BLOG: Smoldering Argument over West Burnside Couplet

Sam:
The purpose of the proposed couplet is . . . .and to provide new opportunities of redevelopment.
JK:
1. Why do we want to encourage more tax freeloaders in that Urban Renewal district? They will further strain city services, while contributing almost NOTHING. The rest of the city pays to make up for the increased drain on basic services with either higher taxes or less service. (By tax freeloader, I mean people that benefit from tax abatements as well as people who pay their full share of taxes when those taxes stay in their own district to benefit only them while the rest of us have to make up for the loss.)

Would we even be talking of a regional income tax if we didn't have all of these tax freeloaders?

2.Wouldn't Burnside have less traffic if we fixed US26? Do you suppose congestion will get worse when Metro puts new housing in Damascus and new jobs in Beaverton?

Thanks
JK

Is the best argument against this idea that it may cause bloodshed? That seems like a rather outlandish basis for an argument.

As a daytime resident of the Pearl, I'm really excited about this project.

Sam, you need to work on your analogies. Everett and Glisan are a poor comparison to what traffic on a Burnside/Couch couplet would be like. Because they are not signalized at each intersection, they tend to have higher traffic speeds.

Washington and Alder are a much better comparison and speeds would be comparable to these streets, MUCH slower than the current speed on Burnside.

Because Burnside is two-way today, the traffic engineers' solution to move the traffic is to turn all the lights green at once and let as many cars through as possible. This incentivizes motorists to drive as quickly as possible.

As a couplet, the signals would be progressed as they are on most downtown one-way streets. If you drive 12-15 mph you keep getting green lights. That's how the same capacity is maintained at lower speeds - you don't have all the time waiting at red lights.

The couplet is a great project that has been carefully planned by PDOT and stakeholders from all the affected neighborhoods in two year-long planning processes.

Burnside today is a major barrier between the two halves of our central city - this project will be transformative in reuniting our neighborhoods and creating a much improved pedestrian and retail environment.

And oh yeah - you'll be able to make left turns!

I'll post a longer piece on the merits of the project over at PortlandTransport.com shortly.

Thanks for the opportunity for input Sam! When I first visited this city about a year and half ago, I was stunned by how accessible the downtown was. My only grief was with Burnside having narrow sidewalks and being difficult to cross. The one-way streets in downtown are much easier to cross since you have only one direction to look for traffic. Couch is just as annoying to cross as a pedestrian because of the two way traffic currently. You have four vehicle lanes entering each intersection which creates more pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. I'm glad that this project is moving forward and I have confidence it will be approved because it has such larger positive implications for the connection of the greater downtown.

As has been mentioned, Couch will have signals at every intersection, and will be arguably easier to cross than it is today. But don't forget, Burnside itself will be immensely easier to cross. There will be only two lanes of traffic, in one direction only, signals at every intersection, plus there will be parking on both sides, like Couch has today. The sidewalks will be widened from approx. 9 feet to 12 feet, like Couch and the other Pearl District streets. There will then be room for street trees. This project will be a great improvement for pedestrians.

I just posted a long piece over at Portland Transport on the benefits of this project.

This is a perfect project for Portland. With a relatively small price tag compared to building new roads, utilities, land, etc., this project will leverage a high return of private funds for public resources invested. Portland needs to continually look inward as to how we can improve ourselves to attract development dollars and the businesses, residents, and services that follow. I am excited the Portland will expand and enhance the downtown and it should continue to invest public funds in focused and strategic ways.

I was excited to see 7 comments on this post this morning, because I really can't see how anyone could be against a project like this, and I was looking forward to hearing from the other side of the issue.

I was almost disappointed that everyone is so in favor! :)

Who is on the other side of this "a smoldering internal argument"? (guess we'll see on Thursday)

Sam,
The "blood on your hands" comment is bogus and disingenuous. At the American Dream conference summer before last transportation experts presented good statistics showing that one way grid systems have the best safety record for pedestrian and vehicular traffic (I consider bicycles vehicles, by the way).
That being said, I agree with Jim Karlock that this project should not be used to stimulate development on the taxpayers dime.

I guess the Burnside Plan seems reasonable...
but one way couplets make me nervous; they tend to be managed on the same principles that guide Burnside now, i.e. get the traffic through, and turn into some kind of urban freeway that is degrading to the street and streetlife.
Burnside today is unique for its narrowness, its triangular intersections, its congested feel. It feels like a city! (Read William H Whyte...The City for his views on narrow sidewalks, etc.) East Burnside is coming to life without a big project.
Why doesn't PDOT just slow the traffic down...set the signals for 12 MPH, just like Downtown..., add a few curb extensions where possible, and have new construction set back a couple of feet for a bit more sidewalk (see 34th & Hawthorne for what a couple of feet will do!). This would cost a lot less money, preserve the dense, congested character of the corridor and make life easier for those of us on foot.
Lenny Anderson

My sympathies for the pedestrians trying to get across, and for the left-turners, too. But, does this justify changing a system that has functioned for decades and was just recently improved with the buffer on W. Burnside? What about an underground plaza at Burnside and MLK so peds could go under and shop, too? What about a lengthy Burnside streetcar route to relieve traffic
pressure?

Hopefully, we can come up with a plan that does not have to be revised every ten years. I fear what our planners are coming up with; it will prove to not be so economical as intended, and taxes and fees will be further raised. Wasteful spending is sooooo American. Let's stop it.

So we want to spend about 50 mil to do this change. Hell no. We can have the choo choo trains, bike paths, but we do not seem to have money to run the jail? Your crazy. I can see this project cost more than 50 mil. Look at the Big Dig in Boston which was suppose to cost 4 bil, but cost exceding 16 bil and not done yet. So do not do it!

Sam -

Thanks for having an open forum and for appearing on the Lars radio show.

What is the time frame for this project?
With the transit mall being closed & rebuilt next year ( target start fall 2006) would it be a good idea to have the projects overlap?

Is it too early to know how many businesses will have to be closed to account for any access which might be needed?

Map of the area

To Paul...

To compare this proposal to the "Big Dig" in Boston is ridiculous... it does not represent a fundamental change in infrastructure type, does not involve tunnelling or uncertain geology.

The proposal involves the same kind of street, sidewalk, signalization, and furnishings/tree improvements that have been done in several parts of Portland. The costs of this kind of a project are quite predictable, and the types of utility relocation required are manageable.

Note that over time these streets and sidewalks will have to be maintained and reconstructed anyway. What is being debated is a change in format. The reason it is proposed as a project rather than incremental improvements over time is because to make a couplet requires simultaneous changes along an entire alignment.

And Paul, if you can think of a convenient, legal way to rechannel transportation dollars to run the jail, I'd love to hear it.

- Bob R.

PS... Portland hasn't had "Choo Choo" trains in years, except for enthusiast groups... 4449 made a nice exhibition run a couple of summers back. Electric streetcars and trams do not go "Choo Choo".

Sam,

Hello ex-neighbor.

I was just listening to your discussion with Lars Larson. I think this Burnside project is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. I am still not really clear what problem this is supposed to solve.

How does making 6 lanes into 4 lanes improve traffic? And how would the addition of parking on a major thoroughfare improve traffic? I am sure you know what happens when a parking spot clears up. The entire lane must wait for someone to park. The fastest roads in our city generally do not have parking spaces. So if the intent is to improve pedestrian safety, I guess it is only for their safety until these pedestrians attempt to get in or out of their vehicles.

Couch is really safe for pedestrians now. So the intent is to make Burnside safer for pedestrians on Burnside at the expense of the pedestrians on Couch?

It seems this project would make Burnside similar to Glisan and Everett. These roads are fast, but they also both have a bridge at one end instead of a sharp curve.

As far as adding bike lanes, isn't Couch pretty bike-friendly the way it is.

And what about another couple years of construction delays? Is this going to help business along Burnside?

As if there wasn't enough reason not to do this, how about the $50 million. How can the mayor and council complain of a lack of funds and want to spend money on a non-essential project like this?

Furthermore, what government project isn't riddled with cost overruns? This could end up costing $75 million by the time it is completed.

The OHSU tram's original estimated cost was $13 million. The last I heard it was up to $38 million. Have they even started construction?

With all of the Pearl tax abatement, eastside esplanade, OHSU tram, PGE Park, PDC, and the rest of the non-essential spending, how can the mayor and request more county income tax?

Why not put the Burnside project up for a vote instead of listening to the loud voices of the proponents with their special interests in mind.

Just because this project was approved, does NOT mean it is a good idea.

Thank you,

Devon King

Sam,

I just heard you on Lars' show. Thanks for talking to him and for having this discussion about the Burnside Couplet project.

I agree that safety will be improved with the couplet plan, but am concerned about the potential reduction in vehicle capacity. Burnside actually works fairly well right now. The main problems today are narrow sidewalks and left turn prohibitions.

Is there any way three travel lanes could be provided in each direction. On Burnside, removing a travel lane (11 ft) and adding a bike lane (5 ft) would allow each sidewalk to still be widened 3 ft. If speeds are really going to be close to 12 mph, then bike lanes probably won't be needed, similar to other downtown streets.

Also, is there a way to save the landscaped medians on Burnside in downtown? Perhaps the transition from two way to one way traffic could occur at the north park blocks. Aligning westbound traffic to Couch at this location would avoid 90 degree turns and allow for a smother "S" curve without impacting any existing buildings.

Brent Says: "Also, is there a way to save the landscaped medians on Burnside in downtown?"

There will still be landscaped medians in the section we are used to... there will be eastbound traffic on the south side of the medians, and angle-parking / flexible plaza space on the north side of the medians.

Look at this PDF:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?&a=90267
(Page 4 of the PDF / Page "29" as labelled in the document.)

The angle parking protected by a median also solves the problems of cars pulling in and out of parking shutting down an entire travel lane, at least for the north side of Burnside.

- Bob R.

Living just a little ways north of W Burnside, I see the couplet as a good idea. Burnside is a barrier to traffic, both turning left and crossing, and pedestrians. In fact, buses must often wait at the Ankeny signal on 5th, even though they just left Burnside on a green signal. My appoligies to people on Couch St, who will have their side street transformed into an arterial.

Lenny Anderson | Oct 18, 2005 10:28:58 AM:
Why doesn't PDOT just slow the traffic down...set the signals for 12 MPH, just like Downtown..., add a few curb extensions where possible, and have new construction set back a couple of feet for a bit more sidewalk (see 34th & Hawthorne for what a couple of feet will do!). This would cost a lot less money, preserve the dense, congested character of the corridor
JK:
Yeah, that’s it. Lets Preserve congestion and keep driving jobs out of town!! How about adding a lane in each direction to reduce cognation and lower costs for business and citizens alike.

(Note for the congestion coalition: wasted time is wasted money. This also applies to people who waste time in traffic that they could otherwise spend being paid at work, or doing something beneficial like spending more time with their families. Time wasted in traffic is time taken from family, friends or job. Please try to understand this, it is an important concept.)

Lenny Anderson | Oct 18, 2005 10:28:58 AM:
and make life easier for those of us on foot.
JK:
Burnside is NOT A LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD street - it is a major, important East-West corridor that carries over 40,000 people to their jobs and businesses every day. To infringe upon that many people for a tiny few people who are slightly inconvenienced by crossing a wide street will only hurt Portland. This policy of favoring a few at the expense of everyone else will continue to drive even more jobs out of town. It is this type of short sighted thinking that is making Portland the most politically correct city in the country that just happens to be bankrupt, but so far, few (except Sam) notice it.

Burnside needs MORE not LESS lanes. It does not need parking (that will make it more dangerous and will slow traffic.) So, lets do the couplet: Three lanes each (save room for expansion to four if needed) and set the signals for 35mph. Like Powell boulevard. Lets get Portland moving again! Pedestrians can cross at the signalized intersections with adequate walk times on the crossing lights. Put bike lanes on adjacent, parallel streets for safety.

Lets also add capacity to the Sunset to relieve some traffic from Burnside. Get the freeways moving and they will draw traffic from lesser streets like Burnside, Sandy, 82nd and MLK. (Contrary to the car haters rhetoric, adding road capacity does not induce many new trips. It does, however, (like light rail claims, but doesn’t) allow development further out where people can live at lower cost.)

Thanks
JK

Commissioner Adams,

Who's "smouldering"? We just ask that the public process not be hindered.

Many of our neighbors here in Old Town Chinatown have worked hard to ensure that everyone was represented at the table as options were discussed and decisions made.

Since I work in NW and cross over Burnside/Couch multiple times each day (by bus), I'll toss in my opinion on the portion in NW. Don't decouple. It would make a mess of NW.
Thanks

I question whether Couch through the NW portion of the couplet has enough width to sustain the increased traffic flow without sacrificing sidewalks/parking/businesses. That said, NW Couch isn't exactly walkable right now due to having nowhere to cross safely. The result seems to be a drive/walk by consensus which will work until one angry person on a cell phone blows through an intersection.

I frequently walk Burnside and wonder what people are talking about here - it has always seemed easy enough to cross. The north-south lights could maybe be a little longer, but it's not as though there's nowhere to cross.

Really, in a perfect world, the nicest thing you could do for Burnside is to make the Burnside/Sandy intersection in SE take actual turns, so that westbound Burnside gets to go once for every time that Sandy gets to go. Oh, and uncouple that light at 8th from the Sandy light so that when you finally get to go westbound you don't have to stop in a block and a half.

Also, please paint on the street

YOU

WILL

NEVER

TURN

LEFT

GIVE

UP

TURN

RIGHT

Part of the success of our fair city is the comparative ease--up to now--of getting to practically anyplace in the central city core (meaning, east, west, northwest, southeast, southwest neighborhoods, downtown, and access to freeways. We are heading in the wrong direction making major thoroughfares such as East and West Burnside one way corridors. This creates barriers to getting where one is going, in my opinion. For instance, there is really no appropriate parallel street to channel traffic in the opposite direction of the proposed one-way flows on Burnside. This makes the city less liveable, not more.

I don't see why we need to invest $45 million in tax free development along Burnside. There have been enough boondoggles with PGE park, the fancy trolley and tearing down low-income housing for high rise condos for "those who can afford it." Believe me I don't know anyone who can pay $300,000 for a studio condo.

We need low and moderate income housing. Please put your focus on this critical issue, not more giveaways to corporations who will simply build more outlets for the restless rich who are so empty they have to fill up their lives demanding more and more places to go to spend their money.

First of all, thanks for this opportunity to speak out. I am all for change that will help the flow of traffic and/or increase the quality/livability of a neighborhood. A project like this proposes to do both which sounds great, but seems very unlikely. To handle traffic flow, I would suggest THREE lanes on Burnside with signals set to keep traffic moving.If you have parking, PLUS drivers turning right AND left, waiting for pedestrians crossing side streets, PLUS signals at the intersections, when does the traffic flow?? I am always amazed at how well traffic moves on W. Burnside now and I'm afraid that after spending $50 million PLUS, the traffic would be worse. Maybe a couple foot-bridges over Burnside for pedestrian safety would be cheaper and a lot easier... Please, at least put a LOT of thought into this before spending OUR money. Thanks

I am writing for the trees along Burnside - the mature red maples - and the trees in the median - the mature Norway maples. I understand they are all to go and perhaps be replaced by tiny, slow-growing palm trees. This would be a huge loss for the city. There is mention of a "landscaped median" but I'll bet trees (and I don't count palms as decent trees) are not included. In addition, what happens to Burnside west of 14th? It will surely be a bottlenec. I drive West Burnside from the river to 23rd a lot, and I think it's just fine the way it is.

Allanya Guenther wrote: "We are heading in the wrong direction making major thoroughfares such as East and West Burnside one way corridors. This creates barriers to getting where one is going, in my opinion."

Burnside, in its current configuration, is a barrier to where many people want to go...

1. Becuase you cannot turn left off of burnside, to reach any side street to the left of your direction of travel requires a series of 3 turns onto 3 side streets.

2. Because there is no parking along much of W. burnside downtown, you must turn to a side street in order to park. This can involve multiple turns (see above) if the side street you want is to your left.

3. North-south traffic is held up by longer traffic light wait times than in other downtown blocks. This is because traffic timing works differently on two-way streets. With one-way couplets you can syncrhonise traffic flows throughout the grid. Thus, the couplet will improve north-south travel.

Maus wrote: "Really, in a perfect world, the nicest thing you could do for Burnside is to make the Burnside/Sandy intersection in SE take actual turns, so that westbound Burnside gets to go once for every time that Sandy gets to go."

This is exactly what the plan proposes. See this document:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=90266
See pages 5 and 6 of the PDF (labelled as pages "20" and "21" of the document.)

Also note that E. Burnside will have 4 travel lanes going into this area. A number of people have criticized this plan as reducing the number of lanes on Burnside. While it is true in some blocks that total lanes are decreased, in blocks where congestion is likely to occur, extra lane capacity has been maintained.

- Bob R.

Phyllis Reynolds - "I am writing for the trees along Burnside - the mature red maples - and the trees in the median - the mature Norway maples. I understand they are all to go and perhaps be replaced by tiny, slow-growing palm trees."

Please let me know where you heard this... All of the available documents that I have examined refer specifically to preserving the existing median trees, and preserving existing healthy trees while infilling with new trees. This is also indicated in the project diagrams.

For example, this paragraph (among many other notes about existing trees) appears in:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=90267

"The concept design for Lower West Burnside includes a 54-foot “flexible public space” on the north side of the street between West 2nd and West 8th Avenues. This flexible public space preserves nearly all the existing median street trees and provides space for parking, sidewalks, opportunities for public art and places for
special events."

The East side project should move forward including vacating the Sandy Blvd transition to 7th between SE Washington and E Burnside. These 6 blocks could be reassembled into mixed use, including housing and jobs close to downtown. With fuel prices expected to be higher yet in years to come, we will need that combination. Built taller, 10 stories plus, with family friendly room configurations, it could complement the organic business and job development underway in the area and boost Portland school enrollment.

The West side project will help with the very real problem of pedestrian accidents on lower Burnside. The proliferation of nightclubs in the area with added housing in Oldtown are increasing the risks. (Someone from the City should bring that data to the public meeting)

On the West side, wider sidewalks and street parking will improve the experience of walking on the sidewalks, benefitting business there.

Currently the safest bridges for bicyclists are the Hawthorne and Broadway bridges. Properly planned, the project has the potential to make the Burnside bridge and it's approaches safe for bicyclists.

It's time to reach out to the people who strongly oppose the project, listen, understand their concerns and provide them with the research that went into the project. After that, it's time to act.

As a West Burnside area resident, we fully support this project. We are tired of taking our lives into our hands every time we need to cross West Burnside. This project will provide the traffic regulation and safety to pedestrians that is desperately needed. It will also provide the much needed resurfacing of West Burnside that has been a safety hazzard for both pedestrians and vehicles for too long...25 years too long! Go for it Sam!

Normally, one way couplets are good for mobility and safety. That is supported by many studies, one of which, I believe, was recently done by Myles Cunneen. But this project will have no transportation value.

There are 2 lanes of traffic on Burnside in each direction. Afterwards, there will be 2 lanes of traffic going east. But the parking lanes will interrupt the flow of traffic as cars park and leave their parking spaces. Further, the flow will be less safe.

The distance of the improvements are too small to accomplish anything and the weaving for the bridge bottleneck makes things worse.

This is really not a transportation project. It is a downtown beautification project using transportation funds. State gas taxes are constitutionally restricted and federal CMAQ and STP funds would not cover city beautification so the City is calling it a transportation enhancer, which it will not do.

It wasn't long ago that the City, illegally, used transportation funds for the Esplanade calling it a transportation project. If a lawsuit were filed at the time, this diversion could have been avoided.

It should be noted that the worst part of Burnside traffic is between I-405 and NW 23rd, which is not addressed.

And it's only $50 million. Reminds me of Everett Dirkson's admonition "A million here and a million there and pretty soon your talking about real money."

It is projects like this that have diverted transportation dollars away from high priority projects and led to the Portland metro area having the highest rate of congestion increase since 1986.

Mel

Melvin Y. Zucker
Oregon Transportation Institute

At first I was appalled at the idea of putting the burnside traffic through Couch in the brewery blocks, but Chris Smith makes excellent points about the current incentive for racing through Burnside. I think a better analogy for the couplet would be Broadway and 4th though, as they carry a heavy traffic load for through traffic as Burnside does, but Washington/Alder don't. I'm still concerned that couch is pretty narrow though, and unfortunately, you can't just shove 14 blocks of buildings over a lane or two. Since Couch has its own bridge over 405 already, I think I'd take the couplet all the way up to NW 23rd though.

What is the justification for stopping this project at NW 14th? If it's a good idea, why isn't it being proposed to go all the way to NW 23rd? As a resident of near West Burnside, I can personally vouch for the bottlenecks, lack of pedestrian crossings, limited left turn opportunties, weird triangulation to get to the north side of the street, etc.

In addition, it's ugly. I don't understand the concerns about this being a beautification project. Clean, well-maintained, efficient streets that benefit residents, businesses and pedestrians are good for the city.
Right now W Burnside is a blight. And things are only going to get worse. The new Civic building is going to bring a huge amount of new traffic to the corridor and there seems to be no planning around this. There's a new development going in at NW 23rd and Burnside...more traffic. There's the new development about Uptown Center...more traffic.

This poorly designed, poorly maintained, narrow-sidewalk, left turn restricted, over-burdened artery cannot support this. So, either stop development and channel the traffic elsewhere or create a better functioning system.

Dear Commissioner Sam,
Thank you for this informative blog!
I attended a public meeting several months ago that described the project. I was struck by the challenge of a project that included roadways on both sides of the river as if the neighborhoods were alike. They are not!!! The east side is an entirely different place, with different (established and emerging) businesses. Now that I'm an Eastside resident, I appreciate the special character of Burnside from the river to Sandy...a very special place with great potential, and some of the most fun architecture and businesses in Portland...who doesn't love Hippo Hardware and the Jupiter Hotel???
I have traveled extensively throughout Oregon and am struck by what one-way couplets have done to small towns...maybe travel moves, but businesses lose big time! At least with East Burnside, let's make it a place to "be"...not just a place to get through.
Hope to see you on the 20th!
Pam Wev

Scott Osburne writes: "What is the justification for stopping this project at NW 14th? If it's a good idea, why isn't it being proposed to go all the way to NW 23rd?"

In part becuase Couch does not exist beyond 19th St. You'd have to raze 5 blocks of buildings and build an entirely new street to go all the way to 23rd.

I'm guessing, but planners probably thought that because the 16th/15th connection is a major intersection anyway because of the I-405 off-ramp, that it would be the best place for Couch traffic to rejoin Burnside.

See Google map of the existing area:
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=portland,+or&ll=45.523262,-122.686880&spn=0.005234,0.012720&hl=en

- Bob R.

Correction to my post, above: You'd have to raze _8_ blocks of buildings to do what Scott suggested, extending Couch all the way to 23rd.

- Bob R.

Why not relook at the eastside? The couplet will create a lot of traffic on NE Couch that doesn't exist. (Isn't that the concern of the well-heeled, well connected folks at the Henry Building at 11th and Couch) and will make crossing the street to reach the new high profile Bridgehead Project Towers impossible as there will be so many traffic lanes.

Too expensive. I like it when the city is forward thinking, but now is the time to get budgets in order and pay for important services. Once we have budgets in order then we can think about doing city improvements that we can not afford now. Don't waste another dime on this until we are out of the red.

Thanks,

John

PS. Sam you are doing a great job.

Several people commented about the narrowness of Couch. Actually, in the area near Powell's, the Couch Street right-of-way (building to building) is exactly the same as Burnside: 60 feet. It's exactly the same as all of the downtown east-west streets.

Currently Burnside has 9 foot sidewalks, and 42 feet of roadway (approx.). Couch has 12 foot sidewalks, and 36 feet of roadway. After the change, Burnside will have 12 sidewalks, and 36 feet of roadway, just like Couch. No sidewalks will be changed on Couch. The sidewalks will be widened on Burnside.

This applies to the area between the Park Blocks and NW 16th.

Above 16th, the couplet ends, and problems remain. East of the Park Blocks, Couch will remain the same (12'-36'-12'), and traffic on Burnside will flow eastward on the south side of the existing treed median.

A hypothtetical question for opponents of this proposal, just for the sake of discussion...

If $50 million were available from various sources for a transportation project within the city limits of Portland (and could not easily be diverted to other needs), what single project would you spend it on?

- Bob R.

The CBD south of Burnside uses cycle lengths of 46, 56, & 60 seconds. The 60 second cycle length is only used during the PM peak M-F. Burnside uses cycle lengths of 85 & 90 seconds to accommodate the heavy two-way flow and the long crosswalk lengths. NW Portland north of Burnside uses a 60 second cycle length. Even with the B/C couplet there will still be long crosswalks associated with lower Burnside from 2nd to Broadway.

A. Burnside and NW will at most times not sync with the CBD because the CBD runs a lower cycle length most of the time.

B. Lower Burnside can only sync with NW if it can be constrained to a 60 second cycle length. This should be studied by producing the proposed signal timing, prior to proceeding with the project. I'm sure that this has not been done. This 60 second cycle length may not be possible for the couple de-couple intersections on the east and west end of the project.

C. The four couple de-couple intersections will have a preponderance of turning traffic. This turning traffic will create significant conflicts with pedestrians. These intersection should be studied in detail analyzing: phasing, striping, and actual proposed signal timing. I’m sure that this has not been done.

Sam,

Thank you for inviting those of us listening to The Lars Larson Show on Wednesday October 18, 2005 to provide input as you ask the “tough questions” about the Burnside Couplet.

After viewing the north side of Burnside "grand public space", I would say it appears to be the perfect place for the next critical mass ride to originate, for use as the next arrest zone for an “illegal protest blocking Burnside” and the least needed space in Oregon.

Once again, the Portland Development Commission exposes the Portland MYTH of urban livability. The idea that cities are for people, not just for commerce and cars misses the fact that commerce, cars and employment pay for and support the infrastructure you plan to tear apart.

When you finish tearing down the livability of a city that people must move around in to live, work, play and be gainfully employed you will enable the closing of its doors in bankruptcy.

Your short air time gave no time to ask: Who is it that has the “Great Passion” for this project? Tell us for whom this is a “MUST HAVE” project?

Certainly not the hard working people of Portland that need to move from one section of the city to another unhindered to work, play and to enjoy life.

This project strangles SIX lanes of traffic into four lanes. Two of the lanes twist and turn enough to make a sober man drunk!

Will we in future years call this Sam’s Folly?

Who can believe the myth that Portland cares about people, cars, commerce and livability when it proposes projects like this?

Sam suggest, NO DEMAND a NO GO for this boondoggle of a project. It is a project that is NOT in need of completing.

Thank you once more for the forum you provide and continue to look to the people to get good solid input.

Consider that the electorate asks about politicians these questions…Can I trust him? Does he know what he is talking about? And does he have my best interest at heart?

How will the electorate answer these questions about you the next time they enter the voting booth?

BOB R.

As for your hypothetical,...

I suggest any project that unsnarls the traffic mess in outer SE Portland or better yet rekindle the Mt. Hood Freeway

Sam Adams;
I have been a big fan of the work you are doing and have examined the Burnside Bridge project thoroughly over the past year.
I was thrilled to hear about proposals to close Sandy Blvd west of 12th avenue and to decrease the size and danger level of Burnside.

I few thoughts of concern;
The proposed bicycle route in Northwest is slated to be NW Flanders. The reason this is chosen is because of access across the I-405 barrier. What this says is that 5 avenues of publicly financed roadway is slated to be innacesseable to bicyclists. I do appreciate the possibility of a connection between Waterfront Park and the west side street grid. Currently access across Naito Parkway is limited and extremely inconvenient.
With all of the effort made to decrease the size and fears associated with the high volume traffic on Burnside, why aren't there proposed bike lanes along the entire redevelopment corridor? It would make life much easier to have a direct throughway that is bike friendly.

While looking at the PDF document I saw the proposal to bring Burnside up to 6 lanes east of 14th avenue. It is quite clear from every study I have read that when the number of single direction travel lanes are increased, the risk of fatality increases 4-6 times. Why than if your goal is to increase safety would you allow freeway style planning in east Portland?

For those who are unable to see why the city is looking to pay $50 mil for a few pedestrians (such as KW), I welcome you to put on a pair of sunglasses (to put yourself in the shoes of a lesser abled person and head over to an intersection. Then try to cross Burnside. Once you've successfully crossed (I hope) you will have a better understanding of how frightening the experience is. Burnside creates a barrier similar to the 405 freeway.

I would also agree with the proposal to extend the couplet to NW 19th avenue in order to increase the number of miles that Burnside is thus improved.
I also suggest to people who propose ideas which are not in sync with the existing infrastructure (no disrespect) to use Google Earth which is a great tool to analyse street grids.

On the whole I respect the work so far and support the project.
Aaron

For Bob R - I think asking if we have $50M to spare in PDOT is illusory. Mr Adams wrote about a week ago he was looking for suggestions on how to save money in PDOT. That is why I am having a hard time reconciling the "need" for a $50M project by PDOT, unless he can show where he is going to cut otherwise.

Sam~

Making Couch and Burnside one-way corridors is a fantastic idea. Let's make all roads in Portland one-ways, leaving town. Anybody who wants to return to the city can use a bicycle path. Kudos to the City Hall Think-Tank.

PS~ Have you considered reversing the flow of the Willamette?

For the past 33 years I have lived near Washington Park and made countless trips to the east side. However, I can easily count the times I used the Burnside Bridge because I avoid lower Burnside like the plague. If the west side couplet is implemented I will use Burnside because it is often the most direct route. The pro and con arguments for public safety seem to cancel each other. However, the couplet's traffic flow improvement element will clearly benefit the entire community. Particularly given the near unanimous support for the east side couplet, the traffic flow enhancement feature of the twin west side couplet should trump the apparently NIMBY protests of some Pearl District residents.

I like the idea of a Burnside couplet on the website side for several reasons:

- it will improve mobility for north-south through traffic

- it will help weave the Pearl and Downtown together, diminishing Burnside as an dangerous barrier

- it will promote bicycle and pedestrian movements across Burnside

- It will stimulate further redevelopment activities on Burnside, the new geographic heart of the greater downtown area.

Thanks.

I've been following the B'side/Couch couplet for years it seems - weighed in during numerous public and private meetings on everything from design and engineering to aesthetics and *gasp* bike lanes. Building it isn't just the right thing to do for the entire city - but it's also a strong endorsement for public-private partnerships and how best to move critical projects forward that this city needs .

And it's this latter part that has me all wound up: why, after this project has been on the EVERYone's radar screen for FIVE years, and subject to intense public scrutiny from just about every quarter is it suddenly in jeopardy? I thought Portland was supposed to embrace the public process as the preferred method of building this city. Yet, if the B'side/Couch project - one of the best examples of a public process relating to a transportation project I've ever seen (with the possible exception of the Freight committee) - can get thrown out at this late stage in the game - well - that's just wrong. Welcome to PFO.

Seriously folks - at this point in the process we should be concerned not with whether the couplet is built, but why it has to stop where it does on the West Side - and whether or not 10 foot (10!) travel lanes are adequate for freight and local delivery mobility in the segment from NW14 to 23rd - given all the other functions that take place in that stretch of roadway. At this point in the process, these are the issues that we should be focused on - not whether running down the petit bougeouis living at a certain Tony address on Couch (or his mother) is the new Portland Blood Sport - which is patently absurd!

I guess it's all good, the public process, unless it doesn't serve our personal interests?

See y'all at the town hall.

Bob R.,

It's not just the 50 million for Burnside; our transportation gurus have billions of dollars of projects rattling around in their braincases. Of course to them rasing all of the fees and costs that Joe Average must pay to sustain these is incidental to them being the brilliant minds that conjured up these "solutions". And if they need to be redone in ten years, so what?

I am all for solving our transportation problems. Thirty five years ago I was actively opposing the didmemberment of Portland by the freeway plan. But now we need to find solutions that will work for at least three or four decades and stick with them instead of redesigning them later.
I think the Streetcar could work as a relatively cost-effective solution and much of the rail infrastructure is already in place. I am surprised that Chris Smith isn't advocating it for Burnside, now, since it would connect with the existing streetcar line and could go to East Portland. I am seeing such huge empty spaces on the MAX that I no longer have a lot of confidence. We should have something that gets max use; not be maximum empty. I would like to see a streetcar from Milwaukie connecting to Lake Oswego line via the Sellwood Bridge. This is a route that will see a terrific increase in traffic in the next two decades.

My first reaction is where is the money coming from? Did Portland suddenly "find" 50 mil, or are we going to neglect the citys already neglected streets to improve one road?
Portlnad is already a car hating city, Burnside is one of the few streets that you can actually move on to get anywhere. As a resident of the Pearl, I am not excited to see increased traffic through a residential neighboorhood due to diverting traffic flow INTO the Pearl.

Dear Sam,

The couplet idea proposed for both east and west Burnside is unworkable and inappropriate for Portland for many reasons which I will attempt to articultate below.

First and foremost, it must be judged on what it proposes to accomplish.

As I understand the proposal, the couplet is intended to facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic in an east-west manner and to facilite the movement of pedestrians in an north-south manner. One presumes that north-south traffic and left turns would be facilitated by this proposal as well.

A ROUTE OF FRUSTRATION AND INEFFICIENCY

As anyone can easily see by looking that the plan of the city and Burnside in particular, and can experience by driving the proposed route, traffic will not flow easier. Infact, because of the nature of the west bound route in particular, traffic movement will be greatly compromised. The essential aspect of the problem is that Burnside has built in funnels through which both directions of traffic must move and that Couch Street does not connect to these funnels--it is actually interupted by the river, I-405 and large blocks in NW Portland. Therefore, the movement of traffic will always be restricted by the limitations imposed by the bridges and will always be blocked by the infrastructure and blocks in its way.

What makes the proposal more preposterous is that inorder to navagate the west bound route and make it over the bridges and around the blocks, west bound traffic must turn off and then back onto Burnside numerous times. Under no traffic model imaginable, can this be proven to be a more efficient means to travel west bound.

The west bound route would therefore be a most frustrating and illogical pathway that would encounter more turns, signals, pedestrians, traffic and therefore time.

REGIONAL/COMMUTER TRAFFIC OUT OF PLACE

The west bound route on Couch also disregards the character of that street. On the west side, Couch is a narrow street now filled with pedestrians and cars in slow movement that activate the Brewery Blocks. This
redeveloped area has become one of Portland's hottest as evidenced by the number of high end stores (not all national chains) that have located there. The feel of Couch street is the most exciting Portland has to offer by virtue of is intimate size (remember our small block mantra) Pedestrians and cars mingle amicably. Turning Couch into a west bound artery would destroy this feel and function as it would prioritize movement at a regional level through the district on a street that is extremely successful at a local leve. Couch street and this immediate area are in fact a product of our 2040 goals and policies...the objective being to create vital urban neighborhoods....running commuters destined for the suburbs through this area is counter to our goals.

WHAT MAKES A GREAT STREET?

Lloyd Lindley, one of the major designerS and proponents of this project in a statement about Burnside noted the
diversity and vitality of the street. He then stated that this street needed to be fixed....I wondered--in what way...from his presentation, one understands that Burnside is one of the most diverse, active, vital streets in the city with the broadest and deepest concentration of entertainment, restaurants, housing, work, institutions located on it or within 2 blocks. Its narrow sidewalks are filled with people at all hours including late night, as people patronize businesses located along it. The contention that Burnside's narrow sidewalks and high traffic volumes discourage pedestrian and business activity is absolutely proven false by the reality of what happens there. Compare Burnside on any evening at any hour to our hallowed Transit Mall....where are the people and where would you want to be?

This proposal would turn Burnside into a one way 2 lane (same traffic accomodation as now) street with widened sidewalks and the standard Portland pastiche of trees, flower pots
benches, kiosks and other gimmicks from the urban designer's tool box....judging from the Transit Mall, the Broadway and MLK improvements, the
investments in like treatments in other areas of the city, Burnside would be suffocated by the well intended by inappropriate shrubbing up proposed. People are attracted to people and to environments that look active, exciting and interesting. People like to see the glare of head (and tail) lights, signage, tall buildings, density, and are attracted to it. The parklike proposed completely disregards this basic fact of human nature and behavior. People cruise Broadway, not
Front Ave...People go to narrow crowded streets (or sidewalks)not the wide ones provided along our malls. 23rd is more active than Broadway. By turning Burnside into a parkway the city will effectively kill the dynamic environment it now has.

A CITY IS AN ORGANISM SEEKING BALANCE

Burnside is one of the most if not the most significant streets in city and region. It is a space. It is a space that connects the entire city. It is the only truely comprehensible space that makes this connection. It connects east to west and west to east. And it does not prioritize either...it is a passage way of equal disposition...it is the spine of the city...to shunt half its traffic...which can be also understood as the pulsation of information, off the spine and onto a far less viable route is to disconnect the city from itself, to prejudice one way of travel over another, to discourage movement, to hinder communication, to increase the sense of
distinction between east and west.
IT IS THE WRONG MESSAGE TO SEND TO PORTLAND.

I will leave my comments at this for now, will try to reach you by phone, and to attend your hearing.

Richard Potestio

Can't help but note the great irony of all road transportation "improvement" projects...better flow = more trips = same congestion levels as before minus the money... $50M!
Why not just have a big bonfire and burn the $...it would be more fun!
We choose to congest or to not congest...why should public resources be used to reward poor choices? No one is required to live in the west hills and commute home via Burnside. Why penalized those who made a choice to stay in the City for the benefit of those who left for unincorporated Multnomah county.

To the responders that say turning the West side into a couplet will make it into a highway/freeway:

When you say that the green lights will "Turn it into a highway", think again. Look at how the lights are run in downtown. If you go 11 mph, you will get the greens. Faster, it is hurry up and wait. It is most likely that the lights will be run that way. (With pre-empts for light rail at 5th / 6th.) It gives the traffic Engineer more control of speed, not less. As I understand the plan, it will improve that part of the downtown area. Safety was a major consideration.

Just to make sure we really understand teh dollar amounts, the WHOLE PROJECT from SE 12th to NW 24th is $45-50M. The segment from 2nd to I-405 that is the focus here is $17M of that total.

Dear Sam: My husband & I are residents of the Henry. We are very happy with the neighborhood which offers considerable shopping, dining & other alternatives. Primarily, the fact that there are so many people walking in the area - especially at night, is a real pleasure.
We are very concerned that the Couch couplet will increase vehicle traffic to an extent that the pedestrian "friendly" aspect of the area will change dramatically. The West Burnside Couplet was planned years prior to the development of the Pearl as a residential/pedestrian friendly area. With all that has changed since the initial plan, it is essential that the Couplet be reconsidered and current circumstanes be taken into account.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Dear Sam,

As a resident in the Brewery block area I obviously am following this project with more than a little interest. While others have said the width of Couch is not an issue, I have trouble believing that, at least between 9th and 13th. I try to imagine all of the truck, car and emergency vehicle traffic trying to move along Couch and I don't see it moving very fast. Right now, the scary part of Burnside traffic is partly or mainly due to the speed people are driving, ~25-35 MPH. With the couplet proposal, the only way it will work, at least on Couch, is for the traffic to slow to ~10-15MPH. I'm not sure that will be greeted well by those driving it every day. As pointed out by others, the flow on Everett and Glisan is faster.

Several people have suggested that there be 3 lanes of traffic each way, but they don't understand that Couch cannot be widened beyond the 2 lanes.

The Brewery block area right now is filled with pedestrians much of the day and evening, and with the addition of 20 thousand or more vehicles a day on Couch I wonder about their safety. Will there be, or is there already, a limit on vehicle size which can drive this route? Is there an alternative large truck route? If Burnside is narrowed to match Couch then it is hard to see how it will be navigable by larger trucks.

Development in the Pearl and Old town is happening anyway without this couplet project, so it is hard to understand how much more this project would help in that regard.

If the main problem is speed on Burnside then something might be done to focus on that problem more specifically. I can't imagine that commuters are going to be very happy with slowing down more to get through downtown in any event.

Others have pointed out also that this project does nothing for Burnside beyond 14th street.

Thanks

I am concerned about the mature trees on West Burnside - the red maples along the sides and the Norway maples in the median. There is talk of median landscaping, but my fear is that weeny-teeny insignificant palm trees will replace the present mature trees. The caopy loss would be significant. I drive Burnside from the Eastside to NW 23rd quite often and I don't see any need for the couplet arrangement - there will be a bottleneck after NW 14th on up, I am sure.

Phyllis -

I asked you before where you heard about the "palm trees" and provided links to the plan's actual statements about trees. You did not respond. Here is my message again:

Please let me know where you heard this... All of the available documents that I have examined refer specifically to preserving the existing median trees, and preserving existing healthy trees while infilling with new trees. This is also indicated in the project diagrams.

For example, this paragraph (among many other notes about existing trees) appears in:
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=90267

"The concept design for Lower West Burnside includes a 54-foot “flexible public space” on the north side of the street between West 2nd and West 8th Avenues. This flexible public space preserves nearly all the existing median street trees and provides space for parking, sidewalks, opportunities for public art and places for
special events."

- Bob R.

E.K.Huszagh says "The West Burnside Couplet was planned years prior to the development of the Pearl as a residential/pedestrian friendly area."
In fact, in 2000 through 2002, the Pearl was already a residential/pedestrian friendly area. The Brewery Blocks were planned and being constructed. It was well known what residential and commercial density was planned for the Brewery Blocks. Dennis Wilde, from Brewery Blocks developers Gerding and Edlin, was on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee that chose the Burnside/Couch couplet. The committee knew that Couch would have more traffic through the Brewery Blocks, and the developers were okay with that.

Commissioner:
From the Burnside/Couch Transportation Urban Design Plan Technical Refinements, Final Draft June 2005:

"The plan provides a vision and strategy for “humanizing Burnside” by transforming the Central City’s most blighted area into a “people place” that is comfortable, safe and exciting. Street improvements and new development will create a place to walk, congregate, work, live and visit. " [Emphasis added.]

"The proposed improvements eliminate the barrier between the adjacent neighborhoods and businesses that Burnside presents today. Burnside is envisioned as a gateway to Portland’s most dense neighborhoods, with diverse and interesting districts and activities. "

These two paragraphs, neither applicable to Old Town, offer a host of issues to discuss, but I will try to keep my focus to a few. One needs to understand the environment. Old Town is recognized as an open-air drug market (“awash in open air drug dealing,” Sam Adams 2004 Campaign). The primary drug trafficking streets are Burnside (north side) and Couch.

The proposed improvements basically effect the north side of Burnside in Old Town. Traffic going west off the Burnside Bridge is diverted onto Couch at 2nd Avenue. Remember this is basically commute and through traffic being diverted onto a street not designed for high volume traffic.

The former traffic lanes are reclaimed for a 54 foot “flexible public space.” Maybe a plaza. Maybe “. . . opportunities for public art and places for special events.” Bottom line: there are no plans.

Consider too - there is virtually no business in Old Town that fronts on Burnside. People with discretionary income, or even disposable income, spend it elsewhere. Businesses are neither being retained nor attracted to Old Town.

Latest examples: Bank of the West is relocating its 1st Avenue branch to Broadway. It is my understanding that Great China on 4th & Davis is leaving.

The ‘barrier’ has been a principle justification for expending funds for the Old Town portion The street is too wide creating a barrier to crossing. This rationale has no basis in fact. E.g., Old Town residents and employees have no problem crossing Burnside to the south for the restaurants and entertainment.

If one has no problem going from the north to the south of Burnside - why would it be different crossing from the south to the north? Getting to the other (north) side may be enough for the chicken but not for people who have money to spend.

The 'barrier' for Old Town is what one sees when approaching from the south - the skid row character - Grove Hotel area with the patrol of drug dealers, 4th street where the beautiful Chinese Gate is nearly obscured by the presence of the adult book store, 3rd street where food lines persist and so too the litter, and 2nd street has its sidewalk sleepers, virtually any time of day.

It is important too to remember that it is the north side of Burnside where the grand delusion has it as “. . . a place to walk, congregate, work, live and visit.” Nothing in the Burnside-Couch project does anything to alter the seedy character of Old Town much less Burnside. After the work, Grove Hotel will still be there, so too Adult Book Store, the street sleepers, etc.

Ironically, comparing the three sections of the Burnside-Couch project, it is Burnside in the Old Town that is the visually superior, physical street. While there may be wide streets, there are decent sidewalk widths and abundant trees.

My vision - given limited resource dollars - is to recapture the majority of TIF dollars allocated for Old Town projects like Burnside-Couch, Ankeny Plaza, Fire Station relocation and Saturday Market relocation and use it for housing development in Old Town.

Gee - more housing for Old Town - what a strange concept for the “most blighted area” in the Downtown Urban Renewal District. Thus - shouldn’t Fire Station 1 stays put - so too the Saturday Market with its 750,000 plus annual attendees. Why not create a market district in Ankeny Plaza.

Finally, wouldn’t more housing (workforce especially) in Old Town do more to eliminate the drug dealers and retain and attract businesses? It is tax payers money - is Burnside-Couch Couplet the best bang for the buck?

Putting 28,000 average daily trips (one way traffic) on Couch street is not a good solution. The Pearl District needs the commercial use and pedestrian friendliness that currently exists in that area. Now it is easy to either park and go to or walk to Whole Foods, Powells, Peets coffee, etc. Sam, you should look at this current condition because adding a mess of cars on Couch will permanently disrupt this success story.

Since the Burnside-Couch couplet was first proposed the area has been transformed into a neighborhood of residences restaurants and stores.
Portland is famous for promoting livability. This area has gone a long way towards achieving this quality not only for residents but also for visitors who patronise the stores and restaurants.
The proposed changes, with its huge increase in traffic flow, including trucks, buses, emergency vehicles and cars would certainly downgrade if not destroy this quality of livability that has been built up over the past few years.

Sam,
Unfortunately I can't attent your town hall meeting so I am giving my opinion here. I am a resident of the Pearl and have a few concerns about the proposed couplet.

As best I can tell, this plan does not actually increase the number of lanes for traffic so I don't understand how it will relieve traffic congestion? The plan just moves the traffic to another street. How does that increase the traffic flow? How does that reduce congestion?

Couch, even if it was oneway, will slow down traffic as people park to shop. And since most drivers will just be driving through they will tend to drive faster once it is a main road. Also, they will become impatient as others try to parallel park. We've all seen the reaction of impatient drivers, they will speed around those trying to park creating more problems.

There is already congestion on Couch at 11th because of Powell's parking garage. Try driving there during rush hour and you'll see how people waiting to enter Powell's garage will back up traffic at that intersection. Make Couch oneway and the problem will be compounded with traffic backing up even more on Couch.

The Brewery Blocks shopping area is a nice walking neighborhood shopping area. Even becoming oneway, I believe it will change the character of that area and it won't be as appealing given the increased traffic. I know I would not want to have dinner on the sidewalk any longer because it will be a very busy, noisey street.

I moved to the Pearl because it is a walking neighborhood, moving more traffic into it will start to change the charm of the Pearl. I don't see how this project reduces congestion because it does not increase the number of lanes for traffic to flow, and I see how it will start to change a walking neighborhood to something else because of the increased traffic. I don't see how this solves a traffic problem. And frankly, I haven't seen anything that really clearly defines just what the problem is.

It's so scary to walk down Burnside at any time of the day or night on its - what? 4 ft wide sidewalks - let alone to ride a bicycle down the street!

I can't even count the number of times I have almost been runover by cars veering extremely close to the curb at high speed, where you have absolutely no place to run: only a long, sleek concrete wall keeping you boxed in alongside the traffic.

I really cannot picture how anything could be worse from a safety and aesthetic standpoint, except perhaps landmines, concertina wire, and marines Al Qaeda members shooting at you.

Just because some Pearl residents bitch and moan doesn't mean they should get their way - they made the decision to move to downtown, and, by golly, they need to learn to live and deal with the realities of it!

This is too good of an opportunity to make the Central City safer for people. Period.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of parents, families, kids, students, and people with *gasp* jobs who have to walk along or cross this stupid road every single day. At night, hundreds of patrons of nightclubs and bars spill out onto the street and almost get runover EVERY FRIDAY NIGHT.

Say what you will, but needlessly putting people at risk like this is inexcusable, and should be fixed ASAP. Especially considering that you guys have already done the studies on the project, and as long as traffic isn't allowed to speed through over 25 mph, it should be such a huge improvement over the status quo that I, too, would love to pound anybody who opposes it with a 'stupid stick.'

If the couplet is approved Couch Street will have significant increase in traffic especially during the morning and afternoon commute hours. In addition there will be bus and thru truck traffic at all hours that do not presently use Couch. So where am I going with this? Emissions and diesel engine noise along Couch, a narrow street compared to Burnside, will cause the emissions to be trapped between high rise buildings and the noise will echo like a bull moose in a narrow canyon. Quality of life will be greatly diminished especially in the Brewery Blocks. Imagine all those vehicles idling along a narrow two lane street should an accident, a fire call or other incidents temporarily disrupt traffic. We get enough black soot on our terrace as it is now and no thank you I do not want to listen to traffic while trying to sleep. Will the city pay for triple glazed windows? Not likely! Dumb idea! Dump it and dump it now!

Peter & Joan Ogle …1025 NW Couch St.

M. Hughes and M.L.Cavendish write: "Since the Burnside-Couch couplet was first proposed the area has been transformed into a neighborhood of residences restaurants and stores."

Once again, the Pearl District already was a "neighborhood of residences restaurants and stores" when the couplet was being planned in 2000-2002. Those on the Project Advisory Committee knew what the tradeoffs were, and chose to endorse the couplet, including the neighborhood association as well as the developers of the Brewery Blocks, Gerding and Edlin.

It is unfortunate that the real estate agents selling condos in the Henry neglected to inform their clients that "by the way, Couch will soon become busy street".

Should we throw out five years of planning because some newcomers were not involved from the start?

Doug

P. and J. Ogle write:
"Emissions and diesel engine noise along Couch, a narrow street compared to Burnside, will cause the emissions to be trapped between high rise buildings"

Again, Couch is exactly the same width right-of-way between 8th and I-405 as Burnside is: 60 feet. The curb-to-curb width is wider on Burnside, but will be changed to be the same as Couch: 35 feet.

The width between tall buildings is the same: 60 feet.

The city transportation department has been studying traffic flows for this plan for years, literally. Their plans have been well publicized for years as well. Anyone locating a business or residence on Couch, East or West, cannot have been unaware of the plans. Ditto for the developers and realtors involved.

I believe the excellent work done to date anticipated the current development. If the couplet is completed on the West side, I believe it will improve both the quality of life for residents and neighborhood businesses.

Sam:
Thanks for running a great and informative meeting. I'm glad that we got a chance to air all the opinions out there. Especially enlightening was the comment of the fellow who knew that Couch was going to become part of the couplet and bought into the Henry anyway. In fact, he's looking forward to the couplet.

I wonder how many Henry residents, though, were not told by their real estate agents about the couplet. It seems that their beef is with the agents who neglected to disclose this important piece of information.

It certainly seems that many of these residents were ill-informed on this issue.

Sam, you'd alluded earlier to the issue of the overhanging arcades on the East Burnside sidewalks, and possibly legalizing them. I know this has come up because a building proposed for Burnside at E. 10th is asking to do this.

While I opposed these arcades on the West side as a way to widen the sidewalk, that was different and here's why: When the arcades only cover part of the sidewalk, people will mostly not go under the arcade, because it seems "private" or unsafe because people can hide behind the posts. The three downtown arcades illustrate some of these issues: The parking building at SW Park/ SW 10th, Morrison and Yamhill; the Portland building (the city can't rent the spaces), and the 1000 Broadway building. The Standard Insurance parking garage used to have an arcade, but it was filled in.

The difference occurs when the arcade covers the entire sidewalk, out to the curb. With no other option, pedestrians will walk there, giving more life to the sidewalk and reducing some danger by their presence.

I saw sidewalks like this in Krakow, Poland,at the Palace of the Governors in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and they exist in several Mediterrainian countries.

I would agree that we should adopt a special overlay for East Burnside from 3rd to 12th, allowing arcades if they extend clear to the curb (or within a foot or so).

Thanks to Chris Smith for his report on last night's doings.
I took a few moments while waiting for the Streetcar to observe 11th & Couch and 11th & Burnside. (I actually crossed the latter against the light when there was no traffic in either direction!)
Chris' statement of the issue is right on (see PortlandTransport.com) ...do we trade a very pleasant mixed use, mixed mode environment (Couch) for a potentially less menacing environment (Burnside).
There is a real risk that you lose the former and that the latter continues to languish.
And,I was struck by how well Couch now functions for a bike route; Flanders is a kind of "separate but equal" type of solution that I dislike.
For the $50M in play, I don't think its worth the risk. I think that the West End is well on its way to being developed regardless, that Burnside has a character that we will miss if it is "calmed"...rough and tumble, crowded, chaotic, but functional enough...and that as more people seek access in the N/S direction, their very presence will "calm" the street.
Sorry the AC put in so much work on this, but that effort alone is not enough to justify going forward.
Lenny

PS Speed limits should govern lane width, and given the prefered speed limits on upper Burnside, 10 feet is plenty for any truck!

Narrowing the lanes on upper West Burnside to only ten feet is totally unacceptable and unsafe. As an example, would bicyclists feel safe riding in bike lanes if their handle bars did not fit between the lines? I think not. Eight foot sidewalks allow two three foot wide people to pass with two feet to spare. Tri-Met busses are ten foot six inches wide mirror to mirror. With ten foot lanes, busses and large trucks using the street in the right hand lanes would have their mirror handing over the sidewalks and their tires scraped the curb while they would be riding the white line on the left side with their mirrors hanging over into the next lane. Using the left lane would be prohibited because the mirrors would hang over into oncoming traffic and collide if two large vehicles passed each other. In addition, large vehicles could not pass each other going the same direction where as a bus stopping for passengers would block other traffic, create congestion, require motorists to use more fuel and otherwise directly contribute to global warming by increasing idle times for the rest of the motor vehicles using the street. Any suggestion busses and large trucks use both lanes on such a well traveled street also has problems creating congestion and adding to global warming. The bottom line is it is just unsafe to consider anything less than eleven foot lanes. If 8.3 million dollars is wasted and spent to narrow the street to ten foot lanes on upper West Burnside, then, busses including Tri-Met and large trucks must be totally banned from using the street where the ten foot lanes exist. After all we would not want the overhanging mirrors on busses and big trucks to ding up those proposed new ornamental street lights that are always located right next to the curb. Instead of narrowing the street but to allow for wider sidewalks where possible, it makes far more sense and costs the public less money if setbacks were required for any new development. Furthermore, it may be possible in some places to widen existing sidewalks where there is currently some kind of buffer between the current use of properties and the sidewalk.

West Burnside is broken. It acts as visual and physical deterrent to pedestrians and vehicles alike. Long stoplight cycles make it hard to cross on foot and high-volume traffic requires the no-left-turn rules that frustrate motorists.

It's a street that needs fixing.

The Burnside-Couch couplet is going to impact a few buildings in the neighborhood with the increased Couch traffic, but the benefits it brings to the core of the city are going to lead to a more pleasant and livable environment in the long run.

Sam,

Many thanks for hosting last night's forum. It certainly put everything out there and was a wonderful display of democracy in action.

I am a resident in the Pearl District neighborhood. I was initially in favor of the couplet because of my perception of it being for the "greater good" in that it could help spur redevelopment along the Burnside corridor.

As I learned more it became evident that there would be tremendous negative traffic impact on Couch and other surrounding streets. It has also become apparent that development is happening along both sides of the corridor without drastic changes to Burnside.

When I was in urban planning school, many years ago, we could only dream of creating vital and thriving urban environments such as the Brewery Blocks and its surroundings have become. You can plan and put noble schemes on paper, but they very often don't work out as planned. The Brewery Blocks has blossomed beyond expectations and its influence is expanding. While we all acknowledge that Burnside is problematic, the current plan did not anticipate the extent of Couch Street's success in being such a vibrant pedestrian place with such unique urban character, nor did it anticipate the addition of Portland Center Stage, which will further impact life in the area.

Having lived and worked in NY for most of my life, I am familiar with the impact of traffic on neighborhoods. Back in the 50's, Robert Moses, the master builder of roads in NY, strongly advocated a new roadway through several old neighborhoods in lowewr Manhattan. After years of heated controversy this plan was ultimately defeated and the neighborhood went on to thrive. That neighborhood is what we know today as SOHO. Please, let's not allow that kind of potential mistake happen here. Apropos to this, it is my understanding that the Weidler/Broadway couplet has not worked as intended and there is now serious consideration to correct that mistake.

It would be a misjudgment to proceed with the West Side Couplet as currently conceived and to jeopardize what we already works so well for something that is theoretical, certainly imperfect and which will ultimately cost much more than projected. It would be prudent to step back and explore other options before approving a plan whose ultimate result would threaten a piece of urban living that any other city would envy, cherish and want to preserve.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Stanley Penkin

Dear Commissioner Adams;

Thank you for the invitation to the Town Hall Meeting on the Burnside Transportation and Urban Design Project. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend due to a previous commitment. I would like to give you my comments on the project in writing.

Full disclosure: I am Vice President of the Portland Planning Commission, but do not speak for the commission with these comments. The Commission has not yet been briefed on the project in its present form. In addition, I am an architect, planner and urban designer and principal at SERA Architects, a 75-member design firm located in Old Town. So I know the neighborhood intimately and offer my comments based on experience in the study area and from our urban design work in other communities nationwide. Finally, I have been involved in some of the review discussions on this project between the Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Planning and PDC.

My biggest concerns are in regard to the Westside portion between the Burnside Bridge and the Pearl District, say 11th or 12th. I do not see the eastside portion of the project as being as problematic. My comments on the Westside portion of the project are as follows:

1. Best use of public funding?

I understand that the eastside portions of the project will receive significant funding outside of urban renewal. The Westside portion, however, will receive its funding from urban renewal. I question the wisdom of spending public money to make Burnside a pedestrian oriented street when a majority of the uses along the street are not particularly pedestrian oriented. Moreover, I do not see the presence of the couplet encouraging further pedestrianization of Burnside because many of these uses represent recent investments that will be along Burnside for many years. Please understand I am a strong supporter of the social service uses that are presently along Burnside. 8NW 8th is a beautiful addition to the street and provides much needed social services and housing, likewise for the soon to be completed Union Gospel Mission. But I do not believe these are the type of uses that will attract the pedestrian oriented investment envisioned around them. Perhaps the public money could be better spent providing incentives for future development in Old Town/Chinatown, thus encouraging the growth of an urban village in this area. A key component to realizing this urban village concept is to provide more housing. There are some key parcels that, if properly developed and designed would serve to anchor an Old Town/Chinatown renaissance. Included in this concept could be the re-design of Couch, not as a part of a couplet, but as a small quiet urban village street similar to Ankeny on the south side of Burnside. With two new festival streets (NW Davis and NW Flanders) and new light rail stations planned for Couch-Davis under construction or planned for the area, it seems like some serious attention to developing the Gold Block and other nearby opportunities would yield more bang for the public buck than one more public environment expenditure on Burnside. Perhaps we should repave Burnside and solve the vehicular turning and pedestrian crossing quandaries this time around. It may be that Burnside could become a wonderful pedestrian oriented street on its own over the long haul because it lies adjacent to two vibrant urban villages: the area south of Burnside and Old Town/Chinatown to the north. Perhaps we should focus on enhancing the crossing experience across Burnside and linking these adjacent villages rather than creating a “Main Street” environment along Burnside.

2. Are couplets a good idea?

Couplets are notorious for facilitating traffic flow at the expense of a quality pedestrian environment. My observation of other couplets (NE Broadway-NE Weidler, Foster-Woodstock in Lents for example) is that drivers s