The Weave | Dead

[tworivers]

Stick a streetcar on it and call it a day.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by New Madrid

If the whole city becomes "pedestrian friendly" by turning the grid into a series of pearl-like one ways with wide sidewalks and sluggish traffic you end up with something that doesn't feel like a city.

I totally agree -- I think there is a certain energy that comes from a street like Burnside. Yes, it's choked with automobiles and narrow sidewalks, which is the antithesis of everything Portland, but there are places in a major city where this densely-packed congestion just fits. I think it's a mistake to slice up all the traffic, and dilute it so that Couch loses its quiet, ped-friendly ambience and Burnside just becomes like Glisan or Everett, which aren't exactly pedestrian paradise anyway.

BTW does anyone know if Lovejoy is supposed to remain one-way through the Pearl District, or is is temporary for streetcar construction? I'm not a big fan of that traffic re-routing either. It's just a 2-lane street ... is the city really trying to split that up?

[zilfondel]

Lovejoy will be a 1-way also.

I'm kind of torn on the 1-way couplet issue... on one hand, it feels to me like a city. On the other hand, Burnside is somewhat dysfunctional and fugly. And I want wider sidewalks, streetcar, and bike lanes on it, which we will get.

[downtownpdx]

(Sorry to keep off-topic)...

I'm torn a little too, but I feel like there are plenty of bike-friendly streets running through the neighborhood. Splitting up Burnside in the attempt to make EVERY city street calm, quiet and roomy for bikes ends up, in this case, destroying Couch's ped-friendliness, and spreads traffic around so everything looks/feels/operates the same. Burnside isn't exactly begging for activity, as the Brewery Blocks and emerging West End/Weave area exemplify. I know we should try to enhance pedestrian/bike/transit use, but in this particular area I just think it would be a mistake to rob Burnside of its uniquely crowded, gritty, traffic-congested energy. It's a geographic and psychological landmark dividing Portland from north to south, from downtown/West End to the Pearl. I say run a streetcar line here, but otherwise leave it alone. Not every inch of Portland streets need to be transformed by urban renewal to ensure even a 3-year-old can ride their tricycle without ever having to look ever their shoulder for a car.

[New Madrid]

[continuing off topic some more]

I'd much rather see some sort of city initiative to require any teardown/full redevelopment of properties with frontage on burnside include a mandatory widening of the sidewalk. The lost sq footage could be paid back to the developer via a height variance or some other mechanism. (Or not at all.)

The widening of burnside would then happen over decades and developers et al. would likely gripe endlessly (and it's obviously an imperfect system to achieve the goa)l ... but- it seems to me like the payback to the city of having a bustling, busy, trafficky, yet more moderately more walkable burnside would be immeasurable.

(edit: it seems high time to change the title of this topic, no?)

[zilfondel]

^^^ They already do that.

[New Madrid]

Huh, really?

link/explanation?

that's good news I suppose, though I don't see much evidence of it... brewery blocks are the only one that come to mind as a possibility.

[65MAX]

I have no doubt that the city requires wider sidewalks along Burnside now. The problem is it's irrelevant unless every building along Burnside is torn down and/or redeveloped. The only way to truly make Burnside walkable and safe is to implement the couplet. Yes, Couch is gonna get a lot busier, but a two-way disorganized Couch is no safer or pedestrian friendly that a one-way, more efficient and vital Couch will be. If anything, having Couch one-way makes it much safer and easier to navigate for pedestrians, even with the additional auto traffic.

[downtownpdx]

I dunno, ^^^ I just think of comparing Couch to Everett or Glisan. Those two streets act as thoroughfares (sp?),and to me, have nothing compared to Couch in terms of ped-friendliness. It's not just about turning a two-way into a one-way ... Couch would have to become a more fast-paced, free-flow traffic scenario. Lots of people use Burnside to cross through the city, and enveloping Couch into that traffic flow would badly change its character through Old Town and Pearl District for peds. I know Burnside is crowded and gritty ... but seriously let's just leave it be. Let's not spread the pain around just because one street in dt Portland is hard to cross.

[rsbear]

Some existing westbound traffic volume would shift and Couch would not carry the same amount of westbound traffic that Burnside carries today. I imagine Couch would be similar to S.W. Washington St. in total traffic. Busier than today, but not horrible. And Burnside could blossom. More than a fair trade if the latter comes true.

[bvpcvm]

I was vaguely on the side of putting in the couplet, but the last plans I saw called for putting lots of parking in places where they had been planning wide sidewalks (down around 3rd and 4th). So I think I've been swayed to the other side: keep it as it is, add streetcar, or, failing that, extend that median, with trees, all the way up to 24th.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

I dunno, ^^^ I just think of comparing Couch to Everett or Glisan. Those two streets act as thoroughfares (sp?),and to me, have nothing compared to Couch in terms of ped-friendliness.

Ped-friendly? Couch in the Brewery Blocks is a disfunctional clusterf***.... people darting out in front of moving cars, bikes swerving around anything else that moves, cars not yielding r.o.w., pedestrians not yielding r.o.w., bikes not yielding r.o.w. It's like Rome on the Willamette there, total chaos. The couplet would really help tame that mess, and improve Burnside's streetscape as well.

Regarding a median all the way to 24th.... from 9th Ave going west, there's barely enough room for the four lanes of traffic as-is. How are you gonna fit a median in there as well? The parking you saw in the rendering between 3rd and 4th was in addition to the very wide sidewalks, not instead of them.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

Ped-friendly? Couch in the Brewery Blocks is a disfunctional clusterf***.... people darting out in front of moving cars, bikes swerving around anything else that moves, cars not yielding r.o.w., pedestrians not yielding r.o.w., bikes not yielding r.o.w. It's like Rome on the Willamette there, total chaos. The couplet would really help tame that mess, and improve Burnside's streetscape as well.

Regarding a median all the way to 24th.... from 9th Ave going west, there's barely enough room for the four lanes of traffic as-is. How are you gonna fit a median in there as well? The parking you saw in the rendering between 3rd and 4th was in addition to the very wide sidewalks, not instead of them.

That sounds like a pro car comment or something...are you trying to say Portland can't be like Rome cause we are in America, therefore everyone drives cars here? The idea that changing Couch to a one way would destroy everything you mentioned here. Right now, the only reason anyone should be driving on Couch is to find a parking spot....if anything I think the proposal for Couch should go the other way, the city should close down a number of blocks of Couch to allow it to be even more pedestrian friendly and bike friendly, and if need be, use that street as the route to run a streetcar through the district.

The argument that people and bikes aren't yielding enough to cars isn't a good argument to be making. All it says to me is that people walking and riding bikes feels more comfortable on that street than they do on Burnside.

It is safe to say, the amount of traffic that heads west bound on Burnside would be the equal amount of traffic that would be using Couch if this happened, which would indeed change the atmosphere of Couch and make it less people friendly and more car friendly, which is not what the city should be doing.

[2oh1]

I agree that Couch already is a mess in the Pearl. It's a mess for pedestrians and cars.

A typical Couch scene is where pedestrians are waiting on the sidewalk or even stepping onto the street, waiting for anything to stop the line of cars in front of them. The crosswalks are a joke - especially in the Brewery Blocks. Cars ignore the stop signs. Instead, they drive over the crosswalks and nose their way into the intersections because they have to. If they don't, they get stuck. And since there aren't any red lights to help pedestrians, they do the same thing. People work their way into the street, waiting for the cars to get stuck by the lack of a traffic pattern. When that happens, pedestrians begin darting across the street.

I'm really surprised there aren't more accidents on Couch. I think it's a time bomb.

I hate the idea of pushing even more traffic onto Couch... but then again, a one-way Couch with red lights might be much better than a two-way Couch. It might be better for pedestrians and for cars.

I also believe there's a lot of traffic on Burnside that doesn't have to be there. Not all of it, but certainly some. And I suspect that whatever happens to Burnside will help to push that excess traffic off of it.

[65MAX]

Originally Posted by urbanlife

That sounds like a pro car comment or something...are you trying to say Portland can't be like Rome cause we are in America, therefore everyone drives cars here?

???
No, I'm saying THIS part of Portland IS as chaotic as Rome (or worse, Naples) and that is a BAD thing. Couch right now is dysfunctional and dangerous for everybody. I'm pro-car/bike/pedestrian/streetcar and I think they should all coexist safely. Not sure how you misconstrued my comments, but hopefully that's clearer.

Originally Posted by urbanlife

The argument that people and bikes aren't yielding enough to cars isn't a good argument to be making. All it says to me is that people walking and riding bikes feels more comfortable on that street than they do on Burnside.

It is safe to say, the amount of traffic that heads west bound on Burnside would be the equal amount of traffic that would be using Couch if this happened, which would indeed change the atmosphere of Couch and make it less people friendly and more car friendly, which is not what the city should be doing.

I'm not arguing that peds and bikes aren't yielding.... I'm stating a fact that NOBODY is yielding, including cars. That is the problem. More auto traffic on Couch does not make it less pedestrian-friendly, it's the current lack of traffic signals that makes it a pedestrian nightmare. Also, Couch is not chock full of people because there are a few nice benches and planters there and it's a ploddingly slow two-way street. It's the sheer volume of shops, offices, residences and destinations like Powell's that attracts all the foot traffic. As 2oh1 stated above, it's a free-for-all right now and a ticking time-bomb. The same way pedestrians on Burnside will benefit from one-way traffic, so too will pedestrians on Couch. The amount of EB and WB cars through the Brewery Blocks will be roughly the same with or without the couplet, but WITH the couplet, everybody is safer and circulation is a lot better for all modes.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 2oh1

I agree that Couch already is a mess in the Pearl. It's a mess for pedestrians and cars.

A typical Couch scene is where pedestrians are waiting on the sidewalk or even stepping onto the street, waiting for anything to stop the line of cars in front of them. The crosswalks are a joke - especially in the Brewery Blocks. Cars ignore the stop signs. Instead, they drive over the crosswalks and nose their way into the intersections because they have to. If they don't, they get stuck. And since there aren't any red lights to help pedestrians, they do the same thing. People work their way into the street, waiting for the cars to get stuck by the lack of a traffic pattern. When that happens, pedestrians begin darting across the street.

I'm really surprised there aren't more accidents on Couch. I think it's a time bomb.

I hate the idea of pushing even more traffic onto Couch... but then again, a one-way Couch with red lights might be much better than a two-way Couch. It might be better for pedestrians and for cars.

I also believe there's a lot of traffic on Burnside that doesn't have to be there. Not all of it, but certainly some. And I suspect that whatever happens to Burnside will help to push that excess traffic off of it.

This seriously sounds like an over reaction to the street, I have never experienced this sense of chaos that you are describing. There are stop signs through the Brewery Blocks area therefore that means that you have to yield to pedestrians, simple as that. When it is your turn to go in a car, you go. I know you are trying to make a point about this, but it seriously sounds like you are over exaggerating what happens along that street.

I will say the south bound stop signs at Couch can be a little bit annoying when you are trying to get to the Burnside light, but that is more of a minor inconvenience that I think anyone can live with. And from a pedestrian's point of view, nothing about Couch makes people fear for their lives to cross the street because all the cars that are in that area are slow moving or stopped at stop signs.

And where are these cars getting stuck when they nose into the cross walks? It isn't like it is a main road, so they are not getting stuck in an intersection because of a traffic light change or anything. Again, not much of what you have stated here makes any sense on why the city should turn Couch into a main road. if cars are such an issue on Couch, then it would make more sense to close down Couch and make it a pedestrian street, therefore eliminating these so called dangerous intersections.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by 65MAX

???
No, I'm saying THIS part of Portland IS as chaotic as Rome (or worse, Naples) and that is a BAD thing. Couch right now is dysfunctional and dangerous for everybody. I'm pro-car/bike/pedestrian/streetcar and I think they should all coexist safely. Not sure how you misconstrued my comments, but hopefully that's clearer.

Not sure this comment is any clearer with the statement you are trying to make, which if I am reading wrong I do appologize for that. But I fail to see how this street is dysfunctional and dangerous for everyone. I for one have never had an issue whenever I have been on that street, in a car, on a bike, or walking. Everything on it has always been slow moving or stopped. If there were such an issue that seems to be as dyer as you are making it out to be, then adding more cars to the street would seem to make it worse not better.

If anything it would make more sense to close down parts of Couch to be more pedestrian streets and eliminate this dangerous situation. That way there would only be the north/south streets that would need to be crossed and those could be funneled down to single crosswalks making it much easier for cars to handle such a dysfunctional area. Which seeing that Couch currently isn't a main through road, the amount of traffic on Burnside would have little to no effect.

I'm not arguing that peds and bikes aren't yielding.... I'm stating a fact that NOBODY is yielding, including cars. That is the problem. More auto traffic on Couch does not make it less pedestrian-friendly, it's the current lack of traffic signals that makes it a pedestrian nightmare. Also, Couch is not chock full of people because there are a few nice benches and planters there and it's a ploddingly slow two-way street. It's the sheer volume of shops, offices, residences and destinations like Powell's that attracts all the foot traffic. As 2oh1 stated above, it's a free-for-all right now and a ticking time-bomb. The same way pedestrians on Burnside will benefit from one-way traffic, so too will pedestrians on Couch. The amount of EB and WB cars through the Brewery Blocks will be roughly the same with or without the couplet, but WITH the couplet, everybody is safer and circulation is a lot better for all modes.

I see people yielding in that area all the time, there are stop signs there for a reason and I always see cars stopping at them. Are pedestrians always yielding? No, but then again how is this area any different that any other street in downtown that has an issue with pedestrians not yielding? So what you are saying is that stop signs are not as effective as traffic lights and the street needs traffic lights and one way traffic to make it better? I fail to see how this makes sense, but again, if I am misreading what you are saying please correct me.

Again I am not sure I buy this argument, you are telling me the amount of traffic that is on Couch wouldn't change with or without the couplet? How would that even be possible? I would need to see actual numbers that would back a bold statement like that up before I would actually believe something like that.

As I have said, you guys are really building this up to make it sound like the problem is much bigger than it really is...I always thought the problem was Burnside was a divide for this city that was hindering development north of Burnside, but now that the Pearl District has developed nicely even with Burnside there, now it is Couch that is the ticking timebomb in the city? Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration to me.

[eric cantona]

a few thoughts:

NW Couch around 11th/12th IS a 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵. I am amazed there has not been a serious ped/car incident there. Maybe there has. You have way too many people driving through the intersection with complete disregard for peds and bikes. Too many people from out of town and bridge and tunnel types who haven't a clue how to drive in an urban environment. Too many peds and bikes entering the intersection without looking. I have seen this happen a ton of times (my office was a few blocks away and I drove through there a lot in the last ten years). Those intersections (at a minimum) need lights, like all the other major intersections in the area. I can't come up with a reason why stop signs were deemed adequate given the traffic and ped volumes around Powell's.

That said, the couplet is a horrendous idea, and would turn Couch into a immanently less desirable place to be. The notion that traffic would be less than what currently runs westbound on Bside defies logic to me. Couch will go from a nice slow street with shops and restaurants into a busy, traffic-clogged arterial. Yuck.

Finally, why does westbound traffic have to be the one diverted when a couplet happens on Bside? Westbounders UNITE! Stop the oppression.

[65MAX]

Sigh...

I never said Couch would be getting less traffic, I said the E-W traffic through the Brewery Blocks would be the same, but obviously the westbound traffic would move to Couch. Burnside would become a much nicer street because traffic would be effectively managed and the lights would be timed to eliminate the speeding that occurs now as drivers try to race thru as many intersections as they can before the lights all (simultaneously) turn red again. And the increased traffic on Couch ironically would ALSO be better managed and safer as a result of timed lights. People seem to think more cars makes a street unfriendly to pedestrians but that's not the case. Couch will be even more vital with additional traffic. And yes, it sounds counterintuitive, but Burnside's will become better, not because traffic is reduced, but because traffic will be tamed and additional amenities can be added to the pedestrian realm.

[eric cantona]

Originally Posted by rsbear

Some existing westbound traffic volume would shift and Couch would not carry the same amount of westbound traffic that Burnside carries today. I imagine Couch would be similar to S.W. Washington St. in total traffic. Busier than today, but not horrible. And Burnside could blossom. More than a fair trade if the latter comes true.

(it's not always about you)