This comment is more applicable to statewide bicycle travel. How about some small campgrounds specifically for bicyclists situated along the lengthy trails? Perhaps in areas not accessible by car, but only by foot and bicycle. With hot showers, a large covered shelter, air pump, telephone, maps and guides, wooden lounge chairs, besides the firepits, tables and tent spots. Cross-state bicyclists have tremendous exposure to the elements and having spots where they could rest and recover could promote more recreational bicycle travel.

Unfortunately I am not cogent about the existing trails but some potential ones could be: Lower Columbia Valley, Willamette Valley to Coast, Central high desert.

This would indicate it's not the best idea to have little kids walking/riding their bikes along busy automobile routes where they are more likely to get killed.

Not getting killed would probably be a prerequisite to being happy...

'Course, if you want a good example, waterfront park & jamison park. I think we need more small pocket parks around our densifying neighborhoods as well, to give people places they want to walk to that are even closer.

Justin: On the contrary! The point of planning for children's happiness is that every street would be safe for kicking pebbles. Bring on more kids! Let's build lot of parks, but streets are also part of the public realm and provide opportunities for exchange. Shouldn't we design streets that are darn hard for anyone to get killed? that unite not divide communities? where drivers always expect a child to run into the street? where the elderly are shown respect and patience when crossing the street? Street design is the major factor in changing driving behavior. So bring out all the devices we can to slow traffic and let kids play in the street again.

One route that comes to mind with Rons' comments about have rest areas only for the main cross state routes would be along the Springwater Trail as it is planned to finally reach Estacada.

If we had that route set up, the route to the coast could also be worked on. It seems the Vernonia route gets some good bike traffic (there is already a rail to trail section out that way).

I have thought that in the future having a place near the Springwater Trail that served hot and cold drinks to the campers/riders would be a great way to retire, stay home, and meet new friends.

Ray

I think any of the state park campgrounds provide a good example of what happens when you tame automobiles to be part of the environment rather than dominating it. People walk, ride bikes, kids play and the traffic looks out for them. Our neighborhoods should work that way.

Yea, but you don't have commuters in a hurry and stupid young kids (hey - I'm actually one here, not picking on anybody) with little sports cars pretending they are race car drivers out in the woods.

In Southwest portland, there are lots of streets without sidewalks. The neighbors also go on a lot of walks with their friends and dogs, and I've never heard of anyone being hit before. The roads tend to be really narrow, with blind corners and sometimes 10-dropoffs right on the edge of the road, which is probably why there are no sidewalks in some areas.

Oh, and before I was just pointing out that there are some areas that are extremely dangerous to pedestrians to the point of I would never want a kid to be out walking along a busy road - let alone to be designed as a happy place. I think there are little steps we need to take, especially in pedestrian-unfriendly areas.

I'd love to see some tiled walkways with interesting designs/patterns on them... we've gotta have some whimsical starving portland artists who want to do pathways and stuff??

Karen's idea is timely and essential (existential?). What if our cities were designed to make sure citizens were happy? We would start with analysis of why people are unhappy. Some things i could think of include: inadequate housing and education; fear of crime; lack of time with friends and family; sense of isolation... you get the picture.

Instead of using public funds to build arenas, we would build neighborhood plazas ringed with places where neighbors could meet each other while their kids played. Instead of superhighways where "harried commuters" race, we would build urban villages where one's work was within walking or biking distance of one's home. We would tax land instead of buildings to encourage more investment. We would tax carbon emissions instead of income to encourage more energy efficiency and let people keep what they earn.

As Karen says, in the area of transportation we have a lot we can do to increase the happiness quotient. First is to see all that space we call streets is really public opportunity space. We can open our imaginations and really think about how we might use these long and wide public spaces in a way that makes people's lives better. How about widening all sidewalks in business areas to 20 feet so sidewalk cafés are feasible? It would only take a few feet from the driving space (which is really in full use a miniscule part of the day, maybe 6 hours out of 24) and create an incredible boost for community interaction and business activity.

Think of it if every residential street was only wide enough for one car to pass through at a time, going slow, sharing the road with kids and dogs and soccer games. Is there any reason traffic on a residential street should go faster than 10mph???

Even this last modest proposal would ease parents' minds immensely about the safety of their children. It would also reduce one of the biggest complaints about city life: the noise of the internal combustion engine. And, with all the streets so nice to walk along maybe everyone would get out of their cars more often.

Next we can tackle housing and poverty.

Rex,

I am all for the visions presented in this thread ( I hope you read mine about bicycle camgrounds). I do have a question regarding METRO's vision of "urban villages" which I know is a cornerstone of the present Transportation planning. When I have spoken up publicly and said that we will probably need to make some allowance for further auto travel and to avoid bottlenecks one would think I had joined the highway construction lobby, judging by the response. That is not what I intended at all.

My question is: As job opportunities are created in surrounding "urban villages" with local jobs is there, really, any assurance that people will remain there, living where their job is? There has always been a desire for people to live in the beighborhood that they work in, provided it meets their other requirements. If it doesn't they commute. And as long as there have been cities there have been commuters. The "urban village" is just the early 21st C. version of a neighborhood, then. So eventually, for some people the job will be in walking distance, some will have a local commute, some a distance commute. People change: employers, careers, houses, spouses,level of responsibility, schedule of hours, you name it. So even if they intended to work close to their home, they may just as easily, end up elswhere. The people that do live closer to their work may tend to be non-homeowners who can relocate much easier.

As this Metropolitan region grapples with a new juncture of transportation challenges, on a scale we have not had to for quite some time, I think it is important that we plan it out correctly and cost-effectively now, so that we do not have to implement expensive remedies later. But we should also be minfdul of extravagant spending and out of control lobbies (Please see my comments in other threads.)