Overview:
One year into Bend’s “quick build” redesign of Greenwood Avenue, city data shows improved bike and pedestrian use, but residents overwhelmingly oppose the changes, citing traffic delays, congestion, and safety concerns. Despite mixed results, city leaders remain divided on whether to move forward with permanent infrastructure or revisit the design entirely.
One year into the City of Bend’s “quick build” of Greenwood Avenue, data shows safer streets and a surge in biking and walking. City survey results, meanwhile, tell a different story. Nearly 80% of respondents to a recent survey said they “hate” the new layout, while only 10% rated it “good” or “great.”
At a recent check-in, staff presented the project’s results. The corridor was reduced from four lanes to two and now includes protected bike lanes and pedestrian crossings. The changes are part of the City’s broader Midtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings initiative.
Engineering Director Ryan Oster told City Councilors that the Greenwood redesign is safer than the old four-lane layout.
“If we were building a road from scratch today, we would never build a four-lane section like that. It’s completely unsafe,” he said.
Mayor Melanie Kebler added that with the new redesign she is, “excited to see more types of travel on Greenwood — bike and pedestrian use of the route increased significantly. Gathering additional data over the next few years will help us understand how successful the design is in terms of moving people safely and efficiently between east and west Bend.”
Commute times jump, frustration mounts
City data confirms what many drivers already feel: travel times are up. Eastbound commutes during peak hours are 35% longer, and westbound trips are taking 21% more time. Speeds along the corridor have dropped by 3 to 4 mph on average.
Respondents to the survey said slower speeds and increased congestion have made daily travel frustrating — and in some cases more dangerous. Many reported that turning onto Greenwood from side streets has become more difficult, citing visibility issues and fewer gaps in traffic.
Crash reports up, but data still inconclusive
Reported crashes rose from 17 before the project to 32 in the year after implementation, particularly at signalized intersections. Bike-related crashes held steady, but pedestrian incidents increased from zero to two.
Oster cautioned against overinterpreting the data. Traffic safety trends typically require five years of information to show meaningful patterns, he said.
Pedestrian and cyclist use surges
Despite driver frustration, the street appears to be attracting non-drivers. In June, bike traffic on Greenwood was up nearly 300%, and pedestrian use rose 81%. Oster said the redesign was always intended as a temporary solution to provide a safer detour from other road closures- like the one on Olney- and improve active transportation in the Bend Central District.
City staff also emphasized that the corridor is performing similarly to Portland and Olney avenues — two other recent redesigns — and that vehicle speeds and volumes are down overall.
“Disaster,” “unsafe,” “ugly”: survey feedback turns sour
City officials received nearly 4,000 survey responses, many of them bluntly negative. According to Senior Project Engineer Todd Johnson:
- 1,116 cited increased congestion
- 240 want the street returned to four lanes
- 374 said they rarely see bikes using the new lanes — or feel the lanes are still unsafe
- 88 said the redesign has hurt local businesses
- Others raised concerns about emergency vehicle access, limited parking and evacuation routes
Council considers what comes next
While the entire project budget has been spent, the City is seeking additional funding through the state’s All Roads Transportation Safety grant program. Oster said priorities include designing a safer crossing at Second Street and Greenwood, working with the Oregon Department of Transportation to extend improvements closer to Third Street, and potentially installing permanent infrastructure like curbs.
Council members appeared hesitant. While they generally supported further safety improvements at Second Street, many urged caution before committing to permanent changes.
Staying the course
Advocacy groups including Central Oregon LandWatch are urging the City to complete all three Midtown Crossings — Greenwood Ave., Franklin Ave. and Hawthorne Ave. — before making final judgments. “Let’s finish the system and give it time to work,” wrote LandWatch’s Corie Harlan in a recent Source Weekly op-ed. “Then we’ll really know what’s worth keeping — or changing.
This article appears in the Source October 2, 2025.
MAKE LOCAL JOURNALISM HAPPEN
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
So the data shows increased congestion with a combined average 28% longer commute, an 88.24% increase in collisions, constituent dissatisfaction, and city leadership is “excited” to push forward?
Yeah, that about sums up Bend leadership. Dogma > Data.
How can you conclude it is safer when crashes increased? Maybe you meant it should have been safer in theory, but was actually more dangerous in fact.
The tragedy of this is that the voices of the people will continue to be secondary to the leadership plan. It’s there way, as usual. They will tell us what’s right to do regardless of the evidence. Sound familiar?
In the year 2000 when I moved to Bend the comments centered around how neither the bypass nor the Bill Healy bridge were needed. And, they continued, why would Mt Washington Blvd need to go all the way through?!
So I’ve decided to go with the City Planners on this one.
Bend is at a crossroads, and unfortunately, too many recent decisions by our City Council point toward fiscal irresponsibility and short-sighted planning. What we are seeing is not a single misstep, but a troubling pattern.
The $10 million tax deferment for the Jackstraw property is one example—rewarding a savvy developer while doing nothing to address Bend’s urgent need for affordable housing. The new transportation tax is another. By placing the burden solely on Bend proper residents, avoiding a public vote, and exempting visitors and county residents, the council undermined both fairness and transparency. And they put it on our Water and Sewer bills and those van lifers who dump black water down our storm drains and dwell on our streets with no skin in the game are not held accountable.
Other projects raise similar concerns. The proposed pedestrian bridge grows more expensive by the day, while its true value to residents remains questionable. The Greenwood “road diet” in this article was rolled out with poor planning and timing (while Olney and Portland were closed down) , creating unnecessary congestion. Purchasing motels for low-barrier housing may sound compassionate, but without a sustainable plan, taxpayers will be left carrying the bill when grant money runs out.
Meanwhile, approvals for high-rise developments—including at the Jackstraw site—further erode Bend’s mountain views and unique character. These choices sacrifice long-term livability for short-term growth.
Bend deserves better. We need leaders committed to fiscal responsibility, transparency, and balanced growth that protects residents as well as the natural beauty that defines our community.
I’ve lived in Bend for almost eight years, and the changes have been dramatic. I can only imagine how long-time residents feel as they watch forests cleared, views diminished, and property taxes compound yearly on fixed incomes.
My sense, in line with a few of the commenters, is to stay the course until the standard time for evaluation has transpired (referenced in the article a few times as around 5 years).
These types of projects should also never be judged in isolation, but as a package. Additionally, the clock shouldn’t start ticking until the bevy of east-west non-vehicular options are in place.
I get it that drivers are inconvenienced when traffic lanes are reduced, but that was never the sole consideration, was it? Yes, one can reference metrics regarding vehicular/non-vehicular incidents, but it’s not “apples to apples” unless the increased non-vehicular users are factored in (i.e. 1 in 200 compared to 3 in a thousand is an increase in incidents, but a decrease in incidents per user).
I’ve lived in Bend off and on for almost 40 years. When I first got here the downtown area was pleasant and navigable. For us that sense ended over 10 years ago. The frustration of trying to park has exceeded the enjoyment of patronizing the businesses.
And to the thought that any revenue increase is a bad thing, imagine living in a society where there were no taxes, and no commensurate services (no roads, for example). We’ve been in a death spiral with regard to taxes since the 1980’s, and it won’t end in a nice place. One of the things that made America great (back in the day) were the services that government provided (think the interstate highway system as an example).
An ever decreasing pie means an ever decreasing livable space in which we’ll find ourselves. How deep into this will we go before we collectively (or at least majoritively) wake up and see that the grass on the other side of the fence is actually greener?