Updated: The Theme at Central North East Neighbors is Safety.

In the honor of former neighborhood association chair George Walker whom always made a point of correcting anybody when they called his beloved neighborhood "Rose City". The correct name is "Rose City Park". I think all residents of this working class neighborhood would appreciate having their neighborhood being identified by the correct name.

An update of the effectiveness of the 20 mph signage and crosswalks in the Beaumont District along Fremont would be welcome. Are vehicles slowing down? Do we have data on how much of the traffic there, especially in peaks, is commuter trips from 82nd and beyond, even Clark county? It was a favorite commute route for a colleague of mine when I worked at Boise Cascade R&D on Swan Island. He lived north of Camas.

The Tram is certainly on the cutting edge of improving pedestrian safety. Assuming, that is, the pedestrians have $4 and only need to go up or down Pill Hill.

The Burnside Couplet is all about saving lives, too. Right?

Because I'm trying to believe PDOT is all about "spending money to save lives". Rather than sweetheart deals for real estate developers, choo-choos, and "traffic calming" devices.

It reminds me of the Delta House president's speech before Dean Furber (B/S cough, cough, cough!). Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! (marching out of the room while whistling the National Anthem).

For an interesting discussion of why transit WILL NOT SOLVE CONGESTION, see:

www.examiner.com/printa-498090~Wendell_Cox:_Mass_transit_does_not_reduce_congestion.html

For another view of why MAX DOES NOT reduce congestion, here is a well supported claim that MAX only carries a tiny fraction of the number of people that a single lane of road carries (the key secret is that most MAX riders came from the bus, not cars):

www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/RailAttractsDrivers.htm

Thanks
JK

Jim,

How is this post relevent in anyway whatsoever to the topics discussed on this thread?!? It's not. Please take your propoganda elsewhere to a forum that's more appropriate or at least remotely relevent to the issues you wish to discuss. What you've posted here is, by definition, spam.

One of the points I brought up at the meeting that seemed to be misunderstood was the increase in traffic congestion on Sandy Boulevard (and cross street intersections) due to the Sandy bus being rerouted on Sandy directly through the Hollywood District instead of serving the Hollywood Transit Station (connecting with Max via Halsey & 42nd Avenue). The additional congestion has been created by busses stopping for passengers in travel lanes and blocking other traffic, especially at 42nd Avenue. PDOT totally wasted transportation dollars by constructing the huge bus loading platform in front of Trader Joe’s that now obstructs traffic flow on Sandy when busses stop for passengers. When busses stop in both directions on Sandy at the same time, it can take three cycles of the traffic signal during non-rush hour times to get traffic moving again on both Sandy and 42nd. The sewer construction in the Hollywood District has only compounded the problem. It seems PDOT’s spending agenda is to increase congestion rather than free it up.

Another point I brought up at the meeting was the unwarranted request made by the City of Portland to Metro through the MTIP process for funds to develop the property the Hollywood Transit Center is located on. The station was designed to handle increasing transit demand with three through bus bays. The Max platform at the Hollywood Transit Center is unique in that it is the only light rail platform on the entire Max system that has only one access point, (both stairs and elevator) that has a connection to a pedestrian/bike only overpass. One of the aspects that allows Max riders to feel safe in using this particular transit station are the specifically designed sight lines to and from both the bus waiting areas and Halsey Street that runs in front of the station. Both motorists and pedestrians have a clear view of the platform when there are no busses in the station.

From a safety standpoint, particularly in bad weather, there is only one real design change needed, that would be to redesign the steep stair case ascending to the pedestrian overpass from the bus waiting areas.

Any structure development on the property between Halsey Street and the Max platform will compromise Max ridership and pedestrian safety. Planners need to take notice and a lesson from the downtown transit mall. The fact the windows of office and other buildings overlook the mall does not stop the personal attacks, harassment, drug dealing and other illegal activities. The new downtown shelters are being specifically designed to have open site lines with no places where someone can hide out of view. This same concept must remain intact at the Hollywood Transit Station by retaining the open green space between Halsey and the Max platform. The best and most wise use of this land would be for a park, not a new building. Furthermore, transportation dollars should not be used to subsidize development, and not every piece of property in Hollywood that does not already have a structure on it should be a candidate for development.

As for the bus bays themselves, they should also remain to accommodate possible future growth in bus transit. Moving the bus stops onto Halsey would only add congestion and conflict to this already congested portion of the street, and not allow for transit expansion. Any improvements to bicycle infrastructure should be paid for through a tax on the bicycle mode of transport.

At the Hollywood Transit Center, personal safety must trump all other issues including adding density. That said, redesigning of the North staircase and tweaking of the bus bays may be in order. However, constructing a large dominating structure on this piece of property that includes green and open space must be rejected.

"when having to choose between dangerous intersections and unimproved roads, he will choose to spend money to save lives."

How about choosing between dangerous intersections and trams, couplets, subsidizing theaters in the Pearl, rolling over for HomerW and closing police stations?

This is the biggest send-up of someone who "cares" about anything outside of downtown I have seen yet.

One of the handouts at the meeting had a pie chart showing General Transportation Revenues (GTR) that come primarily from gas tax and motorist paid parking meter revenues. On the next page there was another pie chart showing how this category of funds was spent. Included in the expenditures was the harbor wall. I asked the question why, and said that maybe it made sense when Harbor Drive was in place, but it does not now. The answer came back: it has always been that way.

It seems to me having motorists pay for the harbor wall as it stands today is yet another raid on transportation funds that take away from the need for road repair and maintenance. Funding for the harbor wall should come from the general fund, or possibly the Park Bureau’s budget since the wall is now part of Waterfront Park. The harbor wall is NOT a responsibility motorists should be paying for. Furthermore, streetcar operations, also coming from GTR dollars, is NOT a responsibility motorists should be paying for.

Another page in the handout showed how the one-time revenues from the general funds for transportation Safe Streets Initiative will be spent including: $150,000 for bicycle safety improvements, $50,000 for a Platinum Bicycle Master Plan update, and $100, 000 for bike lights and bike race. What does updating the Platinum Bicycle Plan have to do with any immediate need for safety improvements? And General Fund dollars spent for bike lights and a bike race? This only demonstrates how bicyclists are like little children refusing to accept any financial responsibility for their own safety equipment (in addition to NOT financially contributing to help pay for bicycle infrastructure through a direct tax on themselves), and what appears to be some sort of communal need to have City taxpayers provide entertainment for them. Priorities are obviously out of alignment here, particularly when the total expenditures for bicyclists (not all safety related) are $300,000, compared to only $250,000 for fixing an increasing number of pot holes, a safety related item that affect everybody, and are there due in part because of deferred maintenance while GTR dollars are being siphoned off to pay for specialized infrastructure for freeloading bicyclists.

Commissioner,

Your focus on listening to the customer, citizens and taxpayers, in managing priorities of the departments is a breath of fresh air. In our capitalist system, the best businesses do the same. Thanks.

The City and the transportation department are correct to emphasize pedestrian safety. As the population ages, we will all tend toward pedestrians, of course our children often walk to school and activities. A single pedestrian accident generates huge medical expenses, to say nothing of lost productivity, much more than the capital costs to help prevent it. The challenge for the individual is to realize that what they want at home, a safe street to walk upon, is exactly what the residents of the neighborhoods we commute through want.

Friends in NE live on an unimproved street. They don't want it improved! They are reclaiming it with plantings. Perhaps transportation could begin a facilitation program documenting and publicising creative improvements to unimproved streets and also offering the residents a wholesale contract for installing gravel through the City and its contractors. Ditto for wholesale nursery contracts. Contact me if you need the address.

It would be easy and cost effective for the City to launch an unimproved street creative improvement program with primarily volunteer labor through PSU's planning program or a variety of civic groups.

"We can't spend transportation dollars on building new roads"

Actually that is another point, we do need roads. One of the fastest grwoing business segments is the transportation infrastructure (UPS, FedEx, etc.) I know someone fairly high up in one of these companies and Portland is at the bottom of the list for building anything more than a minimum distribution center.

I guess we can all plead for a change in direction, but once we turn downtown into a gridlock of mass transit rails and only government employees with bus passes will go down there to keep the homeless company will CoP see the error of its ways.

hey sam, thanks for all the enlightening information on this blog. in my opinion, you are doing better than your colleagues in communication and action, etc. of course, being the smartest kid in the special needs class does not get you into harvard...

there is a growing sentiment, among some, that you do not pay attention to your constituents. there is also a wide spread belief that your problem solving abilities are as poor as your cocouncil people. either way, I want to talk about big pipes.

look, obviously, the river is naturally suited for dealing with rain. it is called flooding. now, the problem we have is that because of all the past civic "improvements" undertaken, the river has no where to go. instead of billion dollar boondoggles, why don't we adopt a more sensible approach? to wit, we could mandate or encourage rain barrels. while this is annoying simple, every barrel could hold 40 gallons of extra water. you do the math, how many barrels would it take for the excessive water problem to vanish? on a similar note, please explain to me/us why composting toilets are illegal in portland? by avoiding 3 to 7 gallons a flush, we could mitigate many of these issues. of course, smoking in pioneer square is important to(remove your sarcasm filter if you don't get it).

lastly, on a personal note, can you post an update on Car Free Last Thursday? I expect it to happen by May. I really hope it does. Any update would be appreciated.

now, go hang off the side of the tram or whatever is on your schedule...

The paragraph comes about as a conclusion to a previous section describing the limits to travelling placed on the citizens of Utopia; Hytholoday spends some time explaining the nature of this particular set of rules, the reasons for them, and the repercussions of any disobedience to them. Hence the practical reason cannot contain, in reference to such an object, an absolute prohibition of its use, because this would involve a contradiction of external freedom with itself. An object of my free will, however, is one which I have the physical capability of making some use of at will, since its use stands in my power (in potentia).