Burnside Plan
June 22, 2011
Mayor Unveils West Burnside Ideas
Mayor Adams posted a letter on his web site today, outlining stripped down alternatives for treatment of West Burnside Street.
The focus is a much-reduced project, $18M rather than the original $80M. And it does not include streetcar:
We completed the 25-year Citywide Streetcar Strategy. It showed me the need to prioritize streetcar extensions on the east side of the Willamette River.
The primary approach is a hybrid 3/4 lane Burnside that creates more left turn opportunities and improved pedestrian crossings.
But there is also an option for a "skinny Couch" to couple with Burnside - it looks like a very heavily traffic-calmed version of the original couplet idea.
I'm looking forward to learning a lot more in the near future.
Posted by Chris Smith at 9:08 PM | Comments (16) | Permalink
October 11, 2010
Eastside Openings this Week
The East Burnside/Couch couplet has been in operation (and refinement) for a couple of months now, but the official ribbon cutting will be Tuesday at 9AM.
In terms of real change on the transportation system, I hope the new signaling system for bikes as they cross the freeway entrance at Williams on NE Broadway (installed as part of the Streetcar project) will be a big safety improvement. This is one of the scariest conflict points in the City. The exact start of operation is not determined (weather dependent), but it should be this week.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:11 AM | Comments (14) | Permalink
June 21, 2010
Asking the Right Question About Burnside/Couch
It would appear that the debate over the future of West Burnside and Couch is about to re-ignite.
This will be round three. I participated in round one, back in the middle of the last decade, when I represented my neighborhood in NW Portland on the stakeholder committee. There was broad consensus during that process that a couplet with Burnside and Couch on both sides of the river was the best answer to how to tame the traffic on Burnside.
Round two occurred after newly-elected Commissioner Sam Adams was given control of the Bureau of Transportation and with both PDC and the Bureau of Planning expressing concern about the couplet, conducted a complete review. The result was that the eastside couplet received a greenlight, while the westside was closer to a draw, with City Council giving direction that a couplet could only move forward if a streetcar were included (on the theory that the couplet harmed Couch, but that harm could be offset by the addition of a streetcar). The couplet was also terminated at 16th (rather than 18th) as a result of advocacy by the parents at the Cathedral School. PBOT was directed to further refine the options, including a non-couplet option.
Now it appears that Mayor Sam Adams is ready to take up the issue again. An 'under-construction' PBOT web page links to the prior couplet proposal and what appears to be an updated version of the 'enhanced existing' (non-couplet) proposal.
The opposition also now has a web site up and appears to have used the 3-year hiatus to get organized. Round three looks like it could be a spirited debate.
Which leads me to wonder if we are debating the right question. The couplet design was premised in part on the assumption that we could not reduce the amount of auto traffic on Burnside. Given that constraint, the couplet was an attractive option to split the traffic in half, putting two lanes on each street (so a pedestrian did not have to venture a crossing of four lanes of fast-moving cars) and then moving them in a slower but more continuous fashion by using progressive traffic signals on each block.
I am doubtful that Burnside will ever be very pedestrian-friendly if we must maintain the current traffic flow in the same right-of-way. But I'm also confident that if we were willing to reduce the amount of traffic, Burnside could be a very nice place indeed without needing to shift traffic onto Couch.
So I would propose an alternate question for Round Three: how much traffic should Burnside carry for it's desired role in the Central City's future?
Posted by Chris Smith at 12:20 AM | Comments (30) | Permalink
April 14, 2007
Couplet on Blue Oregon
Heads up. There's a discussion of the Burnside Couplet going on over at Blue Oregon.
Read and comment over there.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:28 PM | Comments (0) | Permalink
April 12, 2007
Couplet Lives to Fight Another Day
I was fortunate to testify relatively early in the process yesterday, as part of one of about a half dozen invited panels.
That was before some 80 members of the public testified.
I had to leave immediately after my testimony to get to an MPAC meeting.
I just finished going through almost six hours of video of hearings (and I still missed the vote/final statements of Sten and Potter, which went past the 6-hour mark I had set my recorder for). Thank god for the 30-second-forward button on TiVO.
The net is that the couplet will move into preliminary engineering. But auto traffic will return to Burnside at 15th, so the Catholic Cathedral and School will not be impacted by additional cars.
Still in question is whether the Streetcar might use the stretch of Couch from 15th to 19th. That issue will be studied further.
Commissioner Saltzman who felt "trammetized" wants to keep the Enhanced Burnside alternative alive in case costs for the couplet turn out to be unfundable. The Mayor is concerned about how the project competes for funding with other transportation priorities.
Commissioner Sten wants to make sure that the couplet doesn't happen UNLESS the Streetcar also happens (this is different from Sam's previous position, which was that the decision was divisible - he has apparently now embraced the full bundling). Sten also added an amendment tying the decision into the Central City Plan update process (a potential delaying factor) but with a strong suggestion that the Central City Plan better include the couplet.
As part of the discussion, Sam had to defend the local match funding sources for the Streetcar Loop project and took pains to point out that they don't compete with the potential Burnside sources.
Net result: A unanimous vote for $2.6M to start preliminary engineering on the couplet, and $500K to do project development on the Enhanced Existing option as a backup if the couplet proves too expensive.
Sam also has marching orders to figure out how the City-wide rail plan will get integrated into the early stages of the Central City Plan update.
Planning DIrector Gil Kelley, a confirmed couplet opponent, chose to go to MPAC rather than the Council hearing. I doubt he will be thrilled with the direction to reconcile the couplet with the Central City Plan.
We're a long way from done...
Oregonian blog coverage here.
Posted by Chris Smith at 1:17 AM | Comments (23) | Permalink
April 10, 2007
Crunch Time for Burnside
City Council will take up Commissioner Adams' request to fund initial engineering on the West Burnside/Couch couplet tomorrow (3pm Time Certain).
Whether you're a fan or a foe of the project, this is your best opportunity to influence the outcome. Commissioner Saltzman appears to be skeptical. No word on the other 3 members, but Sam is known as a very good vote counter and it's hard to believe this would be on the agenda if he didn't think it was going to move forward.
Patricia Gardner, one of my fellow stakeholder committee members, has a nice op-ed piece in support of the couplet this morning.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:40 AM | Comments (30) | Permalink
March 6, 2007
Playing Politics with Burnside
Yesterday the Oregonian, not content to take on the Burnside/Couch project on its merits, attempted to conflate it with the current electoral debate about Portland's form of government.
I've published my rebuttal over at Blue Oregon in the more political context over there.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:12 AM | Comments (1) | Permalink
February 28, 2007
Planning Commission Disses the Couplet
Because I was at the CRC task force last night, I missed the Planning Commission work session on the Burnside/Couch couplet, but here's the update I got from a fellow neighborhood activist:
The motion made by Don Hanson and carried in a 3-1 vote (and 1 abstention) made the following recommendations to:
- not move forward on the B/C couplet
- enhance Burnside
- address Burnside safety issues
- develop an urban design and development on B/C
- eliminated Broadway as a barrier between East and West Couch
- make more positive pedestrian environment as development occurs
- make streetscape improvements
- apply sound economic strategies and assist social services in the area
- make turn lanes from Burnside
- evaluate East/West streetcar alignment as a part of the rail system plan to find the best spot for it
Further, they recommended that IF the City Council does adopt the couplet to:
- implement pedestrian safety measures on Burnside now
- make streetcar part of the up front improvements
- do not extend the couplet past 16th, however the streetcar could be
- make I-405 overpass upgrades
- make street designation changes right away
My personal view is that the Planning Commission fails to appreciate that the 'enhanced Burnside' alternative delivers only a fraction of the benefits to pedestrian safety that the couplet does and that any serious attempt to tame the traffic while Burnside is still a two-way street will have significant effects of diverting traffic into the surrouding neighborhoods.
Stay tuned for the next round in the bout at City Council on the 15th of March.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:12 AM | Comments (70) | Permalink
February 14, 2007
Burnside Decision Saga Continues
Yesterday the Planning Commission got additional updates from Commissioner Adam's staff (the Commissioner himself has his jaw wired shut, which apparently did not keep him from meeting the Archdiocese Friday).
After the update the Commission discussed the project but failed to get to a motion on a recommendation to City Council. One member was opposed to the couplet (preferring the "enhanced Burnside" approach). Others expressed support for the process - now running since 1999 - to get to the recommendation and concern about safety on Burnside. And some thought the couplet should terminate at 15th rather than 19th.
They'll try again to get to some coherent recommendation at their next meeting on the 27th. This means the recommendation will come out only a few days before the City Council meeting on March 1st.
Meanwhile, the Oregonian editorial board chose up sides against the couplet.
Posted by Chris Smith at 8:00 AM | Comments (0) | Permalink
February 5, 2007
Gragg Disses Couplet as "an unrelenting sameness"
In Sunday's Oregonian Randy Gragg casts the Burnside/Couch couplet debate as a battle between "Road People" and "Urban People".
Apparently Randy would put me in the "Road" coalition, which I find ironic given my efforts on alternative transportation.
Posted by Chris Smith at 7:22 AM | Comments (38) | Permalink
