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.

37 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. 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?

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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

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

      The ad-hominem loses the argument...

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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?

    13. 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.

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

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

      --
      Good-bye
    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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

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

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

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

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

    20. 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.

    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 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 :)

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. SEO by msk · · Score: 1

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