Parks, Parking Disconnect


Yesterday I swung by Pioneer Courthouse Square to check out the open house on planning for the new parks and updates to Park Block 5, O’Bryant Square and Ankeny Park.

One of the panels was about the “Park Avenue Vision” urban design concept which is intended to tie these parks together and link them to both the North and South Park Blocks. This panel had pictures of four great pedestrian streets from around the world (lousy cell phone photo below). One of the unifying themes: they were all car free.
Yesterday I swung by Pioneer Courthouse Square to check out the open house on planning for the new parks and updates to Park Block 5, O’Bryant Square and Ankeny Park.

One of the panels was about the “Park Avenue Vision” urban design concept which is intended to tie these parks together and link them to both the North and South Park Blocks. This panel had pictures of four great pedestrian streets from around the world (lousy cell phone photo below). One of the unifying themes: they were all car free.

The vision panel immediately above (online copy lifted from Portland Online) for Portland’s implementation shows parking for the retail, so cars would obviously be going in and out.

Am I the only one who thinks this could be a monkey wrench in a great urban experience?

Picture042_02Aug06

vision


24 responses to “Parks, Parking Disconnect”

  1. Is there even *one* car-free street in Portland? Even Eugene has one … there must be one i’m not thinking of. somewhere. right?

  2. A street can be designed to be pedestrian-centric and still accommodate cars. The 4 streets they used as examples have narrower ROWs and mixing cars and peds would have been less feasible. I think that Park Ave between Salmon and Couch should have a unique paving pattern that unifies the stretch from the N & S Park Blocks. Cobble stone or brick or textured concrete all have traffic calming effects and could be utilized here. And curbless streets, similar to the new festival blocks in Chinatown, would help reinforce the pedestrian nature of the street.

  3. I agree with mykle. Can’t we have even 1 or 2 car-free streets in Portland? If I’m sitting at that sidewalk cafe in the picture, I don’t want to be breathing someone’s car exhaust. Perhaps we can just allow zero emission vehicles on these streets. :-)

  4. I think there are a number of examples across Europe where one can see successfull pedestrian-only avenues and areas. Copenhagen, numerous Italian cities, Amsterdam, to name a few that I have seen. I dont see why Portland cannot integrate a few into downtown. Personally, I would like to see a downtown pedestrian-only area built out around pioneer square that spreads out over a number of blocks. Innovative solutions have been used before to allow access to trucks, emergency vehicles, etc. through the use of metal “stumps” that go up and down to allow access into the central city as long as someone has the key card to get in.

    I once saw a guy named Jan Gehl speak in Seattle at their Urban Sustainability forum. He is an urban designer from Copenhagen who spoke about the need for many US cities to take back public spaces. His design group has been instrumental revitalizing Copenhagen’s downtown for pedestrian use. He highlighted Portland as really the only city in the US that has been actively trying to reclaim the downtown area for pedestrians.

  5. Eugene did away with most (all?) of their downtown pedestrian mall in recent years.

    In a strictly technical sense, we Waterfront Park is a car-free street… so car-free that the “street” part of it was removed entirely.

    Some blocks on certain E-W streets in the Pearl District are car free, such as several blocks of NE Kearney.

    Yamhill between SW 1st and SW 3rd is car free.

    9+ blocks each of SW 2nd and SW 3rd are completely car free between Market and I-405. That’s 18 blocks of pedestrian-only space, surrounded by many trees, at least 2 major public plazas, and parks.

    Since the construction of the Lloyd Center, NE 12th St. between NE Halsey and NE Broadway has been car-free.

    Some of the car-free streets have been car-free for so long that we’ve forgotten that they once had cars.

    I’d personally love to see more car-free spaces, and I love the idea of visually connecting the park blocks, _but_, making a particular street car-free can have a very bad impact on the existing retail on that street.

    This is not to say that car-free streets are incompatible with certain types of retail, but I mean that the existing retail/business on a street grows with certain expectations of mode of access, customer type, merchandise type, delivery services, etc.

    If Park Ave and/or 9th were to be made car-free, then relocation assistance (and I mean good, complete relocation assistance including advertising, permitting at the new location, etc.) should be given to any existing business that doesn’t want to remain. Let the cafes and small boutique shops move in, but let anybody who expects to primarily deal with people arriving by car move with a minimum of pain.

    Beyond that, I don’t think that either of these two streets in particular _should_ be made car-free. They already are fairly calm, being only 1 lane wide plus parking and having stop signs every block. But these streets provide valuable local circulation and represent the only way to get around by car between Broadway and 10th, and there are a lot of destinations in that area. To close them off would therefore require a car or delivery van circling the block from Broadway to go all the way up to 10th and come back down. (The transit mall already prevents a number of circling routes to the east of Broadway.)

    (Incidentally, for those that argue that a couplet can never be calm, Park/9th function as a couplet and they are about the calmest through streets downtown.)

    I happen to like the drawing that the city has shown (above)… to me it is a reasonable compromise between maintaining the existing (and important) access in that area, while enlarging the pedestrian environment and further calming the street.

    – Bob R.

  6. I agree with bob on this one.

    I think creating a pedestrian-centric park/9th couplet is the best option we have. If additional traffic calming measures were adopted its likely that the only cars on those streets would be for delivery and local trips.

    If were gonna insist on pedestrian *only* streets, we need to take mass transit to the next level in order to compensate. At this point in time, it seems like a compromise is the best solution.

  7. If you look closely at their rendering, you see that cars enter Park Ave via a curb cut that brings the cars up to the “sidewalk” level. This is a very effective tool in letting drivers know that they are entering a pedestrian zone, especially when distinctive “tactile” paving is used. Like Bob said, the Park/9th couplet is already the calmest couplet downtown. Eliminating cars there altogether will cause unnecessary hardship on the businesses along those streets.

  8. I remember getting out of class at PSU and rushing down to provide testimony at a hearing for the approval of the Fox Tower project application. My testimony basically amounted to this: If the Fox Tower is going to displace two old historic cinemas with a structure that has a new cinema and a load of underground parking, it should be a condition of project approval that the surface parking lot next door be turned into a park to complete a gap in the Park Blocks.

    I’m glad to see that this is finally becoming a reality!! My testimony probably had little or nothing to do with it, but at least I tried, right?

    I think that the drawings shown here will vastly improve the streetscape of Park Avenue, and along with the new park, definitely help to improve the neighborhood.

  9. So let me clarify the point I was trying to make with this post. It’s not that I think the Park Avenue Vision is bad, I think it’s going to be a great thing.

    My point is that a ‘car lite’ street is being compard to some outstanding car-free streets. They’re not the same thing and we shouldn’t think we’re going to get one of those streets out of this process.

  10. I think they have the right idea in their rendering. Mixing cars and people in the right of way has been done successfully all around the world and makes for a good experience for all.

    A good example is First Thursday in the Pearl District. Some of the streets are closed, but others are open to auto traffic, and since there’s so many people and no sidewalks they have to go really slow, but they can still get through.

  11. Mixing cars and people in the right of way has been done successfully all around the world

    I am not sure that is true in the United States. I can’t think of any truly successful city streets that do this. I have to look at campgrounds for examples where pedestrians and autos successful share the right-of-way.

    The problem is that we are conditioned to rules. Who has the right-of-way? What happens when someone fails to yield it? Do they get a ticket for jay-walking?

    I am not saying this should be auto-free. But I agree with Chris that they aren’t the same thing and there shouldn’t be the expectation that you can put cars there and end up with a pedestrian plaza.

  12. International Car Free Day will likely be held somewhere on SW Ankeny. This event is intended to kick off an effort to create an east to west pedestrian- and bike-friendly corridor downtown, starting with narrow Ankeny and hopefully ultimately linking the waterfront with the Park Blocks.

    Imagine being able to walk along friendly, mostly-carless corridors from the Esplanade to Waterfront Park to Powells to the art museum, only having to pay special attention to street crossings and historic trees. Good for local life, good for tourism, good for business.

  13. Maybe it could be flexible. Main street (?) closes every night that Schnitz or theatre are in action, during the farmer’s market, other times.

    A street could be car-lite during the day and car-free at night when fancy euro-Portland diners are enjoying their new lifestyle.

  14. “Can’t we have even 1 or 2 car-free streets in Portland?”

    Can’t we have some bicycle-free streets?

    If we can have car-free streets, we can certainly have bicycle-free streets too!

    Although I oppose making SW Park and 9th Avenues non-motor vehicle streets (again Bob – you and I seem to at least partly agree on this point), I offer the following safety related compromise: Completely ban all bicycles from SW 2nd, 3rd, & 4th Avenues, SW Broadway and SW 10th & 11th Avenues. Then re-design Park and 9th specifically for bicycles. Any bicyclists caught using one of the banned bicycle streets would be subject to a $300.00 fine for the first offence. The amount for each offence after the first offence would double each time the same bicyclist is caught. Since the majority of bicyclists tend to show no respect for traffic laws, the fines paid by bicyclists would go a long way towards paying for the project. Furthermore, such a project should not be paid for by motorists whom already subsidize the majority of bicycle infrastructure.

    I also oppose relocating businesses and tearing down the historic buildings on Park and 9th. The former Goldschmidt concept/proposal probably won’t happen. What is of concern though is who will pay for any new aesthetics on these streets. The money should not come from transportation funds.

  15. Terry, I frequenly ride on 4th Ave on my way home from work. I take the center lane and readily keep up with traffic since it’s mostly downhill. It doesn’t seem to bother the cars behind me. What’s your objection to my presence?

  16. Chris,

    For a number of reasons including being an over priced place to do anything, I tend to avoid going downtown if at all possible. However, when I do, one of my observations is that bicyclists ignore traffic laws on 4th Avenue more frequently than on many other streets. Maybe because the street is down hill. The most common traffic violations start with a bicyclist riding the lane lines squeezing in and out, and zipping past in between cars waiting for a signal to change, then once a head of traffic, blowing through ever red light down the street. It would be safer for everybody if the bicyclists were not there at all.

  17. I don’t think that line of reasoning makes much sense, Terry, nor do I think you would appreciate the consistent application of this principle.

    Would you support closing down the highways to automobiles? Most of them willfully defy speed limit laws, change lanes without signalling and engage in erratic behavior which endangers themselves and others on the road. Or perhaps you would support closing down the street I live on to cars, the majority of which are routinely driven too fast for conditions and blow through the stop signs capping either end of the block.

    Point is, car drivers engaging in these behaviors is considered an acceptable de facto standard even though it violates the law. The difference is that car drivers breaking these laws present a clear and present danger to others that is an order of magnitude greater than that presented by cyclists, pedestrians or whomever else doing the same.

    BTW, as of January 1st of this year, cyclists are legally allowed to pass cars on the right, meaning that it’s legal for cyclists to engage in the first part of the scenario you describe above. Running stop lights remains illegal, however.

  18. “Terry – care to cite a reference for this?”

    My observations. Watch sometime at a signalized at intersection or street frequented by bicyclists. Notice how many ride right through a red light, jump the signal before it turns green or make an illegal turn. If construction has not changed the bicycle usage, one suggestion might be to observe am rush hour at the west end of the Burnside Bridge. Another suggestion would be to stand near a stop sign on a well traveled bicycle route. See how many bicyclists actually stop and put their foot on the ground. I think if you do such observations and are straightforward with your findings, you will agree with my asessment.

    “ Would you support closing down the highways to automobiles?”

    No-totally different. What I am suggesting is a trade off for the safety of all within the confines of downtown. Bicyclists only amount to 05% of vehicle trips, Motor vehicles 80 plus percent. Bicyclists keep stating how little space they take up. Asking bicyclists to give up the use of six streets in favor of the exclusive use of two other streets is percentage wise in the favor of bicyclists. By not including the 5th & 6th Avenue transit malls as bicycle banned thoroughfares, the maximum number of side by side bicycle banned parallel streets is limited to three. All cross streets would still have bicycle access, therefore all blocks downtown could still be accessed by bicycle. Bicyclists continue to want their cake and eat it too. If bicyclists want exclusivity, they must be willing to give up something to motorists and others as well.

    “The difference is that car drivers breaking these laws present a clear and present danger to others that is an order of magnitude greater than that presented by cyclists, pedestrians or whomever else doing the same.”

    Nothing here but sour grapes. Such a statement implies that just because somebody else breaks a law, who ever, bicyclists should be able to do so as well, and, cyclists breaking the law pose no safety issues themselves and others, and therefore the laws should not apply to bicyclists. Wrong on both counts.

    “BTW, as of January 1st of this year, cyclists are legally allowed to pass cars on the right, meaning that it’s legal for cyclists to engage in the first part of the scenario you describe above”

    1. Only when it can be done in a safe manner.
    2. It still does not allow bicyclists to pass cars in the middle of the street on the white lines with traffic on both the right and the left, the lane lines as I previously stated, and as is done on 4th Avenue downtown.

  19. See how many bicyclists actually stop and put their foot on the ground.

    FYI, only the cessation of forward motion is required for a legal stop. Placing a foot on the ground is not necessary.

    If bicyclists want exclusivity, they must be willing to give up something to motorists and others as well.

    Fine. You get I-405, I-205 and certain portions of I-5 and hwy26. They’re yours.

    Nothing here but sour grapes.

    You’re misreading me. It’s not sour grapes, I’m simply pointing out that your stated rationale doesn’t make sense given your otherwise quid pro quo, tit-for-tat value system.

    It still does not allow bicyclists to pass cars in the middle of the street on the white lines with traffic on both the right and the left

    ORS 811.415 doesn’t appear to stipulate this. Where did you get this understanding?

  20. What the heck, I guess I’ll humor this strange argument…

    Terry: so if I am a bicycle messenger, or a bike commuter who happens to work on the streets you propose making illegal for bicycle access, yet traversing them is the safest and fastest way of doing so – what has this accomplished?

    I think people commonly forget that transportation systems need a way to get people the last few feet to their destinations. It’s not all just ‘corridors,’ but – just like in broadband – the last mile is oftentimes the most important. It goes for all modes: car parking, bike parking, sidewalks and ped zones.

    Not to mention the fact that people need space to simply relax and take a break – which is what parks & plazas are for.

  21. It still does not allow bicyclists to pass cars in the middle of the street on the white lines with traffic on both the right and the left

    ORS 811.415 doesn’t appear to stipulate this. Where did you get this understanding?

    I read that section and you are correct, but was that really the intent? To allow bikes to split lanes of traffic? That certainly wasn’t how I understood it. I thought we were getting the right to pass that line of cars and go up to the light while staying to the right.

    I think if you want to ride down the middle of the street you should take a lane. The idea of someone passing in the same lane as an auto where there is no extra space seems extremely unsafe.

  22. Actually, ODOT is considering to allow motorcycles to split lanes, like they do in California – I just filled out a survey from ODOT on this about 2 months ago, being a scooter-ist.

    Personally, I think its suicide, BUT…

  23. I think if you want to ride down the middle of the street you should take a lane. The idea of someone passing in the same lane as an auto where there is no extra space seems extremely unsafe.

    Agreed. The only exception where I can see this being safe is if the lane to one side is a forward-only lane and to the other is a turn-only lane, meaning that the cyclist would immediately escape the wedge right as the flow resumes motion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *