tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post1441862087638854672..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: The Third Bridge NEPA Process has seemed Resistant to FactSalem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-41149712328571565842016-04-02T11:21:58.666-07:002016-04-02T11:21:58.666-07:00If the sprawl lobby attempts to get a record of de...If the sprawl lobby attempts to get a record of decision out of that absurd pile of random guesses and predetermined "outcomes" the decision in Wisconsin has given us a great roadmap to follow.<br /><br />Ultimately NEPA is pretty toothless, a procedural checklist, but there comes a point where the data can be so bad that it would be arbitrary and capricious to rely on it.<br /><br />That's the territory where the Bridgasaurus Boondogglus is. Any honest environmental assessment would destroy the whole scheme; thus, we won't have an honest assessment as long as the sprawl lobby has anything to say about it. <br /><br />So it's just corporate welfare at this point -- shoveling money at contractors to keep the notion alive, the same "never say die" that propped up the zombie "Columbia River Crossing" corpse for so long ($190 million wasted).Walkerhttp://lovesalem.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-83022490220668176842016-04-02T10:31:37.519-07:002016-04-02T10:31:37.519-07:00And...
Maybe it will be time to revisit this, but...And...<br /><br />Maybe it will be time to revisit this, but <a href="https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/OHP/1999_OHP.pdf" rel="nofollow">the Oregon Highway Plan</a> (1999 and revised multiple times since) has "volume to capacity ratio targets" (see table on p. 84), but they are not legally binding.<br /><br />"<i>achieving v/c targets will not necessarily be the determinant of the transportation solution(s). Policy 1F recognizes and emphasizes opportunities for developing alternative mobility targets (including measures that are not v/c-based) that provide a more effective tool to identify transportation needs and solutions and better balance state and local community needs and objectives. Through this policy, the state acknowledges that achieving important community goals may impact mobility performance and that higher levels of congestion may result in certain areas.</i>" (p. 69)<br /><br />So it's clearly in the domain of politics: If enough people are willing to tolerate auto congestion in an area, there is wiggle room here. But until that tolerance arises and is popular, the governing approach will be through the autoist v/c targets.<br /><br />But the legal and regulatory framework itself doesn't require widening at certain congestion thresholds.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-84085309673749167122016-04-02T10:02:07.873-07:002016-04-02T10:02:07.873-07:00#1 has an easy answer, I think: No. The NEPA proce...#1 has an easy answer, I think: No. The NEPA process has totally elided the fact that the Salem Alternative is proposed for a less stable site than the current bridges.<br /><br />#2 has been the source of puzzlement for a while. I am not certain on this, but I think that one of the cultural triumphs of hydraulic autoism is that it has managed to avoid specifying a legal threshold or standard for road congestion. <br /><br />There are engineering standards of "levels of service" and "volume/capacity" ratio, and these have become deeply entrenched convention, and the insurance industry may have even adopted them in underwriting for transportation agencies or evaluating fault in collisions, but I don't believe there's actual a Federal or State level regulatory apparatus behind them. Their power has become invisible! It's all about guild preferences and the way those became widespread convention.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-49366315885423172232016-03-31T19:51:59.816-07:002016-03-31T19:51:59.816-07:00Two questions:
1) has it been proven that the new...Two questions:<br /><br />1) has it been proven that the new bridge would survive The Big One when it is in a liquefaction zone?<br /><br />2) how was it determined that the current bridges are not adequate? Is there a standard that is set by either the State or Federal government.<br /><br />I travel the area pretty regularly and can't seem to find the kind of congestion that some people complain about. It is never as bad on Wallace or the bridge as it is on South Commercial, Lancaster, or Kuebler. I little stop and go for 10 minutes is not what I would consider congestion.<br /><br />Will the federal government allow use of 2006 data as the basis of a decision or do they have to gather new data?<br /><br />I guess that was 3 questions, sorry....<br /><br />I really appreciate the observation that if they were to toll the bridges the use would go way down. Do we assume that means people would cross somewhere else? If so, how can we encourage that now without the toll?Susann Kaltwassernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-58231779761605894972016-03-30T20:50:35.730-07:002016-03-30T20:50:35.730-07:00The NEPA process MAY gather all of the facts. But...The NEPA process MAY gather all of the facts. But that still doesn't prevent the deciders from making a bad decision. They just have to prove that they looked at the facts. Stupid, I know. <br /><br />Where they can be sued is if it can be proven that their purpose and need is too narrow and if they didn't use the latest available data during the decision-making process.Mikenoreply@blogger.com