The first question asks about the purpose of the TSP. The question is a relevant one considering the TSP is not a clear and focused document. The TSP is inconsistent internally and leaves out key information needed to make important decisions. The biggest problem with the TSP is that it describes a transportation plan that does not fit the geography, demographics and desires of the community.
While the TSP should work to fit the city, this one requires the city to fit the plan. In places, the TSP creators do not seem to be listening to their expert consultants about anticipated growth, but apply Metro or State laws to satisfy a predetermined need instead. Is this a plan to get Lake Oswego in line with Metro and State goals, or how to fit regulations into the structure and needs of Lake Oswego residents?
Read through the entire Memo of staff responses to Planning Commission concerns. Instead of shedding light on the issues, the responses tend to concentrate on legal issues or dubious rationale rather than getting to the heart of what the questions ask.
Excerpts:
Purpose of the TSP-
Commissioners’ discussion and public testimony indicated that there was confusion as to the purpose of the TSP.
Staff Response - In Oregon, producing a TSP is a requirement by the Statewide Planning Goal 12- Transportation. The TSP is a plan for providing a safe, efficient and economical transportation system.
Commissioners’ discussion and public testimony indicated that there was confusion as to the purpose of the TSP.
Staff Response - In Oregon, producing a TSP is a requirement by the Statewide Planning Goal 12- Transportation. The TSP is a plan for providing a safe, efficient and economical transportation system.
In
addition, a transportation system should support a pattern of travel and land use that will avoid
air pollution, traffic and livability problems. The form of individual transportation plans will
necessarily vary depending on the size, needs and circumstances of a community. In a community like Lake Oswego, which is for the most part built-out, the focus will be on completing the missing connections in the system and protecting the form and function of
facilities to meet existing and projected travel demand for at least 20 years into the future. (What are the predicted travel demands? If they are predictable, surely they can be described. Whose needs are being addressed?)
The TSP is a 20-year plan that combines necessary programs and projects with aspirations of the
community to achieve a more tailored and robust multimodal transportation system. Every
project listed in the TSP is meant to provide a missing piece of the system whether it has to do
with safety, physical connectivity or efficiency. (Where is the justification that "the community aspires to a more tailored and robust multimodal transportation system"? What specific outreach did the engineering staff do as part of the TSP project? Are "necessary programs and projects" those required by regulatory agencies, or do they simply exist in various transportation and land use plans with no legal obligation to do them?)
The TSP is the starting point for adding transportation projects to the City’s Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP). The CIP is where the community’s needs and desires are prioritized for
funding each year. (I don't think the creators of the TSP know or understand what this community needs or wants. After reading the TSP, I am convinced of it. "Needs and wants" is a phrase that gets used a lot but has no real meaning in practice.)
Are the priorities reflective of the Council’s Goals?
Staff Response – The priority of projects was simply a ranking of how well each project addressed the seven Comprehensive Plan goals. The City Council recently adopted the Comprehensive Plan with these goals amended to better reflect their values. (It would be instructive to review the goals and ask the Council if this is what they meant. Sometimes it seems like the TSP is addressing the goals of the previous Council as well as the current one since the work was begun in 2011. A new council was elected to, in part, reverse the trend of the prior council. How well is this being accomplished?)
Are the priorities reflective of the Council’s Goals?
Staff Response – The priority of projects was simply a ranking of how well each project addressed the seven Comprehensive Plan goals. The City Council recently adopted the Comprehensive Plan with these goals amended to better reflect their values. (It would be instructive to review the goals and ask the Council if this is what they meant. Sometimes it seems like the TSP is addressing the goals of the previous Council as well as the current one since the work was begun in 2011. A new council was elected to, in part, reverse the trend of the prior council. How well is this being accomplished?)
Are the priorities reflective of Foothills development?
Staff Response – As discussed above, the prioritization of projects is not reflective of the level of development in Foothills or anywhere else in the City. Those projects within the Foothills District come directly from the Foothills Plan. The prioritization of those projects showed that the projects met several goals of the Comprehensive Plan and, thus, scored high. (The Foothills Plan is only a plan and will not come to fruition without a viable development agreement. A future development agreement will determine what the obligations of the City are. The Foothills projects on the City CIP list implies a certain obligation on the part of the City to consider them along with actual City needs.)
Are the reclassifications appropriate?
The roads that are proposed for reclassification have volumes that are currently within the range of the upper classification. (At least one road does not have the needed traffic volumes to justify reclassification - there may be others. If up-classification is to accommodate anticipated growth, where is the growth expected to occur? Kittleson and Assoc. said in their July 2013 report that because the city was built out and growth rate was low, little new growth was expected. They could justify only 2 roads for upclassification. Why the change to add more roads to the list?)
Staff Response – As discussed above, the prioritization of projects is not reflective of the level of development in Foothills or anywhere else in the City. Those projects within the Foothills District come directly from the Foothills Plan. The prioritization of those projects showed that the projects met several goals of the Comprehensive Plan and, thus, scored high. (The Foothills Plan is only a plan and will not come to fruition without a viable development agreement. A future development agreement will determine what the obligations of the City are. The Foothills projects on the City CIP list implies a certain obligation on the part of the City to consider them along with actual City needs.)
Are the reclassifications appropriate?
The roads that are proposed for reclassification have volumes that are currently within the range of the upper classification. (At least one road does not have the needed traffic volumes to justify reclassification - there may be others. If up-classification is to accommodate anticipated growth, where is the growth expected to occur? Kittleson and Assoc. said in their July 2013 report that because the city was built out and growth rate was low, little new growth was expected. They could justify only 2 roads for upclassification. Why the change to add more roads to the list?)
Good work. I am amazed at how staff blithely responds to PC requests with an attitude that seems to say "we know what we are doing and you do not understand" .
ReplyDeleteObviously they do it because they can. What I'd like to know is how this shabby treatment of citizens is OK with administrators in City Hall. And if they don't know what is going on, why not? Where are the observations and evaluations that keep certain behaviors in check and the ship of state on the right course? These problems are entrenched in City Hall but who is going to change things?
Delete