Earlier this summer the Board President of Cherriots tweeted out a whimsical inquiry, "Which streets in Oregon's capital city should get the red carpet treatment," with red lanes dedicated to bus rapid transit.
 |
| via Twitter |
With the focus on Salem Bike Vision, it's not clear how serious he might be. There might be some streets on which both dedicated bus lanes and protected bike lanes might not be possible. The two projects, still very much at a conceptual level, do not yet seem well integrated.
 |
| A leading candidate - via Twitter |
Still, a stroad-to-boulevard conversion with better bike lanes and dedicated transit lanes might be possible. Here's a big one, but similar approaches are possible on narrower right-of-ways.
 |
| A Nelson/Nygaard proposal from the now deleted Stroad to Boulevard tumblr |
A week ago a person posted to a City Council discussion page a note suggesting that the bridges and their approaches especially could use a dedicated bus lane.
 |
| A bus on the bridge (source is Cherriots, I think) |
 |
| via FB |
Transit priority is really something the City needs to think about in more detail.
But we also need to think even more than we already have in Our Salem about land use.
Another person posted a picture of Amsterdam, and a lot of the commentary and response missed the land use: The street shows a continuous line of mid-rise buildings, full of homes and business.
 |
| via FB (comment added) |
But bike trips peak around one mile. Though the Dutch bike a lot, they don't bike long distances. Proximity matters, and our current spacing here in Salem does not come anywhere close to that level of proximity necessary. In addition to better road facilities, we need fewer parking lots, more buildings, and somewhat taller buildings. We don't need high-rise, but we could do with more multi-story low-rise and mid-rise.
 |
| Walking and biking trips require short distances People for Bikes, italics and vertical rule added |
The Staff Report for the Work Session is mostly summary, but at the end is something new that I don't think has got much, if any, explicit public comment by the City before:
Next Steps: Regional Scenario Planning. Beginning in June 2023, the City will be working on a regional plan to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, establish regional performance targets, and local performance measures. The regional scenario planning will be the first phase of updating the Salem TSP and will be coordinated with the Salem Area Mass Transit District. The regional scenario planning will take into account current and future investments in active transportation, fleet and fuels, transit, pricing, parking management, education and marketing, and roads. Within this planning framework and in response to the Climate-Friendly and Equitable Communities goals, priorities are placed on connected, safe and complete networks; bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation infrastructure; climate friendly areas; neighborhoods with underserved populations; and access to key destinations.
That is very exciting!
 |
| Back in 2013 the City opposed Scenario Planning |
You may recall a decade ago the City was opposed to Scenario Planning. It is great to see the change, even if the impetus comes from the State rather than internally from the City. Hopefully the City will embrace the opportunity with gusto and not merely slow-walk a begrudging or limited participation.
There are so many avenues to integrate transit and land use, and hopefully this work session will advance them.
Previously see "Cherriots and Our Salem should give more Thought to Future BRT" (2022) and "Making a Cherriots-City Collaboration more than Bells and Whistles" (2019).
5 comments:
"21" (S. Commercial) does make some sense but, since our municipal real estate agency, after having taken over in 2003, decided to allow construction closer to the road, it will now cost a "whole lot more" to do something to improve the route.
Make no mistake, something will eventually be done because people in South will only stand for a certain level of congestion and they know how to be effective. They got the transit center, which probably belongs in NE.
In a related matter, if the drive to increase traffic humps and bumps is successful, it will tend to keep more vehicles on main streets in this cul-de-sac town. Also, some estimate that the related stopping and starting increases the spewing of noxious gasses by up to 40% within the stop and go area.
While the criticism of idling is popular, it is a big of a canard. You have it a little backwards. The key to reducing emissions is to reduce vehicle miles traveled! Speeding up traffic and reducing congestion induces more travel and does not show any effect on emissions reductions. City Observatory has a good discussion in "Urban myth busting: Congestion, idling, and carbon emissions."
Your claim about the transit center is odd. Cherriots sees a real need to service the warehouses and other new business out at the Cordon/Kuebler elbow near the Aumsville Highway and Turner Road. According to a 2018 update to the Cherriots Board, a South Salem Transit Center was first in the 2004 Strategic Business Plan. It developed in tandem with the Keizer Transit Center, but the Keizer instance got funding earlier and was completed first. But they were conceived as a pair on north-south poles in the Salem area.
Originally they were thinking of a site near Madrona and Commercial, in the area of Fred Meyer. In the interval, the business and warehouse growth farther south and southeast - including retail like Costco, also - has only increased, and now they have focused on the Kuebler and Commercial area to service all that. It will make cross-town routes much easier. There are clear structural and demographic reasons in Salem for a transit center out south, not merely agitation for an unnecessary facility by "people in South," who seem powerful.
But as for northeast, there has also been talk of upgrading the transit hub at Chemeketa Community College. I am sure that the EV investment in buses on the Lancaster route will leverage upgrades there also.
(As a commenting reminder, please create or use a handle/pseudonym if you want to add opinion or analysis.)
Thank you for the link. It was informative.
My specific concern is for what now seems like an inevitable and substantial increase in the use of bumps and humps. Based on an abstract from "researchgate": "... the concentration of nitrogen dioxide at circular plastic speed bumps rose on average by 2.5 times, that of nitric monoxide by 5.0 times and that of carbon monoxide by 3.2 times." This is not due to idling. It is due to stopping and starting.
Bumps and humps also have other negative impacts, the most important being the slowing of emergency vehicles.
While the related issues of idling/congestion concerns should not be ignored, my comment about the ability of South to get what they want should not be considered as advocacy for reducing congestion. I do not believe that congestion can be relieved, for various reasons.
I have lived close to S. Commercial for many years and the very recent emergence of the nearly constant daytime exhaust odors harkens me back to my carefree younger days when I hung out in garages with people who worked on cars.
Also, thank you for the rationale mentioned for the South Salem transit site. I appreciate arguments that I disagree with (really, I am not being snarky). I am now even more convinced that the South Salem site would be little more than a convenience for local residents compared to the broad range of benefits that would be enjoyed by those living in Northeast. What is happening is wrong.
If a hub were created in NE, that would make it much easier for workers that will presumably come from that area to report to work at all of the new warehouses and businesses that will continue to proliferate along Cordon and Kuebler, from Gaffin Rd. to S. Commercial.
(I apologize for posting anonymously - I forgot my pseudonym. It used to appear automatically. When I tried to think of a new one, the old one immediately came to mind)
I would suggest that, having used the bus system, chemekta community college is already a defecto transit hub, with connections to both the downtown transit mall with 2 routes and keizer with one route.
Then there are multiple routes that loop around chemekta.
With a direct connection to West Salem and the new South location it will be a transit mall in all but name
Also I would say that 1 mile is too short, as 1 mile to six miles have more riders then the "up to one mile"
Generally I would consider 6 miles a good distance when urban planning, as traveling 6 miles on a bike at a moderate speed is still within the "15 minute" city guideline.
Post a Comment