tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post7064714428571016460..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: Comment on Draft Salem-Keizer Metro Area Transportation Funding ListSalem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-47580800875259982022010-06-05T11:19:06.394-07:002010-06-05T11:19:06.394-07:00Thanks an interesting wrinkle! The Rivercrossing ...Thanks an interesting wrinkle! The <a href="http://salemrivercrossing.org/ProjectLibrary/AltModesPlan_VI_Final.pdf" rel="nofollow">Rivercrossing Alternate Modes Study</a> (it's 91pp) discusses a bike/ped bridge over Wallace @ Edgewater, but not in the configuration you propose. <br /><br />It would be interesting to see some conceptual sketches and more engineering opinion - if the approach, support, and exit structure essentially already exists, that might make such a thing a lot cheaper. That's a nice thing that makes you go "hmmm..."! Thanks!Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-34738938713623137342010-06-05T05:35:16.463-07:002010-06-05T05:35:16.463-07:00I've got the solution at Wallace and Edgewater...I've got the solution at Wallace and Edgewater (if you wanted one?). Instead of the inadequate crosswalk that exists how about a ped/bike bridge that extends the N side of the Hwy 22 bridge. Cyclist/walkers could actually use the Edgewater Trail and feel confident crossing over Wallace. The approach and exit already exist. The bridge and support mechanisms already exist. This proposed project would assist the W Salem redevelopment initiative. If a ped/bike bridge existed a RTT project down the old RR bed would have some teeth. This project is an excellent nominee for an Urban Trail Fund Grant! Connectivity!!Jeff McNameehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05724051167097867531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-81021802399497509952010-06-04T12:56:29.609-07:002010-06-04T12:56:29.609-07:00Thanks for the comments, Mike!
1) You are right ...Thanks for the comments, Mike!<br /><br />1) You are right to comment on the Chemewa Road project that will connect Keizer Rapids Park. In a note on the STIP, <a href="http://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/2009/12/regional-and-statewide-plans-poised-to.html" rel="nofollow">we mentioned that it looked like a fine project</a>. It would have been good to repeat that here. Thanks for pointing it out.<br /><br />2) Nevertheless, the important point was the proportion of STP-U funds allocated to <i>non urban-upgrade</i> bicycle projects. Even if you add in "bike beneficial" urban upgrades on both the Salem-Keizer and the Eugene-Springfield ledgers, SK comes up short by a similar margin - if a<b then (a+c)<(b+c)!<br /><br />The Eugene spending from 2004-2009 also includes spending on transit and other modes. <br /><br />No matter how you slice it, the Eugene-Springfield MPO allocates a lot more on other modes than SKATS does. <br /><br />Your claim about balance also doesn't include the way road capacity expansion degrades existing facilities. The path from the Union ST. Bridge to Glen Creek is compromised significantly if Wallace @ Glen Creek is widened and the crossing made more difficult. You could spend millions of dollars inside the park, but the connection to the outside street grid would still be difficult and intimidating and effectively non-functional. The dollars may look "balanced" but the consequences on the road are decidedly unbalanced.<br /><br />We look forward, too, to the Bike update of the TSP! Municipalities feed projects to the MPO, I'd like to Salem feeding <i>many more</i> good projects to the MPO!<br /><br />Thanks for stopping by and we look forward to more conversation and debate!Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-40981025579961291492010-06-04T12:18:25.250-07:002010-06-04T12:18:25.250-07:00Mike Jaffe sends in this dissent.
Thank you for i...Mike Jaffe sends in this dissent.<br /><br /><i>Thank you for informing your readers about the open house and public hearing and to send comments to SKATS. I do however disagree with your conclusion that less than 1% of the STP-U funds go to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The urban upgrades you didn't include are projects that add sidewalks and bike lanes but don't add vehicle capacity. For example, the Chemawa Road urban upgrade (which was awarded Transportation Enhancement Funds as well) is a project to add bikelanes and sidewalks to Chemawa Road from River Road to Keizer Rapids Park; the road will continue to have one lane in each direction for vehicles. Here is the description:<br /><br />Construction of full improvements on both sides along Chemawa Rd. N from River Road to Keizer Rapids Park, including curbs, separated sidewalks where possible, bicycle lanes, innovative stormwater management rain gardens, and signalized intersection improvements at the McNary High School entrance.<br /><br />Ward Drive and Delaney Road (Turner) are two other projects in the 10-15 TIP where sidewalks and bikelanes are being added but the road will continue to be one lane in each director (the Ward project will also add a right-turn bay at the Ward @ Lancaster intersection's eastbound approach).<br /><br />The attachment summarizes the $22 million in STP-U funds programmed in the draft 10-15 TIP (see Table 7, p. 38) into categories. For project types I've used the primary function/need for the improvement: for this exercise, I'm not taking into account that some project solve more than one need, such as the roundabout improving traffic flow as well as safety (see http://www.iihs.org/video.aspx/info/roundabout ).<br /><br />The table in the attachment shows that over $3.7 million (which is 17% of the STP-U total) is for bike and pedestrian projects. $1.857 million (about 8%) is for bus replacement purchases, plus new and upgraded bus-stop shelters. The Rideshare and Travel Demand Management programs will receive $999,000 in STP-U (note: additional STP funds are contributed by ODOT). Capacity increasing projects get $6.443 million (or 29%) of STP-U funds: this includes the roundabout, which as I mentioned is also a safety project. In summary, I would maintain that the TIP has a good balance of projects for all modes of travel.<br /><br />Of course there is more to do for bicyclists and pedestrian, and I'm looking forward to the ideas and priorities that will emerge when Salem updates the bicycle chapter of their TSP.</i>>Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-36062123652466459442010-06-01T19:22:12.004-07:002010-06-01T19:22:12.004-07:00I can't make the open house but I'll be su...I can't make the open house but I'll be sure to email my comments to the contacts you list Eric. I am saddened and disappointed that Salem will forever be a drive through/by city. Thanks Eric.Jeff McNameehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05724051167097867531noreply@blogger.com