tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post6600689600240496896..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: City Council, August 12th - Trees, Streets, Minto IslandSalem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-28199817601432900062013-08-13T19:51:13.903-07:002013-08-13T19:51:13.903-07:00Please, don't hesitate to point out errors of ...Please, don't hesitate to point out errors of fact here! I'm happy to make corrections.<br /><br />On this particular matter, though, we do have a difference in opinion. If a project (which also was at least informally discussed as a "demonstration project") has three parts and the final part is envisioned for completion on a 25-year horizon, it seems like a reasonable simplification to talk about the whole project as having a 25 year horizon. Additionally, the project map (shown in the post) is clearly labeled "long term (within 25 years) transportation improvement recommendations" and the map shows the entire length of Union Street in green for a "family friendly bikeway," not just the shorter third phase segment between Winter and 12th. At least in this context, the project team also seems to consider the whole bikeway as the relevant unit.<br /><br />Readers will decide for themselves the degree to which there might be misrepresentation here.<br /><br />You are of course right about the staged recommendations for the three component pieces. Further, the light at Commercial is the single most important piece; and this is, as you rightly say, in the plan on a ten-year horizon.<br /><br />But even zooming in on this first phase alone, I still would repeat the general point: That waiting 10 years for the light at Commercial should be a planning horizon too long. The connections should been planned and installed essentially concurrent with the bridge opening, and I do fault the City for taking so long to understand that the bridge is not complete without the connections east and west, and I think the mobility study should have aimed at a subset of even more immediate recommendations.<br /><br />The corresponding connection across Wallace isn't in any plan on any horizon, by the way. (The widening project at Glen Creek and Wallace will make things generally worse, not better for people on foot and on bike.)<br /><br />The <a href="http://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/search/label/Downtown%20Mobility%20Study" rel="nofollow">whole discussion of the downtown mobility study can be read here</a> - 18 posts worth - and if you haven't read it hopefully you will find that more nuanced and detailed. Should you find errors of fact, it will be a pleasure to correct them.<br /><br />Moreover! If you would like to write a counterpoint, signed or even anonymous, about the mobility study, I'd be happy to post that as a guest piece. There's always more to any story, and maybe you know something about it that deserves more air. <br /><br />Thanks for stopping by!Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-56895442556554390832013-08-12T23:22:06.560-07:002013-08-12T23:22:06.560-07:00Quote from B-on-B: "Is waiting a quarter-cent...Quote from B-on-B: "Is waiting a quarter-century for a Union Street bikeway really reasonable?" <br /><br />However, the report says that Union @ Commercial signal is in the 10-year list, and Phase 1B to make Union (between Commercial and Winter) into a family-friendly bike facility is in the 15-year list. The section from Winter to Marion on Union is the 25-year list.<br /><br />I realize you get a thrill by critiquing the city every chance you get. It's a shame that you often do so by misrepresenting the facts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com