 |
| Cherriots' "New Vision" |
[W]hen the letter (Attachment A) and policy statement (Attachment B) were presented to the SRC Oversight Team, a clear level of concern was expressed by some members of the SRC Oversight Team. As a result, the SRC Oversight Team has requested a revision be made to the policy statement submitted for inclusion by Salem-Keizer Transit. These members would prefer to have language that, in their perception, would be less prescriptive in nature and would allow for a greater level of discretion throughout the design process. [italics added]The current, and apparently disagreeable, language:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT,The new language (the paragraphing and quotes aren't exactly parallel, so if you're a stickler, check the original):
THAT the Board of Directors hereby states as a matter of record, support for the “Salem Alternative” as the preferred alternative to be included in the Salem River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement, and
“…THAT the following statement be added to the Oversight Team Policy Statements:
Public Transportation supportive amenities such as bus stops, park and ride lots, transit centers, bus queue jump lanes, and transit signal priority will be included as an integral part of the design of the project.” [italics added]
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SALEM AREA MASS TRANSIT DISTRICT,A change from "include as integral" to "consider" is a meaningful softening and retreat.
THAT the Board of Directors hereby states as a matter of record, support for the “Salem Alternative” as the preferred alternative to be included in the Salem River Crossing Environmental Impact Statement, and
THAT the following statement be added to Oversight Team Policy Statements:
["]In order to avoid additional costs and design conflicts, bus stop locations and construction shall be coordinated with Salem-Keizer Transit. In addition, other public transportation supportive amenities such as park and ride lots, transit centers, bus queue jump lanes, and transit signal priority will be considered as part of the design of the project.” [italics added]
I don't really know how important this is as a component of designing the "Salem Alternative." The project's awfulness is so great that the difference between bad and badder may not be very important. In essential ways these details are lipstick on very smelly pig. Additionally, right now the project does not have a clear path to funding, and in some important ways this is all just posturing and rhetoric.
 |
| The costly, risky bridge will cost at least ten Courthouse Squares |
It's also interesting that these design components are framed up as "amenities" instead of essentials. That these things can't be insisted on is a measure of how far from multi-modal with complete streets this project really is.
Even more, it's a sad example of how far we remain from a "new vision" like that of Gil Penalosa's. Not only is Cherriots not able to say "we don't need it," but they can't even say "transit design is integral" to new transportation infrastructure.
Consider emailing the board and reminding them about Gil Penalosa, the power of transit to reduce congestion, and the folly of the giant bridge and highway.
The Salem Area Mass Transit District Board of Directors meets Thursday, April 24th, at 6:30pm, back in Courthouse Square, the Senator Hearing Room, 555 Court St NE.
6 comments:
Thanks so much for alerting us to this. There isn't much to be done about it until we show that the Chamber of Commerce doesn't run this town anymore by electing Scott Bassett, Tom Andersen, Xue Lor and Christopher Proudfoot to the Salem City Council in the May election. Are you going to do endorsements SBOB?
Thanks for the invaluable feedback! Your post inspired multiple people to write emails directly to the Salem-Keizer Transit Board, and I really enjoyed hearing so much support for transit being an essential part of a new bridge. It would be great if as many people as possible can write to the members of the Salem River Crossing Oversight Team (http://www.salemrivercrossing.org/who-is-involved/) and encourage them to support the inclusion of our transit policy. The Transit Board will be making a strong case for its inclusion, but support from constituents also plays an invaluable role.
Right now, there is no specific policy emphasizing the importance of considering transit amenities, and the Salem-Keizer Transit Board is very concerned about this. While the revised language, which was approved tonight, is not as strong as the original language, it is better than what we have now (i.e., no policy). Transit District staff also gave the Board assurance that they are working closely with ODOT, who is overseeing the project and is amicable to transit needs. Now we just need a wider recognition from all elected officials from all agencies in the area that transit needs should not be relegated to an afterthought.
-Brad Coy, Salem-Keizer Transit Board of Directors, Subdistrict 2 (Keizer)
Thanks, Brad!
Not sure what folks wrote to Cherriots, but the sentiment here was "Consider emailing the board and reminding them about Gil Penalosa, the power of transit to reduce congestion, and the folly of the giant bridge and highway."
The position and goal here is not to "improve" a costly, risky, and unneeded giant bridge and highway, but to refocus conversation and funding on lower-cost and more efficient projects that improve mobility and create a larger menu of personal choices for mobility - hopefully to render the giant bridge and highway here something forgotten like Portland's cancelled Mount Hood Highway.
(For more on transit and the Third Bridge see here.)
@Jim - Nah, no Endorsements. The goal for the election is to stick with the issues as primary and candidates themselves secondary. (So I'm going to ask commenters to minimize electioneering and expressions of the form "vote for x" and stick with policy/issues. Though obviously a pretty important question is how a candidate sees the third bridge and citing a candidate's stance on a relevant issue is fair game.)
As for the Chamber, I think their arguments on the bridge are weak at best and delusional at worst. At least here, let's not demonize them with overbroad claims that they "run the town" etc.
The Chamber could be allies on other issues! How great would it be, to be on the same page with the Chamber on redeveloping the State Hospital North Campus, for example?
I'm a little late to this issue, but at our South Central Association of Neighbors meeting on Nov. 12, the Transit District people gave a presentation on next year's changes in service. I asked whether they have had discussions with the large employers in Salem's core, such as the various state agencies and the hospital, about encouraging employees to ride transit via subsidized bus passes and more expensive parking. The answer was yes, but I also heard that the state is prohibited from raising the price it charges employees to park.
I assume that is a collective bargaining issue but if you or anyone else knows more about the cost employees pay to park and the barriers that keep that cost low I'd love to learn more. In last night's meeting it was said that employees pay about $70 per month for parking passes, and an argument was made that $70 is expensive. But someone else pointed out that there is a waiting list to get parking passes that is several hundred people long. Obviously parking at $70 (or whatever the cost) is not too expensive if there is a long waiting list.
Regarding the Transit District wanting their "transit policy" included in the Third Bridge plans, I guess that seems more than just a little naive on the Transit Board's behalf. It is disappointing that the Transit District would show any sort of support for a project (the Third Bridge) that will only harm their ability to attract riders. The Transit Board should be leading the argument that there are many small, sustainable, and attainable things that can be done to mitigate congestion on our current bridges at a cost that is far less than building a new bridge.
Thanks for your comment, Jeff! I can speak to some of your questions from my perspective as a member of the Transit Board, a transportation engineer, a bike commuter, and transit rider.
The bridges themselves aren't what are causing the congestion bottleneck. Its the limited capacity of Wallace Road as well as the topography and land use patterns in West Salem, both of which also make it extremely difficult for transit to serve the area.
More than almost anything else, land use patterns in combination with the personal preferences of transportation users affect how well transit can serve an area, and these are extremely difficult to change and are something the Transit District has very little influence over.
So, what can we do? I feel it is very important to listen to our riders and to partner with other agencies and the business community to provide the service that riders want right now while also helping the area develop in ways that are transit friendly. This is something the Transit District is working very hard on with its Moving Forward initiative and we are making headway. For example, I have had very positive discussions with City of Salem staff, elected officials, and Chamber members about our Core Network concept.
Thanks again for sharing your perspective, and please let me know your thoughts on other specific things we can do!
Post a Comment