39- Playhouse Lane: Looking Back, Looking Forward

I found a Woodstock Times article dated May 17, 2007. That's nearly 3 years ago. What this article does is show that the Planning Board, the current town supervisor, and RUPCO, are fully aware of the safety problem at Playhouse Lane and Route 212, and that this safety problem was confirmed by a traffic consultant, nearly three years ago.

First of all, I want to point out how RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello, has misled the planning board by playing with language, rather than addressing the substance of my testimony ln this issue. In a letter dated January 22, 2010, Moriello claims:

"The Woodstock Commons Site Development Plans and attendant traffic issues have been studied and analyzed by three (3) separate traffic engineers, [a list of departments]...

To your writer's knowledge, none of these persons/agencies have called Creighton Manning Engineering Traffic Studies "selective reasoning" or "dishonest" as Ms. Segal offered of record at the January 14, 2010 Public Hearing."

Moriello uses the direct quotation trick to avoid admitting to other traffic engineers calling Creighton Manning's study any synonym of incompetent, or wrong, or misleading, and avoiding any admission that there was any substantive disagreement about the study's findings.

Second, Woodstock's consultants, CT Male Associates, offered their opinion, not of the study, but of the safety situation at Playhouse Lane and Route 212, and that opinion, represented by Jim Edwards, CT Male's traffic expert, is that this intersection is unsafe. If Moriello had been doing anything other than dodging bullets, he would have refuted CT Male's expert opinion. Obviously, he does not have the ammunition to fight back with any argument of substance.

Third, the person on the planning board quoted as asking the question: whether this intersection is unsafe, was none other than Jeff Moran, who was on the planning board then, and is town supervisor now.

From the May 17, 2007 Woodstock Times article:

"So any mitigation would have to take property from both the Violette [restaurant] and Playhouse properties?" Moran asked. "Would approving this project create a potential safety issue?"

Yes, Edwards said.

Then later:

Grant, the planners' attorney, pointed out that they would be in their rights to turn down a project based on safety concerns a developer couldn't mitigate.

In the back of the room, RUPCO Executive Director Kevin O'Connor let out a loud sigh.

Mullally [former Planning Board Chair] said an urban planner might have to be called in, with Grant [Planning Board attorney] noting such costs couldn't be placed on the developer. Moran pointed out that RUPCO had noted in its DEIS that any off-site improvements were not their problem.

So, Jeff Moran is fully aware that CT Male thinks this intersection is hazardous, not because he heard MY argument, but because he heard the opinion of the Planning Board's traffic consultant.

I have to ask why, given that knowledge, has Jeff Moran, after being elected Town Supervisor, turned his back on this intersection altogether. This article shows an awareness of the safety hazard at the intersection of Playhouse Lane and Route 212, and Creighton Manning urges in its Access Management Guidelines that traffic at such a compromised location should be limited (NOT increased by about 500%).

It is foolish of the Town of Woodstock to fail to address this dangerous intersection. Enough experts (not just I the neighbor) have noted the safety problem, and enough town officials have been notified of these notes. The failure to reject RUPCO's plan on the basis of safety, coupled with the town's failure to address and mitigate the danger brought about by cars at Playhouse Plaza, cannot be justified.

In the future, if RUPCO is built at the end of Playhouse Lane, all of this evidence will be very public, and the very first person injured in an accident at Playhouse Lane and Route 212 could go after the town for negligence, and could have a pretty easy time collecting from the town. The town has casualty and liability insurance to protect it from such lawsuits. It is clear to me now that there is enough evidence to present to the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal (NYMIR) actuaries responsible for figuring out whether Woodstock is a bad insurance risk.