City Council, June 27th - Safe Routes to Schools and the Big Bond

At Council on Monday there is news of a suite of Safe Routes To Schools applications for funding from ODOT in the 2023-2024 cycle. 

A slightly revised bond proposal is also on the agenda.

Project locations for 2023-2024 applications

For the Safe Routes project applications, funded statewide by $26.25 million in this cycle, the City has identified seven projects, in rank order of priority [a few notes added in brackets]:

1. Market Street NE at 15th Street NE: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) on east leg of Market Street NE at 15th Street NE intersection, restripe existing crosswalk, install ADA ramps, and signage. Estimated project cost is $464,000; City would be requesting $371,000 and providing $93,000 in matching funds. Serves Englewood Elementary School.
2. Market Street NE at Aguilas Court NE: Install marked crosswalk, pedestrian refuge island, street lighting, signage, and ADA ramps on the east leg of the Market Street NE at Aguilas Court NE intersection. Estimated project cost is $325,000; City would be requesting $260,000 and providing $65,000 in matching funds. Serves Swegle Elementary School [and also the new United Way cottage cluster].
   
3. Silverton Road NE at Sedona Avenue NE: Install pedestrian crossing with RRFB, ADA ramps, signage, and street lighting on the west side of Silverton Road NE at Sedona Avenue NE intersection. Estimated project cost is $487,000; City would be requesting $390,000 and providing $97,000 in matching funds. Serves Washington Elementary School and Waldo Middle School.
4. State Street Sidewalk Infill: Install new sidewalk on the south side of State Street between Oakmont Court SE and 49th Avenue SE. This project will connect to the new traffic signal anticipated to be installed at the intersection of Oakmont Court SE and State Street as a condition of development [at the former mushroom plant]. Estimated cost is $418,000; City would be requesting $334,000 and providing $84,000 in matching funds. Serves Mary Eyre Elementary School.
5. Liberty Road S Pedestrian Path: Install approximately 300 feet of dedicated pedestrian path and retaining wall on the east side of Liberty Road S from Summit View Avenue SE north to Davis Road S. This project will connect to the new traffic signal anticipated to be installed at the intersection of Liberty Road S and Davis Road S as a condition of development. Estimated project cost is $1,009,000; City would be requesting $807,000 and providing $202,000 in matching funds. Serves Crossler Middle School.
6. Pringle Road SE at Hillendale Drive SE Pedestrian Crosswalk and Sidewalk Infill: Install a pedestrian crossing with a median island, ADA ramps, and street lighting at the intersection of Pringle Road SE and Hillendale Drive SE. Construct sidewalk on the east side of Pringle Road SE from Morningside Court SE to Salishan Street SE. Estimated project cost is $1,832,000; City would be requesting $1,466,000 and providing $366,000 in matching funds. Serves Morningside Elementary School.
7. Winter Street NE at Gaines Street NE: Install a raised pedestrian crossing on the south leg of Winter Street NE at Gaines Street NE intersection, a high visibility crosswalk on east leg of the intersection, ADA ramps, signage, and new stormwater facilities. This project was identified by the Winter-Maple Greenway Plan. Estimated project cost is $302,000; City would be requesting $242,000 and providing $60,000 in matching funds. Serves Grant Community School.

With recent news of cost escalations on bids, and with the competitive nature of the application process, probably a reasonable expectation is for two, maybe three, of the seven to be funded. In the last cycle the City applied for five and won three, but this round seems sure to be tighter. (See previous notes on the Safe Routes infrastructure program here.)

Add Union St., subtract bridge railings

Also on the agenda is a revised project list for the big bond and a proposal to put it on the ballot for November.

The repair of the decaying bridge railings on the Church Street bridge over Pringle Creek and Shelton Ditch at SAIF and the Hospital has been deleted (along with another railing project) and added was the section of the Union Street bikeway that had been deleted in 2019, the section between Summer Street and the 12th Street Esplanade.

This seems like a compensatory move for the refusal to include the protected bike lane proposal.

No Steering Committee meeting listed for the 10th

While the Staff Report mentions a June 10th Steering Committee meeting, this meeting was not on the calendar and the Committee's page on the City site has been scrubbed of older information, so it was not possible to comment on that meeting or to know very much about any meeting packet or public comment.

Maybe there will be more to say later.

In the Council packet there are a couple of reports on the additional polling research.

Summary on building support

One notable detail is that they tested "If this measure passes, the City of Salem commits to not asking voters to support another bond measure until this...is spent down...about a decade."

That likely means punting on climate action for a decade.

When they tested on bike lanes, they appeared to have framed them up as something extra, like the City deserved bonus points for including bike lanes on Pringle, McGilchrist, and Fisher Roads, rather than treating them as baseline expectation and a routine part of 21st century transportation.

Other highlights on bike lanes

They broke out bike lane support by ward.

Bike lane support by ward

Here is that information on a map. It is honestly a little baffling. Ward 2, which historically has had high biking rates has low support, and Ward 8, a hotbed of Third Bridge support, has higher support? And the difference between Ward 7 and 4 is also surprising.

The support by ward

I wonder if these results are skewed by too small a sample.

Look at that support

Separately from the polling and public opinion analysis, the packet includes a summary of public comment, and it shows overwhelming support for the bike lane proposal. 

Given the urgency of climate action, Council should want to drill into the disjunction between the public comment to Council and the Bond Committee, and the public opinion research. Why is there not more alignment and consistency? It has to be more than merely a subset of especially motivated citizens for better biking.

In any case, the polling seemed to be oriented to finding reasons to keep the protected bike lane proposal out, and not oriented to building support for climate action.

In the end, the bond proposal remains too ad hoc, cobbled together hastily in order to slip in a package that "will not increase property taxes." You won't feel a thing...

(See previous notes on the bond selection process here.)

Over the weekend there will be more to say on other agenda items.