Making upper West Burnside between 23rd and I-405 two lanes in one direction and one lane the other direction is a take-a-way for motorists that will only have negative impacts and create more congestion elsewhere.. And for what, so that little used sidewalks can be widened. What a waste of transportation dollars. Just require a set back if and when new development occurs.

Furthermore, if this ridiculous three lane plan does take effect, then all Tri-Met service in the one lane direction should and must be removed from the street in order to maintain a reasonable traffic flow, and so that busses stopping for passengers do not block an entire direction of travel. If a mobility impaired person is getting on or off the bus, the travel blockade could last for up to five minutes. I question if any of these frequent bus blockades were part of the modeling. The three lane plan only guarantees more congestion, more fuel consumed by motorists while waiting for busses to move, and additional negative impacts to air quality.

Terry, perhaps the sidewalks are so little used because they are so narrow? Not many people like crowding on an 8 ft. strip of concrete with traffic wizzing by at 30mph+.

The movement of traffic elsewhere is exactly what WAS modeled. During the PM Peak, removing the eastbound lane put the following extra cars (per hours) on other Streets:

SW Alder (which has plenty of capacity and is a straight shot into downtown): 115
SW Jefferson: 30
Sunset Highway: 30
NW Everett: 40-55 (depends on section)
NW Lovejoy: 25

Locating TriMet stops is an issue, and that level of modeling/design has not been done yet. The options would be either to create some pullouts using the lane width saved, or eliminate stop locations in some sections. This would clearly have to be worked out.

Terry, perhaps the sidewalks are so little used because they are so narrow?

And, really, they're not so little used. I often walk up to NW 23rd up Burnside, and there are always plenty of folks walking up and down Burnside, even when we have to squeeze past each other. And, yes, it is not a pleasant experience, especially with cars so often blocking the intersections or cars coming out of Goodwill, Taco Bell, et all blocking the already narrow sidewalks.

Leaving the street and sidewalk without improvement is not an acceptable alternative.

Eight foot wide sidewalks seem appropriate. Most people are less than four foot wide and shouldbe able to pass easily.

Terry -

An eight food sidewalk includes a zone for streetlights and telephone poles, newspaper boxes, trees (what few there are), street signs, etc one the auto side, and a zone for steps, facades, window sills, store signs, rain gutters, etc., on the building side.

The "through pedestrian zone" is thus much narrower than 8ft.

Yes, two able-bodied people traveling in opposite directions may pass in the narrower through-zone, but as soon as you have any kind of meaningful pedestrian activity, which also includes wheelchairs and people standing (waiting for a bus or looking at store window displays), plus handtrucks for deliveries, residents moving furniture in and out, etc., the sidewalk quickly becomes congested.

Now, all of us are pedestrians at one time or another, even motorists (unless they live in their cars), and nearly all adult pedestrians pay taxes of some kind. Shouldn't the needs of pedestrians (especially safety) be considered as part of any changes to Burnside?

Before you label me as being anti-car... please note that I did submit a proposal many months ago that would have preserved 4 lanes on Burnside while carving out a bit more pedestrian zone. If you are curious to see it, please view the following link:

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

Chris - do you know if this option got any serious consideration? Did you hear any comments about it?

Thanks,
Bob R.

Bob, I think a 10/11 mix is probably still in the range of discussion (although I don't favor it), but the meandering part has never come up.

Further to Terry's comment, the city standard for sidewalks is a 12' minimum in most places, and in the Central City the standard for east/west streets is 15'.

Bob Richardson's proposal (10/11) is still the
most realistic "solution" to this problem, adding
a foot of width to each sidewalk while preserving
traffic flow and not degrading transit service.

Thanks, Nick.

- Bob R.

Bob,

Thanks for having your thinking cap on.

Your innovative compromise suggestion is far better than four ten foot lanes; however there still are safety issues with it. As you noted, a TriMet bus is ten and one half inches mirror to mirror, as are many commercial vehicles. Although busses may stay in the right hand lane, it would be much more difficult to restrict commercial vehicles, large pickups and wide trailers to the right hand lanes. There is also a high probability that vehicles of all kinds in the ten foot lanes will cross over the center line when going around busses or other vehicles stopped in the right hand lanes.

Safety is undoubtedly the reason the Federal Government will only fund eleven foot lanes. We do not see the City installing two foot wide bike lanes just because the tires on a bicycle fit between the lines. If the any of lanes on Burnside are less than eleven feet wide, the City should seriously consider banning busses and large commercial vehicles from this transportation corridor street.

As for the City’s twelve foot wide sidewalk standard, I view this as just an arbitrarily picked number because a standard motor vehicle lane is twelve foot wide. Neither will work when space will not accommodate them. Vehicle counts vs pedestrian counts should identify the greatest need.

What the City start should start doing is invite direct motorist representation to the Citizen Advisory table on projects such as this one, equal to what is done for all other modes of transport. My suggestion is to leave upper West Burnside as is, and use the transportation dollars elsewhere.

And thanks, Terry... we may disagree about many things (especially over on CommissionerSam.com) but I do appreciate it where you've pointed out areas of common ground.

- Bob R.

Although busses may stay in the right hand lane, it would be much more difficult to restrict commercial vehicles, large pickups and wide trailers to the right hand lanes.

TriMet has agreed to the 10 foot lanes. The Freight Master Plan, just adopted by City Council with the strong endorsement of the freight industry classifies Burnside as a "Truck Access Street" meaning it should only be used for local deliveries. We should not see anything bigger than a panel truck on a regular basis.

What the City start should start doing is invite direct motorist representation to the Citizen Advisory table...

As far as I know, most of the advisory committee members, including myself, are motorists and drive cars.

Terry - Regarding "direct motorist representation" to sit on various committees, what criteria would you apply? Would a seat for a car owner who commutes primarily by car and does not own a bike or ride transit suffice? Or would you require some kind of ideological or political test?

Chris - I know that TriMet has agreed to the 10ft lanes. TriMet operates in narrower lanes now. It is my personal opinion, after several near-mishaps on Hathorne and other parts of town, that operation of standard buses in 10ft or narrower lanes creates a very limited margin of safety. Of course, a Streetcar on Hawthorne would solve a lot of clearance issues. (Hint hint)

- Bob R.

In response to Bob & Chris,

The criteria for direct motorist representation should be any person that commutes by automobile, uses a car daily in their line of business and/or uses their car daily as a primary mode of transport. These people would be on advisory committees specifically to represent the interests of motorists in the same manner bicyclists, pedestrian advocates and transit advocates represent those respective modes, and almost always have direct representatives on advisory committees. I continue to dwell on this point because 80% plus of trips in the metro area are made by automobile. Yet, when I attend transportation planning meetings, about all I hear is a choir of criticism towards the motor vehicle.

Without giving names or the neighborhood, I will attempt to give you an example why I feel direct motor vehicle representation is categorically needed on CACs. I attended the Metro New Look Regional Forum at the convention center. At the same table where I was assigned, there was a Metro Counselor, a transit advocate and a freight/bicycle/transit advocate, all of whom I know. Also at the table was the transportation chairperson of a town center neighborhood whom for the most part spoke in criticism of the automobile when the subject was brought up. I am very familiar with this particular neighborhood and its history. The neighborhood has good transit service, yet when the City has removed or restricted parking, the store fronts have soon become empty. I also have long time friends that live in, and own a number of both commercial and residential properties in the same town center neighborhood. One of their concerns to maintain both a business friendly environment and retain store front tenants is motor vehicle access and on street parking. Obviously these property owners are not being represented by the transportation chair of their neighborhood.

Personally, I believe this paradigm plays out many times over.Therefore, if there is direct bicyclist representation (5% of vehicle trips), pedestrian advocate representation (all representation uses the sidewalks) and transit advocate representation; to bring balance and equality to CACs, there should also be direct motor vehicle representation to represent the majority of those driving and their interests.