One reason is that I was trawling for things about the Salem River Crossing, and it appears to be almost wholly silent on that. (That seems like a significant omission, though.)
So instead, there are lesser things only to note.
|1957 map shows impacts between Cherry and Verda|
(USGS historic maps, not in FEIS)
|Vestiges of a neighborhood at Pleasant View Drive,|
looking towards Hyacinth/Verda - via streetview
When the Pringle Parkway was selected, when the Salem Parkway was selected, when Cordon Road was not fully extended along Hazelgreen/Chemawa/Lockhaven (if that was ever formalized) - each of these decisions narrowed the range of probable bridge crossing sites and ultimately pointed to one terminating at the Salem Parkway. There's a sense in which the SRC's present choice of location was pre-determined by all of these prior decisions.
That's something to come back to after accumulating more evidence and history.
(Maybe this is summarized already somewhere, but it's just hard to keep track of all the thousands of pages of documents scattered here and there! The introductory chapters to various plans have history sections, but they seem usually to be simple timelines of previous studies, without much interpretive depth or historical narrative. They don't say "why.")
The short section on "energy" is interesting, and while the model we use today might be a little more complicated, and require more computer horsepower to calculate, the basic paradigm remains the same: "This alternative would require the energy equivalent of nineteen million gallons of gasoline more [than a rejected alternative]."
here and here.)
A few other brief notes.
The way that "alternative modes" are dismissed is practically boilerplate! "Transit alone...cannot meet the demand" etc., etc. These sentences appear with minor adjustments again and again, decade after decade. But we've never actually made a serious attempt to meet needs for mobility by means other than drive-alone trips. It is as if "Of course we already know transit can't meet the demand, but we'll pretend otherwise for a moment of analysis before we circle back the conclusion we already know is true." (More on the SRC here.)
Lancaster, however, doesn't seem all that built up yet along its full length. Instead, it has commercial clusters at key intersections. So here's a counter-factual: The 70s might have been a moment that with better land use could have resulted in a stronger, less strippy and less autoist Lancaster. (And underscores the strengths of the current State Street Corridor project, which is looking at a street redesign in tandem with land use and zoning changes. All our corridor studies should do these together now.)
|Land use summary in 1974|
the DEIS for the Salem River Crossing says in 2010:
Hispanic or Latino populations for the area were 23.8 percent for Marion County, 11.9 percent for Polk County, 17.9 percent for Keizer, and 21.5 percent for Salem.For the moment here are the 1979 traffic counts and year 2000 projections. It may be possible later to drill into them and see how things actually turned out! (The population projections for year 2000 turned out to be pretty accurate, well within any reasonable margin of error or rounding.)
|1979 traffic counts|
|Projections for year 2000|
Update, December 17th
Here are year 2000 projections with some current actual counts. Several are greatly below year 2000 projections, some even a decade or more later than year 2000 are just at year 2000 projections, and only one is meaningfully above year 2000 projections.
|Year 2000 projections with current counts|