Meeting notes from Roux Campus Bike/Ped Committee

[Nathan Miller]

Both Lindsay and I attended the session that the Roux Campus developers held with local bike and ped groups and officals. PBPAC, Bicycle Coalition of Maine, Portland Trails, Roux campus users, and reps from the regional trails networks were there along with probably a few more I'm forgetting. Here are my notes of the key points of interest, with Lindsay more than welcome to supplement with her notes. 

1. There was mention from BCM that there are federal funds SPECIFICALLY set aside to reconnect communities impacted by previous highway development, so maybe that is a source for funds outside of the developer/city/state. 
2. Developer mentioned starting with surface parking on lots that won't get developed into buildings until the future, but full build out including below grade parking (seems like a dewatering challenge to me) plus above-grade garages (I think, little fuzzy on that point). 
3. Most recent site design progression has pulled the perimeter buildings along 295 INWARD on the site, which apparently makes neighborhood groups happy, but it also has freed up space for what apparently is now an MDOT priority to add a DEDICATED, northbound 295 exit ramp for the campus. 
1. It would be exit only, getting offsite with a vehicle would still involve routing back through Washington Ave. Not a direct connection for southbound 295 traffic either. 
2. Developer insists that the MDOT is pushing this on them, and that the neighborhood loves it because they perceive this REDUCING traffic through the neighborhood (at least inbound), and that at the earliest it's probably 10 or more years out.
3. I didn't find his statements entirely convincing, and feel like Roux would be pretty happy to have their own exit ramp. HOW CONVENIENT. I'm not sure he's sending that same "we don't want it" message when meeting with other groups. 
4. Lots of furrowed brows and pushback from the bike/ped folks in attendance. We discussed induced demand, that this is like opening a fire-hose onto campus, that it literally sends the message that this is a CAR ACCESS CAMPUS FIRST AND FOREMOST. 
5. Per Jaime, this ramp would preclude the sidewalk connection that Portland Trails was previously pushing to go from campus, under 295 and connect to the dead-end sidewalk at Howie's Pub on the Washington/Veranda intersection. 
6. I think bike/ped/transit groups need to focus on fighting this ramp and push to have funds reallocated to make this the most bike/ped/transit connected area in the city (I know, this is the Gorham Spur fight all over again). 
4. Interestingly, Roux is looking into establishing a water-taxi/ferry service between campus and downtown, and also is in discussions with SoPo to make it a triangle route. 
5. Developer mentioned additional conversations with Bruce Hyman (not in attendance at this meeting, but maybe next time) about finding a way to make a bike/ped route on the EAST side of Tukey's bridge, most likely not by carving away any space from existing bridge deck, which implies to me a stand alone structure or cantilevered option. 
1. THIS IS HUGE, in my opinion, and would improve bike/ped routing not just for the campus but have impact on city, though some of that depends on how connections are then made to more than just Roux. 
2. There were some in the group that still favored the "under 295 connection to existing back cove trail" because it provides a neighborhood connection and routing to existing trails. 
3. I pointed out how much extra walking distance it adds with all the underpasses/doubling back required. 
4. Why not both, of course? 
6. Lots of talk about needing a strong Transportation Demand Management plan, setting the stage day one to have an "active transportation culture" on campus, and not letting Roux slide into the USM trap of having a car-commuter (students/faculty/staff) dominated tradition that just feeds into the next cycle of demanding more parking, more car access, as future buildouts occur.
1. Of course there is a reality that some parking will need to be provided, but how much and how easy. 
2. How do we get the city/state/developer to make the first move to focus on moving people and not just cars? Developer brought up again that there is much skepticism from neighborhood and city staff that they will be able to hit their goals for non-personal-vehicle access to site, and thus both sides are advocating for more parking, and cleaner car access to campus. 
3. Why not a remote parking lot with shuttle to at least introduce some slight inconvenience ("friction") but still allow for those who need to drive to be able to get to work/school. 
4. Do we really have to facilitate door-to-door driving? 
7. Next meeting will be scheduled in a month or so. 

Nate

[Tony Donovan]

Disappointing but not surprising that neither the developer,  MEDOT or those in attendance raised the question as to how Roux/Medot is addressing the current plan to operate a light rail passenger train on the route directly serving Roux as well as downtown Portland along the same I295 corridor all the traffic is coming and going on.

That this development is being considered for its own, new ramp off the highway is a slap in the face of all those who understand the serious issue of Climate change and the impacts of expanding and building highways for cars as the leading cause.

The costs of that ramp is probably equal to the costs of reconstruction of this state-owned railroad for light rail service.

We are seriously doing this.  We are at this time, moving forward without Medot, knowing from decades of experience,  that Maine transportation policy is paved asphault roads roads and more roads.  The same policy that does not include, or seeks reports to preclude the use of these valuable railroad  transportation corridor assets. 

If anyone on this list is interested in understanding or even participating in this active transportation project, you really should reach out.  

We have the only battery-electric passenger train in the US available to us right now.  A real tool for addressing Climate, congestion, affordable and equitable access to jobs, housing, services and recreation.   We may even have the solution to the parking problem in today's front page news.

Yes, the highway ramp must be stopped.  But a campus built for cars should also be stopped.

The Climate is not waiting 

Tony Donovan 

Portland 

--

Anthony J. Donovan, Director

 Maine Rail Transit Coalition

84 Middle St.  Portland, Me. 04101

(207) 329-6732 Mobile

Mailto: MElik...@Gmail.com

 

Train Time

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to PBPAC+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/PH8PR14MB587679880BF5A324CEDAECEEBA519%40PH8PR14MB5876.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

[Nathan Miller]

Tony,

There was some light discussion of rail that came up in the context of the regional trails, but it didn't make it into my summarized notes. Most in attendance nodded along when we it was brought up that ideally we could find a way to do rail-with-trial in the given right of ways. I don't know that I have permission to forward an email that the East Coast Greenway Alliance sent as a follow up to the meeting, but they included images of rails + trails, and mentioned that the (modest) Falmouth to Portland segment of the proposed Casco Bay Trail is intended to be rail + trail. 

I don't have any more information beyond that, and would agree that really metro/bus was the only public transportation widely discussed in the meeting. 

Nate

---

From: pb...@googlegroups.com <pb...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Tony Donovan <melik...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 4:04 PM
To: PB...@googlegroups.com <PB...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Roberto Rodríguez <roberto4...@gmail.com>; Andrew Zarro <aza...@portlandmaine.gov>; Anna Trevorrow <atrev...@portlandmaine.gov>; Mark Dion <dion...@me.com>
Subject: Re: [PBPAC] Meeting notes from Roux Campus Bike/Ped Committee

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CADxr%3DC5TR5_-bH0fEEUtgpgj2u6azd22T4wR%3D5v1iM6sCWOJrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Brooking]

I like the idea of additional bike/ped space on Tukey's Bridge (#5), and I also think the water taxi/ferry (#4) should include accommodations for bikes, free or a few bucks at most. It would be awesome for bike commuters between SoPo and Roux to have that option and avoid the added distance and aggravation of the Casco Bay Bridge.

John Brooking

Cyclist, Cycling Educator, Technologist

http://cyclingsavvy.org

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/PH8PR14MB587670E3AAB9D4F134EF8792BA519%40PH8PR14MB5876.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

[Zack Barowitz]

Nate,

These notes are amazing! It is disappointing but not surprising that MDoT and, apparently, the neighbors want an additional off-ramp but I guess some people consider adding highway infrastructure to neighborhoods to be a good thing.

One process item. Does anyone take minutes at these meetings? I *might* turn out to be important to do so just in case. You can submit your notes to be added to the minutes.

Thanks,

Zack

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAJg%3D2oxLALDQ%3DfdgNmp_-V3%3Drq49-y6HAtv8AXY3zOKujZgGfw%40mail.gmail.com.

--

207-838-6120

917-696-5649
ZacharyBarowitz.com

ATTENTION:
The information in this electronic mail message is private and confidential,
and only intended for the addressee. Should you receive this message by
mistake, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, reproduction,
distribution or use of this message is strictly prohibited. Please inform
the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or
opening it.

[Lindsay Sirois]

I second Zack, Nate did an excellent job capturing what was a very energetic and multi-faceted discussion.

Really only one thing I might add as far as potential PBPAC takeaways. 

Re: 6b, copied here for reference:

"How do we get the city/state/developer to make the first move to focus on moving people and not just cars? Developer brought up again that there is much skepticism from neighborhood and city staff that they will be able to hit their goals for non-personal-vehicle access to site, and thus both sides are advocating for more parking, and cleaner car access to campus."

The developers conveyed that they are being required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces in their design per City design requirements/ordinance (apologies for not knowing the correct term). 

While these parking space allotments in the design may or may not ultimately materialize, it did point out to me that we as an ad hoc city committee could decide to focus some energy on influencing these requirements for new construction. If parking continues to be built to the same standards, it is likely to continue to result in vehicle-prioritized developments, keeping cyclists, pedestrians and other forms of active transportation as a secondary afterthought. Just an observation. 

Again, thanks Nate for the comprehensive report out.

Lindsay 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAE741VD8%3D5L9jSdBY35uR0XOoMcdtZS67ff4uaU9MgoGEyTWiA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Scsmedia]

The city's parking requirements are pretty minimal due to our and others past advocacy.  As this will be developed under an institutional plan, parking requirements will be negotiated as part of the master plan.

They will need some parking.  Thompson's Point as an example of trying to limit onsite parking and encouraging people to come via other means.  I have heard antidotal comments that people are filling into local neighborhoods where they are rowdy as they return to their cars late night.

Steven Scharf

207-415-4662

SCSM...@aol.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/CAGJw6rRV79M8oTXa3ngN6hyT8n7ZiTJBs4tExmAKQ7ZJC2wVow%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nathan Miller]

Sorry for the late notice, but tonight the planning board is hosting a couple workshops of note, including one dedicated to the proposed Roux Campus development TRANSPORTATION connections. 

https://portlandme.civicclerk.com/web/player.aspx?id=2771

Looks like they estimate the Roux portion of the workshop will start at ~6:00. I've never attended a planning board meeting before, but it appears there will be opportunities to comment/provide feedback during the meeting, and they also accept follow up emails. 

My PERSONAL takes and thoughts after reviewing (most) of the materials: 

• While this will still be a single-occ-vehicle heavy development, they are setting slightly higher goals than the status quo for transit/ped/bike access. 
• One of the highest concerns expressed by neighbors is the TRAFFIC impact on local streets if the campus moves forward. 
• I feel that most of the opposition groups involved would rather shoot down the campus plan, or at least force a significant scale back rather than develop a plan to actually minimize those impacts. 
• To that end, I think the developer has proposed SOME good elements, but should be required to consider a more comprehensive and wider range of alternative transportation options. 
• Lots of good materials at the link above, but a few clips below.
  

I think we should advocate for ALL of the green and magenta corridors identified on this revised memo. Green is largely better ped/bike opportunities, magenta is potential for both regional trail and rail connections:

+

I largely agree with Bruce H's comments, that they should shoot for higher non-SOV targets, but need a more robust set of options to actually get there:

Nate

---

From: 'Scsmedia' via Portland Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee <PB...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:32 PM
To: PB...@googlegroups.com <PB...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/138050338.1615048.1664325175296%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Winston Lumpkins]

Hmm. 

I've had good luck recently with planning board meetings- Maggie Stanley, the chair, is friendly towards bicycle infrastructure. 

She also is an effective chair, and moves things along in a timely manner. 

Our meeting tonight unfortunately may conflict with the planning board meeting, however, I would encourage you to go if you can & present those findings... I think they have a standard 3 minute comment period.  Perhaps you can drop into ours after if we're still going.

While they say written comments will only count if sent the day before, I've had late comments included in the pocket before... 

From my perspective: 

Access under the bridge, while nice, is not as good at all as a walkway on the outbound side of the bridge would be.  Going under bridges like that is scary, and some people won't do it. 

I like Bruce's comments very much.  The 8' portion of the walkway along Tukeys could be fixed easily enough- the actual bridge span portion is wide enough!  It's very frustrating that the pinch point isn't even the bit that would be really expensive/impossible to fix.

~Winston

Winston Lumpkins IV (he/him/his)

Chair, Portland Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
https://www.portlandbikeped.org/

winston....@gmail.com
207-408-1508

• 
  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/PH8PR14MB5876098D17EE9E0D9EFB247BBA239%40PH8PR14MB5876.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.

[Christian MilNeil]

Thanks Nathan!

I'd just add that the current Roux TDM plan fails to meet the city's "One Climate Future" goals for shifting more trips to bike/ped/transit. Pretty ironic for a site that's at such a high risk for short-term coastal flooding!

Specifically (from page 143): "The One Climate Future modeling analysis targets that by 2050, 20% of all trips originating or terminating in the cities will use public transit to meet our One Climate Future goals."

That's twice as much transit ridership than Roux is proposing in this plan (I also don't see any specifics in here about having them pay to increase service on the three bus routes that run within walking distance of this site). 

Additionally, in order for the city as a whole to hit that target, large new developments like this one will  likely need to over-shoot that mark and hit a 25% or 35% transit mode share in order to make up for lower transit mode share in other parts of the city.

The Climate Plan also calls on capping the amount of new parking that's allowed to be built in new developments like this one to hold developers and tenants accountable to meeting those targets.

So I'm glad to see Bruce pipe up in support of a more aggressive mode shift here. I can't tune in to the meeting tonight but I'll plan to submit a comment in support of bigger mode shift targets that are consistent with keeping this site out of the ocean.

Christian MilNeil
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/PBPAC/PH8PR14MB5876098D17EE9E0D9EFB247BBA239%40PH8PR14MB5876.namprd14.prod.outlook.com.