We can only hope this gets undone sooner rather than later. What a nightmare.

Gee, I guess so much for the public input stage of this couplet. I don't even know why they bother telling anyone outside of the planning cartel about these things anymore.

Y'know, while they have the streets torn up, maybe now would be the time to replace some of that 100-y/o sewer system. But that'll cost too much, so I'm sure we'll wait for sinkholes.

Cost - I'll say about 5% rise in water/sewer.

And how much is this Sim City exercise costing the taxpayers? I heard something like $18 million ...

... paid out of a Sustainable Couplet sewer charge of just 90 cents a year. [rimshot]

Look at all those trees! I didn't think the city forester allowed such canopy coverage!
But where IS the street car or train on Sandy? I'm sure it will come; then the street will have to be dug up again!

Why would it be a problem for Adams to give a little extra square footage? He knows the ropes.

Grab a park. Build a condo.

Johnswood Park, sold for housing under Katz-Hales.

This one's not to calm the traffic, nor to push it to the suburbs, but to increase the real estate values along NE Couch Street, which will become higher-value commercial land when the project's finished. As for who's behind it? Look at who owns the land on Couch. Not me, alas.

So, Sandy stops dead both ways at that new public-dollars-for-private-profit mega-plex? Unbelievable.

We need to have a pool on how long the publicly subsidized retail in that thing stays empty because a) it costs 5x every square foot within close walking distance and b) nobody will voluntarily walk there because of the crazed traffic. Of course, the first impact will be the vacancies of everything within that radius as the tax assessments are artificially forced up.

The people who make Sim City really should be indicted for crimes against humanity. They make that thing fun to play by simplifying everything enormously and creating easy rewards in ways that real life doesn't, and generations of politicians and "influentials" with low IQ's play it a few times and get trained to fall for developer weasel sales pitches that would be transparently bogus and self-serving to anyone with a real clue.

All that traffic from Sandy is going to get shotgunned onto surrounding side streets. What a disaster.

Does a couplet refer to the public getting screwed?

The eastside real estate mogul Joe Westin is the likely recipient of the vacated section of Sandy Blvd. He owns all if not most of the surrounding property. The vacated section of Sandy will revert to those adjacent properties. He's smart and always one step ahead of anyone else on the eastside. Word is that he wants to do something good for the adjoining neigborhoods..., we'll wait and see?

If you want to see how "calm" these "couplet" streets get, try crossing NE Broadway or Weidler, or SE Belmont or Morrison, on foot during rush hour.

As someone who actually does drive, bike, and walk on and around the Belmont/Morrison couplet all of the time, I've never had any problems. I think it works pretty well. As for the Sandy/Burnside/12th Intersection, it's one of the most poorly-designed in the city. Do you or anybody else here actually have a reasonable alternative to fix the intersection?

Steve - This change has been in the works for years. The city started looking into it in 2001 and the city council originally approved the change in 2002 (back when Jack was gushing over new City Commissioner Randy Leonard to give you an idea of how long it's been). There's been plenty of time for public input.

Yes, this is a very good idea.

It's like taking Columbus Circle in NY City and plopping a skyscraper right in the middle blocking the view shed, the historical connections that the Circle provides.

Nick, I have an alternative. Why not a grand boulevard traffic circle connecting Burnside with Sandy. That would entail a lot less cost, less land usage, and keep the view-sheds to downtown, the west hills and the views in the opposite direction. I still like sun, views and open space once-in-awhile. Keep up the good work blogging from city hall.

Jerry - I have also always thought that a roundabout would be a vast improvement over the current intersection.

That said, I don't think it would be as simple or cheap as you believe. I edited the google maps satellite image of the intersection and superimposed the Coe Circle (39th and Glisan) over the Sandy/Burnside/12th intersection (at the same scale).

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/9763/circlef.jpg

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5097/circle2.jpg

As you can see, putting in a roundabout at the same size as the Coe circle would already involve demolishing the building at the NW corner of the Burnside/12th intersection, plus probably the one directly left (west) of it. Plus the city would have to buy and clear at least parts of the lots in each corner of the existing intersection. However, if you were to put in a circle at the Burnside/Sandy/12th intersection, the radius would have to be even larger than the Coe circle, because as you can see on the 1st picture, it doesn't work for Sandy to feed into the roundabout at it's current size. So you'd basically have to buy and clear all 4 city blocks that are adjacent to the current intersection. And then that would make it almost impossible to cross Burnside on 11th or 13th since they would intersect Burnside right next to the roundabout.

At least with the current plan, they are only demolishing 1.5 blocks of Sandy and 1 block of 13th. But with a roundabout, you'd have to demolish the entire intersection plus everything around it to make room for a traffic circle. I bet that would cost just as much if not more.

let's demand the vacated block be a new PARK. there is no greenspace anywhere near there ,
come-on think of the poor wino
, we could build it with extra cardboard [homes] boxes and old shopping carts , oh and a fleet of Randolfo's Loo/Palaces

Anything that improves that intersection gets my vote. I have always supported the eastside couplet, but not the westside couplet. That is just a stupid waste of money.

Thanks Nick for posting the roundabout images. I don't think it would work at this intersection even though I'm a huge fan of roundabouts.

I had thought this was simply an idea, so imagine my surprise this week when they started work on the project. They did a great job of announcing the stages of such a massive overhaul of the eastside. Yes, that horrid intersection of 12th/Sandy/Burnside needed to be fixed, but really? This way?

Nick, the roundabout at Glisan has an inside radius of over 125 ft. Many successful roundabouts with two lane widths have much less inside radius's down to 60 to 80 ft. They would have much less impact on surrounding property than you depict.

Also, a slightly oblong roundabout could be designed that could fit the angled geometry of the existing conditions of less than 90 degree angles of Burnside to Sandy. A less radius than 125 ft. can easily accommodate truck traffic.

Also the approaching street radius's into the Glisan roundabout are very generous. Those too, could be tighter and accommodate all traffic, having less affect on surrounding property

Nick, I noticed that you didn't address the visual impact and the traffic impact of having a large, massive building right in the middle of a visual corridor. The proposed 100,000 to 150,000 sq. ft. of new building would certainly increase the amount of vehicle, bike, pedestrian traffic right at the choke point of this couplet beginnings. Not good, but if you want congestion you're on the right track. That seems to be what PDOT and Sam wants to create; don't move traffic, create more carbon, make people ride a bike while carting their goods, children, and mother-in law (she's an invalid)with a sack of groceries on top of their head.

Reducing 8 traffic lanes (six on Burnside, two on Couch) into 5 (three on Burnside, two on Couch) should get traffic flowing a lot better.

Whoever thought this up must have been the same geniuses that build bus stops so that buses must stop in the middle of the road in order to load passengers.