighted that the means of separation instills a
great sense of safety. When asked what they liked or didnt
like about the presented environment, the main theme that
emerged from our 202 response were as follows:
Separation is favorable and instills a sense of safety:
112 responses
Like the addition of natural elements: 32 responses
Dislike the facility in the street median: 9 responses

This image was considered the most favorable of the

three environments presented in the survey, with 86% of
respondents indicating they like it quite a bit or completely.
(Chart 5) This level of preference was further highlighted in
the open response option, with respondents saying:

Chart 5: Image 2 Level of Preference

2

12
31

109

This type of environment would make me much more inclined

to bike
Not at all

I have seen similar setups when I visited throughout Germany,

and I found them to be excellently used. I would support seeing
more of this in Portland.

Only a little
Neutral
169

Quite a bit
Completely

Whats not to like? This is a good model.

Chart 6: Most Liked Features in Image 2
300
225
150
75
0
Sidewalk pattern
Colored
Separation of
and materials pavement on bike bikes and cars
lane

Separation of
bikes and
pedestrians

27

Landscaped
median

Benches

Tree canopy

It doesnt make sense to me. To close off a street that has been
paid for to drive on is stupid at best. Utilize a park/grassy area
for sitting. Open the street back up to cars and put in bike
lanes.

Image 3

When asked what they liked or didnt like about the

presented environment, the main themes that emerged
from the 205 responses were as follows:
The pedestrian space with seating is pleasing and
inviting: 98 responses
The space could benefit from or needs bicycle
infrastructure (lanes and racks): 26 responses
Seating and planters make the space too cluttered:
34 responses

This image was ranked second in terms of favorability out

of the three images. Sixty-nine percent of respondents liked
it either quite a bit or completely. (Chart 7) Looking to the
open responses for this image, however, would suggest that it
isnt as favorable. Issues about closing off public streets were
raised, although others described the place as feeling like
it had a sense of community. This conflict over closing the
streets off may be an outspoken few as 83% of respondents
listed the street being closed off to cars as a favorite feature.
Other top responses included the presence of tree canopy
(76%) and the presence of seating (57%). (Chart 8)

Chart 7: Image 3 Level of Preference

45

24
49

Anything that removes automobiles from the environment

appeals to me. We give cars way too much space.

56
149

Feels like community

Not at all
Only a little
Neutral
Quite a bit
Completely

Chart 8: Most Liked Features in Image 3

300
225
150
75
0
Planters

Tree canopy

Presence of seating Covered tables and Moveable tables and Street closed off to
chairs
chairs
cars

28

New Spaces Downtown

It is important that we understand what type of spaces
people want in Downtown. Respondents were asked to
select from a list and were also given the chance to write in a
response. The highest selection was the desire for lawns/open
spaces, followed by fountains, bathrooms, and playgrounds.
(Chart 9) The highest responses in the write-in section
included gardens and natural landscaping and varied seating.
Interestingly, some of the write-in response used existing
places in downtown Portland to describe what they would
like to see.

Top Three Things Prioritized

Respondents were asked to select their top three desires from
a list in order to better understand how amenities on the
Green Loop could be prioritized due to funding or phasing.
The top three responses, in order, were trees, separated bike
facilities, and pedestrian paths. Tree superseded all other
responses by almost 50 responses.
Had separated bike facilities and pedestrian paths been
treated as a given, because they are the baseline idea for
the Green Loop, the top three responses would include
wayfinding signage, benches, and trash cans (all of which
tied in response rate.) Following these was the desire for
bathrooms, public art, and tables and chairs. The desire for
bike racks scored substantially lower than expected, but this
could have to do with the fact that many of respondents did
not cycle often, and it therefore isnt something they consider
frequently.

Active parks like Director Park rather than little-used spaces like
Waterfront Park.
More semi-wild areas in the style of Tanner Creek Park
offering quiet, sitting/walking/contemplative space
There was one comment that alludes to the East Portland
conflict we had initially expected. It didnt come up in any
other instances, but we thought it was worth mentioning.
Resources diverted to areas outside of the Central City East of
82nd has almost none of the amenities discussed here. Not even
ADA sidewalks on most streets. Resources would be better used
elsewhere.

Chart 9: New Spaces Desires in the Central City

250
200
150
100
50

Pe
r

29

O
th
er

s
ro
om
th

pa
r
pe
n
/o

Ba

ks

s
ain
La
w

fo
r

ns

Fo
un
t

e
an
ce

sp

ac

ro
un
ds
ay
g
Pl

s
io
n
at

ne
s

s/e
xe
rc
is

oc
se
or
H

Fit

sh

oe
/b

/te
nn
is
all
sk
et
b
Ba

st

ce

co

ur

pi

ts

ts

Safest Bike Facility

Respondents were asked to select the image of the bike
lane that they believed evoked the greatest sense of safety.
Image 2, as seen above, received over 50% of the votes
being selected more than the other three images combined.
(Chart 10) Image 2 separated both bikes from cars and cars
from pedestrians. Additionally, this facility was the most
permanent in terms of separation. Instead of using bollards,
seating, or large planters, Image 2 separated facilities using
a large grassy median and planted trees. This reaffirms
respondents desire for truly separated facilities along the
Green Loop.

Chart 10: Image Evoking the Greatest

Sense of Safety
60%
45%
30%
15%
0%
Image 1

30

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Easiest Wayfinding
Wayfinding is going to be a major component of the Green
Loop, as people need to know where they are along the
facility. We were keen to understand what type of signage
would be most useful in navigating while on the Green Loop.
Image 1 was the clear favorite and garnered almost 50% of
the votes. (Chart 11)
Image 1 is one of the most simplistic option of signage. The
only other option that was simpler was paintings on the
ground, but these did not include distance to destinations. It
seems as though people are less concerned about maps and
imagery but would prefer signage with a direction arrow,
name, and distance.

31

Chart 11: Image with Easiest Signage

for Navigating
60%

45%

30%

15%

0%
Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Most Pleasant Plaza

The addition of new plazas along the Green Loop is possible.
Because of this, it was important to better understand the
type of plaza respondents preferred. To provide respondents
with context, we were intentional in selecting plazas that
are located in Portland. Some were recognizable and iconic
(Images 2 and 3), while others were small and not as well
known. (Images 1 and 4)

Chart 12: Image Considered to be the

Most Pleasant Plaza
40%
30%
20%

Image 4 received the highest response rate, with Image 2

following closely behind. (Chart 4) Image 4 has good tree
coverage, a well defined boundary, and a variety of seating.
Image 2Director Parkis quite different with a lack of tree
canopy and the presence of a large fountain.

32

10%
0%
Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

particular market is in our study area and is the busiest

farmers market within the city. At this event we hoped to
get word out about our project and survey. We had a kids
craft table, paper surveys, and posters in order to attract
visitors. Unfortunately, people were not eager to stop
and interact for very long due to rainy, windy, and cold
weather. The surveys and crafts were underused, but we
were able to pitch our project and solicit quick thoughts
about the Green Loop. We also used printed informational
take-aways to direct people to our social media pages.

Community Meetings
In addition to the survey and stakeholder interviews,
we presented at a number of community events. These
included the SOMA EcoDistrict community meeting and
the Downtown Neighborhood Associations Land Use and
Transportation Committee. Additionally, we tabled at a
booth at the Farmers Market at Portland State University.
The SOMA EcoDistrict Meeting occurred early in the
process. At this meeting we presented our project, took
questions, and collected a number of emails so we could
follow up later when our survey was ready. This was also a
good chance to understand what other organizations were
doing in the neighborhood.
At the Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting we
were able to present our preliminary work to the community
and facilitate a discussion around what the attendees hope to
get from the project. It was also a chance for them to voice
any concerns that they may have about the trail. Many of
the things that we heard in this meeting were also voiced
throughout our stakeholder interviews. The general feeling
was that those in attendance were interested in the Green
Loop and welcomed the facility within the neighborhood.
We also had paper surveys on hand to distribute to those in
attendance. A representative from the Better Block agency in
Portland reached out to us with interest about carrying out a
Better Block project for a segment of the Green Loop.
Finally we ran a table at the PSU Farmers Market. This

33

2.3 Copy of Survey

34

Survey Page 1

35

Survey Page 2

36

Survey Page 3

37

Survey Page 4

38

Survey Page 5

39

Appendix III- Existing Conditions

3.1 Data Collection Plan
3.2 Existing Conditions Report
3.3 Tables
3.4 Copy of Data Analysis Tools

3.1Data Collection Plan

This section was originally written as a seperate document to
explain our data collection strategy and is included as-is for
referrence.

Walkability Audit

The walkability audit will provide a score for each block

side that will provide us with a quantitative way to measure
and map the walkability of each block. We will use the
Measuring Urban Design Qualities audit instrument,
which was created using statistical models that predict
walkability. While this will take more time than simpler
audits, it gives us a number that is backed by research and a
method that is less susceptible to personal interpretations and
perceptions.
We will work on two specific sides (a park block side and an
urban side) as a group to train and establish norms, and then
perform the rest of the audit either individually or in groups
of two as personal preference dictates. While weather may
affect the pedestrian count portion, rainy weather will not
necessarily preclude an audit being conducted.
Number of blocks (a street that runs down the block): 25
Number of individual block sides (pedestrian-only paths only
count as one): 40

Pedestrian and Cyclist Sample

A bike/ped count at key locations will provide a baseline

usage level before the implementation of the Green Loop,
as well as quantify areas where there is existing high usage.
Counts will be done using a simple screenline method at five
general locations:
Cultural Park Blocks
PSU South Park Blocks
SW College
SW 4th Ave near University Place
Collaborative Life Sciences Building
These samples will be collected at two different times for each
location: a weekday from 5 to 7 PM and a Saturday from
12 Noon to 2 PM as per the guidelines from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (http://
bikepeddocumentation.org). Counts may be conducted
individually or in pairs according to personal preference. We
will strive to get counts in non-rainy weather to capture peak
usage.

41

Business Inventory

Pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure can have a large

impact on surrounding businesses, both by bringing more
customers past the storefront and by potentially increasing
the difficulty of access by automobile. We will conduct an
inventory of all businesses directly adjacent to the identified
route including business name, business type, number of
on-street parking spaces on the block, and presence of private
off-street parking. Primary data will come from BPS sources,
with parking information and up-to-date name and type data
being obtained through a foot survey of the area.

Auto and Bicycle Parking

Inventory

Parking is equally important for both cars and bicycles

there is no point in creating a route to a destination if there
is no safe and convenient place to park at the end of the
trip. Car parking in particular can be a hot-button topic for
businesses and residents, and new bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure can may require the removal of on-street
parking. We will be collecting block-by-block on-street
parking counts as part of the business inventory and will do
so as well for blocks without any businesses present in order
to provide a comprehensive inventory of the entire project
alignment.
Portland Citys efforts at installing staple bike racks
and bike corrals have made bike parking more available
throughout the city, and specific businesses and institutions
(especially Portland State University) also provide their own
parking. We will identify and count all bicycle parking along
the alignment through a foot survey and identify any nearby
large bike parking facilities. Each staple or similar locking
structure will be counted as two available parking spaces.

Demographics

We will conduct an analysis of the demographics of the

surrounding areas using information from the US Census at
the census tract level in order to understand the population
of residents near the alignment. This analysis will contain
basic descriptive statistics and population counts.

Transit Inventory

Since walking is often the mode used for the last part of any
transit trip there is a strong connection between transit and
pedestrian activity. The regional transit system may be used
to connect users to the Green Loop who would otherwise

live too far away to utilize it. We will create an inventory of

transit lines, stops, and boardings for all transit systems near
the alignment. These data will be obtained through TriMet
and will be presented by both maps and tables.
.

Existing Planning Context

Portland is a place of many plans, with actors at all levels of

government responsible for various programs and systems.
We will compile a report of all plans related to the southwest
portion of the Green Loop in order to identify sources of
cooperation (such as linking with planned trails and bike
infrastructure) and competition (such as expanded roadways
or critical sections that cannot be reconfigured). The plans
reviewed may include the following:
Oregon State Transportation Improvement Plan
Metro Active Transportation Plan
Metro Regional Transportation Plan
Portland City Comprehensive Plan
Portland City Transportation System Plan
TriMet Service Enhancement Plans
West Quadrant Plan
COP Bicycle Plan
COP Ped Plan
PSU University District Framework
South Waterfront Plan
South Portland Circulation Study

42

3.2 Existing Conditions Report

Quantitative Data Analysis

Introduction

Chart 1: Population Pyramid

Establishing the current uses and conditions of the Green

Loop is critical to understanding what future work and
improvements may contribute to the area. The teams
analysis indicates the southwest portion of the Green
Loop encompasses an area diverse in uses, activity levels,
level of human scale and walkability, and connectivity to
transit.

80 +
70 to 79
60 to 69
50 to 59
40 to 49

Females

30 to 39

Males

25 to 29
18 to 24

Several different analyses were performed to better

understand the diversity of the area as outlined in the
preceding data collection plan. This section, originally
written as a stand-alone document, addresses each of
these analyses in turn. Some, such as the demographic
and transit inventories, cover the entirety of the study
area and are presented without further geographic
separation. The other analyses have been broken up into
segments to provide a better understanding of the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each area.

10 to 17
0 to 9
-2000

-1000

1000

2000

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community

Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

Demographics

The Green Loop is meant to be safe and inviting to all

people. We investigated the basic demographics and
transportation information available for the census
tracts containing the southwest portion of the Green
Loop (Multnomah County tracts 56 and 57, see 4.1
Map 1) using the latest American Community Survey
(ACS) 5-year estimates from 2008 to 2013. While
the ACS does not provide an exact count like the
Decennial Census, it does provide a more up-to-date
estimate of demographic indicators based on Census
Bureauadministered surveys. Standard error values
provided by the Bureau have been included to aid in
interpretation of the sample counts.

Table 1: Age and Gender of Study Area

Ages
0 to 9
10 to 17
18 to 24
25 to 29
30 to 39
40 to 49
50 to 59
60 to 69
70 to 79
80 +

Males

Females

Male to
Female Ratio

88
42
811
877
635
327
330
268
244
82
3,704

69
51
1911
595
505
178
237
338
275
130
4,289

1.28
0.82
0.42
1.47
1.26
1.84
1.39
0.79
0.89
0.63
0.86

The overall population in the study area of nearly

8,000 people has an interesting age and gender profile
with two distinctly identifiable age cohorts: young,
Total
college-aged residents and older retirement-aged
residents (Chart 1). This area is not home to young
Median Age
30.41
25.95
families, however, and has very small young child and
teenage cohorts. Interestingly, both the college-aged
Std. Error
1.41
2.23
and retirement-aged cohorts are significantly female,
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community
with a drastically larger female population in the
Surey 2008-2013 Estimate
traditional college age cohort of 18 to 24 years old.
However, the cohorts in between these two extremes tend
to be predominantly male. Overall, the average age of
females is 25.95 while the average age of males is 30.41

43

with a male to female ratio of 0.86 (Table 1).

Portland has the reputation for being one of the least racially
diverse large cities in the country, but the southwest portion
of downtown challenges this image (Chart 2). While people
who identify as White are still the majority at over 75% of
the population, there are notable Asian, Hispanic/Latino, and
mixed-race populations in this area as well.

The average household in these two census tracts seems to

be young, college-aged, non-family renters. The median
household income of $36,730 hides a bimodal distribution
similar to the age and gender distributions with a large
number of residents in the less than $10,000 category
and another cluster centered around $75,000 (Chart 3).
This indicates that while the averages are consistent with a
young, college-aged population, there is an older population
that may have higher levels of income and home ownership.
Over three quarters of households are renters (Table 2
Page 56), which corresponds to a similar 80%20% nonfamily/family household split (Table 2). While there is an
overall housing vacancy rate of 13.6%, the rental vacancy
rate (units available for rent divided by the total number of
rental units) is much lower at 6.61%.

Chart 2: Race
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

Table 2: Household Types

(Family V. Non-Family)

0
White

African American
American Indian
And
Alaska
Native

Asian

Native
Hawaiian
And
Other
Pacifc
Islander

Other

Two Or Hispanic
More Or Latino
Races

Household Type

Estimate

Percent

Std. Error

913
3,618
4531

20.20%
79.90%

105.39
163.41
152.26

Family
Nonfamily

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey

2008-2013 Estimate

Total

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey

2008-2013 Estimate

Chart 3: Income
800
600
400
200

44

$2

00

,0

or
e

00

rM

99
99

,9

99
$1
To
00
,0

50
$1

25

,0

00

To

$1

49

,9

,9

99

24
$1

To
00

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

$1

,0
00

$1

$7

5,

00

0T
o

$9

9,

99

9
99

4,
$7

0T
o
00

0,
$6

00

0T
o

$5

9,

99

9
99

9,
0,
$5

00

0T
o

$4

4,

99

9
5,
$4

00

0T
o

$4

9,

99

9
0,
$4

00

0T
o

$3

4,

99

9
5,
$3

00

0T
o

$3

9,

99

9
$2
0,
$3

$2

5,

00

0T
o

$2

4,

99

9
99
9,

$2

0,

00

0T
o

$1

4,
00

0T
o

$1
5,
$1

00
0,
$1

Le

ss
T

ha

0T
o

$1

0,

99

00

The residents of southwest downtown

Portland also appear to be well educated
for their age. The 18 to 24 year old cohort
has an overwhelming number of college
students with only a handful of residents
with a high school diploma who have not
attended college (Chart 4). The 25 and
older cohort continues this trend of college
education with a small cohort still in college
but with the largest percentage being those
with a bachelor degree or higher (Chart 5).
The transportation information provided
by the ACS indicates that this area is a
prime location for a pedestrian facility.
The top three modes of getting to work
for the area are (in decreasing popularity)
walking, driving, and public transit (Chart
6). The large number of people walking is
encouraging, but the area may be in need
of enhanced cycling facilities as cycling has
a paltry 1% mode share. The large number
of public transit trips also almost certainly
contains walking trips to the stations or
stops that arent included in the walking
numbers. The ages associated with these
modes reveal that drivers tend to be older
than pedestrians or transit users (Chart
7Next Page). The majority of these work
trips take a half hour or less (Chart 8Next
Page).

Chart 4: Educational Attainment (Ages 18-24)

1,600
1,200
800
Male
Female

400
0
Less Than 9th 9th To 12th
Grade
Grade, No
Diploma

High School Some College, Associate's

Graduate
No Degree
Degree
(Includes
Equivalency)

Bachelor's
Degree

Graduate Or
Professional
Degree

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey

2008-2013 Estimate
Chart 5: Educational Attainment (25 and older)
1,200

800

Male
400

Female

0
High School
Some
Some
Graduate College, Less College, 1
(Includes Than 1 Year Or More
Equivalency)
Years, No
Degree

Associate's
Degree

Bachelor's
Degree

Master's
Degree

Professional Doctorate
School
Degree
Degree

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey

2008-2013 Estimate
Chart 6:Transportation Modeshare
1,500
1,000
500
0
Drove
Alone

Carpooled

Public
Transit

Walked

Bike

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community

Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

45

Other

Worked at
Home

Chart 7: Average Age of Commuters

40
35
30
25
20
Drove Alone Carpooled Public Transit

Walked

Taxi,
Motorcycle,
Bike, or
Other

Worked at
Home

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

Chart 8: Average Commute Time to Work (Minutes)

800
600
400
200
0
Less 5 to 9 10 to 15 to 20 to 25 to 30 to 35 to 40 to 45 to 60 to 90 Or
Than 5
14
19
24
29
34
39
44
59
89 More

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

46

Walkability Audits

Lincoln Street. We did not perform any audits of the space

between SW Lincoln/4th Ave and SW Caruthers due to
the lack of existing infrastructure in this segment. The final
segment ran east on SW Caruthers, south on SW Water
Ave, and then under the interstate to the intersection of SW
Sheridan and SW Moody.

It is important to identify the current walkability of the

proposed Green Loop alignment in order to prioritize
investments and tailor individual portions of the proposed
facility to the needs of the area. We used the Measuring
Urban Design Qualities walkability audit from Active
Living Research to conduct a walkability audit for each side
of each block along BPS initial proposed route to provide
a score that can be compared across the whole study area.
This instrument is based on research performed by several
leading academics and relies on quantitative measurements
in combination with a regression model to provide scores
for five aspects of urban design that significantly impact
the walkability of a street. These scores for imageability,
enclosure, human scale, transparency, and complexity
correspond with a ranking system devised that ranges from
one to five, with one being the lowest and five being the
highest. A blank scoring sheet is included in this report as
APPENDIX III- page 59.

Imageability
The imageability of an area refers to its distinctness and
ability to be easily identified and recognized, or how well it
is identified as a unique place. Not surprisingly, both park
blocks scored the highest thanks to the large number of
parks, easily identified buildings, and historic facades and
architectures. Both SW College and SW Caruthers scored in
the average range for imageability (Chart 2).
Chart 2: Imageability Score
5.00

These audits were performed on clear weather days in

February 2015 along the blocks that make up the southwest
portion of the Green Loop proposal. We started at SW
Salmon Street at the north end of the South Park Blocks,
continued south along the park blocks, behind Shattuck Hall
to the intersection of SW College and SW Broadway. We
divided this area into the Cultural Park Blocks and PSU Park
Blocks (divided by SW Market Street). From SW College
and SW Broadway we continued east on SW College and
turned right along SW 4th Avenue until it intersects SW

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

Chart 1: Average Walkability

Audit Score

PSU Park
Blocks

SW College SW Caruthers

Enclosure
The sense of enclosure, or how much the surrounding
environment provides a room-like feel to the sidewalk,
was relatively low across the whole study area. The large
open spaces of the park blocks work against them for this
category, as does the lack of buildings in the SW Caruthers
area (Chart 3next page). SW College has the highest score
here, though the high degree of enclosure on SW College is
lessened in the average score by the low enclosure around SW
4th Ave.

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

PSU Park
Blocks

SW College SW Caruthers

47

here due to the large number of people in the park itself, but
this is not captured very well with our auditing instrument.
Likewise, the score for SW Caruthers seems higher than it
ought to be, as that area is much more isolated from the
activity of the city and sees few pedestrians.

Chart 3: Encolsure Score

5.00

4.00

Chart 5:Transparency Score

3.00

5.00

2.00

4.00

1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

PSU Park
Blocks

3.00

SW College SW Caruthers

2.00

Human Scale
Human scale measures how the built elements of an area
correspond with human size and proportion and takes into
account building height, ground floor windows, and street
furniture. The PSU Park Blocks and SW College score well
here due to the larger than normal amount of outdoor
furniture and relatively smaller buildings than in the other
areas (Chart 4). It should be noted that our analysis did not
encompass the interior of the park blocks, which have a large
amount of street furniture and other features that create a
human-oriented environment.

1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

PSU Park
Blocks

SW College SW Caruthers

Complexity
Complexity is a measurement of the diversity of the scenery
and architecture surrounding an area along with human
activity and presence. All areas received their highest scores
in the complexity category, with scores declining from north
to south along the proposed alignment (Chart 6). It should
be noted that only SW Caruthers dips below a five in this
category, and its score is probably helped by architecture
visible from a distance instead of the nearby buildings.

Chart 4: Human Scale Score

5.00

4.00

Chart 6: Complexity Score

3.00

6.00

2.00

5.00
4.00

1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

PSU Park
Blocks

SW College SW Caruthers

3.00

Transparency
An important aspect of walkability is feeling like one can see
other people and be seen by them, creating a sense of safety
and community. Similarly to human scale, the PSU park
blocks and SW College score well here because of the large
number of windows and active uses surrounding the area
(Chart 5). The Cultural Park Blocks deserve a higher score

2.00
1.00
Cultural Park
Blocks

48

PSU Park
Blocks

SW College SW Caruthers

Pedestrian and Bicycle Counts

Knowing who lives in the area and what facilities are available
to them provides a strong foundation to analyze how many
people are currently walking or biking along the Green Loop
alignment. This in turn will provide the City with baseline
numbers to use in future evaluation of the Green Loops
success. An important and oft-neglected part of the planning
process is monitoring a project that has been implemented to
determine whether it meets its goals and objectives, and our
pedestrian and bicycle counts will allow them to do that.
We performed counts at five separate locations using
the Standard Screenline Count Form from the National
Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project (attached as
APPENDIX III- Page 60). Following the projects guidelines,
two counts were performed at each location: a mid-week
count during the evening commute (57 PM) and a weekend
count during the middle of the day (122 PM). These counts
were performed during peak usage hours to capture the
highest traffic volumes possible. Every person who crossed
a mental screenline extending all the way across the road
(or the across both roads and the entire middle block for
the park block locations) was counted, with distinctions
made according to mode (bicycle, pedestrian, or other) and
gender. All counts occurred on fair weather days in the last
week of February 2015 and first week of March 2015. Sunset
occurred during the first hour of the weekday counts, with
complete darkness occurring by the end of the counting
period.

Our five screenline locations correspond with our five

different design nodes where possible and were chosen to
be near traffic generators such as transit stops or centers of
activity. The Cultural Park Blocks, PSU Park Blocks, and SW
College locations were simple to choose, with screenlines in
the middle of the park block between SW Jefferson and SW
Columbia, from Cramer Hall to the Vue Apartments, and
from University Pointe to Ondine Apartments respectively.
The lack of existing infrastructure on the section behind
University Place and the isolated nature of SW Caruthers
required different approaches. For each of these, a location
was chosen that would feed into or out of the proposed
alignment. These included a screenline across 4th Ave. in
front of the CH2MHill building and across SW Moody just
north of the Collaborative Life Sciences Building (CLSB).
These locations will provide a window into current usage near
the alignment and should see drastic changes in use following
the completion of the Green Loop.
Pedestrians
As expected, the park blocks experienced the highest
number of both weekday and weekend pedestrians (Chart
1). Weekday counts at the PSU Park Blocks, SW College,
and CLSB locations were highly influenced by people
leaving campus after the end of classes. The PSU Park
Blocks location was selected so as to be directly north of the
PSU Saturday Farmers Market in order to capture the high
traffic levels there and, accordingly, had significantly more
pedestrians than any other count. The Cultural Park Blocks
location further north was somewhat removed from this

Chart 1: Pedestrian Counts

3000

2000

1000

0
Cultural Park PSU Park Blocks
Blocks

SW College

Weekday Pededstrians

SW 4th Ave

Weekend Pedestrians

49

CLSB

traffic but still saw high numbers of pedestrians

on the weekend count. The CLSB location saw a
large percentage of recreational joggers on both
weekday evening and weekend mid-day counts.

Chart 2: Ratio of Male to

Female Pedestrians

Pedestrian counts often reveal a higher number

of males than females using the facilities, and
our weekday evening counts support this trend,
perhaps due to the late hour (Chart 2). The
one location not adhering to this trend was the
screenline near the CLSB; however, this may
be influenced by the presence of the OHSU
School of Dentistry, which may have a higher
proportion of female students. The two counts
that defied this trend, however, were the weekend
park blocks screenlines, both of which showed a
reversal of the normal male to female ratio to a
greater degree than the CLSB; this may be due to
the gender distribution of visitors to the Farmers
Market.

1.50

1.00

0.50
Cultural Park PSU Park Blocks
Blocks

SW College

Weekday Pedestrian M/F

SW 4th Ave

Weekend Pedestrian M/F

The CLSB screenline included the new mode-separated cycle

track along SW Moody that appeared to be heavily used by
both recreational cyclists and commuter cyclists. No other
screenlines had any specific cycle infrastructure, though
the PSU Park Blocks screenline was near a cluster of bike
racks. However, the impact of this proximity may have been
negated by the extremely high pedestrian usage during the
Farmers Market.

Cyclists
While the five areas saw relatively similar
pedestrian usage when ignoring the impact of the
Farmers Market, the CLSB saw, by far, a higher
number of cyclists than any other area (Chart 3).

Chart 3: Bicycle Counts

400
300
200
100
0
Cultural Park PSU Park Blocks
Blocks

CLSB

SW College

Weekday Bikes

50

SW 4th Ave

Weekend Bikes

CLSB

Cycling has an even higher gender bias than walking and this
is very evident in our cycling counts (Chart 4). Excluding
the CLSB location, all the weekday counts had over twice as
many male cyclists as female cyclists. Weekend ratios were
a little better, perhaps again due to the earlier hour, but still
failed to improve beyond a 1.5 male to female ratio. The
impact of the cycle track along SW Moody is evident here
as well, with the CLSB screenline nearly achieving gender
parity for cyclists during the midweek count. The high level
of usage of the cycle track by all cyclists indicates the great
potential for the Green Loop to increase the number of
people who choose to bike.

Chart 4: Ratio of Male to

Female Cyclists
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Cultural Park PSU Park Blocks
Blocks

SW College

Weekday Bike M/F

SW 4th Ave

Weekend Bike M/F

51

CLSB

Business Inventory and Parking

Counts
Business Inventory
Bicycle and pedestrian transportation infrastructure can have
a large impact on nearby businesses, which can be both allies
and opponents to the Green Loop project. We conducted
an inventory of all businesses directly adjacent to the Citys
proposed Alignment B along with a block-by-block bicycle
and automobile parking count to better understand the
commercial landscape and how removal of parking may
impact local businesses.
We grouped businesses into seven different categories: office,
service (including churches), retail, restaurant, cultural,
for-profit parking lot, and vacant. We only included groundfloor businesses directly facing the alignmentbusinesses
on a higher floor or around the side of a building were not
includedas these are the most likely to be directly impacted
by infrastructure changes. We did not include buildings
or businesses owned by Portland State University in our
analysis, which is again broken down into our five design
nodes.

Businesses
The Cultural Park Blocks have the largest number and variety
of businesses of any of our five design nodes, followed by
SW College Street (Chart 1). The main business categories
in this area are service and restaurant, driven heavily by the
large number of churches and small restaurants in the area.
While the PSU Park Blocks have a large number of different
buildings and university offices, there are very few businesses
in this part of the alignment. SW College is home to several
different restaurants and is adjacent to the food cart pod
on SW 4th Avenue. A small retail shop is the only business
in the University Place area (besides the PSU-owned hotel
itself ), but several redevelopment options include a large
amount of ground-floor retail. The International School is
SW Caruthers lone business.
Parking Counts
The only businesses along the alignment that have their
own off-street parking are along SW College and SW 4th
Avenue (Table 1Page 55). There are two for-profit public
parking lots in the Cultural Park Blocks and a third, partially
occupied by a food cart pod, on SW College. There are many
other parking lots and garages in the heart of downtown, and
PSU provides several lots and garages primarily for student,
staff, and faculty use.

Chart 1: Businesses by Type by Segment

12

10

Office
Service
Retail

Restraunt
Cultural
Parking Lot

Vacant

0
Cultural Park Blocks

PSU Park Blocks

SW College

52

University Place

SW Caruthers

On-street parking is most abundant in the

Cultural Park Blocks thanks to available
spaces on both sides of the street (Chart 2);
however, the presence of on-street parking
in this area is a subject of contention among
several groups. These parking spaces were
created on the originally parking-free streets
during the renovation of the Transit Mall
several years ago and were supposed to be
temporary, but have remained ever since.
The PSU park blocks have very little onstreet parking due to their pedestrian-only
nature while driveways take up many of the
potential spaces on SW College. The SW
Caruthers area has many spaces available
along all three streets in the area; however,
the sheltered and isolated nature of SW
Sheridan makes it feel less secure than the
rest of the alignment.

Bicycle parking is an important yet oftoverlooked component of any cycling route;
just as people wont drive to a destination
that lacks parking, cyclists wont stop where
there is no secure place to lock their bike.
Practically all the bike parking along the
proposed Green Loop alignment consists of
the staple bike racks common throughout
the city; there is no covered or protected bike
storage adjacent to the alignment except for
a garage available only to students, faculty,
and staff at the CLSB. The PSU Park Blocks
have the largest amount of available bike
parking, while the SW Caruthers area has no
designated areas to lock a bike immediately
adjacent to the alignment (Chart 2).

Chart 2: Amount of Car and

Bike Parking Per Segment

160
120
Car

80

Bike

40
0
Cultural Park PSU Park Blocks
Blocks

53

SW College

SW Caruthers

Transit Inventory

Very few transit trips begin or end exactly at a persons origin

or destination. Walking is a very important part of most
transit trips, often without users realizing it. It is therefore
important to identify current transit usage in the area as these
transit stops can be major trip generators for pedestrian or
bicycle activity. We limited our scope to stops nearly adjacent
to the proposed Green Loop alignment in order to get a
better feel for transit usage that would directly impact the
Green Loop
Individual transit stop boarding and de-boarding data were
provided by TriMet and were separated into average weekday,
Saturday, and Sunday counts. We averaged the Saturday
and Sunday counts into a single average weekend count;
however, several bus stops did not have weekend boarding
data. Data for TriMet bus and MAX services were obtained
from TriMets fall 2014 ridership census while the most
recent data available for the Portland Streetcar came from the
spring 2014 ridership census. This older streetcar data does
not reflect current usage due to the completion of the CLSB;
furthermore, it was missing data for the SW Moody and
Meade North station, which was presumably closed during
the CLSB construction.
Transit usage in the area seems to be highest around the
Transit Mall itself, with the MAX stops at the end of the
Green and Yellow Lines at University Pointe having some
of the highest boarding/de-boarding numbers followed
by the bus stops at SW 5th and Harrison, SW 6th and
Harrison, and SW 5th and Hall (Table 7-Page 58). The two
streetcar stations in the South Park Blocks themselves are
not particularly high in traffic compared with the rest of the
stops, but this could be a function of the streetcars lower
capacity and not having multiple lines going through a single
stop as occurs on several of the bus stops. These stops do see
relatively high weekend traffic compared to the bus stops.
This may be due to the presence of the PSU Farmers Market,
but regardless indicates an opportunity directly on the Green
Loop alignment.

54

3.3 Tables
Table 1: Business Inventory by Segment

Business Name
Cultural Park Blocks
Arlene Schnitzer Concert Hall
Roosevelt Hotel
Shigezo
City Center Parking
Artbar and Bistro
Antoinette Hatfield Hall- Brunish Theater
First Congregational United Church of Christ
Portland Art Museum
Oregon Historical Society
Portland Art Museum
Vacant
First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
St. James Lutheran Church
Child Development Center
Sixth Church of Christ, The Scientist
U Park
Travel Cuts
Arabian Nights Fine Middle Eastern Cuisine
East Side Delicatessen
Starbucks
West Park Salon
The Energy Bar
Park Avenue Market
Sushi Park
Park Ave Cafe
PSU Park Blocks
Subway
SW College
Pho Tanh Long
The Cheerful Tortoise
Chipoltle
Marks Mini Mart
PFD Engine 4
Joes Burger
Tart Berry
Einsteins Bagels
Wells Fargo Bank
U-Park
Tandoor's Chicken Food Cart
Nong's Khao Man Gai Food Cart
Vacant
Alexandrya Mediteranean Cuisine
Curbside Kebabs
Taco Del Mar
CH2MHILL Center
Chevron
Dominos
University Place/Lincoln
Ed Wyse Beauty Supply
SW Caruthers
International School

Address

Business Type

Private Parking

1000 SW Park Ave

1005 SW Park Ave
1005 SW Park Ave
935 SW Main St
1100 SW Park Ave
1100 SW Park Ave
1126 SW Park Ave
1119 SW Park Ave
1200 SW Park Ave
1219 SW Park Ave
780 Jefferson
1314 SW Park Ave
1315 SW Park Ave
1315 SW Park Ave
1331 SW Park Ave
1400 SW Park Ave
1430 SW Park Ave
1434 SW Park Ave
1438 SW Park Ave
1440 SW Park Ave
1419 SW Park Ave
1431 SW Park Ave
1503 SW Park Ave
1503 SW Park Ave
1535 SW Park Ave

Cultural
Service
Restaurant
Parking Lot
Restaurant
Cultural
Service
Cultural
Cultural
Cultural
Vacant
Service
Service
Service
Service
Parking Lot
Service
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Service
Restaurant
Retail
Restaurant
Restaurant

No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Suite B, 1717 SW Park Ave

Restaurant

No

635 SW Broadway
1939 SW 6th Ave
1948 SW Broadway
616 SW College
SW 5th and College
540 SW College
536 SW College
508 SW College
1900 SW 5th Ave
SW 4th and College
SW 4th and College
411 SW College St
1966 SW 5th Ave
420 SW College
400 SW College
1930 SW 4th Ave
2020 SW 4th Ave #300
1967 SW 4th
1981 SW 4th

Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Retail
Service
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Service
Parking Lot
Restaurant
Restaurant
Vacant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Restaurant
Office
Service
Restaurant

Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes

No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes

330 Lincoln

Retail

Yes

2305 SW Water Ave

Service

Yes

55

Table 2: Housing Characteristics

Unit Type

Estimate

Percent

973
3,558
4,531

86.40%
13.60%

111.89
151.32
152.26

Vacant
For Rent
Rented, Not Occupied
For Sale Only
Sold, Not Occupied
For Seasonal Or Occasional Use
For Migrant Workers
Other Vacant
Total

262
141
70
0
229
0
11
713

36.80%
19.80%
9.80%
0.00%
32.10%
0.00%
1.50%

71.28
69.28
41.1
9.89
67.94
9.89
12.2
126.25

Rental Vacancies
Median Monthly Housing Costs

262
$1,187

6.61%

Occupied
Owned
Rented
Total

Std. Error

$63.89

Source: US Census Bureau, American

Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

Table 3: Income

Income
Less Than $10,000
$10,000 To $14,999
$15,000 To $19,999
$20,000 To $24,999
$25,000 To $29,999
$30,000 To $34,999
$35,000 To $39,999
$40,000 To $44,999
$45,000 To $49,999
$50,000 To $59,999
$60,000 To $74,999
$75,000 To $99,999
$100,000 To $124,999
$125,000 To $149,999
$150,000 To $199,999
$200,000 Or More
Median Household Income

Estimate

Percent

Std. Error

815
302
257
383
253
185
190
95
120
362
296
566
274
154
136
143

18.00%
6.70%
5.70%
8.50%
5.60%
4.10%
4.20%
2.10%
2.70%
8.00%
6.50%
12.50%
6.10%
3.40%
3.00%
3.20%

106.83
78.77
64.84
103.81
67.42
59.9
55.17
44.77
47.01
89.47
62.28
108.9
63.78
44.29
44.14
49.19

$36,630

$5,941.31

56

Source: US Census Bureau, American

Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

Table 4: Race of the Study Area

Race or Ethnicity
White
African American
American Indian And Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian And Other Pacific Islander
Other
Two Or More Races
Hispanic Or Latino

Estimate

Percent

Std. Error

6,118
74
4
803
0
65
401
528

76.50%
0.90%
0.10%
10.10%
0.00%
0.80%
5.00%
6.60%

340.24
40.6
8.6
124.35
9.89
51.47
98.11
112.2

Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Surey 2008-2013 Estimate

57

58

10491

10712

12763

13305

7606

10293

SW 5th & Hall

SW Harbor & Harrison

SW 4th & Hall

SW Harrison & 6th

SW 5th & Jackson MAX Stn

SW 6th & College MAX Stn

11011

13601

13602

SW Market & Park

SW Moody & Meade South

SW Moody & Meade North

Source: TriMet

10766

SW Mill & Park

Portland Streetcar

TriMet MAX

9044

SW Columbia & 10th

913

7602

8770

SW 5th & Harrison

SW Naito Parkway & Sheridan

6473

33

148

315

960

279

175

101

13

521

196

53

109

116

21

61

6472

3398

SW Lincoln & 1st

SW 1st & Madison Tower

3397

300 Block SW Lincoln

52
153

2200 Block SW 1st

3049

SW Jefferson & 10th

5007

3039

SW Jefferson & Broadway

38
354

5009

2580

SW Harrison & 4th

SW Salmon & Park

2567

200 Block SW Harrison

140

46

173

Weekday
Boardings

SW Salmon & 10th

1927

1926

SW Naito Parkway & Harrison

2566

1108

SW Columbia & Park Ave

SW Naito Parkway & Harrison

616

200 Block SW Harrison

607

SW Broadway & Market

Stop
ID

SW Broadway & Hall

TriMet Bus

Location

75

317

183

105

1363

776

367

319

79

438

35

51

87

87

26

286

188

86

222

32

91

108

20

12

Weekday
De-boardings

133

223

606

139

46

29

130

55

14

243

1.5

60

45

30

112

34

28

Weekend
Boardings

254

96

116

822

298

111

75

23

2.5

88

10

31

39

14

12

86

33

21

59

7.5

18

Weekend
De-boardings

108

465

498

1065

1642

951

468

16

840

275

57

1351

15

42

160

203

108

87

439

240

440

260

172

49

92

281

22

15

Weekday
Total

Table 5:TriMet Transit Inventory Data

387

318

722

961

344

139

204

78

16

331

12

91

84

22

18

116

42

133

65

42

46

Weekend
Total

57

426

408

893

1301

647

304

522

176

37

841

27

125

144

65

52

277

141

287

163

107

163

Overall Total

Spring 2014

Spring 2014

Spring 2014

Spring 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Fall 2014

Date

3.4 Data Analysis Tools

59

Walkability Audit Scoring Tool

measuring urban design qualities scoring sheet

auditor

street

date & time

from

recorded
value

step

imageability

multiplier

1. number of courtyards, plazas, and parks (both sides, within study area)

0.41

2. number of major landscape features (both sides, beyond study area)

0.72

3. proportion historic building frontage (both sides, within study area)

0.97

4. number of buildings with identifiers (both sides, within study area)

0.11

5. number of buildings with non-rectangular shapes (both sides, within study area)

0.08

(multiplier) x
(recorded value)

0.64

6. presence of outdoor dining (your side, within study area)

Walk through 1

7. number of people (your side, within study area)

Walk through 2
Walk through 3
Walk through 4
Total
Total divided by 4

0.02

Walk through 1

8. noise level (both sides, within study area)

Walk through 2
Walk through 3
Walk through 4
Total
Total divided by 4

-0.18
add constant +2.44

imageablity score

enclosure

-0.31

1. number of long sight lines (both sides, beyond study area)

0.72

2a. proportion street wall (your side, within study area)

0.94

2b. proportion street wall (opposite side, within study area)

-1.42

3a. proportion sky (ahead, beyond study area)

-2.19

3b. proportion sky (across, beyond study area)

add constant +2.57

enlosure score

human scale

-0.74

1. number of long sight lines (both sides, beyond study area) *from above

1.10

2. proportion windows at street level (your side, within study area)

-0.003

3. average building height (your side, within study area)

0.05

4. number of small planters (your side, within study area)

0.04

5. number of pieces of street furniture and other street items (your side, within study area)

add constant +2.61

human scale score

transparency
1. proportion windows at street level (your side, within study area)

1.22

2. proportion street wall (your side, beyond study area) *from above

0.67
0.53

3. proportion active uses (your side, within study area)

add constant +1.71

transparency score

complexity
1. number of buildings (both sides, beyond study area)

0.05

2a. number of basic building colors (both sides, beyond study area)

0.23

2b. number of basic accent colors (both sides, beyond study area)

0.12

3. presence of outdoor dining (your side, within study area) *from above

0.42
0.29

4. number of pieces of public art (both sdies, within study area)

Walk through 1

5. number of walking pedestrians (your side, within study area)

Walk through 2
Walk through 3
Walk through 4
Total
Total divided by 4

0.03
add constant +2.61

complexity score

60

Screenline Count Form

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Forms

STANDARDSCREENLINECOUNTFORM

Name:_________________________________________Location:_____________________________________

Date:_______________________StartTime:______________________EndTime:________________________

Weather:______________________

Pleasefillinyourname,countlocation,date,timeperiod,andweatherconditions(fair,rainy,verycold).
Countallbicyclistsandpedestrianscrossingyourscreenlineundertheappropriatecategories.

x Countfortwohoursin15minuteincrements.
x Countbicyclistswhorideonthesidewalk.
x Countthenumberofpeopleonthebicycle,notthenumberofbicycles.
x Pedestriansincludepeopleinwheelchairsorothersusingassistivedevices,childreninstrollers,etc.
x People using equipment such as skateboards or rollerblades should be included in the Other
category.

Bicycles
Pedestrians
Others

Female
Male
Female
Male

00:15

15:30

30:45

451:00

1:001:15

1:151:30

1:301:45

1:452:00

Total

61

Appendix IV- Maps

4.1 Study Area Census Tracts
4.2 Bicyclist Counts
4.3 Pedestrian Counts
4.4 Walkability Criteria- Complexity
4.5 Walkability Criteria- Enclosure
4.6 Walkability Criteria- Human Scale
4.7 Walkability Criteria- Imageability
4.8 Walkability Criteria- Transparency

62

4.1 Map 1-Study Area Census Tracts

Mo
rris

Water

on

Yam
hill

16T
h

Tay
lor

Morr
iso n

Salm
on

Ma
in

Cla
y

Ma
dis
on

12T
h

13T
h

Jeff

10T
h

11 T
h

Cla
y

Ma
rke
t

Madison

3R
d

Hawthorne

2Nd

ery

Na
ito

1St

13T
h

4Th

Mill

Mo
ntg
om

Ha w
tho
rne

5Th

Ha ll

6Th

Bro
a

on

dw
ay

9Th

ery

Par
k

Ha rr
is

Co lu
mb
ia

14T
h

Mo
ntg
om

Yamhill

ers
o

Ha rr
is

on

Ha ll

Market

10T
h

or

ell

Ha
rb

in
Ca rd

Co ll
ege

Mo
ntg
om

Clift
on

ery

Jac

Riv
er

ks o
n

Ha rb
or
Ro
se

Lincoln

Rivington

Lincoln

rtle
My

Grant

Grant
Buckingham

Riv
er

Sherman

Sherman

Caru thers

m
Ho ff

Sheffield

sfo rd

Water

Ch e
lm

Ha
ll

Grant

an

Caruth ers
Sheridan

Sherid an

on
we
a lt

Canning

ur
Arth

Water

1St

Meade

Water

Gibbs

Gibbs

Unnamed

Curry

o spit
al

Whita ker
Curry

Curry

Pennoyer

Penno yer

Penno yer

9Th

Gaines
Gaines

Lane

Lane

Lane

ed

Abernethy

Abernethy

Water

Un
na
m

10Th

Us V
etera
ns H

Whitaker

River

Whitaker

Curry

Grover

Water

Gibb s

Naito Pkwy Frontage

s
pu

Ross Islan d

Gro ver

Grover

m
Ca

10Th

Woods

2Nd

r
Pa

3Rd

10T h

Corbett

Water
Woods

Ho od

9Th

so

ck

River

r
lige

m
Sa

Ja

Porter

4Th

il
Terw

Woods

Grover

ds
Wo o

Porter

Woods

g
in

s
os

er
Port

Naito

Hooker

Cr

lik
Ti

dy
Moo

Mead e

um

ad e
Me

Arthur

lly
Ke

Barbur

3Rd

Arthur

Corbett

Co
m

t
en
ng
Ta

63

Abernethy

Ma
in

4.2 Map 2-Bicyclist Counts

Ma
di

son

Jef
fe

12T
h

13T
h

rso
n
Institutional Park Block

10T
h

11T
h

Col
um

bia

Bicyclist Counts
Weekday

Ma
rke
t

riso

2Nd

3R
d

1St

ery

Na
ito

Har

4Th

Mill

Mo
ntg
om

Ha

5Th

PSU Park Block

Weekend
6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par
k

9Th

Cla
y

Hal
l

10T
h

Clif

College Street

Ha
rbo
r

dinell

Col
leg

Mo
ntg
om

ton
Jac
k

ery

son

Riv

er

4th Ave

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln
Lincoln
Grant

Grant

Grant

ngham

Hal
l

Riv

er

Sherman

Sherman

Caruthers

n
fma
Hof

Sheffield

Water

Che
l ms
ford

Caruthers

Sheridan

Corbett

3Rd

Barbur

Water

Water

Hooker

ter
Por

3Rd

64

Corbett

Water

Woods

Woods

ed

Woods

Porter

am
Unn

Porter

4Th

r
illige

med

500 Feet

Meade

ds
Woo

Terw

Unna

250

Meade

Bond

CLSB
ade
Me

Arthur
lly
Ke

Arthur

ur
Arth

1St

d
Moo

mo
nw
e

alt
h

Sheridan

Co
m

Canning

Grover

Ma
in

4.3MMap 3-Pedestrian Counts

adi

son

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
on
Institutional Park Block

10T
h

11T
h

Col
um

bia

Pedestrian Counts
Weekday

Ma
rke
t

Weekend
5Th

PSU Park Block

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par
k

9Th

Cla
y

riso

2Nd
1St

ery

Na
ito

Har

3R
d

Mo
ntg
om

4Th

Mill

Hal
l

Clif

Ha
rbo
r

College Street

Mo
ntg
om

ton

Jac
k

ery

son

Riv

er

4th Ave

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln
Lincoln

Grant

Grant

am

Hal
l

Grant

Riv

er

Sherman
Sherman

Caruthers

n
fma
Hof

Sheffield

Water

Che
l ms
ford

Caruthers
Sheridan

Corbett

Barbur

Water

Water

Hooker

ter

Por

Corbett

Water

65

Woods

Woods

ed

Woods

Porter

am
Unn

Porter

4Th

r
illige

med

500 Feet

Meade

ds
Woo

Terw

Unna

250

Meade

CLSB

Bond

ade
Me

Arthur

lly
Ke

Arthur

ur
Arth

1St

d
Moo

mo
nw
e

alt
h

Sheridan

Co
m

Canning

3Rd

10T
h

Col
leg

Grover

4.4 Map 4-Walkability Criteria: Complexity

Yam

hill

Alder

St-Mo

rrison

Tay
lor

Sal

mo
n

Ma
in

Ma
di

Cla

um
b

ia

Ma
rk

et

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par

9Th

10T
h

11T
h

Col

5Th

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
o

son

ery

Na
ito

1St

gom

2Nd

3R
d

Mo
nt

4Th

Mill

Har

riso
n

Hal

10T
h

inell

Clif

leg
e

Ha
rbo
r

Card

Col

Mo
nt

ton

ery

son

Riv

er

Jac
k

gom

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln
Lincoln

Gr ant

er

Sherman
Sherman

Sheridan

250

Caruthers

Sheridan

500 Feet

Arthur

66

Arth

ur

Water

on
w

Co
m

fma
Hof

Canning

Caruthers

2Nd

Sheffield

ford

ea
lth

lms

Riv

Water

Che

Grant
Grant

Buckingham

Hal

Arthur

ad
Me

Brg

4.5 Map 5-Walkability Criteria: Enclosure

Yam

hill

Alder

St-Mo

rrison

Tay
lor
Sal

mo
n

Ma
in

Ma
di

Cla

um
b

ia

Ma
rk

et

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par

9Th

10T
h

11T
h

Col

5Th

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
o

son

ery

Na
ito

1St

gom

2Nd

3R
d

Mo
nt

4Th

Mill

Har

riso
n

Hal

10T
h

inell

Clif

leg
e

Ha
rbo
r

Card

Col

Mo
nt

ton

ery

son

Riv

er

Jac
k

gom

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln

Lincoln
Gr ant

Grant
Buckingham

Riv

er

Sherman

Sherman

Sheridan

250

Caruthers

Sheridan

500 Feet

Arthur

67

Arth

ur

Water

on
w

Co
m

fma
Hof

Canning

Caruthers

2Nd

Sheffield

ford

ea
lth

lms

Water

Che

Hal

Grant

Arthur

ade
Me

Brg

4.6 Map 6-Walkability Criteria: Human Scale

Yam

hill

Alder

St-Mo

rrison

Tay
lor

Sal

mo
n

Ma
in

Ma
di

Cla

um
b

ia

Ma
rk

et

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par

9Th

10T
h

11T
h

Col

5Th

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
o

son

ery

Na
ito

1St

gom

2Nd

3R
d

Mo
nt

4Th

Mill

Har

riso
n

Hal

10T
h

inell

Clif

leg
e

Ha
rbo
r

Card

Col

Mo
nt

ton

ery

son

Riv

er

Jac
k

gom

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln

Lincoln
Gr ant

er

Sherman

Sherman

Sheridan

250

Caruthers

Sheridan

500 Feet

Arthur

68

Arth

ur

Water

on
w

Co
m

fma
Hof

Canning

Caruthers

2Nd

Sheffield

ford

ea
lth

lms

Riv

Water

Che

Grant
Grant

Buckingham

Hal

Arthur

ade
Me

Brg

4.7 Map 7-Walkability Criteria: Imageability

Yam

hill

Alder

St-Mo

rrison

Tay
lor
Sal

mo
n

Ma
in

Ma
di

Cla

um
b

ia

Ma
rk

et

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par

9Th

10T
h

11T
h

Col

5Th

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
o

son

ery

Na
ito

1St

gom

2Nd

3R
d

Mo
nt

4Th

Mill

Har

riso
n

Hal

10T
h

inell

Clif

leg
e

Ha
rbo
r

Card

Col

Mo
nt

ton

ery

son

Riv

er

Jac
k

gom

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln
Lincoln
Gr ant

Grant
Buckingham

Riv

er

Sherman

Sherman

Sheridan

250

Caruthers

Sheridan

500 Feet

Arthur

69

Arth

ur

Water

on
w

Co
m

fma
Hof

Canning

Caruthers

2Nd

Sheffield

ford

ea
lth

lms

Water

Che

Hal

Grant

Arthur

ade
Me

Brg

4.8 Map 8 -Walkability Criteria:Transparency

Yam

hill

Alder

St-Mo

rrison

Tay
lor

Sal

mo
n

Ma
in

Ma
di

Cla

um
b

ia

Ma
rk

et

6Th

Bro
adw

ay

Par

9Th

10T
h

11T
h

Col

5Th

12T
h

13T
h

Jef
fers
o

son

ery

Na
ito

1St

gom

2Nd

3R
d

Mo
nt

4Th

Mill

Har

riso
n

Hal

10T
h

inell

Clif

leg
e

Ha
rbo
r

Card

Col

Mo
nt

ton

ery

son

Riv

er

Jac
k

gom

Har
bor
Ros
e

Lincoln

Lincoln
Gr ant

Grant
Buckingham

Riv

er

Sherman

Sherman

Sheridan

250

Caruthers

Sheridan

500 Feet

Arthur

70

Arth

ur

Water

on
w

Co
m

fma
Hof

Canning

Caruthers

2Nd

Sheffield

ford

ea
lth

lms

Water

Che

Hal

Grant

Arthur

ad
Me

Brg

Appendix V- Report Sources

5.1 Image Sources
5.2 Report Sources

71

5.1 Image Sources

Image
Page
Number Number Source
1

16

2
3

19
20

4
5
6

21
22
23

7
8
9

24
32
35

10
11

35
35

12
13
14

38
38
38

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

41
41
41
44
44
45
45
45
46
48

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

49
49
49
49
51
52
52
52
53

34

53

35
36
37
38
39
40
41

55
57
58
59
62
63
63

http://doingindy.com/2013/09/05/indianapolis-cultural-trail-the-journey-is-thedestination/
http://altonrdcoalition.org/wp/category/pedestrians/
http://www.richclarkphoto.com/index.php#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=28&p=0
&a=0&at=0
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443570904577545041495078690
http://connecthistoric-boston.org/ideas/connect-historic-boston-bike-trail/
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20130618/logan-square/606-bloomingdaletrail-gets-new-name-reveals-final-plans
https://www.theunderline.org/
http://www.archello.com/en/project/link-city-nature/image-23
http://www.treehugger.com/cars/the-drive-thru-for-cyclists-a-table-uses-yourbike-as-a-chair.html
http://olyblog.net/new-parklet-oly-coffee-roasters-cherry
http://viewportmagazine.com/design/when-is-an-underground-station-not-anunderground-station/
Ashley Eaton
http://lawnond.com/d-street-artlab/
http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/04/we-need-more-street-furniture-shapedlike-tulips/390648/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_wall#/media/File:GreenWallUCSJ01.JPG
http://dancorson.com/mercurial-sky
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/317433473709219243/
http://blog.lacarguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/freeway-park-seattle.jpg
http://www.boston.com/blogs/news/opinion/bostoncomment/539w.jpg
http://www.redpeakgroup.com/blog/tag/fitness-courts
http://denverurbanism.com/category/revitalization/page/3
http://cincinnatiusa.com/things-to-do/attractions/smale-riverfront-park
http://aspect.net.au/?cat=5
http://psuvanguard.com/news/campus-lighting-overhaul-is-cheaper-andbrighter/
http://www.travelportland.com/article/portland-farmers-market/
flickr user Dylan Passmore
flickr user Matt Johnson
Motoya Nakamura/The Oregonian
flickr user BeyondDC
www.pedbikeimages.org / Laura Sandt
flickr user Dylan Passmore
flickr user Mark Stosberg
http://bikeportland.org/2013/05/14/business-booms-for-bike-valet-in-southwaterfront-86715
http://www.learnfitness.com/2012/06/im-thinking-of-commuting-to-chicago-bybike/
http://aspect.net.au/?cat=5
http://mashable.com/2011/08/10/mobile-apps-cities/
http://www.bustersimpson.net/dekum/
http://asla.org/awards/2006/06winners/images/largescale/341-01.jpg
Ashley Eaton
http://archived.thehighline.org/get-involved/volunteer
http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/218048-76349-less-parking-tastes-great#disqus_thread

72

Appendix Images
1

13

2
3

13
14

4
5
6

14
15
15

http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2012/12/bicyclists_pedestrians_and_tri.
html
http://archive.feedblitz.com/534109/~4055243
http://viewportmagazine.com/design/when-is-an-underground-station-not-anunderground-station/
http://bettercities.net/article/us-shared-space-starting-small-13673
http://www.civicengineers.com/our-work/new-road-brighton
https://pdxsustainability.wordpress.com/

73

5.2 Report Sources

Page
Footnote Number
1

12

12

12

12

12

12

19

19

9
10

19
19

11

21

12

21

13

22

14

22

15

23

16
17

24
24

18
19

24
44

20

44

21
22
23

44
44
44

Source

Maibach, Edward, et al. Promoting Physical Activity and Reducing Climate

Change: Opportunities to Replace Short Car Trips with Active Transportation.
Preventive Medicine, 2009.
Investing in Americas Health. National Governors Association, 2006.
<http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0608HEALTHYREPO
RTNATIONAL.PDF>
Peel, Jeff. Broad Avenue Corridor: Fostering a Choice Neighborhood Fueling
Economic Development. Overton Broad Connector Partners.
E.M. Bent and K. Washington Signa. Modal Choices and Spending Patterns of
Travelers to Downtown San Francisco, California. Transportation Research
Board of the Nation Academies, 2009.
Clifton, Kelly et al. Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices: A Focus on
Cyclists and Pedestrians. Transportation Research Board, 2012.
Dill, Jennifer. Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of
Infrastructure. Journal of Public Health Policy, 2009.
Environmental Practicum Course. Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Butler
University, Spring 2012.
<http://legacy.butler.edu/media/2858941/ict_spring2012.pdf>
Burrow, Sue, Drew Klacik and John Krauss. Analysis of the Impact of the
Indianapolis Cultural Trail. Indiana University Public Policy Institute, 2013.
<https://policyinstitute.iu.edu/Uploads/PublicationFiles/15C02%20CulturalTrail.pdf>
Indianapolis Cultural Trail. <http://indyculturaltrail.org/>
Day, Lauren. Friends of the Indianapolis Cultural Trail, 2015. Personal
Correspondence.
Queens Plaza Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements. NYC Economic
Development Corporation, 2014. <http://www.nycedc.com/project/queensplaza-bicycle-and-pedestrian-improvements>
Kazis, Noah. EDCs Queen Plaza Project Adds Better Bike-Ped Routes,
Subtracts Parking. Streetsblog, 2010.
<http://www.streetsblog.org/2010/07/20/edcs-queens-plaza-transformationincludes-protected-bikeway/>
Boston Public Works Connect Historic Boston. Keep Boston Moving.
<http://keepbostonmoving.org/portfolio/connect-historic-boston/>
Connect Historic Boston. <http://connecthistoricboston.org/ideas/connect-historic-boston-bike-trail/>
Bloomingdale Trail and Park Framework Plan. The 606.
<http://www.the606.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/BloomingdaleFramework-Plan-small.pdf>
The Underline. <https://www.theunderline.org/>
Daly, Meg. Lessons Learned from Miamis Underline: What makes an idea
stick? The Knight Foundation, 2014.
<http://www.knightfoundation.org/blogs/knightblog/2014/10/30/lessonsmiamis-underline-what-makes-idea-stick/>
Daly, Meg. The Underline, 2015. Personal Correspondence.
Freeway Park-Jim Ellis Freeway Park. City of Seattle, 2015.
<http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=312>
Freeway Park. The Cultural Landscape Foundation.
<http://tclf.org/landscapes/freeway-park>
About Us. Freeway Park Association. <http://freewayparkassociation.org/>
The Greenway. <http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/>
Rose Kennedy Greenway. Boston, Discovery Guide, 2015.
<http://www.boston-discovery-guide.com/rose-kennedy-greenway.html>

74

24

48

25

48

26

51

27

52

28

52

29

53

30

54

31
32
33

55
57
57

34

58

35

58

36

58

37

59

38

62

39

64

40

64

13

13

13

13

Appendix Sources

Lumni Nation Launches Safe Streets. Washington State Department of

Health-Partners in Action, 2010.
<http://depts.washington.edu/waaction/action/p3/c5.html>
Lumni Nation Haxton Way Pedestrian Path and Lighting Project. US
Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, 2012.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ltR2oiQ3R9
Q>
Dill, Jennifer and Nathan McNeil. Four Types of Cyclists? Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2013.
Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Best Practices Guide. US
Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, 2014.
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/side
walk2/sidewalks214.cfm>
McNeil, N., Monsere, C.M., and Dill, J. The Influence of Bike Lane Buffer
Types on Perceived Comfort and Safety of Bicyclists and Potential Bicyclists.
Transportation Research Board, 2015.
McDonalds Cycle Center. Bike & Park Chicago.
<http://bikeandpark.com/city/chicago/locations>
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. National Association of City
Transportation Officials, 2014. <http://nacto.org/cities-for-cycling/designguide/>
Frome Street Bikeway. Aspect Studios, 2014. <http://aspect.net.au/?cat=5>
About the Project. GRTagTour. <http://www.grtagtour.org/about.php>
Smart Apps for Better Informed Wayfinding. Re:Streets Initiative, 2015.
<http://www.restreets.org/case-studies/smart-apps-for-better-informedwayfinding>
Sustainable Stormwater Management. City of Portland: Bureau of
Environmental Services, 2015. <https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/34598>
Simpson, Buster, and Peg Butler. Dekum Bike Corral Buster Simpson, 2012.
<http://www.bustersimpson.net/dekum/>
Maus, Jonathan. Art Bike Corral Coming to Woodlawn Neighborhood. Bike
Portland, 2010. <http://bikeportland.org/2010/10/27/art-bike-corral-comingto-woodlawn-neighborhood-41720>
SW 12th Avenue Green Street Project: SW 12th Avenue between SW
Montgomery and SW Mill- Portland, Oregon. City of Portland: Bureau of
Environmental Services.
<https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/167503>
Adopt-A-Block. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.
<http://www.kibi.org/programs/beautification/adopt-a-block/>
Anderson, Jennifer. Less Parking, Tastes Great. The Portland Tribune, 2014.
<http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/218048-76349-less-parking-tastes-great#disqus_thread>
About Us. Friends of the Highline. <http://www.thehighline.org/>
Biking Parking Corrals. City of Portland: Bureau of Transportation, 2015. <
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/250076>
Meisel, Drew. Bike Corrals :Local Business Impacts, Benefits, and Attitudes.
Portland State University: School of Urban Studies, 2010. <
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/bike_corrals_miesel.pdf>
Sherman, Aliza. How Mobile Apps are Helping Urban Explorers Discover
Their Cities. Mashable, 2011. < http://mashable.com/2011/08/10/mobileapps-cities/>
Discover Ottawa Mobile App: Online Community Outreach, City of Ottawa.
Economic Developers Association of Canada, 2015. <
http://edac.ca/portfolio/discover-ottawa-mobile-app/>

75

14

14

14

14

14

10

15

11

15

12

15

Liu, Tonkin. Promenade of Light: Old Street Regeneration. 2006. <

http://tonkinliu.smartdesigns.sk/projects/promenade-of-light/>
Promenade of Light. Public Space, 2008. <
http://www.publicspace.org/en/works/e121-promenade-of-light>
Arfalath. The Promenade of Light. 2011. <
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GkW4qwbUJM>
Commercial Shared Street. National Association of City Transportation
Officials, 2014. <http://nacto.org/usdg/streets/commercial-shared-street/>
Winthrop Street Shared Street. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center.
<http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/library/details.cfm?id=4865>
New Road by Landscape Projects and Gehl Architects. Landezine, 2011.
<http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2011/04/new-road-by-landscapeprojects-and-gehl-architects/>
Case Study: Making a place out of a link on New Road, Brighton. Living
Streets. <http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/professionals/better-street-designand-management/recreate-the-street/case-study-making-a-place-out>
Ecoroof Grant Final Report. City of Portland: Bureau of Environmental
Services, 2013. <https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/434606>

76