Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Communications Technology Hardware

Portland Kicks Off Smart City Initiative With Traffic Sensor Safety Project (zdnet.com) 66

Posted by BeauHD from the planning-for-the-future dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ZDNet: Portland, Oregon officials claim its city has some of the best bike data in the United States -- data revealing how many people ride bicycles, where they're going and what streets they're using. Their collection of that data, however, has been as low-tech as it gets: city staffers and volunteers stand out on street corners for two hours at a time and count. Now, the city is aiming for more comprehensive, accurate data collection with the installation of 200 sensors installed on street lights on three of Portland's deadliest streets: Southeast Division St., SE Hawthorne Blvd. and 122nd St.

The Traffic Sensor Safety Project, for a price tag of just over $1 million, represents the first major milestone for the Smart City PDX initiative. It relies on GE's Current CityIQ sensors, which are powered with Intel IoT technology and use AT&T as the data carrier. GE, Intel and AT&T have already worked together to deploy smart streetlight sensors in San Diego.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Portland Kicks Off Smart City Initiative With Traffic Sensor Safety Project More

Portland Kicks Off Smart City Initiative With Traffic Sensor Safety Project

Comments Filter:

  • Remember the Portlan motto: Keep Portland Away.

  • The Great Truth Revealed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19, 2018 @08:38PM (#56812946)

    The Great Truth to be revealed by this study is that there will be fewer accidents, smoother traffic, and lower costs to the public overall by removing existing bike lanes and getting bicycles off the streets.

    • The Great Truth is that the Internet would be a better place if cager trolls like you have their posting license revoked...

      • How is that a troll? It's news item in USA how serious bicycle injuries and deaths have climbed in past few years.

        • No one is being forced to ride a bicycle -- screw nanny states who want to ban cyclists for their ownnnn saaaaaffffffeeeetteeeeee or for the cheeeeeeeellllldren.

          • they cause problems for drivers of cars when they're on roads never intended to be used for bicyclists.

            I ride a bike but I stick to the bike trails around the area, I'm not a rolling obstacle/hazard on four lane 40 MPH roads like many idiots

            • Some of us don't own a car, can't afford Goober/taxis, and actually NEED a bicycle to go places where public transit doesn't go. Also, a 4-lane road has space to pass. Cagers should take a deep breath, relax, and enjoy the scenery instead of rush-rush-rushing like hamsters on a wheel.

              • wrong, there is no room for bikes on such roads in major cities, they're a hazard and cars pass precariously close to those idiots. we don't allow bicycles on interstate highways either.

                look for more deaths and maimings in the major metro areas if more people take your stupid view

                • It's the cyclists' choice. Don't be such a nannystater.

                  • Not when they cause drivers to do dangerous things, they're a menace to the public. Bikes can stay off the major roads and take side roads.

                    • Side roads are often non-connective -- i.e. the only way from points A to B is a bridge or underpass that's on a more major road. Cyclists generally use side streets when possible (no one LIKES riding in traffic), but it's often not possible with piss-poor US street design.
            • You do realize the equitable solution is to take a lane from drivers everywhere and dedicate it to a protected cycling lane, right? Cars do not own the roads.

              • Re: The Great Truth Revealed (Score:1)

                by Anonymous Coward

                I think you could argue that cars do own the roads. How much road tax do bicyclists pay?

              • wrong, bikes didn't pay for it. it wasn't designed for bikes. bikes are a hazard. we don't allow bicycles, rickshaws or golf carts on interstate highways either. the precedent is there for banning bikes from major roads.

            • Bike trails are for weekend recreational cyclists. Nothing wrong with that.

              Riding on the street and battling traffic is for daily bike commuters. Also nothing wrong with that. And a whole lot right with it.

              If your giant 4 lane suburban road is unable to safely accommodate clean, efficient, healthy bicycle commuting - then perhaps the road should be reduced to 3 lanes for car traffic, and appropriate safe separated bike lanes provided.

              Share the road.

              • no, because most people use cars to get to work, the distance is too far for bicycling. in fact if there were ten time the bicyclists, they'd still be in insignificant fraction.

                there is a lot wrong with those bicyclists clogging a road made for cars, they don't belong there and the road was not built for them nor paid for by them

                no reason to share, it's not theirs. it's not designed for bicycles.

                • Cars can pass the bicycles -- cars are hardly "clogging." If anything, wide cars are clogging roads for narrower bikes and motorcycles. We'll decide where we belong, not your place to preach at us, son.

                • C'mon man, these cyclists are your neighbors. The road does bring to them, just as much as it belongs to motorists. And given the typical demographics of road cyclists, they probably pay rather more in taxes than the average driver.

                  It's unclear to me whether the road you describe has a lot of bicycles or just a few. If there are a lot - well then clearly many people disagree about the distances being too great. If there are only a few cyclists - well what's the problem then?

                  I agree with you, most roads are

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The Great Truth to be revealed by this study is that there will be fewer accidents, smoother traffic, and lower costs to the public overall by removing existing bike lanes and getting bicycles off the streets.

      You got that backwards. Portland's bicycle advocates are not getting they numbers they want, so they're going to use automatic counters which are so very easy to game and get high numbers. It is not so easy with human counters.
      In my city, the automatic counters got high numbers. But the city had cameras where anyone could see the same bicyclists going back and forth over the sensors multiple times
      So, naturally they removed the cameras from there.
      Now it seems that the numbers show 20% of the populati

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by idji ( 984038 )
      Clearly you are ignoring public health, happiness, livability, and air pollution when you calculate "lower costs". When people can walk and ride, the centers of town become more lively, friendly, people interact more and spend more time there. It becomes a fun place to be, instead of a place to get out of.
    • Bikes aren't ever going to be banned, and that just burns you for some reason, but that's too fucking bad, get used to it. Chances are you're a shitty aggressive driver who experiences road-rage on a daily basis and therefore you are the one that should be removed from the roads. People like you are the ones who are why they're trying to condemn us all to be strapped into self-driving cars and die horribly when it fucks up, thanks so much for that asshole.
  • Article: Portland, Oregon insufficient city management: Examples in 9 areas (PDF file) [futurepower.net]. When I tell people about the article, they say, "Only 9?".

    1) Portland city management is allowing the construction of large buildings with no parking.

    2) The traffic is TERRIBLE.

    3) The pollution is extremely unpleasant during the summer. It appears that there is no effective pollution management.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      Isn't it funny how the people who cause traffic congestion are the first to complain about it?

      And then those same people also tend to complain about insufficient parking, as if accommodating cars doesn't encourage people to drive and create even more traffic!

      The way we (ab)use zoning laws to force developers to build more parking than the market wants, and then we complain about all the traffic, is like living next door to a swamp and complaining about all the mosquitoes!

      • Isn't it funny how the people who cause traffic congestion are the first to complain about it?

        People don't cause traffic congestion, town planners do. Also traffic congestion is not directly related to parking, and in some cases is actually the opposite.

        Example: I cycle EVERYWHERE. During the week I don't touch my car. The cycling infrastructure here where I am in Europe is fantastic. The city layout and public transport is fantastic. The bike paths are crazy busy and so is public transport. My neighbour is 38 years old and doesn't have a drivers licence, never needed one.

        So what's my complaint? Tra

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          People don't cause traffic congestion, town planners do.

          You are partially correct. See my comment above about how parking attracts traffic.

          Also traffic congestion is not directly related to parking...

          The business association in my town are worried that replacing street parking with bike lanes will drive down traffic to their stores. Maybe you can help calm their fears!

          ...and in some cases is actually the opposite.

          That's true, charging below market equilibrium for parking (this is the definition of a shor

          • The business association in my town are worried that replacing street parking with bike lanes will drive down traffic to their stores. Maybe you can help calm their fears!

            I have heard this 100s of times. Most recently in Vienna, the Mariahilferstrasse which was a huge upper market shopping street. Everyone complained when they said they are making it a car free zone, not even just removing parking. End result, business increased. A quieter street more pleasant to pedestrians and cyclists attracts people and business ended up going up.

            Extreme example but frankly no one cancels a shopping trip due to lack of street parking. If you absolutely need to bring your car right up to

    • That "Article" mostly reads about one man's random bitching about things he doesn't like. He dedicates paragraphs to his hatred of art, gives traffic and parking a one liner, and then complains about a plastic bag ban being bad for the environment despite the fact that this is demonstrably false.

      In fact most of what is written in there is speculated garbage that doesn't pass the pub test (Australian slang for it is so incredibly stupid even a drunk person wouldn't consider it). e.g. People drive out of port

  • It relies on GE's Current CityIQ sensors, which are powered with Intel IoT technology and use AT&T as the data carrier.

    Given today's news, I don't know about the timing of that. Committing to that could be as wise as buying a bunch of Sears gift cards.

  • SEO (Score:2)

    by msk ( 6205 )

    Subby, were you dropping so many names to drive searches to this article?

Slashdot Top Deals

A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson

Close