Thursday, May 17, 2018

Congestion Task Force Meets Friday Morning

The Congestion Relief Task Force meets early tomorrow morning. There's not a whole lot new to say, so we'll bury that down at the end, and meander first over a couple of related topics.

Last month at the meeting of the Policy Committee for our local Metropolitan Planning Organization, in the context of conversation about the current Salem City Council politics on the Salem River Crossing, Councilor Lewis indicated he thought that there might be changes to the composition of Council.

Changes to City Council? Yes, indeed!
He got his wish!

I-5 Kuebler to Delany Road Project Doubles to $35 Million, on OTC Agenda

The Portland debate about decongestion pricing will be the lead item at the Oregon Transportation Commission, meeting today in Portland. Eventually this will filter down here, and at some point it seems likely we'll finally be able to have a conversation about decongestion pricing on the Marion and Center Street bridges and perhaps other places in Salem. But at the moment this remains a "third rail" kind of topic. (Full agenda here.)

Decongestion pricing isn't popular, but it's coming
(ODOT report to OTC)
More immediately, the OTC look to approve funding and changes to an I-5 project between in South Salem. The project would roughly double in budget, and add a construction phase to what had been just a design phase.

The background and history is a little interesting - look at the date of the Record of Decision!

Wednesday, May 16, 2018

Bike More Challenge at Mid-Month; Institutional Support Remains Spotty

At mid-month it's always interesting to check in on the Bike More Challenge here in Salem.

Unsurprisingly, it is the small groups that are able to compete statewide best. These results are filtered for Salem-Keizer groups, but the numbered rankings are from the statewide list.

This is a mystery "State of Oregon" group!
(But South Salem Cycleworks is looking to that retirement!)

Northwest Hub is doing well

Ride of Silence Tonight

This evening, May 16th, the Salem 2018 Ride of Silence will be at 6:15pm. John Henry Maurice and Joanne Heilinger of the Salem Bicycle Club will lead the ride, which departs from the "red lot" downtown. All are welcome.

Since 2003 "the mission of the world wide Ride of Silence is to honor bicyclists killed by motorists, promote sharing the road, and provide awareness of bicycling safety."

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

Proposed Midblock Treatments May Hinder Future Biking Downtown

The concepts for the Downtown Sidewalk Study have been out for a little while, and there hasn't seemed to be a great deal to say about them. They are more about standardizing street furniture and planter areas than about reconfiguring the streetscape. They are incremental decoration and fiddling on the edges of the sidewalks, not a structural revision to the streets. They're "fine."

One move, however, might deserve comment. It looks promising, but it actually digs in further on a dysfunctional road design and turns its back on emerging best practices for multi-modal downtown streets. It maintains downtown as a system of "traffic sewers," whose aim is to drain traffic through the downtown. The priority remains on zooming through-traffic and fails to look sufficiently to the future and to downtown as a "place" in and of itself.

Proposed Midblock Landscape Pockets
Open House Presentation

Proposed Alley Entrances - also midblock
Open House Presentation
The concepts include a set of midblock bulb-outs, one group for the Liberty/Commercial couplet, called "landscape pockets"; the other for the alley entries on the east-west streets.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

City Council, May 14th - UGM and Lone Oak Decisions

Council meets on Monday, and while the opportunity for Public Comment is closed, Council will deliberate on both the UGM Shelter expansion and Lone Oak Reimbursement District.

Vacation Lane SE:
Private Drive or Public Street? A little ambiguous!
Time and additional comment hasn't offered much additional clarity on them, and it may just be that these are difficult, ambiguous civic matters with no easy and obvious resolution. The outcomes will be imperfect compromises and there is no way out of that bind.

On both of them, however, the need to drill into, analyze, and discuss very specific conditions has meant that debate about homelessness and about the fiscal sustainability of development patterns here has been less theoretical and abstract and instead become concrete. This seems like a feature, not a bug! Instead of a task force and its generalities and cliches and baggy reports, Council has to interpret policy and code concretely, make a decision, and attach specific conditions as appropriate. In most ways, then, the appeals and resulting debate seem more positive than not.

So let's talk about other things.

It even looks like an appendix!
The most interesting thing from here is a proposal to vacate an odd little vestigial street, Vacation Lane SE.

Friday, May 11, 2018

Comment on Proposed Rules for New Safe Routes to Schools Funding

Part of the omnibus transportation package passed by the Legislature last year was an annual allocation for Safe Routes to School.

In order to distribute the funds, ODOT needed to make some rules.

The draft of those rules is out and the Safe Routes to Schools folks, who were part of the rule-making committee, suggest some comment.

From their release:
In 2017, the Oregon State Legislature dedicated $10 million annually for Safe Routes to School infrastructure. The Oregon Department of Transportation just released the final rules that will allow communities in Oregon access to tens of millions of dollars to spend on needed street safety improvements within a mile of schools -- including sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes.

One of our major concerns about the program is the very high 40% cash match requirement for funding. Throughout the SRTS rulemaking process, we have advocated for the reduction or elimination of this cash match requirement, so that as many communities in Oregon will be able to access these funds, make needed safety improvements around schools, and provide safe travel routes for Oregon students. In some circumstances, the match will be reduced to 20%, but we have already heard from many communities that even this requirement will be a prohibitive burden. Specifically, this may mean lower-income schools, and those communities with historical under-investment in transportation safety projects, will be unable to apply for funds.

Until May 31, you have the opportunity to help shape Oregon's new Safe Routes to School program by sending in your comments. Read more about the SRTS infrastructure rules, funding opportunity, upcoming workshops, and how to comment.
They say:
The commentary focuses on the local match amount. For context, a lot of Federal programs require about a 10% match. So a 40% match would be much higher and represent a meaningful deviation from current custom.

At the same time, the match amount is almost certainly a reflection of a desire to make the annual allocation go as far as possible - a distribution more broad and thin, rather then narrow and deep.

It is a consequence of the politics. The program was the product of horse-trading. The Street Trust (and allies) caved on highway expansion in exchange for this SR2S fund. During the sausage-making and afterwards, the Street Trust trumpeted it as a colossal achievement and game-changer, but really, it's swamped by things like the I-5 Rose Quarter expansion and other road capacity increases in the legislation. (See this recent  twitter exchange for some typical and critical comment on the trading.)

Moreover, the total amount will be distributed statewide, and once all the applications are submitted and we see the total need, the allocation will seem very paltry.

Collaged (with comments in red)
from the May 8th slide deck and presentation
at the Legislature last year
The allocation is something, it's not nothing it's important to say, and as a percentage change from the previous level of funding the delta is huge, but in absolute terms it's still very small. It's still an instance of non-auto transportation fighting over table scraps. (You may say this is an ungrateful "half-full" perspective, but until we are more serious about not just providing "options" on the fringes, but have a core commitment to reducing drive-alone trips with things like decongestion pricing and an end to subsidized free parking, small increases in programming like this won't produce the aggregate change that is needed.)

While the advocacy task immediately at hand might be to reduce the match amount, the real project is for the Legislature in the next year or two to expand the program, not to be content with $10 or $15 million a year, but to see the need to multiply that and expand it with more funding and juice.