|Site of proposed 13 unit apartment complex|
adjacent to park-n-ride lot
But almost surely it won't be. The site plan looks like it has more surface area for parking and cars than for housing and living, and even if you wanted to walk to the bus stop, the frequency of service may not be enough.
|Three buildings, even more car surface|
|Negative impacts do not include bridge congestion!|
And we tolerate the gradual and imperceptible increase in the conditions that proponents think will make a giant bridge and highway necessary. Talk about slowly boiling the frog!
River Crossing and Transit
Over at N3B, there's a interesting note about Cherriots. At a recent Cherriots board meeting, Mark Wigg gave testimony to request Cherriots to ask
the City to prepare a Supplemental Draft EIS that describes the Salem Alternative and includes an assessment of a transit, bike, and pedestrian alternative to achieve congestion reduction goals.Wigg included an interesting proposal to use Marine Drive and the abandoned Salem, Falls City & Western for multi-modal rapid transit corridors.
Cherriots has really missed the bus on the whole Third Bridge thing. The answer to Mark's question is likely to be that a 2007 memo already assessed transit/bike/walk alternatives and found them wanting and that an appropriate transit/bike/walk assumption has already been built into plans. This conclusion was folded into the Alternate Modes Study. And it has cascaded in a chain of ostensibly unassailable conclusions: We need a bridge!
But it's a house of cards! And Cherriots should have pressed a critique and asked for an honest and more robust analysis - and they still can do so.
For example, as has been noted several times the TSM/TDM analysis of transit was profoundly flawed and, by a straw man argument, concluded transit was helpless to alleviate congestion:
|Sloppy or Intellectually Dishonest?|
Here's the relevant TSM/TDM memo from the Task Force proceedings and an earlier discussion of it on the blog.
Interestingly, the study actually found that metered parking would be helpful! (I know, if you reject one part of the study, can you turn around an accept another?...yeah, that's a reasonable critique, but we're talking generalities here - see below for conceptual nature of the thing.)
|Metered parking could reduce auto trips on the bridges by 10%|
|Modeling shows metered parking increases transit use|
Nevertheless, study recommendations
are "preliminary" and "conceptual"
|The "preliminary" recommendations didn't stop the project team from|
formalizing them into an 8% reduction swag
The Alternate Modes Study could have been a whole lot more robust and included at the very least more detailed modeling and analysis beyond the "preliminary" and "conceptual" nature of the TSM-TDM memos.
More usefully, Cherriots could have been a force for not just more detail, but a thorough-going critique and robust set of alternatives.
They missed the bus.
It's not too late for the next one. Mark's got a fine idea.