Submitted by Terry Parker on Fri, 06/16/2006 - 9:11pm.
Thank you Jason for your comments. And for all readers, please take the following comments also as an attempt to be constructive and make changes in current processes.
Expanding a little bit on my previous post related to the Burnside Couplet problems, by routing both eastbound Sandy traffic and westbound Burnside traffic on the same street, 14th Avenue, even with signalization, if there is any kind of incident that causes a traffic back up in the area, this bottle neck could conceivably choke traffic. A far better route for eastbound Sandy traffic would be to retain two eastbound lanes on Sandy between 12th and 14th Avenues, and not have eastbound Sandy traffic go out of direction and around the horn. There is no viable reason not to retain theses two lanes on Sandy.
Another concern I have is how traffic will be handled on Couch Street itself. In addition to regular traffic, Couch Street will have to accommodate frequent bus service from at least two bus lines. Currently during the morning rush hour, traffic westbound on Burnside from 12th Avenue to the bridge has a third travel lane, accomplished by not allowing parking on the North side of the street. It is my understanding, although the final design has not been done, Couch Street will be two lanes of regular traffic westbound. If a decision is made to remove parking on the North side of the street to handle the additional morning rush hour traffic, and thereby not reducing the motor vehicle capacity that currently exists westbound on Burnside, buses will continue to stop for passengers in a third lane during the rush period. If parking is retained all hours of the day on the North side of Couch Street, considerably more congestion will be created for morning commuters. Either way, bus zones must be created on Couch Street so that when the street is operating with two lanes, busses will be required to pull over to the curb when stopping for passengers, thereby not blocking other traffic that would only add more unnecessary congestion and require motorists to use more fuel due to extra engine idling time. If Couch Street is designed to operate as two lanes full time, curb extensions must NOT be installed where the busses stop so an orderly and continuous traffic flow can be maintained. .
I also want to back up some of mmmarvel ‘s comments. Personally I have attended many mostly transportation related public forums, and testified at public hearings. Therefore my comments come from my experiences. With all the respect to the people who volunteer their time and serve on citizen committees, and others who attend these forums and hearings, much of this process is just window dressing. Citizen committees have become a combination of a hand picked stacked deck choir and who’s who in Portland. There are very few just plain ordinary citizens on these committees. The fact is there is Downtown Westside business representation on the Eastside Streetcar CAC. Projects for the most part are decided prior to any public process. The public process is now only to iron out some details. The Idea of an extending the Portland Streetcar to the Eastside and much of the preferred routing was decided well before the public process was started. Individuals that do not sing with the choir, or have opposing views are not invited to the table and kept off these citizen committees. The best example can be found in that stakeholder taxpaying motorists do not have a direct representative on any transportation related citizen committee that I know of. This I view as taxation without representation. Citizen committees are no longer a cross section of the community, part of the function they were originally designed to perform. Furthermore, public hearings have become nothing more than a required formality.
And Sam, constructively speaking, you have not changed things much in this arena of public participation other than to have more forums to discuss issues which I do appreciate. Citizen committees however are still lopsided and stacked with choir participants. More changes with a better cross section of representation is desperately needed on CACs.
Thank you Jason for your
Thank you Jason for your comments. And for all readers, please take the following comments also as an attempt to be constructive and make changes in current processes.
Expanding a little bit on my previous post related to the Burnside Couplet problems, by routing both eastbound Sandy traffic and westbound Burnside traffic on the same street, 14th Avenue, even with signalization, if there is any kind of incident that causes a traffic back up in the area, this bottle neck could conceivably choke traffic. A far better route for eastbound Sandy traffic would be to retain two eastbound lanes on Sandy between 12th and 14th Avenues, and not have eastbound Sandy traffic go out of direction and around the horn. There is no viable reason not to retain theses two lanes on Sandy.
Another concern I have is how traffic will be handled on Couch Street itself. In addition to regular traffic, Couch Street will have to accommodate frequent bus service from at least two bus lines. Currently during the morning rush hour, traffic westbound on Burnside from 12th Avenue to the bridge has a third travel lane, accomplished by not allowing parking on the North side of the street. It is my understanding, although the final design has not been done, Couch Street will be two lanes of regular traffic westbound. If a decision is made to remove parking on the North side of the street to handle the additional morning rush hour traffic, and thereby not reducing the motor vehicle capacity that currently exists westbound on Burnside, buses will continue to stop for passengers in a third lane during the rush period. If parking is retained all hours of the day on the North side of Couch Street, considerably more congestion will be created for morning commuters. Either way, bus zones must be created on Couch Street so that when the street is operating with two lanes, busses will be required to pull over to the curb when stopping for passengers, thereby not blocking other traffic that would only add more unnecessary congestion and require motorists to use more fuel due to extra engine idling time. If Couch Street is designed to operate as two lanes full time, curb extensions must NOT be installed where the busses stop so an orderly and continuous traffic flow can be maintained. .
I also want to back up some of mmmarvel ‘s comments. Personally I have attended many mostly transportation related public forums, and testified at public hearings. Therefore my comments come from my experiences. With all the respect to the people who volunteer their time and serve on citizen committees, and others who attend these forums and hearings, much of this process is just window dressing. Citizen committees have become a combination of a hand picked stacked deck choir and who’s who in Portland. There are very few just plain ordinary citizens on these committees. The fact is there is Downtown Westside business representation on the Eastside Streetcar CAC. Projects for the most part are decided prior to any public process. The public process is now only to iron out some details. The Idea of an extending the Portland Streetcar to the Eastside and much of the preferred routing was decided well before the public process was started. Individuals that do not sing with the choir, or have opposing views are not invited to the table and kept off these citizen committees. The best example can be found in that stakeholder taxpaying motorists do not have a direct representative on any transportation related citizen committee that I know of. This I view as taxation without representation. Citizen committees are no longer a cross section of the community, part of the function they were originally designed to perform. Furthermore, public hearings have become nothing more than a required formality.
And Sam, constructively speaking, you have not changed things much in this arena of public participation other than to have more forums to discuss issues which I do appreciate. Citizen committees however are still lopsided and stacked with choir participants. More changes with a better cross section of representation is desperately needed on CACs.