tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post62193940975878708..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: At the MPO: Safe Routes to School Funding, STIP, Greenhouse GasesSalem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-36099767308965271632017-10-28T11:56:08.053-07:002017-10-28T11:56:08.053-07:00Whoops! Here is the clarification on non-highway p...Whoops! Here is the clarification on non-highway programming:<br /><br />"<i>The three scenarios differ by how much federal funding goes toward the Fix-It program versus the Enhance Highway program. Funding levels for Non-Highway, Safety and Local programs are the same in each scenario</i>."<br /><br />So if the non-highway is a constant, then yeah, <b>Scenario 3 would be the best outcome</b>.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-16528913505086468312017-10-28T08:44:56.967-07:002017-10-28T08:44:56.967-07:00Separately, in a PR update from ODOT, about Scenar...Separately, in a PR update from ODOT, about Scenario 3 and the OTC's preferences, they said:<br /><br />"<i>After receiving feedback from the advisory committees, the commission</i> [the OTC] <i>took Scenario 3 off the table. As a result, some funding will be available to address congestion and highway modernization needs, and the ACTs can remain engaged in project selection.<br /><br />ODOT staff recommended distributing the Enhance Highway money to ODOT regions and using the funds as a leverage opportunity for the ACTs to add Enhance features to Fix It projects. <br /><br />ODOT also recommended giving the ACTs the opportunity to add safety and non-highway features to Fix-It projects, which would give ACTs additional opportunities to recommend priority projects. <br /><br />Advisory committee representatives in attendance weighed in on the funding allocation. The majority supported making Fix-It and Safety the priorities. Also high on the list were ensuring freight movement on main arterials and providing economic development opportunities</i>."<br /><br />This makes it sound like the Area Commissions felt left out and wanted to be able to scatter the spoils for political ends! By removing Enhance funds in Scenario 3, they wouldn't be able to curry favor throwing money around on widening projects.<br /><br />Maybe that's a cynical reading, but that's how it seemed.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-4436121469820207262017-10-28T08:39:10.747-07:002017-10-28T08:39:10.747-07:00Our PNW Safe Routes to School group endorsed Scena...Our PNW Safe Routes to School group endorsed Scenario 3:<br /><br />"<i>Far too many our roads and bridges remain in unsafe condition. Many of them need serious safety upgrades to ensure all road users are safe when traveling; others to be repaved and repaired. <br /><br />Our position: We choose Scenario 3. ODOT should prioritize funding to "fix-it first" and ensure our roads and bridges are safe and sound -- for all roadway users -- before allocating additional funding to highway widening</i>."<br /><br />But does that make the $51M of discretionary non-highway funding go away? That seemed like it was part of the "Enhance" pot in Scenario 2.<br /><br />If the Enhance money in Scenario 2 is ONLY going to auto-capacity and widening, then Scenario 3 indeed might be optimal. (Maybe more to say later.)Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.com