The Policy Committee for our Metropolitan Planning Organization meets on Tuesday the 28th, and the main thing on the agenda is thinking about representation. You'll recall over the years that non-urban interests are overweighted in the governance structure. This seemed particularly to be a problem in trying to get the MPO to consider greenhouse gas emissions when evaluating projects for funding. Non-urban interests had easy veto power.
The problem is gaining visibility, and in the November packet is a letter from Friends of Marion County, calling for more "equitable and proportional representation."
 |
| Letter from Friends of Marion County |
They note
a single city council ward within the City of Salem boasts a population exceeding the combined populations of Turner...unincorporated Marion and Polk County...and the City of Aumsville combined.
In the current governance and voting structure, Salem is outvoted one to four, with Turner, Aumsville, Marion, and Polk County each have an equal vote to Salem. Moreover the requirement for unanimity on some votes give each an explicit veto, and the current culture of consensus gives an informal veto as well on other matters that don't require unanimity.
Just an intuitive notion of fairness suggests the voting structure needs to be reconsidered, and there is also legal language calling for "equitable and proportional representation" on the MPO. Apparently interpretation of this is not settled, however, and there is formal rulemaking process underway with the Federal Highway Administration, which will yield more clarity in guidance. We'll see how they resolve it.
Previously on the problem of representation see:
- "Goal 7 and the Greenhouse Gases" (2018)
- "Updating the Public Participation Plan" (2021)
- "Thinking about Governance Structure and Cost Escalation" (June)
- "How to add Aumsville" (July)
- "Maps, Aumsville, and Voting Structure" (August)
Cherriots Director Sadie Carney has been particularly good on asking questions at the MPO, and here's another from last month about the way the MPO values and ostensibly "balances" congestion relief and safety.
 |
| How about just "slow down" and no "speed up"? |
Also on the agenda are TIP amendments (see this note on the Center Street Seismic project, which is the most significant of them).
 |
| Will the memo be published? |
In updates there's a reference to to a "memo on Safety Emphasis Areas and Engineering solutions," but as with most of the Safety Action Plan materials, it's not published. This secrecy is so very disappointing to see.
 |
| Still not updated |
The Cordon Road study also has not yet published its final report.
The Policy Committee meets at noon on Tuesday the 28th. The agenda and meeting packet can be downloaded at the meeting page.
10 comments:
Regarding SKATS and congestion, Mayor Clark is wrong when she said that "relieving" congestion and safety go hand in hand. It is quite the opposite as has been shown during the Covid Pandemic. And KPD have said so.
The problem here is that we have the underlying goal in traffic engineering to reduce congestion, which has negative effects to bicyclists, pedestrians and the surrounding area. Until congestion relief becomes a lower priority, we'll suffer the consequences.
As a related side note, I recently heard that whatever projects are in a city's TSP, they are not affected by Climate-Friendly Rules and goals. So we can continue funding and building car travel inducing road projects while we're claiming to be concerned about the effects of climate change. Am I the only one who thinks that's crazy?
Congestion is dangerous for obvious reasons. I understand why some like to pretend that that is not true. It is a law of traffic safety management. Massive efforts are made by transportation departments to monitor traffic level changes in order to provide opportunities to avoid getting to the point where peak hour traffic reaches established critical levels.
Traffic flow is a public concern because, when accidents occur during peak times, it makes people late to get to work or get home after work. Also, peak hour accidents create special problems.
Accident rates continue to climb in this area. That is primarily due to congestion and the fact that traffic design decisions are now being made by those who lack a basic understanding of fundamental traffic safety determinants. They act based on emotion.
I'll bet that virtually nobody here understands that signalized pedestrian crossings are killing and harming people and that those crossings are "experimental".
Try to be realistic. Only within newly developed and financially secure areas is it possible to develop safe paths for biking and walking while still providing sufficient traffic flow.
Quality mass transit is a pipe dream. Leave that to upcoming generations, if there are any.
AV, you seem unwilling to understand and recognize the lethality of autoism. Speed kills. The fundamental traffic safety determinant is speed. Slow-speed fender-benders generally do not kill. See "Our Frame on Congestion Valorizes Speed" for more on congestion and ways to reconsider it more positively in safety and for comments from the Sheriff indicating that the decongested roads from the Pandemic led to more extreme speeding and danger.
Primarily due to congestion? What are you even talking about.
The majority of pedestrian deaths are due to speed. If congestion is to the point that cars aren't moving, that is when cars are the most safe.
Science Direct -Transport Policy - Volume 105, May 2021, Pages 145-152
_______________________________________________________________
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0967070X21000731-gr2.jpg
These results are based on a carefully created scientific study. The interpretation is that, beyond a 30% increase in congestion, compared to a "free flow" model, rates of deaths per capita in road accidents increase substantially.
You can make your own assumptions, but my guess is that Salem road congestion has increased beyond the 50% point.
Sorry, did not realize that I had to change "anonymous" to anothervoice.
That's an interesting article, but it is not any slam-dunk like you seem to think it is.
- There's nothing in it about greenhouse gas emissions and induced demand. It only references the frame of older understandings of pollution in the brief discussion of negative externalities.
- The data set is European cities only, and only those with populations greater than 300,000. It specifically says "Further studies could examine whether the non-linear relationship between road accidents and congestion is confirmed for smaller cities and cities from other geographical areas."
- It consistently uses the word "accident" instead of "crash," and that's a real red flag.
I will read it more closely later, but its findings, if confirmed by additional research, still can't be applied straight-up to the very different context of spread-out cities in the US built largely in the auto era.
Additionally, though tangentially, that same journal issue contains, "Build it and they will cycle: Causal evidence from the downtown Vancouver Comox Greenway."
"This study evaluated changes in cycling trips before and after the construction of an urban greenway in Vancouver, Canada....The opening of the greenway resulted in a 251% increase in cycling trips for the experimental group compared to the control group....Results suggest that greenways could be an effective strategy to boost urban cycling, and that carsharing programs may have a countervailing effect on cycling. The findings support recent initiatives to reappropriate road space in urban areas for cycling and walking due to the COVID-19 pandemic."
The study is indeed limited to the connection between congestion and safety. It does not get into the secondary effects of various means of relieving congestion.
Induced demand is real. If more roadways are built in congested areas, they will quickly become congested, generally speaking. Other ways of relieving congestion in a built out city are hard to come by. Considering the information provided in this study, it seems clear that we should at least be trying to avoid taking actions that increase congestion.
I have been driving on S.Commercial, from Kuebler to Downtown, for more than 35 years. I know what "free flow" looks like and I can assure you that the increase in congestion has exceeded the 50% level seen in the graph, much of it in the last few years.
Other significant effects of congestion include: Pollution (debatable); loss of productivity; stressed drivers (road rage); increase in rear end accidents; traffic diversion to roads not designed for heavy traffic (serious); interference with emergency vehicles (very serious).
I like the Vancouver Greenway project and its demonstrated success. If only...
Local data is strikingly inconsistent with the paper you site. Here are two stories from this week on less congested roads and more death:
At Oregon Capital Chronicle, "Less driving but more deaths: Spike in traffic fatalities puzzles lawmakers":
"Traffic deaths are lingering near historic highs in most states despite less driving overall, prompting policymakers to consider deploying more police or installing automated monitoring such as speed cameras to curb speeding and reckless driving.
People are driving fewer miles than they were in 2019, but more are dying on roadways. Traffic deaths spiked 18% from 2019 to 2022 — though miles traveled fell 3%..."
And at OPB, "Oregon data shows traffic deaths on the rise across the state: The pandemic did not slow down traffic deaths even as hospital visits flattened ."
The paper's introduction rattled off a list of "costs" of congestion, many of them secondary effects. But it omitted discussion of induced demand and increased emissions as a cost of road widening/congestion relief. That's why it's relevant to point out the omission. Moreover, every study of traffic nowadays should include climate impacts.
Post a Comment