Garfield resurfacing survey by May 31

[Steve Starcevich]

Hi TATers,

The City of Corvallis is repaving NW Garfield Avenue and is recommending removing the parking lane to enhance the bike lanes by widening them, providing a painted buffer, and removing the door-zone threat from the parking lane. The City would like your input through a survey, which will be open until May 31.

The City is using a new tool to evaluate car parking versus other uses of the public street space. Their evaluation suggests there is plenty of space for the parking of private vehicles on nearby side streets or in driveways or garages, which would make space for safer and more inviting bike lanes, a safer route to school for students biking and rolling, and a safer biking route to shopping on 9th street.

I'm putting my thumb on the scale a little bit here, but you can learn for yourself more about the evaluation results and take the survey at the link below.

https://www.corvallisoregon.gov/publicworks/page/street-resurfacing-reconstruction-intersection-garfield-ave

Thanks, Steve

Steve Starcevich (he/him) |541-602-1265

Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition

https://sustainablecorvallis.org/action-teams/transportation/

[d...@csbikestowork.com]

This is an interesting one.

I attended an open house earlier this month and have considered the City's evaluation of the parking demand/need, and the proposed removal of parking.

Some observations:

- the parking use evaluation seems flawed in its timing.  If the measure of parking demand is to drive the discussion, more thorough and accurate data is warranted.

- anecdotally, parking demand is varied over the length of the segment, with high static demand (and few options) at the east and west ends of the segment - adjacent to Kings on the west and between 11th and 9th on the east end, and high demand around the elementary school during the start and end of the school day.  There is apparently also high demand across from the Porter Park access during softball games.

- in the big middle section the demand varies and there are areas where side street parking is available, so a case can be made that there are portions where there is no issue with removal, but for significant lengths there are no viable options that do not create greater hazards (eg, forcing renters near the intersection with Kings to have to park on the west side of Kings).

- the portion of the segment that would most benefit (from a cyclist's perspective) from a change is the area between 10th and 9th, but there are little to no parking alternatives through that section.

- in the big middle portion of the segment, removal of parking would take away the door zone hazard (good!) and provide for wider bike lanes, but the apparently wider cross-section could encourage higher speeds (bad).  It is not beneficial to cyclists or the neighborhood to encourage greater volume or speed of car traffic.

It is important that the City consider changes to the roadway when planning a resurfacing, but the change strikes me as

- for most of the project segment, a solution in search of a problem, with the likely outcome being higher speeds, and

- at the east and west ends of the segment, a real improvement for cycling, but at the expense of the lower income people who live there.

The main issue I see with the bike lanes through the big middle part of the segment is the pavement condition, which will be addressed in the resurfacing.  Some other treatments - bulb-outs at intersections, a raised crossing at Porter Park, and maybe at the school? - would be valuable.  I think parking removal would have only marginal benefit (and potentially a net negative impact) to the cycling community, and negative impact on the neighborhood, particularly its poorest residents.

Dan

---

From: "Steve Starcevich" <stevenst...@gmail.com>
To: "TAT" <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 10:17:24 PM
Subject: Garfield resurfacing survey by May 31

--
——————

Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition
 

VISION: Corvallis is a hub in a regional transportation system that includes sustainable transportation modes for people and goods.
 
sustainablecorvallis.org/what-we-do/action-teams/transportation
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Transportation Action Team | Corvallis Sustainability Coalition" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sustainable-corvallis-tr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CACQr-7GM-nFuTVXttY3OiQjRuYR%3DxYfMZgmumGmGf2J5GbHmsw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Steve Starcevich]

Hey Dan,

I'm responding to your comments as a resident only -- I'm not speaking for the TAT or coalition. The parking evaluation agrees with what I see when I bike through the west section of Garfield: there is plenty of parking on the side streets and many Garfield driveways go un- or under-used (I don't know about garage use). I don't understand why softball players (or other park users) can't walk/bike/roll/bus or simply park on a neighborhood street and walk a couple hundred feet to get to Porter Park.

I've heard the complaint that buffered painted bike lanes will lead to more speeding down Garfield from a few different people. My understanding is that Garfield will continue to have speed humps, which will slow drivers down. There are several other treatments, like vertical flexposts around crosswalks, similar to the ones on Satinwood, that would slow drivers down. Raised crosswalks, bumpouts to narrow crossings for pedestrians, well-placed bollards, lower neighborhood speed limit to 20mph and school zone to 15mph (as many cities are doing now) -- all of these would slow drivers on Garfield and probably reduce cut-through traffic.

Eventually (or at least this is what I'm working toward), our city standards for bike lanes will require physical protection and an elimination of parking lane door-zones. That physical protection (e.g., prefab curb with flexposts) will narrow the travel lane and slow drivers down. Every city that has increased bike use and replaced car trips with bike trips has done it by creating a dense, direct, convenient, inviting network of protected bike lanes, separated paths, low traffic streets, and much safer intersections and crossings. Most people willing to bike for transportation do not feel safe biking with car traffic or alongside traffic without protection from parked and moving vehicles. As someone who biked with my kid to Garfield Elementary, LP, and then CHS, the door zones and impatient and distracted drivers made it harrowing at times to the point of questioning my parenting skills.

I see this Garfield project as a small step in the right direction of piecing together a network that will induce more kids to bike to school, encourage more in this neighborhood or moving through this neighborhood to shift to biking or rolling, help us grow and get denser without increasing traffic volume and parking demand (which would be better for drivers), and put us on a path to a more sustainable transportation system.

If somehow the repurposing of the parking lane for safer and more inviting bike lanes doesn't work out on Garfield, I wrote this to the City in my comments on the CIP (and a shorter version in my survey comments on this Garfield project): "The CIP draft states in the Garfield Ave. project that '[i]nsufficient street width exists to accommodate all demands on the space between the curbs.' There is a roadway cross-section re-allocation guide by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine that can help in this situation. They suggest that, rather than compromising on safety, consider re-allocating one travel lane (making it a one-way street) so that there is space for wider sidewalks, protected bike lanes (including a contraflow bike lane), and maybe street trees. As a one-way street, there would be at least 50% less cut-through traffic and result in a quieter and calmer neighborhood while becoming part of an actual safe route to school. Please consider creative win-win solutions for this project and in other space-limited situations."

Sorry for going on and on! If you are as wild about this stuff as I am, you can find the NAS document referenced at the doi link here:

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Roadway Cross-Section Reallocation: A Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26788.

Cheers, Steve

[Lyn Larson]

I'm definitely all for lowering the speed limits in this town...and that video that Wendy shared had some excellent examples of ways to create safe bikeways.

---

From: "Steve Starcevich" <stevenst...@gmail.com>
To: d...@csbikestowork.com
Cc: "TAT" <sustainable-corval...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 5:30:00 PM
Subject: Re: Garfield resurfacing survey by May 31

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CACQr-7EyX%3DkG11kgv-NFd9a3F4wt5970NiE_tsWQZnqz7mbdkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[upsonr]

Dan,

I haven't understood the issue with the on-street parking study's methods. Could you please explain what that is, and how you think parking demand and parking capacity could be better measured? I'm very curious about this.

In terms of the solution searching for a problem, I disagree.  The 2018 Transportation System Plan (TSP) identified Garfield Avenue between Highland and 29th as a corridor with bicycle stress.  I don't know why Garfield was identified, you could probably dig into the TSP archives and find a reason, but there it is.   As a result, the TSP also generated a project to add buffered bike lanes, and buffered bike lanes require more road width..  All to say, this "problem" isn't being created out of thin air.  The goal to put buffered bike lanes on Garfield has been known for almost a decade if you include the time spent developing the 2018 TSP.

I'd also disagree with the characterization of removal of on-street parking effecting "lower income people".  The Executive Director of Vina Moses stated that two-thirds of their clients do not arrive by automobile.  Owning a car is very expensive. The really low income people can't afford to own a car. 

Finally, I agree with you that there are solutions which retain some on-street parking.  One example, make Garfield one-way eastbound for cars (keep the parking and add a buffered bike lane). Whatever the final road design, I hope it demonstrates some creativity.

-Rob

[upsonr]

Another consideration for everyone on Garfield who wants to protect the on-street parking:

What about 29th?  What about Alexander?  Both these streets are up for resurfacing before 2030.  Both of these streets have on-street parking. Both of these streets are identified Safe Routes to School and/or bikeway routes, just like Garfield.  What will happen when PW conducts a parking analysis on those streets and the neighbors object to on-street parking removals?

It is unclear how the city can move ahead with the kind of bike infrastructure envisioned for a AMAZING biking town when every neighborhood objects to the project on their street.

[Wendy Byrne]

I'D LOVE THEM TO BRING A PROTECTED BIKE LANE TO MY STREET THEY CAN TAKE ALL THE PARKING AWAY!  10th Street in my neighborhood has one of the worst bike lanes in town. Horrible. Dangerous, narrow, awful.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/9b1a2bfe-a820-44b6-b7ee-6cd665890d39n%40googlegroups.com.

[Dave Hockman-Wert]

It's all relative. At least you *have* bike lanes on 10th, Wendy. Eleventh Street gets nothing but sharrows, potholes, parked cars, and speed bumps. Better than nothing, I suppose, but riding on 10th feels safer to me when I do it (although it does have its share of potholes and rough surfaces in the bike lane too).

This is not meant to spark a "my neighborhood is way worse than yours" competition, but to point out that we all have issues that bug us and steady improvement anywhere in Corvallis when we can get it is probably the best goal.

Speaking of 11th, though, I was almost certain that resurfacing and widening the section between Monroe and Jefferson was going to happen as part of the new graduate dorm they built there. Was I just utterly mistaken? I even talked to my old neighbor OSU Planner Bob about it before it happened, so I guess I just remember it wrong.

Dave

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sustainable-corvallis-transportation/CA%2Bq-W6vr%3DRzRqUuXQwjWrpKdftQLao_pFmF8O7698wf3MV26Kw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Wendy Byrne]

Thanks Dave- good points of conversation here.

- I am not sure that under-sized bike lanes that are fully within the door zone of the parked cars are to be considered safe. If the street was to be redesigned to the current safety standards, the bike lanes or the car parking would have to go away. That's not a 'my neighborhood is worse than yours' things, it's just a fact. People who zoom past parked cars in the bike lanes on 10th south of Buchanan are just unable to see the danger they put themselves in. For me, when I ride to/from my house on my street, I use the traffic lane.

- 11th is a neighborhood bikeway and by definition, the entirety of the street is the bike lane thus no "painted" bike lane. I think you know this so I'm sorry for stating the obvious but I want anyone who reads this to perhaps understand that the city did not 'forget' to put bike lanes on the neighborhood bikeway. 

- I don't think PW every planned to widen 11th between Monroe/Jefferson but repaving, for sure, why did that not happen? Quite recently, Bob has left OSU for a job at the county but maybe someone could ask him anyway?

-Wendy

[upsonr]

11th between Washington and Jefferson is scheduled for resurfacing in a few months.  The RFP went out in February. The engineering design plans are attached, including the plans for 13th. Not sure about OSU's plans between Jefferson and Monroe.

I am not an engineer, but, thumbing through the NACTO Urban BIkeway Design guide I see several creative design options which look promising for Garfield if the designers dare to be creative.  https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-guide/

[upsonr]

The attachment!