Our Salem Continued at Planning Commission on Tuesday - More on Hubs

Unsurprisingly the Planning Commission continued and extended the Public Hearing on Our Salem. They meet again tomorrow, Tuesday the 5th.

Earlier in comment one person wrote to say, paraphrasing, that if they wanted to walk to a something like a Neighborhood Hub, they would have made a different choice of neighborhood. They were happy to drive one or two miles. Implied was the notion that the City had an obligation to retain the conditions in their neighborhood they found when they purchased into it. The City's job was to prevent change - or at least this change. Presumably they would not want the City to keep their property value exactly the same, however. They would desire and embrace the change involved in an appreciating asset. The City might discuss incoherence like that more explicitly.

The new, supplemental Staff Report also contains brief response to a number of the latest public comments. There didn't appear to be anything to cause a recommendation for any substantial changes.

Opposition to Hubs

There was a cluster of letters opposing Neighborhood Hubs directly, several of them borrowing language from a template using a form letter.

Here's an image from one letter criticizing a proposed Hub on Brown Road, saying the intersection with Maria Avenue remained "hazardous."

From a letter opposing a Neighborhood Hub

The corner structural bar at the drivers' side mirror is several inches wide. Is this about a poor location for a crosswalk or more about poor car design and the way structural elements in cars now reduce visibility and safety? From here this is obviously a problem with cars rather than a problem with crosswalks and intersections.

From the letter in opposition which, even as it uses great detail that suggests an interest in walking and biking, is in fact very autoist. It's a curious letter:

I support the concept of neighborhood Hubs and the needs they can address - more easily in new developments. The neighbors near the proposed Brown Road Neighborhood Hub do not suffer from a deficit of commercial opportunities. Attached to my testimony is a list of nearby commercial opportunities within walking distance. Additionally, Brown Road is along Cherriot's bus route 2 - Market/Brown which expands commercial opportunities for its residents. Pedestrian safety on Brown Road was a documented risk. The Bike & Walk Salem, Final Memorandum #9 – Safe Routes to School Solutions presented to Salem Bike/Ped Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee by the CH2M Hill Salem Bike/Ped Plan Project Team on October 11, 2012 stated the following in regard to Scott Elementary School, "The highest priority project was the sign project, while the second highest priority project was the Brown Road sidewalk project. Sidewalk infill projects on nearby City-owned streets (e.g., Brown Road south of Carolina Avenue) will also assist students walking to school." Brown Road was designated as a "High Priority" in the Salem Transportation System Plan amended January 13, 2020 (3-38-Street System Element). We are so grateful that project has been completed.

While documented improvement adds value from an administrative need, it does not adequately picture the risk still remaining. The street improvements were not perfectly aligned with existing properties. Across the street from Brown Road Park, the intersection with Maria Avenue remains hazardous. Please refer to Figures 1,2 and 3 for a pictorial representation of the risk and hazard. While Neighborhood Hubs are intended to increase pedestrian access to commercial businesses, I believe it is well understood that they can and do increase vehicular traffic for the business(es) they create. Please do not sacrifice the pedestrian safety we have gained with unneeded incremental opportunities for commercial business.

The list of "nearby commercial opportunities" (not quoted here) ostensibly in walking distance starts a mile distant from the intersection, and some are near two miles. On a technical definition of walking, it is true. But that's really more of a bike ride than a walk. For a person who quotes chapter and verse on Bike and Walk Salem, this is a strange assertion.

Viable walking trips require short distances
People for Bikes, italics and vertical rule added

For most people, stores a mile or two away are a bike ride rather than a walk. Unfortunately, the stores in the list are also on Silverton Road, which lacks bike lanes, and on Lancaster Drive, both of which are posted for higher speed, and are in many ways inimical to walking and biking. The relation of this proposed Hub site to other commercial destinations is by travel time and comfort not in fact very close.

Staff response to the Brown Road Hub objections

It was good to see the Staff response echo this.

A Muddle on Walkability and Complete Neighborhoods

That a letter like this can seem to make plausible points shows some problems with the whole planning process. That process has muddled rather than clarified walkability.

Early on in the process in a draft form of the "indicators," we saw a "walk and transit friendliness score." Salem scored very poorly on it. At the same time, the City claimed well over half of our households lived in "complete neighborhoods." There was a real disconnect in assessments of complete neighborhoods and "walk and transit friendliness," which should have shown more overlap. The City should spend more time on this incoherence.

One disconnect (May 2019)

Later, a disagreement between the State and City over definitions of "complete neighborhood" showed a 50% divergence, one at 11% the other at 65%. This was much larger than a rounding error or disagreement on the definitional edges. It indicated a major disagreement.

A second disconnect (Feb. 2021)

In order to greenwash small changes, the City has overstated or left vague key elements of walkability and complete neighborhoods.

One of the reasons the City has more difficulty defending the Hub concept is because they didn't adequately define walkability and proximity earlier in the process. They should ahve taken greater pains to show how deficient most Salem neighborhoods are currently. An apparent desire not to be very critical of the current state of neighborhoods left an opening for many objections now later in the process.

Other Items

And a few more notes on some other items in the supplemental Staff Report.

Capitulation to more auto traffic

In a note defending the deployment of areas proposed for apartments, Staff mentioned "additional landscaping required to help mitigate the negative effects of nearby auto traffic."

This has it backwards. 

Instead of accepting more auto traffic and adding landscaping mitigation, we should be working for less auto traffic and avoiding needing landscape mitigation.

A Nelson/Nygaard proposal from the now deleted
Stroad to Boulevard tumblr

We should be transforming our roadway design. The mitigation should occur in the right-of-way, with bus-only lanes, protected bike lanes, slow side lanes for local traffic, and green medians for trees.

This reference in the Staff Report to landscape mitigation reflects a failure to think through our busy arterials and the proposed conversion to mixed-use. Without changes to the street itself, walking, biking, and busing will not be attractive enough at scale. Deferring consideration of this to the TSP, and not embracing it in Our Salem itself, is a real deficiency and perhaps even fatal flaw.

We need a stronger critique of drive-thrus

While ending new drive-thrus downtown is progress, we should have a stronger critique of them throughout the city and end them entirely, as their whole reason for existence is to induce car travel and emissions.

Big, Big Irony. Remember September 2020?

Finally, a helpful item for reference, a typology of affordable housing terms. We'll try to be more exact in the employment of them in the future.

For reference: Definitions on housing