The Budget Committee meets tonight Wednesday the 24th, and this meeting will look at the list of capital projects. On the budget process itself others have much better things to say, but we've followed the CIP a little over the years. Here are some passing notes.
 |
| Musgrave Ave in West Salem (not part of CIP) |
One project stands out as something new.
 |
| New crossing under Musgrave? |
What exactly are "pathway improvements under Musgrave Ave NW to create a connection with the Union Street" bridge and path?
My best guess is something at No. 2 on the map above, but it's hard to see how going under Musgrave would work. $1 million also seems small for a real tunnel type undercrossing.
An undercrossing at No. 1 on the map has been discussed for several years, but it had seemed to be abandoned. It also involved Wallace Road and Second Street, not Musgrave. Its estimated cost was also much, much more than $1 million.
This will be something to learn more about!
Other project did not seem new, but sometimes there were new details.
 |
| Vision Zero and Twenty is Plenty |
It was nice to see the Vision Zero and Twenty is Plenty project formalized!
 |
| Overcrossing study |
Same for the Highway 22 overcrossing study.
- But will it end up like the Kroc Center study, with an overcrossing judged too expensive?
 |
| Pringle Creek Path - not fully funded? |
A note on the Pringle Creek Path between Mirror Pond and Riverfront Park was a little concerning. It said, "full funding for construction...will follow in future fiscal years." Does that just mean the funding is in hand but is not ready to be programmed in the CIP until later than 2029? Or is there a new funding shortfall?
The City has also never fully addressed the matter of the railroad. Have they finally secured an agreement for that undercrossing? The City really should address this publicly.
 |
| Gap between programming funds and construction |
A different gap is on Commercial Street between Vista and Ratcliff. The MPO has been talking about pushing construction out to 2028 because of cost escalation, but the way the funds are programmed here there's a gap of some years. For ordinary citizens reading the CIP the gap is counterintuitive.
 |
| Why are we still prioritizating speed? |
Do we really need an "acceleration lane" for Rees Hill Road, or are we going to figure out that what it needs is a lower speed throughout?
 |
| Streetscape is spendy |
The downtown Streetscape work is really expensive! We could take out all the sidewalk killing skybridges for $20 million. Or do a fair bit of protected bike lane for $20 million. I don't remember previous discussions assigning a cost of this magnitude to it. Maybe there will be more to say about that.
 |
| So much for the airport |
And there's a summary of how much we are pumping into the airport.
A "long time tenant at the airport" argued in a letter that the current pattern of investment for commercial air service is unwise and ignores long-standing requests from those who already rent and conduct business at the airport.
 |
| Letter questioning airport subsidy |
Just for reference it is interesting to see the operations budget for Public works. Maybe someone will drill more closely into it.
 |
| Summary of Public Works operations |
There's an slightly interesting, but ultimately evasive, response from the City on ODOT funding and priorities. The City seemed to prefer "business as usual" and not show any real critical thinking.
 |
| Avoiding questions about ODOT |
Last week buried in the packet was the latest report on photo enforcement. It still does not seem very reliable.
 |
| Math weirdness in report on photo enforcement |
A few years ago, an increase in traffic at three intersections over a decade seemed off. Traffic counts elsewhere did not support the idea that traffic increased from 7,936,482 in 2012 to 18,655,517 in 2022. This seems to be carried forward without any discussion. Additionally, while the latest report calls this a 57% increase, it would actually be an increase of 135%.
Drawing any conclusions from this report seems entirely premature, and the report and process behind it needs some kind of audit. It does not seem very reliable.
- See previously, "Red Light Camera Enforcement Reporting Looks Odd" (2019)
In a more general response on Police and camera enforcement, the City says "any staff time saved by a service reduction or efficiency measure...is immediately consumed by another service demand."
 |
| Always we need more cops |
The City then always cites the 2021 "independent" staffing analysis that says we need more cops.
 |
| We always need more cops |
This analysis was not in fact independent. The Police commissioned it, not Council, and it never went through any public Council process for review. It was published in final form only, never in any draft.
 |
| Retired cops say Salem needs more cops |
Unsurprisingly, it was written by retired law enforcement: Retired cops say Salem needs more cops. A truly independent study would have a broader base of authors and would have gone through a stronger public review process.
There is a stubborn refusal to think about the best way to deliver public safety. More of the same does not seem optimal.
 |
| September 2023 |
 |
| Why not more scrutiny for Police? |
No comments:
Post a Comment