MEMORANDUM

TSM/TDM/Transit Expanded Subcommittee

DATE: Revised: July 21, 2008

Purpose
Ensure broad input to the TSM/TDM/transit measures to be considered in the Draft EIS.
An ad-hoc subgroup including Project Management Team (PMT) and Task Force
representatives from ODOT, City of Salem, Salem-Keizer Transit District, SKATS, and
consulting team members has met for several months and developed proposed measures.
The expanded group is proposed to also include Task Force members representing West
Salem, bicycle/pedestrian issues, and perspectives of the Department of Land Conservation
and Development.

Scope and Duration of Effort

Two or three 2-hour meetings and review of draft materials, to be concluded as quickly as
possible. Proposed meeting schedule and content is as follows.

Meeting #1
• Presentation by PMT of TSM/TDM/transit measures considered to date, analysis
supporting consideration, and rationale for measures not being considered.
• Committee suggestions of refinements to proposed measures and other measures to be
considered, addressing key issues below.
• Agreement on any refinements to PMT-proposed measures and additional measures to
be analyzed prior to Meeting #2

Meeting #2
• Presentation of results of refinements and any additional analysis agreed to in Meeting
#1
• Agreement on any additions to proposed measures and/or any additional analysis
required prior to decision

Meeting #3 (if needed)

• Presentation of results of any additional refinements agreed to in Meeting #2 and
agreement on any changes or additions to proposed measures

Key Issues
1) How effective will the measures be in helping meet the project purpose and need –
in particular, in relieving peak-hour congestion on the Marion and Center Street
bridges? Analysis to date has shown that providing transit system and operations

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS-072108_.DOC 1
 improvements in the absence of user fees (tolls or parking charges) to discourage
auto trips results in small reductions in demand.
2) How will the measures be paid for? Are there funding constraints beyond those that
pertain to the other parts of the project? Transit operations improvements are
typically ineligible for federal funding as part of a highway (FHWA lead) project
such as the Salem River Crossing.
3) Are the measures likely to be politically viable? What level of adoption or approval
would be needed to ensure implementation? While concerns about political viability
are not necessarily grounds for not including a measure, the PMT desires to develop
solutions that can be implemented.
4) Do the TSM measures include physical changes? What impacts would the measures
have to the physical footprints of the alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS? Should
these measures be constructed as part of the preferred alternative so as to decrease
cost and/or not preclude this opportunity in the future? In other words, are there
opportunities to improve the transit system that would be cost-effective to include
with the project, even if the reduction in vehicle demand is minor?

Givens
The following are considered “givens” for the purpose of including TSM/TDM/transit
options in the DEIS:

Regulatory Issues (NEPA and SAFETEA-LU)

• NEPA requires consideration of TSM/TDM/transit in the range of alternatives. As with
other alternatives considered but not included in the Salem River Crossing EIS, any such
alternatives considered but dismissed will be documented as part of the EIS process.
• Due to its potential dollar value (over $500 million construction cost) the Salem River
Crossing DEIS is required by SAFETEA-LU, the federal transportation funding act, to
demonstrate “financial constraint.” This means a financing plan has to be in place for
anything proposed in the preferred alternative in order for it to be approved by FHWA.
In other words, transit (or TSM/TDM) improvements without an identified funding
strategy cannot be included in the preferred alternative. (This is different from EIS’s for
many other projects not subject to this requirement that include such measures without
any plan for implementing them.)

Meeting Purpose and Need

• As with the roadway alternatives developed, any TSM/TDM/transit improvements to
be packaged with the Build alternatives are subject to the basic test of the value they
bring in addressing the project Purpose and Need and specifically, reducing trips across
the existing Marion and Center Street bridges during the peak hour. While not expected
to provide the same level of benefit, common sense suggests the TSM/TDM/transit
improvements should help solve the problem.
• As was demonstrated in the study of a stand-alone TSM/TDM alternative (see
“TSM/TDM (Transit and Roadway Efficiency) Concept – Analysis and Results” memo,
dated 8/15/07), improvements to the transit system such as more buses and improved

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS-072108_.DOC 2
 headways still leave the transit system at a significant disadvantage compared to single
occupant vehicles with respect to trip time across the river and individuals’ understood
time value of money. Consequently, such improvements to the transit system will have
relatively little effect on peak hour demand on the existing bridges until or unless there
is a significant increase in travel time (e.g., significant congestion for single occupant
vehicles but not for transit) or the cost of driving (e.g., tolls, congestion pricing, parking
pricing, fuel prices) for single occupant vehicles. Because the Salem River Crossing
project Build alternatives are designed to improve single occupant vehicle travel time
over the future No Build condition and do not propose differential user fees (e.g.,
congestion pricing), a significant time vs. money disadvantage for transit trips would be
maintained, even with significantly improved bus headways.

Capturing/Not Precluding Changes to Support Transit

• The major infrastructure changes and investments included in the Build alternatives
present an opportunity to cost-effectively construct roadway-related transit
improvements that could be implemented as part of roadway reconstruction (e.g.,
dedicated transit lanes, queue jump lanes, signals equipped for transit priority,
relocating bus stops to the far side of intersections, etc.). Any such improvements that
would significantly improve the transit system and contribute to improved transit travel
times across the river should be considered for inclusion in the project.
• Despite the fact that current and forecasted future driver behavior suggests transit usage
will not change significantly as part of this project, the project should not preclude the
future option for local jurisdictions to provide more transit service in response to either
policy shifts at the local level (e.g., decision to implement congestion pricing) or changes
in external factors (e.g., substantial increase in gas prices) that shift driver behavior away
from single occupant vehicles and toward transit.

Funding Transit Improvements

• The project team’s understanding is that current state law prohibits the use of toll
revenues collected from cars and trucks to pay for transit capital and operating
expenses. (DOJ staff are currently researching this.)
• This project as conceived is a highway (FHWA-lead) project, not a transit (FTA-lead)
project. As a result, any federal funds that might be received for this project would be
from gas tax revenues and generally could not be used for non-roadway purposes (such
as transit capital and operating expenses). There may be some exceptions to this
stipulation.

SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS-072108_.DOC 3