John Fregonese, one the nation’s premier regional planners, spoke last night at the Portland Spaces/City Club “Bright Lights” series. Of course, transportation was a frequent topic. Some of John’s thoughts:
- On transit in our region: buses are being neglected. He’d much rather forgo MAX on Barbur and Powell and provide much better bus service throughout the region, including creating more ‘hubs’ in the system besides downtown Portland (e.g., Beaverton, Gresham).
- On the CRC: he supports a replacement bridge, but thinks the current 12-lane concept is a product of the “transportation-industrial complex” and will not/should not be built. He likes Metro’s call for more local control in the design.
- He believes Portland is now dense enough to “pedestrianize” (close to cars all or part of the day) some streets, starting with the park blocks.
0 responses to “Fregonese on Transportation”
foolishness, recall downtown Eugene, was closed to auto traffic and died, people stopped shopping there, shopped in the burbs and still do..
Buchanan Street, in Glasgow, has been closed to auto traffic and is a booming shopping area, anchored by a large shopping mall at the top of the street. It’s a very pleasant stroll down a wide street with shops on both sides. Of course, it’s lined with gorgeous Victorian buildings, but the principle is the same. Such an area needs to be well-planned, and can’t simply mean blocking off random streets and hoping for the best.
Portland is not Eugene; it’s a much more dense, much more urban environment. There are already portions of the Pearl or NW Portland that have a huge amount of pedestrian traffic and terrible auto access and their shops and restaurants are bustling.
Good points, Jeff. Amsterdam also has pedestrian streets that are crawling with shoppers. But that’s a city which is much more multi-modal than Eugene is.
[Moderator: Personally directed remark removed.]
I want us to be like AMSTERDAM!
YEA BABY!
Get us a red light district and coffee shops with showcases full of marijuana and close the streets to automobile traffic!
Best idea I have heard in years!
Check out Flanders and Davis in Chinatown in NW.
No curbs, different paving, cars OK, but clearly not business as usual.
Let’s continue this in the Park Blocks, certainly with the new park block next the the Fox Tower, then next to the new highrise, then O’Brian Sq.
For this to work you need lots of peds, which means lots of transit and density.
NW 21st/23rd might also be candidates for a different kind of paving/curb design that, while not prohibiting motor vehicles, would insure that they operate in a fashion that really “shares the road” with with bikes, peds and transit.
1st & 2nd downtown between Ash & Burnside should absolutely be closed down. Several reasons.
1. It wouldn’t damage the businesses, there is barely any parking anyway.
2. A market could open in those street blocks.
3. It would be great for safety when everyone is drunk.
4. Even better, they could allow the bars to be open 24/7 around there. It could be like our own miniature New Orleans.
5. It would offer “traffic calming” (you guys like that on this blog right?) to those streets with the re-routed cars that are trying to wiggle around onto Burnside.
6. It would be much more amenable to the condos/apartments in the area that are trying to build.
7. You could even position Saturday Market open air events into the streets. This would be a great touristy trap.
I’m sure there are other reasons too.
John Fregonese, one the nation’s premier regional planners, wrote: On transit in our region: buses are being neglected. He’d much rather forgo MAX on Barbur and Powell and provide much better bus service throughout the region, including creating more ‘hubs’ in the system besides downtown Portland (e.g., Beaverton, Gresham).
Let me repeat it again, because it sounds good.
On transit in our region: buses are being neglected. He’d much rather forgo MAX on Barbur and Powell and provide much better bus service throughout the region, including creating more ‘hubs’ in the system besides downtown Portland (e.g., Beaverton, Gresham).
Is anyone from the City of Portland, Metro and TriMet listening?
A renowned planning expert is calling for BETTER BUS SERVICE!!!
(I fully expect the Metro Councilors to come out of their shells and give me ten reasons why they disagree with this renowned planner.)
One more time:
On transit in our region: buses are being neglected. He’d much rather forgo MAX on Barbur and Powell and provide much better bus service throughout the region, including creating more ‘hubs’ in the system besides downtown Portland (e.g., Beaverton, Gresham).
He believes Portland is now dense enough to “pedestrianize” (close to cars all or part of the day) some streets, starting with the park blocks.
It should be noted that S.W. 2nd and 3rd Avenues, in the South Auditorium/Portland State University neighborhoods, are pedestrian zones from Market south to Lincoln, are pedestrian zones.
I’m not sure that those two streets would be considered a “success” – despite numerous apartment/condo developments there (or under construction) and numerous office buildings, there is nothing along the pedestrian walkways that make them welcoming. They make a nice walkway at lunch time, but they don’t attract people.
there is nothing along the pedestrian walkways that make them welcoming
Lovejoy fountain. Pettygrove park.
I agree there isn’t a whole lot of pedestrian activity in these areas, but they were created primarily as office/residential and not retail. The parks and sculptures are tranquil/contemplative in design. That doesn’t necessarily mean that other pedestrian zones couldn’t be set up to be more vibrant/active.
“Planners in Portland, Oregon, and Minneapolis-
St. Paul agree. “Congestion signals
positive urban development,” say Portland
planners, who have decided to allow rush-hour
congestion on most major highways in the
region to deteriorate to stop-and-go conditions.
In fact, they say, “transportation solutions
aimed solely at relieving congestion are
inappropriate” in most of the region.”
“Sacramento’s plan to spend $3 billion on transit capital improvements was projected to increase transit’s share of rush-hour commuting from 2.6 percent to a mere 3.0 percent.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-617.pdf
An Attachment to Failure
Sacramento, California’s, 2006 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan admitted that transportation
plans written for the region “during
the past 25 years have not worked out.”
• Despite building light rail and making
other efforts aimed at “luring drivers
out of their autos,” the share of transit
riders who “have access to an automobile
[and] can otherwise choose to drive”
was decreasing.
• Despite efforts to promote alternatives
to driving by discouraging sprawl and
promoting high-density infill, sprawl
“continues to out-pace infill . . . and
businesses increasingly prefer suburban
locations.”
Cont. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-617.pdf
Bob R. Says:
“I agree there isn’t a whole lot of pedestrian activity in these areas, but they were created primarily as office/residential and not retail.”
Not true. The South Auditorium Project had quite a bit of retail space in its early years. The motel property recently purchasd by PSU on Lincoln Street was built as a Ramada Inn, and it had a Denney’s Restaurant next door. The building that was torn down to make room for the Cyan Condos was originally used as retail space. The strip mall that houses the Plaid Pantry at First and Lincoln was also built as a retail center.
With the exception of the motel, all of these retail uses died off within a few years of the project’s completion. Since then, these buildings were converted to office use, and have sat mostly vacant until the recent round of redevelopment began.
The area is lacking in pedestrian activity though, and this is why retail has had such a tough time surviving.
Lance –
Thanks for that info… I must admit that although I grew up here, my impressions of that district are primarily from the last 5-10 years, even though I spent time there off and on as a kid.
I wouldn’t include the Ramada Inn or the Denny’s as being indicative of pedestrian-only (or even pedestrian-oriented) developments, as they were accessible from regular streets, were set back from the sidewalk, and had parking lots.
Aside from coffee shops and convenience stores, were there ever any retail businesses within the pedestrian-only corridors or facing the interior parks/plazas?
An example of a pedestrian-only space geared toward retail with high pedestrian activity is the Santa Monica Promenade.
Bloody shame about the dead zone. Lovejoy Fountain could be a fantastic pedestrian area if there was any reason to go there other than the fountain itself.
I would think that all that housing and office space could support a coffee shop, and maybe a restaurant row of small hole-in-the-wall places along Second or Third. Possibly even a small supermarket; I look at all those high-rises and wonder “where do all these people go for groceries?”
Was there really no market there? Or was the retail space just really badly designed?
Ped-only streets have a dubious history in the US. They were tried, failed, and reopened to cars in cities across the country. Many of the reopenings are recent, and have resulted in the slow return of activity.
The most successful ped streets seem to be what Lenny has suggested: cars are allowed, but only at slow (calmed) speeds. This allows some added retail visibility, avoids dangerous “dead zones” where there are no eyes on the street, often allows on-street parking (which businesses love), and prioritizes the safety of peds.
It takes a LOT of density for ped-only retail streets to work, as well as a lot of concentrated destinations on a single street. I don’t think we’re anywhere close.
Of course, we do have some very nice residential ped streets in the Pearl.
I used to live in one of those garden apartments on Harrison at 2nd. My balcony overlooked one of the pedestrian walkways. It was actually a wonderful neighborhood to live in, precisely because it was under-used. The parks were nice, quiet places to go walk the dog (if you had one), or just read a book or hang out. Except for the fountain, which actually did draw a lot of people, especially on hot days.
The real problem, IMHO, is that there was NO pedestrian-oriented retail space designed into the project originally, and it was not designed as a mixed-use neighborhood.
Rather, it was originally designed as a residential enclave, with business uses around the fringe. Therefore, it is working exactly as designed. It’s great for the residents, or for the pedestrian cut-through traffic of people on the way from and to other places — too bad the freeway effectively cuts off the pedestrian grid at the south end of the neighborhood, as does Naito Parkway on the east end.
I think that pedestrian-only spaces could work quite well in Portland. PSU has a large pedestrian-only area, and it works quite well for that campus environment. It would suck for cars if this were extended down the length of the Park Blocks, but it would be great for people (i.e. pedestrians & bicyclists). There really are not a whole lot of businesses that front ON Park… and with the 200-foot blocks, you’re never too far from the nearest cross street. The question would be whether you could extend the pedestrian zones along the entire strip of Park, all the way from PSU to the Post Office in NW.
I think that NW 23rd could become car-free if it ever gets a streetcar line connecting the existing streetcar to a route on, say, Burnside. This would allow for the higher-capacity throughput of eyes on the street, and the cross streets would still allow cars access to the neighborhood. Sidewalk cafes might even stand a chance, then!
A whole lot of things suddenly become possibly with $5/gallon gas that weren’t very possible with $1/gallon gas. We can’t forget this. The high price of fuel is suddenly changing everything.
they should limit the seat vacancy rate to 75% over the bridge. max and buses included. is that possible?
Thanks for that info… I must admit that although I grew up here, my impressions of that district are primarily from the last 5-10 years, even though I spent time there off and on as a kid.
And my impression of the district is that I work there, and my office has a window overlooking it.
Aside from coffee shops and convenience stores, were there ever any retail businesses within the pedestrian-only corridors or facing the interior parks/plazas?
Yes, the retail complex at First and Lincoln has retail space with storefronts that face the pedestian area along Second Avenue. And they are virtually all vacant; I think there’s one restaurant still operating. Mt. Hood Meadows used to have a sales office there, but it was closed.
There is a Plaid Pantry and a liquor store on the lower level, inaccessible from the walkway.
What is now the Harrison Apartments had the garden apartments/office spaces, that are all vacant save for the leasing office for the apartments (used to be the condo sales office).
There is a deli in the CH2MHill building that faces the 3rd Avenue pedestrian pathway, but the deli in my building (facing 4th Avenue) seems much busier.
In Portland during the summer of 1968, Lovejoy Fountain was THE place to be.
To understand the limits of “Portland Center” as a place read Jane Jacobs’ “Death & Life of American Cities.” We destroyed lively Jewish and Italian neighborhood (as well a wild Gipys row on 3rd Avenue) to create a relatively sterile distrct. Note that this was not repeated by PDC.
Please create new Portland Trolleybus Organization! I would like to see a new grassroot trolleybus organization in Portland recommendation. In addition Trolleybus website should create ones. Please keep writing many letters to TRIMET recommendation for behalf of trolleybus system. I want seeing increase numbers of people write them about support trolleybus system. Where do I can attend it to Trolleybus Meeting? Let me know! David
There was one caveat to Fregonese’s embrace of buses — they need to be “greener.” He said that Light Rail acts as the skeleton for the transportation system, but that’s not all we should be investing in. So, it wasn’t an either-or proposition.
If you care to check it out, I wrote a longer post on Fregonese’s talk at Art Scatter, which also includes a discussion of Nicolai Ouroussoff’s NY Times article on development in mega-cities and a City Journal article on New Urbanism.
I’d like to meet him at the Car-Free Conference this week in PDX. The City of Tulsa is paying big bucks for his services.