Burnside is a major street in Portland, notable for dividing north Portland from south Portland. West of the Willamette River, Burnside carries tens of thousands of cars each day on its four lanes moving in both directions. A block away, Couch Street is a much narrower, two-lane one-way street and moves only a few thousand cars each day.
Portland proposes to replace Burnside’s four fast-moving lanes with two slow-moving lanes.
Portland is proposing to turn Burnside and Couch into a one-way couplet. That is, Burnside would carry eastbound traffic and Couch would carry westbound traffic.
Normally, I am all in favor of one-way streets. They are safer and can move more cars than two-way streets. But Portland’s goal is not to move more cars, it is to move less.
Portland traffic counts indicate that Burnside carries 25,000 to 48,000 cars per day, depending on the intersection. Counts for Couch find only 2,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day.
In other words, though it has twice as many lanes, Burnside carries around four times as many cars, mainly because it has higher speeds.. Together, the two streets carry 36,000 to 60,000 cars per day.
Portland’s plan would reduce Burnside to two lanes and leave Couch at two lanes. Thus, two automobile lanes would disappear. The speed of the Burnside lanes would also be slower because the goal is to emphasize pedestrians, transit, and cycling. So we can predict that the total traffic after the change would be around 4,000 to, at most, 28,000 cars per day. Autos would lose more than half the capacity of the current streets.
Here the pill that comes into picture with viagra tablet great importance. They have no clue on the contents of the pill listed on the medicine mouthsofthesouth.com cialis in usa label. In some instances this male organ turns into to some instances, there is no bloating as well as volume http://mouthsofthesouth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/MOTS-Mathis-6-29-sale.pdf levitra uk and facilitates nitric oxide production. d) Chlorophytum Borivilianum: Any best male enhancement supplement has Safed Musli or Chlorophytum Borivilianum helps in improving testosterone levels in the body. The combine application order cheap viagra of the Mast Mood capsules and Night Fire capsules are highly effective to overcome from sexual weakness.
As a cyclist, I rarely use Burnside because the autos were fast (30 to 40 mph), the lanes narrow, and the stop lights not very forgiving. Any nearby one-way street is much more cycle friendly: traffic signals are coordinated to about 18 mph, which an active cyclist can easy meet, and lanes are wide enough to accommodate cars passing those cyclists who cannot keep up.
Still, why should every street in Portland be designed for cyclists? Why can’t cars use Burnside as a minor arterial?
Portland now wants to also put a streetcar on the Burnside-Couch couplet, which will reduce the streets’ capacity for cars even more. The city claims that “streetcar alone has demonstrated the ability to stimulate new development,” and the taxes paid by that new development will cover the costs of converting the streets.
Streetcars cannot possibly have demonstrated this ability, because Portland has not built any streetcar lines that were not accompanied by tax-increment financing, tax waivers, and other subsidies of nearby developments. But it is clear that the city is interested in replacing many of the businesses now on Burnside with new businesses that cater to a New Urban crowd.
The couplet proposal, then, will clearly produce winners and losers. The winners are the businesses that can orient themselves to pedestrians and cyclists, the developers who will get the redevelopment subsidies, and the contractors who will build the streetcar lines. The losers are the taxpayers and those who need to drive on Burnside.
According to an annual census of downtown businesses, the number of people who bicycle or walk to work in downtown Portland has roughly doubled since 2001. But that is still only 10 percent of downtown workers. The number who take transit to work has actually declined, while the number who drive has increased and account for more than half of downtown commuters.
Taking away downtown’s capacity to move cars may discourage some of those drivers. But rather than lead them to take transit or cycle, it will probably encourage some of their employers to move to some other part of the Portland area. Downtown has lost 5 percent of its jobs since 2001, and if there is no easy way for employees to get to work, those jobs may never come back.
That might be just fine with Portland’s inner-city denizens who think that cars are evil and cycling and walking are virtuous. But Portland will not protect the environment by simply pushing cars somewhere else. All it will do will be to increase the growing divide between the few thousand Portlanders who enjoy the heavily subsidized New Urban lifestyle and the rest of the region’s residents.
“the number of people who bicycle or walk to work in downtown Portland has roughly doubled since 2001…”
Wow, it has doubled in 6(?) years? Where did you get that number? 10% is pretty substantial. How does that compare with other cities in the US? I wonder what would cause such an increase? I wonder where these people could be walking or biking from?
Downtown Employees Getting to Work by walking and biking doubled from a small base (2%-4%, 3%-6%).
See page 11 of http://www.portlandalliance.com/pdf/2005census.pdf
Thanks
JK
WAIT A MINUTE!!
That picture does not show the streetcar blocking traffic, or the tracks or the beautiful overhead wires.
Thanks
JK
PDXF
Yes, walking and cycling to work has doubled. Where did the people come from? Mostly from the high-density developments that were supposedly generated by the streetcar. Why aren’t they riding the streetcar? Because cycling is many times faster than the streetcar and walking is about the same speed. Note that the number using the streetcar has not increased from 2001 to 2005.
In terms of total numbers, walking/cycling went from 4,300 to 8,300. So it is possible that all that high-density development got 8,000 daily auto trips off the road. It is more likely that many of those people would have walked or cycled anyway to a job in some other part of Portland. If so, than all that the high-density development did is move jobs from other parts of Portland to downtown — a win for downtown property owners, a loss for the rest of the region.
The Antiplanner If so, than all that the high-density development did is move jobs from other parts of Portland to downtown  a win for downtown property owners, a loss for the rest of the region.
JK: Isn’t increasing the bank accounts of rich downtown land owners, while the rest of us pay the bills, one of the goals of smart growth?
PS: I am beginning to like the term “urban concentration camp†for cities with UGBs.
Thanks
JK
It is more likely that many of those people would have walked or cycled anyway to a job in some other part of Portland. If so, than all that the high-density development did is move jobs from other parts of Portland to downtown  a win for downtown property owners, a loss for the rest of the region.
This argumentation ignores nonwork trips. I have discussed this before on this site. Nonwork trips are at least half of all trips, unless your new ITE vol 6, Randal, says something new from my v5.
1. Please show some job growth/loss numbers, Randal, in block groups that show that hi-density development cannibalized job growth in the suburbs.
2. And please share with us the Cost of Community Services in those blocks. Why? I’m looking for your CBA on why it is better to tax for new infrastructure rather than rely on extant infrastructure.
DS
Dan: I’m looking for your CBA on why it is better to tax for new infrastructure rather than rely on extant infrastructure.
JK: I think both the Antiplanner and myself are aginst the city of Portland building a BILLION dollars of new infrastructure to support the 5000 new living units in the nigh density N.Macadam UR district.
For the math challanged: that is 1 Billion / 5000 = $200,000 per unit. Enough for a nice house in areas that the planners haven’t screwed up yet. Since you will probably ask: the official city number is around $220 million. One phase came in at over 500% over budget, so lets assume only 250% over budget to lowball the final cost od the rest of the project. So, apply 250% overbudget then add 30 year bond’s interest.
Just in case yuo missed it: THAT IS CITY TAX MONEY OF $200,000 PER UNIT TO BUILD HIGH DENSITY.
Thanks
JK
Right.
I directed my comment toward Randal, who I suspected might do a better job of giving a fair cost of infrastructure in the suburbs so we can compare development costs between two locations.
The suburbs where these mysterious people, now forced to live in downtown density, would have purportedly preferred if they were allowed to live in lower-density areas. What is the cost of all that spread-out infrastructure? More or less than downtown?
DS
Dan What is the cost of all that spread-out infrastructure? More or less than downtown?
JK: I can’t believe you even ask after seeing $200k per little cage in downtown.
Thanks
JK
That would be a partial function of equilibrium pricing on rents.
I’m still looking for comparative numbers. I continue to wait patiently for comparative numbers.
DS