Re: Playhouse Lane Width Calculation Errors
Dear Planning Board Members:
I have learned some alarming information about RUPCO’s proposed Woodstock Commons development and want to share it with all of you since of course you are in the process of deliberating the question of whether to approve the project.
The issue I am writing about in this letter is the stated width of Playhouse Lane, in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIS) (and which remains unchallenged in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS).)
A passage on page 112 of the DEIS, Section 2.2.5, reads: "Playhouse Lane provides single travel lanes in either direction with a width of 23 feet and provides 2-3 foot gravel shoulders on either side. " This statement is false. Playhouse Lane is not 23’ wide.
A passage on pages 401-402 of the DEIS, Section 3.10.6, reads:
“Playhouse Lane currently varies from approximately 17 to 20 feet of pavement exclusive of shoulder area. Based on a review of existing volumes and the expected future volumes after the completion of the development, this roadway would be classified as a Low Volume Roadway based on AASHTO design criteria. A total roadway width including pavement and shoulder of 18 feet is recommended for this type of roadway.”
There is one false statements in this quote, and one false conclusion that is based on poor trip generation methodology. The simpler one, the false statement is this: The AASHTO design criteria does not require a combined paved and shoulder roadway of 18’. The standards clearly recommend paved lanes of 9’ each, PLUS two feet of shoulder on each side, for a total of 22’ feet, not 18’.
The consequences of this mistake of fact is that RUPCO wants to use a road that is at many places less than 18’ of PAVED roadway, and this is not supported by AASHTO design criteria. For Playhouse Lane to conform to AASHTO design criteria, Playhouse Lane would need to be measured again and repaved, and also have the shoulders measured and meet the 2’ minimum on both sides. RUPCO’s claim that Playhouse Lane currently meets the AASHTO design recommendations is simply false.
The second problem is the false conclusion, which is that Playhouse Lane meets this, or in fact ANY design recommendations for low volume roadways.
I will now show that under RUPCO’s trip generation scenarios, the numbers have been unrealistically distorted through impractical trip generation scenarios in order to divert trips from Playhouse Lane, in order to classify Playhouse Lane as a LOW volume road.
In Creighton Manning’s Trip Distribution Study, DEIS Figure 25, CME assumes that a full 40% of trips will take Whites Lane. Further, CME says that 37.5% of the 40% of trips using White’s Lane (which is 15% of the total trips to and from Woodstock Commons) will go to or from Route 375 via Whites Lane and Plochmann Lane, then right onto Rte 212, then left onto Rte 375. Of the 60% of trips using Playhouse Lane, 50% (or 30% of total trips) will go to or from Route 375, taking a left on Rte 212 and a right onto Rte 375. This means that CME thinks that two thirds of all trips from Woodstock Commons to/from Rte. 375 will use Playhouse Lane, and one third will use Plochmann Lane.
This is quite an assumption since the Plochmann Lane route is longer, and involves more turns. However, even if we assume that one third of all trips to and from Route 375 will approach Rte. 375 from the east (from Plochmann Lane) instead of from the west (from Playhouse Lane,) there is a complete absence of trips generated using Edgewood Lane. CME believes that nobody will EVER drive down Playhouse Lane and over to Plochmann along Edgewood Lane. If I exited the access road from Woodstock Commons and wanted to exit Plochmann Lane onto Rte. 212, I would, particularly at night or in the snow or rain, take Playhouse Lane south, turn left at and then drive along Edgewood Lane, since that route is flat and would avoid the blind, steep, and often slippery hill on Whites Lane.
CME’s failure to consider the Edgewood Lane crossover route for even half of the trips from Woodstock Commons to Plochmann Lane, results in a difference of trip volume on Playhouse Lane that brings the total number of trips to a level sufficient to classify Playhouse Lane as an INTERMEDIATE volume road, rather than a LOW volume road.
Perhaps CME “determined” local driving behavior by working backwards from the desired result, and making assumptions that make their desired conclusion possible.
Nowhere is there a TOTAL count of car trips on Playhouse Lane. TOTAL Playhouse Lane trips will be, after all, the sum of the Woodstock Commons trips PLUS the current trips on Playhouse Lane. How can CME calculate the total trips generated on Playhouse Lane if they have not made a total trip count? The answer is that they cannot, hence their trip generation numbers are unreliable, either the product of a guess, or an omission of existing trips. In all their traffic counts, CME never estimated or counted the existing number of trips PER DAY on Playhouse Lane. They counted some peak hour trips, but the AASHTO trip numbers are considered on a daily basis (called “average daily traffic,” ADT,) not on a peak hour basis. Since the average number of trips per day on Playhouse Lane is missing, so must be the classification of the road, since that classification is entirely based on average daily volume.
I made some thumbnail calculations using CME’s implicit number of trips per day per household, considering new and existing households’ cars and associated, multiplied by the splits between three routes between the Playhouse Lane neighborhood and Route 375. My calculations suggest that the average number of trips per day on the part of Playhouse Lane from the proposed access road to Edgewood Lane is over 400 average daily trips.
What this means is that Playhouse Lane, with Woodstock Commons, would be an intermediate volume road, and therefore required to have paved lanes of ten feet each, not nine, plus shoulders of five feet each, not two, bringing the total graded width of Playhouse Lane from 22 feet to 30 feet.
Even if my reasonable calculations of over 400 average daily trips could be refuted, and I am sure that Creighton Manning will try to do just that, there is no refuting that a combined width of 18 feet including paved and shoulder areas is simply below the AASHTO-recommended standard. And since RUPCO and Creighton Manning are basing their evaluation on AASHTO standards, this planning board has no choice but to tell RUPCO that Playhouse Lane in FACT does NOT meet the AASHTO design standards that RUPCO claims this road does meet, even if it is a low traffic volume road.
As a result of this fact, RUPCO needs to measure Playhouse Lane’s width once again, paved and shoulders separately. RUPCO also must generate average daily trip estimates for both the Woodstock Commons-generated traffic PLUS the existing average daily trips, per route.
I would respectfully ask that the Planning Board ask RUPCO to draw Evergreen Lane into their diagram, since right now my street and my house and for all I know my own car’s movements are not considered at all. I believe that all my trips up to the Comeau property, from and to Evergreen Lane, to keep RUPCO in line, should be counted.
Thank you for your most serious consideration in this matter.
Yours truly,
Robin Segal
Enc: DEIS Figure 25
Dear Planning Board Members:
I have learned some alarming information about RUPCO’s proposed Woodstock Commons development and want to share it with all of you since of course you are in the process of deliberating the question of whether to approve the project.
The issue I am writing about in this letter is the stated width of Playhouse Lane, in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIS) (and which remains unchallenged in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIS).)
A passage on page 112 of the DEIS, Section 2.2.5, reads: "Playhouse Lane provides single travel lanes in either direction with a width of 23 feet and provides 2-3 foot gravel shoulders on either side. " This statement is false. Playhouse Lane is not 23’ wide.
A passage on pages 401-402 of the DEIS, Section 3.10.6, reads:
“Playhouse Lane currently varies from approximately 17 to 20 feet of pavement exclusive of shoulder area. Based on a review of existing volumes and the expected future volumes after the completion of the development, this roadway would be classified as a Low Volume Roadway based on AASHTO design criteria. A total roadway width including pavement and shoulder of 18 feet is recommended for this type of roadway.”
There is one false statements in this quote, and one false conclusion that is based on poor trip generation methodology. The simpler one, the false statement is this: The AASHTO design criteria does not require a combined paved and shoulder roadway of 18’. The standards clearly recommend paved lanes of 9’ each, PLUS two feet of shoulder on each side, for a total of 22’ feet, not 18’.
The consequences of this mistake of fact is that RUPCO wants to use a road that is at many places less than 18’ of PAVED roadway, and this is not supported by AASHTO design criteria. For Playhouse Lane to conform to AASHTO design criteria, Playhouse Lane would need to be measured again and repaved, and also have the shoulders measured and meet the 2’ minimum on both sides. RUPCO’s claim that Playhouse Lane currently meets the AASHTO design recommendations is simply false.
The second problem is the false conclusion, which is that Playhouse Lane meets this, or in fact ANY design recommendations for low volume roadways.
I will now show that under RUPCO’s trip generation scenarios, the numbers have been unrealistically distorted through impractical trip generation scenarios in order to divert trips from Playhouse Lane, in order to classify Playhouse Lane as a LOW volume road.
In Creighton Manning’s Trip Distribution Study, DEIS Figure 25, CME assumes that a full 40% of trips will take Whites Lane. Further, CME says that 37.5% of the 40% of trips using White’s Lane (which is 15% of the total trips to and from Woodstock Commons) will go to or from Route 375 via Whites Lane and Plochmann Lane, then right onto Rte 212, then left onto Rte 375. Of the 60% of trips using Playhouse Lane, 50% (or 30% of total trips) will go to or from Route 375, taking a left on Rte 212 and a right onto Rte 375. This means that CME thinks that two thirds of all trips from Woodstock Commons to/from Rte. 375 will use Playhouse Lane, and one third will use Plochmann Lane.
This is quite an assumption since the Plochmann Lane route is longer, and involves more turns. However, even if we assume that one third of all trips to and from Route 375 will approach Rte. 375 from the east (from Plochmann Lane) instead of from the west (from Playhouse Lane,) there is a complete absence of trips generated using Edgewood Lane. CME believes that nobody will EVER drive down Playhouse Lane and over to Plochmann along Edgewood Lane. If I exited the access road from Woodstock Commons and wanted to exit Plochmann Lane onto Rte. 212, I would, particularly at night or in the snow or rain, take Playhouse Lane south, turn left at and then drive along Edgewood Lane, since that route is flat and would avoid the blind, steep, and often slippery hill on Whites Lane.
CME’s failure to consider the Edgewood Lane crossover route for even half of the trips from Woodstock Commons to Plochmann Lane, results in a difference of trip volume on Playhouse Lane that brings the total number of trips to a level sufficient to classify Playhouse Lane as an INTERMEDIATE volume road, rather than a LOW volume road.
Perhaps CME “determined” local driving behavior by working backwards from the desired result, and making assumptions that make their desired conclusion possible.
Nowhere is there a TOTAL count of car trips on Playhouse Lane. TOTAL Playhouse Lane trips will be, after all, the sum of the Woodstock Commons trips PLUS the current trips on Playhouse Lane. How can CME calculate the total trips generated on Playhouse Lane if they have not made a total trip count? The answer is that they cannot, hence their trip generation numbers are unreliable, either the product of a guess, or an omission of existing trips. In all their traffic counts, CME never estimated or counted the existing number of trips PER DAY on Playhouse Lane. They counted some peak hour trips, but the AASHTO trip numbers are considered on a daily basis (called “average daily traffic,” ADT,) not on a peak hour basis. Since the average number of trips per day on Playhouse Lane is missing, so must be the classification of the road, since that classification is entirely based on average daily volume.
I made some thumbnail calculations using CME’s implicit number of trips per day per household, considering new and existing households’ cars and associated, multiplied by the splits between three routes between the Playhouse Lane neighborhood and Route 375. My calculations suggest that the average number of trips per day on the part of Playhouse Lane from the proposed access road to Edgewood Lane is over 400 average daily trips.
What this means is that Playhouse Lane, with Woodstock Commons, would be an intermediate volume road, and therefore required to have paved lanes of ten feet each, not nine, plus shoulders of five feet each, not two, bringing the total graded width of Playhouse Lane from 22 feet to 30 feet.
Even if my reasonable calculations of over 400 average daily trips could be refuted, and I am sure that Creighton Manning will try to do just that, there is no refuting that a combined width of 18 feet including paved and shoulder areas is simply below the AASHTO-recommended standard. And since RUPCO and Creighton Manning are basing their evaluation on AASHTO standards, this planning board has no choice but to tell RUPCO that Playhouse Lane in FACT does NOT meet the AASHTO design standards that RUPCO claims this road does meet, even if it is a low traffic volume road.
As a result of this fact, RUPCO needs to measure Playhouse Lane’s width once again, paved and shoulders separately. RUPCO also must generate average daily trip estimates for both the Woodstock Commons-generated traffic PLUS the existing average daily trips, per route.
I would respectfully ask that the Planning Board ask RUPCO to draw Evergreen Lane into their diagram, since right now my street and my house and for all I know my own car’s movements are not considered at all. I believe that all my trips up to the Comeau property, from and to Evergreen Lane, to keep RUPCO in line, should be counted.
Thank you for your most serious consideration in this matter.
Yours truly,
Robin Segal
Enc: DEIS Figure 25
Nobody on the planning board thought enough of this letter to bring up anything except for the width of Playhouse Lane. As you can see in the following video, RUPCO can't even answer the question: how wide is Playhouse Lane, and instead turns the question into a discussion about legal access and ownership of the road. Members of the planning board also state that Playhouse Lane already does not conform to legal standards, yet they seem to be comfortable bringing huge trucks of asphalt along it, as well as hundreds more trips per day than currently drive that road. Enjoy the video:
Very interesting video and commentary regarding the width and ownership of Playhouse Lane. Here is what I know: When I first came to Woodstock in 1984 to manage the Playhouse for Harris Gordon, the area between the Playhouse lawn and what is now Violette, was an unpaved driveway up to the Playhouse west entrance. It had been that way for years. And it was – and still is as far as I know – owned by the Woodstock Playhouse. The reason it had never been paved was because the Playhouse was a summer stock theater and therefore only used the access during the summer. As the property behind the Playhouse was developed, the new homeowners realized that they could get out to Route 212 more quickly by using that dirt road. They would come down White’s Lane and make a path down the dirt road. Somewhere after 1984, Harris Gordon agreed to let the Town – or someone else - pave that portion of Playhouse Lane. People keep referring to the name Playhouse Lane as going all the way up to the proposed new “intersection” with White’s La, when the name Playhouse Lane really didn’t exist as a road – it was just commonly called that because it ran by the Playhouse and was owned by the Playhouse. Point of fact, if you look at a survey of the Playhouse property – or a TAX map, even today, they refer to Playhouse Lane as being a “right of way” to the properties in the back. To the best of my knowledge, the only reason that the Town – or someone else - paved the road was to make that egress easier for the residents in back. Also – to the best of my knowledge – the width of the road was never an issue because it’s not a dedicated road.
ReplyDeleteI have brought this up several times in the past. I was told on those occasions that the Town owns the road through adverse possession, but to the best of my knowledge there has never been any notification to the Playhouse or to the Woodstock Arts Board, Inc of any ownership change. If you go to do a property search even today, we still own that road.
Joan Roberts
President
Woodstock Arts Board, Inc
That is a very interesting point.A road that is not really owned by the town now is going to be the main thoroughfare to 100+ new residence, perhaps not counting the 20+ already here.
ReplyDeleteAs Robin showed the road is not wide enough for the traffic according to the planners... of the new traffic problem.. There is something very fishy about this project, and the beard of affordable housing keeps the critics in stasis.RUPCO will take a nice for profit bite out of this town and leave us very little in return.
When I moved to Edgewood Lane in 1970 Playhouse Lane was a dirt road. The neighbors were upset when it was paved because it didn't feel as rural as it used to. A friend said I would be happy because I wouldn't have to get a new muffler so often.
ReplyDeleteThat Rupco thinks they can turn this into a main thoroughfare is a travesty.
I wonder what Joan Roberts is President of? To "the best of my knowledge" the Woodstock Playhouse hasn't paid the mortgage for over a year and the bank foreclosed. What a mess she created.
ReplyDeleteDear Mr. or Ms "Anonymous". If you had one shred of knowledge about what is actually happening with the Woodstock Arts Board and the Woodstock Playhouse you might not be such a coward about affixing your name to your incredibly misinformed diatribe. The Woodstock Arts Board has been in extremely difficult financial shape for the past few years for many reasons and it just might result in Ulster Savings Bank foreclosing on the building. If you would like to have an open and honest debate regarding this - including what triggered the difficulties and how far back they go - I would be happy to have that exchange and clear up any mis-information. But only with someone who has the mettle, heart and nerve to come out from behind “anonymous” and take a shot like a real person. Shame on you for attacking in such a cowardly manner.
ReplyDeleteJoan Roberts
President
Woodstock Arts Board, Inc