That puts their goals in direct opposition to mine, and also creates a force pulling Tigard towards further car dependency. I understand why Tigard felt like this was needed, but I don’t see it being ultimately good for our area. I also don’t have alternatives to suggest.

I think Tigard needs to prioritize public transit and active modes over SOV. 20 MPH speed limits on all non separated roadways without exception. Ending reliance on developers to build sidewalks and trans infrastructure. If I succeed in those, the commutes of river terrace ppl is going to be longer.

Agreed. I can’t think of any greenfield development in the USA that isn’t car dependent though. If you know please let me know. I think it would be best if we didn’t do any more greenfield development, as it directly competes with my transportation goals for our city.

They earmarked commercial areas and considered bus and active transportation routes in the design. It is far from perfect but streets ahead of development patterns in other areas.

Sorry, I am not on that committee. I have issues with that green field massive development, but I also understand why we need to build it - it buys us more time for the zoning code changes to have an effect in our other areas. I have a triplex being built on my block, much needed density.

My work did that too for a Woman’s Day raffle… kind of a bummer that taking public transit to work excludes me from useful prizes.

Yo there’s a bike rack in King City? I had some custom routes that went through residential streets down there and was shocked at how dangerous it felt. Their Westside trail plans looks cool though