Improving Portland's grid (garages, design, car)

[bler144]

Originally Posted by impala096

The proposal was just a general idea, so i really don't have any input on that, and judging by the comments it isn't getting much reception as it is. I just thought it would be interesting to have a grid that services "cars" interlocked with a grid that services "pedestrians/bikes/transit users". Portland seems to have a grid where this could be feasible (since the city has close blocks, and as someone mentioned previously, the current downtown streets are being underutilized).

Portland's block size (that services cars) would be similar to Barcelona:

At the conceptual level I can see where you're coming from, but Pdx's downtown doesn't look like Barcelona.

The main difference is population density - Barcelona is almost 10x as dense as Pdx (16k per km2 vs. 1.7k per km2). Arguably the densest part of downtown is NW, but there you're mostly talking about 2 story walk-ups with only a few high rises. It's dense mostly b/c parking is hard to find (and traffic coming down off the hill into the grid can back up pretty significantly, but the grid itself again, not so bad).

[impala096]

Originally Posted by bler144

At the conceptual level I can see where you're coming from, but Pdx's downtown doesn't look like Barcelona.

The main difference is population density - Barcelona is almost 10x as dense as Pdx (16k per km2 vs. 1.7k per km2).

It stands to reason that Barcelona, a city roughly 10x as dense as Portland, would have a higher concentration of streets to service the higher population density. The fact is, Barcelona's block size is spread a lot farther apart than Portland. You could argue that Barcelona has too few streets, or Portland has too many.

260 feet x 260 feet <- Portland's block size
450 feet x 450 feet <- Barcelona's block size

[bler144]

Originally Posted by impala096

It stands to reason that Barcelona, a city roughly 10x as dense as Portland, would have a higher concentration of streets to service the higher population density. The fact is, Barcelona's block size is spread a lot farther apart than Portland. You could argue that Barcelona has too few streets, or Portland has too many.

260 feet x 260 feet <- Portland's block size
450 feet x 450 feet <- Barcelona's block size

Conceptually fascinating, but doesn't change that you're investing a lot of thought into something that's currently not on the radar of pdx's actual traffic problems.

Now, if you wanted to argue that you're getting out ahead of future population growth and density in-fill, it's an interesting theoretical proposition (the likelihood and patters of which are at least debateable) looking a decade down the line.

But it wouldn't do anything to improve the current reality, and arguably it would make a few things worse. The lack of alignment between the north/south grids would require you to pretty carefully optimize which streets to open/close without worsening the transitions between the unaligned grids plus traffic exiting/entering the grid.

Also, while street parking doesn't make up a huge percentage of overall downtown parking (though much higher in NW and the Pearl than around PSU) it's a critical part of the overall parking mass. Closing streets to traffic entirely presumably wipes out those spaces entirely.

[urbanlife78]

Also which streets would one close? Most streets in Portland need to have the direct connection to road and vehicle traffic such as garage entrances, loading docks, and bridge routes.

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by impala096

It stands to reason that Barcelona, a city roughly 10x as dense as Portland, would have a higher concentration of streets to service the higher population density. The fact is, Barcelona's block size is spread a lot farther apart than Portland. You could argue that Barcelona has too few streets, or Portland has too many.

Well, you could argue that. Apparently until the cows come home.

[impala096]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Well, you could argue that. Apparently until the cows come home.

You haven't made an informative comment. By all means, disagree with me, but add something other than negativity to this thread.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by impala096

You haven't made an informative comment. By all means, disagree with me, but add something other than negativity to this thread.

But there is nothing wrong with Portland's street grid or traffic patterns downtown. Why change something that is working well? What benefit would come of this that isn't already being experienced?

[impala096]

One benefit, the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would be reduced. Less pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would increase pedestrian safety downtown. And yes, pedestrians do get injured in downtown Portland.

Police: Taxi runs light, hits 2 pedestrians | kgw.com Portland

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by impala096

You haven't made an informative comment. By all means, disagree with me, but add something other than negativity to this thread.

Congratulations. Not only are you redesigning a city which doesn't need your help, or input ... but now you're moderating this board.

What's next ... world domination?

Originally Posted by impala096

One benefit, the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would be reduced. Less pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would increase pedestrian safety downtown. And yes, pedestrians do get injured in downtown Portland.

Police: Taxi runs light, hits 2 pedestrians | kgw.com Portland

Lol. What a stretch. Yeah, if there were half as many streets to drive on, no one would run lights. Riiiiight.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by impala096

One benefit, the number of pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would be reduced. Less pedestrian-vehicle conflicts would increase pedestrian safety downtown. And yes, pedestrians do get injured in downtown Portland.

Police: Taxi runs light, hits 2 pedestrians | kgw.com Portland

I never said there isn't accidents in downtown Portland. But it isn't an issue, and very rare when it does happen.

Again, which streets would you even close off?