The technical committee for our Metropolitan Planning Organization meets on Tuesday the 9th, and they'll be looking at the next chapter in draft form on needs and gaps for the long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan (formerly RTSP), scheduled for publication in 2023.
 |
| Worst case is less improbable than we think |
In the draft, MPO staff are really pushing the SRC, and want to force the Policy Committee to give positive direction to omit it.
 |
| The intro to Chapt. 5 leads with the SRC (yellow in original) |
 |
| Minutes to June meeting (yellow added) |
 |
| Chapt. 5: "No, really, we still need it" |
MPO staff do not seem to think that the "no build" record of decision qualified or critiqued the initial and biased "purpose and need" statement. Instead, in the body of Chapter 5, they repeat the old claims, and a lot of other SRC material, as if to suggest they feel the record of decision was improperly made. "Are you sure about this?" they ask again and again, seemingly trying to implant doubt each time.
 |
| Bad, but not yet the worst case, however |
At some point we are simply going to have to demote the frame of "congestion relief" and elevate "greenhouse gas reduction." It's got to happen.
 |
| Chapt. 5 on congestion |
But not this time probably. The section on "congestion" in chapter five is all about congestion and air quality, repeating the canard that congestion and idling are the primary sources of emissions. Again, note the SRC talk. Nothing about decongestion pricing and meaningfully reducing emissions by reducing driving.
Potentially usefully, at some point in the future a target on the drive-alone trip ratio could be meaningful.
 |
| Drive-alone trip ratio |
In the discussion of performance measures and targets, there is the awkwardly named "percent non-single occupant vehicle." This should be flipped and renamed. Instead of saying 24.1% of trips are non-SOV, why not say 75.9% of trips are drive-alone? That is clearer in ordinary language.
 |
| Targets |
Then, the target language would look like this: The baseline for 2022 of drive-alone trips is 76.7%, with a 2024 target of 77.5%, and 2026 target of 78.3%.
And then we have to ask, why is our adopted target for drive-alone trips increasing instead of decreasing?
That absolutely goes against our emissions goals.
Additionally, reducing the drive-alone trip ratio might be a better way to think of the problem than trying to increase walking, biking, and transit ratios each considered separately. So far trying to increase the bike rate has been absolutely futile. But that is substantially because we have been unwilling to work directly and seriously on reducing the drive-alone ratio. We frame new bike trips as "options" and not as anything we actually need to do. The mere theoretical existence of an option is sufficient, not that people are actually choosing it. We need to measure and adopt policy for what people actually do, not what they might theoretically choose to do.
Moreover, it's more important that people don't drive than that they choose any particular non-SOV mode. Whether they walk, bike, or bus isn't as important as that they don't make a drive-alone trip.
We also see problems in other targets.
 |
| Adjusting "safety" targets upwards |
Our safety targets are also wildly going the wrong way. Look at the "Met Target?" column and all its NOs. So we're going to adjust the target upwards so we can say we met the target? Just accommodate our failure?
Our failure to meet targets should instead prompt stronger action, not more accommodation.
Separately, there is also a map of local bridges vulnerable to a large earthquake. That's a lot of red dots!
 |
| Small bridges vulnerable to earthquake |
The map's a little odd, though. By the Hospital, the bridges on Winter Street aren't marked in red or green. So it may not be totally up to date.
We'll revisit some of these things as they hit the Policy Committee later this month or another time.
The TAC meets at 1:30pm on Tuesday the 9th. The agenda and packet can be downloaded here.
1 comment:
Just to clarify a few items from your post...
The highlighted text at the start of the draft chapter was meant to focus the attention of the reader (primarily a member of the TAC) to the part where a more thorough discussion and feedback is needed before the Public Review draft. The TAC needs to make a recommendation to the PC on what should be kept and what is removed regarding the existing language (pages 5-11 to 5-14 which also should've been highlighted to mark the passages for ease of finding) on the need for an additional bridge over the Willamette River. This will be discussed with the PC this year to allow for the sections to be updated.
You write "...there is the awkwardly named "percent non-single occupant vehicle." This should be flipped and renamed." The names of the federal performance measures are set by either FHWA or FTA. Sometimes they make sense, other times not so much.
The targets for PHED and Percent Non-SOV are meant to start the discussion on target setting by showing the trends as they exist today and are likely in the next four years. The TAC will deliberate and make a recommendation to the PC, and then the PC will discuss and decide what targets to set for those two measures (plus the others from ODOT and SAMTD).
Since you brought up the roadway safety target -- Previously ODOT set safety targets covering multiple years that were decreasing to zero by 2035 as part of their Vision Zero strategy (instead of setting the targets yearly). The currently proposed roadway safety targets also reflect that strategy but use an "S-curve" to reflect the recent increase in fatalities and serious injuries before trending toward zero. ODOT will be setting these yearly for now on. Reminder: Safety data lags 18-months to two-years, so the 2021 data won't be available until next year.
Ray
MWVCOG/SKATS
Post a Comment