Voices not being heard or ignored seems to be a recurrent theme. Hmm, is this only Portland or are these themes observed elsewhere? More so in Democratic Party run cities?
A major East-West corridor has already been physically established. Changing its dynamics would have serious traffic buildup prospects.
Lastly, pedestrian deaths: what is the frequency? Is there a consistent reason for their occurrence? What is the experience in less traveled streets?
Thank you, Scott. The data overwhelmed me. My limited experience with public agencies is their love for publications, as if their production indicates positive actions. No one should be hit in a crosswalk, ever. Dodging traffic by pedestrians is as old as horse-drawn buggies. Drivers need to control their vehciles
I do have an issue with byciclists who do not abide by the rules of the road (their shoes are snapped in place and stopping is a hastle, etc.). I walk a lot and always cross in the designated areas even if it means walking an extra distance for that protection. I find Portland drivers to be polite and curteous. Poorly surfaced streets are an expense for drivers that they should not be required to pay.
PBOT’s own data suggest where safety efforts should be concentrated: 71% of pedestrian crashes occur at intersections, 44% at signalized intersections, roughly 79% of pedestrian fatalities occur after dark, and 69% of traffic deaths occur on the city’s High Crash Network. Under Oregon law, every intersection includes a legal crosswalk, whether or not it is painted. That means improving safety at intersections—through better lighting, safer intersection design, and evaluating restrictions on right turns on red in high-risk corridors—has the potential to address a large share of pedestrian risk.
As a personal observation, my least favorite intersection is the southwest corner of Burnside and Vista. It has a marked crosswalk and pedestrian signals, yet it still feels dangerous. Drivers coming downhill to make a right turn often spend most of their attention looking left for a gap in traffic. Some appear to begin the turn before checking for pedestrians to their right. It strikes me as exactly the kind of intersection Vision Zero should focus on.
Crossing Burnside to get to and from bus stops can mean a long, hot and ugly walk to the nearest crossing, but re-designing streets to accommodate drivers, parking, cyclists and pedestrians often creates a confusing mess that makes things more dangerous for everyone. Until Portland and the state of Oregon make public transit attractive - clean, with frequent service, more extensive routes and enforcement of rules - I can't see public involvement in street design improving both traffic flow and safety concerns. Drivers are going to need to drive, cyclists are going to pretend they don't, and public transit users, who apparently don't have a citizen lobby, won't have a voice at all.
This dispute is about more than whether PBOT should repave West Burnside before holding another round of public meetings. It raises a larger question that Portland has never plainly put to voters: Do a majority want the city to make driving slower, less direct, less convenient and more expensive in order to discourage car use?
That has become the city’s de facto policy through climate targets, transportation plans, PBOT standards, grant applications and individual street projects. Lanes are removed, turns are restricted, parking is reduced and road space is shifted to other uses. Each change is presented separately, often as a safety or technical decision, but the combined effect is to make driving less attractive.
The Better Burnside proposal may have merits, but reducing vehicle capacity on a major arterial is a policy choice, not merely a design detail. It should be debated openly by elected representatives, with clear information about travel times, traffic diversion, business access, transit, safety and cost.
By the time the public is usually invited to comment, the basic goal of reducing automobile capacity is treated as settled. That is backwards. Motorists do not have to win every dispute, but they should be treated as voters and taxpayers whose time, mobility and access matter.
It’s worth remembering what Burnside was originally designed to be. The 1932 Bartholomew Plan proposed widening Burnside to 100 feet—enough for an eight-lane capacity—from West 21st Avenue to East 12th Avenue. The goal was to make Burnside Portland’s premier high-capacity east-west transportation corridor, moving as many automobiles, streetcars, trucks, and other vehicles as efficiently as possible.
Burnside remains an important east-west arterial today, but the surrounding city has changed dramatically. Burnside will always be an important east-west route, but that role should be balanced with the needs of the neighborhoods through which it passes. Rather than functioning primarily as a high-speed transportation corridor, there is a reasonable argument that portions of Burnside should better reflect the communities they divide.
West Burnside between roughly 17th and 24th illustrates the challenge. Despite its central location, it is an uncomfortable and, frankly, unattractive streetscape for people walking, dining, shopping, or simply spending time there—much like stretches of East Burnside. The corridor still reflects an automobile- and truck-oriented design philosophy from nearly a century ago rather than the City’s current emphasis on creating safe, livable streets.
If the City is serious about Vision Zero, repaving projects should incorporate traffic-calming measures rather than simply replacing the pavement. Otherwise, the City risks missing an important opportunity to redesign Burnside in a way that better supports its stated safety goals.
"Traffic Calming" is one of the leading sins against the language committed by our progressive overlords. Just who is being calmed? People driving who are stuck in the slow-moving perpetual traffic jams? PBOT should just level with the ppeople paying the gas taxes and make 0 MPH the universal speed limit and be done with it.
Well, I’m politically moderate, so I don’t get too worked up over terminology. “Traffic calming” has been the standard term in transportation engineering and urban planning for about 40 years. I believe the first use in English was 1985 but its origin is German. It simply refers to street-design measures intended to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries.
I agree PBOT can sometimes come across as overly hostile toward motor vehicles, and it’s fair to debate whether a particular project gets the balance right. But criticizing the phrase itself misses the real question: what design will make Burnside both functional and safer? BTW, making Burnside a one-lane street is a crazy idea.
It’s funny how words have a fixed denotation but can carry completely different connotations depending on the audience. As one linguist wisely observed, “You shall know a word by the company it keeps.”
Pedestrians should take a lot of the blame too. Who has not seen homeless or zombies just walk into the street oblivious to cars. Or really just not caring. This is especially true in old town. And now near McDonalds where all the adjacent retail closed because of street issues. The new pedestrian light near chevron is long needed because if you cross the corner on one side the corners don’t align on the other side. So that’s a welcome addition. And yes drivers do ignore pedestrians crossing near Fred Meyer on 20 place even in a crosswalk. So a walk signal there would be good. The dumpiest part if Burnside is what should have been the nicest. The tree lined esplanade part of the street could have been an urban highlight. Not an eyesore.
Welcome to the wacky world of PBOT, the city's premier social-engineering bureau. First things first: they hate cars and the people who drive them. We should all feel the "warmth of collectivism" by joining the Great Whoevers on buses. Naturally, we will go only where the buses go, when the buses are scheduled, so take your social medicine with a smile. And ignore your fellow passengers who might seem a bit unhinged.
The single lane for the hated cars will be perpetually jammed, and businesses will suffer--but tough luck. Want to join the parade or turn left across lanes? Wait until 11PM to give it a try.
But there's a bonus! We'll have food carts!!! They'll replace the restaurants closed because customers will drive elsewhere.
Do not mention that Vision Zero has seen an increase in pedestrian deaths. And no one talks about the dozens of pedestrians on west Burnside who are stumbling around in drug stupors...sometimes into traffic. In the single-lane, cars won't be going fast enough to hurt anyone...so it's a net gain!
PBOT loves to repave streets that don't need repaving, and totally ignores streets with no paving at all. Lesson: PBOT is always right. So shut up and walk.
One lane each way is madness. It ignores the fact that Burnside IS a major thoroughfare. It’s magical thinking believing its traffic capacity can be halved and be turned into a cozy, local street.
Voices not being heard or ignored seems to be a recurrent theme. Hmm, is this only Portland or are these themes observed elsewhere? More so in Democratic Party run cities?
A major East-West corridor has already been physically established. Changing its dynamics would have serious traffic buildup prospects.
Lastly, pedestrian deaths: what is the frequency? Is there a consistent reason for their occurrence? What is the experience in less traveled streets?
A couple of good reference points: https://www.portland.gov/transportation/vision-zero/documents/portland-2025-deadly-traffic-crash-report/download, https://www.portland.gov/transportation/planning/pedpdx, https://oregonwalks.org/fatal-pedestrian-crash-report/
Thank you, Scott. The data overwhelmed me. My limited experience with public agencies is their love for publications, as if their production indicates positive actions. No one should be hit in a crosswalk, ever. Dodging traffic by pedestrians is as old as horse-drawn buggies. Drivers need to control their vehciles
I do have an issue with byciclists who do not abide by the rules of the road (their shoes are snapped in place and stopping is a hastle, etc.). I walk a lot and always cross in the designated areas even if it means walking an extra distance for that protection. I find Portland drivers to be polite and curteous. Poorly surfaced streets are an expense for drivers that they should not be required to pay.
PBOT’s own data suggest where safety efforts should be concentrated: 71% of pedestrian crashes occur at intersections, 44% at signalized intersections, roughly 79% of pedestrian fatalities occur after dark, and 69% of traffic deaths occur on the city’s High Crash Network. Under Oregon law, every intersection includes a legal crosswalk, whether or not it is painted. That means improving safety at intersections—through better lighting, safer intersection design, and evaluating restrictions on right turns on red in high-risk corridors—has the potential to address a large share of pedestrian risk.
As a personal observation, my least favorite intersection is the southwest corner of Burnside and Vista. It has a marked crosswalk and pedestrian signals, yet it still feels dangerous. Drivers coming downhill to make a right turn often spend most of their attention looking left for a gap in traffic. Some appear to begin the turn before checking for pedestrians to their right. It strikes me as exactly the kind of intersection Vision Zero should focus on.
Crossing Burnside to get to and from bus stops can mean a long, hot and ugly walk to the nearest crossing, but re-designing streets to accommodate drivers, parking, cyclists and pedestrians often creates a confusing mess that makes things more dangerous for everyone. Until Portland and the state of Oregon make public transit attractive - clean, with frequent service, more extensive routes and enforcement of rules - I can't see public involvement in street design improving both traffic flow and safety concerns. Drivers are going to need to drive, cyclists are going to pretend they don't, and public transit users, who apparently don't have a citizen lobby, won't have a voice at all.
This dispute is about more than whether PBOT should repave West Burnside before holding another round of public meetings. It raises a larger question that Portland has never plainly put to voters: Do a majority want the city to make driving slower, less direct, less convenient and more expensive in order to discourage car use?
That has become the city’s de facto policy through climate targets, transportation plans, PBOT standards, grant applications and individual street projects. Lanes are removed, turns are restricted, parking is reduced and road space is shifted to other uses. Each change is presented separately, often as a safety or technical decision, but the combined effect is to make driving less attractive.
The Better Burnside proposal may have merits, but reducing vehicle capacity on a major arterial is a policy choice, not merely a design detail. It should be debated openly by elected representatives, with clear information about travel times, traffic diversion, business access, transit, safety and cost.
By the time the public is usually invited to comment, the basic goal of reducing automobile capacity is treated as settled. That is backwards. Motorists do not have to win every dispute, but they should be treated as voters and taxpayers whose time, mobility and access matter.
Ollie, the problem is that our "public representatives" are all-in on killing the car, for reasons that verge on the religious.
Yes, and they'd go back to the 1950s and kill the freeways, the suburbs and single-family suburban housing if they had it in their power to do so.
It’s worth remembering what Burnside was originally designed to be. The 1932 Bartholomew Plan proposed widening Burnside to 100 feet—enough for an eight-lane capacity—from West 21st Avenue to East 12th Avenue. The goal was to make Burnside Portland’s premier high-capacity east-west transportation corridor, moving as many automobiles, streetcars, trucks, and other vehicles as efficiently as possible.
Burnside remains an important east-west arterial today, but the surrounding city has changed dramatically. Burnside will always be an important east-west route, but that role should be balanced with the needs of the neighborhoods through which it passes. Rather than functioning primarily as a high-speed transportation corridor, there is a reasonable argument that portions of Burnside should better reflect the communities they divide.
West Burnside between roughly 17th and 24th illustrates the challenge. Despite its central location, it is an uncomfortable and, frankly, unattractive streetscape for people walking, dining, shopping, or simply spending time there—much like stretches of East Burnside. The corridor still reflects an automobile- and truck-oriented design philosophy from nearly a century ago rather than the City’s current emphasis on creating safe, livable streets.
If the City is serious about Vision Zero, repaving projects should incorporate traffic-calming measures rather than simply replacing the pavement. Otherwise, the City risks missing an important opportunity to redesign Burnside in a way that better supports its stated safety goals.
"Traffic Calming" is one of the leading sins against the language committed by our progressive overlords. Just who is being calmed? People driving who are stuck in the slow-moving perpetual traffic jams? PBOT should just level with the ppeople paying the gas taxes and make 0 MPH the universal speed limit and be done with it.
Well, I’m politically moderate, so I don’t get too worked up over terminology. “Traffic calming” has been the standard term in transportation engineering and urban planning for about 40 years. I believe the first use in English was 1985 but its origin is German. It simply refers to street-design measures intended to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries.
I agree PBOT can sometimes come across as overly hostile toward motor vehicles, and it’s fair to debate whether a particular project gets the balance right. But criticizing the phrase itself misses the real question: what design will make Burnside both functional and safer? BTW, making Burnside a one-lane street is a crazy idea.
It’s funny how words have a fixed denotation but can carry completely different connotations depending on the audience. As one linguist wisely observed, “You shall know a word by the company it keeps.”
Pedestrians should take a lot of the blame too. Who has not seen homeless or zombies just walk into the street oblivious to cars. Or really just not caring. This is especially true in old town. And now near McDonalds where all the adjacent retail closed because of street issues. The new pedestrian light near chevron is long needed because if you cross the corner on one side the corners don’t align on the other side. So that’s a welcome addition. And yes drivers do ignore pedestrians crossing near Fred Meyer on 20 place even in a crosswalk. So a walk signal there would be good. The dumpiest part if Burnside is what should have been the nicest. The tree lined esplanade part of the street could have been an urban highlight. Not an eyesore.
Welcome to the wacky world of PBOT, the city's premier social-engineering bureau. First things first: they hate cars and the people who drive them. We should all feel the "warmth of collectivism" by joining the Great Whoevers on buses. Naturally, we will go only where the buses go, when the buses are scheduled, so take your social medicine with a smile. And ignore your fellow passengers who might seem a bit unhinged.
The single lane for the hated cars will be perpetually jammed, and businesses will suffer--but tough luck. Want to join the parade or turn left across lanes? Wait until 11PM to give it a try.
But there's a bonus! We'll have food carts!!! They'll replace the restaurants closed because customers will drive elsewhere.
Do not mention that Vision Zero has seen an increase in pedestrian deaths. And no one talks about the dozens of pedestrians on west Burnside who are stumbling around in drug stupors...sometimes into traffic. In the single-lane, cars won't be going fast enough to hurt anyone...so it's a net gain!
PBOT loves to repave streets that don't need repaving, and totally ignores streets with no paving at all. Lesson: PBOT is always right. So shut up and walk.
I share your concerns. Right hand turning vehicles are a serious danger. Thank you for your commentary
One lane each way is madness. It ignores the fact that Burnside IS a major thoroughfare. It’s magical thinking believing its traffic capacity can be halved and be turned into a cozy, local street.