tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post8058068844809666936..comments2024-03-25T17:49:41.408-07:00Comments on Salem Breakfast on Bikes: City Council, April 9th - Winter-Maple BikewaySalem Breakfast on Bikeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-60738386080025553682018-04-09T12:22:20.004-07:002018-04-09T12:22:20.004-07:00The first round of public comment on the Winter-Ma...<a href="https://salem.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=AO&ID=58868&GUID=1fc6f40d-f3da-4673-9d7e-4978c5577945&N=NC05LTE4IENvdW5jaWwgV3JpdHRlbiBUZXN0aW1vbnkgMQ%3d%3d" rel="nofollow">The first round of public comment on the Winter-Maple Bikeway</a> has been posted as part of the Countil materials, and there are a number of interesting things in the comments.<br /><br />Writing in the capacity as a neighborhood resident, but significantly also a traffic engineer and planner at ODOT, one person zeros in on a technical dodge and writes:<br /><br />"<i>city staff have suggested that this document is a planning document and that the engineering study required to establish justification for the use of a four-way stop is beyond the scope of this document. My response to those points is that the draft MWB plan is already effectively serving as the engineering study for a number of similar recommendations including the mini-roundabout at Winter/Union, for the marking of crosswalks at Fairgrounds and at Pine Street, for turning the STOP signs at Cottage/Jefferson, and for the proposed exclusive bicycle signal phase at Cherry/Auto Group Road. While the plan is not intended to address engineering design questions, it is very much intended to serve as an engineering study. Indeed, the technical memos that were prepared for this project were stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer with special expertise in Traffic Engineering. This document is the appropriate vehicle to make engineering recommendations regarding the use of STOP signs along this route. Now is the time for the city to establish its preferred option for treatment of these intersections.</i>"<br /><br />In formal comment, Safe Routes to School notes<br /><br />"<i>there is a strong community desire and need for the inclusion of both a reduced speed limit and the installation of speed humps throughout the proposed route....we are respectfully asking that Council approve the plan, with immediate installation of speed humps on Maple Avenue near Johnson and Tryon (next to OSD campus), as well as those already specified throughout the route, which are included in the plan. We would of course like to also see a reduced speed limit throughout the neighborhood greenway, but would not opt for this if it meant jeopardizing or delaying the necessary, self-enforcing speed humps.</i>"<br /><br />Another person, specifically focusing on installing or re-orienting stop signs, offers a novel take on the City's formal street classification heirarchy (arterial, collector, local) and says<br /><br />"<i>In adopting this plan, the city is effectively adopting a new street classification: one which recognizes and emphasizes the function of this route for walking and cycling. In establishing this new classification, the city should also adopt standards and practices that reflect the different goals and objectives for such routes. A key practice that needs to be incorporated in the plan is to standardize the use of stop-controlled intersections to favor bike and pedestrian travel.</i>"<br /><br />Conceptualizing "family-friendly bikeway" as new formal category of street, separate from the others (again, arterial, collector, local), is not something I had seen before, and that seems like it might be a useful move.<br /><br />All in all, comments from folks in the SBBA orbit are focusing on making changes to stop signs immediately and not waiting around for an additional layer of engineering study. They are focused on the neighborhood section from D Street to the Deaf School/JGEMS, and less focused on the downtown and Auto Group/Cherry Ave sections.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-40688050129741246882018-04-07T09:13:36.886-07:002018-04-07T09:13:36.886-07:00Re: "rails from Hawthorne to 12th Street"...Re: "rails from Hawthorne to 12th Street"<br /><br />Do you mean the Geer Line, which roughly parallels State Street? If so, in <a href="http://breakfastonbikes.blogspot.com/2016/03/geer-park-new-site-for-pump-track-also-deep-cut-local-history-sata-salem-area-trail-alliance.html" rel="nofollow">a note on the bike park and history at Geer Park</a>, there is a few paragraphs on the Geer Line and its prospects. It has become very fragmented in ownership, and the City's failure to grasp it whole, now getting on a generation ago, counts as a great missed opportunity.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-43647164677561962962018-04-07T03:46:44.904-07:002018-04-07T03:46:44.904-07:00The study of the 2nd Street underpass reminds me o...The study of the 2nd Street underpass reminds me of the study of the access to Riverfront Park at Front Street. Lots of money spent and in the end it was too expensive. What they did was to create a highly visible crosswalk at the surface. That is what can happen at the intersection at Edgewater and Wallace, so it functions better. <br /><br />Studying something for millions is not a good use of time, energy or money. If we couldn't do it at the Park, we are not going to do it at 2nd Street. I see this as staff trying to please residents and City Council playing politics. <br /><br />BTW, at a NA meeting last week I brought up the old "rails to trails" plan. When we are talking about how to get more bike trails, why not explore potential use of existing and abandoned rails within Salem. There used to be rails from Hawthorne to 12th Street...and then down Union Street. I think some of them are still there. Does that have any potential?<br /><br />Susann Kaltwassernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-79254023185018704412018-04-06T12:15:26.853-07:002018-04-06T12:15:26.853-07:00(Updated with comments from SBBA on the Winter-Map...(Updated with comments from SBBA on the Winter-Maple Plan.)<br /><br />Thanks Susann for the history on CDBG funds.<br /><br />Wallace is a huge barrier and we badly need a crossing at the end of the Union St RR Bridge. I am hopeful that a solution can be found for considerably less than ~$20M. At that price it would be pretty boondoggular as you say. Still, that connection is a gap in the corridor and impediment to walking and biking across by the RR Bridge. Somehow we need to mend that gap. So the project is not worth completely shutting down just yet. In any case, the $1.5M is from the West Salem URA and is not something that could be distributed on South Commercial or Lancaster.Salem Breakfast on Bikeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15618055627843335993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5666195730630249633.post-15773241111201532852018-04-06T01:31:36.658-07:002018-04-06T01:31:36.658-07:00$1.5M to "initiate design" of an over/u...$1.5M to "initiate design" of an over/underpass along Second Street NW at Wallace Road<br /><br />Then...$650,000 over four years for "pedestrian safety crossings"<br /><br />This is a travesty! That Second Street Wallace Road crossing is a waste of money! Putting $1.5 million to design something that we can't afford at what $15 to $25 million to construct is outrageous!<br /><br />We need more pedestrian safety crossings on major streets like South Commercial and Lancaster. Plus, we have miles of streets without sidewalks.<br /><br />On the question of CDBG funds for streets, the City used to take a large chunk of housing funds for street projects in low-income areas. I am hoping that this is no longer the practice. Years ago, when I asked staff why they took CDBG funds meant for housing for streets, they said, "because we can". Apparently they would rationalize that street projects in low income areas is a benefit to the people living there. Seemed thin to me. With the lack of low-income housing, it should no longer be permitted.Susann Kaltwassernoreply@blogger.com