23- CRASH - The Sequel

I know, usually sequels come out a year or two after the original feature, but not this one. This next accident (that I was told about, that is, there could have been more...) occurred only a week after the one first featured in this blog (Dec. 19). It was December 26, that is, two days ago.

I was out of town, but I received a detailed email from my good neighbor, along with the photo included here. (Thank you Mike.) The driver was a young man driving east. Another car hit his car. See photo. That's about all I know. The accident was reported. If you want details, see the police department.

As far as I am concerned, all that matters is that there was another accident at the corner of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, one week after the first one I wrote about. That's just too many.

Since I started this blog two months ago, people have been talking about this intersection. Bushes have been razed, no parking signs have gone up in the wrong places, no parking signs have been moved, the county planning board has stated its concern about the traffic at this particular point in Ulster County, and RUPCO has engaged the State Department of Transportation to study its (weak) study showing that all is right with the world.

But all is not right down at the corner. What IS right is that people are opening their eyes, recording photographs, taking statements, and writing letters. People are calculating how many MORE cars RUPCO's project will inject into an already horribly unsafe intersection, and imagining how much more hazardous this place will be, and they do not like what they imagine.

Yes, accidents happen. But no, a housing development that will surely increase danger in an already dangerous intersection is an accident that we do not have to let happen to our town.

......

Have a safe and happy new year's eve.

(and a little safety tip: stay away from you know where.)

22- Interesting Accident Angle

It used to be that when a car backed out of the Playhouse Plaza parking lot, across two lanes of traffic and into a car parked along the opposite (westbound) side of Route 212 (and yes, this HAS happened before...) the fault lay entirely with the driver backing up the car.

Yesterday, although I did not hear it firsthand, the neighbor who called dispatch and called me to the scene told me that there was a dispute over who was at fault: the driver of the stationary car claims it was the fault of the driver who backed into a stationary car. But the driver of the car who backed up into the other car argues that the parked car was there illegally, mitigating the fault of the driver who backed up.

Because of the no parking signs, this dispute now exists where there used to be no dispute. It seems as though this dispute is what resulted in the police officer entering the accident into the system.

So, as we make the intersection ever safer, the activity and the danger at the intersection become more transparent, and it becomes clear how dangerous an intersection this really is.

By the way, right after my arrival, another driver parked his (dented) vehicle right behind the two vehicles involved in the accident. He crossed the street on foot, and as he passed me, I told him that he was parked illegally. He looked at me like I was nuts. I told him that an accident had just occurred and that it was no longer legal to park there. I also told him that there was a police officer on the scene, currently in his cruiser, writing up the accident. His response?

"Who the hell are YOU?!"

"I live here," I told him, not really wanting to give my name.

"Oh, you LIVE here," he mocked me. "I have lived here for twenty years! You LIVE here," he mocked me again. "Leave me the hell alone," he snapped, and walked into Lori's for something easily sweeter than his disposition.

With that kind of attitude among local citizens, we need enforcement at that corner. We need to ticket people who park on the north side of Route 212.

I went to the police officer, who was busy entering the information of the parties involved in the accidents. I told him that somebody had told me off when I told him that it was illegal to park in the no parking area, even after I pointed out that there had been an accident and that there was a police officer on the scene. He said he'd take care of it after he finished with the accident.

I pulled my car around the block, and parked (legally) so that I could watch what happened next. The rude man who parked illegally drove away before the police officer was finished with the accident.

21- CRASH

There was a collision at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane this morning, Saturday, December 19, 2009.

(No, I didn't cause it to attract attention. My neighbor was there and called me after she called the town's dispatch. I was nearby, and happened to drive by before I even got her message. She saw my car and waved me down and I took some photos with the camera on my phone.)

What happened: One large black vehicle was parked illegally along the north side of Route 212, where the bushes came down and the no parking signs went up. Another large vehicle backed into the first vehicle's back door panel, denting it. The offending vehicle broke its tail light and scratched its bumper. There may have been a dent too, I don't remember.

This means that the collision involved one illegally parked car, which was stationary, and one moving car, which backed straight across two lanes of traffic to a point where there should not have been a car, but there was.

....

The police officer at the scene took both parties' registrations and other paperwork and seemed to be checking them, if not reporting the accident on his computer system in his car.

I heard him saying the words "if it's less than one thousand dollars," which we know to be the definition of a non-reportable accident. Whether the accident is reported or "non-reported" and simply filed under that heading (which, face it, is in a way also reported,) it happened. It happened on a Saturday, which is a day that sees a lot of noontime traffic in that intersection.

Today we witnessed confusion, danger, a collision and damage at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. There is no debating WHETHER this may or may not happen. It DID happen. Too many cars, not enough vigilance, and a poorly configured intersection cannot tolerate another 400+ trips into that intersection.

.......

To the Woodstock Planning Board, the Woodstock Town Board, the Ulster County Planning Board, and the New York State Department of Transportation: please take this seriously before somebody innocent gets hurt.

20- That Other Intersection: Violates County Guidelines

The Planning Board will reopen its hearing on the site plan and special use permit on January 14, at 5 PM, and close it at 7 PM, according to its latest plan. Since the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane is not considered part of the site plan, I thought we could look at something that IS strictly in the site plan, and that also violates the county's access management guidelines. (For a definition of access management, see the end of this post.)

The engineering firm of Creighton Manning prepared access management guidelines for Ulster County, more specifically "for use by municipalities in enhancing the safety and quality of their access management and roadway environments" That's you, Woodstock Planning Board! Hey, isn't that the same Creighton Manning that is responsible for the traffic study for the RUPCO project? Yes, one and the same. I am shocked and dismayed to report that the traffic study Creighton Manning did for RUPCO ignores the recommendations they made in the access management study for the county. Let's look:

Creighton Manning wrote, in the access management study, several safety principles and recommendations concerning the spacing and location of driveways with regard to intersections. In the case of the RUPCO project, it is not a driveway being proposed, but a road. It is not a driveway infringing unsafely on an intersection, but a new intersection infringing on two existing driveways.

I think this diagram will make it clear:

The solid pink street on the left is Playhouse Lane. Playhouse Lane stops and Whites Lane begins at the corner. While this is a meeting of two streets, it is not an intersection. It is simply a name change and a continuation of a single street. There is one driveway for a single house that goes off the page on the bottom. There is another driveway for three houses that goes off the page on the right side. In the case of both these driveways, the town does not clear snow from them, and mailboxes are on the main road. The longer one for the three houses is not paved. They are driveways, not streets. The current configuration of this area is one street that turns about 90 degrees, and two driveways emptying onto it either at or within about 10 feet of the corner.

RUPCO is proposing to build a project of 53 residences, with over 120 parking spaces, along a road that will be a town road, which the town will maintain, and along which delivery and mail trucks will drive. This new road will be a street, and will create an intersection where now there is only a corner with two driveways.

Would you like to know what Creighton Manning has to say about driveways IN intersections?

"Adequate separation from intersections and other driveways are key safety considerations."

What is "adequate"? That information is supplied in the document as well, in an example of Canandaigua and Farmington. Adequate, there, is defined as 220 feet between driveways. In any case, the key here is "separation from intersections," and if we test the RUPCO project against this standard, it simply fails.

"Driveways near intersections create increased conflicts between vehicles waiting at traffic signals or stop signs and vehicles turning into and out of the driveways."

Here again we see an argument against putting a driveway NEAR an intersection. Of course the hazard is greater if the driveway is AT the intersection.

"There are a number of typical standards that have been proposed for distances from the edge of an intersection to the first driveway. One principle is that there should be no driveways entering within an intersection's functional area." [bold type is in original document.]

Now, you might be asking why I bring this up, since the RUPCO project is going to add a street, not a driveway. Well, whether you add a street and create an intersection where there are existing driveways, or add a driveway where there is an existing intersection, the result is the same: driveways AT an intersection. Creighton Manning is very clear that this is not a safe practice.

The intersection of Playhouse Lane and the proposed road was, previously, about 300 feet closer to Route 212, but I hear that the problem with that site was environmental in nature. Whatever the reason, it was rejected and the one sketched in my little diagram is currently the one on the table. Perhaps the safety aspect of this new location was overlooked because the intersection site is a new one? In any case, now I am highlighting it for all to see. It is simply an unsafe design and should be rejected. Thanks, Creighton Manning, for these excellent access management guidelines!!!

The Federal Highway Administration defines access management as: the process that provides access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed. It attempts to balance the need to provide good mobility for through traffic with the requirements for reasonable access to adjacent land uses.

19- Left Turn Lane not Right

A memo from the Ulster County Planning Board came to the Woodstock Planning Board on December 14, 2009. The memo stated that the UCPB has reviewed the application for RUPCO's project, and has the following concerns about the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane:

Access from NYS Route 212

The UCPB has concerns with respect to left-hand turning movement onto Playhouse Lane from NYS Route 212.

Advisory Comment

The applicant should coordinate with NYSDOT to determine whether the increased intensity of use off Playhouse Lane would require a left-hand turning lane.

Earlier this evening, this being Thursday, December 17, 2009, a representative from RUPCO explained this memo. He said that the county planning board probably had not read the traffic study done for RUPCO (remember the traffic study that ignored the 67 cars per hour that entered and left the parking lot across from Playhouse Lane on Route 212.) He said further that he asked the State Department of Transportation to look at this traffic study, and it seemed that he was confident that when the DOT looked at the study, it would see the minimal traffic and absence of need for a left hand turn lane. All in all, this person representing RUPCO seemed confident that when the State DOT sees the traffic study, the concern will be allayed.

Not by a longlonglongshot. There are three main problems with this whole picture.

The first problem is with RUPCO's picture. In RUPCO's view, there is no need for a left turn lane, since there is very little traffic at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. The problem here is that the traffic study in question does not represent reality, so it should be thrown out altogether and redone. The State DOT certainly will get wind of the problems in the study that they have been asked to rely on. : - )

The second problem with this whole picture is that even if the project produces enough additional traffic traveling in and out of Playhouse to warrant a dedicated left turn lane only on eastbound Route 212, where would such a lane be located? It would be located where the current through lane is now. This means that the new through lane would be to the south, or, IN the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza. What does THAT mean? THAT means that the State would have to claim its right of way and destroy the parking lot in front of all of the stores in Playhouse Plaza. It would mean that there would be nowhere for customers to park. The lane would also have to start, safely, before the stream to the west of Playhouse Lane, which means the widening of a bridge. It would also probably mean protest by the businesses IN Playhouse Plaza, who might contest that the state even has the proper right to develop its 50 foot (25 foot from the mid line) right of way by digging and building for an additional road, which would be dangerously close to buildings on private property. The whole thing would probably end up in court, a battle over eminent domain. It could take years, and it wouldn't even matter, because...

The third, and bestest problem with this whole picture is that a left turn lane on eastbound Route 212 at Playhouse Lane would solve nothing, since MOST of the traffic at that intersection drives into and out of the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza, not into and out of Playhouse Lane. Very few cars would use the turn lane, even if the whole road shifted laterally to the north and used some of the playhouse's land and there was enough room for cars to park in front of Playhouse Plaza. Even then, the fast lane, meaning the lane from which nobody could turn left, would be the very lane that the parked cars would back into in order to leave the parking lot. Seriously. What a confused mess. And the traffic problem is bad too...

18 - Pointing Fingers

I have stated and I will state again that I am neither generally pro or con the RUPCO project in Woodstock. I will insist on the safety of the project, if it will be built for other reasons, and if it cannot be safe, then I will try as hard as I possibly can to make sure it is not built.

In any development, there are a number of environmental externalities, meaning elements that are very difficult, and therefore "external" to the cost-benefit analysis. Wetlands have their advocates. The neighborhood character preservation effort has its advocates. Prevention of light pollution has its advocates. Who advocates for safety? I do. To my knowledge, there is nobody else who is thoroughly and consistently clearing all of the other issues away, in the interest of safety, not simply the safety of people living in the houses, or even up Playhouse lane, but the safety of everybody, residents and visitors alike, who drive into our town.

I have been told to point fingers at some people for their roles in this project, and to not point fingers at others. I will point fingers at nobody. I will only point to information, where it is germane, where it helps and where it hurts, where it is distracting and where it is absent but needed, and, where it is false. Whoever puts out that information will be, naturally, part of the discussion.

To date, here is how the handling of safety has worked out: the opposition to the project has done great work in raising a lot of issues. They cannot be blamed for not having the resources also to handle the safety concerns in this project. The parties that have issued irresponsible, outright false, and negligent safety-related comments and claims are: RUPCO's traffic engineering consultants: Crieghton Manning; RUPCO itself, and the consultants hired by the planning board to verify what these two parties submit to the planning board. It is also shameful that the planning board does not seem to be aware that safety is being treated like the wretched stepchild of the project. And, whoever made the bushes disappear and moved the parking signs after I brought these things up in conversation and in writing, I can only applaud their response.

The bushes and the signs were easy fixes. Next comes dealing with blatant misinformation in and false claims in expert reports. How will the parties deal with them? I don't care how, as long as the result is safety for the drivers and pedestrians at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. I will be here, ready to point my finger, not at a person, but at the words that compromise the pricelessness of safety.

17- Lessons from Sight Line Improvements

Summary of events:

The sight line at Playhouse Lane and Route 212 was horrible, for years. Nobody did anything about it. I blogged about it and told Jeff Moran when he came to my house to campaign for reelection. Days later (cause and effect? who knows...) the bushes came down. But the signs put up in front of the bare berm created parking spaces that blocked the new, otherwise perfect sight line. Oops.

I blogged about that, but I guess nobody read it or cared, for about a month. Then, hours after I appeared on Cathy Magarelli's local access show (Thurs. Dec. 10) and explained why the "fixed" sight line was still blocked by the newly planted no parking signs on westbound Route 212, East of Playhouse Lane, the signs were moved. They were moved to the very edges of the stretch of road in question, so that the two legal parking spaces that were created by the signs are now gone. Hooray! (Cause and effect? Who knows.)

(The signs indicate that there is no parking between the signs. For that formula to work, the signs need to be at the very ends of the no parking stretch. If they are not, then parking outside the stretch between the signs appears, at least to me, to be legal.)

Discussion: Let us discuss this string of events in a more qualitative way than we have thus far:

While the town, or whoever moved the bushes and the signs is perhaps showing responsiveness to clear, factual analysis and direct suggestion (= good), it is frightening that the bushes were not moved earlier (=bad). It is even more frightening that in moving the bushes, the people in charge of this could not figure out that they were creating parking spaces that would defeat the purpose of the bushes removal (= scary bad).

What we must conclude from this is that the people handling these issues are not very observant, not very thoughtful, and not all that interested in safety (= scary bad x 3). If they were interested, they would pay closer attention, and not have to take their cues from neighborhood bloggers who appear on local access TV talk shows.

"Scary bad times 3" on safety issues is not a good grade for a group of people who are going to meddle with a key intersection in an already otherwise crowded town.

16- Curious Timing... and a New Challenge!!

I posted the first entry of this blog on Saturday, October 24th. On the afternoon of Sunday, October 25th, Jeff Moran rang the bell. He was campaigning. He did not know me. I told him about this blog, which I said would be going live during the next few days. I also told him that I had already voted absentee, since I would be away the entire week of the election, Nov. 2-6.

After YEARS of inaction, with the playhouse itself in more dire financial health, on the morning of Nov. 2, moments after I departed on a business trip, the bushes in front of the playhouse came down. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to think so.

When I returned, I saw the bare berm and the no parking signs, which were placed such that cars could now legally park to block the sight line along Route 212. I wrote about that in my blog. Nothing happened. Then, on Thursday evening, I appeared on Cathy Mararelli's TV show, and within HOURS, the no parking signs were moved to prohibit parking along the north side of Route 212, east of Playhouse lane. Coincidence? Maybe, but this time, I really don't think so.

(see next blog post, #17, to see how the powers that be, whoever they are, moved the signs, and we'll discuss why it took them two attempts to get it right. )

So, let me ask the town supervisor's office, and the planning board, and the Department of Transportation and Ulster County, and RUPCO: why is it that the RUPCO study reports a speed limit of 30 MPH at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212 when any person over the age of about 4 could figure out, by reading the ENORMOUS digits on the speed limit sign, that the speed limit is 35 MPH? (see photos below) But that's not the challenge. The challenge here, Saturday December 12, 2009, is this: how long will it take for this discrepancy to be addressed, explained away, justified, or quietly changed? Let's all pay attention and see how much of a coincidence the timing is this time around.

This photo shows the speed limit increasing (from 30 MPH) to 35 MPH west of (before) Playhouse Lane.

This photo is taken from the parking lot at Violette, which is just to the west of Playhouse Lane. As you can see, the speed limit DEcreases (from 35 MPH) to 30 MPH after the bridge to the west of Playhouse Lane.

For dramatic effect, here is a photograph of the actual Draft Environmental Impact Study, which tells us that the speed limit increases from 30 to 35 MPH to the east of Route 375. This is false, as I indicated with lavender magic marker on my paper copy.

15- RUPCO's Traffic Analysis is Full of Factual Errors

1- The first work of fiction in the traffic analysis is that there were zero "non-reportable accidents" in the analyzed roadways from 2003 to 2005. The logical question is: if the accidents were non-reportable, how do they know they did not happen? Answer: They DON'T know. FALSE CLAIM: throw out the study and do it properly.

2- The speed limit on Route 212 is reported to be 30 MPH throughout the hamlet of Woodstock, increasing to 35 MPH east of Route 375. This is false. There is a 35 MPH sign on Route 212 west of Playhouse Plaza. Precisely, the speed limit signs in both directions are on either side of the small bridge over the creek running under Route 212, just WEST of Playhouse Plaza and Playhouse Lane. This means that the required sight distances have been reported for the wrong speeds. As speed limit increases, so does sight distance. The sight distances of the intersection at Playhouse Lane is based on a 30 MPH speed limit, yet the speed limit is 35 MPH. REDO the sight distance study.

3- The Intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane is represented in the study as a "T" intersection. The 180 foot opening into the Playhouse Plaza parking lot is ignored. However, the intersection of Route 212 and Route 375, just about 400 feet to the east, is ALSO defined as a "T" intersection. This intersection, also includes a (much narrower) entrance to a parking lot.

Both intersections are reported as "T" intersections, and both have parking lot entrances where the fourth "leg" of the intersection WOULD be. So, you would think that they would be treated the same, or, if not, that the parking lot with four times as much traffic as the other parking lot would have its traffic counted. Right? One would think...

However, in a completely arbitrary (this is being kind) decision, the study POINTS OUT that the intersection of Route 375 and Route 212 HAS a parking lot, creating a "fourth leg" of the "T" intersection. So, I guess that makes it a LOWER CASE "t" ??? The study completely ignores the parking lot at Playhouse Lane and Route 212, even though it has more traffic (we'll get to that in a minute) AND has a wider opening, thereby allowing for more cars to simultaneously enter or exit the parking lot.

The study goes on to show the car counts during a number of hours of the day and times of the year. It does count the traffic going into and out of the parking lot at 375 and 212, but does not count the traffic going into and out of the parking lot at 212 and Playhouse Lane.

Now let us compare the numbers of cars traveling into and out of both parking lots. My own traffic count videotaped 67 cars entering or leaving the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza, which is at Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. The project's study showed a total of 15 cars entering or exiting the parking lot at 375 and 212. This means that the parking lot that the traffic study ignores has 4.5 times more traffic in it than the parking lot they chose to include. In addition, and this is very important, the parking lot at Playhouse Lane and Route 212 features a whopping 24 cars BACKING OUT into and in many cases across two lanes of traffic. The parking lot at 375 and 212 is configured so that no cars ever have to back out of it, making it infinitely safer.

There is a lack of consistency, a lack of factual representation, and either a willful concealment of the traffic safety problem in the parking lot at Route 212 and Playhouse Lane, or a simple incompetence in the accepted traffic study in the DEIS. Whatever the problem is: The Traffic study is no good. Do it over.

Nobody on the planning board, or in the opposition to the project, or hired by the planning board, or by RUPCO has observed or at leas stated the existence of these errors of fact. The FACT is that any conclusions derived from a "zero accident" figure OR from a traffic simulation at Route 212 and Playhouse Lane should be simply tossed out due to the methodological errors and clearly random, inaccurate, or even perhaps biased representation of what does or does not constitute a place where traffic occurs and affects safety, in the RUPCO project area. It is my intention to have this ridiculous analysis thrown out, and done over, this time properly.

14- DANGER: DEFINING SAFETY IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE.

The problem with a "safety analysis" is that "safety" is defined in so many different ways. Safety is also only one aspect of so many different elements of a housing development. In this post, we will look at the way RUPCO and the Woodstock Planning Board define and promise to analyze the safety of the project's increased vehicular traffic. We will start with the "EIS Scoping Document" and the proceed to the Draft EIS. The reason we do not then look at the Final EIS concerning safety is because the interested parties all seem to agree that all of the safety concerns have been or are on their way to being allayed.

As we proceed from one document to the next, we will see how the word "safety" comes to be defined as the narrowest possible concept, and then is confirmed to exist as defined only by one unreliable and I would say intentionally misleading statistic.

A- Safety Defined in the Scoping Document:
Chapter III discusses the "existing conditions, potential environmental impact, and proposed mitigation measures" of the following three man-made environmental sections: transportation, land use, zoning and visual character. We are concerned here only with transportation. The sub-categories of transportation include:
- sight distance
- accident data
- (several) traffic volume indicators
- qualitative discussion of the additional traffic that will be experienced at each of the studied intersections (and on adjacent roadway sections)
- needed traffic safety (or other desirable) improvements regarding any of the above traffic considerations
- describe pedestrian movements on adjacent roadways (present and built conditions)

Please note that all of these categories are supposed to be analyzed for all three of these states:
- existing conditions
- potential environmental impacts
- proposed mitigation measures

B- Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS):
So, how did all of these safety-related elements do in the DEIS? Let us look at them one at a time.

- Sight distance was called inadequate. It has since been addressed, but an earlier blog post discusses how this has been mishandled and continues to be unsafe: http://thetroublewithrupco.blogspot.com/2009/11/10-sight-distance-update.html

- Accident data: The DEIS claims that there were zero non-reportable accidents in the studied road sections, THEREFORE there is "no pattern" of accidents. QUESTION to all those who appreciate the simple elegance of pure logic: If the accident category is "non-reportable," then how does the analyst know whether they happened? In their wisdom, the powers that be in the traffic world have decided that "non-reportable" means damage of less than $1000 and no bodily injury. To claim that this category contains zero incidents is a statement of pure fiction. Did the engineers studying the traffic numbers speak to any of the personnel in the stores in Playhouse Plaza, or in Violette, the restaurant across the street, asking if they had witnessed any accidents outside their windows? If they had, they could have added that information to their report. Did they talk to any residents who must travel through that intersection each time they leave and return home? I am one of them, and nobody I know in the area was contacted about accidents that may not have been reported. It is clear that the analysts on the job did not try all that hard to uncover any accidents.

The problem with claiming that an event that is "non-reportable" did not happen is that the burden of proof is on the person who makes that statement. By claiming zero non-reportable accidents, with NO supporting research, the report authors are in fact lying about the extent of their knowledge, and therefore, the actual number of accidents (which they simply do not know.)

Everybody in Woodstock knows that cars back out of the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza, on Route 212, opposite Playhouse Lane. I personally have been told about two low-speed collisions right there, one by a direct participant in the accident. Somebody backed a car across two lanes of traffic, right into her side panel. With that kind of thing going on, what is to stop a driver like that from backing into a much smaller incidental object, like, say, a person?

I was told, also, that somebody who works early hours in a store in Playhouse Plaza witnessed three accidents in front of its parking lot, in one year. Of course this is hearsay, for now, but by the time it matters, it will be legitimate testimony, strong enough to throw out this laughable traffic "analysis."

Everybody in Woodstock knows that this stretch of Route 212 is unsafe. What if we measure the number of times a car swerves, or skids, or a horn honks to keep another driver from ploughing into a car, or a person? Aren't these necessary metrics in the assessment of what is an unsafe road? Or, do we wait for accidents WITH bodily injury and damage OVER $1000 to say I told you so?

In conclusion, since "accident data" in all categories is either explained away or zero, no further general safety analysis occurs in the Final EIS. That is worth repeating: because of the way the analysts explain away any danger at all (using the non-reportable accidents statistic,) they NEVER address general safety of the roads again. They are done.

IS THAT OK WITH YOU?
Me neither.

- Traffic Volume-Related indicators: I group several together here because I have no problem with the way they were derived, although it is hard to actually agree with their numbers without repeating all of the car counts and periods of car idling at intersections. In any case, car waiting time/delay is not a direct threat to safety.

The real problem with the traffic volume-related indicators is that the engineering company that drew up the street diagram misrepresented the streets and therefore the moving traffic. So, the problem is not the count and timing of the cars on the diagram, but the diagram itself. The next blog post will discuss, in detail, these and other errors of fact in the DEIS.

- Qualitative discussion of the additional traffic that will be experienced at each of the studied intersections (and on adjacent roadways): I could not find this in the DEIS. Nor could I find anything pertaining to the next topic:

- Needed traffic safety (or other desirable) improvements regarding any of the above traffic considerations: Nuthin'.

- In terms of pedestrian movements on adjacent roadways: only five pedestrians were reported during the analysis period, as I recall. Perhaps the others were walking parallel to Route 212, behind the row of parked cars in the Playhouse Plaza parking lot, where there actually is a sidewalk, and also an area that the study so conveniently ignored.

Speaking of ignoring the Playhouse Plaza parking lot, please read the next blog post. It's all about how RUPCO does not notice that the Playhouse Plaza parking lot is actually THERE at all. Amazing.

13- Musical Workshops

Guess what. Remember how the Woodstock Planning Board was supposed to have two workshops for its members to discuss the findings of the Final Environmental Impact Statement? ( I remember.) They were announced, with dates. Then the dates changed. The "workshop" covering the impact of traffic was supposed to be held Nov. 5, but it was not. Something else happened that night. I and others waited for it to happen. There was a "special" workshop two days before Thanksgiving, which covered the Woodstock planner's, the Planning Board's attorney's and a consultant's comments on traffic (and safety, I guess...) None of the Planning Board members brought up comments of their own. I found out this morning that that Tuesday Nov. 24 workshop was NOT the awaited workshop about traffic. Turns out the workshop I have been waiting for was the one I attended on October 29th. Other RUPCO followers and I were there and did not notice ANY discussion about traffic, which leads me to these conclusions:

i- the planning board failed to give the public notice of its workshop at which it (would have) discussed traffic impacts (if anybody had anything to discuss, that is.) See the agenda for the October 29th meeting: it does not include traffic. http://woodstockny.org/content/Calendars/View/1/2009/10;/content/CalendarEntries/View/1644 The agenda includes these items: STORMWATER, WETLANDS, STREAM CROSSING, SEWER & WATER. With traffic not even ON the agenda, what chance is there for the planning board to address it? The answer is zero. Zero chance. I think this is a violation of procedure as outlined in the scoping document.

ii- The planning board left the reading and analysis of the FEIS traffic section ENTIRELY to the town's professional planner, the planning board's attorney, and the consultant. It was not supposed to happen that way.

It is, obviously, extremely difficult to glean any information from the planning board about what they are going to do and when. Even for somebody paying close attention and willing to ask for clarification as many times as necessary, it is next to impossible to find out what is going on and when.

It's OK though. Read on to the next posts. They make this episode of dupe the locals look like a game of peekaboo.

12- Woodstock Planning Board Meeting Report

Today is Wednesday, November 25th. Last night, the Woodstock Planning Board met to review the RUPCO Final Environmental Impact Statement, or rather the parts of it that had been found problematic to a specific group of people, public excluded. This meeting was closed to public participation but open to public audience. The review began close to 8 PM after nearly two hours on other topics, and continued past 10:15 PM, which is when I left.

On the issue of the "improved" sight line at Playhouse Lane and Route 212, the majority of the board seemed to suggest that since the New York State Department of Transportation had cleared the bushes that previously compromised the sight line, the problem has been eliminated. However, at least one board member pushed to have the sight distance measured again, and so it shall be measured again.

If a car or truck or two are parked legally when this measurement is done, the sight line will be found to be less than that assumed by the majority of the Planning Board. No matter what happens when RUPCO's people measure the sight line again, I will enter into evidence (during the public comment period) the fact that legal parking spaces, recently created by the NYS DOT's placement of signs there, are responsible for the lasting sight line problem at this intersection.

I do not know what is going to happen next. I do not know when the public comment period begins or ends. I will let you know when I find out.

11- Sight Distance Update

With no immediate reason cited, only some old ones, the New York State Department of Transportation tore out the bushes at the corner of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, on Monday, November 2. I was out of town and did not see it firsthand. Also torn out was a big chunk of the berm on which the bushes had been planted many years ago. The bushes, or perhaps other bushes, were planted along the Playhouse Lane edge of the property. I'm not sure whether the Playhouse people wanted that or not. Although it seems to have been done with a heavy hand, and perhaps asking for some trouble given that a tree now seems to be dangerously close to the edge of the berm, it was done. As regards the RUPCO development's safety, this SHOULD be a good turn of events. But it's not. Please read on.

Remember, before, when the bushes were there, cars parked along the edge of that property, on the north side of Route 212, and blocked ANY visibility whatsoever after about a hundred feet? (They did.) Now, since there is so much more ROOM as a result of the berm having been carved away, cars started to park along that stretch much more liberally. I returned to town a week after the bush removal. I'm not sure WHEN the three "no parking" signs went up indicating no parking at any time, but they went up, all on a very short stretch of Route 212 across from Playhouse Plaza.

THREE SIGNS, you are thinking, that's just what the safety officer ordered. But it's not that simple (even though it should be.)

Still legal!!

How the signs read.

As you can see in the pictures, the signs prohibiting parking don't start until over a car length, or rather truck length from the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212. And the no parking area ends further east, but still well within the expanded sight line of the cars exiting Playhouse Lane and looking left/east.

That means that if you want to park along that now widened shoulder of Route 212, you can, but only if you park right up at the intersection with Playhouse Lane, or much further east. So, while once the bushes and cars parked along the shoulder blocked visibility, now the ONLY place one is allowed to park is in the very place that brings visibility to zero feet.

Of course, the visibility is blocked by the near car, but then one can see beyond the car. That is, IF the car is narrow enough. If it was a truck, not a car, maybe not. Plus, the next legal parking area, in my photo, contains a rather small Volvo sedan. Clearly, this photo is the best case of the legally parked cars scenario.

The term used to measure how far one can see is "sight line" or "sight distance." In our newly carved up intersection, we have a "sight pocket."

And another thing: Whereas before, trucks parked along the north side to make their deliveries to Playhouse Plaza, now there is not enough room, so they are stopping in the moving traffic lanes, taking up half the width of the eastbound lane and blocking parked cars.

The fact is, the sight distance is still inadequate when there are any cars parked legally on the north side of Route 212 (which is often,)

In short, the intersection is less safe than before.

Interesting alternative theory: A passerby commented, the other day as I was taking pictures, that it is illegal to park on the shoulder of a state road at any location. Well, if that is the case, then all three of the no parking signs should have arrows pointing BOTH ways to indicate no parking anywhere along the road. As the signs are presented, any logical mind would infer that parking between the signs is prohibited, but parking outside the signs is OK.

10- Environmental Impact Statement Review - schedule update

The Woodstock Planning Board will be reviewing part of RUPCO's Final Environmental Impact Statement in a workshop meeting on Tuesday, November 24 at 6 PM (I have been told in a phone message by an interested neighbor, but could not find this on any website. They don't make it too easy to find out what they are doing...) I believe this is the meeting at which the traffic and safety issues in the FEIS will be discussed. The public may attend the workshop meeting, but may not participate, at least that is my understanding of the rules. I believe that after the planning board has their series of workshop meetings, there will be a period of ten days during which the public can send written comments for the board's consideration.

9- Conclusion: What's Next?

What do we do now?

The Woodstock Planning Board is in the process of meeting about the RUPCO Final Environmental Impact Statement. These workshops are open to the public, but only for listening. We can't participate. Next week is another workshop at which the Planning Board is expected to review the traffic-related part of the FEIS, however the schedule should be consulted prior to making a trip. See the Woodstock website, under Boards, click planning board, then schedule. I have a longstanding commitment during next week's meeting, and cannot be there... After you verify the schedule, why don't you go to the meeting and then let me and everybody else know what you think. Write your opinions in the comment section of this blog post. The more attention we give this problem, the better. The more ideas for problem solving, the greater the chance we will find a workable solution. Let me remind you: I am not opposed to the RUPCO project. I am opposed to unsafe development (and also opposed to unsafe existing road conditions.)

After the series of workshops, the Planning Board will have a ten day period during which the public may comment, in writing, but not at a public hearing. Let us take advantage of this ten day period. Let us write letters, have meetings, notify the Woodstock Playhouse and the NYS Department of Transportation, and Ulster County, of what is going on.

In general, let us not allow the very small group of people that comprise RUPCO's operating team, and the Woodstock Planning Board, make this project inevitable, unless and until they have committed to, and proven that the project will not pose any increase in driving danger in the town of Woodstock. Let us also not forget to alert the Town Board. Ultimately, if there is an accident at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane, particularly after RUPCO builds housing and traffic there increases, The town of Woodstock will have had clear and plenty of warning to mitigate the dangerous conditions. Help me make this issue front and center; it deserves to be. The whole town uses Route 212. Anybody could be in danger at this intersection. This is not a neighborhood access problem, it is a town safety problem.

I believe that the two safety issues, the substandard sight distance and the heavily used parking lot directly across from the intersection, are the fatal flaw of the RUPCO development. What I mean by that is I believe that these problems will either kill the development in its current proposed location, or the many cars brought into this intersection as a result of the development will end up killing somebody. Maybe a dog, maybe a child. How about we put our heads together and see if we can either solve the traffic safety problems here that RUPCO will exacerbate, or tell RUPCO to move its traffic along to a safer location in Ulster County.

8- The Sight Distance Solution

Who DOES have the authority to improve the sight distance?

The road is a state road, so the NYS Department of Transportation is one interested party with some authority, since the state's right of way on the road extends several feet past the paved area. The other interested party with some authority to act in this matter is the nonprofit that owns the land adjacent to the intersection in question. That nonprofit is the Woodstock Playhouse. I do not know whether this organization is solvent, or in the process of transferring the land to another organization, bank or otherwise. But I do know that whoever owns that land can negotiate with the State Department of Transportation to improve the sight distance.

Years ago, during one of Jeremy Wilber's terms as Woodstock Town Supervisor, he wrote to the NYS Department of Transportation and asked them to look into improving the sight distance, specifically with the expectation that RUPCO would be developing land nearby, resulting in much heavier use of Playhouse Lane. I have heard that Thomas Storie, of the Department of Transportation, was not able to reach an agreement with the Playhouse, and that no improvements to the sight distance were ever made. There are more details here about which shrubs were going to be dug up and placed somewhere else, and how that would impact the Playhouse's use of their land, but the important thing, right now, is that the two parties met, and they did not reach an agreement. Of course I am not the first person ever to point out that the interested parties needs to sit down and talk, or that it already happened, and the process failed.

I will now share with you some of my own measurements, made with my trusty Lufkin measuring wheel ($31.97 at Home Depot.) You are invited to check my measurements.

Ten feet back from the pavement seam of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane is the edge of the stopping line. The diagrams show that ten feet is the measurement required for measuring sight distance, so I stood on the stop line and took photos and measured from there.

Looking left, I could see the first glimpse of a car approaching through the dense bushes only 111 feet from my position. The standard is to see the top of the car, and the standard for viewing is 3.5' off the ground. My eyes are about 5'3" off the ground, so this measurement is approximate. However, the sight distance to the left is certainly well under the 150 feet reported by RUPCO. I am not accusing RUPCO of mismeasuring. Maybe RUPCO measured the sight distance last year, and since then, the bushes have grown and grown, obscuring the oncoming traffic even more. Well, it's possible...

In any case, we move forward. AASHTO's recommended sight distance to the left is 360 feet. At the intersection in question, this 360 feet brings us all the way to the crosswalk just west of the intersection of Route 212 and Route 375.

(I stood there and shot a brief video. As you can see in the video below, it is not apparent that there is even a Playhouse Lane, let alone a car waiting to exit the intersection there. )



RUPCO estimates that the sight distance will be improved another 40 feet east of there, making it possible for cars coming out of Playhouse Lane and turning left to be able to see the cars turning onto Route 212 from Route 375.

Again, the problem is, who is going to improve this sight distance? Who is going to make this intersection safe?

I will quote again from the Ulster County Transportation Plan's Access Management Guidelines: "

"Municipalities can require that access management techniques be initiated for land use actions in developed areas. One way to accomplish this is to require a review of site plans and special permits when there is a change in ownership or land use. It is also important to understand the position of NYSDOT and Ulster County Highway Department in this process. These agencies often lack the authority to require improvements at these times but are highly desirous of implementing these techniques and more than willing to provide design assistance along with the necessary permits once they are required by the community. To facilitate this, communities should engage these agencies in a cooperative dialogue rather than have the applicant serve as a go between."

Seems to me that the State and County want everybody to work together, not pass the buck to the agency that technically has the ultimate authority on paper to make a change.

One thing I know: if RUPCO suggests that it cannot be forced to improve the sight distance at this intersection, and if the Town of Woodstock claims to not have the authority, and/or that "other" intersections also are in need of improvement and therefore cannot "fairly" only address this one, then the housing project has no right to move forward with the numbers that RUPCO includes in the DEIS, since these numbers are based on an improved sight distance. If neither party is willing to make the improvement, then the improvement will not be made, and the project will be built on fictitious, wishful assumptions. We should not allow that to happen. I am pointing this out now, so that the record will show that both the Town of Woodstock and RUPCO have been made fully aware of the hazardous and substandard conditions of this primary access point to the RUPCO development.

It would be one thing if RUPCO simply stated in the DEIS "150 feet is the sight distance, and it's not our problem." However, they cited "estimated improved conditions" without explaining how that improvement would be made, or who would make it.

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, RUPCO cites case law in its defense of not being prohibited from building due to increased traffic. (It is more complicated than that of course, but the legal argument is valid, so I do not challenge it here.) However, the argument is not on point, since the problem here is not increased traffic, but increased danger. There is already danger at this intersection. It is already unsafe. RUPCO, without any plans to mitigate that danger, wants to send 53 households of residents through this intersection every day, knowing that they will not improve it, and absolutely passive in the effort to have the conditions improved so that the intersection becomes safe.

The Woodstock Planning Board needs to address when or how or even whether this intersection will become safe. We all know that if an intersection is unsafe, it will be even less safe if you send more cars through it. Allowing RUPCO to develop 53 units of housing with over 100 parking spaces for residents and "visitors" means that the Planning Board is going to increase danger in this intersection, unless it takes steps to mitigate the current dangerous conditions there.

In addition to the shorter sight distance present at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane when no cars are parked on the northern shoulder of Route 212, the fact is that during the morning rush hour, that shoulder is host to between one and four cars. Cars park there and when the driver opens his or her door, the door necessarily opens INTO the traffic lane. During the video hour that I took, the shoulder was absent of any cars for about 8 minutes out of the entire hour. Even one car parked on the northern shoulder of Route 212 decreases the sight line of oncoming traffic to near zero. No effort has been made, and no plan has been mentioned to prohibit cars from stopping along that shoulder.

7- The Sight Distance Problem

What is a sight distance (or sight line) and why is it so important at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212?


When a car pulls up to a stop sign, let's say the stop sign on Playhouse Lane, where it intersects with Route 212, the driver is supposed to be able to see to the left and to the right, in order to make a safe turn into moving traffic. In this blog post, we will explore the standards for various types of vehicles at various intersections.

According to the Ulster County Access Management Guidelines cited in the last post on this blog, the recommended minimum sight distance for a passenger car, entering a two lane major road (Route 212 is a major road,) on which the speed limit is 30 MPH, is 360 feet to the left, and 260 feet to the right. Please note that this guideline is for cars leaving driveways, not roads. But you might ask yourself whether a car at a stop sign is in any way different from a car leaving a driveway.

Also, you may ask exactly what these measurements mean. The cited guidelines show the front of the vehicle ten feet behind the edge of the pavement, where it meets the other street. This means that where the pavement of Route 212 intersects the pavement of Playhouse Lane, measure ten feet back on Playhouse Lane. It is this point that we must use for our "eye."

From our eye point, we measure:

• to the left, 360 feet in a straight line (which will cut across the unpaved land on the corner) to the center of the near traffic lane, which is the traffic lane on Route 212 moving west (from left to right).
  
• to the right, 260 feet in a straight line to the center of the far traffic lane, which is the traffic lane on Route 212 moving east (from right to left).

OK, so that covers the recommended minimum site distance guidelines for driveways, in Ulster County. How about for intersections with actual streets? I have no guidelines for that. What I did find were guidelines from AASHTO.

AASHTO is The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO's guidelines for Intersection Sight Distance, in feet, are as follows:

On a road with design speed of 30 MPH, for a car turning left onto that road, sight distance must be 309 feet to the left, meaning that a car approaching from the left must be visible at 309 feet. And for the same left turn, a car approaching from the right must be visible at 380 feet.

Now let us look at the RUPCO intersection study, as it was presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Study. RUPCO claims that the current sight distance to the left, meaning to the center of the lane running from east to west, on Route 212, from ten feet back from the edge of the pavement joining Route 212 to Playhouse lane, is 150 feet, and that the recommended sight distance for a left turn and looking left is 390 feet. (see Table 12, RUPCO DEIS.)

I have measured this sight distance, and found it to be only 111 feet:

Here is a photo of a stick I placed in the road, exactly 150 feet to the east (left) of the point at which the center of Playhouse Lane intersects with the yellow lines in the center of Route 212:

Here is another photo, this one of an approaching car, approximately even with the stick on the yellow line. As you can see, the front of the car has not yet cleared the bushes. Also, the headlights, which were necessary due to the heavy rain, makes the car more visible. The standard for whether a car is "visible" is whether its roof can be seen. The roof of this car cannot be seen here, therefore this sight line comes in well below the 150 feet reported by RUPCO in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

RUPCO also includes the number 400 in parentheses and in a legend below the table:

"(X) = Estimated improved conditions."

This is the really big problem with this study. Who is authorized to improve this unsafe, 111 foot sight distance at all? The answer is: not RUPCO. So, why does RUPCO include the estimated improved conditions? I can't say for sure, but it seems that RUPCO would not be smart to include the distance of 150 when 390 is recommended. So, they suggest that the distance will increase, conveniently just ten feet more than the recommended minimum safe distance.

Herein lies the problem: the assumption that the sight distance will be increased. How will that happen? Who will make it happen? Please go to the next post to explore a solution.

6- What To Do About the Unsafe Parking Lot

There are dangerous traffic conditions at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane. What are the options for minimizing these dangerous conditions? Are there any legal instruments available to us now? Since RUPCO will increase the traffic going home via this intersection by about 500%, is there any way to avoid the inevitable increase in danger at this intersection?

Well, for now, let us stick to the present situation. Let us look at the land use. Playhouse Plaza is a private parking lot. The parking lot is protected from seizure by government, until the land use changes. That means that for as long as Lori's sells coffee by the cups, people will be allowed to pull in to the parking lot, buy a cup, and then back their cars out across one or two lanes of traffic, and be on their merry way. That's just the way it is.

The real question is, can RUPCO ADD to all the cars at this intersection, thereby making the already hazardous conditions there ever more hazardous?

For guidance in this matter, we need look no further than Ulster County itself. The Ulster County Planning Board issued "Access Management Guidelines" in 2003. For those lucky enough to be uninitiated in transportation planning terminology, "access management" is "the process that provides access to land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding road system in terms of safety, capacity, and speed." That definition thanks to the Federal Highway Administration.

The Ulster County document reports three basic transportation techniques for access management: limiting the number of conflict points experienced by a vehicle along the corridor; widen the distance between conflict points that cannot be removed; provide space outside through traffic lanes for slower or stopped vehicles. Now, since the intersection in question is not under construction or renovation, nor can it be, legally, none of these techniques are available to mitigate the dangerous conditions currently present there. So, onto the next set of options.

The report continues to explain that local governments bear the primary burden in access management's success: "Municipalities have substantial regulatory powers available, such as zoning and subdivision approval as well as site plan review to accomplish access management goals once articulated."

Aha, now we are getting somewhere. It is quite clear that municipalities are the places where various interest groups in any project collide, and that it is the municipality that has the power and the responsibility to make sure that access is optimally managed.

Here is an interesting quote from the report: "Access management is most efficient applied early in the planning process and adds little cost." I guess if the intersection in question had been analyzed for safety two or three or five years ago, finding that it is already quite unsafe and that there is no available legal remedy, it would not have evolved into the planning nightmare it appears it might be.

The report goes on to explain the elements of the access management toolbox: driveway control, roadway design, site layout. None of these is relevant to the RUPCO project, since the roadways are fixed, the driveways in question are old and already dangerous, and the site is far from the intersection.

A point of interest is this quote from page 7: "There are a number of typical standards that have been proposed for distances from the edge of an intersection to the first driveway. One principle is that there should be no driveways entering within an intersection's functional area." [boldface type is part of the report.]

Also on page 7 is a table of driveway spacing standards for Canandaigua and Farmington. The gist of this table is the following standard: if the roadway has less than 550 feet BETWEEN driveways, and there are over 301 peak hour trips on the road in question (which there are on Route 212,) then "Communities can and should restrict high traffic volume uses where they cannot be met." ["they" meaning the driveway spacing standards.]

At the intersection in question, there are over 800 peak hour trips, and not only is there not 550 feet between driveways, there is a 180 foot driveway directly across from Playhouse Lane.

It is clear from this directive that the town of Woodstock needs to restrict the high volume use of Route 212, but how, since it is already so heavily used? Hmm. How about limiting the use of Playhouse Lane to its existing users, and not multiplying the number of residents using it by a factor of about five?

How about that.

On the last page of the Access Management Guidelines for Ulster County, under Implementation Techniques, is the following:

"Municipalities can require that access management techniques be initiated for land use actions in developed areas. One way to accomplish this is to require a review of site plans and special permits when there is a change in ownership or land use. It is also important to understand the position of NYSDOT and Ulster County Highway Department in this process. These agencies often lack the authority to require improvements at these times but are highly desirous of implementing these techniques and more than willing to provide design assistance along with the necessary permits once they are required by the community. To facilitate this, communities should engage these agencies in a cooperative dialogue rather than have the applicant serve as a go between."

This says that the town needs to assess and take responsibility for coordinating the various levels of government involved in keeping the roads safe. They cannot and should not pass the buck simply because they do not have total authority to achieve a given end.

5- How Many Accidents Have There Really Been at 212 & Playhouse Lane?

We do not really know how many accidents there have been at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane and the Playhouse Plaza parking lot. Let us find out now.

I have heard about only two collisions at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane and the Playhouse Plaza parking lot. In both cases, the accidents occurred at very low speeds, resulting in only slight dents to one or both cars involved. That's the good news.

The bad news is that I have lived in Woodstock for only 7 months, and it's not like I have been asking people left and right if they had car accidents at that corner. In fact, I never asked anybody.

The other good news is that no people were injured in the two accidents I know about. The bad news is that this might not be the case in the future. If a driver fails to see an entire car, what are the prospects for pedestrians, especially the little ones on their way to the elementary school, which is very closeby?

This particular blog post exists so that you can leave your accident accounts. I would like to know about any accident at this intersection.

It is understood that insurance rates increase if you report an accident, so you do not have to sign your name. However, it would be helpful if you identified the accident by the general appearance of both cars, or the exact location in the intersection, or the approximate date, so that we do not count several accounts of one accident as several accidents. Please write about the accident in as much detail as possible, including where in the intersection it occurred, and including where both cars were coming from, whether one was stationary, etc.  Please include the north shoulder of Route 212, that is, the shoulder where people routinely park, across from the parking lot.

Thank you very much in advance for making sure that Woodstock remains a safe town for all who walk and drive here.

4- Cars Per Hour Is Not the Problem

RUPCO left a vital element out of its (Playhouse Lane & Route 212) intersection traffic analysis. It omitted the parking lot at Playhouse Plaza, (which is DIRECTLY across from Playhouse Lane in the intersection,) thereby completely misrepresenting the vehicular activity and safety concerns resulting from the proposed project.

In its Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), RUPCO used standard vehicle trip generation numbers to project the number of vehicles entering and exiting Playhouse Lane, at Route 212. (Tables 15A and 15B.) Nobody seemed to have a problem with these figures. I don't have a problem with the figures used by RUPCO in the traffic diagram it chose; I have a problem with the diagram itself .

(Note that the numbers are for 63 units of housing, not the currently proposed 53 units. Also note that existing baseline traffic is not factored in to these numbers.)

RUPCO's morning peak hour, which I have to infer from the graph, is 8-9 AM, shows 7 cars entering and 28 cars exiting Playhouse Lane. The PM peak hour, which I must infer from the graph, is 5-6 PM, shows 34 cars entering and 18 cars leaving Playhouse Lane.

Here, in diagram form, are some other numbers for the evening peak hour, showing not 34 but 40 cars entering, and not 18 but 30 cars exiting Playhouse Lane. Perhaps these higher numbers reflect the addition of the existing traffic on these roads?

RUPCO has figured out that this increase in traffic will not cause more than an extra five seconds of waiting, on average, per trip, for cars entering or exiting Playhouse Lane. There appears to be no problem. But wait, there is a problem.

The problem is, the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane is not really a true "T" intersection. There is a very wide parking lot directly across from Playhouse Lane, the one serving Playhouse Plaza. By very wide, I mean 180 feet. Yes, that's right. There is a parking lot open for cars to pull in and out, front first or back first, that runs a full 180' along Route 212. If you know Woodstock, you know this place. Playhouse Plaza contains Lori's catering and coffee shop, the Woodstock Film Festival Office, a copy and printing store, and more. Except for less than 14' where a grassy island protects two poles and a hydrant from cars, a 180 foot stretch is open to cars, for parking. There are no lines delineating parking spaces. Many cars that pull into this parking lot either back out, across one or two lanes of traffic, or pull out front first. Note that this pulling in and often backing out of the parking lot happens on a State Highway. How many cars are we talking about here? Approximately three and a half times as many cars pull into and out of this parking lot as enter or exit Playhouse Lane.

RUPCO's traffic analysis error was an error of omission. The legal arguments used in the Final Environmental Impact Statement carry no weight because the cases cited did not involve a hazardous intersection that the proposed projects would make more hazardous. Instead, the cases dealt with increased traffic. The difference is that in Woodstock, at the intersection in question, the increased traffic is making a dangerous intersection not only more congested and slower moving, but a lot more dangerous. The case law is relevant only to the traffic volume and congestion that will increase as a result of the project.

Since RUPCO failed to characterize the intersection as a de facto four way intersection, their analysis holds little weight. The cases cited to prove that the intersection will be both fluid, in terms of traffic, and safe, cited cases that involved places where roads and access were not misrepresented or misdrawn on the map.

All you have to do is watch the videos below to see that there are three and a half times as many cars entering or exiting Playhouse Plaza parking log as there are cars entering or exiting Playhouse Lane.

For those of you willing to take my word for the numbers, or with something better to do than count cars in real time on my videos, the diagram below summarizes the number of cars making several different kinds of trips through this intersection, on October 22, from 8:42 AM to 9:42 AM.

Here are the highlights for the hour videotaped:

Number of cars entering or exiting Playhouse Lane: 19.
Number of cars entering or exiting Playhouse Plaza parking lot: 67.
Number of cars backing out of Playhouse Plaza parking lot into traffic: 24.

How can any analysis of this intersection that does not include car movement into and out of the parking lot be taken at all seriously? This is the question I put to the Planning Board.

In later posts, we will explore the seriousness of this unsafe parking lot, and also how we might solve this real safety problem.

3- Overview of Traffic Issues Addressed by the Planning Board and RUPCO

In this post, we will look at only a few comments made and questions raised on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The comments and questions chosen here are grouped into two problems, expressed here as sight distance and increased traffic (both issues occur at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212.) For each of the two issues, we will look at RUPCO's response.

(1) Sight Distance.

Warren Replansky, the attorney for the group called SAGE, which opposes this housing project, writes a letter that addresses, among several other issues, sight distance at Playhouse Lane and Rt. 212. He writes:

"Although the applicant's Traffic Engineer outlined sight distance issues at Route 212 with Playhouse Lane and NYS Route 212 with Plochmann Lane (see attached photo A), the applicant has not committed to the mitigation. What letters of written assurances exist that the NYSDOT is committed to the improvements? Do the improvements require disturbances on private property? If so, does the private property owner consent to these disturbances"

And further, "Sight distance at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Edgewood Lane must be addressed this intersection will be impacted by traffic accessing the new private road entering the Woodstock Commons site. "

From the Planning Board, Paul Shultis Jr. submitted this brief note: "Traffic: sight distance at Playhouse Lane & 212."

This first issue addresses the ability or inability of a driver leaving Playhouse Lane to see cars coming from the left on Route 212. At present, the sight line is very short. Additional traffic is thought to pose a safety problem, and the commenters asked RUPCO what they planned to do about this, when introducing much more traffic on Playhouse Lane.

RUPCO's response to the sight line problem is basically that RUPCO does not possess the power of condemnation. This means, among other things, that RUPCO cannot force either the State, which controls Route 212, or the owner of the land abutting the intersection, to remedy the limited sight line by cutting down trees or by any other measures.

In addition, RUPCO states "Although a Planning Board may consider the adequacy of existing off-site streets in analyzing a development proposal, it is submitted that a Planning Board may not require a developer to improve existing roads and/or sidewalks lying outside a proposed development." Case law is cited to support this. So, what this means is that although the proposed project will bring more cars to the intersection that features an inadequate sight line, the developer, RUPCO cannot be held responsible to improve the sight line at the intersection.

(2) Increased Traffic.

RUPCO argues, citing case law, "Specifically with respect to increased traffic posed by the project, a Planning Board may not deny a development proposal as a result of a traffic concerns unless the record substantiates that the purported hazard from the proposed use will be greater than that which results from uses permitted by right in the same zone." This means that if other houses were built where RUPCO wants to build, but without the special use permit that RUPCO has, the town cannot deny RUPCO its right to develop if the other houses would generate the same amount of traffic.

What this means is that if houses were built one by one on the land that RUPCO wants to build on, but without special use permits, for the town to deny RUPCO's right to develop, it must be shown that the development by individuals buying parcels of land and developing them would cause less hazard than the RUPCO development would cause.

In my opinion, and I'll get into this later, increased traffic in itself is not a problem. However, it should be easy to argue that without RUPCO's special use permit, many fewer households would be located at the end of Playhouse Lane. The area is zoned for much larger lots than multi-family housing, so it would be impossible to build as many as 53 households without a special use permit. While this argument proves that the traffic, absent a special use permit, would be greater with the RUPCO project built, it does not prove that the hazard at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212 would be greater with the RUPCO project.

To address the hazard at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, it is necessary to analyze the the way the term "hazard" has been used, and also how the traffic patterns have been presented in the traffic study. This will be done in another blog post.

To summarize, there are two traffic issues raised in comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and RUPCO's response: The sight Distance at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane, and the RUPCO project-generated increased traffic volume at that intersection.

2- RUPCO Project Approval Process; Where We Are Now

A little background is in order here, if you have not been sitting on top of the Woodstock Planning Board's every move for the last five years. Not that I am able to fill you in on everything, but I have a good grasp of the most recent rounds of approvals.

The Draft environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was received by the Woodstock Planning Board (the Board) on Dec. 18, 2008. If you would like to read any part of it that is available on the Woodstock town website, you can access the table of contents on this pdf document "and click on the underlined entries to open the various sections, attachments and appendices":

http://woodstockny.org/content/Generic/View/1:field=documents;/content/Documents/File/27.pdf

If you want to skip that and read a summary of the safety-related concerns, read on in this blog.

A public hearing was held on Feb. 5 and then continued and concluded Feb. 12, 2009. Many groups and individuals spoke on both sides of the issue. A period for written comments extended from Feb. 18 to Feb. 27, 2009.

RUPCO addressed the concerns brought up in the oral and written comments, and issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which was received by the Planning Board on Sept. 10, 2009.

Currently, meaning this October and November, the Woodstock Planning Board is reviewing this very large document in a series of workshops. The workshops will address the issues by topic. On the list of topics is "Traffic."

The workshops are open to the public, for listening, but not for participating. The public will have the opportunity to comment on the FEIS for what is expected to be a ten day period after the Planning Board has finished reviewing the FEIS in its workshops.

You may have heard that there was, last month, a public hearing at the Community Center, but this hearing was limited to comments and questions about the "Site Plan." The site plan is defined as the land that will developed by RUPCO. Since the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Rt. 212 lies outside that land, it is considered part of the "environment" that is "impacted" by the development. This is the case even though every car heading into the development under normal conditions will drive up Playhouse Lane.

At least that is my understanding of the process. If I have gotten any of this wrong, please do correct me in the comments section.

Now that the structure of the process has been prsented, let us go on to the next blog entry, the highlights of the traffic and safety related comments on the DEIS (Feb. 2009) , followed by RUPCO's responses in the FEIS (recieved by the Town Board Sept. 2009 and currently being reviewed in workshops by the Planning Board.)