I-5 Chemawa Interchange Plan at OTC This Week

The Oregon Transportation Commission meets in Ashland this week, and on the consent calendar is the I-5 Chemawa/Lockhaven interchange.

Formally it's a "Resolution to amend the Oregon Highway Plan and adopt the Interstate 5 /Chemawa Road Interchange Area Management Plan and Alternate Mobility Targets."

This process has been percolating for several years now (see the December 2012 date on the plan, for example), and it's late to have much to say. The plan mostly concerns Keizer, also, and following the City of Keizer closely has generally been beyond our scope here. So this is "Johnny come lately" for sure. You may know much more about the plan.

Phases for the preferred alternative (click to enlarge)

From an urban standpoint, widening Lockhaven, extending Verda Lane and Tepper Drive, seem like the big pieces. Both these and the highway widening would induce trips, also, and should be seen as inconsistent with greenhouse and climate goals. But of course that's not how ODOT rolls, and probably not how Keizer rolls. The "auxiliary lanes" for the highway at least superficially resemble those in the I-5 Rose Quarter project, and it would be interesting also to learn if Chemawa School has any concerns about increased particulates.

Technical Committee Continues Vetting Projects for 2021-2026: At the MPO - updated

The Technical Advisory Committee for our local Metropolitan Planning Organization meets this afternoon, Tuesday the 13th, and they are continuing to assess the project applicants for funding in the 2021-2026 cycle. After the meeting, they look to publish a map and with it to invite public comment and voting with social media-style "likes."

After a preliminary pass or two of scoring, here's the project ranking as a "early draft" assessment (here are notes on the very first whack at the list and earlier notes on the set of initial applications, so this may be the second pass) :

1. Fixed-Route Transit Vehicle Replacement
2. McGilchrist Street SE - 22nd Street Phase
3. Pedestrian Safety - Improved Crossings
4. Commercial Street - Vista to Ratcliff
5. Salem Area Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Program
6. Center St. Lancaster Dr to 45th Pl NE, Ph 2
7. State St. Lancaster Dr NE to 44th Ave, Ph 1
8. Delany Rd. Battle Creek Bridge to 9th Ct. (Turner)
9. Connecticut Av. Macleay to Rickey W Side Bike/Ped
10. Lancaster Dr Ph2. State to Monroe Reconstr.
11. River Rd N/McNary Estates Dr Project Design
12. Turner Road Downtown Urban Upgrade
13. Orchard Heights Road NW - Sidewalks and Pavement R& R
14. Broadway Street NE @ Hood Street NE

The initial scoring tabulation (click to enlarge)

The first five seem reasonable, but then #6 and #7 look all wrong. It's like, "well, we gotta fit in the county projects somewhere..."

But the gigantification of Center and State Streets in those project is just totally inconsistent with our urgent needs on greenhouse gases and also with the City's recent State Street Corridor plan.

Downtown Utility Wraps Feature Historic and Interpretive Panels

Have you checked out the interpretive panels mounted on the utility vaults around town? Especially downtown there is the start of a good density of historical markers, and if you take the time to imagine it, it's possible to extend yourself not just in space but also in time. The possibilities are very rich!

On the panels there does not seem to be any coherent narrative yet, and maybe there shouldn't be. History is always fragmentary, we can't know everything, and it is also multiple and contested. Still, there are places where more interpretation might be helpful.

But overall, the utility wrap project is great to see.

Probably the most important of the interpretive panels are ones related to our Chinatown. It's a part of Salem history that is not told in any detail, and what details we have had, up until the work on the shrine in Pioneer Cemetery, have relied on mid-century accounts which were limited and themselves biased. This telling of history is a chance to make visible what had been invisible, and more importantly make visible what had been deliberately erased in some cases.

"Chinese Funerary Traditions
at the Salem Pioneer Cemetery"

In Pioneer Cemetery, on a vault that really looks out of place, an instance of technology and infrastructure out of character with the other monuments and graves, there is a moving pair of panels on burials and funerary practices. There are so many layers of loss and deliberate forgetting here, and it is fit to have started the recovery and remembering project.

Rail Crossing Safety Piece Misses on our Autoism

I know we are tilting at windmills here, but the subhed, "Accidents nearly double in five years; reasons unclear" is unnecessary mystification. The reason is right there! Cars and our autoism. We are driving more in the last five years, and even if the crash rate holds steady, the total count will rise.

Car advertising and our autoism hinder analysis

You know, rate x miles = count.

This is the coarse explanatory framework in which the other fine details should be fitted. But because we have such a stake in mystifying our autoism, we hide this.

There's no simple explanation for the increase. State transportation officials and safety advocates say a variety of factors are at play: Oregon's growing population; people's unfamiliarity with their new surroundings; and the popularity of pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Sure there are many other factors, but the biggest one is that we are driving and traveling more.

A primary reason deaths are rising is because we are driving more
via FWHA twitter

The piece also misses the role of antiquated 19th century law. The railroads successfully externalized the costs for crossing safety. The roads are private property and they offload the costs of crossing treatments, and of bridges or underpasses, to cities and other jurisdictions. "Not our problem," they seemingly say.

City Council, August 12th - More on Salem Heights

Apart from the questions about bus stops and parking removal, the other item of real interest here on Council's agenda for Monday is the continuation of the appeal of a 34-lot development off of Salem Heights. (Previous notes here.)

Much of the protest and criticism of the development is a proxy for neighborhood dissatisfaction with speeding on the current "unimproved" state of Salem Heights as a rural-ish road without sidewalks and bike lanes.

In the rebuttal materials, the consulting traffic engineer talks about speed. And there is a real problem here. "Speed data alone is not evidence of a safety problem," they write. Because the crash rate here is below average, they conclude the corridor is "safe."

15% of drivers go well over the posted 25mph here

This is balderdash!

This is a structural blind spot in our traffic engineering. It ignores the number of people who choose not to walk or bike or even drive on the street because they feel unsafe. There is a subjective element that has been completely erased in our hydraulic autoism and the attempt to model traffic after fluid dynamics and physical sciences. People in cars feel safe enough to speed. The definition of safety has a strong autoist bias here.

The consulting engineer goes on to say,

...even if the existing speeds on Salem Heights Avenue S were deemed to constitute a documented traffic problem, the proposed subdivision would need to contribute to the traffic problem in order to trigger the need for a Traffic Impact Analysis.

They are right that the proposed development is too small to trigger the TIA, the north-south connections will be a benefit, and the neighbors are misdirecting their fire.

Still, there is a problem here, but it's not the development. Speeding on Salem Heights is a real problem, and the City should face this squarely. Slow the cars.

Additionally, the neighbors have proposed traffic diversion on one of the streets, allowing for walking and biking through, but denying car travel through it. City Staff seem to be very resistant. This is a concept we need to talk more about. Maybe here is not the right place for it exactly, but more generally, if we are going to start taming cars, we will need more diversion to prioritize non-auto travel. The City should take this suggestion more seriously.

Final pie chart from Our Salem: It's all about the cars

Also on the agenda is an "Intergovernmental Agreement with the State of Oregon, Office of the Fire Marshal for Regional Hazardous Materials Emergency Response."

City Council, August 12th - ADA Compliance and Parking Removal

Council meets on Monday, and they will consider a request by Cherriots to bring bus stop areas into better conformance with ADA requirements. Because this involves removing some on-street parking stalls, and was subject to a close 4-3 vote at CATC, it has been deemed "controversial" and requires Council action.

An example of extending the "no parking" area.
Existing "no parking" in yellow, proposed in red.
On Winter Street just north of D Street

Holy moly. The proprietary claims on and privatization of public space in the road right-of-way was on full display in comments to CATC earlier. Eight nearby residents went to CATC to register opposition. No residents were in favor. Here's one:

"...[a resident feels] the property value has gone down because there is no longer on-street parking on either of the streets next to the residence...this property will have a difficult resale process and diminished value...this constitutes eminent domain without compensation...people utilizing the bus leave garbage and cigarette butts on the property diminishing its value."

Never mind the way that robust transit serves public need and enhances urban mobility. Also never mind the needs of differently-abled people who use the bus and would find advantage in greater clearance with the parking removal.

If Cherriots and the City are out of compliance, and would court a lawsuit, why is this even at CATC? As a purely technical matter, this should not be subject to the NIMBY process. Why do we continue to indulge the politics of our mania for free parking in the public right-of-way?

(On the other hand, if this is not a purely technical matter for compliance, Cherriots and the City should be clearer about where they are exercising discretion, where they are out of compliance, and should not frame it up as wholly about "compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.")

from Walkable City Rules

Apart from the question of our proprietary claims for annexing curbside space, there are questions about buses on bike boulevards, where we expect kids, and the role of parking in narrowing and calming a wide street. In Walkable City Rules Jeff Speck argues for the benefits of curbside parking, and in the Staff Report, there is too much attention paid to the objections of the immediately adjacent residents, and not enough attention to the way buses and parking removal is, or is not, consistent with our vision for Winter Street more generally.

In the end, by framing it up as a matter subject to the politics of parking and to neighborhood preferences, rather than a technical matter for better mobility and street function, the City and Cherriots may have missed an opportunity to start a different conversation about the way we treat the public space known as a street, about the harms of driving, and about the ways our parking arrangements induce carbon emissions. We have to start threading our climate emergency into these other topics.

Final pie chart from Our Salem: It's all about the cars

(There are several information reports of interest as well as the large matter of new revenue sources also on Council agenda. We'll briefly touch on these in a separate note over the weekend.)

Driver Struck and Killed Linda Adamson while Crossing Owens at Liberty.

Earlier this week on Monday the 5th, a person apparently making a left turn in a car onto a one way street struck and killed a person attempting to walk across the cross street.

From Salem Police, the initial report and an update with Adamson's name. The identity of the driver is not disclosed and the driver is generally erased:

The Salem Police Department Traffic Control Unit is investigating a fatal crash at the intersection of Owens St S and Liberty St SE. The crash was reported at approximately 6:27am when the Salem police department responded to a report of a vehicle striking a pedestrian at that intersection. When police arrived they located the adult female pedestrian, who was already deceased. The adult female driver of the involved vehicle remained on scene and is cooperating with investigators. At this time the cause of the crash remains under investigation. The identity of the victim is not being released pending next of kin notification....

The Salem Police Department has identified the victim involved in the vehicle versus pedestrian crash this morning at Liberty St SE and Owens St S.

The victim is identified as Linda Adamson, a 59 yr old resident of Salem, OR.

Liberty from Owens looking East at a T-intersection.
Owens has dual left-turn lanes onto Liberty here.
Adamson was crossing left to right; Liberty goes right to left.
(Photo via streetview, not in PD release)

Investigators determined that the victim was attempting to cross Owens St S, heading SB, at the Liberty St intersection as the involved Subaru SUV was attempting to make a turn from Owens St S onto NB Liberty St on a red light. The vehicle struck the victim as it was attempting to make the turn onto Liberty St.

The 68 yr old female driver remained on scene and was cooperative with investigators. There were no signs of impairment. The investigation is continuing and no criminal charges have been filed at this time.

See this note for more on active/passive voice, the word "pedestrian," and the habit of erasing the driver.