HELP FOR BURNSIDE has been a long time coming. Our city’s downtown artery squeezes up to six lanes of traffic between skinny sidewalks, infuriating both tourists and drivers. But downtown business owners are strongly divided over a $17-20 million plan that aims to fix Burnside.
Backers of the proposed West Burnside/Couch Couplet are gathering support for the controversial plan that has taken a decade to design. But critics are also gaining steam with their concerns that the project will tear the heart out of Portland’s downtown.
“We’re talking about the Portland Plan and 20-minute neighborhoods and this project is contrary to all those,” says Stan Penkin, a member of the Better Burnside Alliance, a business group that formed in June to protest the couplet. “There are many things that can be done to tame Burnside, but this is a bad idea.”
The basic plan to cut traffic on Burnside is simple: turn Burnside and Couch into a “couplet,” parallel streets that run one-way in opposite directions. The original plan would also have doubled the width of Burnside’s sidewalks, built new intersections that would allow drivers to turn more freely off Burnside, and built a streetcar line down Couch. The trade off for a better Burnside is thousands of more cars daily on Couch, a walkable street whose upper section is lined with cute boutiques, bars, and Whole Foods.
The Westside couplet proved so controversial that city planners dropped it in 2007, opting to focus first on developing the less-testy Eastside Burnside/Couch Couplet. Since the Eastside couplet opened this spring, eyes are now focused again on the plan for Portland’s commercial core.
The original couplet plan aimed to reshape Burnside and Couch all the way from 1st Avenue to NW 25th to the tune of $54 million. With recession-era budgets, the city drew up a scaled-back $20 million version last winter, scrapping the streetcar from the first phase, limiting the couplet to only 2nd through 16th Avenues, and not widening Burnside’s sidewalks at all.
Three million dollars of the budget will need to come from a special Local Improvement District tax on businesses along the corridor, but couplet fans have to get 51 percent of the businesses in the zone to sign on to the plan before it can move forward.
Powell’s Books owner Michael Powell has spearheaded the effort to collect business signatures over recent months and says they have nearly 50 percent of neighborhood businesses on board.
“I think it would be unfortunate if we lose this opportunity. It’s a street that’s not working to anyone’s satisfaction,” says Powell. He thinks the increased traffic on Couch will bring essential “eyes on the street” to Old Town. “It’s been a sad area for a long time, there’s been a lot of drug dealing,” says Powell.
But the anti-couplet business group Better Burnside Alliance has picked up strong support, too, in only a month of organizing.
“I think it’s a really bad idea without a streetcar. It would put a tremendous amount of cars in one of the greatest places to walk and shop in the city,” says Candace Parmer, Alliance member and owner of Fine Art Massage on NW 12th.
Transportation expert and current planning commissioner Chris Smith was a big fan of the original couplet, but thinks the project could damage the area since it axed the sidewalks and pedestrian plaza promised in the $54 million plan.
“We got parking instead of a plaza,” Smith says.
No city council hearing is currently set for the Westside couplet, and the mayor’s office seems to be weighing its options before pushing the high-stakes plan further.
“It’s not on the backburner,” says mayoral spokesperson Roy Kaufmann. “It’s just still in progress.”
I just moved into an apartment on couch on the eastside. The “burnside fix” has already turned my street into a giant traffic jam!
I’m happy to just tell people visiting who must see Powells every time they come in to Portland – “Don’t plan on driving shop to shop in that neighborhood. Find parking when you to Portland, get out of your car, and plan to walk or bus it for the rest of the day.” I don’t need to see a reason to spend money and “fix” that advice.
When you look at all the sexually confused, drugged, tatooed and pireced kids in city hall you will find the answer to all Portland problems.
It seems to me that the couplet may be a good idea, but what I think is missing in this article is mention of the fact that a streetcar included in the couplet would effectively create a “transit square” around Powell’s. Not even Pioneer Courthouse Square has this, with all sides surrounded by public transit, much less rail lines. Thus, I think it would be fair to say that Powell has an additional vested interest in seeing this project happen.
Burniside could use the work. The benefits to the city outweigh the inconvenience to some people on Couch. They may even *ahem* prefer the changes when they’re done.
No one’s denying that Burnside needs work, but the concept of curing Burnside’s ills with a couplet is analogous to addressing an obesity problem by buying bigger clothes. A recent editorial in the Northwest Examiner regarding building a wider bridge across the Columbia River entitled “A Bridge Too Fat” summed it up well: “There is no way to provide greater speed and convenience for motorists without precipitating more driving. Portland was one of the first cities to see the folly in this approach, and we have a better city for it.”
Ian Lockwood, Principal and Senior Transportation Engineer at Glatting Jackson says “we should reward the short trip, not the long trip – reward bikers, pedestrians and transit for sustainability.” Statistics show the majority of Burnside’s traffic consists of commuters that find traveling Burnside faster than the freeway. They would be the main benefactors, yet a substantial portion of the funding (LID tax) would be put on the shoulders of the businesses (via triple net leases) along Burnside, Couch, Davis, Flanders, Stark, etc.. rather than those living in the West Hills who get home faster.
In regard to Powell’s hope that increased traffic on Couch in Old Town would bring “eyes to the street” and decrease drug dealing, if that theory were true, there would be no drug dealing presently on lower Burnside where traffic is twice what it would be on Couch if the west side couplet sees light of day.
Old Town has its challenges with its many social services. Cappuccino sippers are not going to feel comfortable sitting on sidewalks in view of the disadvantaged. Imagine what a difference could be made if the millions designated for the couplet were spent on managing the sidewalks in Old Town so pedestrians could flock without fear all hours of the day and night. Businesses would flourish all along Couch, from the river to NW 23rd.
Portland has a reputation for taking the high road in urban planning. Let’s not let private interests in favor of a couplet circumvent the values and goals that make this town great.
Smart urban planning is proving to pay dividends to all. Banks and landowners need to get on the bandwagon and get their share instead of hanging on to old thinking that says one must have lots of cars and parking to make money. Healthy people hang out and spend money where cars aren’t king. And they welcome the opportunity to walk when possible so they don’t have to buy bigger clothes.
Tony Columbo,are you confusing city hall with what appears to be half the folks in all of Portland and the Mercury itself?Just wondering.
@Candace – Funny. I see the role of government as enabling what people want to do, not instituting constraints that force the public to follow one person’s vision. The majority of people want to drive over the I-5 bridge faster, and the minority wish everyone could ride bicycles and unicorns.