T is for Transportation, P is for Plan, and S is for...

The  Open House for the Transportation System Plan was last night (Monday 1/27).  Here are some observations:

• I was sure that the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) would be present and answering questions about the maps and information on the easels.  For sure they would be collecting citizen comments on transportation issues.  But no, the TAB was not involved in the event, and only a couple of its members attended.  Kudos to those who showed up, but the question remains as to what input they have had in this process.  

• There were large maps all around made by Kittelson & Associates, transportation consultants for the project.  The maps had all types of information - trails, bike and pedestrian pathways, sidewalks, high crash intersections, congested areas, etc.  There were maps of existing conditions and proposed improvements - some more immediate, and some that are years off.  The maps were created using city, state and Metro transportation plans.  The maps made clear now regional plans impact Lake Oswego with crisscrossing trails and transportation corridors connecting expanding employment districts and town centers.  

• One person lamented that the streetcar to Portland had been put on the back burner. (The project is NOT dead - it is on EVERY Metro planning map as a near term High Capacity Transit project - assumably just waiting for a more friendly city council to bring it back to life.)  The speaker believed that the streetcar was shunned by LO residents because they are "racists" and don't want the "riffraff from Portland" coming into Lake Oswego.  There was also an element of derision about people in Dunthorp not wanting a streetcar going past their homes during dinner time. I am not at all sure how racism fits into that argument at all, and I do not think that the riffraff argument is why most people objected to the streetcar.   Wealthy or not, most people would not want strangers passing close to their home several times a day either!  From Up Sucker Creek's vantage point, the opposition is chiefly due to increased density, increased urbanism, congestion, cost, and privacy concerns.  Crime is one factor, but USC never heard race brought into the argument.  Could the complainant be more specific?

• The maps are not ready to be published yet, nor are the staff recommendations that will accompany them.  For a close approximation of what the LO maps look like, check out the Metro Refional Transportation Plan maps (RTP) and trail maps.  The LO Transportation System Plan is more a compilation of Metro plans than LO planning, though the City Council may accept or reject any of the plans or just not fund them.   

• The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) transportation project list was not available to the  public at the Open House, and staff said it would be presented  with the complete Transportation System Plan (TSP) when it goes to the City Council in a few weeks.  However a list is available as part of the July 2013 TSAP meeting, though we will only know how it matches the TSP list when we can see them both together.  Here is just one of the Metro project lists.  The SW Corridor list has several (L-3 through L-6). These are not priorities, but still, I am curious about where a 30-acre park would be.  

• Funding for TSP projects is problematic.  Most transportation funds come from street utility fees which are meant for streets, not for bike/ped projects, but items on the CIP list are 69% bike/ped.  Much Metro and State funding goes to projects that are mixed-use land use and supported by active transportation - could this have anything to so with this lopsided scenario? Read the Funding Summary Update (12/11/13)  Excerpts below.

1. Future Projections of Funds Needed though year 2035
   
   1. Operations, maint., preservation & personnel (O&M): $6.2 M annual minimum target
      
   2. Infrastructure Expansion: $180 M total per Draft TSP Project List
      
      1. 69% bike/ped; 28% roads/signals/operation; 3% transit

1. Projected Funding Shortfall
   
   1. O&M cost: +/- $800,000 shortfall*
      
   2. Personnel and programs: (included with O&M estimate)
      
   3. Infrastructure Expansion Projects: $140 M shortfall
      
2. Potential Strategies for Dealing with Shortfall
   
   1. Operations, maintenance and preservation:
      
      1. replace “street utility fee” with multi-modal “transportation utility fee”
         
      2. 15% fee increase (paid by households/businesses) may fund $800K shortfall 
         

• Finally, and most importantly -  It always amazes and angers this blogger and many, many others, that more complete planning materials are typically not available until documents are finalized and ready for City Council presentation, usually on the SAME night there is a public hearing and they are to be approved. This gives the public (and Council) only about 4 days to review the packet before giving testimony and the council approves the documents without due consideration of public comment.  I seriously doubt that this is what is meant by "Citizen Involvement."  The Open House was nice, but since there were no staff recommendations, policy and goal statements, recommended action measures, etc., it was a lot of show and very little tell, and this will become part of the Comp Plan. We now have to wait for the same drill of little time and little citizen input for this extremely important part of the land use puzzle - which by now seems to be intentional.