|2015 draft Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan|
But how much better, really, will it be? Will it enact substantive policy and funding changes? Or will it remain at the level of "wouldn't it be nice if..."?
I worry that it will be too much aspirational and optional, and not enough of an agent of change in the agency and change in actual transportation funding and planning.
There may be more to say in a post closer to the meeting, and after reading the plan in detail.
But here's a few clips.
|Table of Contents|
|"The Vision" for 2040 - 25 years out|
|Random map of Salem!|
The caption discusses four levels of stress, and you'd think a map illustrating this would be four-color, not two. Some streets are missing, and these are some of our largest arterials, parkways, and highways.
Now in an ironic reading, it is possible to say that what it says is that riding in Salem is makes you feel red - it's always stressful!
But I don't think that's really what it means.
Of course, this is a draft, and maybe it's not fair to pick at it in this way. Maybe the map is a placeholder.
|Active transport and smoking at ODOT HQ|
Longtime advocate and former chair of the Oregon Biccyle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee AJ Zelada has a three page letter appended to the end of the July meeting summary. After reviewing several of the proposed performance measures as wanting, in conclusion he says, "The absence of these self-analysis says to me, a plan with no teeth....This is a serious, critical flaw not a path towards success."
Portland Bicycle Transportation Alliance advocate Gerik Kransky also had concerns.
We must reduce GHG from transpo. We passed mandate in '07. Half a strategy in '09. Plan in '13. Clean Fuels fight in '15. Time is NOW!— Gerik Kransky (@gerikkransky) July 9, 2015
I think that the statewide bike/ped plan is a great place to make those funding commitments. Plan is not done, but I'm already concerned.— Gerik Kransky (@gerikkransky) July 9, 2015
If you read the plan yourself, let us know what you think!I want to give @OregonDOT credit for conducting the bike/ped plan in the first place. I don't want to see the opportunity to reduce GHG lost— Gerik Kransky (@gerikkransky) July 9, 2015
Thanks to Curt (see comment below), the origin of the random map is known!
Sure enough, it must be from Peter Schuytema's 2014 presentation, "Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress: A system connectivity methodology."
|Salem LOS 1 & 2 Islands|
(It probably made sense in person with the oral commentary, but as a stand-alone it is not clear.)
I think that both red and brown show a network of "Level 1 + Level 2" rated streets, which together can be defined as a "low-stress network," with downtown connections highlighted in red, and outlying areas in brown. On the red streets there might be at least one continuous route that does not require travel along a Level 3 or 4 rated street - though crossing such streets are of course necessary.
The voids, the missing streets, are those rated Level 3 or 4 - or maybe just Level 4, it's not clear - and these voids show the separation that creates "islands." (Though if you look at the enlargement, there are some tiny red sub-islands as well. The island concept is not well considered perhaps.)
So it is possible to quibble a fair bit with the map and its antecedent analysis.
This is an analysis that to a traffic engineer might make sense considered as the set of streets conforming to a list of abstract criteria, but as an analysis of lived bicycling experience, it is too much model and not enough reality.
Even if the details here are tedious to you, there is a take-away that should be of interest:
A Statewide and high-level bike plan embracing analytics that conclude Salem's low-stress network is this robust might not be a very useful plan.
* For previous notes on the plan and process, see here.