Burnside/Couch couplet

[urbanlife]

I support it for the eastside. On the westside, I look down Couch and wonder who in their right mind wants that much traffic on this street? I am all for running a streetcar up and down Couch, but to push all that through traffic on that street is just stupid. Couch is probably the most pedestrian friendly street in this city to a point that it is hard to drive down it without worrying you will run over somebody. If this goes through, they will be talking about the dangers of crossing Couch instead of Burnside.


Plus the issues with Burnside, how many of those involve bums crossing the street when it wasnt their turn to cross?

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by rsbear

For a cyclist relying upon body power I can see where having to go around the block to account for the one-way street grid might be a burden. But to simply label them "stupid one way streets" is, to me, stupid.

yea it's "stupid" when reflecting on it from your computer in the calm quiet of your room. But when you are cycling in traffic and turn into a one way street by accident because you don't yet know your way around; well if you aren't calling it a "stupid one way street", I'd say you have something wrong with you. You are way too calm. Yea, now I can navigate downtown on a bike no problem. But it took me a couple months to get to that point. If I were tourist in this town I'd say "screw it" and just drive, adding more congestion.

I'm not 100% against the coupling, nor for it. There are downsides either way. Like urbanlife says, Couch on the west side is gonna be completely transformed, and probably not for the better. Living near the Wielder/Broadway coupling on the inner east side, I can say crossing Wielder is a much bigger pain in the ass than it should be. What would be a nice narrow street is basically ruined by excess through traffic that Broadway could probably handle (as a one-way it actually seems to have excess capacity). Sorry to be crude but that ambiance in that area sucks for pedestrians far more than it should, and I imagine the coupling has some part in that.

On the other hand we get rid of that idiotic Sandy/Burnside/11th/12th triangle from hell on the eastside... well... I'll believe that when I see it...

But you can disregard a lot of what I say cause I just don't like couplings very much. Can't really explain why, they just annoy me... I think it's cause they facilitate too much movement, where two-way streets facilitate staying put.

[digme]

In my town we have two one way streets the cut through the middle of downtown. Its great for moving traffic, so great that everyone speeds. This makes it very unfriendly for pedestrians/bikers and there is a lot of noise pollution in that area. I have often thought about how the whole area would be improved if they made the streets 2 way again.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by hymalaia

yea it's "stupid" when reflecting on it from your computer in the calm quiet of your room. But when you are cycling in traffic and turn into a one way street by accident

If you aren't watching signs and prevailing traffic, you shouldn't be riding a bike down busy streets.

[Sekkle]

I don’t think a couplet on the Westside would turn Couch into a Broadway/Wiedler-type street. I just don’t think the roadway width is there to make it turn out that way - both B’way and Wiedler are 3 lanes, at least through Lloyd. Couch would be two, one of which could have a streetcar tracks, and (I assume) there would still be frequent stops (unlike b’way/wiedler), though it would be interesting to see what the plans are as far as that goes.

I think it would be more along the lines of 10th/11th through the Pearl, which are still very pedestrian-friendly streets (though I do agree with urbanlife that Couch is remarkably walkable, even by Portland standards). It might be something of a trade-off where Couch becomes slightly less pedestrian friendly and Burnside becomes much more pedestrian friendly.

Then again, maybe the traffic volume would make it impossible to retain the frequent stop signs on Couch, and it could become a much less pedestrian friendly street if speeds go up...

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Oh, I'm sorry! I forgot that you have to drive a car to have an opinion.

No, I was just making the point that trying to force everyone to use alternatives by just ignoring transportation problems is not a solution, it's a way to make sure that voters and tax payers never adopt your ideas.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by JordanL

No, I was just making the point that trying to force everyone to use alternatives by just ignoring transportation problems is not a solution, it's a way to make sure that voters and tax payers never adopt your ideas.

Thankfully for me, there's not much voter say

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

Thankfully for me, there's not much voter say

Until you piss them off, and then you get refferendum votes which create voter say by preventing agencies from doing things without public approval.

[Pavlov's Dog]

On the Westside I think a cut-and-cover tunnel from Park to the freeway would be a better alternative to the couplet. It would at least remove through traffic from the steet scene. It seems like tunneling is a no-go among Portland's planners.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Until you piss them off, and then you get refferendum votes which create voter say by preventing agencies from doing things without public approval.

I don't think Portland has much to worry about from the SOV lobby

[hymalaia]

Originally Posted by alexjon

If you aren't watching signs and prevailing traffic, you shouldn't be riding a bike down busy streets.

well I don't mean you'd literally turn into a one way street going the wrong way, but rather you'd be constantly worried that such could happen, thus dedicating a lot more of your attention towards street signs, attention that could and should be going TOWARD THE ROAD. Riding a bike is simply more taxing on the nervous system than driving a car, and thus the effects of confusing, unpredictable street signs is amplified. I consider one way streets confusing UNLESS you already know they are going to be there. Everyone who navigates downtown on a bike shouldn't be required to study a map before hand, nor be hyper alert multi-taskers.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by hymalaia

well I don't mean you'd literally turn into a one way street going the wrong way, but rather you'd be constantly worried that such could happen, thus dedicating a lot more of your attention towards street signs, attention that could and should be going TOWARD THE ROAD. Riding a bike is simply more taxing on the nervous system than driving a car, and thus the effects of confusing, unpredictable street signs is amplified. I consider one way streets confusing UNLESS you already know they are going to be there. Everyone who navigates downtown on a bike shouldn't be required to study a map before hand, nor be hyper alert multi-taskers.

Weird, I like to go on bike rides through downtown because it is relaxing and enjoyable. I have never had much issue with signs. Actually I have found tourists seem to have more problems driving in downtown because of all the construction and one ways.

[nobody]

As someone that just moved to Portland and primarily gets around on a bike I think downtown is fairly easy to get around. I live off of Burnside so unless I want to go to the Pearl I pretty much have to do a loop to get into downtown.

As far as one way streets are concerned I think it's pretty easy to tell what type of street you're looking at by, well, looking at it and the direction of the cars. Kind of a rudimentary riding skill.

The only thing that irks me about cycling in and around Portland is that sometimes street signs seem sporadically placed. I mean actual street name signs, not road markings and things like that.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by nobody

The only thing that irks me about cycling in and around Portland is that sometimes street signs seem sporadically placed. I mean actual street name signs, not road markings and things like that.

I found out that was a trick they play on new people, but when you learn the streets you'll get pretty good at just knowing instinctively where you're at.

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

I don't think Portland has much to worry about from the SOV lobby

Alex, c'mon. You know I'm not flat disagreeing with you, I'm pointing out that the stance you expressed, even in jest, is one that a large part of Portland takes seriously, because they feel ignored and abused by the more "progressive" part of Portland.

My parents for instance, avoid driving when possible, have never owned an SUV, and are at least partially concerned about environment.

But they would be livid if the city truly tried to force them to not drive by simply ignoring infrastructure related to driving, as you suggested, I think, sarcastically.

[alexjon]

Originally Posted by JordanL

Alex, c'mon. You know I'm not flat disagreeing with you, I'm pointing out that the stance you expressed, even in jest, is one that a large part of Portland takes seriously, because they feel ignored and abused by the more "progressive" part of Portland.

My parents for instance, avoid driving when possible, have never owned an SUV, and are at least partially concerned about environment.

But they would be livid if the city truly tried to force them to not drive by simply ignoring infrastructure related to driving, as you suggested, I think, sarcastically.

The problem, though, is that most of the money we need for infrastructure MUST go to I-5 so focusing on making it very efficient to move through the central city requires a lot of sacrifices and changes in habit. I know people don't like to admit it, but until we fix I-5 both at the border and through the Rose Quarter, we're really going to have to get creative with inner-city transportation. Even if it means sacrificing lane miles.

[tworivers]

(bump)

Work on Couch apparently begins this month. They're doing sewer work in the area right now -- I'm guessing that is in preparation for the transition to a couplet? The whole project is scheduled to be done Fall 2010.

I can't wait to see that intersection at 12th disappear...

[JordanL]

Originally Posted by alexjon

The problem, though, is that most of the money we need for infrastructure MUST go to I-5 so focusing on making it very efficient to move through the central city requires a lot of sacrifices and changes in habit. I know people don't like to admit it, but until we fix I-5 both at the border and through the Rose Quarter, we're really going to have to get creative with inner-city transportation. Even if it means sacrificing lane miles.

I'm all for levying a bunch of use fees and local fees to fund fixing I-5. I don't see any of these things as mutually exclusive though.

[northbay]

Originally Posted by pdxcrow

I think requiring people to drive around the block in-order to "go left" is far better than people wating to make lefts on small street and blocking traffic while the right lane is blocked at the same time by a friggin bus.

Just restrict left hand turns during rush hour (on ALL streets), if not all hours. The majority of people are just trying to get back the burbs anyway.

Thats a quick fix. Oh, and buses also aren't allowed to stop during those hours either. And nobody better think about crossing the street.

this is what sf does. works like a charm

[tworivers]

There's a blurb in the current SE Examiner about the B/C couplet being "stalled" due to "unanticipated issues" with the sewer work -- and that they hope to "do everything in one one construction season" next Spring.