As you head downtown on Couch you get right up to the bridge and take a curving left turn, go one block south, and then curve back west again - all in a short distance. It's a road design that looks like one of those miniature race car tracks at the county fair.
All that's missing is a giant bottle with the cars driving through the neck.
For a second I thought, "That's got to be temporary, while they implement the plan." Then I realized, "Nope, that is the plan."
Didn't Sam say this was about improving the energy? Aren't the bridges the main traffic arteries into the heart of the city?
Well, there's a reason your major blood vessels don't zig-zag just before they get to the heart. It screws up the flow.
The East Couch wobble is from that familiar little file - things that are obviously bad about the plan, but are just unavoidable if the vision is to be realized.
It's why we no longer have baseball in town, and why the Portland State Vikings football team will play this season in Hillsboro.
It's exactly what you get when dubious visionaries collide with the real world.

Much of Portland city transportation planning is whacked, and only exacerbated by the high density push. Broad streets allowing for freer movements of cars, trucks, buses and bicycles are being closed down in favor of narrow streets. Increasingly, folks are diverting their car trips from the main throughfare onto residential streets to bypass PDOT's forced congestion. Driving downtown anymore is an absolute nightmare with streetcars, Max, bicyclists, and other car travelers cutting in and out of one's lane (one way streets).

Over thirty years of PDOT planning and construction, and I am pretty sure transportation has only gotten worse for both cars and bicyclists. I had no problem commuting by bike in the early 80s.

Traffic calming techniques have been around for over 25 years, and while there has been spirited debate over many of the tactics employed, one universally agreed-upon principle by most involved is that one-way street couplets don't work.

Yes, they will increase traffic counts, throughput, speeds, etc. - especially if tied to sequenced traffic signals.

But what they also do is to encourage more traffic from outside the local area to use this new capacity, turning it into a defacto thoroughfare or even a freeway. Think of MLK/Grand, Broadway/Weidler, or Morrison/Belmont. Are the neighborhoods that the couplet portions of these streets run through made better by the fact that these are one-way couplets, instead of independent two-way streets? I think not.

We ought to be deconstructing couplets, not building them.

Portland must already be dead and doesn't know it yet. There's no other explanation how madmen can be mutilating it and calling it their 'vision'.

"Nope, that is the plan."

Plan? Plan! PLAN?

You don't believe he actually has a clue do you?

This is all one big diversion for the weak-mined set that keeps electing him. In exchange for reasonably priced utilities, no potholes and decent schools, we get toys and distractions.

Face it, we are slave to Samdy's tastes.

I have no clue what this couplet is supposed to do anyways - besides make it easier for streetcars? So more money pissed away.

It turns out I took a couplet field trip right after commenting above. I was heading to the John Callahan Tribute at the Mission Theater in the Northwest so I had a chance to double check my opinion of the Couch Street approach. Lots of new lights - more stops than before. Not as bad at 12th, then the ridiculous left turn to the bridge.

Oh well, these politicians don't affect how I feel about the real Portland.

I made a little speech at the tribute - I think it went over okay - but I found myself quite spent afterwards, so I left early. Heading down Burnside, I thought, "At least this way should be smooth."

Just then, the crossbars came down and the Burnside Bridge went up - at 10 at night.
Watching the bridge go up, I spoke to Callahan out loud, "It never f*in' ends, John. It never f*in' ends."
I turned off the car and thought about how amazing this city really is. And it's not the couplets and condos - it's the people. The unique Portland characters like John Callahan. We were lucky he was here.

John Rettig: Traffic calming techniques have been around for over 25 years, and while there has been spirited debate over many of the tactics employed, one universally agreed-upon principle by most involved is that one-way street couplets don't work. Yes, they will increase traffic counts, throughput, speeds, etc. - especially if tied to sequenced traffic signals.
JK: You are saying that they don’t work, then go on to say they really do work to move more people and faster. BTW, why did you leave out the most important improvement due to one ways couplets - see below.

John Rettig: But what they also do is to encourage more traffic from outside the local area to use this new capacity, turning it into a defacto thoroughfare or even a freeway.
JK: Of course the point of roads is to move people and goods. Why do you try to make this sound bad?

John Rettig: Think of MLK/Grand, Broadway/Weidler, or Morrison/Belmont. Are the neighborhoods that the couplet portions of these streets run through made better by the fact that these are one-way couplets, instead of independent two-way streets? I think not.
JK: Surely you are joking. They make life better for those who live there because thy have a freer flowing road in and out of their neighborhood.

John Rettig: We ought to be deconstructing couplets, not building them.
JK: And how many pedestrians do you want to see killed?
BTW, why didn’t you mention the 50% reduction in pedestrian accidents in your above list of things one-way streets improve. Or doesn’t safety matter to you?

See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/onewaystreets.htm

While we are on safety - why do you advocate getting people killed with traffic calming?
See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/calming.html

Thanks
JK

The couplet reminds me of bad plumbing. You just don't use 90 degree turns to get the water in, or the waste out of your house. (As in your human plumbing example, Bill.)
Traffic calming is one thing...stupidity is another and the 'so called planners' have excess stupidity on their side this time, IMHO.

Dear Mark White, Please do not lend your support if you can't use enough buzz words. I could not find a single reference to sustainability or Euro in your message. Thanks for getting vibrant, robust, contiguous, promotes community, healthy active living, revitalize, and "National experts facilitating the audits and discussion" in. All public projects should pass a wordy test. This module provides integration with the Wordy proofreading service. http://www.wordy.com/

JK: You are saying that they don’t work, then go on to say they really do work to move more people and faster.

What they do, and what I said in the next sentence, is to draw more traffic into that corridor, negating the initial advantage of going one-way. And what I didn't say is that they also long term cause behavioral changes where new drivers start using a couplet that before would have avoided the trip altogether.

JK: Of course the point of roads is to move people and goods.

But there's got to be a balance to avoid undue impact to the immediate neighborhood.

JK: Surely you are joking. They make life better for those who live there because thy have a freer flowing road in and out of their neighborhood.

Read the other comments left here. And look at residential real estate valuation depressions on one-way couplet streets. You're the one who is joking.

[W]hy do you advocate getting people killed with traffic calming?

Coplets are inherently more dangerous because of multi-lanes, speed, and longer runs with sequenced lights. When they are constructed, planners know this, and put in protected crossings for pedestrains and protected lanes for bicycles. If you put the same safety investments into two-way streets (and I'm not advocating this), you would see similar reductions.

What makes anyone think this was about traffic calming and transportation needs? This was about creating a bigger piece of real estate for Weston. Nice distraction though.

I'm with Shannon on that.

They make life better for those who live there because thy have a freer flowing road in and out of their neighborhood.

Traffic isn't flowing freely in and out of the neighborhood. It's flowing through the neighborhood.

Traffic to and from the Morrison Bridge isn't contributing anything to the neighborhoods along the one-way sections of Belmont and Morrison, much of the time it's speeding through them at rate and volume that make it difficult for residents to get across the street.

John Rettig: Coplets are inherently more dangerous because of multi-lanes, speed, and longer runs with sequenced lights.
JK: Utter nonsense. Here is what the reference says, mostly quotes from traffic studies
(http://www.portlandfacts.com/onewaystreets.htm):

Most significantly, pedestrian accidents plummeted by 30-60%

Nothing the City of Portland has done to reduce pedestrian accidents in the past 70 years has been as effective as implementing one-way streets.

In Portland, Oregon*, which on March 1, 1950 established a complete grid of one--way streets in the central west side business area, accidents were greatly reduced . In 1951, compared with 1 .949, all types of accidents at intersections were reduced 51 per cent and, between intersections, 37 per cent

In 1986 Denver converted seven streets on three one-way couplets. Average intersection accident rates increased 37.6% while average mid-block accident rates increased 80.5%. The City report noted that accident rates were up on all three couplets "as is expected with two-way operation"

Again I ask: Why do you favor measures that plainly have gotten pedestrians killed?

John Rettig: When they are constructed, planners know this, and put in protected crossings for pedestrains and protected lanes for bicycles. If you put the same safety investments into two-way streets (and I'm not advocating this), you would see similar reductions.
JK: Again utter nonsense. Neither of those measures have any credible safety data. It is merely more PDOT garbage of: if it feels good, it must be good.

Thanks
JK

I'm no fan of the couplet and the bizarre turns in traffic and logic they require but I have to wonder why the City has to close one lane to water the plants in the bioswales on Couch during the morning commute every couple of weeks? Or maybe its just the latest in green traffic calming.

There's rather a large difference between a one-way grid system as implemented in downtown Portland and the couplets that lead up to the bridges on the east side of town.

The streets intersecting the couplets aren't one-way. And unlike downtown, there are no traffic controls at most intersections. On inbound SE Morrison, for instance, there's an eight-block stretch between 20th and 12th with nothing slowing traffic apart from Tri-Met buses stopping in the lane. The same goes after the street widens to three lanes (with a single extra lane of east-bound traffic) between 11th and 7th. Crossing those stretches in the morning rush hour -- or the corresponding portions of Belmont in the evening -- is no simple task.

The city was actually talking about "decoupling" Belmont and Morrison in the late '90s -- about the same time that Lolenzo Poe and Multnomah County were sneaking the methadone clinic onto Belmont.

JK: Nothing the City of Portland has done to reduce pedestrian accidents in the past 70 years has been as effective as implementing one-way streets.

Of the studies you cited, nothing is newer than the 1970's. Some (as you noted) go back to the 1930's. The particular quote you threw out is not from any study, it's a statement that isn't backed up with any references, from a website that you will have to admit has an anti-planning, pro-auto agenda.

I'll repeat my question you, Jim: Have you looked at the depression of residential real estate values situated on one-way couplets? People vote with their wallets, and regardless of what you say about their desirability, they don't want to live on them.

I want to know why they are consistently watering the bioswales right at morning rush hour and taking up one of the lanes of traffic...thereby creating a traffic jam as everyone tries to get into the other lane...along with the buses and the bicycles??

John Rettig: (quoting JK) JK: Nothing the City of Portland has done to reduce pedestrian accidents in the past 70 years has been as effective as implementing one-way streets.

Of the studies you cited, nothing is newer than the 1970's. Some (as you noted) go back to the 1930's.
JK: You are ignoring this from 1986:
In 1986 Denver converted seven streets on three one-way couplets. Average intersection accident rates increased 37.6% while average mid-block accident rates increased 80.5%.

Do you think anything has changed. Do you just keep making the same mistakes time after time? Some of us learn from history. You are advocating reckless public policy.

John Rettig: The particular quote you threw out is not from any study, it's a statement that isn't backed up with any references, from a website that you will have to admit has an anti-planning, pro-auto agenda.
JK: Have you found any inaccuracies on that web site? If so, please let us know.

John Rettig: I'll repeat my question you, Jim: Have you looked at the depression of residential real estate values situated on one-way couplets? People vote with their wallets, and regardless of what you say about their desirability, they don't want to live on them.
JK: And I'll repeat:

Don't you care about getting pedestrians killed?

Thanks
JK

John Rettig: The particular quote you threw out is not from any study, it's a statement that isn't backed up with any references, from a website that you will have to admit has an anti-planning, pro-auto agenda.
JK: Here are the quotes again WITH SOURCES - feel free to check them:

Most significantly, pedestrian accidents plummeted by 30-60% (Pages A-126; A-162, "National Highway Safety Needs Study, Appendix A", Research Triangle Institute, March 1976 (DOT-HS-5-01069). ; Pages 7-2 to 7-8, "One-Way Streets and Reversible Lanes", Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Volume I, Research Triangle Institute, March 1976 (FHWA-TS-82-232), December 1982. ; Oregon State Highway Department, "A Study of One-Way Routings on Urban Highways in Oregon", Technical Report #59-4, April 1959. ; Page 28, Dr. Charles Zegeer, University of North Carolina, "Pedestrians and Traffic-Control Measures", National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Synthesis of Practice, #139, November 1988. ; and Chapter 10, Peter A. Mayer, Chapter 10, "One-Way Streets", Traffic Control and Roadway Elements, Their Relationship to Highway Safety, Highway Users Federation for Safety and Mobility, 1971).

In Portland, Oregon*, which on March 1, 1950 established a complete grid of one--way streets in the central west side business area, accidents were greatly reduced . In 1951, compared with 1 .949, all types of accidents at intersections were reduced 51 per cent and, between intersections, 37 per cent. The corresponding figures for pedestrian accidents alone, were 46 and 50 per cent. Page 12 (pdf 3), PROPOSED .SYSTEM OF ONE-WAY STREETS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND BUSINESS ACTIVITY. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, •AUGUST, .1953, QUINTON ENGINEERS. LTD. LOS ANGELES

In 1986 Denver converted seven streets on three one-way couplets. Average intersection accident rates increased 37.6% while average mid-block accident rates increased 80.5%. The City report noted that accident rates were up on all three couplets "as is expected with two-way operation" (Pages 23 and 29, City of Denver, "One-Way Street Monitoring Study, Phase 1 Conversion Report", January 1990. (The seven streets were Grant, Logan, Washington, Emerson, Downing, Marion, & Ogden Streets. Data on accident rates is from pages 15, 23, and 29).

And one that I missed earlier and its NEW!!:
Lubbock, Texas in 1995 converted two streets back to two-way. Overall accident rates increased there 41.6% (City of Lubbock, "Main and 10th Street Accident Analysis, Before/After Study", 1998)

And I'll repeat: Don't you care about getting pedestrians killed?

Thanks
JK

JK: Don't you care about getting pedestrians killed?

OK, sorry for the delay, but it took a while to sort through the references you cited and look at the analyses.

The studies you cite generally looked at one-way streets individually, not necessarily those grouped as couplets. However, the couplet we're discussing (Burnside / Couch), as well as many others in Portland (e.g. Morrison / Belmont) have (or had) a dominant major arterial street (Burnside), and a lessor street (Couch). I would offer - and I have no data to cite here - that at this point the pedestrian fatalities on E. Burnside are far higher than on Couch, and the comparison needs to be not on an individual street level, but on the couplet streets take as a pair, before and after the one-way conversion - because the lessor street will become significantly worse after conversion. So if you are claiming a 10-20% reduction on fatalities for a street like Burnside, the net effect of converting to the couplet is a 60-80% increase overall (being generous and assuming no fatalities on Couch) on the couplet.

And that leaves the issue of the increase seen after couplets were converted back to one-way. If this was a short-term study, I would offer that this effect would be more related to pedestrians having gotten accustomed to one-way traffic and not looking both ways when crossing. A longer term study would be more revealing here, along with comparisons to other two-way streets of similar composition that hadn't been converted.

And both of us are ignoring many other factors related to pedestrian fatalities - e.g. whether the couplet involved a zoning change that converted from residential to commercial, what sort of pedestrian crossing devices were put in, schools nearby, etc. It's a difficult experiment to control and have data that can be trusted.

While most of the conversation above speaks about the pros and cons (mostly cons) of couplets, we should also be talking about the bigger picture.

We are in the midst of developing the Portland Plan to determine what we want our city to be over the next 25 years. We are simultaneously working on the Central City Plan to help define the future of our inner city. Portland is one of the world’s most progressive and admired green cities with values that stress sustainable growth, green building, energy efficiency, reduction of carbon footprint and the importance of mass transit systems, pedestrian friendly streets and the use of bicycles. Our leaders have made a commitment to a Climate Action Plan, a far reaching bicycle plan and to the concept of 20 minute walking neighborhoods. It is counter intuitive and contrary to our best interests that we would encourage vehicular capacity with an automobile oriented project such as the current reduced version of the West Side Burnside Couch Couplet.

This project has been developed and promoted by the Portland Bureau of Transportation(PBOT) and not within the context of an all encompassing Master Plan under the purview of our urban planners who view the big picture. Our Bureau of Planning and Sustainability has in the past spoken strongly about the inadvisability of the couplet and in favor of enhancing and calming Burnside in other ways. PBOT itself has done alternative studies, but barely mentions it as it seems determined to build a couplet at all costs.

There are other ideas out there and much more to be discussed. I invite readers to log on to wwww.betterburnsidealliance.org for further information.

John Rettig: The studies you cite generally looked at one-way streets individually, not necessarily those grouped as couplets.
JK: Wrong again, you are ignoring this study that I just listed:
In 1986 Denver converted seven streets on three one-way couplets. Average intersection accident rates increased 37.6% while average mid-block accident rates increased 80.5%. The City report noted that accident rates were up on all three couplets "as is expected with two-way operation" (Pages 23 and 29, Source 7).

Notice that these are described as one-way couplets. Why are you pretending that this data is wrong, not applicable or doesn’t exist?

John Rettig: I would offer - and I have no data to cite here - that at this point the pedestrian fatalities on E. Burnside are far higher than on Couch, and the comparison needs to be not on an individual street level, but on the couplet streets take as a pair, before and after the one-way conversion - because the lessor street will become significantly worse after conversion.
JK: You are grasping at straws to justify your unsupportable position. Basically a religious position. Why don’t you find us some data instead of pure speculation.

In the absence of data to support your claims, and a lot of data against your claim, you are advocating changes that are going to get people killed. But that has never bothered city planners when it comes to imposing smart growth on us, has it?

Again Why are you trying to justify actions that have been proven to get pedestrians killed? Do you work for a government agency (or consulting firm) that has to pretend that these stupid ideas are safe?

Thanks
JK

Ever wonder if maybe more people are killed on two-way streets because more people are ON two-way streets? Maybe one-ways are "safer" because people avoid them when they have the option to walk on the two-ways?

The "statistics" claiming Burnside is dangerous for pedestrians do not take into account volume of cars or pedestrians so are flawed. If you study the documents at Larry Norton's carefully compiled storage page, you will see that when volume is considered, there are many much more dangerous interesections than those on Burnside:

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_3qkHx7vBgCMGExZjdiODUtODlmZS00MjQzLWIzNjUtZDMxMjM0ZThkZWMx&hl=en

Playing this so called "safety" card is a way to appear heroic when one's motives are less so. I call it "old white man thinking" to believe that one's business will be more lucrative if it has more cars passing by and/or more parking spaces. The Pearl District's success proves that the trend is away from catering to cars and toward catering to pedestrians. Change NW Couch to a one-way and watch property values on it drop like a rock.

Take a walk and you'll see that businesses that are on a corner, adjacent to a one-way and a two-way, almost always put their entrance on the two-way, simply because the traffic is slower (quieter) and more pedestrians travel the sidewalks of two-ways.

So until these so called "statistics" glamorizing one-ways (created by transportation engineers who went to school to learn to move more vehicles faster, with no concern for "place") take into account volume of people and cars into their calculations, we have to believe what our eyes and our guts tell us.

The most successful retail environments in Portland are on two-ways (NW 23rd, NW Couch, SE Milwaukee, NE Hawthorne etc). And residential property rarely thrives on one-ways.

As Mark White points out, there are neighborhoods without contiguous sidewalks and others without paved streets, so is it equitable to put millions of dollars into making Burnside "safer" when true statistics (see Larry's link above) show it isn't dangerous? Old White Man Thinking would have us throw millions of public dollars at a problem that doesn't exist.

So their true motive for a pair of one-ways? Old White Man Thinking tells them that their property values will increase if more cars are passing by, the LID (local improvement district tax) costs will be passed on to their tenants and the rest onto the backs of the taxpayers so what the hell can they lose?

RESPECT... and for those who facilitate this waste, VOTES.

Candace Parmer: Ever wonder if maybe more people are killed on two-way streets because more people are ON two-way streets? Maybe one-ways are "safer" because people avoid them when they have the option to walk on the two-ways?
JK: Please show us some data, instead of pure speculation.

Candace Parmer: The "statistics" claiming Burnside is dangerous for pedestrians do not take into account volume of cars or pedestrians so are flawed.
JK: I didn’t say anything about Burnside stats. Please review what I actually said.

Candace Parmer: If you study the documents at Larry Norton's carefully compiled storage page, you will see that when volume is considered, there are many much more dangerous interesections than those on Burnside:

http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_3qkHx7vBgCMGExZjdiODUtODlmZS00MjQzLWIzNjUtZDMxMjM0ZThkZWMx&hl=en
JK: Got a link that does not demand a password?

Candace Parmer: Playing this so called "safety" card is a way to appear heroic when one's motives are less so.
JK: Ok what are your motives?

Candace Parmer: I call it "old white man thinking" to believe that one's business will be more lucrative if it has more cars passing by and/or more parking spaces.
JK: Aside from being racist, your statement is completely false. Few large retail businesses can survive without traffic and parking. Got any examples, other than little boutiques (but even NW 23 rd has parking and was talking about adding a parking structure to improve business.)

Candace Parmer: The Pearl District's success proves that the trend is away from catering to cars and toward catering to pedestrians.
JK: All the Peral district proves is that if the city takes $100-200 million from schools, social services, police & fire departments, you can build a lot of overpriced condos for millionaires.

Candace Parmer: So until these so called "statistics" glamorizing one-ways (created by transportation engineers who went to school to learn to move more vehicles faster, with no concern for "place") take into account volume of people and cars into their calculations, we have to believe what our eyes and our guts tell us.
JK: That’s it - go for your feelings and ignore the people you get killed. As for a concern for place, please take your smart growth rhetoric and peddle it somewhere else. Real people (as opposed to planners and a very few others) are concerned with earning a living, feeding their family and being left alone by the social engineers.

Candace Parmer: The most successful retail environments in Portland are on two-ways (NW 23rd, NW Couch, SE Milwaukee, NE Hawthorne etc). And residential property rarely thrives on one-ways.
JK: Wrong again. The most successful retail businesses are on busy streets and freeways. Walmart on 82nd, I84, Fred Meyer’s on 82nd, Broadway, Costco between Sandy & Airport way. I am not aware of any stores on the streets you named that even come close to the sales volumes of the ones I listed (except 39th & Hawthorne Fred Meyer which has a big parking lot).

Candace Parmer: So their true motive for a pair of one-ways?
JK: With Portland, you never know. But the reality is that one-way couplets save lives. That is my only point.

Candace Parmer: RESPECT... and for those who facilitate this waste, VOTES.
JK: Please learn to express a complete thought.

Thanks
JK