Improving Portland's grid (Burns: closing, live, moving)

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

If you want to shorten a commute time there are other routes one can take in Portland rather than driving through downtown. Plus driving through downtown doesn't take that long.

Besides which, what really seems to jam up the traffic downtown are people trying to turn, and having to wait for/dodge pedestrians crossing the streets. This does nothing to mitigate that.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Prove it. First, there are "autos" on only half as many streets, and secondly, they're much more spaced out than on the first one. The first one, is traffic on every street, bumper to bumper. The second one, on only half the streets (gaining only the "intersection" space).

If you count the number of vehicles per platoon for both videos, the proposed model has roughly 25 vehicles per platoon while the current model has roughly 18 vehicles per platoon. You have to multiple the 25 vehicles/platoon by 0.5 since the proposed model has only half the number of platoons.

[25*0.5] / 18 = 70%

The proposed model has roughly 70% of the vehicles as the current model, much higher than the “quarter number of cars” you pulled out of thin air.

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Besides which, what really seems to jam up the traffic downtown are people trying to turn, and having to wait for/dodge pedestrians crossing the streets. This does nothing to mitigate that.

Portland, OR - 6th Avenue One-Way Drive - YouTube

The 3:30 mark in the video is a perfect example of what you're describing. Left-turning car is conflicting with a pedestrian, and in turn jams up everybody behind them.

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by impala096

If you count the number of vehicles per platoon for both videos, the proposed model has roughly 25 vehicles per platoon while the current model has roughly 18 vehicles per platoon. You have to multiple the 25 vehicles/platoon by 0.5 since the proposed model has only half the number of platoons.

[25*0.5] / 18 = 70%

The proposed model has roughly 70% of the vehicles as the current model, much higher than the “quarter number of cars” you pulled out of thin air.

Fine, so you're admitting that there are half as many "cars" in the first as the second. No one said anything about judging "platoons" ... just the number of cars. What, do you think all those cars are just going to disappear because you've closed off half the streets? There needs to be the same number of CARS present in both scenarios.

The distance between each "car" in the two videos is not the same. The second scenario, the "cars" are further apart. You've done nothing to convince me that they're not.

Bottom line, your proposal is still pure b.s.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by impala096

If you count the number of vehicles per platoon for both videos, the proposed model has roughly 25 vehicles per platoon while the current model has roughly 18 vehicles per platoon. You have to multiple the 25 vehicles/platoon by 0.5 since the proposed model has only half the number of platoons.

[25*0.5] / 18 = 70%

The proposed model has roughly 70% of the vehicles as the current model, much higher than the “quarter number of cars” you pulled out of thin air.




Portland, OR - 6th Avenue One-Way Drive - YouTube

The 3:30 mark in the video is a perfect example of what you're describing. Left-turning car is conflicting with a pedestrian, and in turn jams up everybody behind them.

That video isn't the best example because it is done on the bus mall which only has one lane for cars, most streets in downtown Portland have 2-3 lanes for cars which makes it easier to pass people waiting for pedestrians while turning.

Do you live in Portland? Serious question because it seems like you think the slower speed through downtown is a problem when it isn't.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Fine, so you're admitting that there are half as many "cars" in the first as the second.

You're horrible with Math. 70% isn't half.

Originally Posted by EnricoV

No one said anything about judging "platoons" ... just the number of cars. What, do you think all those cars are just going to disappear because you've closed off half the streets? There needs to be the same number of CARS present in both scenarios.

If you shut down half the roads to traffic, there's likely to be a reduction in capacity. The latest trend is to convert one-way streets to two-way streets which leads to a similar reduction in capacity, but it's still done.

Originally Posted by EnricoV

The distance between each "car" in the two videos is not the same. The second scenario, the "cars" are further apart. You've done nothing to convince me that they're not.

Ever hear of the "two second rule"? The following distance between vehicles increase as the speeds increase, which explains why the vehicles in the proposed model are spaced further apart. This is intuitive to most people.

[oldtintype]

Just because someone is obsessed with urban planning doesn't mean they actually know what they're doing. What works for one city may not be the best for another. Most people in Portland drive in downtown to get to an arterial freeway, not to get to somewhere (as in people don't cut thru downtown on their way to other places--there are plenty of faster routes). And when downtown no one drives the bus mall to get somewhere quickly. Dumb example.

Downtown is small. There's no need for this. If you want to figure out something for Portland focus on speeding up the freeways and eliminating bottlenecks. Good luck with that.

And even better, learn to know your audience. Posting about random urban planning issues all over the country doesn't mean you know the city and the needs a city has.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Do you live in Portland? Serious question because it seems like you think the slower speed through downtown is a problem when it isn't.

I do not live in Portland.

That being said, your comments relate to a minor issue of the proposal (the traffic light timing). I previously explained how the city could maintain a 12.5 mph speed limit by increasing the cycle length of the traffic signals.

The major issue, and i am interested in your input, is that half the streets would be converted to pedestrian only streets. The pedestrian zones in downtown would increase dramatically and the car carrying capacity would be reduced through downtown. I'm assuming you view these as good things (based on your screen-name and other posts I've read from you on this forum). It seems like you are hung up on the speed that you don't acknowledge any potential benefits.

[oldtintype]

Pedestrian only streets in that area aren't really necessary or wanted. Portland prefers to focus on the bike infrastructure which is more productive and utilized. Downtown is not heavily mobbed by people. A city like San Francisco is more suited to large parts of downtown being pedestrian only.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by impala096

The major issue, and i am interested in your input, is that half the streets would be converted to pedestrian only streets.

Actually your major issue is that you're trying to put more cars in Portland when the goal is less cars. You also did not account for the fact that three of the streets in your maps each have one lane dedicated to MAX trains already. While two more have an entire lane dedicated to bikes (which incidentally account for about 25,000 trips per a day within the Downtown core.) Shifting your model a few streets isn't going to work either, because if anything it's smoother and less dense traffic in other areas.

You're also not realizing that downtown isn't really a walkable destination as it is. Most people work there and commute out (bike, MAX, Bus, Autos) somewhere else. Nightlife sees a about a quarter of the same population, also mostly via commute. There simply is not a reason to increase pedestrian density in downtown.

Bike density would be a good thing though as the bulk of those trips are multi-mile trips. If you want to play urban planner a better idea would be a way to more efficiency dump traffic from I-5 and Barbur Boulevard Downtown, and to remove it via I-405 and I-5. That backup from that makes more of a problem then smoother traffic downtown.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by impala096

I do not live in Portland.

That being said, your comments relate to a minor issue of the proposal (the traffic light timing). I previously explained how the city could maintain a 12.5 mph speed limit by increasing the cycle length of the traffic signals.

The major issue, and i am interested in your input, is that half the streets would be converted to pedestrian only streets. The pedestrian zones in downtown would increase dramatically and the car carrying capacity would be reduced through downtown. I'm assuming you view these as good things (based on your screen-name and other posts I've read from you on this forum). It seems like you are hung up on the speed that you don't acknowledge any potential benefits.

Downtown Portland doesn't get the amount of traffic volume you think it does, there is no need for that many pedestrian only streets in the downtown.

What you are saying downtown Portland should be like is what it is already like with its current system.

I suggest making a trip to visit Portland and to get a better idea how the city functions first hand.