Burnside is already "hamstrung" as an evacuation route from all the damn potholes and crazy ups and downs of that street. Wider sidewalks would be nice.

I hope Chris won't mind if I use this opportunity to plug my Upper West Burnside Compromise Proposal.

See:
http://www.bobrichardson.com/burnside_compromise.html

- Bob R.

I *really* like the idea of the Burnside/Couch couplet. I also like Bob R.'s idea of the meandering Burnside with 10/11ft travel lanes, and wider/narrower sidewalks.

But, I just gotta wonder... does Burnside *have* to be 2-way, 2 lanes from NW 24th to NW 15th? What about using the Glisan/Everett couplet, and putting in pedestrian scramble intersections along those routes to eliminate their current capacity-reducing bottlenecks? This might allow Burnside to transition to either 2-way, 2 lanes, or 1-way, 1 lanes for that stretch.

Otherwise, how will bicycles be accommodated in the Burnside/Couch corridor from NW 15th to NW 24th?

Is it too late for this comment, in terms of the process? Any other thoughts?

cheers,
~Garlynn

Besides the geographical problems (there is no easy way to connect a westbound Glisan to a westbound Burnside beyond 23rd), Burnside also exists to provide access to points south, and moving westbound traffic way over to Glisan would prevent westbound access to destinations south of Burnside. You cannot use Everett as the westbound street (by swapping the current roles of Glisan and Everett) because the direction is determined by the ramps of the Steel Bridge.)

The current couplet plan avoids condemnation of private buildings (and associated costs). You could theoretically extend Couch further westward but you'd have to destroy much of a neighborhood to accomplish it.

- Bob R.

Bob-

You raise very good points, and I wouldn't normally quibble over details, except that I would like to point out that it would, technically, be possible to connect NW Glisan back to Burnside via NW 24th Avenue and NW 24th Place. This would require changing the directionality of NW 24th Avenue, and some improvements to NW 24th Place, as well as traffic signal improvements to the whole area. However, it would not require condemnation of private property.

Also, in my experience, it is eastbound traffic that most requires the southbound access from Burnside, due to the nature and angles of the street grid, as well as the land uses south of Burnside and west of 16th. For that westbound traffic that did need to turn south, 17th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 23rd all go through equally well from Glisan as from Burnside, albeit with a very slight time penalty (greater on 21st and 23rd due to traffic).

Extending Couch further westward would, agreed, be completely unacceptable, due both to the massive old church and everything else in the way.

Just wanted to raise this point, as the whole Burnside concept would be a lot better if the whole 4-lane no-parking narrow-sidewalks no-bike-lanes thing could be completely eliminated from that stretch.

cheers,
~Garlynn