Improving Portland's grid (Sandy, Burns: transportation, vehicle, land)

[impala096]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

You aren't going to get a positive review of this idea cause it is a bad idea, everyone but you agrees this is a bad idea.

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.

Long-Term Trends in Public Opinion Following Construction of Roundabouts

Abstract
Roundabouts can provide substantial safety and traffic flow benefits compared with traffic signals and stop signs and as a result are increasingly used in place of traditional intersections. However, construction of roundabouts can be hampered by the negative perceptions held by some drivers. Prior research has found that public support increases soon after roundabouts are built and drivers become familiar with them. The purpose of the current study was to measure longer-term changes in public opinion in six communities where stop signs or traffic signals were replaced with roundabouts. Telephone surveys were conducted approximately 6 weeks before, 6 weeks after, and 1 to 5 years after construction of the roundabouts. The proportion of drivers in favor of roundabouts ranged from 22% to 44% before construction compared with 48% to 67% soon after roundabouts were built and 57% to 87% after roundabouts were in place for at least 1 year. The majority of drivers of all ages favored roundabouts after they were in place for 1 year or more, although support was higher among younger drivers (ages 18 to 34) and lower among older drivers (65 and older). There were small but nonsignificant differences between the opinions of male and female drivers. Drivers who said the roundabouts improved safety or traffic flow, or both, had more favorable opinions of roundabouts 1 to 5 years after construction. Results indicate that public support continued to increase with time, presumably because drivers became more familiar and comfortable with this form of traffic control.

The point is, just because the majority of people think something is a bad idea, doesn't mean it necessarily is. People warm up to roundabouts because they work. Your reasoning for why my proposal is a bad idea is overwhelmingly concise! Since you say it's a bad idea, it must be true. I can't fight your logic!

[EnricoV]

Originally Posted by impala096

Congratulations! Your most useful post was negative, misleading, and included a baseless claim that has been disproved.

You're right. It was negative. It was a negative reaction to your negative post, implying that the layout of the city doesn't work. It does. Go away. Please.

Nothing has been proven or disproven, just because you say it is. It's as silly an assertion as your "plan."

[impala096]

Originally Posted by EnricoV

You're right. It was negative. It was a negative reaction to your negative post, implying that the layout of the city doesn't work. It does. Go away. Please.

More false assumptions. I never stated that the current grid doesn't work well. Just because something works well, does that mean you shouldn't think of ways to improve on it? Let me get this straight... not embracing the 'status quo' is somehow being negative to you? OK.

Originally Posted by EnricoV

Nothing has been proven or disproven, just because you say it is. It's as silly an assertion as your "plan."

To be clear, i disproved your assertion (from post #7) that the proposed model has only a quarter of the cars as the current model. I made a logical explanation why the proposed model actually has 70% of the vehicles as the current model. Your assertion isn't disproven because i say it is, it's disproven because anyone who knows how to count can see that you're wrong (apparently, you can't count).

[Metlakatla]

You never did answer my question .... don't you think this could negatively impact the financial health of the downtown area if shoppers are discouraged from going there -- or from buying very much when they do? The kind of high-end, boutique shopping is important to cities like Portland. So how would this be good for the city in the long run?

[urbanlife78]

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.

The point is, just because the majority of people think something is a bad idea, doesn't mean it necessarily is. People warm up to roundabouts because they work. Your reasoning for why my proposal is a bad idea is overwhelmingly concise! Since you say it's a bad idea, it must be true. I can't fight your logic!

Actually you haven't stated a single reason why it would work. Also, you don't even know which streets you would close down and which ones would stay open.

Have you ever been to Portland?

Your video ignores the fact that there is light rail and buses running up and down 5th and 6th streets, as well as on Yamhill and Morrison. It also turns two lane east/west roads into 3 lane roads which would mean removing street parking. You also lose all the street parking on the roads that are no longer accessible to vehicles, thus making it even harder to park in Portland. Then there is an issue with garages, if you closed 3rd Ave and left 4th Ave open, you have garages on 3rd Ave that would be impossible to access. Then of course you are ignoring a major factor, there are only 14 north/south streets in downtown, not including Naito Parkway, and two of those roads are for the park blocks and are only single lane roads, so they couldn't be used in this system, which means there are only 12 usable roads going north/south, and you want to cut that number down to 6 roads for some random reason. Then of course you ignore the fact that with Portland's small blocks there are buildings on each block that have parking garage entrances at different points. Thus making planning on how to get in and out of garages a mess. And then of course there are the east/west roads which are treated as service roads in the city, so you want to another 14 streets from Market to Oak into 6 lanes while somehow providing access to the bridges into downtown, and working around the fact that downtown has light rail tracks making this idea impossible to do.


Notice how not a single one of the top 10 crash corridors are located downtown? That is because the issue with pedestrian/vehicle accidents aren't downtown, they are in parts of the city that lack pedestrian first safety, which is what this thread should be focused on, not something that isn't an actual problem.

Also, have you ever visited Portland? Or are you going to continue to dodge that question?

[impala096]

Originally Posted by Metlakatla

You never did answer my question .... don't you think this could negatively impact the financial health of the downtown area if shoppers are discouraged from going there -- or from buying very much when they do? The kind of high-end, boutique shopping is important to cities like Portland. So how would this be good for the city in the long run?

I do think it has the potential to negatively impact the financial health of downtown. Downtown pedestrian malls have a pretty dismal success rate. The reason why I believe Portland is different is because of the cities block size. You can fit 3 Portland blocks into a single Denver block, and having two back-to-back pedestrian streets in Portland is less restrictive to drivers than the 16th street pedestrian mall in Denver (the block size in Portland is smaller than the block in Denver).





In the proposed grid, you wouldn’t have back-to-back streets that severely restrict autos (like you currently do with 5th and 6th Avenue). Pick one of the avenues to make a two-way transit route, and convert the other street to allow multi-lane vehicle traffic. This would make it less restrictive for autos to get around downtown (and potentially improve the financial health of the area). To a certain extent, the current downtown layout is making it less likely for someone driving in their auto to want to stop and shop.

[impala096]

To be fair Urbanlife, do you really believe that current model was meant to be 100% accurate? Initially, it was meant to be a conceptual model that highlights signal progression through downtown. I'm focusing more on the theory, realizing it is a pie-in-the-sky idea that will never actually happen.

A few points, though:

1. Portland's blocks are small. If half of the streets of downtown Portland no longer existed, it would have block sizes similar to other cities that are much more dense.

2. It's not surprising that the top 10 high crash corridors aren't downtown. Downtown Portland has a bunch of one-ways (which studies dating back the past 60 years have found to be more safe than two-ways). More importantly, the lights along the one-way streets are timed for 12 mph. You would have try pretty hard to hurt somebody (that being said, i posted a video where the cabby hit 2 ladies, so there are idiots out there).

3. The logistic issues you bring up would be relevant if the proposal was actually being seriously considered.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by impala096

To be fair Urbanlife, do you really believe that current model was meant to be 100% accurate? Initially, it was meant to be a conceptual model that highlights signal progression through downtown. I'm focusing more on the theory, realizing it is a pie-in-the-sky idea that will never actually happen.

A few points, though:

1. Portland's blocks are small. If half of the streets of downtown Portland no longer existed, it would have block sizes similar to other cities that are much more dense.

2. It's not surprising that the top 10 high crash corridors aren't downtown. Downtown Portland has a bunch of one-ways (which studies dating back the past 60 years have found to be more safe than two-ways). More importantly, the lights along the one-way streets are timed for 12 mph. You would have try pretty hard to hurt somebody (that being said, i posted a video where the cabby hit 2 ladies, so there are idiots out there).

3. The logistic issues you bring up would be relevant if the proposal was actually being seriously considered.

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.

You idea that you are suggesting doesn't work on paper and when I applied it to reality, it failed.

So I see you are avoiding the question, how many times have you actually visited Portland?


Also, Portland has a higher density than Denver, and a good level of density compared to US cities, so the city block size isn't a factor.

[oldtintype]

Originally Posted by impala096

You make a lot of assumptions urbanlife78. If the mayor of Portland were to say "pedestrian safety in downtown Portland isn't an issue" he would be lambasted. You don't have to acknowledge the benefits of my proposal, but they do exist.

No he wouldn't. Particularly if he was comparing it to safety in east Portland where pretty much ALL the car/pedestrian interactions occur.

He would, however be lambasted if he said that bike safety in downtown Portland wasn't an issue.

[oldtintype]

Originally Posted by ChristinePDX

Eh, I think it's an interesting thought experiment. Portland is becoming known for city planning and transportation options. We're opening a new car-free bridge that is one of a kind in the nation. Why is anyone surprised (and apparently annoyed) that folks from out of town are taking notice and contemplating different ways to mix up transportation and urban design?

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.