our area commission on transportation, MWACT, met and ranked the 15 area projects competing for these "non-highway Enhance" funds.
In that ranking there were four tiers. In the first:
- Cherriots replacement buses for the Wilsonville route
- Salem crossing projects, including two key Winter-Maple bikeway intersections
- Hayesville sidewalks and bike lanes
- A city of Carlton project for sidewalks and bike lanes
- A city of Independence project for sidewalks and bike lanes
- Yamhill County replacement buses
- A city of Newberg project for sidewalks and bike lanes
- East segment of the Family-friendly Bikeway on Union Street
You might also remember our local MPO's rankings.
|Local rankings from the Sept 22nd meeting|
Bus replacement seemed to be popular, it's also interesting to note.
One thing to bear in mind in thinking about this program is that proponents of the Third Bridge want to suck up six or seven years of "Enhance" funding.
|All of Region 2, including highway funds = $27 million|
Two or three of these three-year cycles would get sucked up
|The possibility of Enhance funding|
(March 6, 2015 funding memo)
To proponents it may seem "reasonable to anticipate this funding amount," but it would come at the expense of many other good things - things some of us think are vastly more important.
An opportunity cost of funding the Third Bridge is that we won't do a lot of other worthwhile and "reasonable" things.
One very interesting tidbit in the minutes from the September meeting was news about the Corvallis area's greenhouse gas modeling activity.
|Current plans = 2.1% reduction in GHG only|
while CAMPO has a target of a 21 percent decrease in emissions by 2035, current plans and adopted policies are likely to only result in a 2.1 percent decrease in emissions by 2035. Results from greenhouse reduction activities to date indicate that there is not a single path to compliance with state greenhouse gas emission reduction requirementsThat points to a very low ceiling for the reduction in emissions Salem's adopted plans and policies are likely to produce, and suggests that larger system changes will be necessary to make a serious dent in emissions.
If our current levels of "non-Highway Enhance" funding won't get us to meaningful levels of greenhouse gas reduction, image what would happen if they just simply disappear for a giant bridge and highway!
Right now, though, the MPO is unwilling to begin the lower level of "strategic assessment" to say nothing of the more robust "scenario planning."
N3B has some on the possibility of using these funds on planning a seismic upgrade to the Center Street Bridge, but in the memo it is buried as option 5(a) - and option 5(b) is also to fund one of the unsuccessful TGM applications, which included the "bridgehead district" plan for the Third Bridge. I don't read the memo as endorsing a seismic upgrade study very strongly at all, however. But N3B is right, that it least it might be discussed.
|Look for the historic sign|
next to the entry