This is the fourth in a series of six posts in the first phase of our online RTP policy exercise. Your job is to describe what the outcomes will look like if the RTP succeeds in producing the 2040 objective of Transportation Choices:
An integrated transportation system that supports land use and provides reliable, safe and attractive travel choices for people and goods.
To remind you of the rules for this exercise:
– An ‘outcome’ must be reduced to a single ‘bullet’, i.e., a one sentence statement. You may follow that with a single short paragraph providing further explanation if you want.
– Rule change: multiple bullets in one comment allowed
– If you agree with someone else’s outcome, quote it in your comment (my preference is italics for quoting) and say you agree and elaborate (no more than one paragraph) on why if you want.
– No criticism of other people’s proposed outcomes
– If you have questions or comments about the exercise or rules, comment on the exercise overview post, not here please.
11 responses to “RTP Exercise: Transportation Choices”
Town centers have plenty of required free parking that encourages, promotes and supports business activity.
– Parking pays for itself in all commercial centers rather than being included in the cost of goods so that people pay for it whether they use the parking or not.
Even downtown, most large businesses pay for the cost of their customer’s parking. So parking is a cost center rather than revenue generating. Having parking generate revenue would mean that you could more easily recover the cost of structured parking and other investments that make more efficient use of land and making the commercial areas more walkables. It would also create a more accurate economic signal for the choice of mode.
— 90% of Oregon children regularly travel self-powered to and from school safely without parental assistance.
… i picked 90% at random, but the point is the percentage should be measured now and then made to improve over time.
This is a benefit for kids and parents who currently commute to school by car, or even trailer-bike. The exercise is good for kids, as is the independence. The parents save a little bit of time every day, and of course the congestion/traffic improvement at morning rush hour is worthwhile.
I don’t know how this plays out in rural oregon, tho …
Completion of elements still missing from a comprehensive regional transportation system…in particular high capacity/rail transit (Oregon City, Vancouver WA, Tigard/Kruse Woods, Damascus) and bike routes.
The regional highway system and arterial roadway system are essentially completed, but huge gaps remain in the transit system, particularly high capacity/rail transit, and in the regional bike route network. Too many trips are still possible only by private motor vehicle, overloading portions of the roadway network at peak hours.
– The quarter of the region’s residents who cannot drive have a substantially similar quality of transportation choices as those who can.
– Traffic deaths are no longer the leading cause of death among ages 1-34 years old.
I stongly agree with parking paying for itself, including outside centers so there is no unfair competition. As for mine:
-People have a real, viable option other than driving their own car, whether it be going by bike, walking, bus, light rail, streetcar, commuter rail, etc. The transit system is efficient, clean, on-time, reliable, frequent and reasonably fast. People are still able to drive their own vehicle if they want, but realize the economic, enviromental, social and other costs of it. Also, freight and maybe other commercial vehicles are given priority over single-occupancy cars.
— 90% of Oregon children regularly travel self-powered to and from school safely without parental assistance.
I agree. Given the health benefits, the more kids get to school under their own power the better. It would also restore to modern childhood some of the independence that has been lost. And the things required to accomplish this would benefit everyone.
Suburban rail stations add station cars to provide “last mile” connectivity to areas too low-density to serve with bus service. If these station cars are neighborhood electric vehicles, pollution and CO2 are reduced, mobility is improved, and the potential range of destinations easily reachable by transit increases manyfold.
Serves commuters who take the station cars home at night as part of a monthly plan, and those who need to rent one for an hour to run errands. One park and ride space that likely serves only one SOV commuter can serve multiple uses every day if converted to station car use.
Taxes and fees are charged a specific mode of transport, then dedicated to only provide infrastructure for that mode so that one mode of transport and/or non-user taxpayers do not subsidize a diverse mode of transport.
Explanation: Each mode of transport is assessed appropriate taxes and fees to pay the majority of their own way for the infrastructure that is relative to that specific mode.
– Every freeway is a complete multi-modal corridor
Explanation: The freeways provide a complete and seamlessly integrated network for motorists. Parallel bike paths and high-frequency transit lines (rail or busways) could use the same corridors to provide complete bikeway and transit networks.
– Continuous annual reduction in traffic accidents per capita per thousand miles traveled.
–
Bicycle “freeways” (like the Springwater Corridor) are built in corridors statewide to allow residents to choose the bicycle as a reasonable alternative to driving for trips of 1-45 miles.