Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on 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.

66 comments

  1. Do NOT WANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a crock of doublespeak. Keep this shit in Portland. They're so high they don't give a damn about privacy, everyone else understand why this is a stupid idea.

    1. Re:Do NOT WANT by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The cameras and sensors used are low-resolution. This is the equivalent of the older traffic/axle counters with air hoses put across the road. Squash the hose, the counter increments by one axle.

    2. Re:Do NOT WANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cameras and sensors used are low-resolution. This is the equivalent of the older traffic/axle counters with air hoses put across the road. Squash the hose, the counter increments by one axle.

      The two have absolutely nothing in common. Those hoses didn't take pictures. They have no concept of where people go.

      Hire summer students to survey traffic volume like every other sane city does. Keep your "Smart City" shit where it belongs, in a hole.

      Or have we forgot this already?
      https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/06/18/1757221/amazon-shareholders-to-jeff-bezos-stop-marketing-facial-recognition-tool

      > Rekognition is already being used by at least one law enforcement agency, the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Oregon, a

    3. Re:Do NOT WANT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good thing Portland is in Multnomah county.

  2. Re:Phoners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct!

    I kicked off 15 stoners from my very popular YouTube channel today.

    Thosr damn trolls!

  3. Remember the Portlan Motto by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Remember the Portlan motto: Keep Portland Away.

    1. Re:Remember the Portlan Motto by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone should create an APP for that, or are they all LUDDITES?

  4. The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 0

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

    2. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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 population is riding bicycles through these two streets every day.

      FWIW, I am in favor of dedicated bike lanes so I can ride my bike with less chance of getting run over or killed. But the bicycle advocate community is full of liars, and I don't like liars even if they happen to be on my side.

    3. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

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

    4. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No license required to post a troll, just like there's no license requried to ride willy nilly without regard to pederstrians and cars alike.

      "Cager." And you wonder why you get doored.

    5. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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

    7. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      The ad-hominem loses the argument...

    8. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

    9. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Dooring is attempted murder. Enjoy your stay in jail when someone catches you on a helmet cam.

    10. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not here, dooring is a small 85 buck fine. and thanks to the no fault system your not legally liable for the injury and the cyclists is potentially liable for damage to the motorised vehicles. comme to Québec and get doored.

    11. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Deliberately knocking someone off a bicycle is at least assault if it's on purpose. Not to mention you might catch a beating and door-keying from the cyclist's friend following behind.

    12. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says the worthless old cycle hippy that's anti gun and pro socialism.

      You're a physical embodiment of everything that's non American.

      You have also left a nice comment trail. Interesting reading. Amazing what you can learn about people that way.

    13. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, whatever. You'd be surprised how cowardly cyclists become when actually confronted with someone with no remorse for their actions and fully capable of making them and their friends suffer horribly as they are slowly torn limb from limb on their way to oblivion.

      Don't make the mistake and think every human has concern of their continued existence.

    14. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Good-bye
    15. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      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.

    16. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooooooooooo, big man, talking tough as an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot.

      Have you done your homework yet, Billy? You don't want to flunk 10th Grade *again*, do you?

    17. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by idji · · Score: 1

      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.

    18. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Always some idiot acting like posting as an AC is cowardly. There are a lot of us AC. For reasons that you're clearly not intelligent enough to grasp.

      B0z0 has been running that shitty little mouth long enough to apparently attract several of us. I see the other points were also made about running your mouth to people online while leaving your personal details scattered amongst past comments in other threads.

    19. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dooring is attempted murder. Enjoy your stay in jail when someone catches you on a helmet cam.

      After seeing your posting history, the jury would refuse to convict.

    20. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    21. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm totally fine with that. Assuming we replace the streets with bike paths.

      And if we replace the streets with bike paths, I suspect there will be fewer accidents, smother traffic, and lower costs to the public. :)

      Don't worry, we'll just take all the old bike paths and turn them into automobile infrastructure. Since that's not enough, we can also upgrade the railroad lines to handle vehicle traffic (just keep right). If mixing trains and passenger cars ends up being dangerous, we'll just make a mandatory helmet law, then blame cars for all collisions.

      #replacebikewithcar

    23. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Roads are part of the commons, who pays for it is orthogonal.

      --
      Good-bye
    24. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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.

    25. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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.

    26. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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

    27. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

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

    28. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How much damage do cyclists do to roads compared to trucks or cages?

    29. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

    30. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Reverend+Green · · Score: 1

      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 not well designed for shared bicycle and car traffic. That's why I proposed upgrading road to accommodate bikes in separated lanes. That's a problem if the road is already packed with cars well over design capacity. Whether bikes could realistically help reduce auto traffic depends on climate and geography.

      You may have noticed that cyclists are quite unapologetic when confronting road-hog motorists. That's because cycling is superior to driving in several important ways:

      - clean. No air pollution from car exhaust (or power stations for EV). Manufacturing a bike creates far less pollution than manufacturing a car. Bikes do not contain toxic fluids that requires elaborate disposal protocols.

      - healthy. Cycling to work every day is a great way to get in shape. Driving a lot is a great way to do the opposite.

      - safe. Because they have much lower mass and travel at slower speeds, bicycles are far less dangerous to others in a crash. I myself have been run over by a bicycle - got a nasty bruise and walked away. Cars are vastly more dangerous to pedestrians and property.

      - national security. No need to import billions of dollars worth of oil from the Middle East. No need for the extravagant military spending that makes said importation possible.

      Please reconsider your position. Share the road. It's better for everyone.

    31. Re: The Great Truth Revealed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wah, wah, wah "please reconsider your position"

      Keep sucking on the douchenozzle you pathetic beta.

    32. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      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.

    33. Re:The Great Truth Revealed by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      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.

  5. I can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to see the data on the crappy road conditions suffered by all who ride in Portland, Oregon.

    1. Re:I can't wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. Portland roads are a nightmare to drive on. Pot holes big enough to cause flat tires. Can't imagine riding my bike regularly in PDX, despite coming from a 6-bike family.

  6. data capture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Portland? Portland OREGON?

    All they will capture is data about homeless people riding their bike from one tent city to another. Probably to buy more drugs.

  7. Obect Lessons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are doing it in Portland, it's almost assured that the rest of us shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. I've begun to think of the west coast as America's jackass facilty. Let them f*** everything up for themselves, the rest of us will take note and course correct.

    1. Re:Obect Lessons by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Every city and road department does traffic studies in one form or another. I lived in a small town and the town used an old-fashioned counter with hoses across the roads to count cars before a road improvement project. The only difference is the extent, method, and degree of automation.

    2. Re: Obect Lessons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait... that is not the lesson I got. To me, the lesson was that taxes raised from car registrations and gas taxes were used to do a study on how best to improve roads for those tax paying vehicles. This seems entirely different. Portland wants to use tax dollars to fund research; even paying people to stand inefficiently on corners with a clicker. Why do they want to spend these tax dollars? To take space currently used by those tax paying car drivers and give it to bikers.

      If Portland were actually smart, they would not mix bikes, cars, street cars and light rail on the same downtown roads. On rainy days, cars lose traction on the rails in the road. On every other day a biker's front wheel gets stuck in the rail and goes flying. Then again, at least we get the entertaining show from the Lovejoy Baker's front window.

  8. Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 2

    Article: Portland, Oregon insufficient city management: Examples in 9 areas (PDF file). 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.

    1. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    2. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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? Traffic in my street. This is mainly caused by the fact that I as well as many others still need to own a car. We have no parking in the building and have to park our cars in the street. The traffic is often nothing to do with peak hour and everything to do with people doing laps around the block at 20km/h looking for a place to park, or stopping while someone else reverse parks.

      You can solve as many traffic problems by not having people parallel park in the streets as you can by getting people to give up their cars.

    3. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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 portland to do their shopping just so they can get it in plastic bags, or some effort to reduce people in parks because others want it for themselves. Or that fluoridation of water makes dentists hostile towards customers.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the city is horribly mismanaged, but if these are the biggest complaints about Portland it must be one of the best run cities in the country.

    4. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who lives where there is plenty of parking, I can say ample parking provides a huge incentive to drive. Why ride 2km to the shops when you can drive and be sure of a parking space? And now that I'm driving because there is parking, I wish those stupid cyclists would get off the road so I don't have to think too hard.

      I think the best solution of the simple solutions to congestion is to tax driving at $1 (insert local currency) for every km travelled, chargeable at a yearly registration, offsetting other takes of production like income tax. You want to drive 4km to the shops, then cough up 4 bucks, but you can have ample parking when you get there.

    5. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by src1138 · · Score: 1

      As a bike rider I support your tax idea that is more expensive than fuel. With all the extra money we can put in bike lanes so you don't have to think so hard :)

    6. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We already pay those fees in gas taxes, however they are a hidden fee so we just complain about gas prices.

    7. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article does appear to be meandering and in many cases blames the city managers for things that voters approved (or did not approve, such as the decision to keep fluoride out of the water). Also a lot of "this lady said this thing so it means it's even worse than I'm saying!"

      To be fair, the art tax is pretty poorly managed and controversial in Portland, even by people who like art. Portland regularly tries to fine people who live outside of Portland, and I believe collection and enforcement has been found to be more expensive than the tax itself ($35). It was approved by voters though.

    8. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      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 shortage) will result in people circling the block looking for an open space.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    9. Re:Portland, OR: Terrible traffic, bad pollution by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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 the store in order to go shopping, then the street parking was the wrong thing to rely on in the first place.

  9. Having grown up in this shithole named Portland... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can tell you first-hand the the words 'Smart City' and 'Portland', do not belong in the same sentence.

  10. GE? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

    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.

  11. Why waste sensors on roads no bikes use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am really curious as to why they are putting the sensors on the roads no one really bikes on (in SE at least) When I live on a Bike Corridor and these counters would be much more effective here. And its roughly one block over from Division. I don't even like driving on Hawthorne.

  12. SEO by msk · · Score: 1

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