26 - Woodstock Times Take Notice

Thank you, Woodstock Times, for investigating and writing about this blog. George Pattison did a thorough job of investigating and interviewing a number of officials. The article is available online here:

http://www.ulsterpublishing.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=505249

Here are some highlights: RUPCO community development director, Guy Kempe, actually SAID that our favorite intersection is an "existing hazard," a "longstanding traffic concern," but that it was beyond the study's purview. (He refers to the Creighton Manning study that included car movement at that intersection, but that omitted all of the cars moving into and out of the parking lot at the intersection.)

Seems to me that if car movements IN that intersection are within the study's purview, then the cars moving into and out of a parking lot directly INTO that intersection are also within the study's purview. This is so especially since a couple of hundred feet down 212, the same study DID count the cars moving into and out of the parking lot at the intersection of Routes 212 and 375.

And another thing: RUPCO's project will generate extra traffic in this intersection. No, this is not part of the site plan, but it IS considered an environmental effect of the project. If the project can be analyzed for water runoff and light pollution outside of the site map, why can't it be held accountable for traffic runoff, which is, face it, worse than runoff, it is planned access to and from the site on the order of 400+ cars per day.

When asked why these cars in the Playhouse Plaza parking lot were omitted from the Creighton Manning study, here is what Mr. Kempe had to say:

"I can't account for that," he said, citing a lack of data on accidents as the
probable reason for the lot's exclusion from the study."

Now, let's look at Mr. Kempe's statement. In a study of car movement through an intersection, the point of which is to COUNT the number of cars moving through and making turns, why is accident data relevant? Is accident data on 212 relevant to how many cars travel on Route 212? No, of course not. Mr. Kempe's statement makes no sense.

Mr. Kempe further argues that other agencies and consultants do not have a problem with the Creighton Manning study. I will explain why this is:

An agency who reviews a study that OMITS information, such as the existence of a parking lot at an intersection, CANNOT be expected to find fault with the study, since the problem is one of omission. If I tell you something is not there, and you do not actually go to the place I describe, why would you even question my findings?

The methodology used by Creighton Manning is OK, but the map describing the reality of the intersection OMITS the parking lot, and all the cars moving into and out of it. Any other agencies checking up on this study cannot be faulted for not going to the corner and verifying whether or not the roads in the study represent reality.

The error of omission is so basic. Anybody could have pointed to it, and it is simply indefensible. Mr. Kempe asks by what standard am I qualified to make an assessment of this study. I will answer that in the next post.