The BCC is a statewide event, but in some ways more interesting locally is the process to update the bicycle chapter in the Transportation System Plan and to develop a district-wide Safe Routes to School plan. In a happy and synergistic coincidence the two are going on at the same time and with the same staff!
The memos from last week's kick-off are posted, and one of the more interesting pieces is the draft criteria for rating projects:
System ConnectivityEach category will be rated under the tripartite scheme: "The concept or project would fully/partially/minimally (or n/a) address the criterion..."
To what degree would the concept or project fill a missing gap in the bicycle and/or pedestrian system? Higher ratings will be assigned to projects that would fill major network gaps.
How well would the concept or project link bicyclists and pedestrians with transit and other non-single occupancy vehicle opportunities? Concepts or projects that substantially improve multi-modal connections will receive higher ratings.
User Safety and Comfort
Could the concept or project potentially improve bicyclist/pedestrian safety and comfort at locations with perceived or documented safety issues, without creating additional operational hazards? This criterion will take into account available crash data as well as feedback from Salem residents. Higher ratings will be assigned to projects with greater potential to improve user safety and comfort, and those projects that move towards meeting design standards and industry best practices.
To what degree do Salem residents desire the proposed concept or project? This criterion will take into account oral and written feedback received at the various community outreach forums associated with this project including public workshops, listening station events, small group discussions and web-based surveys. Concepts or projects addressing documented community concerns will receive higher ratings.
What financial resources would be needed to implement the concept or project? Is the project cost prohibitive, or could it be potentially implemented through grant funding or other opportunities? Do the relative benefits outweigh the costs of the project, and are cost effective over the life cycle of the improvement? Higher ratings will be assigned to concepts or projects with lower anticipated costs, greater benefits, and as well for concepts/projects that could reasonably obtain funding through grants or other opportunities regardless of anticipated cost.
Accommodating a Broad Range of Users
How well would the concept or project address the needs of a variety of users, including families, children, mobility-impaired, seniors, or infrequent or less-confident users? Concepts or projects serving a wider variety of users will receive higher evaluative ratings.
Would the concept or project benefit minority or lower-income residents (many of whom tend to bike, walk, and use transit more than the community generally)? Higher ratings will be assigned to projects located in areas with higher concentrations of minority or lower-income residents (e.g., Title VI populations).
Land Use Connections
To what degree would the concept or project connect users with major bicyclist and pedestrian destinations such as employment centers, schools, parks, libraries, etc.? To what degree would the project support land use and development plans and would it be consistent with the community’s vision for the future? Projects within close proximity of major non-motorized destinations will receive higher evaluative ratings. Projects that would be consistent or would reinforce land use and development plans would receive a higher evaluation rating.
What do you think of them? Are these the right categories? Should there be others? What's the best way to prioritize a list?
And if you want to dig in, there are four other memos!