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.