Comments for http://www.pearldistrict.org Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Stan Penkin http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-211 Stan Penkin Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:30:55 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-211 How can a project that was at one time estimated to be upwards of $120 million and now reduced to just under $19 million not be "overall different?" While Phase Two of the current reduced scope plan claims that it will add a streetcar component in ten years, the financial and political reality of that truly happening is quite questionable and offered up to help sell the current car centric plan to the public. By necessity and political reality, future street car development, when and if funds become available, will primarily take place on the east side of Portland where it's truly needed to improve accessibility. We already have more than adequate accessibility in this part of town and it's time for some equity in other areas of Portland. It's unfortunate that many proponents of the couplet still believe it's the grand scope version proposed three years ago. It's further unfortunate that the proponents do not talk about alternate, non couplet plans to improve Burnside that the Bureau of Transportation has itself worked on, not to mention other ideas that are out there for discussion. The current version does not widen sidewalks, does not add significant street scape, provides virtually no bike lanes, includes painted rather than genuine raised curb extensions and does not even address Upper Burnside past 15th Ave. This couplet proposal is a project on the cheap that will only serve to encourage vehicular traffic which is a concept that's alien to Portland's environmental and sustainable values and contradictory to the admirable efforts now taking place in developing the Central City Plan and the Portland Plan. While it is true that there has been a good deal of public process over the past years, this is not the same project it once was, the city has changed, the affected neighborhoods have changed and the times have drastically changed. It would be tragic to move forward with an ill conceived and costly project because some thought it was the right thing to do in a different era. I invite readers to visit the website of the Better Burnside Alliance at www.betterburnsidealliance.org for more information and discussion about this issue. How can a project that was at one time estimated to be upwards of $120 million and now reduced to just under $19 million not be “overall different?” While Phase Two of the current reduced scope plan claims that it will add a streetcar component in ten years, the financial and political reality of that truly happening is quite questionable and offered up to help sell the current car centric plan to the public. By necessity and political reality, future street car development, when and if funds become available, will primarily take place on the east side of Portland where it’s truly needed to improve accessibility. We already have more than adequate accessibility in this part of town and it’s time for some equity in other areas of Portland.

It’s unfortunate that many proponents of the couplet still believe it’s the grand scope version proposed three years ago. It’s further unfortunate that the proponents do not talk about alternate, non couplet plans to improve Burnside that the Bureau of Transportation has itself worked on, not to mention other ideas that are out there for discussion. The current version does not widen sidewalks, does not add significant street scape, provides virtually no bike lanes, includes painted rather than genuine raised curb extensions and does not even address Upper Burnside past 15th Ave.

This couplet proposal is a project on the cheap that will only serve to encourage vehicular traffic which is a concept that’s alien to Portland’s environmental and sustainable values and contradictory to the admirable efforts now taking place in developing the Central City Plan and the Portland Plan.

While it is true that there has been a good deal of public process over the past years, this is not the same project it once was, the city has changed, the affected neighborhoods have changed and the times have drastically changed. It would be tragic to move forward with an ill conceived and costly project because some thought it was the right thing to do in a different era.

I invite readers to visit the website of the Better Burnside Alliance at http://www.betterburnsidealliance.org for more information and discussion about this issue.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Candace Parmer http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Candace Parmer Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:33:13 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-210 John, we are in the process of speaking with all city council members. Surprisingly those we've spoken with so far were unaware of the reduced scope, two-phase changes, as are most citizens we encounter. John, we are in the process of speaking with all city council members. Surprisingly those we’ve spoken with so far were unaware of the reduced scope, two-phase changes, as are most citizens we encounter.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by johntarantino1 http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-209 johntarantino1 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 00:23:49 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-209 @Ian /@Candace : I hear what your saying. It is my understanding that this matter is in the hands of the city council and the mayor at this point. I encourage you to go to the council with your concerns as well as perhaps the Dept of Transportation. Again, I will bring your comments to the planning meeting tonight and talk with Patricia about this. All our meetings are open to the public, and allow time for public comment. I encourage you to use those avenues to voice your comments. @Ian /@Candace : I hear what your saying. It is my understanding that this matter is in the hands of the city council and the mayor at this point. I encourage you to go to the council with your concerns as well as perhaps the Dept of Transportation.

Again, I will bring your comments to the planning meeting tonight and talk with Patricia about this. All our meetings are open to the public, and allow time for public comment. I encourage you to use those avenues to voice your comments.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Candace Parmer http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-208 Candace Parmer Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:41:38 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-208 Johntarantino1, thank you for your response. I am particularly concerned about Ms. Gardner's statement, "the project is phased and isn't overall different from original plans". It's drastically different - 75% less money is being put into the project. Things being omitted are widened sidewalks, curb extensions, bike lanes, pedestrian plaza, bioswales etc... Saying the project is "phased" is a stretch of the meaning of the word. Phase II (streetcar) would happen 8-12 years later, IF FEDERAL FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, and IF NEED IS PROVEN. In 2007, City Council, by resolution stated that the couplet should not occur without a streetcar, acknowledging its ability to mitigate the freeway effects of one-way streets. This new REDUCED SCOPE, "PHASED" PLAN is a total contradiction to the intention and directive of the resolution. The PDNA has been stellar in its representation of community, pedestrians and bikes with the exception of this couplet. As a resident and business owner, I am shocked that the neighborhood association is willing to endorse the special interests of a few property owners at the expense of the most successful mixed use, pedestrian friendly street in the Pearl. As I requested at the June general meeting, the new reduced scope is hugely different and deserves an open forum to educate the public about this project. John, thank you for your invitation to voice comments at PDNA meetings. At the June PDNA general meeting, Ms. Gardner announced the upcoming Public Open House for Pearl transportation issues held by PBOT June 23rd, and specifically stated that it would not be a forum for discussing the couplet. Nor has anti-couplet sentiment been welcomed at the PDNA Transportation Committee meetings led by Ms. Gardner, according to my neighbors who've attended. It is so much appreciated that we are now welcome at all PDNA meetings. Here is a statement about one-way streets, made by Ian Lockwood, P.E. (professional engineer), currently under contract with Metro: I’m sorry to hear that Portland is seriously considering this change. Portland continually exports papers and messages to the rest of the continent about how forward thinking they are about transportation and planning. To read about their proposal sends the opposite message. Having lead several one-way to two-way conversions myself, I am surprised that the business community is not freaking out at the one-way proposal. The proponents must have quite a spokesperson. Unless you run a road building company, I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would be good for your business. Typically, one-waying streets damages business and restoring the two-way operation revives businesses. It is an access and exchange issue. However, if the businesses are already not doing well due to the two-way street being too fast, wide, ugly, or whatever, there are usually remedies that do not involve mercy-killing the street with a one-way system. The pro one-way folks often exalt a variety of virtues of one-way streets but, in my experience, the bottom line is that it harms the place, no matter how well-intended it was ahead of time. Furthermore, it costs so much to do the one-way system that it gets economically very challenging to undo it if it is allowed to happen. Chances are, the money that would be spent on ruining the streets with the one-way system could be used to help the streets and the place become better. A clever strategy, to watch out for, involves the so-called benefits that the one-way streets proponents will offer to the busier of the two streets involved. The one-way proponents might try to make the following deal. They will agree to remove turn lanes and a through lane or two and provide wide sidewalks, if the community will accept the one-way street pair. In my opinion, this is not a equitable trade due to the damage to the other street, way-finding issues, speeding and danger issues, cycling issues, lowering access, etc. The proponents may find clever ways to sugar coat the deal with bike lanes street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, etc. However, at the end of the day, there is the biggest reason of all to not accept the change in the city; one-way streets reward the long trip and disadvantage the short trip. This trumps every other issue because it is, more often than not, so anti-city. One-way streets are part of a transportation paradigm that is generally pro-automobile and anti-place. The related measures of effectiveness are cleverly disguised as reducing delays, reducing congestion, increasing levels of service, etc. They may even try to manufacture a safety argument but the idea that speeding up motorists in greater numbers in cities doesn’t pass the straight face test with respect to less severe crashes, fewer deaths, fewer injuries, and more walking, cycling, and transit use. Rewarding motor vehicle use tends to encourage more motor vehicle use, period ( not to mention the myriad of other planning and health issues). Ian Lockwood, P.E. Principal Design + Planning AECOM www.aecom.com Johntarantino1, thank you for your response.

I am particularly concerned about Ms. Gardner’s statement, “the project is phased and isn’t overall different from original plans”.

It’s drastically different – 75% less money is being put into the project. Things being omitted are widened sidewalks, curb extensions, bike lanes, pedestrian plaza, bioswales etc…

Saying the project is “phased” is a stretch of the meaning of the word. Phase II (streetcar) would happen 8-12 years later, IF FEDERAL FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, and IF NEED IS PROVEN.

In 2007, City Council, by resolution stated that the couplet should not occur without a streetcar, acknowledging its ability to mitigate the freeway effects of one-way streets. This new REDUCED SCOPE, “PHASED” PLAN is a total contradiction to the intention and directive of the resolution.

The PDNA has been stellar in its representation of community, pedestrians and bikes with the exception of this couplet. As a resident and business owner, I am shocked that the neighborhood association is willing to endorse the special interests of a few property owners at the expense of the most successful mixed use, pedestrian friendly street in the Pearl. As I requested at the June general meeting, the new reduced scope is hugely different and deserves an open forum to educate the public about this project.

John, thank you for your invitation to voice comments at PDNA meetings. At the June PDNA general meeting, Ms. Gardner announced the upcoming Public Open House for Pearl transportation issues held by PBOT June 23rd, and specifically stated that it would not be a forum for discussing the couplet. Nor has anti-couplet sentiment been welcomed at the PDNA Transportation Committee meetings led by Ms. Gardner, according to my neighbors who’ve attended. It is so much appreciated that we are now welcome at all PDNA meetings.

Here is a statement about one-way streets, made by Ian Lockwood, P.E. (professional engineer), currently under contract with Metro:

I’m sorry to hear that Portland is seriously considering this change. Portland continually exports papers and messages to the rest of the continent about how forward thinking they are about transportation and planning. To read about their proposal sends the opposite message. Having lead several one-way to two-way conversions myself, I am surprised that the business community is not freaking out at the one-way proposal. The proponents must have quite a spokesperson. Unless you run a road building company, I cannot imagine a scenario in which this would be good for your business. Typically, one-waying streets damages business and restoring the two-way operation revives businesses. It is an access and exchange issue. However, if the businesses are already not doing well due to the two-way street being too fast, wide, ugly, or whatever, there are usually remedies that do not involve mercy-killing the street with a one-way system.

The pro one-way folks often exalt a variety of virtues of one-way streets but, in my experience, the bottom line is that it harms the place, no matter how well-intended it was ahead of time. Furthermore, it costs so much to do the one-way system that it gets economically very challenging to undo it if it is allowed to happen. Chances are, the money that would be spent on ruining the streets with the one-way system could be used to help the streets and the place become better.

A clever strategy, to watch out for, involves the so-called benefits that the one-way streets proponents will offer to the busier of the two streets involved. The one-way proponents might try to make the following deal. They will agree to remove turn lanes and a through lane or two and provide wide sidewalks, if the community will accept the one-way street pair. In my opinion, this is not a equitable trade due to the damage to the other street, way-finding issues, speeding and danger issues, cycling issues, lowering access, etc. The proponents may find clever ways to sugar coat the deal with bike lanes street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, etc. However, at the end of the day, there is the biggest reason of all to not accept the change in the city; one-way streets reward the long trip and disadvantage the short trip. This trumps every other issue because it is, more often than not, so anti-city. One-way streets are part of a transportation paradigm that is generally pro-automobile and anti-place. The related measures of effectiveness are cleverly disguised as reducing delays, reducing congestion, increasing levels of service, etc. They may even try to manufacture a safety argument but the idea that speeding up motorists in greater numbers in cities doesn’t pass the straight face test with respect to less severe crashes, fewer deaths, fewer injuries, and more walking, cycling, and transit use. Rewarding motor vehicle use tends to encourage more motor vehicle use, period ( not to mention the myriad of other planning and health issues).

Ian Lockwood, P.E.
Principal
Design + Planning
AECOM
http://www.aecom.com

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by johntarantino1 http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-201 johntarantino1 Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:17:43 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-201 Just so that you know, I'll print out all these comments and bring them to the next PDNA meeting so the PDNA board knows about all your comments. I can't speak for the entire board...so I'm reluctant to give my personal opinion on the matter. I have asked Patricia Gardner about this, and she says that the project is phased and isn't overall different from original plans. There have been 4 very large public processes over the past 8 years on this topic and seems to be up to the city council and the mayor at this point. All the PDNA meetings are open to the public, check our calendar page and attend if you want to voice your comments as well. Just so that you know, I’ll print out all these comments and bring them to the next PDNA meeting so the PDNA board knows about all your comments.

I can’t speak for the entire board…so I’m reluctant to give my personal opinion on the matter.

I have asked Patricia Gardner about this, and she says that the project is phased and isn’t overall different from original plans.

There have been 4 very large public processes over the past 8 years on this topic and seems to be up to the city council and the mayor at this point.

All the PDNA meetings are open to the public, check our calendar page and attend if you want to voice your comments as well.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Sean http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-200 Sean Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:43:42 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-200 I read through the 15+ comments posted above. Almost all of the comments express concern about the Burnside-Couch couplet project. Is the couplet going to be discussed at any upcoming PDNA meetings? I read through the 15+ comments posted above. Almost all of the comments express concern about the Burnside-Couch couplet project.

Is the couplet going to be discussed at any upcoming PDNA meetings?

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Susan Davidson http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-168 Susan Davidson Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:55:19 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-168 I see from the PDNA minutes of June 10 that a request was made for an open forum to review the Burnside/Couch couplet plans, but I do not see any follow-up on this. As a neighborhood resident, I want to hear about how the plan has evolved, how it will improve our neighborhood, and at what cost. Do PDNA's future circulation plans assume a Couplet? That's a big leap given the controversy. I also want to understand the alternatives to the Couplet that are being proposed. An inclusive discussion is extremely important; all neighborhood residents are stakeholders and deserve to be heard. I see from the PDNA minutes of June 10 that a request was made for an open forum to review the Burnside/Couch couplet plans, but I do not see any follow-up on this. As a neighborhood resident, I want to hear about how the plan has evolved, how it will improve our neighborhood, and at what cost. Do PDNA’s future circulation plans assume a Couplet? That’s a big leap given the controversy. I also want to understand the alternatives to the Couplet that are being proposed. An inclusive discussion is extremely important; all neighborhood residents are stakeholders and deserve to be heard.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Alan & Natalie Beckerman http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-140 Alan & Natalie Beckerman Sat, 17 Jul 2010 00:00:13 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-140 Last night, driving through downtown on our way to Southeast Portland, as we sat endlessly in traffic on a one-way street intersecting with other one-way streets, each intersection with a traffic light and walk/don't walk signs, we thought why would anyone choose to impose this mess on the Pearl. When we moved to Portland three years ago, we selected the Pearl, and Couch Street in particular, for the ambiance walkability of the neighborhood. If we had preferred noise and traffic dodging, we would have moved to New York, our other option. We do not know the reasoning in 2007 that motivated the PNDA to endorse the Couplet. By choosing to remain committed to the Couplet without any further discussion or input from the Pearl community, the PDNA will diminish it's stature as a neighborhood force and acquire the reputation of mouthpiece for the political and big business interests of Portland. Last night, driving through downtown on our way to Southeast Portland, as we sat endlessly in traffic on a one-way street intersecting with other one-way streets, each intersection with a traffic light and walk/don’t walk signs, we thought why would anyone choose to impose this mess on the Pearl. When we moved to Portland three years ago, we selected the Pearl, and Couch Street in particular, for the ambiance walkability of the neighborhood. If we had preferred noise and traffic dodging, we would have moved to New York, our other option. We do not know the reasoning in 2007 that motivated the PNDA to endorse the Couplet. By choosing to remain committed to the Couplet without any further discussion or input from the Pearl community, the PDNA will diminish it’s stature as a neighborhood force and acquire the reputation of mouthpiece for the political and big business interests of Portland.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Richard Wong http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-137 Richard Wong Wed, 14 Jul 2010 22:27:50 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-137 Much has changed in the Pearl since the Couplet was first conceived several years ago. The impacts from this project need to be reconsidered given the dramatic changes which have occurred in recent times. Burnside's main function is moving traffic across the city and this aspect will NOT be improved by the couplet as it already works well as a city connector. Much can be done to improve the ambience to Burnside without making it a one way street. Placing traffic signals at more cross streets would help, as would making improvements to the sidewalks. Putting another 30K cars daily on Couch is not the answer no matter how the problem is defined. The PDNA needs to reconsider its position on this issue. Much has changed in the Pearl since the Couplet was first conceived several years ago. The impacts from this project need to be reconsidered given the dramatic changes which have occurred in recent times. Burnside’s main function is moving traffic across the city and this aspect will NOT be improved by the couplet as it already works well as a city connector. Much can be done to improve the ambience to Burnside without making it a one way street. Placing traffic signals at more cross streets would help, as would making improvements to the sidewalks. Putting another 30K cars daily on Couch is not the answer no matter how the problem is defined. The PDNA needs to reconsider its position on this issue.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Keith B http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-135 Keith B Wed, 14 Jul 2010 06:23:19 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-135 I've been a resident in NW Portland for the past 5 years and I enjoy the very walking (and biking) friendly atmosphere. That is what builds communities, not major thoroughfares. While busy streets are necessary for commerce and to some degree transit they detract from neighborhoods both by limiting foot traffic and by producing lots of ambient noise. As a long time bike commuter I have see the effect that of the east side Burnside/Couch couplet and I do not want that in a neighborhood where I live, work, and play. I’ve been a resident in NW Portland for the past 5 years and I enjoy the very walking (and biking) friendly atmosphere. That is what builds communities, not major thoroughfares. While busy streets are necessary for commerce and to some degree transit they detract from neighborhoods both by limiting foot traffic and by producing lots of ambient noise.

As a long time bike commuter I have see the effect that of the east side Burnside/Couch couplet and I do not want that in a neighborhood where I live, work, and play.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Marla Gardner http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-134 Marla Gardner Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:44:54 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-134 Three years have passed and significant changes to the plan have been made. Add to that the very controversial nature of the plan and it seems appropriate that the entire thing should be revisted formally, allowing all effected parties to be formally heard. More importantly it will allow for alternative plans to be considered, ones that do not destroy the pedestrian and bicycle friendly nature of the area that really is the essence of its attraction to tax paying residents and small businesses and income generating tourists and shoppers. Nothing will drive those groups away more than routing heavy traffic through this area. It is shockingly regressive public "planning" that destroys such a vital area in the hopes of improving long neglected areas with complicated social issues. We tax payers and voters are watching. Three years have passed and significant changes to the plan have been made. Add to that the very controversial nature of the plan and it seems appropriate that the entire thing should be revisted formally, allowing all effected parties to be formally heard. More importantly it will allow for alternative plans to be considered, ones that do not destroy the pedestrian and bicycle friendly nature of the area that really is the essence of its attraction to tax paying residents and small businesses and income generating tourists and shoppers. Nothing will drive those groups away more than routing heavy traffic through this area. It is shockingly regressive public “planning” that destroys such a vital area in the hopes of improving long neglected areas with complicated social issues. We tax payers and voters are watching.

]]> Comment on The Burnside Couch Couplet Controversy by Devorah http://www.pearldistrict.org/2010/07/the-burnside-couch-couplet-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-133 Devorah Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:14:39 +0000 http://www.pearldistrict.org/?p=668#comment-133 Don't forget that this couplet would mean having to install walk/don't walk signs at some, if not all the crosswalks going down Couch through the Pearl. Especially with an estimated 19,000 cars added to the current traffic. Even as it is now we have drivers blowing through stop signs at Couch's intersections. And then think about the concerns of businesses along Lovejoy with the construction/expansion of the Streetcar- There are traffic lights along Burnside that are not present on Couch, would installation of these things hurt the area economically, or potentially make it unsafe during renovation? It's exactly what Larry Norton said, Couch and Burnside are completely different roads, so therefore something drastic would have to be enacted to make Couch able to function more like Burnside, never mind widening sidewalks and adding a rail, etc. Therefore I ask, "has this been talked about at all?" How much would the prerequisite "re-tooling" of Couch cost? And regardless of any of this... Indeed, Couch in the Pearl is what it is BECAUSE it is one of the most genuinely pedestrian and bike-friendly areas in downtown Portland. Don’t forget that this couplet would mean having to install walk/don’t walk signs at some, if not all the crosswalks going down Couch through the Pearl. Especially with an estimated 19,000 cars added to the current traffic. Even as it is now we have drivers blowing through stop signs at Couch’s intersections. And then think about the concerns of businesses along Lovejoy with the construction/expansion of the Streetcar- There are traffic lights along Burnside that are not present on Couch, would installation of these things hurt the area economically, or potentially make it unsafe during renovation? It’s exactly what Larry Norton said, Couch and Burnside are completely different roads, so therefore something drastic would have to be enacted to make Couch able to function more like Burnside, never mind widening sidewalks and adding a rail, etc. Therefore I ask, “has this been talked about at all?” How much would the prerequisite “re-tooling” of Couch cost? And regardless of any of this… Indeed, Couch in the Pearl is what it is BECAUSE it is one of the most genuinely pedestrian and bike-friendly areas in downtown Portland.

]]>