Improving Portland's grid

[oldtintype]

Originally Posted by impala096

Ever hear of the phrase "the masses are asses"? Case in point. Modern roundabouts. Whenever a new community is considering a modern roundabout, most people in the community who aren't familiar with roundabouts hate them for a variety of reasons (mostly unfounded). Then the modern roundabout gets constructed, and their perception changes.

Every heard of ignorance is bliss or better yet, people who have their head up their ass?

You think we're all ignorant because we don't like your idea, but you're certain, after sitting behind your computer and programs, that we're all wrong. Portland is at the forefront of urban planning and lots of exciting things happen here. There have been some great improvements to do with traffic flow such as the Burnside/Sandy Blvd connection but your idea just isn't valid. If it was one of the zillion urban planners here would have already thought of it.

Did you get an A on your fictional project?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by oldtintype

Because he's not offering ideas, he's telling us we're wrong for not liking it and providing something that isn't necessary. There are TONS of areas where traffic needs improvement. Downtown isn't anywhere on the top 100 list. Everyone focuses on downtown and inner Portland when they come up with ideas. Look at east Portland, especially outer east Portland and worry about the area that really needs help. But, they never do because it's not as cool.

Yeah, I would be much more interested in hearing alternative ideas to improve traffic conditions and pedestrian safety in East Portland.

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

Accidents happen, not a reason to close down streets. Portland has small blocks because they wanted more corner lots because they brought in higher rents.

Early writings also claim it was so that 16 blocks would divide evenly into an acre. That way a land claim could be split efficiently and evenly.

[bler144]

I grew up with roundabouts. And Portland even has a few. They only add significant efficiency when people know how to use them correctly.

What you are perceiving isn't the dumb masses objecting to change out of fear or unfamiliarity. The core issue here (as I've said before) is that you're talking about fiddling with something that's way down the list of priorities for attention and limited transportation $$.

Higher on the list of transportation issues:
Westside congestion
Interstate bridge
Myriad places on the east side where pedestrians/cyclists are routinely hit and killed
Inefficient flow in/out of downtown (not within downtown)

Plus your model purports to increase traffic speeds downtown. Even if you're moving most pedestrian and cycling traffic off onto non-vehicle streets there will still be places where those traffic types conflict, and so quite arguably you could end up increasing the number of serious/fatal accidents.

Portland has major transportation infrastructure needs, and the consensus here seems to be that you're focusing on something that wouldn't make the top 10 list. The anecdote of a downtown pedestrian accident caused by a cab driver doing something anomolous isn't particularly meaningful - accidents aren't 100% preventable. In many other places in the city the actual road design heightens the risk of serious collisions when parties act in 'rational' ways. Those are the sort of issues transportation engineering can be employed to address.